{"id":1047,"date":"2010-06-10T23:47:06","date_gmt":"2010-06-11T03:47:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/?p=1047"},"modified":"2010-06-16T21:25:07","modified_gmt":"2010-06-17T01:25:07","slug":"the-personal-environment-iii-the-stuff-around-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/?p=1047","title":{"rendered":"The Personal Environment III: The Stuff Around Us"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"dreamstime_10145230_thumb3\"<\/a>In the spring of 2009, stories began to appear in the press about Chinese drywall that was so toxic that it corroded copper pipes and wiring, and made people and animals who lived in the houses where it had been installed chronically ill. Silver and brass tarnished. The air smelled like rotten eggs. Most of the inhabitants had respiratory problems and nosebleeds. Most of the time, they just felt sick.<\/p>\n

When a product harms a customer, the product\u2019s manufacturer and\/or distributor often responds with something like: \u201cIt\u2019s nothing. It’s minimal. It was the user’s fault.\u201d In this case, that\u2019s how the building industry behaved. In a response that should have been a parody on Saturday Night Live<\/em>, Randy Noel of the Louisiana Builders Association said, “It’s a black soot on top of the copper, brass and silver. You wipe the stuff off and it looks as good as new.”<\/p>\n

But we don\u2019t need to look to the Chinese to supply us with toxic building \"dreamstime_13076020\"<\/a>materials or other household products that can make us sick. A couple of years ago, the EPA released a report, \u201cThe Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality.\u201d That report said that the air in most\u00a0 American homes was pretty bad \u2013 or at least inferior to the air outdoors \u2013 whether the houses were in rural or industrial areas. The causes of the bad air, the EPA said, were sources like mold, radon, combustion products and volatile organic compounds (VOC\u2019s) emitted by wood products, paints, varnishes and pesticides. Their report didn\u2019t even include household products that add to the problem: Products like window and surface spray cleaners, or so-called \u201cair fresheners\u201d that may be more likely to contaminate than \u201cfreshen\u201d the air.<\/p>\n

Where\u2019s the Data?<\/strong><\/p>\n

But doing something about the toxins in the air around you isn\u2019t easy, because it\u2019s hard to get the information you need, even to get started. Getting hard information on what substances are toxic and what products contain them is so hard because there\u2019s so little data available. How did this happen?<\/p>\n

For the last twenty years or so, most of the substances used have not \u2018tested by the EPA,\u2019 as many chemical company statements would \"dreamstime_14488963\"<\/a> have you believe. What really happens if a company wants to introduce a chemical, is that the company has the chemical tested (usually on animals) at a certified laboratory at its expense. Then, if the lab results show that there are no significant effects on the test animals in the dosages or exposures that are used in the tests, the company registers it with the EPA as an accepted chemical, and the EPA lets the company use the chemical in its products, or allows it sell the chemical to other companies to use in theirs. In other words, everybody\u2019s on their honor.<\/p>\n

But if you don\u2019t think that the big chemical corporations who make the stuff you use are heavy on honor, you\u2019ve got company. If you read most health and environmental websites you get a long list of terrible toxic chemicals which are<\/em> present in most of the products we use in our homes.<\/p>\n

Yes, indeed, say the chemical companies, but most of these chemicals are present in most of our products in tiny amounts. In these tiny amounts \u2013 often parts-per-million (ppm) \u2013 they don\u2019t have toxic effects. And in these small amounts, our tests show that these chemicals are safe.<\/p>\n

\"dreamstime_8521638\"<\/a> So there we are, stuck in the middle of contradictory statements, not knowing which way to turn. There are the terrible warnings from environmental watchdogs on one side, and the reassuring statements from the chemical companies and the silence from our government agencies on the other. Trying to figure out things for ourselves is very difficult. We can\u2019t go by the ingredients, because household products and furniture don\u2019t come with a list of the chemicals used to make them. The list of household products maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) does include a MSDS \u2013 the Material Safety Data Sheet. Manufacturer\u2019s have to provide one for every chemical used. But almost invariably, the category, \u201cChronic Health Effects,\u201d is followed by the statement, \u201cThe manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheet provides no information about health effects resulting from prolonged or frequent use of this product.\u201d (Acute Health Effects, which are usually spelled out, are for acute contact, like drinking or having the stuff poured or splashed on you, which most of us normally manage to avoid with household products.)<\/p>\n

But Here\u2019s the Beef<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"dreamstime_2063321\"<\/a> There are several things wrong with this picture: One is that these chemicals are now permeating our water supplies. While they are present in permissible amounts in any one use, like when you brush your teeth or wash your clothes or your dishes or car, all those little doses are flushed down the drain right into our water supplies. The way they are currently designed, our public water purification systems remove solid matter and bacteria but let small amounts of many chemicals through. So we\u2019re not only using these chemicals, but we\u2019re drinking them, and the animals and vegetables that we eat are drinking them. As a result, we have many of them sitting in our tissues \u2013 and we don\u2019t have a clue as to what they\u2019re doing while they\u2019re there. But suspicions are rising that they\u2019re up to no good.<\/p>\n

Those suspicions are fueling public concern about many diseases and disorders that are far more prevalent than they used to be. For example, the incidence of autism has gone from 5 in 10,000 in 1979 to 90 in 10,000 in 2005. To explain why this is happening, scientists are studying how relatively small doses of supposedly innocent chemicals can interact in our bodies can form a substance that harms us. They\u2019re also finding that many of these chemicals are persistent. They\u2019re not broken down to harmless chemicals in our bodies, and they don\u2019t break down when they\u2019re in the environment. So they\u2019re also trying to find out if we accumulate high enough doses of these chemicals to harm us.<\/p>\n

Again, proof of this pudding is slow in coming because there are so few studies on this issue. The chemical companies who paid for the tests they had<\/em> to perform are not going to go the extra mile; they weren\u2019t going to do any tests except the ones they needed to register their products for the market. So they\u2019re not testing to see if we accumulate large enough doses to hurt us. They\u2019re not testing to see if several harmless chemicals can combine in the body to make something toxic.<\/p>\n

The lack of studies is not only due to the years 2000 to 2008, during the Bush administration, when the Environmental Protection Agency went to extra lengths to avoid upsetting the chemical corporations. These companies weren\u2019t exactly pushed, either,\u00a0 by the requirements of TSCA, the original Toxic Substances Control Act passed in 1976. The act has a lot of procedures that help chemical companies stall and delay a ruling indefinitely. It also requires complex negotiations between different branches of the EPA and the chemical companies to get anything but the most basic testing done. As a result, it\u2019s been more effective in stopping toxic chemical regulation in its tracks than in furthering the process of scientific review. A move is currently in Congress to streamline the process and make the companies more responsive to EPA demands to test for the health effects of doubtful chemicals, but whether this revision of TSCA will succeed or be buried under the current lobbying effort to defang it, is still up for grabs.<\/p>\n

Some Culprits<\/strong><\/p>\n

Unless you live in a very old house with very old furniture and use 19th<\/sup> Century cleaning materials like vinegar and baking soda (which actually work very well for many purposes \u2013 see \u201cHomemade Cleaning Products<\/a><\/a>,” you are likely to be exposed to toxic chemicals in your home in at least marginally damaging doses.<\/p>\n

\"dreamstime_9900439\"<\/a> A principal culprit is the formaldehyde and other VOC\u2019s exuded by the composite wood that fills most American houses and apartments. Composite wood like plywood and particle board is under the flooring, the siding and under the roof. Wood composites, usually covered with veneers, make up kitchen and bathroom cabinets, tables, dressers, shelving, sideboards and chairs. The glues that hold the particles in particle board together, that hold the layers of plywood together and that hold veneers to their substrates almost all currently contain VOC\u2019s, and a lot of formaldehyde. While the bulk of the VOC\u2019s are gassed off in the first few weeks after the wood composite is made or the furniture assembled, these compounds continue to filter into the air for many years \u2013 more slowly than at first, but still at a measurable rate. In a well-sealed home they accumulate and can make us sick. At the least, they make us less healthy.<\/p>\n

\"dreamstime_5861920\"<\/a> There are also VOC\u2019s seeping from our mattresses and upholstered furniture, which have been treated \u2013 as current law in most states still requires \u2013 by brominated flame retardants (BFR\u2019s \u2013 or PBDE\u2019s, for polybrominated diphenyl ethers). PBDEs impair development of the nervous system. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) noted that PBDEs are particularly toxic to the developing brains of animals and children. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that even a single dose administered to mice during development of the brain can cause permanent changes in behavior, including hyperactivity.<\/p>\n

PBDEs have also been shown to have hormone disrupting effects, particularly on estrogen and thyroid hormones. House cats, who ingest ambient chemicals for dust and furniture continuously from grooming themselves, and spend a lot of time on upholstered furniture, seem currently to be most visibly affected. Over the last twenty years, there has been an epidemic of older cats developing fatal levels hyperthyroidism. Repeatedly, tested cats with this disease are found to have extremely high levels of PBDE\u2019s.<\/p>\n

The requirement that all beds and furniture be made flame retardant appears, by one estimate, to have saved 213 people from igniting their beds or couches in 2006 \u2013 mostly by their own carelessness with cigarettes or candles. Instead, we have chosen to slowly poison over 300 million people and their household pets.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t seem to have been a good choice.<\/p>\n

Most detergents, household cleaners and pesticides contain VOC\u2019s that you breathe in and absorb through your skin, both when you\u2019re using them, and afterward, as they evaporate from the surfaces you\u2019ve put them on. But it\u2019s not always the ones we know that are the worst for us. We know when we use cleaning fluid that we\u2019re using a toxic chemical, and try to limit our exposure. But if you\u2019re spraying the air with a scented air freshener, you don\u2019t expect that it will contain \u201c89 air contaminants<\/a>, including ethyl acetate (toxic to the brain and nervous system), acetaldehyde (a known respiratory irritant and possible human carcinogen), and butylated hydroxytoluene (a preservative that’s toxic to the immune system and suspected of interfering with hormones).\u201d<\/p>\n

Most air fresheners contain these ingredients. But so do the compounds that give many products their \u2018fragrance.\u2019 This includes not only scented candles, but also scented soaps, detergents and fabric softeners. That \u2018scent of spring\u2019 that the advertiser so ardently uses to recommend a detergent for your laundry is most probably the scent of a toxic chemical mix.<\/p>\n

These are not comforting thoughts.<\/p>\n

What To Do?<\/strong><\/p>\n

For most of us, keeping ourselves and our families safe from toxic compounds is complicated by economics. In general, furniture, cleaning and building products that have been made with our health in mind cost more, as does furniture made from solid woods.<\/p>\n

While we have a long way to go in the area of household chemicals, there\u2019s been significant progress as Americans have begun to wake up to their toxic environment and started to demand safer products. There are low- (and virtually no-) VOC paints and varnishes. These used to be made by a few specialty manufacturers, but now even major paint companies like Sherwin-Williams have a full line of low-VOC paints.<\/p>\n

The same goes for household products. Brands like Seventh Generation were once a rarity in supermarkets, which now often carry more than one line of chemically safer products. But one of the most promising routes to safer cleaning and washing stuff is being provided by a division of the EPA: the DfE, the Design for the Environment Program. The DfE has a \u201cContinuous Technical Improvement Committee\u201d that \u201cscreens each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and that\u2014based on currently available information, EPA predictive models, and expert judgment\u2014the product contains only those ingredients that pose the least concern among chemicals in their class.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a> Products that meet the DfE\u2019s criteria get to display the DfE label, and are listed on the program\u2019s site<\/a><\/a>. So far, only a few common consumer products, like Shout stain remover and Palmolive dishwashing liquid, now carry the label, but as more consumers realize that choosing to buy DfE-labeled products can make a difference in their health, more manufacturers will comply. In the meantime, you, dear reader, can help yourself by choosing products that carry this label or at least choose those that claim to use non-toxic chemicals.<\/p>\n

In the case of mattresses and upholstered furniture, the requirement in most states that they be treated with flame retardants complicates the situation of anyone trying to reduce their toxic chemical load. So far, only California (2003), Washington and Maine (2008) prevent PBDE\u2019s from being used or sold within their boundaries, but that doesn\u2019t prevent these compounds from permeating furniture that predates those restrictions in those and the other 47 states. If the plastic covers our grandmothers often placed over their \u2018best\u2019 upholstered furniture didn\u2019t emit other toxic chemicals, now would be the time to use them \u2013 to keep our couches from filling the air around us with invisible, almost odorless VOC\u2019s. Covering mattresses with PBDE-free covers and covering upholstered furniture with PBDE-free fabrics will not eliminate, but will at least reduce the chemicals that would otherwise rub off on us and our pets.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the spring of 2009, stories began to appear in the press about Chinese drywall that was so toxic that it corroded copper pipes and wiring, and made people and animals who lived in the houses where it had been installed chronically ill. Silver and brass tarnished. The air smelled like rotten eggs. Most of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":""},"categories":[401],"tags":[501,500,164,499,507,503,457,498,497,496,74,184,502],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1047"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1047"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1047\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1049,"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1047\/revisions\/1049"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itstheenvironmentstupid.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}