Search

Objectives Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region. Methods A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated. Results Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and/or ventilated areas. Conclusions Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tier 1 exposure tools recommended for use under REACH are designed to easily identify situations that may pose a risk to health through conservative exposure predictions. However, no comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the lower tier tools has previously been carried out. The ETEAM project aimed to evaluate several lower tier exposure tools (ECETOC TRA, MEASE, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) as well as one higher tier tool (STOFFENMANAGER®). This paper describes the results of the external validation of tool estimates using measurement data. Methods: Measurement data were collected from a range of providers, both in Europe and United States, together with contextual information. Individual measurement and aggregated measurement data were obtained. The contextual information was coded into the tools to obtain exposure estimates. Results were expressed as percentage of measurements exceeding the tool estimates and presented by exposure category (non-volatile liquid, volatile liquid, metal abrasion, metal processing, and powder handling). We also explored tool performance for different process activities as well as different scenario conditions and exposure levels. Results: In total, results from nearly 4000 measurements were obtained, with the majority for the use of volatile liquids and powder handling. The comparisons of measurement results with tool estimates suggest that the tools are generally conservative. However, the tools were more conservative when estimating exposure from powder handling compared to volatile liquids and other exposure categories. In addition, results suggested that tool performance varies between process activities and scenario conditions. For example, tools were less conservative when estimating exposure during activities involving tabletting, compression, extrusion, pelletisation, granulation (common process activity PROC14) and transfer of substance or mixture (charging and discharging) at nondedicated facilities (PROC8a; powder handling only). With the exception of STOFFENMANAGER® (for estimating exposure during powder handling), the tools were less conservative for scenarios with lower estimated exposure levels. Conclusions: This is the most comprehensive evaluation of the performance of REACH exposure tools carried out to date. The results show that, although generally conservative, the tools may not always achieve the performance specified in the REACH guidance, i.e. using the 75th or 90th percentile of the exposure distribution for the risk characterisation. Ongoing development, adjustment, and recalibration of the tools with new measurement data are essential to ensure adequate characterisation and control of worker exposure to hazardous substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the past half century the global tendency for improvements in longevity has been uneven across countries. This has resulted in widening of inter-country disparities in life expectancy. Moreover, the pattern of divergence appears to be driven in part by processes at the level of country groupings defined in geopolitical terms. A systematic quantitative analysis of this phenomenon has not been possible using demographic decomposition approaches as these have not been suitably adapted for this purpose. In this paper we present an elaboration of conventional decomposition techniques to provide a toolkit for analysis of the inter-country variance, and illustrate its use by analyzing trends in life expectancy in developed countries over a 40-year period. Methods: We analyze trends in the population-weighted variance of life expectancy at birth across 36 developed countries and three country groups over the period 1970-2010. We have modified existing decomposition approaches using the stepwise replacement algorithm to compute age components of changes in the total variance as well as variance between and within groups of Established Market Economies (EME), Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and the Former Soviet Union (FSU). The method is generally applicable to the decomposition of temporal changes in any aggregate index based on a set of populations. Results: The divergence in life expectancy between developed countries has generally increased over the study period. This tendency dominated from the beginning of 1970s to the early 2000s, and reversed only after 2005. From 1970 to 2010, the total standard deviation of life expectancy increased from 2.0 to 5.6 years among men and from 1.0 to 3.6 years among women. This was determined by the between-group effects due to polarization between the EME and the FSU. The latter contrast was largely fueled by the long-term health crisis in Russia. With respect to age, the increase in the overall divergence was attributable to between-country differences in mortality changes at ages 15-64 years compared to those aged 65 and older. The within-group variance increased, especially among women. This change was mostly produced by growing mortality differences at ages 65 and older. Conclusions: From the early 1970s to the mid-2000s, the strong divergence in life expectancy across developed countries was largely determined by the between-group variance and mortality polarization linked to the East--West geopolitical division. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]