My degrees are in chemistry and biochemistry. I've been reading scientific journals regularly for career-related reasons since about 1994 or so, and I've authored or co-authored a small stack of my own papers.

Most of my postdoctoral experience is dealing with aerosolized weaponry. Part of my job involves building detectors, and when you build a detector you need to know something about what the permissible dosage is for the agent of interest. So I read a lot of (publically-available) medical literature, and provide recommendations to other people in the U.S. military's research wing.

You also have to know your baselines and how much they vary. How much pollen is in the air? Soot? Dirt? Etc. Given all of that, what does your "danger" warning look like, given that a weapon alert is very costly and alarming? I've spoken with the EPA and other sources on this topic, attended several conferences on the topic, and I frequently represent my group within the military on topics related to biochemistry. I'm pretty well-read on indoor air as well-- the people who run airports, stadiums, train stations, and the like would like to have reliable detectors for dangerous substances as well, and indoor air is a wholly different beast in terms of composition.

Do you believe smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke anywhere but outside, or in their homes? Where does it end then? If I am offended by my neighbor's barbecue grill, because he grills tripe on it and it stinks a cloud into my yard? I am not saying I agree/disagree, but like Amaranthe I think smokers are really demonized.

I've already stated elsewhere in this thread that I'm fine with people smoking outdoors or in private. The former for dosage reasons (outdoor air dilutes the smoke rapidly), and the latter because I have no problem with smokers (or anyone... I'm in favor of the right to die as well) making hazardous decisions for themselves. Secondhand smoke in public places (my office, etc.) makes it my problem, though.

As for "where does it end?", there's any number of examples where the government decides on acceptable and unacceptable levels of pollutants. As long as they use similar methodologies across the board (the 25000+ annual deaths attributed to secondhand smoke certainly qualifies), there isn't any case for "demonizing".

I agree there's considerable social demonizing, but that's not science's job to police.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com