Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendent Tim Gallagher is out of town and unable to answer phone calls the day after he banned smoking in all Seattle parks, overriding the recommendation of the parks board. But while I was looking over Gallagher's memo announcing his ban, I found something remarkable. The study he used to justify the ban actually disproves his point.

To show how, consider the recommendations of the parks board of commissioners. At a meeting on February 11, Parks Commissioner Jourdan Keith proposed amending the code of conduct regarding tobacco to—rather than an outright ban, as recommended by Gallagher's staff—prohibiting tobacco use specifically at beaches, play fields, and playgrounds, or within 25 feet of other park visitors. The board, in passing the recommendation three-to-two, was making an important distinction between places where people could be stuck near a smoker (a captive breather) and places where a cigarette's smoke would not effect the park user.

But in an attachment to Gallagher's memo, he justified a ban by citing a document from Seattle & King County Public Health. The "#1" reason stated, "A 2007 Stanford study showed that being next to a person smoking in an outdoor area can expose a non-smoker to levels of pollutants that are similar to a smoky bar. A tobacco free policy helps to ensure that all park-goers breathe clean air."

While that study by Standford University does find that a person in direct proximity to a smoker outdoors exposes them to a high level of smoke ("at distances within 0.5 m of the source"), it doesn't find that a person 25 feet from a smoker is at risk. In fact, the harm disappears at one-quarter that distance. From the abstract by Neil E. Klepeis, Wayne R. Ott, and Paul Switzer:

Outdoor tobacco smoke (OTS) levels in a constant upwind direction from an active cigarette source were nearly zero. OTS levels also approached zero at distances greater than approximately 2 m from a single cigarette. During periods of active smoking, peak and average OTS levels near smokers rivaled indoor tobacco smoke concentrations. However, OTS levels dropped almost instantly after smoking activity ceased.

Gallhager, in citing the Stanford study, is trying to prove that an outright ban is necessary in parks. "The negative health effects of tobacco are well documented," he wrote in his memo. "As an agency that has as a fundamental mission to support the health and wellbeing of Seattle residents, it is appropriate and beneficial to prohibit the use of tobacco products at parks and park facilities. I have decided to retain the language proposed by staff prohibiting smoking, chewing or other tobacco use anywhere on Parks and Recreation property." But the study finds the board's recommendation of 25 feet would have achieved Gallagher's goal, so he was overriding them on false grounds.

But Mayor Mike McGinn supports Gallagher's decision. Asked why, spokesman Mark Matassa says, "Because smoking is not good and there’s all the health reasons Tim laid out in his memo. And his information sheet he sent along with it. That is why he took the action and the mayor supports him."

Really, what's the point of a parks board, which took 239 comments according to park records, deliberated for hours, and proposed amendments—if the parks superintendent cherry-picks irrelevant portions of studies to defy logic and the advice of his board?