Allergy Consumer Review Issue #61

Allergy Consumer Review Issue #61

Added by: Editor

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 $649 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 snowbound in the North we rely on SAD 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.”

In This Issue

Mercia Tapping
President / CEO AllergyBuyersClub.com
Contact Information

Disclaimer: Product and solution information reflect information available at the time of publication, including prices, availability, and reviews. To get the latest information, contact us or join our newsletter.

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 $1200 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 1200 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!

Miele Red Velvet Vacuum Cleaner

Miele Vacuum Comparisons

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

Allergy Relief Products
Allergy Relief Products
IQAir HealthPro Plus Air Purifier Ladybug XL2300 Commercial Grade Vapor Steam Cleaners Miele Capricorn S5980 Luna Silver Canister Vacuum Cleaner Solus Organic Cotton Dust Mite Pillow Encasings
IQAir HealthPro Series Air Purifiers Ladybug XL2300 Vapor Steam Cleaners with TANCS Miele Capricorn S5981 Luna Silver Canister Vacuum Cleaners Solus Organic Cotton Dust Mite Mattress and Pillow Encasements

  Posted in: Newsletter


Subscribe | Allergy Topics | Reviews | Guides | Newsletter | About Us | Contact Us | Disclaimer | Privacy | Archives | Allergy Relief | Product Comparisons | Index | RSS Feeds