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 . . .

Life and Death

I’ve discovered something about myself. It’s extremely difficult for me to write about people who lose their lives because of avoidable chemical exposures.

Of course, that category is very large when you consider the role that chemicals can play in conditions like cancer and heart disease. The long-term consequences of using common chemicals can be heartbreaking, but I don’t find them as difficult to write about as the more sudden deaths.

When I hear about people who have a chemical exposure that immediately takes their life, my writing muscles seem to freeze. I just can’t come up with anything to say. On this blog, I did manage to write about three different young people who all died after using spray deodorant, and in my book, I shared the story of two babies who died after pesticides were applied in a neighboring apartment and of workers who died after using a wax remover.

What I’m currently having trouble wrapping my words around is a different sort of life and death scenario. It’s the story of two women with MCS in Canada. Both looked for safe, affordable housing for years and had doctors and others advocating for them. Both were unable to find an affordable home that kept them free of chemical exposures. Feeling they had no other options, they applied for MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) and were approved. Sophia ended her life in February. Denise is currently still alive.

Once again I find myself freezing up, unable to find the words to express my horror at this. It’s not that I’m shocked when people with chemical illness choose to die. During the first six weeks after I moved to Tennessee, there were three suicides among my online acquaintances. The pace isn’t always that brisk, but it certainly isn’t a rare occurrence. What makes this worse is that it’s officially sanctioned. People in positions of power decided that it’s acceptable to help people die instead of helping them find a way to avoid the very preventable suffering they endure from chemical exposures.

Fortunately, I don’t have to come up with the right things to say. I can just paste in this link, which takes you to two video clips and a written account of Denise’s story. I really hope you’ll take a look.

I do have one small complaint about the otherwise good coverage. In one of the video clips a reporter says that Denise needs “incredibly specific living conditions.” She has mobility issues, which makes housing more challenging than for someone without them, but avoiding the chemicals that make her so sick she wants to die is completely doable if people care enough. The article says Denise needs to avoid cigarette smoke, laundry chemicals, and air fresheners. Sophia, who died in February, had a similar wish list. She just needed a place to live that was free of cigarette smoke and chemical cleaners.

These quotes sum up the issue.

About Sophia: “It’s not that she didn’t want to live. She couldn’t live that way.”

About Denise: “Denise says she does not want to die, but she can’t find a place to live.”

There are a lot of reasons to force myself to write this post. One is to ask people to pray that Denise will find a safe affordable place to live before it’s too late. Another is to say this: People with severe MCS don’t get symptoms that are simply uncomfortable or inconvenient. Reactions can be life threatening or so incredibly painful and hard to manage that people no longer want to live. We don’t practice extreme avoidance just for fun.

To a large degree you hold our lives in your hands. What you do in your home matters to people around you. It matters a lot if you live in an apartment building, but it can also matter if you live in a detached home. Fumes from your laundry products are pumped into the neighborhood from your dryer vent. The chemicals you use on your lawn fill your neighbors’ air. If you idle your car in the driveway, paint your house with a toxic paint, or spray the exterior of your home for bugs, everyone around you is affected.

Choosing products to use in and around your home may seem like a minor choice. Sometimes, though, it’s actually a matter of life and death.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

A Game of "What If"

I’ve been writing this post in my head, wondering when the best time would be to share it. When will everyone staying home because of COVID-19 find the novelty wearing off?  When will most people really start to feel the challenge of seeing the same walls day after day, of feeling isolated and alone, of realizing the world is full of airborne threats to be dodged and managed?

This could be an important opportunity for the chemically ill community – maybe the closest we’ll ever get to being understood by the healthy population. It seems like a good time to play a game of “What If.” Here goes.

• What if you had to stay home to avoid the virus, not only for weeks or months, but for years, even decades, on end?

• What if people who were immune to the virus (or thought they were) put it in the air intentionally? What if they rubbed it on their bodies and infused their clothes with it and sprayed it in public buildings and in their homes and yards?

• What if people constantly told you or implied that you were exaggerating the problems the virus could cause or that your beliefs about it were a sign of mental illness? What if they told you over and over again that it wouldn’t affect you if you didn’t believe it would?  What if there was a powerful, well-funded virus lobby that worked hard to shape the opinions of medical professionals, employers, and the general public?

• What if the “We’re all in this together” mantra wasn’t true?  What if you were one of a minority of people who had to stay home? What if most people were out living their lives and were too busy to find ways to include you?

• What if you had been staying home alone for years, asking businesses, medical facilities, schools, churches and other organizations if they could either provide a virus-free space or online connection options, but they ignored you?  What if many people were suddenly forced to stay home for a while, and online opportunities instantly appeared? 

How would you feel? What would you hope others would do in the future? Replace the word “virus” with “chemicals” and you have the reality that those of us with chemical illness face. We try to find or create safe spaces and we shelter in them, working hard to keep them untainted as toxins are introduced from the actions and choices of others. When we leave our homes, we protect ourselves as best we can, but instead of being worried about potential future problems, we often experience symptoms, sometimes excruciating and life-threatening ones, immediately on being exposed. As with virus prevention, we’ve learned that the easy solutions (masks and air filters) aren’t enough and that we can only stay well if others take the problem seriously, too.

I want your life to improve, but I also want you to remember how you feel now. Human nature being what it is, though, I’m afraid you won’t. Recently I’ve been learning about the hot-cold empathy gap. The term describes the fact that when we’re in a “hot” state (being driven by visceral forces like anger, hunger, sexual desire, etc.) we have trouble remembering what it’s like not to be in that state and vice versa. It leads to a lack of empathy both for ourselves and for others. Right now you have a taste of the frustration, anxiety, and loneliness we experience, but once things calm down, the memories and empathy will fade.

Because of that, I’d like to ask you to act now to make some changes. There are two avenues of change needed. We need more safe spaces we can enter in person, and we need more online connection options.

What can you do now to make your home and other spaces more healthy and accessible?  Can you remove fragranced products? Can you switch to safer cleaners? Can you change the way you deal with bugs and weeds?

How can you increase online connection options?  Workplaces, schools, and churches have all discovered that the technology isn’t hard to master. You’ve proven you can do it. The trick is that what works when everyone is logging into a meeting from their own computer doesn’t work as well when most people are in one room and there are one or two trying to access the meeting from elsewhere. Sometimes only the person leading the meeting can be seen and heard by the online participants, which makes group discussion problematic. I would tell you what the best options are for combating the issue if I knew. I believe a multi-directional microphone is part of the answer. If someone with experience in what works would provide the information in the comments section, I would very much appreciate it. (If you comment on the blog itself rather than on Facebook or Twitter, more people will be able to see it.)

The book of Genesis tells us about Joseph, whose life fell apart to the point that he ended up in prison, through no fault of his own. Pharaoh’s cupbearer ended up there, too, and Joseph interpreted a dream for him and predicted that he would soon be released and back in Pharaoh’s good favor. Joseph had a request for his fellow inmate: “When all goes well with you, remember me and show me kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison” (Genesis 40:14). Verse 23 tells us what happened when the cupbearer was released: “[He], however, did not remember Joseph; he forgot him.”

We in the chemical illness community are like Joseph. Suddenly the cells are full of people who will soon be released. We’re asking, pleading, begging, “Please, remember us when you’re free again and show us kindness. Help us get out of our prison.”

What if you acted now to make changes?  What if you didn’t forget us when your life opened up again?  What if?

Linda and Penny

One of the silver linings of chemical illness is that I've met some wonderful and inspiring people who share the condition and model for me how to face it with grace and faith. One of them is Linda Baker. Linda sometimes shares interesting stories from her past on Facebook and she recently shared this one. She gave me permission to reprint it here and I hope you'll take time to read it.

*****

I found her huddled under a clear plastic tarp in a downtown alley. Fearing the worst for my friend Penny (not her real name), I had driven to Joplin with some supplies that might help keep her safe from the approaching winter storm. She was not in her usual place on the sidewalk outside the newspaper office, so I had begun to search the alleys. Finally, I saw her wedged between the two carts that held all her belongings. She had rigged the plastic tarp over the carts to form a sort of tent, with her back against a concrete block building.

Calling her name, I got out of my truck. There was no reply and the figure under the tarp did not move. The sharp wind took my breath away as sleet began to pound a path to the ground. I called Penny’s name again. Nothing. Fearing I might be too late to help her, I lifted a corner of the tarp. There sat Penny, wearing a thick scarf and earmuffs. She had not heard me calling.

Penny broke into a big grin and said, “I’m so glad you came! Can you get me some coffee?” Sure, I could do that. I also offered to bring her a sack of plain Wendy’s hamburgers, which I knew was one of her favorite meals. She clapped her hands in delight. I gave her the thick wool socks and gloves I had brought along for her, as well as some homemade high energy snacks. I wished I could do more. I offered to take her to a shelter. She explained that she had tried every shelter in town and that her body just couldn’t tolerate the pesticides and cleaners and disinfectants used in them. She had become severely ill from those exposures. I understood that. She was in a really tough situation.

Penny had been a straight A student in High School and had a typical upbringing. She married and had a son. She worked as a waitress at a little cafe on Main Street and was living a happy life until the day the restaurant was sprayed with pesticide. She became violently ill and passed out. Other employees carried her next door to the clinic. She was having great difficulty breathing and almost died. When she finally began to recover, the doctor told her she could not go back to work and would have to avoid further exposure to pesticide.

She had a difficult choice to make. Her family needed the income from her job, yet she was risking her life to go back into that toxic environment. She decided to try working again, but became seriously ill. In time, she lost her job, her family, her home, and her health. No longer able to tolerate any environment that had been sprayed with pesticide, she tried living in first one apartment, then another, but they had all been treated with pesticide. Finally, in desperation, she had begun living outdoors where she could breathe easier.

That is how I met her. People in town just called her “The Bag Lady”, but Mom and I knew she had a story. We used to take her hot meals on cold days. It took a long time before she fully trusted us, but when she finally did, her whole face would light up when she saw us coming. Various agencies tried to help her, but her body would not tolerate indoor environments. One day she shared her story of how she had ended up on the street and showed us a little duffel bag nestled among her other supplies on one of her carts. That bag was stuffed full of articles about allergies, chemical sensitivity, reactive airways disease, and other medical issues. The articles were organized into categories and her filing system would put mine to shame. She spent many of her days in the library and had carefully cut out articles about her illness from magazines that people were giving away. She knew what was wrong. She just didn’t know what to do about it.

Then came the day that we couldn’t find Penny. We had searched around town and even asked the librarian if she knew where Penny had gone. No one knew. By chance (although I know it was really God’s timing) I was driving through downtown Joplin one day and thought I saw Penny’s carts outside the library. I parked and went in. There sat Penny, who was thrilled to see me. She had caught a ride to Joplin, in hopes that they had more resources to help her.

When the library closed, I walked with her back to the spot where she was living. A couple of guys from a church down the street wandered by handing out Bible tracts. While one of them talked to her, I asked the other one if Penny could possibly come into their lobby long enough to warm up on the coldest days. That man looked like I had just asked him to pay off the national debt! Why, NO, she couldn’t come into their church building. Well, not unless she planned to come to church regularly and tithe! I tried to explain why they could not count on her attending church. The man looked very uncomfortable and you could tell he just wanted to be anywhere but standing there talking to someone who was asking him to help a homeless person. I frankly was appalled at his lack of compassion.

It wasn’t long before Mom and Dad went to Joplin for a medical appointment. It was bitterly cold and they had a sleeping bag and warm boots and gloves for Penny. They were disappointed when they couldn’t find her. Suddenly, Mom spotted her carts outside a downtown bar. Now, my mom had never been in a bar in her life, but she marched right in. Penny was seated by a front picture window. She explained that she had gone to the downtown church and asked if she could come in to warm up. They told her NO and turned her away. Meanwhile, the owner of the bar saw her suffering in the cold wind and had gone to invite her in. He told her she was welcome to stay until the bar closed at 2 AM and he brought her a hot meal. I will let you draw your own conclusion about who showed her Christian compassion.

These thoughts were going through my head as I started to go get hamburgers and coffee for Penny on that stormy winter night. A mixture of snow and sleet was coming down and I knew it wouldn’t be long before the roads became hazardous. As I got in my truck she hollered, “Could you get me one more thing?” I said, “Sure” and came back to see what she needed. Well, she asked for cigarettes. I hesitated and said, “I don’t think I can get you cigarettes.” She looked puzzled and said, “You’re over 21, aren’t you? Of course you can buy me cigarettes. You would be surprised how much a lit cigarette can warm up your hands on nights like this.”

Hmmm…. now I had a dilemma. I had never purchased cigarettes and really didn’t want to get them for her. I debated about what to do. Then, somewhere in my spirit, I heard a little voice say, “Who are you to judge her? You are going home to your nice warm house. She is spending the night .. and the next … and the next under a tarp in freezing cold weather. Help her any way you can.” She got her hamburgers and coffee -- and cigarettes.

With this current cold weather, Penny has been on my mind. There are countless people homeless, just trying to survive the day. Perhaps you will have an opportunity to donate your time or money to help them. Perhaps you can say an extra prayer for all those who are homeless. Perhaps God will lead you to meet your own “Penny”. Jesus cared about those people that society ridiculed or forgot. May we all follow His example.

“You will be judged on whether or not you are doing what Christ wants you to. So watch what you do and what you think; for there will be no mercy to those who have shown no mercy. But if you have been merciful, then God’s mercy toward you will win out over his judgment against you. Dear brothers, what’s the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren’t proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, ‘Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty.’ and then don’t give him clothes or food, what good does that do?”
James 2:12-16

Our Sensitive Sons

The common belief within the toxic illness community seems to be that women are more likely than men to develop the condition. This belief is reinforced by the fact that online support groups appear to have a greater percentage of female than male participants. I was somewhat surprised, then, to read an article this week that detailed ways in which boys may be more vulnerable to environmental pollutants than their female counterparts are.

The article, published in Environmental Health News, makes the following points:

• There’s a stronger link between air pollution and autism in boys.

• The insecticide chlorpyrifos, found in Dursban and other products, seems to reduce the IQs of boys more than girls.

• Boys are more susceptible to damage from low-level lead exposure.

• Phthalates, found in vinyl and many other products, have been linked to larger behavioral changes, primarily aggression and attention disorders, in boys.

• A study found that high in-utero exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA), another ubiquitous chemical, caused hyperactivity, aggression, and anxiety in boys, but not girls. The boys were also born with lower thyroid hormones, while female levels were normal.

The author explains the findings by noting that the pre-birth development of a female is simpler than that of a male. It takes a greater number of cell divisions to make a male, and with each division comes a greater vulnerability to toxic exposures.

After birth, these vulnerabilities continue. In females, the XX chromosome offers a bit of back-up protection, with a healthy X able to take over for one with a genetic defect. Males, with their XY makeup, have no such backup system. The article also notes that X chromosomes carry more genetic information, so the XY combination may mean a loss of brain development proteins or repair mechanisms.

In addition, estrogen protects the brain. Their lower estrogen levels mean that male brains are more fragile and prone to injury. Hormone imbalances may contribute to a wide range of chemical-related health effects, because many chemicals are endocrine disruptors which suppress or mimic hormones.

If it’s true that the common belief is that women are more vulnerable to chemical illness and the truth is the opposite, why is that? Perhaps it’s because we still have a lot to learn as a culture about all the possible symptoms that toxic exposures can cause. There will always be differences between boys and girls, but maybe some of the “natural boy” traits we’ve assigned to the gender, such as aggression, hyperactivity, and lack of focus, aren’t entirely natural after all.

Brain Drain

In 2006, physicians associated with the Harvard School of Public Health and Mount Sinai hospital authored an article linking common chemicals to neurodevelopmental disorders in children. Although they noted that hundreds of chemicals are known to have neurotoxic effects, they singled out five chemicals of special concern for developing brains. Last week, in an article published in the journal Lancet Neurology, authors Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan added six more chemicals to the list.

Key points from the study and reports of it by Forbes and CNN include the following:

• Young and pre-born children are especially sensitive to the effects of neurotoxins. Effects include autism and lowered IQ. Landrigan notes, "Beyond IQ, we're talking about behavior problems -- shortening of attention span, increased risk of ADHD. We're talking about emotional problems, less impulse control, (being) more likely to make bad decisions, get into trouble, be dyslexic and drop out of school. ... These are problems that are established early, but travel through childhood, adolescence, even into adult life."

• The chemicals are known to cross the blood brain barrier. When this happens to children with developing brains the effects are permanent.

• Chemicals of concern include pesticides, solvents, flame retardants, and more. The authors note that at least 1,000 chemicals have demonstrated an ability to interfere with brain function in animal studies. Landrigan adds, "We are very worried that there are a number of other chemicals out there in consumer products that we all contact every day that have the potential to damage the developing brain, but have never been safety tested.” Grandjean notes, "We are not just talking about single chemicals anymore. We are talking about chemicals in general."

• The authors call for testing of all chemicals. Landrigan notes that the problem is not one of capability, but of political will.

The Safe Chemicals Act continues to languish in Washington. Other countries have taken action. In 2007, the European Union enacted REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). Landrigan remarks, "I find it very irritating some of the multinational manufacturers are now marketing products in Europe and the U.S. with the same brand name and same label, but in Europe (they) are free of toxic chemicals and in the U.S. they contain toxic chemicals."

Yep. I too, find it irritating. The words infuriating and ridiculous also come to mind. If the brain health of our most vulnerable doesn't move us to action, I'm not sure what will.

If It’s Designed to Kill, Treat it with Caution

For the past couple of weeks, I've tried to make the point that all products designed to kill something should be treated with caution. This week's example of "we didn't know this particular type of pesticide could do that" comes from a study reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The authors note that pesticide exposure has been linked to an increased risk of depression, but that most research has focused on insecticides. The recent study focused on herbicides (weedkillers) and found that farmers who used them were more than twice as likely to be treated for depression as those who didn't. The study's lead author, quoted in an article in Digital Journal makes the point that "we should not be ignoring herbicides just because they're targeting plants."

Fortunately, the dangers of herbicides and other pesticides are becoming more widely understood. Recently, Takoma Park Maryland passed the Safe Grow Act of 2013, which restricts use of cosmetic lawn pesticides on both public and private property. Banning or restricting the use of lawn chemicals is common in Canada, with at least 80 percent of the population living in municipalities with restrictions. Takoma Park's new law is said to be the first local ban in the United States, although some jurisdictions have restricted use of the chemicals around schools or in other public places.

Enacting restrictions in the United States is more complicated than might be imagined because of lobbying efforts by the chemical industry. A fact sheet on state preemption laws explains some of the challenge. None of us need to wait for laws to change, however, before we make healthy choices ourselves. An article entitled Chemical-free Lawn Care notes that more pesticides are applied around homes than on agricultural fields. All of us with homes and lawns get to make a choice. Are we going to contribute to the chemical problem or take a stand for better health in our own little corner of the world?

What’s Killing The Bees?

In my last post I wrote about pesticides and I noted that certain types are considered especially dangerous, but that all types should be viewed with great caution. A few days ago, a small wave of articles about bee death reinforced that point.

The bee population has been declining rapidly over the past years. An article in Science World Report notes that beekeepers lost 31 percent of their colonies in late 2012 and early 2013. Scientists have been working hard to understand what's causing the decline because bees are an integral part of the food production cycle and if they're not available in large enough numbers to pollinate crops, results could be disastrous. Currently, it takes 60% of the country's bee population to pollinate California's almond crop alone.

In the most recent study, researchers fed pollen from seven types of crops to healthy bees, which caused them to experience a significant decline in their ability to fight off a particular parasite. The pollen was found to be highly contaminated with agricultural products, with 35 different pesticides detected. On average, the samples were found to contain nine different pesticides and fungicides each, with one sample containing 21. Scientists were able to identify eight chemicals that were associated with increased risk of parasite infection in the bees.

The research makes several significant points:

• Fungicides, which are designed to kill fungus rather than insects, were thought to be harmless to bees. The study found, however, that bees fed pollen contaminated with fungicides were three times more likely to be infected by the parasite.

• Weeds and wildflowers, from which some bees collect pollen, were found to be contaminated with pesticides despite the fact that they were not directly sprayed.

• A class of pesticides called neonicotinoids has been linked to bee deaths, but the new research shows that banning those chemicals is unlikely to solve the problem without additional steps. In an article entitled Scientists Discover What's Killing the Bees and It's Worse Than You Thought, a researcher is quoted as saying that “The pesticide issue in itself is much more complex than we have led to believe. It’s a lot more complicated than just one product, which means of course the solution does not lie in just banning one class of product.”

Hopefully, the study's results will lead to some significant changes in the types and amounts of pesticides currently used. As I've said many times, however, none of us must wait for government action before making changes in our own use of pesticide products. Seemingly small decisions really can make a difference to the health of those who apply the chemicals and all who come in contact with them, whether they be of the honeybee or human variety.

Protecting the Children

I'm returning to the blog world after a hiatus caused by a computer crash. I would love to celebrate my return with an upbeat, positive post, but I can't quite make myself write it. As much as I would prefer to put it far from my mind, I just can't ignore the story of what happened to 23 children in India last week. They went to school, ate lunch, and died. Their lives mattered and we owe it to them to learn what we can from their tragedy.

Although some initial reports on the story speculated that the children died from bacterial food poisoning, it didn't take long for officials to blame pesticide contamination for the deaths. Authorities have now confirmed that cooking oil used to prepare the lunch was contaminated with an agricultural pesticide. At this writing, it’s still unknown how the pesticide contaminated the oil, but one theory is that the container which held the oil may have been previously used for storing the dangerous chemical.

There are thousands of potentially harmful chemicals produced, but few are as potentially dangerous as pesticides, which are specifically designed to kill. As I noted in a previous blog post, the chemical used in the gas chambers of Auschwitz was a pesticide. Organophosphates (the type implicated in the India poisonings) are especially dangerous, but all commercial pesticides are capable of causing great harm.

Unfortunately, the incident in India is not unique. In 1999, children in Peru died in very similar circumstances. Schoolchildren between the ages of 3 and 14 ate a school-provided breakfast which was later determined to be contaminated with an organophosphate insecticide. Of the village's 48 children, 24 lost their lives to the chemical that day.

Pesticide-related deaths are not just a third-world problem, and the types of pesticides causing fatalities are not always what people might imagine. A report by The Center for Public Integrity notes that products (pesticides) used to treat head lice have been linked to "conditions ranging from headaches to death." In an article entitled "The Hazards of Treating Head Lice", a mother shares the heartbreaking story of losing her son to leukemia and the association she believes exists between head lice treatment and his condition.

No, these are not pleasant stories. They are hard to think about and hard for me to write about. But surely these stories teach us something. They teach us that the issue of chemical toxicity is not just an academic one, but one with real-life consequences that can be larger than we might imagine. Most of us don't handle agricultural chemicals regularly, but it's common to use other types of pesticides without much thought. Do you immediately grab a can of bug spray when you see a bug in the house? Do you use "weed and feed" type products on your lawn to discourage dandelions? If so, I urge you to rethink those practices, if not for yourself, then for the children who might come in contact with the chemicals. A fact sheet on Weed and Feed notes that children are especially at risk from lawn chemical dangers because they play on lawns, put their hands into their mouths, and take in more chemicals in proportion to their body weight than adults do.

We can't change the tragic events that killed the children in India, Peru, and elsewhere, but we can do our part to make the world safer from chemical toxins. Let's not just read the headlines and move on. Let's pause, pray, and put into practice what we know.

Pesticides, Parkinson's, and Procrastination

The American Academy of Neurology recently examined and analyzed 104 studies from around the globe and found an association between exposure to pesticides and solvents and the development of Parkinson's disease. The studies examined exposure to various types of pesticides, including those that target weeds, fungi, rodents, and bugs. Reports of the meta-analysis note the following:

• Exposure to implicated chemicals increased the risk of developing the disease by 33 to 80 percent.

• Overall, exposure to pesticides increased the risk by 58 percent.

• Those exposed to certain chemicals (a weed killer and two fungicides) faced twice the normal risk of developing Parkinson's disease.

• Farming and living in the country were associated with higher disease rates.

• The risk of developing the disease increased with the length of time exposed.

My favorite headline reporting on the story was one from Reuters, which stated "Pesticides Again Tied to Parkinson's Disease." "Again" is the interesting word. In fact, my thought upon first reading a report of the analysis was to wonder why it was news. Pesticides and Parkinson's disease have been linked for many years, through many studies. An article on Connecticut's newstimes.com site quotes the executive director of Grassroots Environmental Education as saying that “for literally decades, we’ve been looking at a link between pesticides and neurodegenerative disorders."

Given that fact, I found an "action point": on the MedPage Today report of the study somewhat frustrating. It advised readers (presumably doctors) to "point out that the evidence linking pesticides or solvents to Parkinson's disease is limited and awaits further studies." How many studies are needed? Are 104 not enough to be taken seriously?

While the government, medical establishment, and industry await further studies, it's wise for each of us to do what we can to protect ourselves and those around us from the myriad dangers of pesticides and solvents. Avoiding them is easier said than done, especially for those who live in agricultural areas, but we can choose not to use pesticides in our own homes and yards and we can support pesticide-free farming by choosing to buy organic food, cotton, and other products. We don't need to contribute to unnecessary suffering. We can do our part to reduce the risk now.

Chemicals and Conception

Celebrating Mother's Day yesterday reminded me again of what a blessing it is to be the mother of two amazing young men. As I ponder the gift of motherhood, I can't help but think of a number of people I know who would very much like to be parents, but have found that goal difficult to achieve. There are many possible reasons for infertility, but a factor that may be overlooked, and that can be controlled to an extent, is exposure to chemical toxins. (How did you know I was going to say that?)

Earlier this year, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published a study that examined "persistent pollutants" and the time to pregnancy of couples wishing to conceive. The study and a report of it published in E Magazine noted the following:

• Couples exposed to toxins known as persistent organic pollutants took longer to become pregnant.

• Men’s chemical exposures were more important to the equation than their partners'.

• The concentration of chemicals found to delay conception was lower than the average found in the U.S. population.

An online article entitled "Toxins and Fertility" notes that only about 5 percent of the almost 80,000 chemicals used in the US today have been tested for their reproductive effects. Despite that, we do know that certain chemicals may cause problems for couples wishing to become parents. The article and a fact sheet produced by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families list the following chemicals that may affect reproduction:

• Phthalates, which are widely used and may be found in nail polish, shampoo, conditioner, lotion, antiperspirant, sunscreen, gum, candy, medications, and many other places

• Parabens, added to a wide range of household products, including bath products and cosmetics

• Bisphenol A (BPA), which can be found in polycarbonate plastic and some food and beverage can linings

• Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), commonly used in stain-proof and non-stick products

• Cadmium, a metal used in pigments, metal coatings, plastics, and batteries

• Fluoride, added to many municipal water supplies

• Common pesticides and fungicides, including Vinclozolinis, Kepone, DBCP, ethylene dibromide, and Methoxychlor (MCX)

• Triclosan (Microban),found in anti-bacterial soaps, dental products, cosmetics, deodorant, first aid products, kitchenware, appliances, toys, and more

The chemicals listed are linked to a wide range of other health effects as well. Avoiding them benefits us all.

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.

Chemicals and Food Allergies

In a recent post I mentioned that food allergies and intolerances often accompany chemical sensitivities. Last week, an article in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology reported on a study which found an association between body levels of certain chemicals known as dichlorophenols and sensitization to food allergens. The authors conclude that "excessive use of dichlorophenols may contribute to the increasing incidence of food allergies in westernized societies."

Reports of the study found on WebMD and CBS sites among others note the following:

• Dichlorophenols are common and can be found in purified drinking water, insect killers, air fresheners, disinfecting cleaners, deodorizer cakes, moth balls and commercial and residential weed control products.

• People found to have the highest levels of the chemicals in their bodies were nearly twice as likely to be sensitive to at least one food as were people with the lowest levels.

• Food allergy rates are rising in the United States. Between 1997 and 2007, rates increased 18 percent.

• Food allergies can cause a wide range of symptoms, including gastrointestinal problems, respiratory distress, hives, and tingling in the mouth. The most serious food allergy symptom is anaphylaxis, a full-body reaction that can be fatal.

Because the chemicals are so widely used, the lead study author suggests that switching from tap water to bottled water is unlikely to reduce the body burden of dichlorophenols sufficiently. She notes that eating fewer pesticide-treated fruits and vegetables is a wise precaution.

This study provides one more in a long list of reasons to think twice (and then twice again) before using products designed to kill weeds, fungus, or insects in or around a home, church, or other public building. For links to studies associating pesticides with a wide variety of conditions, including diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, asthma, learning disabilities, Parkinson's disease, autism and cancer, see the resources provided by Beyond Pesticides. The group also provides information on the least toxic control of many common pests.

Studies are important. It has been said that knowledge is power. I would amend that to say that knowledge can be power. If we just read studies and don't let them change our behavior, knowledge is just knowledge. Individually none of us can change the world, but we each have more power than we might realize to significantly change our lives and the lives of those around us.

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

Red Alert: Generational Poisoning

A couple of months ago I wrote a post entitled Do It For the Grandkids discussing how epigenetic changes caused by chemical exposures can have effects that are transmitted for generations. I hadn't planned to revisit the topic so soon, but the issue keeps coming to my attention in various ways, and it's important enough that I feel inclined to address it again.

An article entitled Red Alert for Humanity: Chemical Damage Can be Inherited by Offspring Through Unlimited Generations highlights a study in which exposure to a common fungicide caused neurological and behavioral changes that were passed on indefinitely. I don’t consider myself much of an alarmist by nature, but the “Red Alert” label does seem to fit. This is serious business. The article makes the following points:

• People are being affected by chemicals to which they were never exposed. We are a product of our ancestors' exposures, and future generations will be affected by what we are encountering today.

• The conventional wisdom has been that damaging effects of chemical exposures are limited to the generation that experienced them. This is proving not to be the case.

• The transgenerational transference of the effects of chemical exposures appears to continue indefinitely. The human genetic code is being permanently altered.

• The study's lead researcher believes that cumulative effects of chemical toxins may be a key contributing factor to the rise of diseases and conditions like autism, obesity and infertility.

This study and many others link epigenetic changes not only to health, but to behavioral effects. When gene expression is altered by the environment, growth and activity of neurons in the brain can also be altered. This can, in turn, affect behavior. Some of the attributes that have been linked to epigenetic differences include impulsivity, risk-taking, disinhibition, anxiety levels, stress response, learning, attention, eating disorders, addiction risk, and memory. Failing to take the issue of chemical toxicity seriously can have wide-ranging and extremely long-lasting effects. The sirens are blaring and the red lights are flashing. Let's pay attention.

Carpet Concerns

Since I've recently written about vinyl flooring, it seems appropriate to give equal time to some of the negative health effects associated with carpeting. Although some carpets are more problematic than others, none are a truly healthy flooring choice. Carpets have one set of problems when they're new and another set of problems when they've been around a while.

Most of the problems associated with new carpets are related to the chemicals used to manufacture them. In the book Staying Well in a Toxic World, author Lynn Lawson reports on an immunologist who was told by a major carpet manufacturer that there were “at least a thousand” chemicals used in synthetic carpeting. The padding and adhesives can also be sources of toxic emissions.

Carpet chemicals can cause a wide range of health problems. An article in the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients entitled Carpet Politics and Alternatives reported on studies in which a toxicologist exposed mice to carpet samples. The mice suffered neuromuscular, pulmonary, and sensory effects, and many of them died. Autopsies showed that the liver, brain, and kidneys had been affected.

Carpet manufacturers claim that their products have become less toxic since that time. Unfortunately, however, even if a truly non-toxic carpet were to be manufactured, it wouldn't remain that way for long once it was in use. Carpets act like a sponge, absorbing pollutants from the environment. An article reporting on tests of home carpeting noted that environmental engineer John Roberts found carpet dust to contain high levels of pesticides, heavy metals, and many other harmful chemicals. He observed that a typical carpet contains such high levels of toxic chemicals that it would trigger an environmental clean-up if found outdoors. Any cleaning or personal care product used in or brought into a building containing carpet has the potential to settle there and to be re-released when the carpet is disturbed. Easily cleaned flooring made of natural materials like wood, bamboo, or stone is generally the healthiest flooring choice.

How Does Someone Become Chemically Sensitive?

It seems likely that chemical sensitivity has a variety of etiologies, similar to the way that nausea may be caused by such diverse factors as food poisoning, chemotherapy, and pregnancy. At the heart of the matter, however, is generally a problem with the body's detoxification system. When people are unable to fully process toxins they accumulate and cause damage and symptoms.

Despite the determined efforts of some to paint MCS as a psychological disorder, there is no shortage of evidence proving it to be a very real physical condition. For instance:

• Animal models point to a physical cause. Studies show that animals exposed to repeated low levels of chemicals over a period of time can become extremely reactive and sensitive to minute traces of those chemicals.

• People who became sick after exposure to certain chemicals in Operation Desert Storm were found to have lower amounts of a specific enzyme than others who had higher amounts and weren’t sickened.

• Women with a genetic profile involving two genes associated with detoxifying toxic compounds were found to be over 18 times more likely to have MCS compared to women with a different genetic makeup. Women with variations in just one of the implicated genes were also more likely to develop chemical sensitivities.

• Genetic abnormalities can themselves be caused by chemicals. Many chemicals are capable of mutating genes or turning them on or off.

• Lab tests of some MCS sufferers reveal abnormal activity in one or more of the eight enzymes involved in heme production. (Heme is the primary component of hemoglobin in red blood cells.)

• Nasal abnormalities consistent with chronic inflammation have been found in patients with MCS. Damaged mucosa enhances absorption of inhaled chemicals, and often permits rapid entry into the brain.

• Testing often shows people with chemical sensitivities to be “pathological detoxifiers” in which Phase I of liver detoxification is faster than Phase II, leading to a buildup of toxic metabolites in the body.

• Groups of independent researchers have found distinct abnormalities of brain metabolism in people with MCS. The neurotoxic pattern is very different from the abnormalities reported in psychiatric disease.

• Tests measuring blood flow to the brain (SPECT scans) show differences between MCS patients and normal controls. MCS patients demonstrate severe deterioration when they are challenged by chemicals in concentrations found in everyday situations.

Certain people may be more likely than others to become chemically sensitive, but no one is immune to the danger. We all have finite bodies capable of detoxifying a limited chemical burden, and it's impossible to know who might be one exposure away from exceeding that limit. Although it's wise to reduce and eliminate all chemical exposures, some substances are especially likely to set people on the road to MCS. These are known as "sensitizers." Pesticides and formaldehyde (found in many personal care, cleaning, building, and furniture products) are known sensitizers that are very important to avoid.

People with chemical sensitivities need your help to function in this world. Those without chemical sensitivities need your help to stay that way. You, yourself, may be one chemical exposure away from developing MCS. Reducing chemical exposures is the right thing to do for everyone's sake.

For more information:
http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/Ross2000.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X99987033 http://www.nettally.com/prusty/case-control%20study.pdf http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/epigenetics-workshop http://www.mcsrr.org/factsheets/porphyri.html http://www.mcsbeaconofhope.com/meggsa2.html http://www.digitalnaturopath.com/treat/T355089.html