Breathe Free Kenosha blowing smoke!

If you go to Breathe Free Kenosha’s website and click on data. you will find yet another study brought to you by the same activist Ellen J. Hahn that brought you the Glantz type asthma study with no control group when, we all know that even though the smoking rate and ETS exposure rate has declined massively the asthma rate has skyrocketed.

In their own words:

This paper assesses the temporal impact of one smoke-free law on indoor air quality. This quasi-experimental study.

FROM WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-experimental_design

The control allowed through the manipulation of the x-variable can lead to unnatural circumstances. Also, the lack of random assignment in the quasi-experimental design method may allow studies to be more feasible, but this also poses many challenges for the investigator. This deficient in randomization makes it harder to rule out confounds and introduces new threats to internal validity.^[4] Because randomization is absent, some knowledge about the data can be approximated, but cause-effect conclusions are difficult to determine. Moreover, even if these threats to internal validity are assessed, causation still cannot be fully established because the experimenter does not have total control over variables

Her Asthma study had no control group and this one has no point of reference. What is the safe level of airborne particulates. In her quasi-experimental study she came up with these results.

We made real-time measurements of particulate matter with 2.5 microm aerodynamic diameter or smaller (PM2.5). Among the nine Georgetown hospitality venues, the average indoor PM2.5 concentration was 84 microg/m3 before the law took effect. The average indoor PM2.5 concentrations in nine compliant venues significantly decreased to 18 microg/m3

Another problem is what were the out door air quality measurements when these tests were done. It is very difficult for indoor air quality to exceed that of out door air quality and there are many cities that the outdoor particulate matter exceeds the 84 microg/m3 durring the winter months. for example.

Looking at San Francisco Counties under PM10, we see a maximum (24-hour) daily concentration of 78 mg/m3 for the county, with an annual mean of 22.6 mg/m3 per day. For Santa Clara County (where some of SF county pollution ends up), we see a daily max of 114 mg/m3 annualized to 25.4 mg/m3 per day. For 30 days of the year in Santa Clara County the air is above the State 24-hour PM10 standard. Wood smoke will constitute up to 90% of the pollutant on those days.

And what does OSHA say about airborne particulates?

Airborne Particulates. Use a particle counting instrument capable of measuring concentrations as low as 2,000 particles/cubic centimeter (cc) of air for comparing particulates in various areas. The investigator may be able to determine where additional ventilation or air filtration is necessary to eliminate or minimize employee complaints.

For example, if employee complaints are more prevalent in an area where the particulate concentration is 40,000 particles/cc, and other areas are below 15,000 particles/cc, the investigator may recommend that a high efficiency filter be installed or, if the area has a separate ventilation system, that the ventilation rate be increased.

So this is yet another agenda driven report done by a Tobacco Control activist, that really shows nothing. It doesn’t show how many people were present during each measurement. It does not show the outdoor air quality during each visit. And does virtually nothing to eliminate other confounders.