Supplementary memorandum by Dr Andrew
Geens (SP 17A)
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to
comments made during the evidence gathering session on Thursday
20 October 2005.
In the first instance I think that it would
be useful to clarify my credentials. I am a Senior Lecturer at
the University of Glamorgan. I am a Chartered Engineer. I have
been a Fellow of the Institute of Healthcare Engineering and Estate
Management since 1993 and a Member of the Chartered Institution
of Building Services Engineers, (formerly the Institute of Heating
and Ventilating Engineers), since 1991.
My primary academic role is as Award Leader
for the BEng (Hons) Building Services Engineering. This Award
is one of only ten such courses in the UK accredited by the Chartered
Institution of Building Services Engineers. Earlier this year
the University received a national award (The Happold Brilliant
Award) for excellence in teaching Building Services Engineering.
My PhD thesis, (a peer reviewed publication),
involved the development of new ventilation techniques with a
view to improving indoor air quality. The research was conducted
between 1995 and 2000 whilst I was a full time member of staff,
so the PhD was funded by the University of Glamorgan.
Given these credentials, I include ventilation
and indoor air quality in listings of staff "know-how"
provided by the University for knowledge transfer purposes, with
a view to providing consultancy services on a commercial basis.
As it may be pertinent, I have attached the Conclusions and Further
Work Chapter of my PhD. It is only six pages long. Please note
that this was written and submitted in May 2000, two and a half
years before I conducted my first site study into ventilation
systems in pubs, (the Manchester Airport pub referred to in the
evidence session).
I would like to take the opportunity to respond
specifically to comments made in the evidence session referred
to above.
Q73. Charlotte Atkins to Dr Edwards
Dr Edwards refers to a study of 60 pubs in Manchester.
He is no more specific than that, but he may be referring to the
Study conducted by Jo Carrington at Manchester Metropolitan University.
I am not aware of any other study. The study carried out by Jo
Carrington was carried out in 60 pubs in Manchester, and her findings
should be of interest to you, even if it is not the study referred
to by Dr Richard Edwards.
A paper was published in the refereed journal
Indoor and Built Environment in 2005, entitled "The Contribution
of Environmental Tobacco Smoke to Indoor Pollution in Pubs and
Bars". The authors are Ivan Gee, Adrian Watson and Joanna
Carrington.
The final paragraph of the paper reads as follows
"The effectiveness of ventilation methods in controlling
ETS levels in pubs and bars appears from this study to
be limited . . . A study involving a larger number of pubs
and with a more detailed characterisation of the ventilation systems
is required to determine the effectiveness of ventilation strategies
for controlling ETS in these environments.
Q75. Charlotte Atkins to Dr Edwards
Dr Edwards is correct that the monitoring at
the Airport Hotel was from 10.00 am to 8.00 pm. The study was
designed in consultation with the brewery and pub management.
Their advice was that the pub was busier during
the day than in the evening. At the end of the four day study
period I was not satisfied that we had captured data for the pub
at its busiest. The management team had been confident that in
the week leading up to Christmas they would be very busy with
local firms having Christmas lunch outings. This did not turn
out to be the case. Consequently I left my monitoring equipment
in the pub for another week to include Christmas Eve. My report
included data for a continuous 48 hour period covering 23 and
24 December. If you would like to see the full report I can make
it available.
Q76. Charlotte Atkins to Dr Edwards
None of my studies have been funded by a tobacco
company. I find the implication that if a study is funded by industry
there must be a conflict of interest a bit surprising as according
to the University of Manchester website, they receive £7.5
million in research funding from UK industry and commerce.
In response to Dr Edwards remarks on other ventilation
studies I would refer to my response to Q73.
Dr Edwards also refers to the cost of ventilation
systems. Whether people are smoking or not, all populated buildings
require ventilation under current Health and Safety legislation,
suggesting to me that ventilation is effective. Dr Edwards mentions
a figure of £15,000 as an example of how expensive it can
be. He might be interested to know that in a recently refurbished
pub in the centre of Cardiff, £140,000 was spent on the ventilation
system.
I think that I have addressed the points raised
by Dr Edwards. If you would like further information please let
me know.
I note from the full proceedings from the evidence
session, that you are interested in receiving evidence on ventilation
performance and that comments are being made by people who have
no apparent expertise in this area. From my credentials above
I would hope that you consider that I have the necessary expertise.
If you would like to draw on a wider circle of expertise, I would
not claim to be unique in my expertise, perhaps you would like
to refer to the recently published, (October 2005), REHVA Guidebook—Ventilation
and Smoking. This Guidebook is peer reviewed and includes
four of my recent studies. REHVA is the Federation of European
Heating and Air-conditioning Association, drawing on 29 European
countries for its membership.
November 2005
| 
