Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 08 February 2001 12:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Bennett I am currently in the process of updating our smoking policy taking in to account some of the information supplied in passive smoking ACOP. A ventilation flow rate of 8 litres per second or (30m3/hour) is mentioned for non-smoking areas but normal fence sitting repsonse "the rate has to be increased to reduce ETS concentration levels". Can anyone advise on a suitable/sufficient flow rate? Thanks in advance, John
Admin  
#2 Posted : 09 February 2001 16:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bernard Angus How about 500cfm at 100psi (chilled), as a poor alternative to having a No Smoking Policy ! Sorry, I couldn't resist it. Bernard
Admin  
#3 Posted : 10 February 2001 22:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I must admit to never having bothered to set an airflow rate for smoking rooms - other than to ensure that there was air extraction and a door self-closer to ensure that air moved so as not to allow the smoke to enter the corridor. The occupants are there to get the smoke into their lungs anyway. So far I have heard of no complaint by smokers that there was insufficient air extraction in their rooms.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 13 February 2001 13:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bryn Maidment Smokers put a lot of time effort and money into polluting themselves so leave 'em stew in their own little smokey holes ........they'll thank you for it!!
Admin  
#5 Posted : 13 February 2001 14:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Webster Surely the relevant specification is "air changes per hour", as this takes account of the size of the room and therefore the potential number of smouldering fags which it can accommodate. As an ex 20-a-day man, I tend to agree with the other responses, but at least good ventilation might make the smokers stink a little less when they come back to work with the rest of us.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 13 February 2001 15:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lance Morgan I would suggest that instead of spending time and money on plenum ventilation equipment you tell them to open a window instead.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 20 February 2001 21:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ngaire Lowndes No problem about air flow in the job I'm leaving in a week, as the smoking room is the office manager's room, she smokes constantly, but insists on having her door OPEN so she can see who's coming and going.... nice airflow, taking smoke right out and into my working area. And she wonders why I'm leaving.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 22 February 2001 08:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor Make sure your next office manager has a copy of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations - and why not give the current one a copy as a parting gift?
Admin  
#9 Posted : 22 February 2001 11:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ed Carter John, According to guidelines produced by a UK company who deal with such things. they recommend 50% increase for heavy smoking areas. So, given your figures that would be an extra 4 litres Hope it helps, Ed
Admin  
#10 Posted : 27 February 2001 13:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd To Ken Taylor, Why on earth would a copy of the Workplace Regs. make a blind bit of difference. If some of the non-smoking people out there read what the documents say rather than what they want them to say, they would realise that the only bit of legislation concerning smoke free areas IS IN REST ROOMS. As it happens there is certain legislation that insists (absolute duty) that smoking rooms are provided, namely in Foundry's. That may be put in pipes and smoked. Sorry Ken this isn't a personal thing.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 27 February 2001 14:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor To Rob Todd. I certainly wish that the Workplace Regulations said more on this subject. However there are a couple of interesting points. Regulation 6(1) states that 'Effective and suitable provision shall be made to ensure that every enclosed workplace is ventilated by a sufficient quantity of fresh or purified air' and the ACOP (29) says 'The air which is introduced should, as far as possible, be free of any impurity which is likely to be offensive or cause ill-health'. In the situation under consideration, polluted air is being introduced to the work area from the smoking room. Regulation 25 (to which you refer) states (3) 'Rest rooms and rest areas shall include suitable arrangements to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke'. If the smoking room also serves as a rest room for smoking staff then non-smokers are not being protected by smoke that is not being prevented from freely entering the work area. My main point is that we are dealing with an employer that evidently appears to have little regard for the health or welfare of his employees and attention to the inadequate Regulations we have so far is still advisable.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 27 February 2001 15:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd Ngaire, Unfortunately there is not a lot you can do legally speaking. There are no precedential cases either in civil or criminal law concerning smoking in the office) Most smokers are reasonable (more than I can say for the no-smoking lobby fascists) and will attempt to try and ensure that suitably segregated areas are available. Can you not go above her head? Is it not possible for smoke extractors to be installed in her office? Cheers Rob
Admin  
#13 Posted : 27 February 2001 15:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd Ngaire, Unfortunately there is not a lot you can do legally speaking. There are no precedential cases either in civil or criminal law concerning smoking in the office) Most smokers are reasonable (more than I can say for the no-smoking lobby fascists) and will attempt to try and ensure that suitably segregated areas are available. Can you not go above her head? Is it not possible for smoke extractors to be installed in her office? Cheers Rob
Admin  
#14 Posted : 27 February 2001 22:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I hope that the situation will improve - probably as civil action proceeds in the USA and, perhaps, some trades unions try here and pressure mounts for the promised pathetic voluntary code to be replaced with clear regulations. Perhaps some enforcement action might be possible under the weak Regulation 6 of the Workplace (HS&W) Regs in blatant cases of disregard for employees health. It will, however, be an uphill struggle. I am keen on promoting proper smoking rooms for the addicts with proper airflow to protect others and have been involved in introducing a number of these - in addition to writing related policies. It is, unfortunately, disappointing to note that IOSH still allow smoking at the Public Services (former MAPS) conference dinners despite representations from members who believe in health as well as safety!
Admin  
#15 Posted : 28 February 2001 09:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd Ken, you seem to be under the misapprehension that everyone either hates smoking or wants to give up. There are a lot of us safety professionals who smoke, enjoy smoking, take a reasoned view on the hazards and know that "passive smoking" is a myth invented by ASH and their pschologically disturbed supporters. As I said in my last missive - most smokers are reasonable and will attempt to smoke away from non-smokers on the grounds of the smell (yes it gets in your clothes), people with respiratory problems (if known) and the general ambience of the environment. It is only the extremists on both sides who cause the major problems. The fact that IOSH "allow" smoking is probably on the basis that the venues concerned allow smoking and IOSH are not our masters to decide what we do. I hope Blairish dictatorship and meddling in personal lives does not become part of IOSH's thinking. What about segregated sections at conferences? One last point on the matter - stress seems to be a major point of concern in H & S at the moment - do you or any other non-smoker actually realise the stress that us lowly addicts go through when unable to smoke? This is both mental and physical. Why do you think that air rage has increased by such a massive amount SINCE THE BAN ON SMOKING (which incidentally has nothing to do with airlines looking after people - they now only use one tank of air instead of two saving vast amounts of money on each flight while increasing the spread of airborne disease -documented fact). As you can see, I'm having a bad hair day. Cheers Rob
Admin  
#16 Posted : 28 February 2001 10:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Harper Wow, good debate, but the fact still remains that enforcement is non- existant in this area. My brother is in a workplace with the same problem discussed above. Everyone smokes except him, so the workplace is the designated area after consultation with the non union untrained smoking safety rep! My brother asked my advice, to which I replied following. Legislation is usless as it is not going to be enforced. As the only non-smoker if he contracts lung cancer he would be in a good?? position in that he would be able to take out a civil action. If he was removed and a smoker was brought in the new guy contracted lung cancer, how would the civil action work then? The company is protecting itself nicely. What would you do as a manager? Enforcement is required as it not smokers or non smokers who are hard done by it is the minority in the workplace. Before you all jump up and done about legislation being usless, further investigation revealled that at my brothers work place they store highly flammable liquids and gasses and refridgerant chemicals, as well as very expensive kit and poor fire fighting equipment. Smokers are in and out at all time and sometimes on their own at night during call outs. They are a big company and must have a competent person somewhere and a would think a hefty insurance bill every year. So legislation reagding chronic effects of smoking pale into insignificance compared to the rest the legislation the manager needs to address.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 28 February 2001 10:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bryn Maidment Phew Rob!! For a reasonable smoker you sure do have a lot of angst and pent up stuff that smoking isn't releasing. Yes!, I am a vehement opposer of any smoking that impinges further on my ability to draw in clean air. My vehemence is in direct proportion to the 'couldn't give a monkey' attitude of the vast majority of smokers who light up and litter the place without regard for others. I know you'll have another smart reply do illustrate what a downtrodden lot you are, but basically - What part of "don't smoke near me" is it hard to understand? I bet you lob dog-ends out of your car window without thought for motorcyclists! ;-)) (nothing like an anti smoking motorcyclist to get YOU going!) ps bet your nervous leg is twitching reading this!
Admin  
#18 Posted : 28 February 2001 11:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi We await the HSC's ACoP on Passive Smoking in the context of the legal requirements on smoking in the workplace--The ACoP should have been published by now--refer to HSC minutes on the HSE website-- I understand that it is being "evaluated" by the Better Regulation Unit of the DTI--primarily due to the lobbying from the hospitality industry, and become a political issue. It is likely that the ACoP may not be published before the General Elections!!!
Admin  
#19 Posted : 28 February 2001 16:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Vince McNeilly John One way of tackling the issue would be to set a value of air changes/hr. ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. 23rd edition) as a general rule of thumb recommend for offices and similar types of premises an outdoor air supply of 0.5-0.6/hr/m2 of floor space will give good results for odour control. General ventilation is the issue here and will be best addressed by an Occupational Hygienist. You could try to post a question on the British Occupational Hygiene Societies web site (www.bohs.org) I hope this helps. Vince
Admin  
#20 Posted : 28 February 2001 21:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor Rob, I don't think I have any misapprehensions about smokers - particularly with regard to the lengths to which they will go to ignore medical research, justify anti-social activity, risk fires and convince themselves that the satisfaction of drug dependence is enjoyment. I do, however, respect their right to pollute their own lungs and circulatory systems and risk their own health (hence my support for smoking rooms) - but not mine. With regard to IOSH, they are in control at the 'National Safety Symposium' and prohibit smoking in the conference rooms but when the dinner comes round the selfishness of smokers raises its ugly head again and they choose to smoke at the tables in the faces of air-breathers rather than 'popping out for a fag'. I find this unjustifiable for an organisation that seeks to promote health and safety. Smoke evidently gets in the brains as well as the eyes and hair. With best wishes.
Admin  
#21 Posted : 01 March 2001 10:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd Ken, you do have misapprehensions about smokers in the very fact that you seem to seem to classify them all as the same, and as a somewhat subhuman group. This is a very bigotted view and if you did this about some other minority group i.e. disabled or ethnic, you would be vilified. Talking about polluting the air, I'll bet you have a car, use aerosols and burn gas, which are far more polluting than cigarette smoke. Remember that you have a duty to look after all your staff, not just the one's you happen to agree with. What's your position on stress - you'll find that the most stressed people are those who are restricted from smoking (but I suppose this doesn't matter to you as they are all mentally deficient. The smoking debate could go on for years, and, as we seem to agree on most other subjects related to safety, I think I'll make this my last comment on the matter. Best wishes and I look forward to being on the same side as you on the next debate. Rob
Admin  
#22 Posted : 01 March 2001 17:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin R. Bessant Contributors are reminded that this thread was to request information about air flow rates in smoking rooms. It is not for the greater demate about the rights and wrongs of smoking. Will all contributors please keep to the subject and not use this thread as a means of airing personal grievances. The moderators reserve the right to remove any responses which are not relevant and could be considered to be offensive. Your co-operation would be appreciated. M. Bessant on behalf of the moderators. (Arran Linton-Smith, Neil Budworth, Martin Bessant)
Admin  
#23 Posted : 01 March 2001 17:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Todd To the moderators - HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH A COMMENT!!!!! Who gives you the right to decide where and when a LEGITIMATE health & safety subject is debated. You are there to ensure that there is no bad language and offensive material is removed and that is it!!!! I cannot believe your ARROGANCE in trying to sensor people in airing views on any safety issues. Sensorship belongs in dictatorships. If you are referring to my debate with Ken it might be worth noting that WE both have a sense of humour which it appears that you seem to be completely lacking. Don't even think of sensoring this response and I feel that all those who took part in the debate deserve an apology from yourselves.
Admin  
#24 Posted : 01 March 2001 21:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brian Dawson All that smoke doesn't help your spelling but you are right; what a ridiculous response from the censors. Brian
Admin  
#25 Posted : 02 March 2001 09:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lance Morgan Anybody got a light?
Admin  
#26 Posted : 02 March 2001 09:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I'm also rather surprised that the moderators consider the issue of smoking in the workplace and health as a matter of personal grievance. No wonder they keep smoking at the IOSH Public Services dinners and social occasions! Rob the existance of other pollutants in the work environment does not excuse additional ones but rather makes their reduction more necessary. For the record, I drive a car with lead-free petrol, a catalytic converter and CO emission control - and look forward to the day when we can buy reasonable electric ones. I avoid the use of LPG and CFC-containing aerosols as much as possible by using atomisers or direct applications and have been involved in producing 4 stress policies. Smoking is both a contributor to and symptom of stress. Ken
Admin  
#27 Posted : 02 March 2001 09:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tim Dear moderators Lighten up. This is the most amusing debate for a while. Perhaps a good lung full wouldn't do you any harm. Well said Rob. Tim P.S Arran for someone who cries "foul" to the moderators from time to time its interesting to note that you have 'come out' and declared that you are one of this elite group.
Admin  
#28 Posted : 02 March 2001 11:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Harper I think the moderators have been a bit shallow here. The original question was one regarding air flow rates but in a smoking policy. The policy is the thing that is being discussed and really if air flow rates should figur at all. When I done my NEBOSH Diploma I remember a bit about removing the hazard totally. Giving guidance about airflow rates is fine, but anyone who can give insight to preventing smoking in the workplace is assisting in premoting a healthier workplace.
Admin  
#29 Posted : 02 March 2001 11:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Harper and another thing, John has not commented! Have we helped John? Please tell us where you are, what the details are and has this discussion helped you at all? Quickly before we divide the safety community!
Admin  
#30 Posted : 05 March 2001 12:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tim Oh look! Here it is. Not lost just hiding!
Admin  
#31 Posted : 05 March 2001 23:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Bennett I cannot reveal my whereabouts at this moment in time due to the fact that I am being pursued by the IOSH Moderators Team and am changing my abode on a daily basis. In reality my wife gave birth to our second child Hannah in January and I took some extended R&R. I would like to thank Ed Carter who provided me the answer I sought and everyone else who contributed (inc. THE MODERATORS), as I have had great enjoyment on my first day back reading all the replies. kind regards to you all, John Bennett
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.