Tobacco Documents Online

U3- U8- 93 1!5; SU 02U1 466 6'uU2 AACu ASSuCIATES Indoor Aa: '~'aking' showers and baths ever) ila% ;wp~ your entire body clean andl healthy. But u-hat, if sonn:: -t on Sundays you could only wash your face, and on r1ondL., ~,. _,d on Tuesdays your back attdl on Wednesdays your lees. an.: _.. .: . :ur chest, and on Fcidays your stomach and on Saourcl3y., -_sr This is not a very efficient way of keeping clean and hea'lthy. Yet suth, a piecemeal approach is exactly how the EPA is choosiing to adt.iresss the disturbing problem of clearRing wp indck~r aiir a;- d protecting our health. Iwlgny of us work -- or kno%% . sr.mneone u h,, k otki .- in! a"sick building," a building where the combination uf pcn)r air circulation, germs and chemicals causc illness, Many of us: are all too famili:;r u ith the llitany, of syntptorns -- eye, nose and throat irntation, hraaiii.hes~ lcthamgy; occasional dizziness; fatigue; nausea; and the inabiliity to conc.cntratc, And we have spaculatedl with curiosity arnd ati least a tinge of panic. abcwt whether an acute or chronic illness -- our own or that of a co-worker -- rn'tghil be due toa sick builMing, Sit k buuldings pose a rml anj' aruw ina healtih problem. And curing them effectively requires a c;mf+rrhensirz .,olution. Unfortunately, the EPA continues to approach the problem of sick buildings,on, a picacemea} basis, concentrating on particular pollutants rather than the civetall problem. It iis surp'risingtltat thrEPAadopuA thicstrate~gy since groups such as the Total Indoor Environmental ()ualit} ('o:3lition (TIEQ) havc disccaverod that in, only a few cases has .cirntific evidcncc identified a single causal agent Iinkuig adverse health effects tt) p.)o'r iindcxir air quality. Now the Califormia! legislature is following thce rnt;guicitzi li'ati of EPA in its crnnsidrration of environmental tobacco stnnl:c (F_T5). t=>th;.-r state legiclatures could f,ollow. Currently, the EPA is focus,ng on the issuo of the daw. environmental tobacco smoke. While~ politically ap,pe.aline as 4 .:7_::_ ~Te foLtts on envinonmentall tinhacco smoke diverts attentiwnfnorn so~jl,:::_:.__ -- ~~r: si~r:cantandpotentially dttngerous problents of imdtx~,r 3ir au-,_1it. A rt• icw of 203 air qttaLity investigations of schools. health :arz f,,: iliries,, and govzrntrtertt and husirness offices condtuctt:d'by tlar Nattonal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIGSH); r_o, t:aled that inadeqNate % entilation was the major source of complaints abuut air qutalit,, . This was confirnnei by an October 1991 Gcsvernnient Account Office (,G:AO'), relNnrt th.ut statul, "Correcting ventilation problenns...can, reduce indoor air problems naorc ilwicl:ly and' extensively than trying to idktntify and contirci intiiv, idtcall indoor pollutaaits." ® uU7

03• uk- 93 15': 51, 12-w2 4166 6002 APCiu AS'SOCD.ATES Let's not let pallicy makers use a lniccemcal approach and the public's general distaste for tobacco sntokv as a jµstyCcation for hacking away from, their origi.nall commitment tc. examine the problem of indoor air quality, in its enta.rety . How can we develop a cw,mFrehtnsV.;: ti,)luti(,n to the problem of indoor air qW.ality, and what shouidthz soL:zion be:' 1) Undertake more stwies to drtermiinz the ef'fec:t of the full range of indoor pollutants on our hz;tillh. Current information is limited and research is naadr difficulrt fn1 thc number of factors -- the ppllutants themselves~, the ventilation of builiding~s. and each individual's different reaction to indoor rnvironrnental ccmditirun, that must be studied. Without more intense ticientitic rzscarch, any solution that limits or bans ai cLrtain pollutant is of quzstionahlz zflfd<.tiveness antd may cost companios millions of dollars of unnecessas}, expense. 2) Encourage business and industry tr.) bc ~oncerncxd with their sick buildings' ventiilation~ sy stvnrs anull the inipact on their worlters' health. New buildings and their, heating. ventilation and air conditioning systems can bz: constntctedi tluau tal.r environmental and indoor air quality into account with tht assistancr ofnew proven, low cost technologies. 3) Insist that govarninenrt hodul oft costly regulations until a tot.all approach can be devclup<:.li by the Occupationali Health and Safety Administrdtion ~ OSHA1 to seti stanrlards for tcntail indoor air qtuality. Once these standards asc set,, ind'ividtual'l businesses should be allowed to mcct them in ways that best suit tihzir pa,ticular situations. Studies show that allowing fllzxih,ilhty to improvz ezneral air quality in a variet'y, of ways is far less costle- t~han hatiing retnotr: authorities impose uniform responses to:part~ii:ular polliutarut,. At this tiine when we are all fckusinE' on innprcuving our outdoor environment, let's remember that uttost pr.oplr spend y(i percenti of their time indbors. Let's make sure that public policy far improving our inrioor enviironment is as eflf icient as pbst,ible. Dwight Ti;. Ix.e Raonsey Professor of Economics University of Oeorgia