Talk:Sick building syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

place of work?[edit]

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)

Tobacco Industry Creation?[edit]

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)

According to the referenced article that's not the case. It uses word "embraced". So the term or syndrome existed before and industry just said that there's more to indoor air pollution than smoke. -edit : this response was on the assumption that "but" above is actually "by" since otherwise the sentence doesn't make any sense.
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)

Image[edit]

Example of good (right) and bad (left) ventilation

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)
Indeed, isn't one drawing air in, the other out? Both are needed for ventilation of any space. You can't ventilate if old air isn't drawn out, and you can't ventilate if new air isn't drawn in. This image is very misleading. DILNN1 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The picture shows an unnecessarily dangerous method of tracing airflow, and is irrelevant to this article. Reify-tech (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Green-Project.org[edit]

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.

Resources for the article[edit]

This is a place to list reliable resources for the page which have not been incorporated yet. Feel free to cut or strike as they are used, and list others, but be brief.

II | (t - c) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mold[edit]

Potentially deadly mold? Really? I'll believe that when I see a source, and the current citation leads to a 404 error. Removing until then. 74.250.134.125 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Critical Questions[edit]

I deleted the critical question portion. I did not find any value in it and seemed to discredit the rest of the article without sufficient citations.. Furthermore it seemed to go against the following wikipedia policy as it came across as a controversy subsection.

"Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies,
or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. 
Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, 
fairly, proportionately, and without bias. [1]"

Until citations can be applied and the portion re-written I don't see any point in maintaining it. Xphill64x (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)