The Revised TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target List

We describe the catalogs assembled and the algorithms used to populate the revised TESS Input Catalog (TIC), based on the incorporation of the Gaia second data release. We also describe a revised ranking system for prioritizing stars for 2-minute cadence observations, and assemble a revised Candidate Target List (CTL) using that ranking. The TIC is available on the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (MAST) server, and an enhanced CTL is available through the Filtergraph data visualization portal system at the URL http://filtergraph.vanderbilt.edu/tess_ctl.Comment: 30 pages, 16 figures, submitted to AAS Journals; provided to the community in advance of publication in conjunction with public release of the TIC/CTL on 28 May 201

Before and after study of bar workers' perceptions of the impact of smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p><it>Objectives</it>: To compare support for, and perceptions of, the impacts of smoke-free workplace legislation among bar workers in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) pre- and post-implementation, and to identify predictors of support for the legislation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Setting</it>: Public houses (pubs) in three areas of the ROI.</p> <p><it>Design</it>: Comparisons pre- and post-implementation of smoke-free workplace legislation.</p> <p><it>Participants</it>: From a largely non-random selection, 288 bar workers volunteered for the baseline survey; 220 were followed up one year later (76.4%).</p> <p><it>Outcome measures: </it>Level of support for the legislation, attitude statements concerning potential impacts of the law and modelled predictors of support for the legislation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pre-implementation 59.5% of participants supported the legislation, increasing to 76.8% post-implementation. Support increased among smokers by 27.3 percentage points from 39.4% to 66.7% (p < 0.001) and among non-smokers by 12.4% percentage points from 68.8% to 81.2% (p = 0.003).</p> <p>Pre-legislation three-quarters of participants agreed that the legislation would make bars more comfortable and was needed to protect workers' health. Post-legislation these proportions increased to over 90% (p < 0.001). However, negative perceptions also increased, particularly for perceptions that the legislation has a negative impact on business (from 50.9% to 62.7%, p = 0.008) and that fewer people would visit pubs (41.8% to 62.7%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for relevant covariates, including responses to the attitude statements, support for the ban increased two to three-fold post-implementation. Regardless of their views on the economic impact, most participants agreed, both pre- and post-implementation, that the legislation was needed to protect bar workers' health.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Smoke-free legislation had the support of three-quarters of a large sample of bar workers in the ROI. However, this group holds complex sets of both positive and negative perspectives on the legislation. Of particular importance is that negative economic perceptions did not diminish the widely held perception that the ban is needed to protect workers' health.</p

Legislation for smoke-free workplaces and health of bar workers in Ireland: before and after study

Objectives To compare exposure to secondhand smoke and respiratory health in bar staff in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland before and after the introduction of legislation for smoke-free workplaces in the Republic. Design Comparisons before and after the legislation in intervention and control regions. Setting Public houses in three areas in the Republic (intervention) and one area in Northern Ireland (control). Participants 329 bar staff enrolled in baseline survey; 249 (76%) followed up one year later. Of these, 158 were non-smokers both at baseline and follow-up. Main outcome measures Salivary cotinine concentration, self reported exposure to secondhand smoke, and respiratory and sensory irritation symptoms. Results In bar staff in the Republic who did not themselves smoke, salivary cotinine concentrations dropped by 80% after the smoke-free law (from median 29.0 nmol/l (95% confidence interval 18.2 to 43.2 nmol/l)) to 5.1 nmol/l (2.8 to 13.1 nmol/l) in contrast with a 20% decline in Northern Ireland over the same period (from median 25.3 nmol/l (10.4 to 59.2 nmol/l) to 20.4 nmol/l (13.2 to 33.8 nmol/l)). Changes in self reported exposure to secondhand smoke were consistent with the changes in cotinine concentrations. Reporting any respiratory symptom declined significantly in the Republic (down 16.7%, -26.1% to -7.3%) but not in Northern Ireland (0% difference, -32.7% to 32.7%). After adjustment for confounding, respiratory symptoms declined significantly more in the Republic than in Northern Ireland and the decline in cotinine concentration was twice as great. Conclusion The smoke-free law in the Republic of Ireland protects non-smoking bar workers from exposure to secondhand smoke