More tripe from the TC community

As is so often the case, a post over at Dr Siegels blog pushed my verbosity engine into overdrive. So much so that Haloscan isn't handling it properly even in the preview.
Often in those circumstances, I just junk the comment entirely, figuring it's not worth wasting MORE time on it. But, occasionally I feel the comment is actually worth it, so I post it here and link there.
In this case, the post was regarding a new "outdoor tobacco smoke exposure" study.
I figured I'd look at it, find a flaw or two, post about em, then call it a day. Unfortunately, this time the flaw list kept growing and growing and......

Dr. Siegel, a few points from the study you probably should have noted, but didn't.

Measurement intervals ranged from 2 sec to 1 min for the different instruments
Doesn't it strike you as odd that measurements were confined to such short durations?
Wouldn't it be more useful (and accurate) from a "health risk determination" standpoint to measure for the full duration of exposure and take an average?

Outdoor smoking bans may also serve to discourage smoking behavior in general, by making it more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up
But this is all about protecting non-smokers from SHS, not about forced behavior modification, right?

Based on our results, it is possible for OTS to present a nuisance or hazard under certain conditions of wind and smoker proximity
Note the weasly phrasing of nuisance OR hazard, leaving them a way to say they really just meant nuisance when people assume hazard. Note they fail to say proximity is 18 inches...something not feasible unless the person is sitting in the smokers lap. I dunno about the rest of ya, but I generally don't smoke when someone is sitting on my lap. And, if that person in my lap is the wait-staff, then I'm gonna make a guess that I'm in a brothel rather than a sidewalk cafe.....in which case there's more to worry about than where and how much SHS is present.
As for wait-staff, etc....anyone standing at the table side is already more than 18 inches from the ashtray source....just vertically instead of horizontally. I would expect ANY light breeze to reduce exposure to zero in such a circumstance.
I note the instruments were placed at a "breathing height" of 3-4 feet which would place them in-line with the table top, and appx 2 feet too low to approximate wait-staff exposure.

The U.S. Surgeon General’s Report titled “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke” concludes that there is no level of exposure to SHS without some associated risk
Interesting way to rephrase "no safe level"....something that's been discussed to death as misleading (to be polite).

This was in the "calibration" section:
Doors and windows were kept closed, except to clear smoke from the room in between experiments.
Ummm. Someone didn't get the memo apparently....haven't we been told over and over again that open windows and doors don't make a difference, that smoke lingers for hours even with them open, and it requires "hurricane" force winds to clear the smoke?
I also note that during the calibration stage, the measurements are being averaged over 5 minute, 10 minute time frames....a marked diversion from the 2sec to 1 min measurements used for the study.

I don't know enough about the equipment to know the norm, but is this Our SIDEPAK conversion factor corresponds with an internal “custom calibration factor” of approximately 0.3 (dimensionless), which is calculated by multiplying our result by 1000 and taking the reciprocal. normal?
The reason I ask is that, when looking at table 3, the only measurements taken that come above the mid-60s are 3 taken under "controlled" circumstances (and 2 of those not actually smoked, but "smolder-smoked") and all with the sidepak.
As well, there seems to be an awful lot of "adjustment" done to the figures (including a citing of Repace as justification, which makes me a little suspicious)...perhaps someone more familiar with the math could comment on the validity of the numbers.

As well, I see a potential problem with the background levels, in that they mention measurement at times when no SHS was present, but neglect to mention traffic conditions and whether they were comparable at those times. This is especially important as the majority of the locations were quite close to the street. It would be very easy to "skew" the background numbers by measuring at, say, 5 AM when there is no traffic or, more subtly, at 3PM when traffic is lighter and then take the other measurements during the AM or PM rush-hour.
Perhaps I'm mis-reading it, but it reads as if the "background measurement" visit was separate from the "smoking measurement" visits, rather than a constant background check subtracted from the smoking measurement by time. Indeed, We created a consistent and integrated database by calculating 1-min averages for each monitor and by converting the native units of each monitor into units of RSP mass concentration (µg m3) using the mean conversion factors in Table 2. would seem to indicate that something odd is being done with the numbers, as it seems to me that subtracting a 1 min average from a series of 2 sec to 10 sec spikes would skew the numbers towards the high end. But perhaps I'm just not awake yet.

I'm also a little puzzled as to why the 90% confidence interval for the sample mean was considered acceptable.

air could flow across the patio, perhaps influenced by a “street canyon’’ effect characterized by air movement in a consistent direction along building boundaries. In contrast, the enclosed patios had walls on four sides that protected patrons from wind and may have contained OTS emissions to a greater degree
So lower numbers on "open patios" was due to a "street canyon" effect, but higher numbers on "enclosed patios" were due to no wind. Now that's a shock.
One thing, a patio with 4 walls and (I'm guessing here) an awning, roof, or multiple overlapping umbrellas kinda barely qualifies as "outdoors" doesn't it? I think I'd be more inclined to describe it as a tent-equivalent.
It's interesting to note that 2 of the 3 chosen pub patios were built like this.

indicating that circumstances can sometimes lead to short-term OTS levels that substantially exceed typical indoor SHS levels.
Sometimes, short-term. Neither are defined, nor is "typical indoor". And they're relying on one instrument for this statement, the Sidepak, which seems to consistently show higher numbers (double to quadruple) than the others. I'm also particularly intrigued by the fact that the Sidepak doesn't show a difference in levels at any distance, the only instrument they used that showed this result. Why is that?
Again, it's important to note that the only way they could make this statement without outright lying was by using the figures for a 19.5 inch distance, assuming the non-smoker doesn't move, and by using extremely short downwind figures....by no means reasonable assumptions.
Just a note.....it should not be possible for outdoor levels of ETS to exceed or equal indoor levels because of dilution alone without some serious fudging with either a/the numbers b/the experimental setup or c/both. This could NOT be accidental, the only assumption that can be made is that this is intentional biasing.

I also found The average indoor SHS levels observed in this study were similar to those observed by Ozkaynak et al., who report that secondhand smoke contributes approximately 30µg m3 on average to indoor particle levels in homes particularly interesting, in that that number is lower than the EPA standard. With the windows and doors closed.

I'm (yet again) a little puzzled looking at table 6. Why was the pzb only used in the indoor measurements? Why was the sidepak only used in the sidewalk cafe and restaurant patio measurements? Why are we comparing the results from 2 different instruments in 2 completely different circumstances? And what "normal conditions" were they expecting to emulate by taking measurements at 0.25 meter (appx 10 inches)?

In the "indoor wind emulation" experiment demonstrates how wind can elevate OTS levels in downwind directions (Figure 2A).For this particular experiment, the fan increased average NEPH levels during smoking by approximately three times at a downwind monitor relative to an upwind monitor they observed an expected condition and assigned a biased conclusion by careful phrasing. See, the SHS is all going one direction because of the wind, so they compare it to the upwind monitor, rather than a monitor in a no-wind situation...and claim that the wind has "elevated" the levels, implying that the wind has increased the levels in general. What remains unsaid is that a non-smoker could easily avoid all of the SHS by sitting/standing upwind, since they claim the upwind monitor has "near-zero" registration.
Note also the adroit avoidance of mentioning that the upwind levels are much lower than would be the case without wind. This again reinforces the impression that the overall levels are higher.

Perhaps someone could explain figure 3 to me....how can the backyard patio measurements be so much lower than the sidewalk cafe measurements? Oh, that's right....2 of the 3 sidewalk cafes had two or more walls sheltering them. I'm also a little curious about A NEPH instrument also registered slightly elevated particle concentrations at a distance of 8 m from a cluster of burning cigarettes and around the corner of the house during a backyard patio experiment and what bearing this "experiment" has on reality.
While we're at it, how many cigarettes are in a "cluster"?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here....was it downwind?

*sigh* Okay, why are we citing an unpublished (and one assumes un-peer-reviewed study) on outdoor levels on pdf page 11? Especially since that's one of the big complaints from TC people when they argue with SR people.
And even more stunning was The observed 8-hr average OTS nicotine levels in locations with relatively stronger winds or a smaller number of smokers were 0.1µg m3 or less. In locations with a larger number of smokers, the levels could reach 1 or 3µg m3. These OTS levels are in the middle range of observed indoor SHS nicotine levels, which can average from 0.01 to 10µg m3. Based on the CARB study, Californians who spend time close to outdoor smokers could potentially be exposed to OTS levels similar to those associated with indoor SHS concentrations.

0.1 to 3 µg m3. And we're supposed to be concerned about this? Since we're already here how can an average 0.01 to 10 µg indoors be of concern? And Dr Siegel, can you please explain to me how levels of nicotine that low indoors translate into multiple cigarettes or even a pack (as I have seen claimed) over an 8 hour period? And why are we now switching to a discussion of nicotine levels when the whole study has been about 2.5PM? Just so we can justify claiming indoor and outdoor exposure are equivalent?
See, here's the problem.....my cigarettes have average 2mg of nicotine each.....so apparently we're talking about somewhere in between 1/20,000 (at 0.1µg) and 1/666 (at 3µg) of 1 cigarette worth of exposure outdoors. And somewhere in between 1/200,000 (at 0.01µg) and 1/200 (at 10µg) of 1 cigarette worth of exposure indoors. Spread out over a cubic meter of air.
Tell me why we're supposed to be worried about this again?

Oh, for....this is getting stupid. If I (a near-complete layman) can spot this many problems with the study, then it's a piece of junk.
On pdf page 12 they've decided to calculate the "incremental exposure contribution" based on the measurement at 0.3 meters as if the non-smoker actually were sitting in the smokers lap. The 0.3 meter (appx 13 inches) number is averaged at 582µg.....while the 0.6 meter (appz 26 inches. Still too close in my estimation, but possible at least) number is 130, fully 25% of the exposure they're estimating. And they're comparing it to the EPA air pollution standard which isn't comparable. And they're admitting it's not comparable, while claiming SHS likely "carries more risk".

Even the conclusion is biased Fourth, OTS levels are highly dependent on wind conditions. Upwind levels are likely to be very low, whereas downwind OTS levels during periods of active smoking can be very large with 10-second peak levels at the closest positions potentially exceeding 1500µg m3 and average levels over the duration of a single cigarette potentially exceeding 500µg m3

While there appear to be 1500µg spikes in the graphs they've shown, it's important to note that those are at 0.3m (13 inch) and 0.5m (19.5 inch) distances, with ONLY one measurement at the 500 level (0.25m or 10 inch)....all the other points on the graphs show drastically lower levels at anywhere from 1/100 to 1/2 of what they're claiming here. And ONLY in the downwind positions.
Interestingly enough, when I look at the graphs for indoor measurements I only see plots for the 0.25m position.
Why do you suppose that is?

And, finally, in the conclusions Support for health-based OTS bans may lie in a potential acute effect on susceptible populations.
After running it through the TC newspeak filter we get.....the numbers are too low to support what we want, so we need to find some population group that's susceptible at these levels and parade them in front of the media to garner sympathy and cram outdoor bans through based on protection of [insert group here].
Then they go on to name possible candidates.

How did this piece of junk get published, let alone pass peer review?