Yesterday Ryan brought up the fact that LaCrosse County was under fire and how they were trying to use DNR air quality standards to justify it. Talk about trying to compare apples to rocks . . . you might as well try to measure the temperature of water using a ruler. Ignoring the fact that this study was done by a biased group namely various tobacco control groups whose bias is apparent, don’t believe me here is the study.
The DNR standards are not only designed for outdoor air quality, they were designed to be measured over a long period of time and averaged out.
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.
Now exactly how does the DNR use these numbers.
2. Method of Comparison for the 24-hour Standard.
* Determine the 98th percentile value by the following method:
1. Arrange from highest value to lowest value all 24-hour measurments for a calendar year.
2. Assign the number one to the lowest value, the number two to the second value and so on untill each of the values is assigned a number, with the largest number (n) being assigned to the highest value .
3. Multiply the largest number(n) times 0.98.
4. The whole number part of the above product, plus one, is the number of the 98th percentile value.
5. Using the value number obtained in step “D”, determine the 98th percentile value by matching the value number to the list in step “B”.* Average the 98th percentile value with the 98th percentile values of two other consecutive years.
* Round the above three-year average to the nearest one microgram per cubic meter (ug/m)3. Use the convention that if the number 5 is found in the tenths place, the number rounds up.
* If the rounded three-year average of the 98th percentile values is greater than 65 ug/m3, a violation of the standard has occurred.
Now did these activist take the required 24 hour samples over a three year period and apply them in the correct formula. Absolutely not! From the study!
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. For many establishments a longer study, especially over 24 hours would not be relevant to their health and safety concerns.
Would not be relevant? What bullshit! They take an outdoor standard which was intended to be a time averaged outdoor standard changed the rules of the standard and called the thresholds peak threshold and applied them to a 30 minute interval. So in essence they are trying to measure the air temperature using nothing but a ruler!
Not to mention that many parts of Wisconsin already have background particulate pollution that already are in the moderate to unhealthy category.
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/PDF/tsp_background_march_2004.pdf
Places like Milwaukee were in the moderate to unhealthy 75% of the time in 2005.
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/aq/monitor/pm25trends.html
If they were honest they would go into a factory or a welding shop take the same measurements so that we would have an honest comparison. Why didn’t they? Well that is obvious, for the same reason they didn’t use the proper indoor measurements which would be the OSHA guidelines, there would be no shock value. Since this is for the health of the worker why didn’t they take these same measurements in the kitchen of a non-smoking establishment. Same reason the kitchen would fail and they would lose the shock value.
Without some serious filtering it would be virtually impossible for the air quality of the inside air to exceed that of the outside air, There is a reason the standards are stricter for outside air quality. The bottom line is if you don’t like a smoky enviroment, don’t go to an establishment that allows it.
Filed under: anti insanity, health issues, reality check | Tagged: Health, health issues, Politics, smoking, smoking ban
THANK YOU! This issue has been driving me absolutely crazy and seems to be a very popular trend here in WI. It seems like the traditional arguments have been dropped and replaced with these ridiculous DNR claims in all of the new “air quality” reports. It’s enough to make you want to pull out your hair.
Thanks, when I saw you”re post on LaCrosse and how they were using EPA outdoor standards again I decided to do a little more research on this so called standard. As an added note not even the EPA takes these measurements at the source. This measurement was meant for the surrounding area. If the EPA took these measurements right at the smokestack of every factory,foundry,oil refinery,etc etc etc they would all fail. This does nothing but prove how dishonest and desperate these people are!
If you read the fine print of some of these “studies” they actually show that nonsmoking restaurants with “open”kitchebs also fail the air quality standards in the dining room… And look out for “wood fired” grill restaurants, because they fail even worse.
The fact remains that the EPA/DNR standards are ridiculously high by any standards. They are not interested in reality, they are interested in zero pollution.
Yes I noticed that. I disagree about the zero pollution though. Just zero if they object to it otherwise it is fine and ignored. Otherwise they would apply these standards to all places of employment. I still would like to see them do the same air qualities in an auto shop, metal shop, foundry, kitchen, etc etc etc. How long do you think it would be before the dropped these methods. I just wish I had the resources to do these tests so I could beat them over the heads with it!
[...] The problem with this claim is that it is an outdoor standard. It not only is an outdoor standard it is a standard for the average throughout the day. So they would have had to follow a customer for the whole day and average out exposure. Even in the report they admit that fine particulate pollution is caused by other things like cooking. Even establishments where no one was smoking funked this test. Seven establishments, including a smokefree restaurant, were monitored on March 14 in Rusk County. During the time of the monitors’ visit between 5- 5:30 PM, no cigarettes were smoked in the first establishment; nonetheless, the air quality in the restaurant was “unhealthy” by DNR standards. [...]
[...] least this time they admit they are not applying the standards correctly. We have been all through the fact that the DNR/EPA are time averaged outdoor standards and never int… Now these are supposedly educated people doing this so it is safe to assume that they aren’t [...]
We in Beaver Dam, WI just got blind sided with one of those 30 minute TSI Side Pak AM 510 Personal Aerosal Monitor studies. As a result, Beaver Dam restaurants are hazardous to your health. See November 14th issue. I’m mailing a copy of the study, and looking for an independent study group to address the reliability of the study. Your input is significant, but I’d like some credentials behind the opinion .. If they will.
Jody Langfeldt, the Public Health Director, is also the head of the Dodge County Tobacco Free Coalition. This, however, is not mentioned in the FRONT PAGE article.
John Biel
dba “John’s”
Restaurant/ Bar
Sorry – Beaver Dam Daily Citizen is the newspaper
John Biel,
You can follow the links from my blog it will clearly show the standard. If you want more information on the standard I suggest you contact the DNR. They could give you more information on the testing standards. Also Ryan has registered a complaint against the agencies who did the studies and I have complained to the authors of the articles.
VERY nicely explained Marshall! And yep, the Antismokers are simply doing their normal thing: lying with numbers and words and getting away with it because they control the microphone.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
[...] http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/the-beaver-dam-study-initial-findings/ http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/another-bogus-study-repackaged/ http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/anti-insanity-if-you-are-going-to-use-a-standard-... [...]