Sneaky activity in LaCrosse County

Posted on October 7, 2008 by Ryan

Another county is under fire. This time it’s LaCrosse.

What is particularly disturbing is that the people pushing for this ban already know that a county ban would only apply to small and unincorporated areas yet they are pushing anyway. In other words, they know this will kill small establishments in the smallest of towns, and they don’t care.

To further raise question, they are once again citing the DNR standards as a rationale for a workplace smoking ban:

The results were announced on the eve of today’s committee vote on the La Crosse County ban.

 The report said only smoke-free places had good air quality.

 The Department of Natural Resources says people should not expose themselves to more than 40 micrograms of small particulates in a day. But the survey found one place with 1,440 micrograms.

Need I remind anybody that OSHA, not the DNR, has jurisdiction over what is considered safe for a worplace environment?

Oh, and let’s not forget the secrecy that has surrounded this sudden push in LaCrosse…

The results were announced on the eve of today’s committee vote on the La Crosse County ban.

So, in other words, they had this planned already and yet they didn’t give anybody a chance to build a defense against this…

Filed under: Wisconsin Ban, economic impact | Tagged: ,

« Still more questions Chippewa Falls’ ban is shot down again »

7 Responses

  1. da_fishman, on October 7th, 2008 at 10:19 pm Said:

    Actually, Ryan, they DO care-very much. Though they may not say it, and some, like Rich Eggleston here in Dane County, may actually mean it when they say something that’s otherwise (or at least have succeeded enough in compartmentalising it in their own brains to make themselves believe they mean it), the fact is that they very much see themselves killing two birds (smoking and heavy/serious drinking) with one stone. This is because they know full well (despite their frequent claims to the contrary) that most of the so-called “problem/serious” drinkers also usually tend to be so-called “heavy” smokers as well.

    Now I’m a non-drinker, and would love to see “problem” drinking (and even “social” drinking as well) become a reduced factor in our society, but I would for the most part (i.e. I have no problem with a .05 BAC standard for OWI-after all, even the beer lovin’ Aussies have that as their standard) rather see this happen through social/peer pressure rather than government initiative (or at the very least, that said initiative be more open and upfront, rather than the sneaky and sub-rosa way they’re going about it now).

    So yes, Ryan and everybody, they DO care-because killing off those establishments, from which they believe (rightly or wrongly) come the majority of drunk driving incidents on rural roads, is something they DO want to see happen. They honestly believe that, if not a solution, it will help aleviate the problem of drinking and driving on rural highways.

    Reply
  2. Marshall, on October 8th, 2008 at 12:38 am Said:

    da_fishman,

    I am against any government mandated attempts at social engineering. For one thing it is always a dismal failure. Dropping the BAC to 0.08 has had no effect on alcohol related deaths. As a matter of fact the founder of MADD quit because she never intended it to be a prohibitionist organization. Prohibition was a dismal failure just as the war on drugs is a dismal failure. Government mandated morality just doesn’t work. Once you go down that slippery slope, who decides what is acceptable? When it comes to Ryan’s question about using DNR standards for air quality, I find it both ridiculous and humorous! For one thing those are out door standards and it would be difficult for air quality indoors to exceed the air quality outdoors. As far as I know the DNR has never been commissioned to do a study on particulate pollution and the effects on humans and I have serious doubt they are qualified to do such a study. OSHA is the governing body, but the anti-smokers won’t use those standards as most places would exceed OSHA standards by 1000’s of times. http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

    Reply
  3. Bill Hannegan, on October 8th, 2008 at 6:03 am Said:

    I hope Ban the Ban Wisconsin contacts LaCrosse County officials.

    Reply
  4. Ryan, on October 8th, 2008 at 8:55 am Said:

    Bill, I’m working on a bigger letter, however I have a form letter available already:

    http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Documents/lacrosse%20letter.doc

    Reply
  5. Marshall, on October 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm Said:

    The study was conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Wisconsin Tobacco Prevention and Control Training and Technical Assistance Program along with local tobacco control coalitions.

    While other air pollutants in the atmosphere as well as particles from cooking may contribute to air pollution, smoking is the source of most indoor air pollution.

    Study Limitations
    Selection of the establishments for survey was based on the surveillance team’s knowledge of the level of patronage. Higher levels of patronage would indicate the exposure to the highest percentage of the population. Random selection would not indicate the level of exposure at popular establishments. As such, the results of the study
    24
    cannot be attributed to all eating and drinking establishments of the locality but instead to those who are most likely to be patronized.
    Unlike the testing protocol conducted by the DNR and EPA which collects samples 24 hours per day over a number of days, the monitoring conducted for this study was taken over 30 minutes on a single occasion.

    http://www.cancer.wisc.edu/uwccc/documents/Western%20Wisconsin%20Indoor%20Air%20Quality%20Report%20final.pdf
    Stationary Source

    Air quality dispersion modeling is performed to assess the impact of an air pollution source on the surrounding environment. The impact is quantified by predicting the concentration of the pollutant at ground level and then comparing that result to a reference level. The most commonly used reference for comparison is the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency to protect human health and welfare. Each standard is defined in terms of pollutant, averaging time, and level where health is protected with an adequate margin of safety (primary standard) or a level necessary to protect public welfare from unknown or unanticipated effects (secondary standard).

    Now we get to the background levels in various locations. As you can see a lot of them are what they call unhealthy. The funny thing is the DNR model was designed for sustained long term measurements averaged over a period of time not short term peak measurements. and again this is for outdoor air quality. Since without massive filtering it would be impossible for indoor air quality to exceed that of outdoor. There is a reason outdoor standards are stricter then indoor.
    http://dnr.wi.gov/air/PDF/tsp_background_march_2004.pdf

    The air quality of outdoor air breathed by the public is determined by carefully comparing the monitored level of air pollutants with air quality standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The National Ambient Air Quality Standards set the limits for seven air pollutants that have documented effects on public health.

    The National Ambient Air Quality Standards contain primary and secondary standards for each of these seven air pollutants. If a primary standard is exceeded, health risks exist. If a secondary standard is exceeded, then crops, trees and buildings may be damaged.

    Most of the air quality standards are based on a particular time length for averaging, and the average concentration during that time. For a violation to be recorded the average concentration, usually rounded to the same number of significant digits as the standard, must be greater than the standard during the specified averaging period.

    7. Fine Inhalable Particulates (PM2.5)

    * Characteristics: A broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances that exist as particles with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns.
    * Health effects: Inhalation of particulates increases chronic and acute respiratory illnesses.

    FINE INHALABLE PARTICULATES(PM2.5) STANDARDS AVERAGING TIME PRIMARY STANDARD SECONDARY STANDARD
    1-year (60 to 365 samples) (New standards ) 15.0 ug/m3 15.0 ug/m3
    24-hour (New standard12/18/2006 ) 35 ug/m3 35 ug/m3

    http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/aqm/standard.htm

    Remember these are outdoor air quality standards. If the outdoor air exceeds these levels there is nowhere you can go to avoid exposure, NOWHERE. IT ALSO MEANS THAT THE INDOOR AIR QUALITY IS GOING TO BE WORSE!

    Reply
  6. Anti-insanity if you are going to use a standard us it correctly! « Ban the Ban Wisconsin, on October 8th, 2008 at 10:07 pm Said:

    [...] if you are going to use a standard us it correctly! Posted on October 8, 2008 by Marshall Yesterday Ryan brought up the fact that LaCrosse County was under fire and how they were trying to u… Talk about trying to compare apples to rocks . . . you might as well try to measure the temperature [...]

    Reply
  7. Allan, on October 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm Said:

    da_fishman,

    I will admit you do have a good point about problem drinking on highways, and this is never a bad thing to fight against. HOWEVER, what in the world is a smoking ban in rural La Crosse County restaurants and bars gonna do to resolve this problem? Very little, if anything!

    If the La Crosse County Board was stupid enough to decide to ban smoking in rural restaurants and bars, these County Board members are also being naive in not thinking that the drinking problem will only instead move to surrounding counties, incorporated cities/communities(not coved under this proposed ban), and people coming home from (instead of going to bars) going to private parties in rural parts of LaC County.

    There’s no doubt in my mind that banning smoking in rural bars and restaurants in La Crosse County is WITHOUT A DOUBT, the wrong approach to resolving this drinking problem! And heck, I didn’t even begin at all to touch on all the junk science that antis are using from the Wisconsin DNR as their ridiculous ‘justification’ for a ban. The right approach would be implementing more comprehensive ‘Safe Ride Home’ programs, such as what many local chapters of the Tavern League of Wisconsin already do on their own. *so relieved now to step off my soapbox*

    Reply

Leave a Reply