This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sick building syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Stevenyang777.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Does the building have to be a 'place of work'? Well, if you define 'work' broadly enough, I suppose so. But one can suffer from SBS whilst lying in one's own bed in ones own bedroom in ones own home. This would not normally be considered a place of work, until someone, e.g. a builder, came along to do some work in it.
I heard that Sick building syndrome was invented but the Tobacco Industry to cover up the dangers of passive smoking. Just an observation. Australian Reference -- Z o l t a r 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Could someone comment on the image shown in this article ? Why is it supposed to have something to do with the sick building syndrome? -- Abdull 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The Google Map of green/sick buildings doesn't appear to say anywhere on it that that is its purpose. In fact, it seems to be about whether a site is contributing to global warming. 84.92.175.243 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the linked site is probably not intended to be used in the way the article was suggesting. I think the link was likely added in good faith, but the purpose of the site might have been misunderstood. To keep any well-intentioned Wikipedians from contributing potentially unwanted data points to green-project.org, I've removed the link pending a response from the proprietors. If they have no problem with their site being used as described, I'll put it back in. In the meantime, the deleted text is included below. Cecilkorik 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A public built Green / Sick Building Google Map is now live for individuals to mark potentially harmful buildings.
This is a place to list reliable resources for the page which have not been incorporated yet. Feel free to cut or strike as they are used, and list others, but be brief.
II | ( t - c) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Potentially deadly mold? Really? I'll believe that when I see a source, and the current citation leads to a 404 error. Removing until then. 74.250.134.125 ( talk) 02:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the critical question portion. I did not find any value in it and seemed to discredit the rest of the article without sufficient citations.. Furthermore it seemed to go against the following wikipedia policy as it came across as a controversy subsection.
"Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. [1]"
Until citations can be applied and the portion re-written I don't see any point in maintaining it. Xphill64x ( talk) 03:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if it is the target, the article can be deleted at all becase it is all nonsence similar to other green-based modern religions. It is evident. Some since-like published works does not change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.93.116 ( talk) 10:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This article does not take into consideration new research. There are more factors affecting health than those taken into account here. Sound is not taken into account, but a major issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.202.53 ( talk) 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
To improve this article much further, we really need to get a handle on what people are talking (and searching) about most often when they refer to "sick building syndrome", and how we're going to reconcile or split the different definitions of the term. To start with, here's the most prominent ways I've found people using the phrase "sick building syndrome":
Yeesh. So basically there are 3 major perspectives people (and sources) approach SBS from:
Ultimately we'll need to cover all 3 perspectives to serve all readers. Current article incoherently hints at that by kinda mashing them together at random. Good first step might be to pull out and consolidate the clinical material (ie all the info written by/for medical providers and patients) into its own section/article, then separate the HVAC/OSHA/arch/eco info into something like "causes and solutions", and leave the main article to deal with SBS in general as a public health phenomenon. Thoughts? -- bornLoser ( talk) 18:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Could text be developed to specifically address this issue of the indoor conditions' relationship with the outdoor conditions? A task COULD be to map indoor building filtration's relationship with outdoor conditions across any region's landscape. MaynardClark ( talk) 02:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Ask: "How are ' Nosocomial infections' and ' sick building syndrome' related conceptually?"
The CDC says that "Sick building syndrome is distinguished from more medically serious building-related illness by its subjective nature, reversibility, and high prevalence within implicated buildings and across the nonindustrial building stock in North America and Europe." [1] [2]
Perhaps something on a typology of occupational illnesses, that are context-related illnesses, injuries, or long-term harms. MaynardClark ( talk) 02:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Douglas Coupland popularized the phrase "sick building syndrome" in his novel Generation X and the article neglects to mention this. Shouldn't it be included? Candymoan ( talk) 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is quite credulous of "Sick building syndrome", a condition which may not exist. I removed some irrelevant material trying to link SARS to SBS. I'm unclear if the undated "World Health Organization" reference is authentic.
According to a 1991 EPA article, 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." But the lead and article do not emphasize the important part of the definition: that the cause is unknown. So once the cause of an illness is known, it's no longer SBS. And just because you don't know the cause, it could be confusing correlation for causation to blame the building. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 23:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sick building syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Stevenyang777.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Does the building have to be a 'place of work'? Well, if you define 'work' broadly enough, I suppose so. But one can suffer from SBS whilst lying in one's own bed in ones own bedroom in ones own home. This would not normally be considered a place of work, until someone, e.g. a builder, came along to do some work in it.
I heard that Sick building syndrome was invented but the Tobacco Industry to cover up the dangers of passive smoking. Just an observation. Australian Reference -- Z o l t a r 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Could someone comment on the image shown in this article ? Why is it supposed to have something to do with the sick building syndrome? -- Abdull 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The Google Map of green/sick buildings doesn't appear to say anywhere on it that that is its purpose. In fact, it seems to be about whether a site is contributing to global warming. 84.92.175.243 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the linked site is probably not intended to be used in the way the article was suggesting. I think the link was likely added in good faith, but the purpose of the site might have been misunderstood. To keep any well-intentioned Wikipedians from contributing potentially unwanted data points to green-project.org, I've removed the link pending a response from the proprietors. If they have no problem with their site being used as described, I'll put it back in. In the meantime, the deleted text is included below. Cecilkorik 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A public built Green / Sick Building Google Map is now live for individuals to mark potentially harmful buildings.
This is a place to list reliable resources for the page which have not been incorporated yet. Feel free to cut or strike as they are used, and list others, but be brief.
II | ( t - c) 21:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Potentially deadly mold? Really? I'll believe that when I see a source, and the current citation leads to a 404 error. Removing until then. 74.250.134.125 ( talk) 02:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the critical question portion. I did not find any value in it and seemed to discredit the rest of the article without sufficient citations.. Furthermore it seemed to go against the following wikipedia policy as it came across as a controversy subsection.
"Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. [1]"
Until citations can be applied and the portion re-written I don't see any point in maintaining it. Xphill64x ( talk) 03:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if it is the target, the article can be deleted at all becase it is all nonsence similar to other green-based modern religions. It is evident. Some since-like published works does not change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.93.116 ( talk) 10:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This article does not take into consideration new research. There are more factors affecting health than those taken into account here. Sound is not taken into account, but a major issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.202.53 ( talk) 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
To improve this article much further, we really need to get a handle on what people are talking (and searching) about most often when they refer to "sick building syndrome", and how we're going to reconcile or split the different definitions of the term. To start with, here's the most prominent ways I've found people using the phrase "sick building syndrome":
Yeesh. So basically there are 3 major perspectives people (and sources) approach SBS from:
Ultimately we'll need to cover all 3 perspectives to serve all readers. Current article incoherently hints at that by kinda mashing them together at random. Good first step might be to pull out and consolidate the clinical material (ie all the info written by/for medical providers and patients) into its own section/article, then separate the HVAC/OSHA/arch/eco info into something like "causes and solutions", and leave the main article to deal with SBS in general as a public health phenomenon. Thoughts? -- bornLoser ( talk) 18:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Could text be developed to specifically address this issue of the indoor conditions' relationship with the outdoor conditions? A task COULD be to map indoor building filtration's relationship with outdoor conditions across any region's landscape. MaynardClark ( talk) 02:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Ask: "How are ' Nosocomial infections' and ' sick building syndrome' related conceptually?"
The CDC says that "Sick building syndrome is distinguished from more medically serious building-related illness by its subjective nature, reversibility, and high prevalence within implicated buildings and across the nonindustrial building stock in North America and Europe." [1] [2]
Perhaps something on a typology of occupational illnesses, that are context-related illnesses, injuries, or long-term harms. MaynardClark ( talk) 02:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Douglas Coupland popularized the phrase "sick building syndrome" in his novel Generation X and the article neglects to mention this. Shouldn't it be included? Candymoan ( talk) 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is quite credulous of "Sick building syndrome", a condition which may not exist. I removed some irrelevant material trying to link SARS to SBS. I'm unclear if the undated "World Health Organization" reference is authentic.
According to a 1991 EPA article, 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." But the lead and article do not emphasize the important part of the definition: that the cause is unknown. So once the cause of an illness is known, it's no longer SBS. And just because you don't know the cause, it could be confusing correlation for causation to blame the building. ScienceFlyer ( talk) 23:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)