As reported in JSOnline the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center did air quality testing in bars and restaurants both before and after the smoking ban. Were these so called studies peer reviewed? Of course not, because if they were the legitimate scientist would have forced them to adhere to the standards they were comparing to. Here is a Quote from the article.
Before the law went into effect, one in five establishments (21%) was found to have “hazardous” air quality – the most dangerous level – according to air-quality standards of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Air quality in another 28% tested “very unhealthy” and 38% tested “unhealthy.” Only 13% had either “good” or “satisfactory” air quality.
The problem with this is they only sampled the air for 30 minutes or less and the standards imposed by the EPA is an average of samples over a 24 hour period. Here are the standards right from the EPA
How many hourly values make up a valid 24-hour average for a continuous
• If measurements are available for at least 75 percent (18 or more) of the hours during
the 24-hour period, the 24-hour average is valid. You’ll compute it by summing the
hourly concentrations and dividing by the number of hourly measurements.
• If measurements are available for less than 75 percent (17 or less) of the hours during
the 24-hour period, you must treat the 24-hour average as invalid, unless the
concentrations are too high to be ignored, as determined by the following calculation:
Do you see that, if they monitored for less then 17 hours it is invalid. This is not an instantaneous standard but a time averaged standard. I also should note that this is an outdoor standard, the indoor standard is set by OSHA and obviously they passed or they would not have used the outdoor standard. Why two standards, well it is almost impossible for indoor standards to exceed outdoor and is typically two to three times worse then outdoor air quality. You would need massive filtration. If they are willing to cheat on the standard by which they are comparing what else did they cheat on? What were the outdoor PM 2.5 measurements? In the smoking establishments did they take the measurements at the ashtray? They quote the Surgeon Generals report as if it were 100% fact yet it is mostly based on Meta Analysis and if you read one passage on page 21 of the SG report you will question the whole report,
Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
this methodology to summarize the available data
when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
by conventional statistical indices, because of
biases either within the observational studies or produced
by the manner of their selection.
Again if they Can’t adhere to sound scientific standards can you believe anything that they say?
Dr Michel Siegel ( a former member of tobacco control) calls this “Science by press release” I call it science by political agenda. For more on the Junk science go here.