| Allergy Consumer Review Issue #61
Editor: Mercia Tapping, President,
Allergy Buyers Club
PLEASE NOTE that references to prices or specials within this archive reflect prices
and market conditions at the time of newsletter publication.
Prices may have changed since publication. |
Dear Everyone
 Sometimes
just when I begin wondering about what to
write about this month, life presents something
which I feel impelled to write about. So
this is why this issue focuses on the dangers
of second-hand smoke. I recently received
an accusatory letter from a no-smoke.org
representative who thought that consumers
might be lulled into complacence that air
cleaners we featured on our site afforded
them complete 100% protection against the
health hazards associated with second-hand
smoke. Since it never occurred to me that
anyone could make that inference from our
web site information, I have published my
reply and also some of their educational
material, if nothing else to prove that
we are actually on the same side of this
issue.
Talking about air purifiers,
the new exclusive to AllergyBuyersClub.com
Blueair
301 air cleaners at $349 with $90 of
free replacement filters have now arrived
in our warehouse. These are a super cost
effective, quiet machine for small offices
and small bedrooms. We love them and so
will you! The new IQAir
HealthPro Compact air purifiers at $595
are now available and are IQAir's answer
to rising prices.
A "snowbird" is someone who
winters in Florida to escape the frozen
North. A "snowflake" is someone who travels
back and forth but is still based up North.
As a wanabee snowflake, I can now opine
with confidence that sunshine is a mood
elevator! It was therefore no surprise to
read in a recent issue of USA Today that
patients in a hospital recovered faster
and use less pain medication when they were
in rooms with more sunshine. For those of
us who are still snow bound in the North
we rely on S.A.D.
Lights and full
spectrum lightbulbs to stave off the
winter blues.
I am doing my snowflake thing this coming
weekend... as you-know-who says, "Bring
It On".
Mercia |
|
In This Issue
Shop Talk
|
|
Miele
Red Velvet - Vacuum Cleaner Review
By Richard Gerardi
Editor's note: Richard
is one of our product specialists but is
well known in our team for preferring nothing
but the best!
 Miele
Red Velvet S558 Hepa Vacuum Cleaner
"If you
have the means, I highly recommend picking
one up".
--
Ferris Bueller
In the movie, Ferris Bueller
wasn't talking about a Miele Vacuum Cleaner,
he was talking about the 1961 Ferrari 250
GT convertible he and his friend Cameron
"borrowed" from Cameron's father, but he
might as well have.
Most people might never consider
purchasing a twelve hundred dollar vacuum.
But if you've ever driven a Mercedes or
BMW or owned a product made by Apple Computer,
you will understand why their owners forked
over the extra bucks and so adamantly stand
by their purchase.
Undying brand loyalty is the
dream of every manufacturer, although accomplished
by few. In order for it to work, the manufacturer
has to offer a product that will exceed
the expectations of the purchaser. Once
you have accomplished that, you've gained
a customer for life, and have created free
word of mouth advertising for your brand
name. Miele has accomplished this in the
vacuum world. The Miele
Red Velvet has positioned itself as
the flagship of the Miele line and is worth
every penny. In this review, I'll try to
stay away from technical mumbo-jumbo and
give you the heads up on why you should
consider spending the money for this wonderful
new machine. After all, it's just a vacuum.
Right?
Think for a moment about the
reasons you don't like to vacuum. I hate
to vacuum, but when I do, I do so in an
obsessive fashion. This past weekend was
one of those cleaning events not to be missed.
Armed only with a Red Velvet loaner, that
I am going to hold on to until someone notices
it's still missing, and my Apple iPod's
voice recorder, I walked around the house
talking to myself while I vacuumed so I
could recap later and write this review.
Gone are the days where you
lug that thirty-pound "jet engine" you call
a vacuum out of the pantry. It doesn't have
to be that way anymore. If you're a smart
shopper, and I know you are, you will do
a little research first and then speak to
one of our product specialists here and
find out exactly what type of machine you
need. The first thing you'll find out is
that good vacuums today offer more effective
suction through better designed tools, less
noise, fingertip controls and HEPA filters
that keep the exhaust from the vacuum from
entering your lungs and making you sick.
The Red Velvet combines the best of these
features in one beautiful looking package
(see the full list of Miele
Red Velvet features)
So we come to the real reason
why the Red Velvet is worth the money: Faster,
quieter, and healthier cleaning.
The Red Velvet is designed
to be extremely user friendly. The well-designed
tools on the machine are readily available
in the smartly designed canister. A big
difference between the Red Velvet and other
machines are the fingertip controls. Once
you've had them, you never go back. There
are seven buttons on the handle. Six of
them control the suction of the vacuum from
high all the way down to off. The last button
turns on the motorized power brush that
cleans your rugs. Picture yourself being
tugged along by a medium sized dog on a
leash.
What this means to you, is
if you have a lot of wall to wall carpeting
like I do, that's less work on your arm.
If you have a combination of wood and carpets,
you just press a button. You only need the
parquet floor brush for delicate wood floors.
If you have a large house, believe me this
will add years to your life. I always wondered
why my mom could beat me at arm wrestling.
All those years pushing a heavy upright
around a 2000 square foot house. The light
on the powerbrush also lets you see under
the bed and couch with great ease to let
you know you've cleaned everything under
there. Also, if you have combinations of
wood floors, area rugs and wall-to-wall
carpeting, you really don't ever have to
change floor tools if you don't want to.
I have all those mentioned above and I only
used the Parquet floor tool included with
the Red Velvet for my tiled kitchen floor.
This is a straight suction floor tool 12"
wide and 2.5" deep, with dual brush
strips and extra long bristles. And even
if you do need to change tools, say for
a ceiling fan, you just tap on a handy foot
release and the powerbrush detaches from
the vacuum. No wires to un-plug or reattach
later. One quick adjustment of the easy
to use telescopic wand and I'm cleaning
the ceiling fan.
Also think of the cost of
the unit verses its price. Price is what
you initially pay for something and cost
is what that unit costs you over its lifespan.
You will have this machine for a long time.
Much longer than that cheap vacuum you bought
at the superstore down the road. You know,
the one that lasted you two years and the
main reason you're reading this review right
now. With cheaper made units, you have repairs,
less efficiency, and ultimately replacement
in a short amount of time. The Miele Red
Velvet uses a 1100 watt 2 fan suction motor
system. What this means to you is that the
vacuum cleaner uses 2 fans in series, creating
more suction than vacuum cleaners using
a one fan system. This also means there
is less stress put on the motor and that
translates to a longer life. That on top
of the fact that Miele engineers build all
their vacuums with top quality and long
lasting parts. Remember, you get what you
pay for.
Happy & healthy cleaning!
http://www.allergybuyersclubshopping.com/miele-vacuum-cleaners-red-velvet.html
http://www.allergybuyersclub.com/vacoverview.html
Quick tip:
For all you Dust
Mite sensitive folks out there: A great
alternative to dust mite encasings on a
bed is to purchase a good home vapor steam
cleaner like the WhiteWing
or Lady
Bug to steam clean your mattress and
vacuum it with your HEPA vacuum after to
suck up anything the steam cleaner has extracted.
If you have multiple beds that need to be
encased, a steam cleaner can be a very economical
alternative and a smart buy since you can
use it for cleaning your kitchen, bathrooms
and more. I personally own the WhiteWing
and love it. Feel free to read my
fun review about this machine.
Top |
Air
Purifiers and Dust Removal
 By
Bob Cobe, AllergyBuyersClub.com staff member
Many customers buy an air
purifier to "remove dust"
from their rooms and are disappointed when
they still see dust.
An air purifier can remove
only the particles that remain airborne
long enough to go into the purifier. The
dust that you and I (and the customers)
see consists of large particles that have
weight, which will cause many of the larger
particles to "land" before they
arrive at the purifier. Some particles will
make it into the machine, but many, many
will not.
Air cleaners work best on
the tiny particles that remain airborne
and float for a long time. These tiny particles,
well below what we can see, are the ones
that pass right through the hairs and mucus
in our noses and lodge in the lungs. They
are the size that bother us the most even
though we can't see them. So while it may
seem that an air purifier is not removing
much dust, it is working just fine on the
particles that actually bother us.
The heavier dust that lands
on furniture needs to be dusted or vacuumed
with a hepa
vacuum cleaner to be removed.
Top |
| Response
Letter To No-Smoke.Org
By Mercia Tapping,
President, AllergyBuyersClub.com
 Addressed
To:
Joshua Alpert Esq., Program Manager, Americans
for Non Smokers Rights
March 19th, 2004
Dear Mr. Alpert,
I am in receipt of your letter
of March 10th 2004 in which you take issue
with our selling air cleaners for the reduction
of smoke, odor and VOCs "Your web site,
in describing these products reduce tobacco
smoke from the air, leads to a strong presumption
that this equipment reduces or eliminates
the health risks associated with tobacco
smoke. Business owners and the general public,
in viewing your website, could
presume [our italics] that IQAir,
AllerAir, and Austin Air's products will
protect hospitality workers, patrons, and
the public from the health risks associated
with secondhand tobacco smoke".
First of all, I was surprised
by the tone of your letter since we try
and give the public both accurate educational
information and correct expectations as
to the efficacy of our products.
It is in that spirit of integrity,
that I will both add some disclaimer about
the known safe levels of smoke and other
carcinogenic substances to our air cleaner
product pages and will publish your fact
sheets on our web site, as well as include
your fact sheets in our monthly e-newsletter
which has a readership in the six figure
range.
I am a non-smoker myself and
believe very strongly in the rights of all
human beings to live in a toxin free environment
and have access to pure air and water. I
have mandated a non-smoking environment
for over thirty years; long before smoking
was legislatively banned in most workplaces.
I have given substantial cash incentives
to past employees to stop smoking as well
as seeing a grandparent die of lung cancer.
I follow the principals of socially conscious
investing, and agree with you that there
is no definitively proven safe levels of
secondhand tobacco smoke. I would go further
and suggest that there is no level of any
toxin, which is really safe, although our
bodies have adapted remarkably and filter
out some of the environmental poisons to
which they are exposed. It is for that reason
I do not drink, and classify alcohol as
equally poisonous and potentially carcinogenic
substance, although the ingestion of alcohol
is more socially acceptable in our society.
Now to the subject of air
cleaners. Given that we live in a society,
that for both economic self interest or
protection of individual rights, has a government
which is reluctant to ban all known toxic
air borne substances and protect its citizens
from ingesting them, I believe in our individual
right to protect ourselves against the health
hazards engendered by such toxic substances
including secondhand tobacco smoke. Even
though air cleaners can only reduce as opposed
to eliminate levels of secondhand tobacco
smoke, most often because the rate of recontamination
is too high, I would defend people's right
to buy them. However, for the exact lab
based data on smoke removal effectiveness
of each machine, you need to contact the
manufacturers directly or the AHAM which
certifies air cleaners which are effective
in the removal of smoke.
When customers phone us for
advice on this subject, we inform them that
direct elimination of the source of any
toxin is the best solution, including smoke
which means usually contacting your landlord
or the health department in the case of
secondhand smoke. This is the course of
action we took in our own business when
a neighboring company sharing our air ducts
had employees smoking on the job.
When somebody is helpless
and does not want to move their residence
to avoid second hand smoke[ which often
would be the preferred course of action],we
tell them that air cleaners are the choice
of last resort. We tell them to position
the air cleaner as close to the offending
communal air vent as possible. We have measured
dramatic particulate reduction in these
circumstances- but complete 100% elimination
is has not been attained to date. Once smoke
has entered a customer's house we advise
them it is very difficult to eliminate completely.
However there are circumstances
where smoke is involved, other than cigarettes,
as in the smoke case of 911 and West Coast
wildfires. The hundreds of people who buy
our air cleaners during these times of crisis
can exercise some modicum of control and
reduce smoke particulates and other toxins
to at least a level where they can breathe.
I think those people are under no illusion
about the level of protection afforded by
air cleaning devices but something is better
than nothing in circumstances where people
have little or no control over their environment.
We have tremendously positive feedback from
customers thanking us for at least giving
them something, which allows them to breathe
in such adverse conditions.
As I said earlier, despite
the way you presented your case in your
letter to me, I think we are really on the
same side of this issue since we both abhor
the health hazards presented by secondhand
smoke. I will publish your fact sheets on
our web site and in our newsletter and will
make even clearer than what we have done
already, as to what we deem to be product
limitations. May I add in closing, that
the man who bought an air cleaner last week
from me for his weekly card game in order
to reduce the disgusting smell of cigars,
had to endure a brief lecture from me about
injuring his health and understand that
despite opening the windows after his card
game and keeping the air cleaner going throughout
his card game, that he was merely taking
the edge off the problem and not curing
it.
I hope that makes my position
on this topic quite clear and since you
already posted your letter to me on your
web site, I would appreciate the courtesy
of publishing my reply in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Mercia Tapping
President
AllergyBuyersClub.com
Top
|
 Secondhand
Smoke Fact Sheet
from www.no-smoke.org
January 2004
This document may only be
re-used with appropriate credit to Americans
for Nonsmokers' Rights.
The Science Of Secondhand
Smoke (Shs)
- The 1999 National Cancer Institute
Monograph 10, based on the 1997 Cal-EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) review
of population-based studies, confirmed
that SHS is fatal and has numerous non-fatal
health effects. SHS chemicals include
irritants and systemic toxicants, mutagens,
and carcinogens, and reproductive and
developmental toxicants. More than 50
compounds in tobacco smoke are known carcinogens.
SHS exposure causes lung and nasal sinus
cancer, heart disease, and Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome. Serious impacts of SHS
on children include asthma induction and
exacerbation, bronchitis and pneumonia,
middle ear infection, chronic respiratory
symptoms, and low birth weight. (National
Cancer Institute, "Health effects
of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke:
the report of the California Environmental
Protection Agency." Smoking and Tobacco
Control Monograph 10, 1999. Available
at:
http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/.
Downloaded on November 25, 2003; and,
California Environmental Protection Agency,
"Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke," 1997)
- SHS is the third leading cause of preventable
death in this country, killing 53,000
nonsmokers in the U.S. each year. For
every eight smokers the tobacco industry
kills, it takes one nonsmoker with them.
(Glantz, S.A. & Parmley, W., "Passive
Smoking and Heart Disease: Epidemiology,
Physiology, and Biochemistry," Circulation,
1991; 83(1): 1-12; and, Taylor, A., Johnson,
D. & Kazemi, H., "Environmental
Tobacco Smoke and Cardiovascular Disease,"
Circulation, 1992; 86: 699-702)
- The 1986 Report of the Surgeon General;
the 1986 National Research Council report,
Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring
Exposures and Assessing Health Effects;
and the 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency report, Respiratory Health Effects
of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other
Disorders, established that SHS exposure
causes lung cancer. (National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, "1986 Surgeon General
Report: The Health Consequences of Involuntary
Smoking," 1986. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1986/index.htm.
Downloaded on November 25, 2003; and,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
"Respiratory Health Effects of Passive
Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders,"
1992. Extended version available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ets/etsindex.cfm.
Summary available at: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html.
Downloaded on November 25, 2003)
- The 2002 Environmental Health Information
Service's 10th Report on Carcinogens classifies
SHS as a Group A (Human) Carcinogen -
a substance known to cause cancer in humans.
There is no safe level of exposure for
Group A toxins. In addition, the 2002
World Health Organization International
Agency's (IARC) Monograph on Tobacco Smoking,
both Active and Passive concluded that
nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens
as active smokers. (Report on Carcinogens,
Tenth Edition; U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service,
National Toxicology Program, December
2002. Available at: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc10.html.
Downloaded on November 25, 2003; and,
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Monograph's Program, "Monograph on
Tobacco Smoking, both Active and Passive,"
World Health Organization, June 2002.
Available at:
http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/PRELEASES/pr141a.html.
Downloaded on November 25, 2003)
- Even a half hour of secondhand smoke
exposure causes heart damage similar to
that of habitual smokers. Nonsmokers'
heart arteries showed a reduced ability
to dilate, diminishing the ability of
the heart to get life-giving blood. In
addition, the same half hour of secondhand
smoke exposure activates blood platelets,
which can initiate the process of atherosclerosis
(blockage of the heart's arteries) that
leads to heart attacks. These effects
explain other research showing that nonsmokers
regularly exposed to SHS suffer death
or morbidity rates 30% higher than those
of unexposed nonsmokers. (Otsuka, R.,
et al. "Acute Effects of Passive
Smoking on the Coronary Circulation in
Healthy Young Adults," Journal of
the American Medical Association, 286:
436-441, 2001; and, Burghuber, O., et
al. "Platelet sensitivity to prostacyclin
in smokers and non-smokers," Chest,
90: 34-38, 1986. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11466122&dopt=Abstract.
Downloaded on November 25, 2003)
- Restaurant workers are exposed to levels
of secondhand smoke that are approximately
1.6 to 2.0 times higher than those to
which office workers are exposed on the
job. Workers in the "5 B's"(bars,
bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting
establishments, and bingo parlors) have
SHS exposure levels that are 2.4 to 18.5
times higher than those in offices, and
1.5 to 11.7 times higher than in restaurants
- a risk level 47 times higher than the
federal government's defined level for
a carcinogen. (Siegel, M. "Involuntary
Smoking in Restaurant Workplace: A Review
of Employee Exposure and Health Effects."
Journal of the American Medical Association,
270:490-493, 1993. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8320789&dopt=Abstract.
Downloaded on November 25, 2003; and,
Siegel, M. "Exposure to secondhand
smoke and excess lung cancer mortality
risk among workers in the '5 B's': bars,
bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting
establishments, and bingo parlours."
Tobacco Control, 12:333-338, 2003. Available
at:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/333.
Downloaded on November 25, 2003)
- In 1991, data showed that nearly 90
percent of the U.S. population had measurable
levels of serum cotinine (metabolized
nicotine) in their blood. In 2002, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals found more than a 75 percent
decrease in median cotinine levels for
nonsmokers in the U.S. since 1991- an
indication that smoke-free environments
significantly reduce exposure to SHS.
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
Department of Health and Human Services,
"Second National Report on Human
Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,"
National Center for Environmental Health
(NCEH Pub. No. 02-0716) January 2003;
and, Centers for Disease Control; Department
of Health and Human Services, "Facts
about Secondhand Smoke," Updated:
September 2003)
Tobacco Industry
Attacks On The Science Of Secondhand Smoke
- In 1981, the Tobacco Institute spent
more than $100 million in "smoking-health
research" campaigns to increase tobacco
industry credibility and restore a reasonable
doubt that SHS exposure is harmful. (Kornegay,
H., "New Directions Implementation,"
Tobacco Institute, Bates No. CORTI003963-3970:
1981)
- In 1987, Philip Morris admitted, "We
will never find an unbiased scientist
who concludes that ETS [environmental
tobacco smoke] exposure has been proven
safe for non-smokers."("The
ETS Issue: Science and Politics,"
Philip Morris, Bates No. 2023551401-1404:
1987)
- A Philip Morris memo, written four
days after the EPA announced the release
of the final version of its 1992 landmark
report finding that SHS is a carcinogen,
outlined the tobacco industry's planned
response: "Our overriding objective
is to discredit the EPA report…"
Tobacco manufacturers filed suit against
the EPA in 1993. ("NCI Supports EPA's
Conclusions that Secondhand Smoke is Dangerous,"
News Release, National Cancer Institute,
May 4, 1993; "The Czarina's Edict,"
Memorandum from Ellen Merlo, January 11,
1993, Bates No. 2023920140)
- Other internal documents made public
as a result of a lawsuit against the tobacco
industry show how researchers were used
to undermine the EPA report. The Tobacco
Institute and two law firms managed a
project, which paid 13 scientists more
than $156,000 to write letters to influential
publications criticizing the report. Lawyers
edited, and in some instances wrote, the
scientists' letters. (Hanners, D. "Scientists
Were Paid to Write Letters: Tobacco Industry
Sought to Discredit EPA Report,"
Pioneer Planet, August 4, 1998)
- In March 1998, British American Tobacco
Company attempted to discredit a World
Health Organization study on the effects
of SHS in seven European countries, claiming
that the agency suppressed the study because
of negative findings. In reality, the
paper summarizing the study was undergoing
scientific peer review prior to publication,
and its findings-consistent with other
major scientific reviews-showed a statistically
significant increased risk of lung cancer
among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. ("Passive
Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not
Let Them Fool You," Press Release,
World Health Organization, March 9, 1998)
- In July 1998, in a lawsuit filed by
a number of tobacco manufacturers against
the EPA, U.S. District Judge William Osteen-a
former tobacco industry lobbyist-ruled
parts of the EPA report invalid. The EPA
filed an appeal in September 1998 and
stood by its conclusions on the health
effects of SHS, which have been validated
by a number of more recent and more comprehensive
studies. In December 2002, a three-judge
panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals threw out the lawsuit against
the EPA. The judges ruled that tobacco
companies cannot sue the EPA over its
secondhand smoke report, because the report
was not a final agency action and hence
not subject to court review. (Schlesinger,
J.M., "Secondhand-Smoke Study Ruled
Invalid: Federal Judge Says EPA Overstated
Cancer Link; Agency Likely to Appeal,"
Wall Street Journal, July 20, 1998; "Respiratory
Health Effects of Passive Smoking,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, last modified
on June 6, 2000; and, [n.a.], "Suit
on Secondhand Smoke Dismissed," Washington
Post: A16, December 12, 2002)
- After decades of attacking credible
science proving SHS's adverse health effects,
Philip Morris's website now states, "Public
health officials have concluded that secondhand
smoke from cigarettes causes disease,
including lung cancer and heart disease,
in non-smoking adults…. [Philip
Morris] also believe that the conclusions
of public health officials concerning
environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient
to warrant measurers that regulate smoking
in public places." (Philip Morris,
"Health Issues: Secondhand Smoke,"
Available at: http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp.
Downloaded: January 9, 2004)
Top
|
The
Smoker Next Door
Handling Unwanted
Tobacco Smoke in Apartments and Condominiums
from www.no-smoke.org
January 2002
Secondhand smoke seeping into
apartments or condominiums from neighboring
units poses both a health risk and a significant
nuisance. Unfortunately, there are no fail-proof
solutions to this problem. Since personal
dwellings are not considered public spaces,
they are generally not covered under existing
legislation regulating smoking in public
places, though some municipalities may restrict
or prohibit smoking in common areas of multi-unit
dwellings. The record of resolving such
conflicts in the courts is somewhat mixed.
Nonsmokers have filed lawsuits against landlords
or fellow tenants on the basis of nuisance,
breach of statutory duty to keep the premises
habitable, breach of the common law covenant
of peaceful enjoyment, negligence, harassment,
battery, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress; courts have ruled for and against
nonsmokers in individual cases.
However, there are still a
number of steps that you can take to protect
yourself from secondhand smoke. The following
suggestions may prove useful.
Clarify your goals.
- Your main goal is clear-you want to
breathe smokefree air. But it will be
helpful if you have some specific ideas
about how you want the problem resolved.
Do you want an expense-paid voluntary
relocation? Do you want out of your lease?
Do you want modifications to be made to
the ventilation system or the physical
structure of the building? Do you want
cracks sealed? Do you want one or more
buildings of a multi-building complex
designated as completely nonsmoking? Do
you want all common areas, both inside
and out, designated nonsmoking? Do you
want the owner or manager to add a no
smoking clause to all future rental agreements?
The more you can clarify just what it
is you want from the neighbor or the manager,
owner, or owner's association, the better
your position. This leads to the next
point.
- Come up with as many possible solutions
as you can. While you may not be able
to stop a person from smoking in their
apartment, for example, you may be able
to get them to agree to smoke near an
open window. Other possible solutions
include checking on the ventilation system-the
filters may need to be changed, cleaned,
or upgraded. (Improved ventilation may
reduce, but will not eliminate, your exposure
to secondhand smoke.) Also, try to ensure
that the building itself is up to all
state and local building codes. Structural
defects can cause an excess amount of
smoke to travel between apartments.
- If you live in a condominium, one solution
that you might pursue is changing the
conditions, covenants and restrictions
so that the condo is declared smokefree.
If you live in an apartment, you can encourage
the management to gradually create a smokefree
environment by adding smokefree language
to the leases of new tenants. We have
a model policy for a smokefree condominium
or apartment that can be used for these
purposes.
Do your research.
- Read the enclosed materials carefully.
They will provide you with well documented
information about the dangers associated
with exposure to secondhand smoke, and
will acquaint you with strategies that
others have used to deal with similar
problems.
- Check to see if there are any applicable
municipal or state laws that regulate
or prohibit smoking in common areas of
multi-unit dwellings. Your city or county
health department or a local chapter of
one of the voluntary health associations
(e.g. American Lung Association, American
Cancer Society or American Heart Association)
can assist you. You can also contact the
city or county clerk's office to obtain
a copy of any applicable law.
- Read your lease or condominium agreement.
Most leases contain a "nuisance clause"
that prohibits tenants from engaging in
any activity that interferes with another
tenant's peace and well being. Typically,
it is designed to protect tenants from
loud music, noxious odors, noisy late-night
parties, etc. Arguably, it also includes
protection from undue exposure to secondhand
smoke.
Try to resolve the
situation amicably.
- Approach the situation positively.
Begin with the assumption that your neighbor
and manager are interested in your comfort
and well-being. Take a friendly, educational
approach. Let the neighbor know that you
are experiencing difficulty from their
secondhand smoke, and that you are concerned
about your health. Let them know that
you are flexible and interested in working
out a mutually satisfying solution.
- Don't assume that your neighbors or
your landlord know much about the health
effects of secondhand smoke. Secondhand
smoke causes a host of ailments, and exacerbates
pre-existing conditions, in nonsmokers
- lung cancer, heart disease, asthma,
ear infections in children, sudden infant
death syndrome (SIDS) just to name a few.
Try posting information about secondhand
smoke on apartment bulletin boards, in
laundry rooms, or in condominium newsletters.
Share information
with Property Management.
- Your management company or owner's
association may be unaware that it is
legal to designate an apartment building
or condominium smoke-free. People often
mistakenly believe that there is a legally
protected "right to smoke."
However, there is no such legal right,
and the courts have held that protection
of nonsmokers against the hazards of secondhand
smoke takes precedence over smokers' desire
to light up wherever they choose (Sweda,
1997). A smoke-free policy, however, is
best accomplished gradually. The Park
Tower Apartments in Loves Park, Illinois,
for example, implemented a policy that
bars new tenants from smoking anywhere
in the building, including inside their
individual dwellings, but the policy did
not affect those who were already tenants
when the policy went into effect. You
may want to share with your manager the
enclosed Guide for Owners and Managers.
- Property managers also may not be aware
of the various legal protections afforded
nonsmokers and the legal remedies that
can be pursued by someone who is being
impacted by secondhand smoke. Sharing
what you have learned about the laws protecting
you can empower your landlord to take
a more active stance in the situation.
Keep in mind, however, that there are
no clear-cut legal protections against
secondhand smoke for tenants. You are
dealing in a "gray area" of
the law. Avoid becoming belligerent. Your
goal is to obtain voluntary assistance.
- You may also want to remind management
of the significant economic costs associated
with smoking. Smoking increases the risk
of fire, requires more frequent painting,
increases maintenance costs, and hikes
insurance rates (Carlson, 1997).
Find allies.
- You may not be the only one affected
by secondhand smoke in your apartment
or condominium complex. Other tenants
may be willing and interested in joining
with you to find a solution. Find out
if any of the other tenants have health
problems that make them particularly susceptible
to the hazards of secondhand smoke. When
discussing the problem of seeping secondhand
smoke with the landlord, owner, or management
association, you are likely to have greater
success with many voices instead of one.
- Other good allies may include voluntary
health groups such as the American Cancer
Society, the American Lung Association,
and the American Heart Association. These
groups may be able to advise you about
specific nuisance or tenant-rights laws
in your area, and to recommend how to
go about getting your complaint heard
and heeded.
Get a note from your
doctor.
- A letter from your physician lends
credibility to your complaint. If you
have greater than average sensitivities
to tobacco smoke, get them documented.
Possible smoke-related conditions include
sore throat, asthma, pulmonary or cardiac
disease, hay fever, headache, and allergies.
If your first informal complaint to management
is not addressed to your satisfaction,
send a formal complaint, together with
your physician's letter, both to the property
owner and the offending neighbor. Again,
indicate that you wish to resolve the
situation amicably. It's always smart
to send such paperwork Certified Mail,
Return Receipt Requested.
There are always last
resorts.
- Consult an attorney before seeking
a legal remedy. If nothing else has worked,
don't be afraid to resort to the threat
of a lawsuit. No one wants to be sued.
Advise management of its potential liability
in this matter. A body of case law is
building that holds management responsible
for exposing tenants to ETS. Tenants have
sued on the basis of nuisance, breach
of statutory duty to keep the premises
habitable, breach of the common law covenant
of peaceful enjoyment, negligence, harassment,
battery, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress (Sweda, 1997). Send
your letter of intent to sue Certified
Mail, Return Receipt Requested. If you
think you may need to resort to legal
action, be sure to keep a paper-trail.
Make dated notes of all interactions;
keep copies of correspondence.
Help protect both
yourself and others: Pass a local ordinance.
You are not alone. More and
more people are complaining of secondhand
smoke in multiunit dwellings. Working together,
you can make a difference. The best protection
comes from enacting a local law that protects
people such as yourself from the hazards
of secondhand smoke. A local ordinance could
do one or more of the following:
1. Prohibit smoking in
all public areas of apartment or condominium
complexes. Many communities in numerous
states have such a law. Similarly, Minnesota
has a state law that restricts smoking
in all common areas of apartment buildings,
such as rental offices, entrances, hallways,
exercise and swimming pool areas, and
laundry rooms.
2. Require apartment and
condominium complexes with two or more
buildings to designate at least one building
as smokefree.
3. Require owners to disclose
to potential new tenants when either (a)
an apartment or condo unit was rented
to people who smoked within the past year,
or (b) a previous tenant moved because
of tobacco smoke drifting into the unit.
A guidebook is available
from ANR detailing how to pass a local ordinance.
You can order a copy by calling us at 510-841-3032
and requesting Clearing the Air.
This information is not intended
to serve as legal advice by the ANR Foundation;
the law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
If you intend to file a lawsuit, please
consult an attorney who is familiar with
the laws in your community.
References
Carlson, R. Smokefree Air
Everywhere. New Jersey Group Against Smoking
Pollution (GASP), 1997.
Sweda, E. Summary of Legal Cases Regarding
Smoking in the Workplace and Other Places.
Boston, MA: Tobacco Control Resource Center,
Inc., December 1997.
Copyright 1998, 2001 -
The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation
For another article,
see our sister site:
http://www.allergyconsumerreview.com/airpurifiers-information.html
Top
|
Guest
Article: What I Know About Noses
by Hana R. Solomon,
M.D.
Pediatricians evaluate and
treat many conditions and without a doubt,
nose woes are the most common issue presented
in the clinic. A greater understanding of
nose and sinus anatomy and function can
help you make common sense yet informed
decisions regarding treatment and prevention.
The nose is the body's filter. The nasal
cavity is lined with mucus membranes. This
lining is covered with cilia, little hairs
which function to filter any impurities
we breathe. Impurities include but are not
limited to pollen or any allergen (particles
that can trigger an allergic response),
bacteria, virus, smoke, pollution, chemicals.
The nasal lining has goblet cells, which
produce mucus. These secretions entrap impurities
so they can be removed by blowing out or
swallowing into the acidic contents of the
stomach.
Exposure to irritants cause
the cilia to get clogged and to not function
as intended; the goblet cells produce excessive,
thicker mucus which is difficult to remove;
the nasal linings swell and block the inner
ear opening, the sinus opening and the nasal
airway. All of these events result in plugging
of the drainage system, post nasal drip,
sore throats, ear problems, sinus pressure,
excessive nasal discharge, coughing and
the inability to smell.
No matter what the inciting
event is, the end result often leads to
the need for over the counter and prescription
medications. Medication use has increased
to a whooping 276 million dollars per year.
More than one third of preschoolers are
give an over-the-counter medication in any
given month. There are over 800 over-the-counter
cold and sinus preparations but only 6-10
different ingredients in varying combination.
There is doubt if any of the medications
actually are actually beneficial. The overuse
of antibiotics is contributing to the development
of bacterial resistance and this is a serious
threat. The CDC has estimated that treatment
of infections due to resistant bacteria
costs more than $4 billion annually. Allergy
treatments cost 1.8 billion dollars annually.
Each year over 850 million dollars are spent
on physician visits and 639 million dollars
are lost on productivity. This trend is
truly amazing and frankly very scary.
As a mother and a doctor,
washing the nose makes sense to me. Over
the years, thousands of patients have told
me what I instinctively knew, washing helps.
If done daily, patients reduce the number
of allergy or infection episodes each year,
and if done at the first sign of nasal irritation,
washing can reduce the duration and intensity
of the illness. If done with medication,
it reduces the amount of antihistamines,
antibiotics and steroid nose sprays needed.
Hypertonic solution has a greater salt concentration
as compared to the body's salt concentration
without side effects and tolerable, even
for children. The cost in nasal washing
is pennies for each rinse.
Little Brianna used to come
in 3-6 times per year, from toddler years
to elementary school. She would often need
nasal steroids and oral antihistamines to
control her allergy symptoms, secondary
ear and sinus problems. I began teaching
Brianna about washing the nose by encouraging
her to fill it with water and squirt it
while in taking her daily bath. This helped
her get the feel of the pressure needed
to spray water out the tip. Both mom and
I would applaud her efforts, give her stickers
and brag about her efforts while in my office.
Next we suggested to her that if she tried
to squirt just a bit of water in her nose
during bath time, it would help her blow
her nose clean. Again, with any of her efforts,
we applauded her, told her how proud we
were of her and how she is helping keep
her nose clean. The next step was to play
a game and ask if she could make the water
come out of the other nostril. 'Sure' she
said, and showed me just how this little
girl could accomplish this task. Her mother
was instructed to begin adding small amounts
of the salt mixture (1/4 tsp per 8 ounces
of fluid) and advance the dosage as tolerated.
My patients tell me it takes about 4-7 days,
depending on ones age and tolerance level.
Over a 2 year period, Brianna was able to
wash her nose out on her own, just like
brushing her teeth. Her office visits decreased
in number as she perfect her nasal washing
technique.
Four year old Sophie had similar
problems, although her speech was affected
because of her recurrent ear problems stemming
from allergies. Of course we looked at environmental
controls and her parents did as much as
they reasonably could. Sophie was 'trained'
much like Brianna. Sophie, now age five,
will sometimes wake up with a stuffy nose
and ask for 'Dr Hana's wash'. She steps
up to the sink, washes her nose on her own,
blows, grunts like a grandpa and walks away
saying, 'Now that feels good, I can breathe'.
The secret to teaching children is a slow
introduction, giving the child all the control,
praising them frequently for little steps
and asking them to demonstrate their technique
for me (or dad or anyone else). I always
learn something new from each child.
We preach the importance of
washing your hands to prevent the spread
of germs, we preach that brushing your teeth
prevents cavities, we wash dirty wounds
prior to antibiotics ointment is applied.
So why don't we wash our noses? Not glamorous?
Not advertised? It is just habit we should
get used to, similar to swimming with your
eyes open or learning how to place in contacts.
Perhaps it is more akin to changing the
clothes dryer filter or your cars filter
to ensure proper functioning of the machine.
Of course, if your nose works
well for you, don't wash it. If you have
nose problems, why not try the simple safe
and ancient old technique of washing first.
There is an old saying in medicine, 'first
do no harm'. Nasal washing does no harm
but may produce great benefit.
I invite you email me: drhana@nasopure.com
with comments, suggestions or ideas.
Be Well, Dr Hana
Dr Hana R. Solomon MD 3-13-04
Copyright 3-13-04
Top |
Regards,
Mercia Tapping,
President
|
|
|
|
= poor 
= fair 
= good 
= very good
= excellent 
