Affiliation:
1. Elaine LaFay is with the History Department, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Paul E. Sampson is with the History Department, University of Scranton, Scranton, PA.
Abstract
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a vigorous public health discussion has arisen over indoor air quality and ventilation. In popular press articles, bestselling books, and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s recently announced Clean Air in Buildings Challenge, scholars and policy experts have claimed that improved ventilation systems can lead to better productivity and performance. By reevaluating those claims in light of the history of public health in Great Britain and the United States, we found that better ventilation has frequently been proposed as a cost-effective and nonintrusive means of improving health in institutions experiencing structural and environmental public health problems. Furthermore, our examination of efforts to provide ventilation for enslaved people, incarcerated people, and the urban poor revealed a consistent lack of government regulation and a disassociation of air quality concerns from broader environmental, social, and economic realities. By continuing to ignore these broader contexts, current ventilation efforts risk repeating this pattern. ( Am J Public Health. 2024;114(8):798–804. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307670 )
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Reference36 articles.
1. The new London sewer embankments, for example, cost more than £2.4 million in 1869 (more than £234 million when adjusted for inflation). See Halliday S. The Great Stink of London (Phoenix Mill, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2001), 148; “Inflation Calculator,” Bank of England, August 16, 2023, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator (accessed May 14, 2024).
2. The “necessaries of life” in British political medicine, 1750–1850
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献