BoatBanter.com - Wally-Mart in trouble locally

On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 02:20:31 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:48:29 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:08:41 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:37:11 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:14:45 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:59:07 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:08:55 -0400, wrote:

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.

We were talking about bars and restaurants.
Do they have smoking areas in restaurants, using the same technology?
Why not?

The same technology? You want to mandate restaurants to have a glassed
in section with it's own air system??

If they did, would you be happy? I thought not.

I wouldn't care either way. I just don't want my health compromised
because of an obnoxious habit someone has.

They have even offered to have two separate buildings, with the same
food and the same ambiance ... nope. not good enough.

Huh? Who offered?

The afore mentioned Sonny's Barbecue is one.

That was proposed by many bar and restaurant owners here who wanted to
maintain their smoking customer base. They wanted smoking and non
smoking restaurants, in the same chain with exactly the same menu.
Nope, it was ALL or nothing.

I'm sure their business was hurt terribly. I guess they're out of
business. Good news?

The particular restaurant that they wanted to make the "smoking" one
did close shortly after the no smoking law was passed.

Well, I guess the market forces spoke. Isn't that what you want?

Self absorbed non smokers demand access to both buildings because they
think they are missing something. Yes they are ... the fun people.
Since it's not "a necessary component" there's no action that OSHA can
take. Try again.

What?
The letter basically said OSHA does not have a standard for cigarette
smoke.

Yes, they don't have a standard. They just say there are tons of
carcinogens in it, but it's not part of manufacturing processes.

They do have a standard for all of the chemicals in question. It just
would not be low enough to bar casual smoking.

According to you. It would depend on several factors, like
concentration and proximity, for example.

Exactly, but that is not what you want. In reality it is the
concentration in PPM usually taken at a couple locations on the site..

So, when someone is puffing their cigar in my face, I'm betting the
PPM count is pretty high.

But if they are at the other end of the bar, in a smoking section with
the air going out that end, it will be too low to measure under your
nose.
Thanks for making my point.

So, now you're going to have the barkeep prevent people who are
smoking, perhaps drunk people, walking in to the other area. Thanks
for making MY point.

They imply that if they use the same standard they use for
manufacturing it would not achieve the result desired by the
administration and they should just deal with this with legislation.
If they use the same standard for the listed pollutants that they use
for manufacturing facilities you probably would not be able to get
enough smokers in a room to exceed it and still be within the
occupancy code.

According to you. Nothing in the report claims the smoke is without
risk.

The letter from OSHA is basically begging off, telling the
administration that this should be handled by separate legislation and
getting them out of it..

And, it should be. So, what's your point?

So this is simply legislation based on people being offended not any
science confirming the hazard. (What OSHA does)

Really? OSHA is the only one who thinks about hazards like this? Nope.

OSHA is the government agency that sets the standards, They are also
the ones who certify the labs. (AKA NRTLs)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. They, like other
agencies, need legislation to do their jobs. This is an example of
that. Sorry if that bothers you!