Community Conversations

Something’s in the Air

A Position Paper by Dr. Deland S. Anderson Prepared for the Pratt Museum Based on a Community Conversation on 17 October 2003.

It was a relatively small group (only 12 or 15 people) that convened at the Pratt Museum to discuss the issue of clean air. It was also an especially hazy afternoon, with heavy dust or smoke lying over the Bay. And the conversation was more heated than any previously held at this forum.

As facilitator, Anderson introduced the topic of clean air. He highlighted many factors that affect the quality of the air that we breathe in an attempt to heighten awareness of what might be called bad air. We all have an effect upon the atmosphere, and this is true in an indoor environment as well as on a global level. And almost without exception, the effect is negative—that is to say, it depletes the atmosphere. The only benign effect we have upon the air we breathe is simply to breathe it, to convert the oxygen to carbon dioxide and water vapor. But as we all know, even just breathing can be problematic in certain circumstances, as when one is packed into an overstuffed gymnasium at a basketball tournament. That is to say, it happens often enough that too many people breathing in a confined area leads to bad air. This is especially apparent on commercial airliners. The lack of oxygen in the air is only exceeded by the amount of airborne pathogens floating around in the cabin. In this example we see that simply breathing is far from benign when consideration is given to germs. Recently in the Kachemak Bay area we have had an outbreak of pertussis or whooping cough. Though this debilitating disease is easily curtailed through immunization, it is even more easily spread through the air by coughing and the like. Whooping cough is of course but one of numerous common airborne pathogens. Out of courtesy to the group, Anderson made no mention of airborne diseases to the captive audience.

Instead he drew a broader corollary: just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. This helped the group to begin a list of invisible, but harmful changes we effect on the air we breathe. Some of the hidden things we add to the air that may prove debilitating are chemicals (such as benzene produced by the refineries up the Inlet, or what is put in new carpets, or what gives perfumes their kick), exhaust, raw fuel at the pump or on the ground, pesticides, herbicides, etc. We quickly realized that the list is so long, that it is accurate to describe our air as a sort of chemical soup. The group moved on to visible additives to the air that are harmful. Some of them were: cigarette smoke, smoke and ash from slash fires or forest fires, smoke from restaurant kitchen fans, car exhaust (especially from older gasoline engines or diesels), airplane exhaust (especially from the military’s routine touchdowns at the Homer Airport), boat exhaust (especially tankers and other large ships), road dust, volcanic dust, dust distributed worldwide through dust storms, and finally what Anderson referred to as permasmog, that layer of air pollution that now covers the entire globe like a blanket. It was the first item in this list that drew the most attention by far. But before allowing the group to break wide open on the topic of smoking, Anderson drew one more corollary: just because it smells bad doesn’t mean it’s harmful, and just because it smells good doesn’t mean it’s wholesome. He offered only one example to ponder: dryer sheets.

A number of the participants came loaded for bear, as we say, on the topic of smoking in public places. Statistics flew, as both sides cited local as well as national studies. Fur flew too, when individuals saw their livelihood or value system threatened by the arguments or intentions of the other side. The most divisive element of the conversation involved an argument between a proponent of a citywide smoking ban and a restaurant owner. The argument was a bit messy, but it might be summarized as follows: A) Smoking is bad for you. Secondhand smoke is even worse for others. Those subject to secondhand smoke in public places have the right to stop others from fouling their air—what you breathe out, I breathe in, but I don’t want to inhale what you exhale any longer! B) My health is my business, not yours. Secondhand smoke is avoidable in most cases. Go somewhere else if you don’t like the air I’m making. Now, this is a fairly typical argument in our society, if taken in a general sense. It pits social welfare against personal rights. So, for example, if the claim is made that I can’t smoke because it costs the society too much in health care, the counter claim is made that people who eat junk food are just as bad and yet are not subject to criminal prosecution. Then the retort is made that the major issue is secondhand smoke: smokers affect the health of many people beside themselves. Then the counter retort is made that most harm is done in the home and in the car (principally by adults who smoke around children and elders) rather than in public places such as restaurants or bars. Compromise is possible between these two sides if smoking is banned in public places where people are captive, such as on airplanes and other forms of transportation, government offices, and schools, etc. but people are free to light up out doors, in their own homes and cars, and in certain restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. But compromise was not on the mind of the anti-smokers in the group, at least not as a final outcome. Compromise was proposed as a means to win approval of a limited smoking ban initially, to be followed subsequently by total smoking bans, and even criminalization of tobacco use. On the side of smoking advocates, a compromise was proposed as well as an ultimatum. It went like this: A certain restaurant owner who smokes, and who is the only employee in the restaurant will post a sign designating the place as a smoker friendly environment, will prevent minors from entering, and will ban the proponent of the smoking ordinance from her restaurant forever.

This element of the conversation was highly volatile, and at times overwhelmed the more moderate voices. Indeed that night’s argument between the anti-smokers and the pro-smokers is only part of a much larger struggle in our society today. Locally, articles have been penned in the press on the issue, advertisements against smoking have been aired, letters to the editor on both sides are frequent of late, and petitions and surveys have begun to circulate around town. Regionally and nationally, the matter is being fought on much bigger battlegrounds with heavy hitters, big budgets, and high rhetoric. The mood surrounding this topic has become so loaded that most people cannot see beyond the polarization of smoker/non-smoker. It’s a “you’re with us or against us” mentality that is at work on a national level, and locally this war is being waged under the banner “A Sign of the Times.” Interestingly, and thankfully, the extremist voices have not won out in this conversation on the local level. People are still forming their own opinions. Compromises are being floated. Most people seem to feel that smoking is a personal choice, and so long as it does not directly harm others, it is permissible. A large majority support education as the primary means of informing people about the choice to smoke. But this does not mean simply spreading negative messages about smoking to counteract the positive ones people receive. It means really delving into why some people never try smoking, why others do, why some who do quit, and why some try to quit and don’t, and why some never even try to quit.

In the Community Conversation that night at the museum, confessions were offered, compromises proposed, and moderation advised. The consensus was that there are enough smoke free places and events in Homer to avoid having to legislate a ban that would almost certainly put some longstanding establishments out of business in this town. People can choose instead where they want to go to eat or whether cigarette smoke is tolerable under certain circumstances. But, as Anderson pointed out, the choice of whether to light up is not a simple one. For even aside from the issue of secondhand smoke, there is still that matter of tobacco smoke being but one item in a long list of other additives to the air. When you inhale your first drag, you are mixing cigarette smoke in your lungs with all kinds of other smoke and exhaust, dust, chemicals, airborne pathogens, fragrances, permasmog, pollens, molds, etc. The question is how much tobacco smoke is acceptable given a certain “background” of other pollutants.

Some smokers extol the pleasures of puffing away. Whether it’s the relaxation, the metaphysical mystery of holding fire in one’s mouth, the sociality of the act, the sinfulness, or whatever--the fact remains that no one begins to smoke because they are addicted. The fact also remains that some people continue to smoke without addiction or deleterious effects. Though that person may be rare, and largely invisible to us in today’s media, he or she is certainly analogous to the casual or social drinker or user of coffee, alcohol, drugs, chocolate, etc. Perhaps the question should be changed from Are you with us or against us? To What level of smoking is tolerable for each individual and for society overall? This would certainly go a long way toward clearing the air.