Talk:Sick building syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] place of work?
Does the building have to be a 'place of work'? Well, if you define 'work' broadly enough, I suppose so. But one can suffer from SBS whilst lying in one's own bed in ones own bedroom in ones own home. This would not normally be considered a place of work, until someone, e.g. a builder, came along to do some work in it.
- It depends on the source. The EPA definition refers to "occupants of a building," the UK's National Health Service refers to people in particular buildings and adds "most commonly...employed in large office buildings," and this OSU fact sheet refers to "symptoms of people in specific buildings." The Merck Manual defines it as affecting only workers in a building, not residents. Mecdicinenet.com claims that it's synonymous with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), which is supported by the wikipedia article on that topic, but I think that's dubious, and wikipedia's MCS article doesn't provide a source supporting that. -Agyle 08:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tobacco Industry Creation?
I heard that Sick building syndrome was invented but the Tobacco Industry to cover up the dangers of passive smoking. Just an observation. Australian Reference --Z o l t a r 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- That was my understanding too. Although I guess some buildings really do have (non-smoking) features that are less than healthy. Anyway, it looks like you're more au fait with sources, so it'd be cool if you could edit to this effect. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps at its time of invention that was the case, but its been a long time since smoking was allowed in many of the public buildings in the United States. Most of the Sick Building Syndrome cases come from Microbial Contaminaion of the HVAC, poor Air Flow and people allergic to VOC from things like plastics and carpets. Stoppay 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image
Could someone comment on the image shown in this article ? Why is it supposed to have something to do with the sick building syndrome? --Abdull 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Also, could someone explain why one is good and the other is bad? Just that photo is not explicative. --CrazyTerabyte 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- dito. Because nobody can explain the image, I'll put it here. Micha 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
i think it was the opposite way at first,good ventilation left,bad ventilation right. i can guess what it means.it doesn't mean that if sometimes the air goes in and sometimes the air goes out there is a problem but that there is a 'lake' of stagnant air caused by the openings and walls of the building with no aircleaners
[edit] Green-Project.org
The Google Map of green/sick buildings doesn't appear to say anywhere on it that that is its purpose. In fact, it seems to be about whether a site is contributing to global warming. 84.92.175.243 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the linked site is probably not intended to be used in the way the article was suggesting. I think the link was likely added in good faith, but the purpose of the site might have been misunderstood. To keep any well-intentioned Wikipedians from contributing potentially unwanted data points to green-project.org, I've removed the link pending a response from the proprietors. If they have no problem with their site being used as described, I'll put it back in. In the meantime, the deleted text is included below. Cecilkorik 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A public built Green / Sick Building Google Map is now live for individuals to mark potentially harmful buildings.
Bold text
