To the editor:

I agree with the assertion that appropriate government intervention must be considered in regards to worker health and secondhand smoke. In fact, a specific government agency is responsible for all these concerns. That agency, however, is not our hard-working citizen volunteers on the Lawrence City Commission, but rather the expert staff of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

For five years, OSHA reviewed studies and testimony on the workplace impact of secondhand smoke. They factored the components of smoke exposure based on their data for air contaminant substances and the established “permissible exposure level” (PEL). Their conclusion? “…under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels. It would be VERY RARE to find a workplace with so much smoking that ANY individual PEL would be exceeded.”

As continued calls came from state and local governments seeking information on the workplace threat of secondhand smoke, OSHA reiterated its findings last year. “Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these PELs.” It’s within the scope of the City Commission to act as they wish, but they should know that some well-informed experts disagree with the ban approach.

We, therefore, urge the City Commission not to impose a ban, but if they feel compelled to act, to use positive incentives to encourage businesses to choose to be smoke-free.

Philip Bradley,

executive director,

Kansas Licensed Beverage

Assn., Lawrence