Something's in the air

Did you know that so many buildings have poor indoor air quality? When I worked for a company that dealt with sustainable design, I became aware of air quality issues in most buildings. I've even worked in buildings where building managers decide to keep mum about it, justifying it with, "it costs too much to get it fixed. Just use air purifiers." Admittedly, this is not such a big secret that will lead to the world's destruction. What it does lead to is unsafe work conditions for those who work in such buildings.

I thought of this issue after reading the Washington Post article "Apple report reveals labor, environmental violations", which referenced "unsafe working conditions". In the Apple Supplier Responsibility 2012 Progress Report found in their home page's link to Supplier Responsibility, the report included air emissions management violations. The current report is supposedly an improvement over previous years' reports with the inclusion of the full list of suppliers. This report even includes a chapter on Ethics violations.

By making this report available in their website, Apple's transparency can be commended. Everyone is free to read the report, make their own conclusions, or even judge Apple on how they get things done whether Apple likes it or not.

Back to poor indoor air quality, most people attribute feeling sick as a result of work-related stress. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has two phrases for this (I kid you not)- "Sick Building Syndrome" (SBS) and "Building Related Illness" (BRI).

"The term 'sick building syndrome' (SBS) is used to describe situations in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified. The complaints may be localized in a particular room or zone, or may be widespread throughout the building. In contrast, the term 'building related illness" (BRI) is used when symptoms of diagnosable illness are identified and can be attributed directly to airborne building contaminants.

"Indicators of SBS include:
Building occupants complain of symptoms associated with acute discomfort, e.g., headache; eye, nose, or throat irritation; dry cough; dry or itchy skin; dizziness and nausea; difficulty in concentrating; fatigue; and sensitivity to odors.
The cause of the symptoms is not known.
Most of the complainants report relief soon after leaving the building.

"Indicators of BRI include:
Building occupants complain of symptoms such as cough; chest tightness; fever, chills; and muscle aches
The symptoms can be clinically defined and have clearly identifiable causes.
Complainants may require prolonged recovery times after leaving the building."

From: "Indoor Air Facts No. 4 (revised) Sick Building Syndrome"

"What's the big deal?", you may ask. According to the Environmental Pollution Centers (EPC) website, "many gases or fumes could pose a health threat at concentrations much below the smell threshold, especially when exposure occurs over long periods of time (e.g., a person works in the same place for 20 years or more with an average of 8 hours 5 days a week)."

A workplace with air pollution issues - whether known or unknown - should take action. The last thing you need is to work in a building that knows its pollution problems, keeps quiet about it, and lets you go about your business with complete disregard for your health. This does not have to be a wrongfully kept secret. Any secret, no matter how trivial, is always deemed bad, even if the secret is kept for the greater good.

In this situation, since it is a matter of public health, it is essential to inform the building occupants, as well as to take necessary measures to mitigate, and possibly even eliminate the pollutants. Have an indoor air quality review of the building conducted.

Is this really an ethical issue? To me, it seems black and white. If something is causing harm to the most number of people, why wouldn't you tell them? If you suspect or know that your building's air quality is problematic, do you keep it a secret or not? In reality, it can actually become an ethical issue.

Let's face it, the U.S.A. is a litigious society where people sue other people at the drop of a hat for the smallest things. Imagine what will happen if you are a building owner and admit that your building might be causing your tenants to get sick. Especially if there are actual tenants who have been sick all these years (remember, the EPC website mentioned prolonged long-term exposure).

In 1995, the Chicago Tribune in its article "Lawsuits Lend Visibility To Indoor Air Quality Issue" already highlighted that indoor air quality and personal injury lawsuits were on the rise. Releasing such an information can very well explode into news headlines once the building tenants file a lawsuit against the building owner, architects, engineers, contractors, among others. The tenants stand to benefit from releasing such an information.

If I was privy to such an information, personally, I might lose the trust of my sources when I reveal secret information. Professionally, I might win the admiration of the general public, yet colleagues in the industry might put my ethics under fire. Perhaps there is a secret code that governs my chosen field, as a way to get things done. By revealing secret information, I have transgressed that code.

As a media professional, I believe that getting entangled in the web of secrecy is inevitable, and avoiding it, next to impossible. Media work requires the help of sources who may or may not be willing to be identified. You need discernment - what to report, what not to report - plus the willingness to question whether or not your sources are reliable. Yes, I definitely see it as an "inescapable ethical dilemma".