Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> Protection from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. Policy recommendations. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> control odour,63which per se is not an indicator The International Standards Organization (ISO) <br /> of the level of toxins in the air because these is drafting a recommended standard ISO 16814 w <br /> levels may be high even without a strong odour on ventilation and tobacco smoke prepared by <br /> of tobacco smoke. Even higher ventilation rates Technical Committee ISOM 205 on building <br /> would be required to eliminate toxins, which is environment design. However, policy-makers <br /> the only safe option for health. These ventila- need to be aware that the ISO standards have r <br /> tion levels are neither physically practical nor been heavily influenced bytobacco industry lob- <br /> economically feasible. In order to eliminate the bying in the past.6 In addition, the present draft <br /> toxins in SHS from the air, so many air exchanges of ISO 16814, while recognizing that "no realistic <br /> would be required that it would be impractical, combination of ventilation and filtration will <br /> uncomfortable and unaffordable. 65 provide a reasonably safe environment where w <br /> smoking is permitted ,,70 creates the illusion <br /> Similarly, neither central nor local aircleaning that ventilation may prevent recirculation or <br /> devices can reduce the levels of toxins from SHS movement of air from designated smoking areas w <br /> in indoor air to safe levels. The performance of into non-smoking areas. The 2005ASHRAE posi- _ <br /> these devices also usually declines over time tion statement, not the present draft of the ISO <br /> because they require high and expensive levels 16814 standard, reflects the best available cur- <br /> of maintenance, and they may even become rent scientific evidence on ventilation and SHS. ¦ <br /> sources of indoor air pollution. The "one pass" <br /> systems advocated by the tobacco industry and One particular ventilation-based approach pro- <br /> its allies do not re-circulate air and therefore moted by tobacco companies, and which some <br /> are much more expensive to operate because jurisdictions have accepted in specific settings, <br /> outdoor air has to be continuously heated or particularly bars and restaurants, is the impte- <br /> cooled. In any case, these systems do not reduce mentation of smoking areas separated from <br /> tobacco smoke to safe levels.66,67 non-smoking areas by physical barriers and <br /> with separate ventilation systems. These so- <br /> Despite decades of pressure from the tobacco called "designated smoking rooms," (DSRs), <br /> industry, 68 the American Society of Heating, with exhaust of air to the outside, isolated return <br /> Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers air, and negative pressurization in relation to <br /> (ASHRAE), the leading professional standards- adjoining spaces, have been designed and test- <br /> setting organization in the United States on ed for the degree of protection provided. Based <br /> ventilation, no longer provides recommended on existing literature, such rooms may reduce <br /> standards forventilation when tobacco smoking but not eliminate the exposure to SHS inside <br /> is present. In its 2005 environmental tobacco the DSR. In addition, DSRs do not eliminate <br /> smoke' (ETSI position document, ASHRAE con- non-smokers' exposure to second-hand smoke <br /> cludes, "At present, the only means of effective- in adjacent spaces, 71, 72 offer no protection to <br /> ly eliminating [the] health risk associated with workers required to work in them, and may also <br /> indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity."59 Intensify exposure of smokers to SHS, thus <br /> The position document also states, "Because of increasing risks to their health.73 For example, <br /> ASHRAE's mission to act for the benefit of the the door to the designated smoking room can <br /> public, it encourages elimination of smoking act as a pump moving smoke out of the room <br /> in the indoor environment as the optimal way when people enter and leave the room. <br /> to minimize ETS exposure." <br /> f The Cat/EPA used the term 'environmental tobacco smoke IETSI in its report. WHO prefers the terms second-hand tobacco smoke" <br /> or "involuntary smoking." ALL three terms are synonymous. <br /> <br /> <br /> r <br /> e <br />