On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:04:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:15:19 -0700, wrote:


It is also why nobody has ever gone to OSHA to establish a case for
second hand smoke. They would not like the answer.

This is your opinion, of course, and it's flawed.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owad...MONIES&p_id=92

I didn't see anything in that letter this disputes anything I said,
BTW this was written in 1997 and they still do not have a standard.

"Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or secondhand smoke can
pose a serious health risk to workers."

And, as I said, OSHA has never said there were beneficial effects or
that second hand smoke is safe.

snip

Nice snip. You left out the next line.
Unlike methylene chloride or ammonia, chemicals for which OSHA has set
permissible exposure limits, ETS is not a necessary component of any
manufacturing process or job.

If you actually read what the thrust of the letter is, they are saying
they have nothing to go on, using their existing standards and they
want congress to write a law simply banning smoking if that is what
they want to do.

Using the existing standards for TLVs for the chemicals in tobacco
smoke, simply opening a window and putting a fan in there would get
most places under the threshold.

This what OSHA says in your letter.

"Therefore, on April 5, 1994, OSHA published a proposal to require
employers to restrict smoking to designated smoking areas that are
either outdoors or in separate, enclosed rooms that are exhausted
directly to the outside of the building"

Unfortunately "smoking areas" were not enough to make the crusaders
happy.

Yet they do have "smoking areas" in airports. So, it looks like I was
right.

Since it's not "a necessary component" there's no action that OSHA can
take. Try again.