Effective Technology Could Help Prevent Smoking Ban

ThePublican ^ | Feb 5, 2004

[SheLion]

An air filtration system, new to the UK could help to avoid a smoking ban in pubs, restaurants and other public places in the UK, claims Dianne White MD of Essa air cleaners, which claim to be so effective that the need for smoking and no-smoking areas in pubs and restaurants could be eradicated, solving a number of issues highlighted in the current smoking in public places debate.

Already a number of leisure industry heavyweights have installed these air filtration units in their outlets nationwide. A spokesman for Thwaites Inns, the trading arm of Daniel Thwaites Brewery running 70 managed houses said, "We recognise that we have a duty of care to both our employees and customers and we take a proactive approach to this issue.

Essa air filters are proven to eliminate 99.9% of all smoke particles from the air, giving us peace of mind that our customers can relax in an unpolluted environment." That is why Essa were chosen to install their units into the 42 public houses, which were fully ventilated before but had no existing air filtration system or only had obsolete electrostatic units."

Essa air filtration units were the brainchild of Robert Gibbs who developed the first ever polarising electronic filters during his time at the forefront of research and development into how Legionnaires disease was transmitted.

A technological advancement from conventional HEPA or Electrostatic filters which are found in most air cleaners, Essa air cleaners attract airborne particles and polarise them, leaving nothing to block the filter or pollute the air which means the longer the filter runs the more effective it becomes. The filters also remove chemical pollutants and other particles that the eye cannot see by virtue of the polarisation of the particles.

As the ban on smoking debate continues Dianne White MD of Essa EU believes that a total smoking ban in the UK would be extremely damaging for the leisure industry and would lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. Dianne believes that the leisure industry should remain self-regulatory. However, she has accused the leisure and hospitality trade of being "too passive" on this issue and believes that the time has come for them to find their voice.

"The hospitality and leisure industry have sat back for far too long and let anti-smoking organizations lead the debate. The public has a very one-sided view on this subject thanks to the hospitality trades negligence on tackling this issue head on."

Dianne calls for owners of businesses in the hospitality sector to take more responsibility for their customers and employees health and she believes that it is the duty of the leisure industry to seize the initiative and to lobby the Government to impose stricter rules on adequate air cleaning equipment.

[Androcles]

You mean you can't even smoke outside within your property borders? Let alone on the street?

My only hope is that when these nannystate activists have finally finished with smoking they'll turn upon each other. In fact, maybe we should hope they succeed on smoking - the way taxes are on tobacco now blackmarket stuff would probably be cheaper and the success of prohibition activities anywhere probably means we'd have a greater array of venues to smoke in!

[Gabz]

My apologies for the misunderstanding. I wasn't thinking when I made my post that you are one of our "downunder" FRiends.

My comment was in reference to fact the State of Delaware, where I lived for 21 years, has a smoking ban, but last year I moved to Virginia, which has more sense.

The nanny state activists are going to move on, and then those that supported the smoking bans will finally understand what we have been trying to tell them for years....the nanny-staters don't care about anything but being in control of EVERYTHING.

[qam1]

air filters are proven to eliminate 99.9%

Doesn't matter because we all still know that 0.1% is still more deadlier than Plutonium.

Filters can pull 99.9% of smoke out of the air, A cure for lung cancer is on the way and it won't matter one bit to the anti-smoking Gnatzies

[-YYZ-]

Sadly, I'm afraid you're correct. Any hazard caused by second hand smoke (and a few studies do suggest some hazard) is obviously going to be largest if the smoke is concentrated, and virtually nil if the level is low.

Anyways, maybe, just maybe if we'd taken this tack with the public we might have been able to get a little traction. It's difficult, though, when all the "authorities" that the public pays attention to are all spewing the same misinformation (disinformation). I know in my area at least it seems that I might as well resign myself to not being able to smoke in bars or restaurants. Even if municipalities have left some leeway for smoking, it appears the provincial gov't wants to make it the law in all public places, and they probably won't leave any openings even for business owners willing to bend over backwards to separate smoke and smokers from non-smoking customers. Yep, it really looks like we've lost most of the battles, and soon the war.

[Great Dane]

As the ban on smoking debate continues Dianne White MD of Essa EU believes that a total smoking ban in the UK would be extremely damaging for the leisure industry and would lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.

At least some people see the writing on the wall, would be nice to have some sensible officials on this side of the dam.

[Great Dane]

Only if second-hand smoke is the real concern and not a cover for simple busybodyism.

SHS is not their concern.... it's the busybodythingy.

[RandallFlagg]

I can smoke a big, fat cigar in a room with one of these in it and you wouldn't smell it ten minutes after.

[VermiciousKnid]

Gabz,

You may be interested to know that while going through the junk still left in my old room at my mother's house, I came across a few replies to letters I'd written to various politicians over the years.

One of them, dated July 1987 (!) was from then NY Senator Alphonse D'Amato. Care to take a wild guess at the subject? It was clearly a reply to a letter of mine warning of the slippery slope of the first smoking bans (in this case it was discussing the Long Island Rail Road's decision to eliminate the smoking cars from their trains).

There is another letter discussing the very first case of hiring discrimination (I believe it was the first in the country at the time). Fortunoff's was (and is) a local jewelry/fine china/housewares powerhouse here in New York, and made headlines back in the mid-80s for refusing to hire a smoker, even though she was willing to sign a contract that stated she wouldn't smoke while on the job. The woman sued Fortunoff's, but lost. The court cited the private nature of the company, and said they had a right to set their own smoking policies. Imagine that -- a PRIVATE company being allowed to set its own smoking policy. My, my, my...how times have changed, no?

1987. 17 years I've been fighting this battle -- and I was just a kid back in '87, barely 22 years old.

Regards,