It seems everyone is talking about the environment these days. Yet, you don't seem to hear much about the environment indoors. Considering how much time most people spend inside, it makes sense to give some thought to the air quality within your home.
Believe it or not, air inside a house can have two to five times the allergens and pollutants than outdoor air, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
"Ironically, the problem is due in large part to the efficiencies of today's home," says Victor Flynn, National Marketing Manager for the Panasonic Home & Environment Company. "With all the advancements in home building, new and remodeled homes are increasingly air tight, which is good in terms of saving energy. However, it's important to maintain proper ventilation to avoid any harm-ful effects from trapped dust, mold and chemical fumes."
Flynn is offering some simple steps to help protect your home and family. Here are a few of the most common indoor irritants and how to deal with them:
* Excessive Moisture: Moisture in walls, ceilings, carpets and furniture, or poorly maintained humidifiers, dehumidifiers and air conditioners can not only have negative health effects but can cause structural damage to a home. To prevent moisture problems, frequently empty water trays in air conditioners, dehumidifiers, and refrigerators. Also, clean and dry or remove water-damaged carpets and install and use fans vented to the outdoors in kitchens and bathrooms.
* Cigarette Smoke: By now, most people are aware of the potential side effects of cigarette smoke. Homes with one or more smokers may have particle levels several times higher than outdoor levels. One obvious solution is to not allow smoking in your house. If smoking indoors can't be avoided, increase ventilation in the area where smoking occurs and open windows or use an exhaust fan.
* Allergens: Microscopic particles that irritate allergies and asthma can become trapped in rugs, carpeting, furniture fabric and float free in the air. Integrating a quality ventilation system can remove a large measure of these contaminants.
* Other Pollutants: Paints, solvents, and other chemicals should not be stored in the house, but rather in a garage or shed. If the garage is attached, make sure there is an airtight seal between the home and garage.
In the past, many people were reluctant to install ventilation fans because they were noisy and intrusive, but technology has come a long way. For example, Panasonic's Whisper Green line of ventilation fans are not only are quiet, but up to 460 percent more energy efficient than minimum Energy Star requirements. They even come with designer grille options that allow consumers to match their home's decor.
"Even with the soft housing market, homeowners continue to show a high interest in green build-ing standards," adds Flynn. "By using simple, affordable solutions, consumers can contribute to environmentally conscious building and, perhaps more importantly, protect themselves from harm-ful indoor air pollutants."
For more information about how to improve your home's indoor air quality, visit www.epa.gov/iaq or www.Panasonic.com/ventfans.
In this case the group unsurprisingly isn't interested in government regulation of the tobacco industry, preferring instead to let the market place dictate policies addressing tobacco and it's use.
So while the information provided by it might appear on it's face to be objective, some more research and/or supporting evidence would be necessary in order to take it's claims at face value.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/
Health Effects of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke EPA) -
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html
Secondhand Smoke Facts (University of Minnesota: University of Minnesota) -
http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html
Secondhand smoke will kill you, same as just smoking it yourself. Go spread the FUD elsewhere.
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher:
The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23399
They are using the wrong standard to compare the results to. The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.
The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!
See my comments on the link below
Michelle
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/366678/stanford_explores_health_risks_of_smoking.html?page=2
This from Stanford university ... again, with the windows opened, the results were just like a bar pre smoking ban ...not a bad situation, at all. Particularly since bars pre ban were already using lots of air changes. Dave K
Further, the EPA standard for ambient OUTSIDE air is NOT established for instantaneous readings or even readings averaged over 8 hours. The EPA standard for ambient OUTSIDE air is established for an average over 3 years! Why did the "scientists" at Stanford University choose the wrong standard to compare the results of the study to? Why did the "scientists" at Stanford University not provide a control sample of respirable particulates in cars WITHOUT smoking? Do they imaging that only respirable particulates from tobacco smoke are harmful? That particulate from ordinary vehicle exhaust are "vitamin-packed" and good for your health? To all smokers and their children. Congratulations! You are NOT part of the 640 % increase in the incidence of childhood asthma that has occurred in direct correlation with the decrease in the smoking rate of the general population! http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm To all others: Try getting a life instead of wasting your time, try.
There is only one problem with this whole study! It ain't science! The standard to which the particulate matter is being compared to is for outside ambient air. The EPA sets the quality standard for OUTSIDE air very high. Why? Well its because outside air is the mother of inside air! Fine respirable particulate in outside air cannot be easily vented from inside an enclosed space (like a home). It tends to accumulate and concentrate in inside air. The reasonable standard for INSIDE air quality is the standard established by OSHA for workplaces. This standard is for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) and includes unspecified dusts and smoke. The standard for respirable particulate is a time-weighted average over a period of 8 hours. The standard for respirable particulate for inside air is 5000 ug/m3. Further, the EPA standard for ambient OUTSIDE air is NOT established for instantaneous readings or even readings averaged over 8 hours.