Publisher's Notebook: Toxic subtance fills our air, but nothing happens

Lets ask ourselves this question: What if the Environmental Protection Agency conducted an air quality test at a London business and found it was heavily polluted with a toxic substance?

We all know what would happen. The employees would walk out and refuse to work until the toxin was removed. If the business was unionized, union representatives would file a grievance for an unsafe working environment. Lawyers would swoop in and file suit on behalf of employees who became ill because of the toxic substance.

That is, unless the toxic substance is cigarette smoke, then nothing happens.

A study last March showed that the air inside seven Laurel County restaurants and two entertainment venues is four times more polluted than the air outside, due to second-hand smoke.

The study, conducted by the Laurel County Health Department and the University of Kentucky College of Nursing, raised concerns for workers and patrons of those establishments, which were not named. It was conducted at restaurants of various sizes, some of which were independently owned and some or which are part of local or national chains.

A machine was used to sample the levels of tiny suspended air particles people breathe in. Particles of that size are attributed to those released by lit cigarettes and when people exhale smoke.

A worker pulling an eight-hour shift at a smoky restaurant will inhale the equivalent of 16 cigarettes, the study found. The worker may not smoke at all, but because of the environment, will be exposed to nearly the same amount of smoke as someone with a pack-a-day habit.

That's downright shameful, because a pack of cigarettes a day has a devastating effect on a person's health.

Workers at those restaurants who smoke are doubling the effect of the noxious smoke breathed into their lungs.

Patrons who visit those restaurants for only a short period of time still are in danger, because just 30 minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke can increase a person's risk of heart attack and stroke, studies have shown.

Second-hand smoke has been called a major public health hazard, yet nothing has been done in Laurel County to protect workers and patrons from the danger.

When health department and UK officials presented the study to the fiscal court last month, it landed with a distinct thud. It was discussed only briefly, and magistrates made no comments other than to say it may be best for the city of London to take action because it has more restaurants.

London City Council members have talked about protecting people from second-hand smoke with a smoking ban in pubic places. But so far it's been only talk.

Meanwhile the non-smoking restaurant worker inhales another pack a day.

Why aren't government officials doing more to protect workers from a toxic substance, like they did with asbestos and mercury? Why aren't restaurants that know they are injuring their workers decide, as many recently have done, to go completely smoke free?

Their basic argument is economics, but ample evidence from areas that have enacted smoking bans show that business does not suffer because people are no longer allowed to smoke inside.

And the air is significantly cleaner in those public businesses. The air quality study showed that Laurel County restaurants are almost eight times more polluted by second-hand smoke than those in Lexington, which has enacted a smoking ban.

It's time the workers in our smoky restaurants stand up to protect themselves and it's time for our government and health leaders to display some backbone and protect all of us from a toxic substance.

Text Only