Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Salud pública Méx ; 52(supl.2): S157-S167, 2010. graf, tab
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-571808

ABSTRACT

Objective. To evaluate indoor air pollution in hospitality venues in Argentina. Material and Methods. PM2.5 levels were measured in a convenience sample of venues in 15 cities with different legislative contexts following a protocol developed by Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Results. 554 samples were collected. Across all 5 smokefree cities the mean PM2.5 level was lower during daytime vs. evening hours, 24 vs. 98 PM2.5 respectively (p=.012). In the three cities evaluated before and after legislation, PM2.5 levels decreased dramatically (p<0.001 each). Overall, PM2.5 levels were 5 times higher in cities with no legislation vs. smokefree cities (p<0.001). In cities with designated smoking areas, PM2.5 levels were not statistically different between smoking and non-smoking areas (p=0.272). Non-smoking areas had significantly higher PM2.5 levels compared to 100 percent smokefree venues in the same city (twofold higher) (p=0.017). Conclusions. Most of the participating cities in this study had significantly lower PM2.5 levels after the implementation of 100 percent smokefree legislation. Hence, it represents a useful tool to promote 100 percent smokefree policies in Argentina.


Objetivo. Evaluar la polución ambiental del sector gastronómico en Argentina. Material y métodos. Se midieron los niveles de partículas respirables (PM2.5) en una muestra por conveniencia de establecimientos de 15 ciudades con diferente legislación, siguiendo un protocolo del Instituto de Cáncer Roswell Park. Resultados. Se recolectaron 554 muestras. En cinco ciudades libres de humo (CLH) la media de PM2.5 durante el día fue baja y menor a la observada durante la noche, 24 vs. 98 PM2.5 respectivamente (p=.012). En las tres ciudades evaluadas antes y después de la legislación, las PM2.5 disminuyeron drásticamente (p<0.001 cada una). Las PM2.5 fueron cinco veces mayores en ciudades sin legislación comparadas con CLH (p<0.001). En ciudades con restricción parcial, no hubo diferencia significativa entre las PM2.5 en el sector fumador y no fumador (p=0.272). Los sectores no fumadores tuvieron niveles PM2.5 significativamente más altos comparados con los lugares 100 por ciento libres de humo de la misma ciudad (p= 0.017). Conclusiones. La mayoría de las ciudades participantes en este estudio tuvieron niveles PM2.5 significativamente más bajos tras la implementación de leyes pro ambientes 100 por ciento libres de humo de tabaco, por lo que representa una herramienta útil para promover legislación 100 por ciento libre de humo en Argentina.


Subject(s)
Air Pollution, Indoor/analysis , Air Pollution, Indoor/legislation & jurisprudence , Environmental Monitoring , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Smoking/legislation & jurisprudence , Smoking/prevention & control , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/analysis , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/legislation & jurisprudence , Air Pollution, Indoor/prevention & control , Argentina , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/prevention & control , Urban Health
2.
Salud pública Méx ; 50(5): 428-434, sept.-oct. 2008. tab
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-494728

ABSTRACT

Mexico ratified the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control in 2004 and is obligated to move forward with implementing its provisions, including Article 8 (Protection from exposure to tobacco smoke). The country has already faced opposition from the tobacco industry. This paper addresses industry tactics against tobacco control, describing the general strategies that have been pursued and the evidence relevant to combating these strategies. The approaches taken by the industry in an effort to discredit the scientific foundation for promoting smokefree environments, the efforts by the industry to propose ventilation of indoor spaces and separation of smokers from nonsmokers as an effective alternative to smokefree places, and finally, the strategy of raising fear of economic losses on the part of the hospitality industry and thereby gaining this sector as an ally in campaigning against smokefree policies are considered. As reviewed in this article: 1) There is scientific consensus on the adverse effects of inhaling SHS; 2) Only smokefree places fully protect nonsmokers from inhaling SHS; and 3) Smokefree policies do not bring economic harm to the hospitality industry.


En 2004 México ratificó el Convenio Marco para el Control del Tabaco y está obligado a implementar sus disposiciones, incluidas el Artículo 8 (Protección contra la exposición al humo de tabaco); esto ha generado oposición de la industria tabacalera. En este artículo se describen las tácticas de la industria para contrarrestar el control del tabaco, sus principales estrategias, y también se presentan las evidencias relevantes para combatirlas. Además, se describen las acciones emprendidas por la industria en el esfuerzo por desacreditar el fundamento científico de la promoción de ambientes libres de humo de tabaco, y su propuesta de usar sistemas de ventilación en espacios interiores y la de separación de áreas para fumadores y no fumadores, como alternativas efectivas a la creación de ambientes libres de humo de tabaco. Por último, las tabacaleras también han creado temor a las perdidas económicas para la industria restaurantera, ello con el objetivo de hacer de este sector un aliado en la lucha contra las políticas de ambientes libres de humo de tabaco. Este artículo concluye que: 1) existe un consenso científico sobre los efectos adversos para la salud causado por la exposición al humo de tabaco; 2) los ambientes libres de humo de tabaco son la única forma de proteger a los no fumadores de la exposición a humo de tabaco; 3) las políticas de ambientes libres de humo de tabaco no afectan económicamente a la industria restaurantera.


Subject(s)
Humans , Deception , Tobacco Smoke Pollution , Advertising , Advertising/legislation & jurisprudence , Air Pollutants, Occupational/adverse effects , Air Pollution, Indoor/adverse effects , Air Pollution, Indoor/legislation & jurisprudence , Air Pollution, Indoor/prevention & control , Carcinogens, Environmental/adverse effects , Consensus , Evidence-Based Practice , Heart Diseases/etiology , Heart Diseases/prevention & control , Mexico , Neoplasms/etiology , Neoplasms/prevention & control , Public Facilities/economics , Public Facilities/legislation & jurisprudence , Respiratory Tract Diseases/etiology , Respiratory Tract Diseases/prevention & control , Tobacco Industry , Tobacco Industry/methods , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/adverse effects , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/legislation & jurisprudence , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/prevention & control , Tobacco Smoke Pollution/statistics & numerical data
4.
J. pneumol ; 26(5): 254-258, set.-out. 2000. tab
Article in Portuguese | LILACS | ID: lil-339109

ABSTRACT

O artigo analisa criticamente a portaria 3.523 de 28/8/98 do Ministério da Saúde, com ênfase na questão dos contaminantes do ar e suas conseqüências para a saúde em ambientes climatizados. É feita, ainda, uma revisão concisa sobre as infecções hospitalares e as áreas hospitalares em que a transmissão por via aerógena pode ser importante, sendo necessários sistemas de ventilação especial. Os padrões de partículas, mais precisamente os biológicos, são considerados de forma detalhada, destacando-se os contaminantes microbianos mais comuns, as diferenças entre países dos Hemisférios Norte e Sul e as questões relativas à metodologia utilizada em sua análise. Conclui-se que não há, no momento, elementos para uma definição de padrões de partículas biológicas no país


Subject(s)
Humans , Air Conditioning , Air Monitoring , Air Quality Control , Air Pollution, Indoor/legislation & jurisprudence , Air Conditioning , Brazil , Government Agencies , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Particulate Matter , Patient Isolation
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL