Fragrance in the Workplace

I recently stumbled across an article entitled "Fragrance in the Workplace: What Managers Need to Know" which was published in the Journal of Management and Marketing Research. It isn't a perfect article. The author inadvertently reinforced one of her own points (that chemical companies fight the growing trend of fragrance-free policies) by mentioning the Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute (ESRI). ESRI is a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing industry-funded group. For more about the group and its activities, see the article Multiple Chemical Sensitivities under Siege. Other than that understandable but unfortunate mention, however, I find the article to be very encouraging. It makes the following points:

  • The topic of fragrance exposure hasn't received the attention it deserves in the management field.

  • Fragrance exposure in the workplace is following the same trajectory as smoking exposure once did: It took decades to acknowledge the dangers of cigarette smoke and then a few more years before the workplace became free of it. In 1965, 42% of Americans smoked and people who complained about second-hand smoke and its health effects were considered part of a fringe movement. The tide turned, however, and by 2007, at least 30 states had passed comprehensive smoke-free laws.

  • Today, the average consumer is as unaware of the dangers of chemicals used in synthetic fragrances as people once were of the harms caused by cigarette smoke. The author notes that "when ignorance is replaced with knowledge, a large segment of the population will respond with a demand for clean and safe air in the workplace.”

  • A rising number of public places have declared their institutions to be fragrance free and it appears that a paradigm shift is beginning.

  • Unlike cigarette smoke, synthetic fragrance is not visible and is almost unlimited in where it is found. The author notes that "because of these differences, businesses may underestimate the potential likelihood of a fragrance free movement reaching the same level of public awareness as passive smoke and having as far reaching and broad results as the nonsmoking movement." She notes that this attitude may prove costly.

  • Tobacco companies fought the anti-smoking movement and fragrance companies are fighting efforts to make workplaces and public spaces fragrance free.

  • There are reasons to believe that the fragrance-free movement will make quicker progress than the anti-smoking movement did. Hundreds of studies are being conducted and reported annually and the issue is being addressed by governmental agencies, public and private health care organizations, consumer advocates, insurers, lawyers, economists, and risk analysts.

  • One in five people in the U.S. experience recognized adverse effects from fragrance exposure. These may involve the skin, eyes, respiratory or neurological systems.

  • The great majority (80-90%) of fragrances are synthesized from petroleum and include chemicals like acetone, phenol, and toluene. Fragrance companies use over 4000 chemicals and hundreds can be used in any given product. Over 80% of the chemicals have never been tested for their toxicity. Despite this, almost one-third of the chemical additives used are known toxins.

  • Adverse fragrance-related health effects cost employers billions of dollars annually.

  • Fragrance-related workplace complaints are rising. There are a variety of applicable laws that may require employers to change the work environment. The author notes that "the general duty clause of the Occupations Health and Safety Act requires employers to 'take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker.' Enough research demonstrates negative effects of synthetic fragrance, that employers can no longer deny knowledge of what constitutes basic precautions."

  • Developing an effective fragrance-free policy involves the following steps:

1. Conduct a needs assessment identifying sources of exposure and who may be affected by them. This includes not only employees, but members of the public and others who share the environment.

2. Perform an organizational chemical assessment which reviews all chemical products used in the business and those used by employees.

3. Conduct a literature and legal search. Managers need an awareness of the health effects of synthetic fragrances and familiarity with applicable legislation.

4. Develop and implement a fragrance-free policy. Include employee representation in all phases of policy development, implementation, and evaluation.

5. Ensure support from top executives and occupational health and safety committee members. Make sure all departments understand their role in the policy's success.

6. Develop a discipline and enforcement process. Put clear guidelines in place for confronting violations and resolving problems. A shared enforcement approach is preferable to a "watchdog" system.

7. Develop strategies for communicating the policy to non-employees who share the environment.

8. Evaluate the policy for effectiveness and make changes as needed. Let employees know of the success of policy implementation on health and productivity.

I agree that people will someday look on our culture’s widespread use of synthetic fragrances in much the same way that we now view the prevalence of cigarette smoke in previous decades. From a business and legal standpoint, it is wise for businesses, schools, churches, and other organizations to address the issue now. It is also simply the right thing to do in order to protect human health. Not everyone reading this will have the authority to change an organization’s fragrance policy, but every one of us can choose not to personally purchase and use synthetically-fragranced products. It’s a start.

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.

Lessons from Algernon: Chemicals and Cognition

I often find myself thinking about a book that I first read many years ago. Flowers for Algernon is the story of a mentally disabled man named Charlie who undergoes surgery to improve his IQ. Algernon is the laboratory mouse who served as the first experimental subject of the procedure. The story is written from Charlie's point of view, and the grammar, spelling, and word choices change as his intelligence does.

I think about the book frequently, because a lot of my communication with fellow toxic illness sufferers is done through e-mail, and the grammar, spelling, and word choices of my friends tells me a lot about how they are doing and whether they have recently had any significant chemical exposures. People who are normally articulate and even eloquent lose their ability to spell and form coherent sentences. I often find myself reading sections of written communication over and over, trying to glean their meaning. Undoubtedly, others have similar experiences with passages I write when my brain isn't at its best.

Chemicals can affect the brain in many ways. The National Institutes of Health states that encephalopathy is a term for brain disease or malfunction and that it may be caused by a number of things, including toxins like solvents, paints, drugs, radiation, industrial chemicals and certain metals. The list of possible symptoms includes progressive loss of memory, inability to concentrate, and decline in cognitive ability.

The cognitive effects of chemical exposures are very real. Even those of us who have been managing our illness for many years find that we forget to go through our "first-aid" routines after we have been exposed. People often talk about going into a store or other toxic environment and wandering about in a daze, forgetting why they are there and failing to realize that they should leave. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the same dynamic may be happening on a societal level. I'm afraid that we may get to a point where we are too far gone to realize the trouble that common chemicals are causing us and to make the effort to save ourselves.

Some legislators in Kansas are trying to save themselves, at least from one possible toxin. An article in the Huffington Post reports that the Kansas Republican Assembly would like city officials in Topeka to cease adding fluoride to the city's drinking water, at least during the legislative session, "to protect our legislators from potential loss of IQ.and other negative side effects of fluoride." Fluoride is only one of many chemicals linked to a lowering of IQ levels. Just within the past few weeks I've read articles linking lower IQ levels to lead, flame retardants, and chemicals related to natural gas production.

The fictional Charlie learned from the experience of Algernon that his cognitive abilities were likely to decline again after they had risen. Unfortunately, he was unable to find a way to prevent that from happening. We can prevent further cognitive decline from happening to us, though. Medicine Net states that early treatment of many types of encephalopathy can halt or reduce the symptoms and that "often, cases of encephalopathy can be prevented by avoiding the many primary causes." We can save ourselves, but if we are going to protect ourselves from the effects of environmental toxins, we need to do it before our collective cognitive functioning is so diminished that we fail to fully understand the problem. Let's save ourselves, friends. Seriously, let's save ourselves while we still can.

People, Pests, and Pesticides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Does Clean Mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Trash or Not to Trash

A friend recently asked me this question:

"What is the Christian response of someone who DOESN'T have MCS, is trying to live more chemically aware, and is blind-sided by a purchase? I bought a box of 40 kitchen trash bags, and didn't realize they were fragranced until my kid opened the box and used one in our kitchen trash can last night. Do I go ahead and "take the hit" so that others don't have to and use up the bags? Do I give them to the struggling young family across the street (explaining why I'm parting with them, of course, so they can decline them if they want) and then go buy unscented bags for myself? Do I send the remaining bags straight to the landfill? The bag manufacturer put a little logo on the package that I overlooked that says ‘With Odor Block.’ Had I seen it, I would have known that meant scented and not bought them, so I don't see blaming the manufacturer. I'll probably send an email to let them know I didn't mean to vote with my wallet for that product, just so they know. They're really strongly fragranced and I don't like them one bit, but I hate being wasteful and it seems abusive to give them to someone else."

What do you do with a toxic product that is somehow in your possession? It's a good question. As someone with chemical sensitivities, keeping fragranced or otherwise problematic products in my house isn't an option, but I've wondered about giving those sorts of items to others. One argument for doing so is the fact that most people use those products anyway, with or without my assistance. In the end, however, I've personally decided that I can't in good conscience give people things that I believe to be toxic, despite the fact that they choose to use the same or similar products themselves.

It wasn't easy at all for me to come to that conclusion. I hate waste, believe in generosity, and have always considered myself pretty good at re-using, recycling, and re-purposing things. To throw something away that someone else would find useful feels wrong on many levels. I've come to believe, though, that I need to be a steward of the knowledge I've acquired about chemical toxicity. Whether other people know, believe, or care that products harm them doesn't change the fact that I do.

This issue came up at Christmas. My college-aged son was home and opened a gift that was highly fragranced. It immediately went into the garage, to remove it from my airspace, and we began discussing its future fate. My son mentioned the possibility of giving it to someone else. I try not to give my young adult kids too much direct advice unless they ask for it, and I don't remember exactly what I said. I do remember, though, that at one point my son asked, "You want me to just throw it away, don't you?" Yep, I did. He threw it out, which I know wasn't easy for a poor, struggling college student watching every penny. I truly believe it was the right thing to do, though, and I really appreciated his willingness to do it.

The specific issue of trash bags has also come up in our family. My hubby unintentionally came home with some fragranced bags once. I decided that trash bags were sort of a special case. They were going to be thrown out anyway, so they might as well be filled with other trash before making their trip to the landfill. We kept them in the garage, filled them out there, and they never came inside the house.

Sometimes a problematic product will offgass over time and can be somewhat redeemed. The process of redeeming versus disposing of something is addressed in the Bible. In Leviticus 14:37–53, God gave the Israelites detailed instructions on how to proceed when they found mold in a house. The instructions included scraping walls and removing affected stones to try to remediate the problem. If the mold continued to spread, the house was to be torn down and taken outside of town for disposal. When throwing something away seems like poor stewardship of resources and somehow ungodly, I remember that passage. In God's hierarchy, people are above things, and when things threaten human health, sometimes they just need to go away.

The Coach

This is the time of year when many professional football coaches are hired and fired. I've been reading about coaching changes this week, which reminded me of another coach who made the news a number of years ago. This is his story.

Dan Allen was the head football coach at The College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. By all accounts, Allen was a fine Christian man. He founded chapters of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes at two schools and was active in the organization.

In the spring of 2001, the gymnasium floor in the field house where Allen's office was located was resurfaced. The process took about a week. Allen was not warned about the toxicity of products used or told to avoid the area.

Allen was 45 years old and in good health at the time. When the resurfacing began, he experienced dizziness, headaches, nausea, and disorientation. In the months that followed, he had weakness and fatigue that were debilitating enough that he began to search for medical answers. His headaches became chronic and he lost feeling in one of his toes.

Allen began a series of medical tests, but the diagnosis was elusive. The as-yet-unnamed condition began to affect his neuromuscular system and he developed mobility challenges. He needed a cane to walk.

In 2002, Allen took a four-week medical leave of absence to seek diagnosis and treatment. He was eventually diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, likely set in motion by the solvents used in resurfacing the gym floor. He returned to coach the final four games of the season, but his health continued to decline. Allen and his wife discovered, as do many with MCS, that the treatments that proved most helpful were not covered by health insurance. They depleted their life savings and took a second mortgage on their house.

By the beginning of the 2003 football season, Coach Allen was unable to walk, dress, or feed himself. He couldn't move his right hand, but with his left, he was able to drive an electric wheelchair. In May of 2004, Dan Allen lost his fight. He passed away at his home at the age of 48, leaving a wife and three children behind.

There are some important points raised by Dan Allen's story. The first is that chemical injury and MCS are very real. Special interests with deep pockets fight hard to invalidate MCS (see the previous post entitled The Misinformation Campaign for more information), but the truth is that common chemicals can cause a huge array of health problems and can even kill. The author of a Boston Globe column entitled "This Nice-Guy Coach Got a Very Bad Break" put it this way:

"Imagine being hit with this. And then imagine being told by members of the medical establishment that you did not have a certifiable disease and that you may instead be suffering from 'a psychosomatic disorder brought on by stress.' Some psychosomatic illness. The man is dead."

Another point to take from Allen's experience is that no one is too strong to be impacted by toxins. In another Boston Globe story, entitled "Crusader's Toughest Fight," Allen is quoted as saying, "It has been a year and a half of pure hell. I have watched myself deteriorate to the point where I can't walk. Here I am, supposed to be this macho football coach. I was invincible, right? Nothing was going to happen to me. And the scary thing is, it could happen to anybody."

Allen wanted us all to learn from his misfortune. In the previously referenced column, he was quoted as saying, "I really believe some things happen for a reason. Maybe because I’m a public figure, my role is to get information out there on MCS."

Allen's family has continued that mission. They began the Dan Allen Foundation, which they term "A Foundation for Faith, Family, and Hope.” On their website they state that they exist "for the purpose of raising awareness of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Disorder (MCS) and similar neurological disorders caused by exposure to environmental toxins, chemicals, and pollutants.

We can honor Dan Allen's memory by limiting our use of toxins and by warning others of the chemicals that may harm them. The job of a coach is to instruct and guide. If we allow Allen's story to change our behavior, he will still be coaching, and his death will have not have been in vain.

Healthy Heat

Winter has arrived for those of us living in the northern hemisphere, and for most of us, that means the need to heat homes and other buildings has also arrived. Furnaces and other heating appliances can be a significant source of indoor air pollution, and heating methods can make a great deal of difference to the health of building occupants. In particular, any combustion inside a building (burning fuels like natural gas, propane, butane, oil, coal or wood) should be considered very carefully.

There are a wide range of pollutants produced by combustion. When a hydrocarbon fuel burns, each carbon atom should join with two atoms of oxygen and produce carbon dioxide ("di" meaning "two"). However, when oxygen levels are insufficient, carbon will join with one oxygen atom instead, and produce carbon monoxide ("mono" meaning "one"). Carbon monoxide can be very dangerous, but isn't the only problem associated with combustion.

Here are some things to consider when choosing a method of heating (including heating water and food as well as air):

  • High levels of carbon monoxide can lead to convulsions or death, but low levels can cause symptoms that sufferers might not connect to exposure. In his book The Healthy House, author John Bower reports on a study that found nearly 24 percent of people who thought they had the flu were actually suffering low-level carbon monoxide poisoning.

  • In the same book, Bower reports that more than 200 pollutants are present in wood smoke, some of which are carcinogenic. He notes that one study found 84 percent of children in wood-heated homes experienced at least one severe symptom of acute respiratory illness during the heating season, compared to only 3 percent in other homes.

  • Maintenance and venting of combustion appliances is essential, but not enough to solve air quality problems. In the book Staying Well in a Toxic World, Lynn Lawson states that California’s Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory found that carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide levels from a vented natural gas stove can become as high as those in Los Angeles during a smog attack. In an unvented room, the levels can rise to three times that amount.

  • Carbon dioxide is not as dangerous to human health as carbon monoxide is, but elevated levels can be harmful in a number of ways. A recent study associated indoor carbon dioxide levels with impaired decision making. Carbon dioxide can build up even in buildings without combustion sources, because it is a product of human respiration. The buildup of carbon dioxide is one reason that adequate ventilation of a building is essential.

  • Many people believe that combustion appliances are cheaper to operate than electric, but this may or may not be true. Electricity and fuel prices vary widely by location and fluctuate throughout the year. Electric appliances are also much more energy efficient than they once were. Electric heat pumps, although they can be more expensive to install than gas or oil heaters, are the cheapest heat source to operate, Prices vary based on local factors, but the authors of an FAQ page on heating estimate that in their area gas heating costs about 50% more than running an electric heat pump.

Heating methods are very important to indoor air quality and human health because the exposures are ongoing and continual. Combustion appliances also raise the risk of fire or explosion. Winter can be challenging enough. Let's not make it harder than it has to be.

The Singer

In celebration of Christmas, I thought I’d do something a little different this week and simply share one of my favorite retellings of the story. This is from The Singer by Calvin Miller.

The Father and his Troubadour sat down upon the outer rim of space. "And here, My Singer," said Earthmaker, "is the crown of all my endless skies—the green, brown sphere of all my hopes." He reached and took the round new planet down and held it to his ear. "They're crying, Troubadour," he said. "They cry so hopelessly." He gave the little ball unto his Son, who also held it by His ear.

"Year after weary year they all keep crying. They seem born to weep then die. Our new man taught them crying in the fall. It is a peaceless globe. Some are sincere in desperate desire to see her freed of her absurdity, but war is here. Men die in conflict, bathed in blood and greed." Then with his nail he scraped the atmosphere and both of them beheld the planet bleed.
***

Earthmaker set earth spinning on its way
And said, "Give me your vast infinity
My son; I'll wrap it in a bit of clay.
Then enter Terra microscopically
To love the little souls who weep away
Their lives." "I will," I said, "set Terra free."

And then I fell asleep and all awareness fled. I felt my very being shrinking down.
My vastness ebbed away. In dwindling dread,
All size decayed. The universe around
Drew back. I woke upon a tiny bed
Of straw in one of Terra's smaller towns.

And now the great reduction has begun: Earthmaker and his Troubadour are one.
And here's the new redeeming melody—
The only song that can set Terra free.

The Shrine of older days must be laid by. Mankind must see Earthmaker left the sky,
And he is with us. They must concede that I am he.
They must believe the Song or die.

Rachel’s Children

I, like the rest of the country, am grieving the lives lost in Connecticut yesterday. Every life is precious, and it's important not to overlook the adults who were killed. The murder of so many children, however, is what makes the event especially shocking and painful. Something inside us wants to cry out, "They're just children. They're innocent and vulnerable. And it's almost Christmas." In many ways, Christmas as we observe it in our culture is especially for the young among us, and the fact that the children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School were denied the celebration their parents were preparing for them deepens the grief.

As I pondered that thought yesterday, I was struck by how incongruous it was. We rightly try to make Christmas celebrations full of joy, peace, and time spent with family, but the original Christmas story contained its fair share of grief, pain, and confusion. In fact, the original story involved parents who grieved for children — innocent, vulnerable children senselessly murdered because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That part of the Christmas story isn't usually portrayed in our pageants or songs, but it's there in the Bible. Matthew 2 relates the story of King Herod's fear that the "newborn king" the wise men came to find would usurp him. When the men returned to their homes without informing Herod of the child's location, he became murderously angry. Verses 16 - 18 say,

Herod was furious when he realized that the wise men had outwitted him. He sent soldiers to kill all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under, based on the wise men’s report of the star’s first appearance. Herod’s brutal action fulfilled what God had spoken through the prophet Jeremiah: "'A cry was heard in Ramah — weeping and great mourning. Rachel weeps for her children, refusing to be comforted, for they are dead."

Jesus escaped to Egypt, but other parents lost their children to the whims of a madman. There was a time in my life when I found that especially disturbing. It didn't seem right that God would spare His own child, but leave others to be murdered.

As I worked through those thoughts, however, I came to realize that God ultimately didn't save His child, and that the horrible story actually illustrates some deep truths about the message of Christmas. Christmas is about God coming to live with us here in this mess of a world and about preparing a sacrifice that would be offered to free us from the pain and consequences of sin on the earth. It's about Emmanuel, which means "God with us." He is with us here, in a world that often seems to make no sense. He is with us in a world where innocent children are brutally murdered. Yet, he won't leave us here. He came to prepare the way for a joyful eternity.

Those of us with chronic illnesses have had to learn that Christmas can't always be celebrated the way we would like it to be. We've learned that Christmas means finding the joy that is often hidden in pain. Even before becoming seriously ill, I had Christmas experiences that opened my eyes to the challenges the original Christmas story participants endured. Four times my husband and I moved during the Christmas season. Once I was "great with child." More recently, my chemical sensitivities have led me to sleep, not in a manger, but not in a conventional bed under a conventional roof, either. The experiences remind me that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus didn't live pain-free lives. They had very human experiences in a very challenging world.

I grieve for the children who lost their lives in Connecticut. I grieve for the children who lost their lives in Bethlehem. I grieve for the pain of this fallen world.

But I rejoice in Emmanuel. I rejoice that God Himself is with us. I rejoice that this world isn't all there is and that one day all will be made right. May we cling to Christ tightly this year and remember those truths.

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.

Leaving Leaves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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