2023

Yes, it’s December and this is my first blog post of the year. I have lots of them floating around in my head, but I’ve had trouble getting them out into the world. I appreciate those of you who’ve checked on me to see what I’ve been doing instead of writing. Here are a handful of the reasons I’ve been missing from the blogosphere.

1. I wanted a better way to manage my email list and contact those of you who signed up to get notified when I publish a new post. (I’m very grateful for all of you and your interest!) Unfortunately, my brain is old and starting to balk at learning new things, especially when it comes to technology. I managed to get about 80 percent of my contacts imported into a new program, then it started glitching and I just didn’t have the patience to figure it out. Every time I thought about writing a post I would also think “but I have to figure out the email thing first.” I didn’t want to have to figure it out, so it became easier not to write. (And no, I still haven’t completely switched to the new system, but I’m going to write this post anyway.)

2. I’ve been experimenting with other ways to get my message across and trying to figure out what’s most effective. Besides writing this blog, I post short toxin-related news items on Facebook and X and I comment on other people’s posts when appropriate. I’ve kept up with those efforts a little better than I’ve kept up with the blog. I hope in 2024 I can manage to do both more consistently.  I also contributed a chapter to a book on grace that was published this year.

3. I’ve been trying to free up more time to write by lowering the amount of maintenance chores in my life. I have a large yard and keeping up with it takes significant time and energy (and often means tick bites, which as a chronic Lyme disease sufferer I’d really prefer to avoid). I was determined that this would be the year that I’d finish turning all the weedy mulch nearest the house into easier-to-maintain hardscapes, so for the first part of the year, before the event I’ll talk about next, I pushed hard to get it done (while writing blog posts in my head). No, I didn’t meet that goal, either, but I made some good progress. 

4. The biggest reason that I didn’t write much was that I spent a good portion of the year on the bottom rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As I mention in my book, the basics of food, clothing, and shelter are all hard to manage for people with chemical sensitivities, and shelter is probably the hardest domain to conquer for most of us.

   What happened for me this time around is that the chimney flashing started to leak, a roofer came to repair it, and that set off an unfortunate chain of events. I’ll spare you the full story, but the short version is that I had pain and other symptoms that were significantly worse when I was in certain parts of the house. A little sleuthing led to the surprise discovery that there was a big gap above a duct that led from my living space into the attic, so attic air was freely flowing in. What I finally deduced was that the roof work must have stirred up some mold-laden dust (there was probably mold in the roof decking from the leak) and the spores and mycotoxins made their way into my breathing space. 

   Many people with chemical sensitivities are also very sensitive to mold. It's hard to describe, for people who aren’t highly reactive to it, how little exposure it takes to cause severe inflammation and how much cleaning goes into making a place tolerable again after a mold event. There are various names for the process in the mold community, but I’ve always called it ESI cleaning, which means “every square inch.”  There are a lot of square inches in a home and all its contents, and sometimes the whole process has to be repeated multiple times. It probably seems ridiculous to people who can’t even see or sense the problem, but it’s what some of us have to do.

   For a while I couldn’t sleep in the house safely, and my fear was that it might turn into a permanent situation, which happened in my previous home. I no longer have the campervan I slept in then, but I do have a screen room on the back of the house which I thought I could use for that purpose. Unfortunately, I discovered a roof leak and resultant mold in there, too, so that project got added to the list. It was a lot to do, especially given how bad I was feeling, and writing didn’t happen while I was focused on it. Anyway, I’m pain free and comfortably inside my house again and I’m grateful.

That’s my personal 2023 report. On the toxin front, my award for chemical of the year (really a group of related chemicals) goes to PFAS. At this point 15 state governments have pursued legal action against companies believed to be responsible for polluting the water and soil with it. I’m always curious about why any given toxin can be ignored for decades, then suddenly break into public consciousness. My guess is that this time it was the movie Dark Waters that did it. I think we need more movies about toxins.

Microplastics have also been getting a lot of attention. I would give them runner-up status. Sometimes people call PFAS “forever chemicals” and microplastics “everywhere chemicals.” As all chemicals do, they also interact. PFAS has been found in pesticides, which they pick up from the plastic containers they’re stored in.

If you’ve read all this and you’re interested in toxins and in my life, I’m truly grateful for you. Thanks for being with me on this journey.  Stay tuned.  My goal is to get one more post (that’s not about me) published before the year is over.  We shall see . . .

Chemicals and COVID-19, Part Two

A few months ago I wrote a post summarizing some of what was then known about the chemical connection to COVID-19. I talked about the link between the disease (cases, hospitalizations, and deaths) and fine particulate matter in the air. I also mentioned chemical connections to some of the risk factors like asthma and heart disease. Some new, potentially important information has come to light since then, so it’s time for an update.

Forever Chemicals

The most significant new information concerns compounds that have come to be known as “forever chemicals” because they’re so persistent. These chemicals are in a class once known as PFCs (perfluorinated chemicals) and now generally called PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). PFAS are currently in the spotlight, due at least in part, I believe, to the excellent movie Dark Waters, which brought them into the public consciousness. 

PFAS have already been linked to a wide range of negative health effects, but it appears we can add something new to the list. They may make COVID-19 worse.  A very recent study, still undergoing peer review, found that people infected with coronavirus who had elevated levels of one particular PFAS chemical had more than twice the risk of experiencing severe illness. What’s especially disturbing is that the particular substance, PFBA (aren’t these acronyms fun?), has been promoted as being safer than others in the class because it leaves the bloodstream more rapidly. Unfortunately, it accumulates in the lungs, which may explain the finding.

The Harvard researcher who found the connection also worries about something else. Previous research has found that people exposed to PFAS had reduced antibody concentrations after receiving tetanus and diphtheria vaccinations. In other words, the chemicals apparently reduced vaccine effectiveness. Will the chemicals also interfere with a COVID vaccine? As he notes, “At this stage we don’t know if it will impact a corona vaccination, but it’s a risk. We would have to cross our fingers and hope for the best.”

Unfortunately, PFAS are even harder to avoid than we previously thought. They’re handy for making things non-stick and waterproof, so an obvious place to start lowering your load is by avoiding products with those sorts of coatings. Seven years ago, when they were still called PFCs, I wrote a post noting that “it seems ironic that PFCs are generally used for their anti-stick properties given the fact that they’re very ‘sticky’ and persistent in the environment and in our bodies.”

Avoiding obviously non-stick products isn’t enough, though. A group of researchers recently attempted to determine just how widespread the use of PFAS has become, and said this: “What we found is deeply disturbing. PFAS are used in almost all industry branches and in a much wider range of consumer products than we expected. Altogether, we found PFAS in more than 200 use categories.” They note that some uses were already known, such as in fast-food containers, carpets, waterproof fabrics, ski waxes, batteries, muffin tins, popcorn bags, dental floss, and fire-fighting foams, but that many weren’t. They found the chemicals in hand sanitizers, mobile phones, a wide variety of cosmetic products, artificial turf, guitar strings, piano keys, pesticides, printer ink, and many more surprising places. PFAS frequently show up in the water supply, and have also been found in food as diverse as meat, leafy greens, and chocolate cake with icing.

Gas Appliances

As I noted in my previous post, the state of the air we breathe (particularly the amount of particulate matter in it) has been linked to the number and severity of COVID cases. Now it appears that long-term exposure to high NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) is more dangerous than exposure to particulate matter or ozone and correlates with a higher risk of death from the disease. An article reporting on the finding notes that NO2 is a primary pollutant produced by natural gas-burning stoves and furnaces.

Cleaners and Disinfectants

Last month I wrote an entire post on disinfectants, so I won’t repeat it all here, but I’ll point out that we now know much more clearly than we did at the beginning of the pandemic how the virus spreads, and that knowledge changes the risk/benefit equation of using disinfectant chemicals.  A New York Times article published after I wrote my post was aptly headlined:  “The Coronavirus Is Airborne Indoors. Why Are We Still Scrubbing Surfaces?” It points out that “disinfecting sprays are often made from toxic chemicals that can significantly affect indoor air quality and human health.”

A recent piece in the Washington Post makes the same point and notes that there’s not a single documented case of COVID-19 being transmitted through a contaminated surface. The authors (three professors) give the analogy of cleaning countertops and doorknobs to try to protect yourself from the effects of cigarette smoke in the air. They add that “the use of all of these extra cleaning products releases chemicals into the air that can be harmful to our health.”

Long-haulers

A growing number of “long-haulers” who have persistent symptoms after being infected with the virus are reporting increased sensitivity to everyday chemicals. Many of us with MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) find familiarity in the story.  All people alive carry a load of manmade and biological toxins inside, and when the load gets too high, sometimes the body turns on a warning system to keep us from being injured further. 

An article headlined “Why Are COVID-19 Long-Haulers Developing Fragrance Allergies?” points out that the main way to cope is to avoid triggers, but acknowledges that it’s difficult to do. Indeed it is. Let’s help ourselves and each other by being very intentional about the products we buy and use.

Sticky Chemicals

Last month, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives reported on a study of common household chemicals called PFCs. The lead study author, quoted in a WebMD article, noted that the study found "a clear and strong association between exposure to [these] compounds and osteoarthritis, which is a very painful chronic disease.“ Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis and involves irreversible deterioration of joint cartilage.

PFCs are often used to make products slicker and more repellent. Some of the many places they may be found include:

• Nonstick cookware

• Grease-resistant food packaging, such as microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, and fast food sandwich wrappers

• Paper plates

• Carpeting

• Stain-resistant upholstered furniture

• Some clothing items, including those made of Gore-Tex and other fabrics treated for water or stain resistance

• Shoes

• Luggage

• Camping and sporting equipment

• Certain cosmetic and personal care products, including shampoo, dental floss, denture cleaners, nail polish, eye make-up, pressed powder, shaving cream, and lotion

PFCs have been previously linked to other negative health effects. These include higher levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol, skewed thyroid hormone levels, premature onset of menopause in women, liver inflammation, reduced vaccine effectiveness in children, smaller birth size of babies, and weakening of the immune system. They cause cancer in laboratory animals and are likely human carcinogens.

It seems ironic that PFCs are generally used for their anti-stick properties given the fact that they’re very “sticky” and persistent in the environment and in our bodies. It takes a human body 4 years to expel half of a dose of one of the two most common PFCs and more than 8 years to process half a dose of the other. Some varieties of the chemicals have been removed from the market, but others have taken their place. The Environmental Working Group notes that "companies that manufacture PFCs have agreed to phase out one variety, called PFOA, by 2015. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that the chemicals being used to replace it are any safer."

Tips for avoiding PFCs include the following:

• Avoid use of Teflon-type non-stick cookware. Safer alternatives are stainless steel, cast iron, ceramic, or enamel. Remember that it isn't just pans that may be coated with PFCs, but muffin tins, cookie sheets, and other bakeware.

• Decline optional stain-protection treatment when buying furniture. Some health experts recommend covering any treated furniture already owned with a heavy slipcover to impede migration of the chemicals from the furniture into your body.

• Carpeting should be avoided for many reasons. (See this previous post.) Adding treatment for stain resistance makes a bad product worse.

• Avoid clothing treated for water or stain repellency. In most situations, the benefits are not worth the risk. Tightly-woven non-treated fabrics are often an acceptable alternative.

• Minimize consumption of food packaged in PFC-coated containers. Pop popcorn on the stove, in an air-popper, or in a plain brown bag in the microwave. Use glass or ceramic for microwave cooking and for storing leftovers. Avoid paper plates.

• When buying cosmetics and personal care products, read the labels and look for PTFE and for ingredients that start with "fluoro" or "perfluoro." These are PFCs and should be avoided.

I know it’s discouraging to constantly read of the extent of the chemical problem and the ramifications of using the products that surround us. I find it discouraging, too. We simply must educate ourselves, though, and do what we can to protect ourselves and our fellow human beings. Seemingly small decisions can matter more than we imagine.