Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Have you ever lived in a high rise? Or even a building just 8 stories tall, which are the shortest buildings in my neighborhood.>> Yes, my college dorm was 12 stories tall. Every room had it’s own heating/cooling unit beneath the window. <<Where would the units go?>> I assume every unit would have an outside wall. They would go there. <<Not to mention, how does that solve the common ventilation duct problem in the kitchen and the bathrooms, which is how most of these noxious fumes travel from one unit to another.>> Why would it cost any more to individually vent the kitchen and bathroom fans out the sidewall in an apartment than it does in a single-family dwelling? Most kitchens these days aren't even vented... the vent fan over the stove pull stuffs in, runs it through a filter and returns it to the room. It may not be how those building are typically built, but it could certainly be done at minimal cost. I certainly think it is preferable to your solution. Banning smoking I could perhaps understand, but ROOM FRESHENERS? What's next? A ban on perfume too? I'd sure as heck rather put up with the smell of room freshener than Chorizo!!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Thought you might want to brush up on your knowledge of HVAC in multi-unit buildings. The linked article indicates that what I have suggested is not only possible, it is PREFERABLE! <a href="http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/digests/bsd-110-hvac-in-multifamily-buildings/files/bsd-110_hvac-in-multifamily-buildings.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.buildingscience.com...ings.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Thought you might want to brush up on your knowledge of HVAC in multi-unit buildings.>> Guess what? Most of the condos and apartment buildings in San Francisco do NOT have HVAC. Only the really REALLY tall high rise condo buildings have it. Everything else, like the building I'm in, do not have central ventilation. So tell me again how a bathroom or a kitchen that's near the center of the building vents to the outside without HVAC.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Why would it cost any more to individually vent the kitchen and bathroom fans out the sidewall in an apartment than it does in a single-family dwelling?>> And how is this done in a high rise with floor to ceiling glass walls? This only works in older buildings with more traditional construction materials. Modern buildings with glass facades cannot do this. And as I stated earlier, the vast majority of residential buildings in San Francisco do not have HVAC, even the 16-story towers on my street. All of the bathrooms and kitchens vent to the roof, through common ventilation ducts. <<I'd sure as heck rather put up with the smell of room freshener than Chorizo!!>> Not if the chemical solvents in the heated oil room freshener would put you in the emergency room, as they've done to me. Solid room air fresheners are a great alternative. Their scents don't travel as far as heated oil vapors, which are loaded with solvents like benzene so they don't clog the dispersal jets in their containers. It's very harmful, like tobacco smoke. Food odors, OTOH, are simply obnoxious. Not a health hazard. Tenants should have a fundamental right to healthy air inside their apartment, no matter where they live. That right should not be superseded by tenants who feel they have the right to pollute everyone else's air with toxins.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Would it solve the problem for existing buildings? No. My point was that a change in the building code could eliminate the problem in all new construction. That was my original point... that modifying building codes could resolve the problem in the future. You have to start somewhere, and that is the only thing that would truly resolve the problem. Even when you are not allowed to smoke in a building, as you have indicated other odors/chemicals still present problems. Anti-smoking laws only resolve a portion of the problem. Proper building codes would resolve the ENTIRE problem for all new construction.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I'd sure as heck rather put up with the smell of room freshener than Chorizo!!>> Chorizo is not on trial here!! (Someone had to do it)
Originally Posted By Mr X Just how many milliseiverts of crap per second does smoking contribute, anyway? The fewer, the better, I would guess! But for now I guess the radiation from my cigarette ain't so bad.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The chorizo smell doesn't cause asthma. The chorizo smell doesn't cause cancer. The chorizo smell doesn't put a porphyric in the hospital. Any further stupid questions?" Take it from someone with my vast and wildly varied experience on these boards, going on ten years now. You might want to soften your approach just a little.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Proper building codes would resolve the ENTIRE problem for all new construction.>> I agree with that, definitely. But I'm also realistic enough to recognize that capitalism still prevails in this country -- money talks -- and the construction and real estate lobby will never let this happen. They want cheap cheap super cheap construction to maximize their profits, and I don't think government will ever enact building codes to take that away from them. At least, not in San Francisco, where most of the Board of Supervisors have professional dealings in real estate and development.
Originally Posted By betsyconnolly Oh give me a break, are you next going to tell parents they can't give their children soft drinks in parks because its not good for them, or fat people they cant eat certain foods etc etc. I don't want the government in my life that much nor do I want law enforement spending time on these stupid laws, lets fine the smokers while the drug dealers rage on.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Many communities have had very sensible (in my opinion) debates as to what should be served in the concession stands at parks. As to drug dealers...they aren't allowed in my parks so I'm not sure what the genesis is of that argument unless it is just a crazy overreaction.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 There's a line to be drawn someplace, and I don't know where it is. A year ago, Michigan banned smoking in all indoor places of business, including bars and restaurants. The proponents of this initiative were the usual crowd: squawky conservative politicians; academics who are under pressure to keep high profiles; public health officials who need to DO SOMETHING to justify their jobs. Their pitch was based on the [arguably questionable] effects of second-hand smoke and the right of every person to work in a non-hazardous environment. I'm wondering why they didn't take their initiative further. Following their logic, shouldn't they have also outlawed dry-cleaning shops? And given that a certain percentage of Michigan residents suffers from xeroderma, shouldn't they have banned all outdoor summer-time concert venues from operating? Restrict Jimmy Buffet and Kid Rock and The Disco Revue to performing only in dark arenas in Michigan. After all, someone who grew up dreaming of being a ticket-taker might not be able to work in Michigan's July sunshine. In the year that the smoking ban has been in effect, bar and restaurant business in this economically devastated state has plummeted. Income from a state-run bar-played electronic keno game has tanked, which has severely cut funding for public schools. Liquor sales are down, which further cuts into the state's decimated income. And a ton of bartenders who didn't mind the smoking in the first place have lost their jobs due to lack of business. The politicians who sponsored the bill pose as heroes, the professors got their 15 minutes, and the public health officials are moving on to some new glitzy campaign that continues to ignore the most pressing health issues that Michigan citizens face. But -- YAY! -- we now have a smoking ban that will protect all of us!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Living in Florida we have had the clean indoor air act now for at least 15 years or more. I have to say, anytime I travel and I encounter smoke it is nearly a shock to my system and is most certainly unpleasant. I understand people don't necessarily buy the second hand smoke argument but my quality of life is better without being subjected to the smoke and for that I am happy. And, my children who have allergies by and large have avoided many of the situations I encountered in my youth with smoke in bowling alleys, skating rinks, restaurants, airplanes, etc.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I am one that doesn't buy into the "second hand smoke" disaster tape, but I do know that I hate the smell of a room that contains cig. smoke. I did even when I was a smoker. So I can surely understand and sympathize with someone that tells me that. If, however, they start to cough when they are no closer then 25 ft. away...outdoors, then I start to doubt the sincerity of the situation. Then it becomes a power play and it almost makes me want to light up a cigarette again just to blow smoke in their face. OK, done with my Rambo...Oops! I mean ramble.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If people can agree that a fresly cut lawn a few doors down could cause someone with allergies to be impacted then why is it hard to believe that a smoker within the proximity of a nonsmoker...even outdoors...wouldn't have a similar effect?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Wisconsin has had the smoking ban for the last two years and it's quite nice I must say. However, if the smoking ban wasn't in place, I would then exercise my right as a consumer and not eat or drink at said resturant or bar.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think the issue then because restaurants/bars being sued for not providing safe, healthy work conditions.
