THE RIGHT TO HEALTHY INDOOR AIR

[Guest guest]

THE RIGHT TO HEALTHY INDOOR AIR: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

From: Topix.Net, Aug. 24, 2008

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/ht081224.htm#The_Right_To_Healthy_Indoor_Air_World_Health_Organization

[introduction: This anonymous blog posting offers an interesting setof principles aimed at establishing a human right to clean indoor air.

It is derived from a report on indoor air published by the WorldHealth Organization in 2000. The blog post says there is a longerarticle available on the web at http://twusea.org/blog/2008/08/22/the-right-to-healthy-indoor-air/ but the server at twusea.org doesnot respond. In any case, it's an interesting set of principles.]

The principles below derive from the fundamental principles in thefields of human rights, biomedical ethics and ecologicalsustainability, and focus on interactions among them.Principles

Principle 1 -- Under the principle of the human right to health,everyone has the right to breathe healthy indoor air.

Principle 2 -- Under the principle of respect for autonomy ("self-determination"), everyone has the right to adequate information aboutpotentially harmful exposures, and to be provided with effective meansfor controlling at least part of their indoor exposures.

Principle 3 -- Under the principle of non-maleficence ("doing noharm"), no agent at a concentration that exposes any occupant to anunnecessary health risk should be introduced into indoor air.

Principle 4 -- Under the principle of beneficence ("doing good"), allindividuals, groups and organizations associated with a building,whether private, public, or governmental, bear responsibility toadvocate or work for acceptable air qualityfor the occupants.

Principle 5 -- Under the principle of social justice, thesocioeconomic status of occupants should have no bearing on theiraccess to healthy indoor air, but health status maydetermine specialneeds for some groups.

Principle 6 Under the principle of accountability, all relevantorganizations should establish explicit criteria for evaluating andassessing building air quality and its impact on the health of thepopulation and on the environment.

Principle 7 -- Under the precautionary principle, where there is arisk of harmful indoor air exposure, the presence of uncertainty shallnot be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures toprevent such exposure.

Principle 8 -- Under the "polluter pays" principle, the polluter isaccountable for any harm to health and /or welfare resulting fromunhealthy indoor air exposure(s). In addition, the polluter isresponsible for mitigation and remediation.

Principle 9 -- Under the principle of sustainability, health andenvironmental concerns cannot be separated, and the provision ofhealthy indoor air should not compromise global or local ecologicalintegrity, or the rights of future generations.

Document -- http://www.euro.who.int/document/e69828.pdfEasily add maps and directions to your online party invites. Click to learn how.

[Guest guest]

,

Did you know that there are oxygen vending machines in Asia?

They are in very polluted urban areas.

Terry Gilliam's dystopian sci-fi film " Brazil " depicted a privatized

air utility.

*Scary*

> THE RIGHT TO HEALTHY INDOOR AIR: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

>

>

>

> From: Topix.Net, Aug. 24, 2008

>

>

>

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/ht081224.htm#The_Right_To_Healthy_Indoor_Air_Wo\

rld_Health_Organization

>

[Guest guest]

Indoor environmental pollution, at the point which it becomes a

problem, is simply one of trespass on the bodies of individuals by

pollutants. The problem with the principles elucidated is that they

violate the right of property while weakening the rights against

trespass, force and fraud.

Principle 1 - Where does this right come from? How is it to be

ensured,? Who is to ensure it? This violates private property.

Principle 2 - While this affirms that fraud is in opposition to

natural rights, again, the burden for this information is being placed

entirely upon the property owner - what of other polluters?

Principle 3 - Who enforces? Is it possible to keep out all pollutants?

See #2

Principle 4 - How is this responsibility apportioned? Why is

additional responsibility placed upon innocent building owners and

innocent occupants?

Principle 5 - This is meaningless. A building in an inner-city

environment will have a higher pollutant load than a building in a

pristine one. Should the inner-city building owner be forced to

install a filtration system that the other owner is not?

Principle 6 - What organizations does this refer to? Meaningless.

Principle 7 - Who does this apply to? The owner? The tenant? The

visitor? The janitor? Again, vague and meaningless.

Principle 8 - Exactly who is " the polluter " in this scenario? In

addition to the above, external factors cause pollution that makes its

way into buildings. How is this " payment " to be apportioned?

Principle 9 - Complete gibberish. None of the terms in the principle

are defined.

I propose, instead, two principles;

Principle 1 - The building owner is responsible to determine all

reasonable and appropriate actions to control the environment within

his property;

Principle 2 - The building owner is responsible to disclose any and

all conditions within the building which may cause pollution trespass

upon the bodies of building occupants.

Vince Daliessio CIH

>

>

> THE RIGHT TO HEALTHY INDOOR AIR: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

>

> From: Topix.Net, Aug. 24, 2008

>

>

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/ht081224.htm#The_Right_To_Healthy_Indoor_Air_Wo\

rld_Health_Organization

> [introduction: This anonymous blog posting offers an interesting

setof principles aimed at establishing a human right to clean indoor air.

> It is derived from a report on indoor air published by the

WorldHealth Organization in 2000. The blog post says there is a

longerarticle available on the web at

http://twusea.org/blog/2008/08/22/the-right-to-healthy-indoor-air/ but

the server at twusea.org doesnot respond. In any case, it's an

interesting set of principles.]

> The principles below derive from the fundamental principles in

thefields of human rights, biomedical ethics and

ecologicalsustainability, and focus on interactions among them.Principles

> Principle 1 -- Under the principle of the human right to

health,everyone has the right to breathe healthy indoor air.

> Principle 2 -- Under the principle of respect for autonomy

( " self-determination " ), everyone has the right to adequate information

aboutpotentially harmful exposures, and to be provided with effective

meansfor controlling at least part of their indoor exposures.

> Principle 3 -- Under the principle of non-maleficence ( " doing

noharm " ), no agent at a concentration that exposes any occupant to

anunnecessary health risk should be introduced into indoor air.

> Principle 4 -- Under the principle of beneficence ( " doing good " ),

allindividuals, groups and organizations associated with a

building,whether private, public, or governmental, bear responsibility

toadvocate or work for acceptable air qualityfor the occupants.

> Principle 5 -- Under the principle of social justice,

thesocioeconomic status of occupants should have no bearing on

theiraccess to healthy indoor air, but health status maydetermine

specialneeds for some groups.

> Principle 6 Under the principle of accountability, all

relevantorganizations should establish explicit criteria for

evaluating andassessing building air quality and its impact on the

health of thepopulation and on the environment.

> Principle 7 -- Under the precautionary principle, where there is

arisk of harmful indoor air exposure, the presence of uncertainty

shallnot be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures

toprevent such exposure.

> Principle 8 -- Under the " polluter pays " principle, the polluter

isaccountable for any harm to health and /or welfare resulting

fromunhealthy indoor air exposure(s). In addition, the polluter

isresponsible for mitigation and remediation.

> Principle 9 -- Under the principle of sustainability, health

andenvironmental concerns cannot be separated, and the provision

ofhealthy indoor air should not compromise global or local

ecologicalintegrity, or the rights of future generations.

> Document -- http://www.euro.who.int/document/e69828.pdf

> _________________________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

New York City had oxygen bars where you could go for a drink and a

nasal canula hook up to tanks under the bar for multiple patrons. As a

way to get high for some... and no concept of the issues involved.

Insanity.

Barb Rubin

>

> ,

>

> Did you know that there are oxygen vending machines in Asia?

> They are in very polluted urban areas.

>

> Terry Gilliam's dystopian sci-fi film " Brazil " depicted a privatized

> air utility.

>

> *Scary*

>

[Guest guest]

I use oxygen medicinally but in the case I cited, it was simply a fad.

And is not going to increase wellness in bar patrons plying

themselves with alcohol :-)

Oxygen use needs to be weighed pros/cons like any medication. It

releases free radicals at a high rate but is beneficial and even

essential when blood gasses indicate the cells aren't receiving their

fair share of it. Prolonged use requires humidification and some

degree of dilution, depending upon the liters per minute rate.

Given under increased barometric pressure is also designed to deal

with specific problems like wound healing, infections (including

mycoplasma infections), increase brain function post trauma etc.

Against that are risks to hearing and other functions.

Of course, if the air we were breathing weren't so polluted, our

abilities to utilize oxygen at normal levels wouldn't be compromised.

Knowing the particular pollutants is quite important in order to

gauge the appropriate remedies for damage being incurred (and fixing

the problem at the source).

The emphasis upon fixing the damaged person, versus the pollution

source, just continues the cycle of illness.

Barb Rubin

===============================

> > New York City had oxygen bars where you could go for a drink and a

> > nasal canula hook up to tanks under the bar for multiple patrons. As a

> > way to get high for some... and no concept of the issues involved.

> >

> > Insanity.

> >

> > Barb Rubin

[Guest guest]

>

> Terry Gilliam's dystopian sci-fi film " Brazil " depicted a privatized

> air utility.

>

> *Scary*

Uh, no, the main thrust of " Brazil " was that everything was completely

and incompetently controlled by the government, and that any private

initiative to better it was labeled as " terrorism " ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(film)

Vince Daliessio

[Guest guest]

,

The WHO may politicize health issues but that is the inevitable result

of so many countries having permitted industry to commercialize them.

Right now, the highest common denominator (to use your phrase) among

humans determines at what point we are required to cease the

misapplication of the Paracelsus concept (dose makes the poison). It

makes no sense to determine at what point a normal, healthy adult male

will become ill upon exposure to a pure substance under lab

conditions. Reliance upon that same level of exposure when

introducing toxicants into ambient environments, cannot be controlled

for dosage actually received. You can control for the amount

introduced to an environment but not its persistence, cumulative

effects of the multiple routes of absorption (inhalation, ingestion,

dermal absorption etc), combinatorial factors of multiple exposures

occurring simultaneously, and the altered ability of the individual to

continue tolerating the stress of exposure over time as toxicity

effects diminish defenses and cause transient/permanent forms of damage.

If you have ever followed the discussions of environmental medicine

groups regarding at what point pregnant employees might be able to sue

for prenatal damage to their fetuses, there is no surprise in the need

to politicize the issue. After all, the government has delayed the

implementation of the clean air act for how long now? There are

rights involved which industry has meticulously stripped from citizens

(let's not just relegate ourselves to the role of consumers), in

hiding the ingredients of products from primary users and secondary

(collateral) users. Ignorance is bliss - and less subject to liability.

Right now industry determines how much poison we can be subjected to

and medicine takes second place. The courts mediate and sometimes a

slap on the wrist to industry alters practices. The issue of toxicity

from medical intervention (including oxygen administration), is very

well documented because exposure levels can be more easily controlled.

It would be a mistake to transfer that science to the building trades

when identification of toxicity responses cannot be adequately

measured and conflicts of interest abound (just like pharmaceutical

houses hide studies that reflect poorly upon THEIR products).

All we can hope for at this point in time is complete disclosure of

constituent chemicals in our products, accurate measurements of

concentrations within enclosed spaces post applications, as measured

over time, and assessment of residues/mixtures. As opposed to

increasing liability of builders, it would lead to the discovery of

the minimum amounts of such chemicals which are efficacious (versus

convenient or profitable to produce in amounts which are not needed

-e.g. formaldehyde) and the potential harm to consumers . People can

then avoid such dangers or calculate appropriate re-entry times for

occupying residences as primary consumers. Secondary consumers gain

the benefit of studies which examine their danger levels as has been

effectively done in second hand smoke legislation. The number of

lives being saved through that is being well documented at this

time,even by former naysayers from the AMA, as they examine

significant reductions in fatalities in cardiovascular events.

To assume change must be avoided in industry is to say we ought to all

be driving Edsels, rather than have required Ford to begin making

other options to that failure. Resistance to change has led the auto

industry to disaster.

I think WHO is clear on their interpretation of healthy air as

requiring the reduction/elimination of contaminants. I don't think

they are asking for us to somehow increase the amount of ambient

oxygen. As for reducing disease, we are relatively free of malaria

and polio here - yet our health is abominable and we can see the organ

and biochemical damage that results from pollutants. Lifestyle does

not account for the degree of cancer in many with healthy lifestyles

and genetic mutations occur largely after birth from exposures

according to the NIH. Inflammation is a major cause of disease - a

condition generally induced through exposures.

WHO actually set limits for residential levels of toxicants while the

US government merely concentrated upon work environments and levels of

releases from industry in communities (now undisclosed).

Ignorance of our environment is the greatest threat to health.

Biochemistry, if interrupted in its functioning by poisons, is an

adverse effect whether or not the individual is aware of it. The

growth of awareness of the ill effects infers some degree of damage

has been taking place prior to that awareness. Disclosure might

actually reduce litigation since pollution is not illegal. It is the

damage from exposure, usually prolonged because of ignorance, which is

actionable. Ignorance is actually more of a liability to industry

than disclosure, unless amounts are ridiculously high...which is the

inevitable result when efficacy defines the amount of a poison put

into a product. It isn't efficacious if it renders spaces

uninhabitable for the inhabitants it is designed to 'protect' from the

elements.

Back to WHO I guess...FWIW.

Barb Rubin

===========================

>

> Quack:

>

> Be careful what you ask for...too much of a good thing can be deadly.

> Oxygen is toxic in concentrations exceeding 40% by volume. Similarly,

> retinol and ergocalciferol are toxic, but beneficial in low/moderate

doses.

> There is no such thing as a non-toxic chemical. While breathing air

that

> has more oxygen that ³normal² urban air may be beneficial, it is the

other

> crap in urban air that makes most people ill. Adding oxygen to the

mix does

> nothing to limit or reduce the inhalation of the other crap; thus

the root

> cause is not mitigated.

>

> Moreover, this discussion regarding a RIGHT to healthy indoor air is

bunk!

> Define: healthy? When the mere definition of a word has ambiguities,

> therein lies fault and problem. What is healthy for me may not be

healthy

> for you. Do we lower the health-bar to the lowest common denominator?

> There are folks that are more susceptible to bad stuff in the air

than you.

> Do these folks constitute the threshold that determines what is

healthy and

> what is not? There are folks that cannot breath outdoor air in a

pristine,

> non-urban, environment, due to naturally-occurring stuff in the air.

What

> is warranted then?...to provide these folks their ³right?² The WHO

would

> like nothing better than to make everyone equal, in wealth, health, and

> stature.....governed by a bunch of ³more-knowledgeable² bureaucrats.

The

> WHO is an organization that needs to be dealt with at arm¹s length.

While

> the WHO (and the United Nations for that matter) appears to be promoting

> ³rights² they are doing so while also codifying individual rights, and

> limiting those rights to what THEY determine are in YOUR best interests.

> IMHO...I don¹t like others, especially those from outside the U.S.,

telling

> me what my rights are, or telling me what is in my best interests.

The WHO

> would serve us all better by focusing on their chartered mission, to

> mitigate world disease (e.g., polio, malaria, etc.), and stop

politicizing

> individual rights.

>

> For what it is worth....

>

>