Here is another interesting study on ventilation from the Netherlands, conducted by
The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). It comes to the same conclusions as most of the studies on ventilation: with modern technology, environmental tobacco smoke can be removed well in excess of 90%. It follows that, in a political environment that is respectful of the rights and choices of people, smokers included, a peaceful coexistence of smokers and non-smokers is perfectly possible. Indeed this was the norm for centuries. We know however, that the mission of corrupt “public health” is to eradicate smoking from our culture and to replace it with pharmaceutically produced nicotine, thus perfectly feasible technical solutions are deliberately dismissed for political reasons.
Nevertheless the technical reality stands. Furthermore, we must take exception to several premises of this study that — since it is financed by the Dutch government, whose goal is “to reduce the consumption of tobacco products and protect the non-smoker, for example, by creating smoke-free workplaces” —
must cater to the basic false information on ETS that the Dutch government has embraced to further the elimination of smoking.
It is therefore important to help the reader to “stay on target” with the basic facts before reading this and other studies that tend, for ideological reasons, to deviate from the facts as they actually are. We reproduce below an excerpt of the abstract (page 4 of the PDF document), where the deviations takes place, and we interpolate our observations.
“In summary, with the use of optimal ventilation (displacement ventilation with correct air exchange rates and separation between smoking and non-smoking areas) and air cleaning, quite considerable reductions of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke can be achieved.”
That is indeed true and unquestionable. However,
it must be demonstrated that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke constitutes a health hazard for non-smokers, and that first has never been demonstrated to any and all satisfactory scientific standards. That alone — theoretically and for what concerns strictly ETS — would be sufficient to invalidate anything that follows — that is, the entire study. Nevertheless, the study proceeds as if exposure to ETS was indeed a demonstrated health hazard.
“The hospitality industry is, however, far from achieving this situation. Improving the use of existing equipment can lead to a roughly estimated reduction of several tens of per cent. In all cases however, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke will remain. A safe level of exposure − which is not zero − was not found in the scientific literature.”
The last statement tells the whole tale about ETS. Safe or acceptable levels of exposure exist for every substance,
including plutonium, which is the most toxic substance known – but for environmental tobacco smoke. That is scientifical nonsense, but it makes perfect sense not politically. If acceptable levels of exposure were set, in fact, the technology to meet them would already be (or become) available, and that would nullify the REAL agenda of corrupt governments and “public health” which, once again, want to achieve the complete elimination of smoking and its replacement with pharmaceutical nicotine.
“For many components of environmental tobacco smoke, such as many genotoxic compounds, the health risk for the population remains, even after a significant reduction of several tens of per cents in the exposure oncentrations.”
What is “forgotten” here for ideological and political reasons is that
the amount of the “genotoxic” compounds even at the current and “un-ventilated” levels in the first place. in the quantities present in ETS has never been demonstrated to be even remotely necessary and/or sufficient to create damage
“Complete risk reduction using ventilation will not be possible. Reduction of the exposure will probably reduce the risk. On the basis of scientific literature, a reduction in the exposure cannot be expected to result in the same reduction of the health risk. As dose−response curves are not known for environmental tobacco smoke, it is not possible to quantify the reduction in the health risk by reducing the exposure of environmental tobacco smoke through ventilation or air cleaning.”
This paragraph hammers the point home. The “complete risk reduction using ventilation will not be possible” statement is invalid because
it has never been demonstrated that the tiny purported elevation of theoretical, statistical risk is actually due to ETS exposure even in spite of the shameful statistical manipulations and “creative interpretations” of the studies on ETS.
That is further confirmed by the statement: “dose−response curves are not known for environmental tobacco smoke.” The reason why dose-response cannot be established is because , and at any rate their results are totally conflicting (for further details click the studies are junk science here, here, here, and here) and absolutely inconclusive. It follows that the statement “it is not possible to quantify the reduction in the health risk by reducing the exposure of environmental tobacco smoke through ventilation or air cleaning” is indeed correct, not only because the reduction of exposure to a substance whose risk have never been reliably quantified by any stretch of scientific standard is a reduction of an unknown quantity and, therefore, it is… unknown!
Nevertheless, at page 63 of the document we have highlighted an important conclusion:
“By making use of zoning, in combination with displacement ventilation, the exposure in the smoking zone compared with a smoking zone ventilated in accordance with the current Buildings Decree requirements can be reduced by approx. 90%, while in the non-smoking zone with adequate utilisation of such a system a greater reduction could be achieved.”
Ironically, this achievement would be important for the general health of people – but certainly
because of the reduction of exposure to passive smoking. It would be good because it would eliminate kitchen fumes, viruses, bacteria, dusts, pollens and other contaminants in the air, making the ventilated smoking areas far healthier than the unventilated non smoking areas, where the illusion that a smokeless environment means healthy air still looms dangerously ... in the air. not