Revisiting the Book of Job

My read-through-the-Bible-in-a-year plan puts me in the book of Job in September. Last year I wrote a post about a particular verse that struck me. Maybe I’ll make it an annual tradition. This year, I was struck by a couple of verses in Chapter Six. Most of the book of Job relates a series of frustrating and nonproductive conversations between the deeply suffering Job and his friends. Chapter Six is part of the conversation, and a few of Job’s comments prompted thoughts about why it is that we humans seem to so often say unhelpful things to each other.

There are a wide variety of ways that our careless remarks can make the suffering of others worse instead of better. Those of us with chronic illnesses are often frustrated when people accuse us of sin (either of being sick because of sin or of lacking faith to be healed) or make statements that imply that we aren’t very bright or don’t really want to get well. (“Have you seen a doctor?”) Often our pain is denied or minimized. People with chemical illness frequently hear “That can’t hurt you” or “I know someone else with your condition and he’s able to do a lot more than you can.”

Sometimes a statement that is absolutely true (“God is in control”) feels unhelpful when we have a fresh or still-tender wound and the remark isn’t paired with some expression of sympathy. Job touched on the problem in verse 26. Although he was referring to criticism rather than to pat responses, he said, “Do you think your words are convincing when you disregard my cry of desperation?” Pain begs to be acknowledged. A fairly neutral remark may also feel unhelpful if we’ve heard it so much that it feels like an attempt to avoid having a real conversation.

All of us fail to respond helpfully to the suffering of others sometimes. Why do we do that? Here are some of the many possible reasons:

Fear – Job mentioned fear in verse 21. He remarked to his friends, “You, too, have given no help. You have seen my calamity, and you are afraid.” What are we afraid of? A basic fear when we encounter the pain of another is that a similar thing could happen to us. Accepting that good people sometimes suffer and that there aren’t always quick and easy ways to escape means that we, too, might someday find ourselves in a painful situation with no obvious way out. Those are scary thoughts and sometimes the response to that fear is to deny the pain exists or conclude that the sufferers are doing something wrong. Surely, we wouldn’t find ourselves in their position, but if we did, we would fix it.

Another fear is that if we acknowledge the suffering as legitimate, we may feel responsible to help alleviate it in some way. That seems to be what Job was implying. After remarking that his friend was frightened by Job’s situation, Job asked, “But why? Have I ever asked you for a gift?”

Differences in theology – I absolutely believe that God can take the messes that humans make and the consequences of living in a fallen world and turn them into something beautiful and good. I believe God has a plan. I believe God is in control. I don’t believe, however, that those truths mean that God’s people won’t suffer on earth. There are people who believe the Bible teaches that true believers are exempt from pain. I personally don’t see how even a quick skimming of the Bible or a quick glance at the world can lead to that conclusion.

One of many, many scripture passages that address the point is the “roll call of faith” in Hebrews 11. The chapter gives a long list of people who were commended for their faith in God. Verses 32 through 38 tell us that some of these heroes overthrew kingdoms, shut the mouths of lions, quenched fire and received loved ones back from the dead. That would be a handy place to stop the narrative, but it continues. We learn that others were tortured, jeered at, imprisoned, oppressed, stoned, and sawed in two. We are told that “they placed their hope in a better life after the resurrection.” That’s the hope. That’s the ultimate plan. Maybe we’ll escape deep suffering on this earth and maybe we won’t.

Guilt – This can play a role in the minimizing of all kinds of suffering, but is often very obvious in the realm of chemical illness. If I suspect on some level, even though I try to deny it to myself, that my decisions or actions may have played a role in someone else’s pain, I can deal with that by telling myself that the other person isn’t really suffering the way they claim to be or that they shouldn’t be and could avoid it somehow.

Lack of empathy – Sometimes we’re just so focused on our own lives we fail to really see and empathize with the struggles of others. This is especially true of struggles that are very different from our own experiences. In verses 5 and 6, Job asked, “Don’t I have a right to complain? . . . Don’t people complain about unsalted food?” Maybe Job was thinking something like, “If I complained about unsalted food you would understand because you can relate, but because my suffering is so far beyond anything you’ve experienced, you want to brush it away and are uncomfortable with me even expressing it.”

I find the lack of empathy for people in situations we can’t imagine often shows itself when people in developed countries talk about the suffering of those in developing ones. People sometimes say things like, “They’re used to it” or “It’s not so bad because everyone there is in the same boat.” If friends or family members lose their jobs, we feel some of their pain because we relate to them and can imagine ourselves in their shoes. On the other hand, we can’t imagine living on two dollars a day in a village with no electricity or running water, so we tell ourselves it can’t really be as hard as it sounds. If people who are “like us” lose a second child, we realize, to some extent, the depth of grief they must be feeling. We don’t generally say, “Well, at least they’re used to it.” It’s hard for us to remember sometimes that people are people and suffering is suffering and that it’s no easier for others to go through painful situations than it would be for us to experience the same thing, even if it’s something beyond what we can really imagine.

Habit – I think sometimes we don’t give responses much thought, but simply answer out of habit. The response to “How are you?” is “I’m fine.” The response to “I’m suffering” is “God has a plan.” I recently corresponded with someone who told me that on one of the very worst days of her life, when her heart was broken into a million pieces, someone said, “I’m excited for you because I know God has a plan.” Excited? Really? That wasn’t the most helpful thing to say on that day. A simple “I’m sorry” is generally helpful. “My heart breaks for you” is helpful. “I’m excited for you” – not so much. Surely that was a response made from habit rather than from thought about how it might be received or whether it was likely to help the situation in any way.

My husband recently introduced me to a song called “Broken Praise” that’s based on the book of Job. The “if” statements in the lyrics don’t resolve to a “then,” which bugs me a bit, but otherwise I think it’s a wonderful song. It captures well some of the frustrations of having pain deepened by the responses of others. It’s worth taking time to listen to.

We all have times when we feel like Job and times when, unfortunately, we act like Job’s friends. I hope we can all learn to do better. If you’re in pain, I’ll try not to tell you I’m excited for you. I’d appreciate it if you’d do the same for me.

Good News, Bad News, and a Small Way to Help

It was a "good news, bad news" week on the chemical toxicity front. Here's the synopsis.

Good news: The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reports that Procter and Gamble has announced plans to remove the chemicals triclosan and diethyl phthalate (DEP) from their products by 2014. As I remarked in a post about a year ago (when Johnson and Johnson made a similar move), I admit to being a bit of a cynic. I fear the chemicals will be replaced by equally problematic compounds, and I wonder if removing two of the many potentially harmful chemicals in the products will be enough to make much of a difference to public health. Still, it’s a step in the right direction. If nothing else, it’s a sign that manufacturers are realizing that the public is starting to pay attention to toxicity issues. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been pressuring companies to eliminate phthalates for more than a decade.

Bad news: The Huffington Post reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew two draft rules associated with regulating chemicals. The first would have added certain common chemicals (often found in plastic products and flame retardants) to a list of “chemicals of concern” which are subject to more thorough evaluation. The second would have required companies to disclose the chemicals used in their products and share the health and safety studies associated with them.

Clearly, the fight for freedom from toxins is a long way from over. This week, there’s a small and easy way we can each help the cause. In last week’s post, I mentioned the new documentary “Unacceptable Levels.” The film will be screened in Washington, DC on September 19th. If we take the time this week to invite our congressional representatives to attend the showing, it might increase awareness and eventual action.

There are many ways to contact our representatives. The website Contacting the Congress enables users to search for their senators and representatives and then easily access contact forms. Another way is through social media. The filmmakers suggest posting the following to your representatives’ Facebook pages:

Citizens deserve to be protected from unregulated toxic chemicals. I urge you to attend the September 19th DC Premiere of Unacceptable Levels, a documentary film about the industrial chemicals in our bodies, how they got there and what we can do about it. The screening will take place at the Capitol Visitor Center Orientation Theater and is free to the public. RSVP here: https://unacceptablelevelsdc.eventbrite.com/

It’s easy to get discouraged by the slow pace of progress, but I do believe that the momentum is on the side of change.

Documentaries to Support

The issue of chemicals in the environment is a depressing one, but the good news is that the truth that common chemicals are unregulated and harming us all is slowly being understood, and understanding may lead to change. Two documentaries may help the cause.

The award-winning documentary "Unacceptable Levels" debuted in May. Screenings have been held throughout the summer and will continue through the fall, with September showings in Washington DC and Nashville, and October showings in San Diego. The website offers information for those who would like a screening held in their area. News reports from May indicated that the film would be available through video-on-demand outlets in July, but I've been unable to verify that it's currently available for viewing anywhere other than in selected theaters. If anyone knows otherwise, I would appreciate the information.

Living Green Magazine posted a trailer from the documentary and also listed some statistics cited in the film. These include the facts that in the last twenty years, there has been a 300% increase in the amount of asthma and a 400% increase in the rates of allergies and ADHD. Autism currently affects one in every 50 children, and in children younger than 15, cancer is the second-leading cause of death, second only to accidents.

Another documentary addressing the chemical problem is entitled "The Human Experiment" and is produced and narrated by actor Sean Penn. The documentary is set to debut at a film festival in October and the hope is that Penn's involvement will ensure the film wider distribution than it might otherwise have. Trailers for the documentary can be viewed on pages associated with the Hollywood Reporter and Safer Chemical/Healthy Families, which also features an interview with one of the directors.

Although I obviously haven't seen either documentary, I'm assuming that they'll both do a good job of explaining the problem. We can help the films spread the word about chemical dangers by spreading the word about the films. Facebook users might consider "liking" their pages (here for "Unacceptable Levels" and here for "The Human Experiment.") They can also be followed on Twitter. Three cheers for the people willing to put work into producing and promoting the documentaries. I pray they both do well and that the message they are trying to communicate will be received and understood.

The award-winning documentary "Unacceptable Levels" debuted in May. Screenings have been held throughout the summer and will continue through the fall, with September showings in Washington DC and Nashville, and October showings in San Diego. The website offers information for those who would like a screening held in their area. News reports from May indicated that the film would be available through video-on-demand outlets in July, but I've been unable to verify that it's currently available for viewing anywhere other than in selected theaters. If anyone knows otherwise, I would appreciate the information.

Living Green Magazine posted a trailer from the documentary and also listed some statistics cited in the film. These include the facts that in the last twenty years, there has been a 300% increase in the amount of asthma and a 400% increase in the rates of allergies and ADHD. Autism currently affects one in every 50 children, and in children younger than 15, cancer is the second-leading cause of death, second only to accidents.

Another documentary addressing the chemical problem is entitled "The Human Experiment" and is produced and narrated by actor Sean Penn. The documentary is set to debut at a film festival in October and the hope is that Penn's involvement will ensure the film wider distribution than it might otherwise have. Trailers for the documentary can be viewed on pages associated with the Hollywood Reporter and Safer Chemical/Healthy Families, which also features an interview with one of the directors.

Although I obviously haven't seen either documentary, I'm assuming that they'll both do a good job of explaining the problem. We can help the films spread the word about chemical dangers by spreading the word about the films. Facebook users might consider "liking" their pages (here for "Unacceptable Levels" and here for "The Human Experiment.") They can also be followed on Twitter. Three cheers for the people willing to put work into producing and promoting the documentaries. I pray they both do well and that the message they are trying to communicate will be received and understood.

The award-winning documentary "Unacceptable Levels" debuted in May. Screenings have been held throughout the summer and will continue through the fall, with September showings in Washington DC and Nashville, and October showings in San Diego. The website offers information for those who would like a screening held in their area. News reports from May indicated that the film would be available through video-on-demand outlets in July, but I've been unable to verify that it's currently available for viewing anywhere other than in selected theaters. If anyone knows otherwise, I would appreciate the information.

Living Green Magazine posted a trailer from the documentary and also listed some statistics cited in the film. These include the facts that in the last twenty years, there has been a 300% increase in the amount of asthma and a 400% increase in the rates of allergies and ADHD. Autism currently affects one in every 50 children, and in children younger than 15, cancer is the second-leading cause of death, second only to accidents.

Another documentary addressing the chemical problem is entitled "The Human Experiment" and is produced and narrated by actor Sean Penn. The documentary is set to debut at a film festival in October and the hope is that Penn's involvement will ensure the film wider distribution than it might otherwise have. Trailers for the documentary can be viewed on pages associated with the Hollywood Reporter and Safer Chemical/Healthy Families, which also features an interview with one of the directors.

Although I obviously haven't seen either documentary, I'm assuming that they'll both do a good job of explaining the problem. We can help the films spread the word about chemical dangers by spreading the word about the films. Facebook users might consider "liking" their pages (here for "Unacceptable Levels" and here for "The Human Experiment.") They can also be followed on Twitter. Three cheers for the people willing to put work into producing and promoting the documentaries. I pray they both do well and that the message they are trying to communicate will be received and understood.

The award-winning documentary "Unacceptable Levels" debuted in May. Screenings have been held throughout the summer and will continue through the fall, with September showings in Washington DC and Nashville, and October showings in San Diego. The website offers information for those who would like a screening held in their area. News reports from May indicated that the film would be available through video-on-demand outlets in July, but I've been unable to verify that it's currently available for viewing anywhere other than in selected theaters. If anyone knows otherwise, I would appreciate the information.

Living Green Magazine posted a trailer from the documentary and also listed some statistics cited in the film. These include the facts that in the last twenty years, there has been a 300% increase in the amount of asthma and a 400% increase in the rates of allergies and ADHD. Autism currently affects one in every 50 children, and in children younger than 15, cancer is the second-leading cause of death, second only to accidents.

Another documentary addressing the chemical problem is entitled "The Human Experiment" and is produced and narrated by actor Sean Penn. The documentary is set to debut at a film festival in October and the hope is that Penn's involvement will ensure the film wider distribution than it might otherwise have. Trailers for the documentary can be viewed on pages associated with the Hollywood Reporter and Safer Chemical/Healthy Families, which also features an interview with one of the directors.

Although I obviously haven't seen either documentary, I'm assuming that they'll both do a good job of explaining the problem. We can help the films spread the word about chemical dangers by spreading the word about the films. Facebook users might consider "liking" their pages (here for "Unacceptable Levels" and here for "The Human Experiment.") They can also be followed on Twitter. Three cheers for the people willing to put work into producing and promoting the documentaries. I pray they both do well and that the message they are trying to communicate will be received and understood.

The award-winning documentary "Unacceptable Levels" debuted in May. Screenings have been held throughout the summer and will continue through the fall, with September showings in Washington DC and Nashville, and October showings in San Diego. The website offers information for those who would like a screening held in their area. News reports from May indicated that the film would be available through video-on-demand outlets in July, but I've been unable to verify that it's currently available for viewing anywhere other than in selected theaters. If anyone knows otherwise, I would appreciate the information.

Living Green Magazine posted a trailer from the documentary and also listed some statistics cited in the film. These include the facts that in the last twenty years, there has been a 300% increase in the amount of asthma and a 400% increase in the rates of allergies and ADHD. Autism currently affects one in every 50 children, and in children younger than 15, cancer is the second-leading cause of death, second only to accidents.

Another documentary addressing the chemical problem is entitled "The Human Experiment" and is produced and narrated by actor Sean Penn. The documentary is set to debut at a film festival in October and the hope is that Penn's involvement will ensure the film wider distribution than it might otherwise have. Trailers for the documentary can be viewed on pages associated with the Hollywood Reporter and Safer Chemical/Healthy Families, which also features an interview with one of the directors.

Although I obviously haven't seen either documentary, I'm assuming that they'll both do a good job of explaining the problem. We can help the films spread the word about chemical dangers by spreading the word about the films. Facebook users might consider "liking" their pages (here for "Unacceptable Levels" and here for "The Human Experiment.") They can also be followed on Twitter. Three cheers for the people willing to put work into producing and promoting the documentaries. I pray they both do well and that the message they are trying to communicate will be received and understood.

Safer Schools

August is back-to-school time for many, and a good time to discuss safer schools and school supplies. Many "school supplies" are items commonly used by people of all ages, whether at home, school, or work, and the principles used to make a school healthy apply to all buildings. Being aware of less toxic options is important for everyone. Here's some help:

  • The Healthy Schools Network is a national environmental health organization focused on ensuring that every child has a healthy learning environment. Informational guides, posters and reports can be downloaded or ordered from their Healthy Schools/Healthy Kids Clearinghouse,

  • The Environmental Protection Agency provides information on creating healthy indoor environments in schools. They help schools connect through the National Schools Network and provide an “IAQ Tools for Schools” action kit which can be downloaded or ordered free of charge.

  • Schools wanting help designing a non-toxic pest management program can find it on a page associated with The Best Control. The program is available to any school district.

  • A group called NonToxic Revolution, concerned primarily with stopping breast and other cancers, offers students help in starting campus clubs.

  • The Environmental Working Group offers information on making healthier choices when purchasing a variety of products, including backpacks, lunch boxes, beverage bottles, markers, pencils, pens, notebooks, binders, paper products, and glue.

  • The Center for Health, Environment, and Justice focuses on products made with PVC (vinyl). Their back-to-school guide to PVC-Free School Supplies lists less-toxic options for a wide range of common items, including binders, name badges, paper clips, pencil cases, glasses, sneakers, cellphones, computer monitors, flash drives, raincoats, and umbrellas.

  • MCS America provides a brief and simple-to-understand factsheet with 10 tips for keeping school environments and chemically sensitive students healthy.

Lowering the toxic load is important for people of all ages, but the younger the student, the more important it is to take the issue seriously. Seemingly small changes in an environment can sometimes make a big difference in the mental and physical state of those who inhabit it. Let’s keep our students healthy and give them the best chance possible to grow, thrive, and learn.

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.

To Compromise or Not to Compromise: That is the Question

Legislation introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg just weeks before he died continues to be the focus of much discussion and dissension. To recap, the Toxic Substances Control Act has been in effect since the 1970s. Under the TSCA, chemicals don’t have to be proven safe before they enter the market. The Environmental Protection Agency must prove a chemical to be unsafe before it can be banned, but there are challenges (such as the difficulty of acquiring needed information from manufacturers) that make that task difficult.

Senator Lautenberg addressed the problem by introducing the Safe Chemicals Act, but the bill failed to attract bipartisan support. Then, a bipartisan compromise bill (the Chemical Safety Improvement Act) was drafted by Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter. Environmental and public health advocacy groups are divided over the Lautenberg-Vitter bill; with some supporting it and some saying they can not endorse it until it is strengthened.

According to various news reports on the issue, here’s where things currently stand:

  • The compromise bill came as a surprise to many chemical safety advocates, including Senator Barbara Boxer, who has emerged as its strongest opponent.

  • Boxer is a friend of Lautenberg’s widow, who has urged her to support the bill.

  • Boxer has accused some of the bill’s supporters of not fully understanding it. They deny that charge and state that they support it because it has a better chance of passage.

The organization Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families urges people to ask lawmakers to strengthen the Lautenberg-Vitter bill. They provide an easy way to do that on their “Take Action” page.Taking a minute to visit the page and send an electronic message is another way to let our elected representatives know that the issue of chemical safety is important to us. This vital issue finally has a little bit of traction, and I pray that some sort of improvement to the TSCA will make it across the finish line.

Brain Atrophy in Gulf War Illness

Chemical injury goes by many names. Some believe that Gulf War Illness is one of those names and that the syndrome is related to the chemical exposures that veterans faced. In 2008, the author of a National Academy of Sciences study was quoted in an AFP article on the issue. She stated her belief that "enough studies have been conducted . . . to be able to say with considerable confidence that there is a link between chemical exposure and chronic, multi-symptom health problems.” She added that “the same chemicals affecting Gulf War veterans may be involved in similar cases of unexplained, multi-symptom health problems in the general population."

Last week, a study was published that sheds more light on Gulf War Illness. Articles published in USA Today and the LA Times note the following components of the study and its results:

  • Clinicians measured the blood pressure of 28 ill veterans and a healthy control group while they were lying down. When the subjects stood, readings were taken again. In the healthy subjects, blood pressure immediately rose to normal levels and no problems were reported. Among the ill veterans, 10 experienced an abnormally high jump in pressure and the other 18 reported an increased perception of pain.

  • Researchers then tested subjects using exercise stress tests and functional MRIs (brain scans that allow observers to determine which parts of the brain are being activated at a given time). Brain scans were administered while volunteers completed an exercise designed to test short-term memory. Two scans were administered: one after rest and the other after an exercise session.

  • Two subgroups of Gulf War Illness sufferers were identified. One group had elevated pain after exercise. The other group experienced heart racing when they stood up after lying down.

  • Two corresponding patterns of brain atrophy were discovered. In veterans who had elevated levels of pain, scans showed a loss of brain matter in areas associated with pain regulation. Scans of the veterans with heart racing issues showed atrophy in the brain stem, which is associated with control of heart rate and blood pressure.

A researcher explained that because of brain dysfunction, people suffering from Gulf War Illness compensate when doing cognitive tasks. Brain activity follows a circuitous path which can be described as a “crutch” which performs the task usually performed by a different brain region. He noted that after exercise "It was as if you took the crutches away.”

The study is just another example of the very real problems that can be caused by toxins in the environment. Let’s take the issue seriously. Chemical injury is easier to prevent than to cure.

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.

Lautenberg's Legacy

There's been some recent movement on the effort to modernize and improve the woefully inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act that has been in effect for over 30 years. As I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, a bill was written (the Safe Chemicals Act) that would require manufacturers to prove products safe before they are allowed to be sold. That bill failed to garner bi-partisan support, but a compromise bill with an equal number of Democratic and Republican sponsors and co-sponsors has recently been introduced.

Senator Frank Lautenberg.jpg

The new bill is known as the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. Key provisions include the following:

  • New chemicals must be tested for safety before entering the marketplace. The responsibility for testing falls to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

  • Chemicals already being sold must be evaluated for safety. Those designated as having a high probability of potential risk to human health and the environment must be evaluated further.

  • The EPA is given expanded authority to act when chemicals are found to be unsafe, They may act in a number of ways, from requiring labeling to limiting use to completely banning a chemical from the marketplace.

  • The EPA is given authority to secure health and safety information from chemical manufacturers.

  • When evaluating risks, the EPA is required to consider vulnerable populations, like children and pregnant women.

Health and environmental advocates are still evaluating the bill. Some note that it is weaker than the Safe Chemicals Act in a number of ways, including having a weaker standard of safety, risk management requirements that are similar to what currently exists, no minimum requirements for information on new chemicals, no priority review given to the most troubling compounds, and no clear deadlines for the completion of safety reviews. There is also some concern that the federal bill may weaken state laws, which are in some cases more stringent than current federal regulations.

Despite these issues, support for the bill is growing. The New York Times calls it "the first credible effort in years to revamp the nation's outmoded chemical safety law." The Environmental Defense Fund calls it a hard-fought compromise and urges support for it. The author of an article entitled Safe Chemicals Act Now Has Bipartisan Support calls it ground-breaking and notes that "both sides are grumbling, which is a good sign that the legislation may have struck an appropriate balance which will lead to passage into law."

I had written most of this post when I saw the news that Senator Frank Lautenberg died this morning. Senator Lautenberg was the prime force behind the Safe Chemicals Act and a sponsor of the compromise bill. I admire his tenacity and drive and his willingness to work hard for something he believed in until he drew his final breath. He was 89 years old and his health had been failing for some time. I pray that his work on the chemical issue will not have been in vain and that all of us together will take up the cause.

Aerotoxic Syndrome

It's vacation season, which for some people means air travel. Hopping on a plane can certainly save travel time, but is not without its challenges. Some of the challenges (like weather delays and security-related issues) are well-known, but others, which are potentially much more problematic, are rarely discussed.

A potentially serious problem related to airplane travel is something unofficially called aerotoxic syndrome. Aerotoxic syndrome results when people experience negative health effects from breathing toxins that often circulate in commercial airline cabins. An article in Natural News explains that airplanes were originally supplied with mechanical compressors that produced breathable cabin air for passengers. Currently, however, most planes, for cost-cutting reasons, provide cabin air that has been drawn from from the engines. Unfortunately, this air, called "bleed air," is often contaminated with problematic compounds. These include chemicals from engine oil and particles of heavy metals such as nickel, beryllium and cadmium.

An article entitled Toxic Hazard Threatens Airline Passengers notes that one of the compounds often found in bleed air is an organophosphate known as tricresyl phosphate, or TCP. Organophosphates are nerve agents, often used in pesticides, which have been banned by many countries. The article notes that a group of journalists tested 31 commercial aircraft cabins and found TCP in 28 of them.

The air inside most airline cabins is noted to contain about 60 percent bleed air. Unfortunately for pilots, the air they breathe is generally 100% bleed air. Earlier this year, a British publication reported on the deaths of two British Airways pilots who died within a week of each other. Both believed they had been made ill by toxic airplane air. Lawyers quoted in the article note that aerotoxic syndrome may one day be seen as "the new asbestos."

Other than choosing not to fly, there are no easy answers for passengers who wish to protect themselves from toxins in airplane air. It's not as if opening a window is an option. There are, however, a few things that may be of help:

  • Wear a mask. Masks have their problems (as noted in a previous post), but they can provide a degree of protection.

  • Keep your total body load of chemicals as low as possible. If you use nontoxic personal care and cleaning products, you may be better able to handle the exposures you can't control.

  • Consider taking protective supplements. Many people find that taking antioxidants like Vitamin C helps their body process toxins more efficiently.

  • Consider flying with one of the airlines that are primary users of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which has been designed to avoid the problem of bleed air. Currently, the primary users of the plane are Nippon Airways, Japan Airlines, United Airlines, and Air India.

If you're headed out for vacation soon, I wish you an enjoyable trip and lots of clean, fresh air.

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

  • 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.

Take a Stand, Part Two

Last week I wrote about the Safe Chemicals Act and a simple way for us all to take a stand for a healthier world. This week I have another effort to report. A coalition of groups is calling on major retailers to phase out use of more than 100 problematic chemicals, and they could use our help.

The effort is known as the Mind the Store campaign. In a USA Today article, an individual associated with the group Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families explains that since the federal government isn’t minding the store, the retailers need to act independently. He praises former, positive actions, but notes that the efforts have been inadequate because of the sheer magnitude of the chemical problem.

The Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families website explains that the coalition working on the effort joined forces because of a shared frustration with the government's failure to protect its citizens from the dangers of toxic chemicals. The site further notes that "most importantly we came together with a shared moral urgency to reduce the suffering caused by chronic diseases like cancer, disabilities and autism that are linked to chemical exposure. It is that moral urgency that drove the campaign's steering committee to launch Mind the Store."

Recently, I heard a speaker on a Christian radio program state that he didn't believe a certain environmental issue was a Christian or moral issue at all. I was frankly stunned by that statement. The environment, including the environment inside our homes and churches, directly affects the health of human beings, who are the crown of God's creation. If our lack of concern for the air we share (as well as for land, water, and food) hurts ourselves and others, how can that not be considered a moral issue? I strongly believe that Christians should not only be part of efforts to make the world a healthier place, but should lead the charge.

To learn more about the effort to influence retailers and the chemicals being targeted, visit the Mind the Store website. The site provides an easy way to join the cause and send a letter in support of the initiative. The issue matters, and when we make our voices heard, that can matter, too.

Fatal Fertilizer

The horrible tragedy in Texas last week has focused the nation's attention on some of the usually unrecognized problems associated with commercial fertilizers. There are good questions being asked about the wisdom of building houses, schools, and nursing homes near fertilizer companies. There are other important questions about commercial fertilizers that need to be asked, though, including the following.


Q: How are modern fertilizers made?

A: Most fertilizers are composed primarily of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. These can come from various sources, including toxic industrial waste.

Q: How common is the practice of using industrial waste in fertilizer?

A: The Washington Toxics Coalition reports that the practice is widespread. A report prepared by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) states that “more than six hundred companies from 44 states mix over 270 million pounds of hazardous waste with fertilizer as a cheap and unregulated means of disposal."

Q: What kinds of waste products are used?

A: An article first published in Catalyst magazine states that "industrial and mining wastes — including plutonium, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, PCBs and dioxin — are taken from tailings, sumps, holding ponds, furnaces, and even captured from pollution control devices, and legally sold to fertilizer companies or spread directly on farmland."

Q: Is the waste treated first to remove the toxins?

A: A report entitled "Waste Lands: The Threat of Toxic Fertilizer" says, "Unfortunately, the recycling of hazardous wastes into fertilizer products does not always include the process of treatment or cleaning of hazardous waste, but rather dilution of the waste. Dilution involves adding substances to a waste to reduce the concentration of toxic substances that are present in the waste. Dilution does not reduce the toxicity of the hazardous constituents."

Q: What are the laws about using toxic waste for fertilizer?

A: An international treaty known as the Basel Convention or the Basel Ban addresses "toxic colonialism." It prevents developed countries like the United States from calling hazardous waste "fertilizer" and exporting it to poorer countries. Industrial waste is allowed to be used in the United States because of loopholes in hazardous waste disposal regulations. An individual quoted in a Seattle Times article discusses the loopholes. Referring to a toxic by-product of steel making, he says, "When it goes into our silo, it's a hazardous waste. When it comes out of the silo, it's no longer regulated. The exact same material. Don't ask me why. That's the wisdom of the EPA."

Loopholes also allow products to be sold without full ingredient disclosure. Labeling laws only require the beneficial nutrients to be listed. Contaminants, which the CHEJ report calls 'toxic stowaways," are not legally required to be included on the label.

Q: What contaminants may be present?

A: The Waste Lands publication reported on a study that tested 29 fertilizers for 22 toxic metals. They found that 20 fertilizers exceeded levels of concern for nine toxic heavy metals. All 29 fertilizers contained some level of each of the metals evaluated. The report notes that the metals are associated with cancer, birth defects, and reproductive problems.

Q: What can people do to help combat the problem and reduce the health risks?

A: The obvious place to start is by choosing not to purchase and use chemical fertilizers on lawns and gardens. Those that advertise weed control as part of their benefit are especially important to avoid, because they generally contain pesticides. The website Eartheasy has a helpful page on natural lawn care, and natural and organic fertilizers can be bought many places, including Grow Organic. We can also influence the use of toxic fertilizers on commercial crops by voting with our wallets. When we buy organic produce, we send the message that the issue is important to us.

The explosion in Texas was sobering and heartbreaking, but if it causes us to examine our use of chemical fertilizers, maybe we can salvage a bit of good from the tragedy.

Nomadic Wanderings: MCS Housing Challenges

I've addressed the topic of housing for the chemically ill several times, and I'm sure I'll continue to return to the issue. People who are very reactive to chemicals and other toxins (including those produced by mold) generally find that acquiring and maintaining safe housing is one of their largest struggles and needs. This week, an online friend detailed her search for safe housing over the last few years. I've asked if I could share her story with you, because I think it illustrates the problem well. She writes:

April 2010: We left our moldy house.

June 2010: I was chased (by chemicals/toxins) out of our townhouse.

July 2010: We stayed near family while looking for a rental in a drier climate. I experienced a lot of pain there.

August 2010: We rented a wonderful home in a dry climate.

July 2011: A TERRIBLY wet spring/summer (like wetter than in 20 years) created enough outdoor mold in the woods and on the house's wooden decks (etc.) that I was having 24/7 trouble breathing, couldn't eat, etc. I camped for two weeks.

August 2011: We rented a home and I was chased out by new chemicals (plus I was feeling horrible anyway because the house was very "mediocre" and there was an airport nearby).

October 2011: We rented a home with a great outdoor environment, but indoors it harbored mold. Eventually, I couldn't breathe well or function there. I slept in the car two nights.

February 2012: We rented another place because I was desperate. (It doesn’t work well when it’s very cold, you have three kids, and you can’t breathe in your house.) I only lasted in the new place two weeks. I couldn't stop having dry heaves, plus I had other scary symptoms. I stayed in an expensive camping cabin in a nearby state park for a week or so. I had heat and a bed, but I wasn't allowed to cook in it. My husband had to drive 30 minutes to bring me food.

Friends and family helped provide an almost-all-aluminum camper for me to use. I
stayed in a campground by myself for six weeks. I had a tiny fridge and griddle and I came back to our rental home every few days for showers. I improved quite a bit during those six weeks. Then the campground owner stained all his picnic tables and sprayed his trees. But by then I could tolerate living at the rental again for another couple of weeks before it became impossible again. I bounced around to various places in my (wonderful) camper to survive April and May. I sweltered in the rental cabin a few times because opening the windows gave me asthma from wood burning and the air conditioner unit had mold.

June 2012: Someone GAVE us a Winnebago, so we camped in the Winnebago and my camper. We did three months of dry camping (yikes, difficult), then two months at campgrounds because there was a burn ban (which kept me safe from campfires) and tourist season was winding down (reducing propane exhaust, etc.) I got SIGNIFICANTLY better during this time. Not totally healed by any means, but way better.

October 2012: We began staying in this "decent" mobile home (with real wood walls, not formaldehyde-laden paneling), but with the second worst outdoor environment of our homes, which became worse over time.


January 2013: We became aware of an increasing mold problem here. It's not reasonable to ask the landlord to do anything about it (long story), especially because the outdoor environment here is so bad for me.

February 2013: I REALLY started to go downhill. The outside air here has made my camper unusable unless we move it. There's no safe place to move it that has electricity to keep it warm. We've been searching for rentals almost every day since January. We actually DID find that needle-in-a-haystack house (for sale, not rent) that would probably work amazingly well. It's half the price of what we estimated to build from scratch (not to mention no headache of building.) But, we don't have the money for contract for deed and absolutely can't get financing (so far, unless there's something we missed), even if our church raised a big down payment for us. We have also been turned down by over 20 major organizations for help, both religious and secular.

This is where the story currently stands. Will you pray for my friend? Will you pray for all of us struggling with health-related housing issues? I'm still trying to reclaim my own house, hoping to be able to sleep inside again at some point.

In addition to prayer, people who care about this issue can help in other ways, some of which I've previously mentioned.

1. Do your best not to contribute to outdoor air quality problems. Your choice of laundry products, for instance, affects your neighbors because the chemicals are pumped into the neighborhood air through your dryer vent. When you choose to use lawn chemicals or burn leaves, it doesn't only affect you and your family, but also those who live nearby.

2. Financial help is always appreciated. Chemical illness is an expensive condition to manage. In 2003, an article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives reported on a study that examined the efficacy of over a hundred treatments used by people with MCS. The study found that participants had spent more than a third of their annual income on health care costs and had spent an average of $57,000 in their attempts to create safe homes. My friend is still struggling with housing issues, but as you read, the help she received made a significant difference for her. I am also extremely grateful for help that I've received. A previous post mentions two non-profit organizations trying to raise funds to address the problem.

3. Consider participating in activities to raise awareness and help for the chemically ill. The Jennifer Parker Foundation is sponsoring a series of walkathons to be held on Sunday, May 5th. See their website for more information and to register.

Housing problems are daunting, but not insurmountable. Thank you for caring and helping.