14 Essential Things to Know About Disinfectants

It’s safe to say that none of us wants to have a serious battle with COVID-19, and to avoid it, we’re reaching for disinfectants in unprecedented amounts. If we’re not careful, though, we can cause ourselves and others health problems that are as potentially problematic as what we’re trying to avoid. Here are some things to know about disinfectants.

1.  Cleaning and disinfecting work in different ways. Cleaning removes germs by washing them down the drain. Disinfecting kills them.

2.  A sanitizer is similar to a disinfectant. The terms “sanitizing” and “sanitizer” are defined differently depending on who’s doing the defining. Sometimes sanitizing is used to mean the process of lowering the number of germs by either cleaning or disinfecting. Others use the term “sanitizer” to mean a disinfecting product designed for use on a person rather than a hard surface, and some say that sanitizers are for bacteria, while disinfectants also target viruses. Yet another definition is that sanitizers kill organisms, but that disinfectants kill both organisms and their spores.

spray-24302_1280.png

3.  Disinfectants are pesticides. A pesticide is a product designed to kill a living organism. A Texas A&M publication notes, “Pesticides that fight microbes are generally called antimicrobials. . . . About 275 active ingredients are found in antimicrobials, most of which are pesticides and must have an EPA-approved label.”

4.  An EPA registration means the product should kill what it says it will. It doesn’t mean it’s been proven safe. This is from a publication entitled Green Cleaning, Sanitizing, and Disinfecting found on the EPA’s own website: “Many people mistakenly think that if a cleaning, sanitizing, or disinfecting product is sold to the public it has been reviewed and proven safe by government agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that products labeled as sanitizers or disinfectants do kill the germs that the product claims to kill, but the registration review does not evaluate all possible health risks for users of the products. Cleaning products are also not routinely reviewed by the government to identify health risks to the user. Some manufacturers choose to have the EPA evaluate their cleaning products for human health and environmental safety through the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program, but this is voluntary and most products are not reviewed.”

5.  Despite the fact that they aren’t rigorously tested, health effects associated with common disinfectants are becoming more widely known. Chemical and Engineering News published an article entitled “Do We Know Enough About the Safety of Quat Disinfectants?” Quats (quaternary ammonium compounds) are widely used in disinfectant products, but they’ve been linked to a number of potentially significant health issues which have been discovered “independently and also by chance.” These include the possibility of birth defects, fertility issues, and disruption of cellular processes.  

Other disinfectant chemicals have their own problems. A publication entitled Safer Products and Practices for Disinfecting and Sanitizing Surfaces says this: “Although all of these ‘antimicrobial’ products have risks, there are a few types that pose greater, long-term risks to custodial workers and building occupants because they contain active ingredients that have been found to cause asthma (e.g., chlorine bleach/sodium hypochlorite, peroxyacetic acid, and quaternary ammonium compounds), cancer (e.g., ortho-phenylphenol), skin sensitization (e.g., chlorine bleach, pine oil, and thymol) or other health hazards. Several also pose environmental risks as well, such as silver and quaternary ammonium chloride compounds.”

6.  It’s not just the people who use them who are affected. The Green Cleaning publication speaks to the issue of workplace asthma tied to cleaning and disinfecting products. The authors note that 80% of those affected were bystanders who weren’t working directly with the chemicals, but were simply near enough to be exposed to them.

7.  Disinfectants can cause health problems both through inhalation and skin exposure. Disinfectant chemicals, especially quats, tend to accumulate on surfaces. They can then be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream. In an article on chemical exposures in the workplace, the CDC notes that absorption of chemicals through the skin may be the most significant route of exposure in some cases, and that cleaners are among the workers at risk.

For children in particular, the route may be more direct because chemicals end up on hands, and hands end up in mouths. In an “Ask the Professor” column, the authors state that this can lead to intake that’s more than 2,000 times higher than normal. For some disinfectant chemicals, a 3-year-old takes in 55 times more than an adult does.

8.  Disinfectants can’t get to germs on a surface to kill them unless the surface has been cleaned. This has been described as trying to vacuum the floor without picking up the toys and clothes there first.

cleaning-service-3924238_1920.jpg

9.  If a surface has been well cleaned, it may not need to be disinfected. An environmental expert noted that more than 90% of microorganisms on a surface can be removed with soap, water, and a microfiber cloth, which is potentially more effective than using disinfectants on a surface that hasn’t been cleaned. He said, "You always want to be balancing risks and benefits, and you want to be using the safest products possible in the safest way possible. You could use a grenade to kill a fly, but a fly swatter will work just as well and cause far less damage." A guide to safer disinfectants notes that the FDA banned 19 antimicrobial ingredients from soap in 2016, because plain soap and water without the disinfectant chemicals were found to be just as effective.

10.  Disinfectants may not be as important in the fight against sickness as we seem to think they are. A publication on talking to your child’s school about using safer products mentions a study which measured bacteria on children’s hands and on classroom surfaces. The researchers found that the amount of bacteria on hands was associated with how often kids got sick with colds or flu, but that the amount of bacteria on surfaces wasn’t a factor. The same publication notes, “There is no evidence that shows using disinfecting wipes, sprays, or antibacterial soaps are any more effective at preventing illness in the classroom than washing with regular soap and water.” Regarding COVID-19 in particular, the Centers for Disease Control says that “it may be possible” to be infected through touching a surface, but that it isn’t thought to be a primary route of transmission. 

11.  The focus on surface disinfection may distract us from what actually works. An article in The Atlantic calls the widespread use of disinfectants “hygiene theater” and provides this observation: “Establishments are boasting about their cleaning practices while inviting strangers into unventilated indoor spaces to share one another’s microbial exhalations. This logic is warped. It completely misrepresents the nature of an airborne threat. It’s as if an oceanside town stalked by a frenzy of ravenous sharks urged people to return to the beach by saying, We care about your health and safety, so we’ve reinforced the boardwalk with concrete. Lovely. Now people can sturdily walk into the ocean and be separated from their limbs.” 

12.  Disinfectants are often used improperly. Like other pesticides, there are safety laws that govern how they’re used. The Texas A & M article points out that instructions on disinfectant labels aren’t just suggestions. They say, “Using even a little more disinfectant than the label allows in a cleaning solution, or failing to wear the proper safety gear specified on the label, to give two examples, is a violation of state and federal pesticide laws.”

Many establishments are using sprayers, misters, or foggers to apply disinfectant products, which often doesn’t meet label requirements. The World Health Organization warns that spraying or fogging disinfectants “will not be effective and may pose harm to individuals.”

boy-5693669_1920.jpg

Many people are especially concerned that students in school settings are being given disinfectant wipes for cleaning their own desks. The EPA warns against this, pointing out that labels on disinfectants all say “Keep Out of Reach of Children.”

13.  Their use can lead to stronger, medication-resistant germs.

Benzalkonium chloride (BAC) is one of the most common active ingredients found in disinfectant products, including wipes and antibacterial soaps. Researchers have found that when bacteria is exposed to low levels of BAC, its tolerance can increase up to 500-fold. Microbial resistance is especially likely to develop when disinfectants are used improperly, such as on a surface that hasn’t been cleaned first.

14.  All disinfectants are not created equal. Some ingredients are much more problematic than others. A quick way to gauge the relative toxicity of a commercial disinfecting product is to look at the “signal word” on the label. It will say either “Danger,” “Warning,” or “Caution.”  The products with a “Danger” label are thought to be the most toxic, and those that say “Caution,” the safest. Within each category, there are products with varying degrees of safety. 

Commercial disinfectants are generally mixtures of many different compounds, so even if the first ingredient listed is considered safe, the product as a whole may not be. Fragrances are commonly added to disinfectant products, and they add many chemical hazards without increasing effectiveness in any way.

Remember that you may not need a disinfectant at all if you clean surfaces well (especially with a microfiber cloth), and if you do decide you need one, there are time-tested options. As one expert in environmental chemicals notes, “Hydrogen peroxide, citric acid, or octanoic acid are safe and effective,” and they’re all listed by the EPA as effective against the virus that causes COVID-19. In fact, research finds hydrogen peroxide-based disinfectants to be more effective than quat-based products.

Microbes can certainly cause problems, and so can antimicrobials. I pray you’ll stay safe from both.

 

Race and Environmental Illness

In the past, I’ve focused most of my attention on toxins we use in, on, or around our bodies, clothes, and homes (or other buildings). I’ve done this in part because there are many things each of us can control, and it seems more manageable and hopeful to focus on those than on things that are harder to change. Also, I find that people tend to be more aware of the potential hazards of outdoor than indoor air and I feel inclined to share information that’s less generally understood.

The full truth, though, is that the state of the air in our neighborhoods can profoundly affect our health and quality of life. In this cultural moment when the nation is focused on racial issues, I feel a need to address the heartbreaking and uncomfortable fact that the air in our neighborhoods and the degree of toxin exposure we experience may be determined in part by the color of our skin. While the country and church are focusing on things we can do better, I don’t want us to overlook this.

Unfortunately, in the United States, dark-skinned people are exposed to more pollution than light-skinned people are. A 2018 study published in the American Journal of Public Health examined the toxic burden from small particle pollution, associated with a wide range of health effects, including cancer, heart attacks, lung disease, and more. The authors note that people living in poverty had a burden 1.35 times higher than the general population, all non-whites 1.28 times higher, and blacks carried a burden 1.54 times the rate of the population at large. An article on the study notes that the degree of toxin exposure is only partly explained by facility location. The data indicates that “the magnitude of emissions from individual factories appears to be higher in minority neighborhoods.”

As the study demonstrates, race is a more powerful factor than income when predicting disparities. Dr. Robert Bullard reports that “African American households with incomes between $50,000 and $60,000 live in neighborhoods that are more polluted than the average neighborhood of white households with incomes below $10,000.” 

Bullard has been researching environmental inequity for decades. In the early 1980s he found that from the 1930s to 1978, 82 percent of waste in Houston was dumped in mostly black neighborhoods. These days he reports that in 46 states, people of color live with more air pollution than white people do and that black Americans are 79 percent more likely than their white counterparts to live in areas where industrial pollution is especially problematic.

Given the differences in toxic exposures, it isn’t surprising to see health differences as well, in many different conditions and diseases. African Americans have the highest cancer mortality rate among racial groups and are more likely than white Americans to report having fair or poor health. In an interview for a Yale University publication, Jacqueline Patterson focuses on lung issues and notes that “An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks than a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke.“ She states that “We have communities that are losing people every day from . . . toxic exposures.”

I was pleased to learn that what’s often called a “landmark” study, “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States” was commissioned and published by a church-based organization, the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ. It was written in 1987, and 20 years later they revisited the issue in “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty.” The conclusion of the updated publication was this: “Twenty years after the release of Toxic Wastes and Race, significant racial and socioeconomic disparities persist in the distribution of the nation’s commercial hazardous waste facilities. Although the current assessment uses newer methods . . . the conclusions are very much the same as they were in 1987.”  Today, 13 years after that was written, significant racial differences in toxin exposure still exist.

What can we do to address the issue? I wish I had a simple answer. I hope we can find ways to communicate to the powers-that-be that this isn’t acceptable. I hope we can work together to try to ensure that industry takes human health effects seriously and is held responsible when they don’t.

While we work for more broad-based change we can at least keep from making the problem worse. We can choose not to add to anyone’s toxic body burden, knowing that we all have a tipping point at which our detoxification system can no longer manage everything coming in. People with smaller bodies (generally women and children), those with genetic challenges, and people already dealing with a high toxic load can handle less than others can before their systems become overwhelmed and health problems appear.

Every single product choice we make affects other people as well as ourselves. Others are exposed to our perfumes, laundry products, cleaners, pest-control solutions and more. None of us know which exposure will be the one that’s just too much. I don’t want to be responsible for pushing anyone over the edge into illness. Do you?

Chemicals and COVID -19

A recent study determined that there are more than 350,000 chemicals and chemical mixtures registered for production and use, a number three times as high as previously estimated. Up to 70,000 of these chemicals are described ambiguously and more than 50,000 are classified as “confidential,” leading to an enormous gap in knowledge. Given the woeful lack of data and study, it isn’t possible to fully understand how chemicals in the environment may be making us more susceptible to COVID-19. We do know enough, though, to take some prudent steps.  Here’s some of what’s known at this point:

1. The numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all linked to levels of fine particulate matter in the air.

Particulate matter is an airborne mixture of solid and liquid particles. The smaller or finer the particles, the more problematic they are for human health, because they can more easily evade defenses. Several recent studies examined the relationship of particulate air pollution to COVID-19. A study by the World Bank Group found that the level of fine particulate matter was a highly significant predictor of how many confirmed cases and hospital admissions there would be in a geographical area. They report that a pollution increase of 20 percent may increase COVID-19 cases by nearly 100 percent. The researchers controlled for health-related preconditions and demographic factors and note that patterns suggest the number of cases is not simply related to population density.

Particulate pollution is also associated with COVID-19 morbidity. The Guardian reports on a US study finding that “even a tiny, single-unit increase in particle pollution levels in the years before the pandemic is associated with a 15% increase in the death rate.”  It further notes that long-term exposure to particle pollution was already known to increase the risk of death from all causes, but that in the case of COVID-19 deaths, the increase was 20 times higher. The correlation held when poverty levels, smoking, obesity, and availability of COVID-19 tests and hospital beds were factored in. It also held when New York City (with many cases) and counties with few cases were removed from the data pool.

2. Indoor air is generally more polluted than outdoor air.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the air inside homes and other buildings tends to be more polluted than outdoor air even in the most populated and industrialized cities. It’s easy to feel helpless about our exposure to outdoor air pollution, but to a large degree, we can control our indoor environments.

Particulate pollution inside a home or other building can come in many forms. Combustion (burning candles or incense, using a fireplace, etc.) is a significant contributor. Household dust is also a source, and can lodge in carpets, sofas, chairs, curtains, and bedding and easily become airborne when, for example, carpets are walked on or people sit on sofas or chairs. For multiple reasons (some of which I’ll discuss later), it’s wise to address as many sources of toxicity inside a building as possible. Different types of contamination interact. As one website explains, “Particles in air are either directly emitted, for instance when fuel is burnt and when dust is carried by wind, or indirectly formed, when gaseous pollutants previously emitted to air turn into particulate matter.”

3. There are known risk factors for COVID-19 complications, and known chemical connections to them.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that people at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19 include those with lung disease or asthma, obesity, diabetes, kidney or liver disease, and heart conditions. The list of chemicals that can contribute to these conditions is long.

dryer sheets.jpg

Researchers tested 50 types of consumer products for 66 chemicals related to asthma or hormone disruption (associated with diabetes and obesity) and found 55 of them. Implicated chemicals include those found in fragrances, cleaners, cosmetics, plastic, hair care products, detergents, and more. Some of the highest concentrations of problematic chemicals were found in fragranced products, such as dryer sheets, air fresheners and perfumes. Vinyl was also a significant source of exposure.

Because the kidney and liver are involved in detoxifying chemicals, all exposures can stress and affect them. The National Kidney Foundation notes that kidney disease may be associated with herbicides, pesticides, air pollution, and heavy metal exposure. There are at least 123 chemicals associated with fatty liver, according to a study in Toxicologic Pathology. A significant number are found in pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides). Solvents, plasticizers, fragrances, paints, polishes, and dyes are also sources. Heart disease is likewise associated with a long list of chemical exposures, including (according to an article in Interdisciplinary Toxicology) those found in pesticides, cleaning products, plastic, adhesives, paints, and many other products.

4.  It’s wise to choose disinfectants carefully.

In a warning posted soon before COVID-19 became big news, Consumer Reports noted that many people may not know that products labeled “disinfecting” contain EPA-registered pesticides. The report notes that people who use disinfectants and cleaners regularly in their work (janitors and healthcare workers, for example) have higher rates of asthma. According to Newsweek, nurses who cleaned surfaces with disinfectants at least once a week had a 24 to 32 percent higher risk of developing COPD than nurses who used the products less often.

An article entitled Safer Disinfecting at Home in the Times of Coronavirus states that quats (quaternary ammonium chlorides, commonly found in disinfectants) are associated with a list of problems, including breathing difficulty, skin irritation, reproductive harm (including possible fertility and birth defect issues) and antimicrobial resistance. Chlorine bleach can also be problematic. The author recommends using disinfectants containing hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, lactic acid, citric acid, or thymol.

5. Ventilation is our friend.

Information from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicates that fresh air and sunlight seem to have prevented deaths among those infected. An article on the subject reports that “in the 1960s, Ministry of Defence scientists proved that fresh air is a natural disinfectant. Something in it, which they called the Open Air Factor, is far more harmful to airborne bacteria — and the influenza virus — than indoor air. . . . Their research also revealed that the Open Air Factor’s disinfecting powers can be preserved in enclosures — if ventilation rates are kept high enough.”

Adequate ventilation is known to limit the spread of airborne pathogens in healthcare environments. The author of an article entitled Could the Indoor Air Quality of Our Buildings Become Part of the COVID-19 Playbook? asks whether addressing ventilation in other buildings might likewise be part of an anti-viral strategy (which also includes reducing indoor contaminants). The article notes that in their publication Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the CDC recommends increasing ventilation rates and the percentage of outdoor air.

6. Every exposure matters

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “viral load.” The viral load, however, is only a small part of a person’s overall toxic load, or toxic body burden. There are natural and man-made toxins inside every human being (even newborns). Some chemicals are metabolized relatively quickly and others stick around for decades or even a lifetime. Some chemicals have been shown to directly affect the immune system, but every substance added to the body requires resources to manage and takes a person one step closer to the tipping point at which staying healthy is no longer possible.

It can be helpful to know what chemicals are likely to cause what symptoms or diseases, or to know whether you have a genetic weakness that might make you more susceptible to the effects of a certain class of compounds. It isn’t necessary to know that, though, in order to begin to protect yourself.

A guide to addressing indoor air pollution during lockdown and beyond suggests the following:

  • Minimize use of air fresheners, pesticides, harsh cleaning products, aerosol sprays, and adhesives.

  • Reduce indoor burning.

  • Use an exhaust fan or open windows or doors.

To those, I would add the following suggestions:

  • Keep things clean (using simple, non-toxic products) and reduce the number of surfaces that hold dust. It’s not a quick, easy fix, but removing carpet can make a big difference.

  • Go fragrance free. A single fragrance can contain several hundred chemicals. (Also, fragrances in the products you use affect others around you as well.)

  • Determine how toxic your personal care products are and make changes if necessary. The Skin Deep database is a good source of information.

  • Reduce plastic use, especially in the kitchen.

  • Eat organic food.

Much needs to be done on a societal level to help us stay healthy, but there’s also much that each of us can do personally. Now is a good time to do it.

Chemical Sensitivity Isn't Rare

In my last post, I talked about the long process of writing and publishing my book, and said I could see the finish line, and thought I’d be able to crawl across it soon.  I still see it, but the crawling continues to be slow. 

The process has been so slow, in fact, that at some level I’m surprised that the need for the book still exists.  When I started writing, I would have assumed that by the end of 2019, we’d be more widely aware that the vast majority of chemicals in everyday products aren’t regulated or tested for safety and that we’re all being affected.  I would have predicted a broader understanding that a growing number of us have bodies that react strongly and obviously to chemical exposures, and that we can be the warning sign for people whose bodies react more slowly or in less conspicuous ways.  I would have presumed that people in power would have taken more steps to protect us.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the progress I would have expected.  In fact, in many ways, the toxicity issue appears to be getting worse.  The number of people whose bodies have become so overwhelmed that they developed Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is proof of that.

A number of studies over the years have looked at the prevalence of MCS.  The last one, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 2018 , found that over a quarter of the U.S. population (25.9%) reported being chemically sensitive, and 12.8% had been medically diagnosed with MCS. The author, Dr. Anne Steinemann, noted that “prevalence of diagnosed MCS has increased over 300%, and self-reported chemical sensitivity over 200%, in the past decade.”

Here are more quotes from the study:

·        Multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) is a medical condition characterized by adverse health effects from exposure to common chemicals and pollutants, from products such as pesticides, new carpet and paint, renovation materials, diesel exhaust, cleaning supplies, perfume, scented laundry products, and air fresheners.

·        MCS can cause a range of acute, chronic, multiorgan, and disabling health effects, such as headaches, dizziness, cognitive impairment, breathing difficulties, heart palpitations, nausea, mucous membrane irritation, and asthma attacks.

·        When exposed to fragranced consumer products, 86.2% of those with MCS experience one or more types of health problems, including respiratory difficulties (50.3%), migraine headaches (46.9%), mucosal symptoms (46.9%), skin problems (37.9%), and asthma attcks (31.7%).

·        Specific exposures triggering health problems include air fresheners and deodorizers (67.6%), scented laundry products coming from a dryer vent (57.9%), being in a room recently cleaned with scented products (67.6%), being near someone wearing a fragranced product (65.5%), and in general fragranced consumer products (73.1%).

·        For 76.0% of people with MCS, the severity of these health problems was potentially disabling according to the criterion of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), asked by the question: “Do any of these health problems substantially limit one or more major life activities, such as seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, or working, for you personally?”

·        58.6% of individuals with MCS are unable to use public restrooms that have an air freshener, deodorizer, or scented product; 55.2% are unable to wash their hands in a public place if the soap is fragranced; 63.4% enter a business but then want to leave as quickly as possible due to a fragranced product; and 70.3% have been prevented from going someplace because of the presence of a fragranced product that would make them sick.

·        While researchers continue to investigate which chemicals or mixtures of chemicals in fragranced consumer products could be associated with adverse effects, a practical step in the meantime would be to reduce exposure to the products.

Yep.  Seems like common sense, doesn’t it?  Synthetic fragrances and other everyday chemicals can make healthy people sick and sick people sicker.  They’re a completely unnecessary barrier that keeps an ever-increasing number of people from accessing basic services and attending church and other public gatherings. Things aren’t going to improve unless we decide to improve them. Let’s turn this around.

 

 

School Challenges and Victories

Avoiding chemical toxins is important for people of all ages, but may be especially crucial for children and teenagers, because their brains are still developing and because smaller bodies can detoxify less before becoming overwhelmed. For this reason, schools are an important focus in the battle for cleaner, healthier air.

This is a good news/bad news post focusing on two recent school stories. The first comes from Investigate West and addresses the dangers of building schools near large roadways and their associated pollutants. The author notes that evidence links proximity to heavily-traveled roads to asthma, lung problems and higher absenteeism among students but that, despite the evidence, policymakers in many locations have ignored clearly-presented risks and continue to build schools where exposure to traffic fumes is high.

At least six states have addressed the placement of school buildings near major traffic sources. California prohibits their construction within 500 feet of freeways under most circumstances and five other states have some sort of similar guidelines. In eight states, building near a major roadway is not prohibited, but school districts are asked to consider the issue.

The article notes that 36 states have no restrictions on building schools near environmental hazards. It also notes that in 2008 and 2009, separate groups of officials meeting in Olympia, Washington and Washington, D.C. considered restricting construction of schools near major roadways, but decided against taking action. An environmental health expert guessed at the reason. He noted, “They didn’t want to open that Pandora’s box. They knew that if they were to put exclusion criteria in there, it would raise these questions about schools already sitting in these hazardous zones, and reasonably so. Parents would say, ’My kids are at risk.’ And then what?”

The second story is a video that comes from a Fox affiliate station in Nashville and addresses cleaning products. The mother of a chemically sensitive child is interviewed and reports that, after four years of trying, she was able to convince her son’s school to replace toxic cleaning products with safer ones. A worker from Whole Foods Market is also interviewed and notes that the demand for safer cleaning products is growing. Finally, a specialist certified with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) talks about the cumulative effects of exposures and how the rates of learning disabilities, autism, asthma, and other conditions have skyrocketed.

Hurray for helpful news stories and for small victories with cleaning products. Boo for inaction on the part of policymakers. Hurray for mothers who work hard to protect their children. Boo for everything that makes it harder for them to do so.

People, Pests, and Pesticides

In last week's post I talked about triclosan, which is added to many consumer products to combat germs. In researching the issue, I ran across a couple of interesting sentences. One article said that triclosan was originally developed as a pesticide. Another said that triclosan was added to certain pesticide products. These sentences seemed strange to me, because triclosan IS a pesticide. In the broadest sense of the term, a pesticide is a chemical designed to kill unwanted biological life. Dictionary.com defines a pesticide as "a chemical preparation for destroying plant, fungal, or animal pests." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that triclosan was first registered as a pesticide in 1969.

Because pesticides are specifically designed to kill (which is, of course, what the “cide” suffix means), they are potentially very dangerous. In fact, Zyklon B, the poison used to kill prisoners in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, was a pesticide. A 2009 article in Environmental Health News reported on a study finding that children who live in homes where pesticides are used are twice as likely to develop brain cancer.

Some pesticides are more dangerous than others, but it's important to recognize pesticides in all of their forms. Is a product designed to kill something? If so, it’s probably a pesticide. Pesticide products can target bugs (such as sprays, bug bombs, mothballs, flea collars and lice shampoo), weeds (such as weed killer and weed-control fertilizer products), or pathogens (such as antimicrobial soaps or treated clothing).

The list of diseases and symptoms related to pesticide exposure is long. The website Beyond Pesticides includes a Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database which provides information linking pesticides to Alzheimer's disease, asthma, birth defects, cancer, diabetes, endocrine disruption, learning and developmental disorders, Parkinson's disease, and reproductive issues, among others. The EPA notes the following health effects from some commonly used pesticides.

  • 2, 4-D is found in over 1,500 pesticide products, is often used on residential lawns, and is frequently found in the dust of homes and other buildings. Studies link it to blood, liver, and kidney toxicity, coughing, a burning sensation in the lungs, loss of muscular coordination, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.

  • Atrazine is an herbicide often used on golf courses, roadway grasses, and residential lawns, and is frequently found in drinking water. It is an endocrine disruptor with effects on hormones, the central nervous system, and the immune system. Atrazine exposure increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and pre-term delivery and decreased birth weight of newborns.

  • DDVP (Dichlorvos) can be found in flea collars, pest strips, pesticide sprays, and foggers. It affects the brain, plasma, and red blood cells and can cause nausea, anxiousness, restlessness, teary eyes, heavy sweating, and many cancers.

  • Pyrethroids are generally used in lice shampoos, pet flea shampoos, household foggers, and municipal mosquito abatement products. Exposure can cause dizziness, twitching, nervous disorders, skin and respiratory irritation, and immunotoxic effects.

A quick Internet search or a trip to the library will often yield a natural solution to a pest problem that can be not only magnitudes safer and surprisingly effective, but cheaper as well. The websites Beyond Pesticides and The Best Control are good places to start. Pesticides of all sorts have ruined and even taken lives, and I urge people to take the issue very seriously. For your own sake and the sake of those around you, please stop and research alternatives before using any chemical designed to kill.

What Does Clean Mean?

A recent study determined that developing asthma was strongly associated with the workplace environment. The researchers associated 18 jobs with an increased risk of developing the condition. Four of these were cleaning jobs, and three more were noted to involve likely exposure to cleaning products.

This is far from the first study to correlate asthma and cleaning products. In 2006, a literature review determined that "accumulating, consistent evidence” linked asthma risk and cleaning work. In 2010, the same journal re-visited the issue. In an article entitled "Update on Asthma and Cleaners," the authors noted that further studies had verified and strengthened the link between jobs in the cleaning industry and evidence of asthma. They added that others who worked around and with cleaning products, such as homemakers and healthcare professionals, showed similar effects. Other articles and studies have also made that point. A study examining people who cleaned their own homes found that the use of cleaning sprays at least weekly was associated with asthma symptoms.

In a previous post I mentioned the need to think about what the word "fresh" really means. Similarly, I think it's wise to ponder the word "clean." Is coating a surface with chemicals that cause asthma and other health effects making it clean? I don't think so.

There are many non-toxic options for cleaning. The cheapest and most basic cleaning aid is water. It’s known as the universal solvent because of its ability to dissolve more materials than any other substance. The power of pure water can be enhanced with such things as heat (using a steam cleaner, for instance), pressure (using a pressure washer), time (soaking an item for a while), or special applicators, such as microfiber cloths. Water alone can’t clean everything, but it can clean more than we’re likely to give it credit for.

Sometimes the goal is simply to make a surface free of visible dirt. Other times the goal is to disinfect. Water can do that, too. The heat of a steam cleaner can kill germs, of course, but water doesn't have to be heated to perform that task. A test of various disinfectant products used to clean a computer keyboard found that “all disinfectants, as well as the sterile water control, were effective at removing or inactivating more than 95% of the test bacteria.” In other words, wiping for five seconds with clean water was as effective as wiping for five seconds with bleach, alcohol, or the other disinfectant wipes tested.

Another study of disinfectants also verified the power of water (salt water in this case) to disinfect. Researchers at the University of Alberta looked at whether a quick swipe with an antibacterial product was enough to disinfect a surface. They found that it was not, and that three passes was the optimal number. Interestingly, they also found that three wipes with a salt-water solution were equally effective. The authors note, “When the surface was swiped three or more times, the saline wipe appeared to be equally effective as disinfectant wipes.”

Let’s refuse to believe the marketing hype. Let’s protect our own health and the health of those around us by refusing to use products that are not only unnecessary, but harmful. Let’s think about what “clean” really means.

Leaving Leaves

Thanksgiving week was filled with family, friends, and fun. Unfortunately, it was also filled with leaf burning, which compelled me to leave my home and houseguests a couple of times to search for cleaner air. My city allows open burning of yard waste for three weeks in the spring and three weeks in the fall. I always dread it, and the fact that it coincided with Thanksgiving this year made it doubly frustrating.

Most of the items that cause health problems for the chemically sensitive are synthetic products, often made from a complex mixture of petrochemicals. Because of that, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that all synthetic products are harmful and all natural products are safe. That, however, is an oversimplification of the truth. Rattlesnake venom is natural, yet most understand it to be toxic. Many natural products that are generally helpful can be harmful in excess. It's even possible to die from drinking too much water.

Burning leaves are in a sense "natural." Sometimes a lightning strike will begin a fire. In general, however, fire is not the way God designed for leaves to change form. They are designed to simply decompose and return their nutrients to the earth without any special help from humankind. Burning piles and piles of leaves for week after week is neither natural nor wise. It can cause great distress for those of us with already-weakened bodies, and isn't healthy for anyone.

In a publication on residential leafburning, the Environmental Protection Agency has this to say:

  • Burning leaves produce carbon monoxide. This enters the body, combines with red blood cells, and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be supplied to body tissues.

  • Leaf burning produces hydrocarbons, some of which are irritants of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and some of which are known to cause cancer. Leaves often produce high amounts of hydrocarbons because they tend to burn poorly due to moisture and insufficient air circulation.

Smoke from burning leaves contains microscopic particles (particulate matter) that can reach the deepest part of the lungs. Breathing these particles can reduce the amount of air that can be inhaled and impair the lungs' ability to use the air available. It can also increase the risk of respiratory infection and asthma attacks. The particles can remain in the lungs for months or years.

Communities offer varying options for managing leaves. Some encourage homeowners to rake or blow them to the curb, where trucks vacuum them up to be turned into compost. Some municipalities pick up bagged leaves or allow them to be disposed of with household trash. Household composting of leaves is another option.

One of the easiest ways to manage leaves is to simply mow over them and leave them on the lawn. A mulching lawn mower works best, and will chop them more finely, but any mower will do the job. It’s best to mow frequently enough that the carpet of leaves doesn't become so deep that it blocks sunlight from reaching the grass below. .

If you're in the habit of burning leaves, I pray you'll consider other options. Fallen leaves can be a nuisance, but burning them creates more problems than it solves, and for some of us, the problems created can be literally life threatening. I urge you to find healthier ways to manage leaves, not only for your own sake, but also for the sake of those who share the air.

A “Fresh” Blog Post

I've been thinking about the word "fresh" recently. Although there are alternative meanings, the general definition of the word is "new." Often something fresh replaces something old, stale, or worn-out. We put on fresh socks or ask a friend to help us think of some fresh ideas for a project.

The air inside a building gets contaminated by the products used within it. In addition, humans inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, so when people are in a building, the air gets progressively less healthy from the simple act of breathing. We replace old, stale air with new, fresh air by opening windows or using ventilation systems. In no way whatsoever do we improve air quality by using those ridiculously named products known as “air fresheners."

Here are a handful of "air freshener" facts:

  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that most air fresheners contain formaldehyde and petrochemicals. They also contain a chemical known as 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (1,4,-DCB) which is an EPA-registered pesticide. It can cause cancer and lung damage and increases asthma rates. The chemical "freshens" the air by damaging nasal receptors. It does not remove odors, but removes people's ability to smell them.

  • A study comparing homes in which air fresheners were used every day with those in which they were used once a week or less found that babies in the daily-use homes had significantly more earaches and diarrhea, and their mothers suffered nearly 10% more headaches and had a 26% increase in depression.

  • Many air fresheners contain acetone and propane. They are toxic to the heart, blood, respiratory system, skin, gastrointestinal system, kidney, nervous system and liver.

  • Exposure to air freshener chemicals as little as once a week can increase your risk of developing asthma symptoms by up to 71%.

  • Most air fresheners contain phthalates, which are hormone-disrupting chemicals that can cause birth defects and infertility. These chemicals are even found in air fresheners designated as "unscented" or "all natural".

  • The human body stores chemicals like those found in air fresheners in fatty tissue. The body may hold onto fat as a way to protect itself from the release of the toxins.

  • Air freshener chemicals, including camphor, phenol, ethanol, formaldehyde, and artificial fragrances can cause a wide variety of health symptoms, including dizziness, coughing, rashes, mental confusion, and headaches, including migraines.

  • One study found that women with the highest usage of household chemicals, including air fresheners, had twice the risk of breast cancer of those with the lowest chemical usage rates.

Although air fresheners abuse and misuse the word "fresh," they aren't the only product to do so. I recently saw an advertisement for a laundry detergent that claimed it now had a higher percentage of "freshness." Really? I imagine what the marketers mean is that more fragrance chemicals have been added to the already potent and toxic mix. It's easy to get duped by marketing ploys, but we don't have to buy into the crazy-ness. We can break away from the crowd. We can have a fresh perspective. We can make a fresh start.

Sources: Are Air Fresheners Bad for Your Health?
Silent Menace
Air Fresheners: Easy Greening
How Air Fresheners Are Killing You
Air Fresheners' Real Impact on Indoor Air Quality

Do It for Your Future Grandkids

There are many reasons that the issue of chemical toxicity tends not to be taken very seriously by most people. Perhaps the most natural and common reason is that the issue doesn't feel personal. People don't associate their health symptoms with chemical exposures and generally assume they're handling everyday toxins just fine.

Yes, there are certainly biological differences in the way people's bodies process chemicals, and some people do have stronger detoxification systems than others. I truly believe, however, that everyone alive today is being affected by chemicals in the everyday environment to one degree or another. We're also evidently affecting the next couple of generations as well.

Chemicals can impact the human body in a number of different ways. They can directly affect organs and systems, they can mutate genes, or they can change the way genes express themselves. The latter are known as epigenetic changes and, like mutations, can be passed on to future generations.

A recent article entitled How Your Great Grandmother’s Chemical Exposures May Affect You discussed a study in which exposure to common chemicals was associated with ovarian diseases that lasted for three generations. We've long known that when a pregnant mother is exposed to certain chemicals that her child may be affected. It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that an exposure may not only affect her child, but her future grandchildren, and even their children as well. (There is also a growing awareness that a father's exposure to chemicals before a child is conceived can have significant implications. A World Health Organization publication, for instance, notes that "exposure of either father or mother to pesticides before conception . . . has been associated with an increased risk of fetal death, spontaneous abortion and early childhood cancer.")

An article entitled Epigenetics: Chemicals Turn Genes On and Off at the Wrong Times notes that epigenetic changes have been linked to a wide range of diseases and conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, obesity, breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, learning disabilities and asthma. This is serious business. It's easy for those of us past childbearing age to think the issue isn't relevant for us, but the truth is that our product choices affect others.. The personal care products we choose and the cleaning supplies, bug sprays and other products we use in our homes and churches may cause significant harm to the people around us and to individuals yet unborn. We are interconnected. Our product choices matter.