I’m Not “Allergic to Smells”

I’ve written before about the fact that people tend to associate toxicity with the presence of a discernible odor. I’m revisiting the issue because I continue to hear chemical illness described as being “allergic to smells.” I understand why people make that assumption, but the description isn’t fully accurate. One part of the inaccuracy is that although allergies can accompany it, chemical illness doesn't usually involve the specific immune reactions seen in traditional allergies. Instead, it’s generally a problem of the body’s detoxification system being overwhelmed or malfunctioning. The second inaccuracy is that not everything with a discernible odor is problematic and many odorless things are.

I’m also revisiting this issue because two recent sad stories drive home the point that toxic fumes don’t always come with an olfactory warning. A few weeks ago the story hit the news of a family of four on a trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands. The family was staying in a villa and the unit underneath the one they were renting was sprayed with the pesticide methyl bromide. At the time the story was reported, two weeks after the exposure, the two children were both in a coma and their father was unable to move or talk. The next day I read the account of a father and seven children who died from carbon monoxide poisoning after running a generator inside their home. Like methyl bromide, carbon monoxide is both odorless and potentially lethal.

The fact that our noses can’t always warn us of chemical dangers and that exposure symptoms are not always immediate makes it hard for people with toxic illness to know when an environment is potentially problematic. Online friend and fellow blogger Deb (visit her blog at www.greenleafindrought.blogspot.com) experienced that issue this week.

Deb moved to a new state about a year ago and has been very blessed to find a church that removed air fresheners and changed their cleaning products so that she could attend. She’s even been able to attend a care group, in the home of a family who lives a generally toxin-free life.

The family has a teenage son, and this past week, the son and a friend were getting ready for prom. The friend used cologne in a powder room near the area where the care group normally meets. The homeowner noticed the odor in the room two hours before the group was to meet and took action, wiping down all surfaces with vinegar, turning on exhaust fans, and opening windows. To be extra safe, the group decided to meet in a room farther from the location where the cologne was used, and Deb was seated between the open back door and an open window.

Deb reports that she didn’t smell anything during her time in the home. However, she states, “Less than half hour after getting home every bone and muscle and fiber in my body hurt . . . . I also had dizziness, migraine and loud ringing ears. The pain was excruciating all night.” She adds, “Obviously the chemical poison was there even if I could not smell it.”

I’m sure every toxic illness sufferer has a similar story. How do we avoid such situations? We need your help, and helping us helps everyone. My vote is for stronger regulations about what can be sold and greater discernment on the part of consumers about what we buy and use. Let’s try that.

How Far Away is Far Enough?

Evidently, I haven't written a blog post since November, which is not-coincidentally when my sons and I made the decision to sell or rent out our respective houses and find a shared-but-separate home together. Since that time, I've been fairly consumed with the logistics involved in making a move. I've written about housing enough in the past that I don't think I need to rehash all the difficulties involved for people with chemical illness. It's a huge issue, and I would truly appreciate prayers for the process.

One of the initial challenges my sons and I are encountering in the house hunting journey is the difficulty of finding a home far enough away from highways and other busy roads. Unfortunately, it's difficult to say with precision how far away is far enough, even for people without chemical illness. Traffic pollution is a significant health issue, both because it's so hard to avoid and because it contains a complex mixture of both gaseous pollutants and fine particulate matter. Here's some of the information I've found:

  • A publication by the National Resources Defense Council notes that health effects related to traffic pollution include cancer, heart disease, asthma, decreased lung function, pre-term birth, birth defects, and increased mortality related to such factors as heart attack, stroke, and pneumonia.

  • The publication notes that dramatically elevated pollutant levels are generally found within 500 feet of busy roadways, but under certain conditions can extend much further.

  • An article in the Digital Journal notes that people living within 300 feet of major roadways have higher rates of respiratory conditions, allergies, heart disease, and certain types of cancers.

  • The author reports that a California study found that in the early morning hours, traffic pollution travels a mile or more from the highways.

  • The article also states that the American Lung Association's 2013 "State of the Air" report determined that living or working within 0.3 miles of a highway or road is "more dangerous than people have been led to believe."

  • A Time magazine article reported on a study finding that children whose families lived within 1,000 feet of a freeway when they were born were twice as likely as others to have autism.

  • The Southern California Particle Center and Supersite (SCPCS) notes that many factors influence exposure to traffic pollution. These include weather conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and the speed and direction of the wind. Whether a home is upwind or downwind of the roadway is important, as is the construction of the house and the type of filtration system it has. Whether people are outdoors during peak traffic times or indoors with open windows also affects exposure levels.


So how close is too close? The SCPCS concludes that "scientists cannot say exactly how close is 'too close' at this point" and that "the closer people are to the source of traffic emissions, the higher their exposure is to many of the constituents of exhaust." Studies indicate that vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, or those with pre-existing health conditions should be especially careful. An article in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine notes that exposure to traffic-related pollution can contribute to the development of COPD and that enhanced susceptibility is seen in people with asthma, which might be expected, and diabetes, which seems to me a less obvious association. Although I haven't seen this advice in print, I've been told that one expert in toxic illness recommends that those of us who suffer from MCS live at least five miles from a highway, which seems like good advice that can be extremely difficult to follow, especially when taking the needs of other family members into account.

Mitigating the health effects of traffic pollution, especially for those not planning a move, isn't easy. Avoiding as many other sources of chemical exposures as possible will help lower the overall toxic burden on the body. Good air filtration can help, as well, and planting vegetation can also be of some use. Although, in general, indoor air pollution is higher than that found outdoors, those living near busy roadways may find it prudent to shut windows and stay indoors during peak traffic hours.

To a degree, the issue seems to be gaining more attention. As I noted in a previous post, some state and local authorities are beginning to address the issue of building schools near major roadways, while others continue to ignore the risks. Compelling evidence of health effects does not appear to be enough, in and of itself, to consistently motivate action. Perhaps a growing awareness of the issue will inspire parents to raise the issue and apply pressure when decisions are being made.

Will the pollution from busy roadways become less problematic as electric and hybrid cars increase in popularity? Yes, to a degree, but some experts conclude that fine particulates from tire wear and roadway dust may continue to be an issue. I'm personally not pinning my hopes on a quick decrease in levels of exhaust fumes and am going to continue to pass on homes that are too close to busy roadways, no matter how well they fit other criteria. I just wish it weren't quite so challenging to figure out how far away is far enough.

Disability

Many people have asked me, through the years, why I’m not “on disability.” Since my husband died, the questions have increased. Although everyone’s situation is unique, mine may shed some light on the struggles of others, as well, so I’ll take some time to explain the issues as I understand them. I’m certainly no expert on the subject, but I’ve done enough reading and I’ve had enough contact with people going through the process that I think I understand the basics and can take a shot at laying out the options. This may take a while, so if you’re not interested in the topic, you might want to bail out now. Otherwise, pour yourself a cup of coffee and settle in.

Disability Programs

There are a number of different ways that people can receive financial assistance after becoming disabled. Each program has its own set of qualifying criteria, and people who meet it can then apply for assistance. The major programs include the following:


SSDI - Usually, when people speak of “getting disability,” they are referring to the program known as Social Security Disability Insurance, or SSDI. To qualify for SSDI, applicants must have worked for employers who paid Social Security taxes for them, or have paid self-employment taxes if they worked for themselves. Qualifications also include a long enough and recent enough work history. The amount paid to those who qualify for SSDI is based on a formula which includes the amount that recipients earned during their working years.

Personally, I don’t qualify for SSDI because I was a missionary when I became ill, and my mission board didn’t pay into Social Security for the married female missionaries. A similar situation is faced by stay-at-home parents who become disabled. People working traditional jobs when they begin feeling ill may face a different problem. As they become increasingly disabled, it’s common for people to cut back on their working hours or to find less-demanding and less-well-paying employment. Often, by the time people give up and apply for disability, the amount they can receive is lower than it would have been if they had not continued trying to work.

SSI – Those who don’t qualify for SSDI may qualify for Supplemental Security Income, or SSI. Eligibility for SSI is based on income and assets. SSI looks at family, rather than simply individual income, and while my husband was alive and working, our income was above the limit. Currently, I don’t qualify because I have more than $2,000 in assets, which is the maximum amount individuals are allowed.

Early survivor’s benefits – When workers retire, they are generally eligible for Social Security payments. If they die before retirement age, their widow or widower is entitled to survivor’s benefits based on the deceased worker’s earnings history. Generally, a widow or widower is eligible for survivor’s benefits (at a reduced rate) at age 60. However, people can apply at age 50 if they are disabled. This is the program through which I could apply. Like other Social Security payments, the full allowable amount can only be received at retirement age, and the sooner that recipients take benefits, the lower the amount will be (and will never increase, except for inflationary adjustments.) As an aside, sometimes people confuse survivor benefits with spousal benefits, but they are different things.

Private disability insurance – It’s possible to purchase insurance policies that cover future disability. These policies may be short-term disability policies, which have a maximm payment duration of no more than two years, or long-term disability policies, which can pay lifetime benefits, in some cases. Disability insurance can be purchased on an individual basis, or may be provided by an employer. A Forbes article states that payment is usually about 60% of an individual’s former salary.

Worker’s Compensation – If an injury or illness occurs on the job, people may be covered by worker’s compensation. As the Forbes article notes, however, fewer than 5% of disabling accidents and illnesses are work-related.

The Application Process

After the initial qualifications have been met, the question becomes one of the nature and severity of the disability. It is much more likely for approval to be granted based on some conditions than on others. The Social Security Administration states that “we maintain a list of medical conditions that are so severe they automatically mean that you are disabled. If your condition is not on the list, we have to decide if it is of equal severity.” They must also decide if applicants can do the work they did previously or are able to adjust to another type of employment.

Winning a disability claim, for any condition, isn’t easy. The Social Security Office of Retirement and Disability Policy reports that between 2001 and 2010, 28% of applicants were awarded benefits at the initial claims level. Of those that appealed, 3% were awarded benefits at the reconsideration and 13% at the hearing levels. The experiences of others with chemical illness leads me to believe that receiving disability for the condition isn’t completely impossible, but is definitely challenging. It can be a multi-year process and can require doctor’s examinations, court appearances and other activities that are quite difficult for those with toxic illness to accomplish and that can make a sufferer’s condition worse.

In a book relating her chemical illness journey, teacher Lorraine Smith recounts her battle for compensation. She speaks of visiting a doctor who laughed out loud when she described her health problems. The doctor also wore an after-shave lotion that made her feel weak and dizzy, and when she mentioned her problem, the doctor said he was we­­­aring a “special fragrance” that didn’t cause reactions. Smith also describes her time inside the courtroom, which was filled with people wearing synthetic fragrances. She mentions her need for a fragrance-free environment and notes that it would have helped to have access to fresh air, perhaps through an open window, and would have been nice to be scheduled as the first case of the day, to minimize exposure time. She notes, “Without these provisions, I was actually being asked to perform tasks that were the very nature of my disability.” Exactly.

The fight for disability is also hindered by powerful adversaries with strong financial interest in downplaying and belittling chemical illness. In her enlightening paper entitled Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege, Dr. Ann McCampbell writes, “Perhaps the area where the chemical industry is most aggressively fighting MCS is in the courts.” She notes that in addition to direct attacks on plaintiffs’ credibility, industry personnel file briefs, supply “expert” witnesses, and distribute anti-MCS literature to witnesses and attorneys. The chemical industry is also very active in attempting to revoke the medical licenses of doctors who acknowledge and treat toxic illness. This makes doctors understandably skittish about supporting their chemically ill patients who wish to file for disability.

Among my other significant health conditions is chronic Lyme disease. Unfortunately, the politics of that condition aren’t much better. Since this blog is primarily focused on the chemical toxicity problem, I won’t expound on the Lyme wars. Anyone interested might want to read the novel Over the Edge or watch the documentary Under Our Skin.

The Financial Picture

Applying for disability can be not only logistically challenging, but emotionally challenging as well. It can feel like giving up and acknowledging the permanence of a condition. It also caps financial possibilities. The Social Security Administration states that for 2014, the average monthly payment for those on SSI is $534 and the average disabled widow makes $713. The average payment for SSDI is better, at $1145, but is still considerably lower than many Americans would consider a living wage. People receiving disability payments are allowed to earn a small amount of money, but not enough to make a significant difference in their standard of living. Everyone I know on disability struggles. Public housing is generally not accessible for people with chemical illness, and even living with family is often not possible. Many people live in their cars or in tents.

Disability payments can be a lifeline and a great help to many people. I’m glad the programs exist and it’s possible that at some point I’ll decide my only option is to apply. I do think it’s helpful, though, for people to understand that being disabled doesn’t always mean qualifying for benefits and that receiving benefits doesn’t mean an end to financial challenges.

Being disabled by illness isn’t a lot of fun. I don’t recommend it. Seriously, life happens and it isn’t possible to prevent all illnesses and accidents. It’s definitely possible, however, to lower the risk of developing a wide array of health conditions by lowering toxic exposures. There are many, many reasons to take the issue seriously.

The Journey

I’m about to celebrate a birthday, which has directed my thoughts to all that transpired since the last one. Last year, on the day after my birthday, there was a vote which led to a church split, which is a significant event for church staff members and their families. Then we had a fire. Then my husband died.

It’s been quite a year.

The fact that the path my life has taken has been so hilly and full of curves has made a recent series of events seem even more interesting than it might have been otherwise. Here’s the story.

Dan’s sisters kindly invited me to join them on a trip to Yellowstone, so I gratefully packed up my tent. My oldest son was able to join us and flew into town so that he could drive my car. He had a couple of audiobooks and a variety of music for us to listen to along the way.

We traveled with the others and were usually following rather than leading. As is often the case when exploring a new area, getting from Point A to Point B sometimes required turning around. At one point, just as the lead car was stopping to reverse direction, the singer we were listening to sang “Turn around.” We laughed at that, and turned around.

The next day we found ourselves once again unsure of the route. We found it amusing hat, as we were wandering about, the music asked “Where are we?” and added “There are mountains.”

Those who’ve been to Yellowstone know the excitement of seeing animals in the wild. They also know that the excitement is sometimes tempered with impatience at the traffic jams caused by people stopping in the middle of the road. We were following a car that slowed to watch some buffalo. At that moment, the lyrics coming through our car’s sound system were “Don’t slow down.”

We got a kick out of this narration of our trip. As we headed for home, though, things got even more interesting.

Although we had arrived by a different route, we decided to return by the roads that took us through the Tetons and near the Jackson Hole area of Wyoming. We stopped and enjoyed the beauty. Then we got in the car, turned the music on, and heard the singer sing about being led to Jackson.

The strangest incident occurred later that day. We continued our drive through Wyoming, passing through the Wind River valley. We wondered aloud whether to pronounce it with a short vowel sound or long, unsure of whether the river was named after a breeze or the circuitous route it took. We got our answer. We were listening to an audiobook about an astronaut stranded on Mars. The narrator began discussing a battery—a battery made by the Wind River Company (pronounced with a short vowel sound, by the way). The Wind River mentioned in a book about Mars? My son and I stared at each other in amazement.

There was one day left on our trip. By this time I expected a narration moment and I got one. We had been listening to music and I had been falling asleep. I didn’t want to sleep through the end of the book, though, and I knew we needed to start listening to it soon if we were going to finish it before we got home. As I tried to rouse myself so that we could make the switch, the singer sang “I’ll try to stay awake.”

Was all that coincidence? Some will say so, but that’s not how I see it. I think a merciful God was simply saying, “I see you, Martha. I’m with you on this journey.”

I have no idea what this next year holds. There could be more disasters or a miraculous healing. There could be both. Whatever comes, though, I’m confident that God is with me.

He’s with me on this journey. He's with you, too.


Receiving Sight

Recently, the church where my late husband served as worship minister held a blood drive in his memory. It was appropriate, because Dan frequently organized blood drives and was a blood and plasma donor as often as he was allowed. (Sometimes he wasn’t allowed to give because of places he had recently traveled.) Dan was also a tissue donor. After his death, skin, bone and other tissues were shared with those who needed them. I was told that two people were likely to receive sight because of corneas they would receive from my always-giving husband.

I’ve been thinking about sight lately. Dan gave physical sight, but I’m also feebly trying, through this blog, to facilitate sight, or at least insight, myself. I want us all to see and understand the connection between products we use and the health symptoms we and others face. I want to help bring attention to the deception and obfuscation that prevent us from even easily knowing what we’re buying and using.

Last month, USA Today reported on a Consumer Reports survey finding that 66% of consumers wrongly believe the word “natural” on a food label means something. Consumers believe it may mean that a food contains no artificial ingredients or that no pesticides were used. Others connect the label to a lack of genetically engineered organisms, growth hormones or antibiotics. As the article states, however, “The problem is, consumers are wrong. Under federal labeling rules, the word natural means absolutely nothing.”

The situation is no better for personal care products. An Organic Consumers Association report noted that a survey found consumers to be "widely confused" by personal care product labeling. The report notes that almost half of survey respondents believe that a personal care product labeled “Made with organic ingredients" is composed of "all" or "nearly all" organic ingredients, but that there are no federal regulations that require that.

Of course, the labeling problem goes far beyond the use of terms like “natural” and “organic.” Problems include the fact that many ingredients don’t have to be listed at all, and that single innocuous-sounding terms can hide multitudes of potentially-dangerous chemicals. The Environmental Working Group reports that tests of fragrance products found an average of 14 chemicals per product that were not listed on the label.

Perhaps the most dangerous misperception regarding chemicals is that personal care, cleaning, and other common products are tested for safety before being marketed. A brief internet search didn’t quickly yield statistics, but I did find a report from the University of Massachusetts that addresses the issue. The publication, entitled “Presumption of Safety: Limits of Federal Policies on Toxic Substances in Consumer Products states, “Despite the fact that most consumers believe that everyday products are thoroughly tested for dangerous chemicals and determined to be safe by government authorities, the reality is that existing regulatory systems leave significant gaps in their capacity to adequately protect consumers from chemical hazards in these products.”

It would be nice if products were proven safe before being sold, but they aren’t. It would be nice if we could count on labeling laws to help us be informed consumers, but we can’t. Addressing problems begins with seeing problems. Lord, please give us sight.

Flame Retardants Revisited

Flame retardants have been in the news recently. First there was news of a study finding flame retardant chemicals to be prevalent inside preschools and day care centers. Researchers examined the air and dust inside 40 child care centers, including those in urban, rural and agricultural areas. They tested for 18 types of flame retardants. including those in two different chemical categories. Both types were found in 100% of the collected dust samples. As I wrote in a previous post on flame retardants, the chemicals have been linked to a wide range of serious health effects.

The second piece of news comes from an article in the Chicago Tribune which reports that a doctor who testified in support of flame retardants has given up his medical license after being accused of fabricating stories of children burned in furniture fires. The story comes on the heels of an excellent series of reports written over the past several years which describe “a decades-long campaign of deception that has loaded the furniture and electronics in American homes with pounds of toxic chemicals linked to cancer, neurological deficits, developmental problems and impaired fertility.”

The ongoing flame retardant saga is a microcosm of the problem of unregulated, harmful, and ubiquitous chemicals that fill our world. Here’s some of what we know.

  • Organizations with benign-sounding names are often not what they seem. In their quest to create a demand for their product, manufacturers of flame retardants used a well-known tactic and created a front group known as Citizens for Fire Safety. The Tribune reported that the group billed itself as a coalition of fire professionals, doctors, educators, and others, but that public records showed it to be a trade association with three members: the three largest manufacturers of flame retardants. The website Safer States lists the American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association as other chemical industry front groups. An eye-opening article called Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege lists the trade organizations Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment and the Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute as well-funded and active groups fighting against the recognition of chemical illness.

  • Expert testimony may come from people who are more biased than they appear. The Tribune reports that when he testified in favor of flame retardants, David Heimbach presented himself as simply a concerned doctor, but that he was actually paid $240,000.

  • Experts who testify on behalf of chemical companies may not always tell the truth. Heimbach admitted that he told "an anecdotal story rather than anything which I would say was absolutely true under oath, because I wasn't under oath."

  • Written communication can be equally misleading and deceitful. Citizens for Fire Safety sent a letter to fire chiefs on behalf of “those of us in the fire safety profession.” The letter’s author, however, was a public relations consultant.

  • Whether chemicals actually do what they are supposed to do is often a debatable issue. The Tribune notes that the chemical industry often uses a particular government study as proof that flame retardants save lives, but that the study’s lead author says that his findings have been distorted and used “in ways that are improper and untruthful.” He notes that household furniture generally contains enough fire retardants to threaten health but not enough to provide meaningful fire protection, a situation he calls "the worst of both possible worlds.” Use of the antibacterial ingredient triclosan is similar. Another Chicago Tribune story (I’m becoming a fan of theirs) notes that advisory committees for the American Medical Association and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration state that there is no evidence that washing hands with soap containing triclosan or other anti-microbials provides any health advantages over washing with regular soap and water. The article quotes a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council who says, "Triclosan is what we call a stupid use of a chemical. It doesn't work, it's not safe and it is not being regulated."

  • Problematic chemicals that are removed from products may reappear later or be replaced by equally problematic ones. The flame retardant known as chlorinated tris has been linked to cancer and was voluntarily removed from children’s pajamas decades ago. However, when problems with the flame retardant penta emerged and it was no longer available for use in furniture products, chlorinated tris came back to partially take its place. Another flame retardant taking penta’s place is Firemaster 550 and, unsurprisingly, it is linked to a growing number of health problems.

Around and around we go. We need meaningful chemical regulation and those of us who care about the issue need to make our voices heard.


The Chemicals in Commerce Act

I've previously written about the woefully inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act, in effect since the 1970s, and about efforts to update it. Last year, the Safe Chemicals Act was introduced in the Senate, but failed to gain bipartisan support. A bipartisan bill known as the Chemical Safety Improvement Act was then proposed. Public health and environmental groups have been divided in their opinion of whether the bill is strong enough in its current form to promote.

Now a bill has been introduced in the House. It's known as the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) and many groups are characterizing it as a step backwards rather than forward. Noted problems include those related to setting health standards, prioritizing problematic chemicals, and enforcing deadlines and minimum requirements for action. Opposition is coming not only from health and environmental groups, but also from a coalition of states that oppose the bill because current state authority to regulate chemicals would be undermined and largely eliminated.

The regulation of chemicals is often framed as a fight between health and economic interests. As a recent Huffington Post article reports, however, problems associated with toxic exposures have an associated financial cost. The article notes that a 2011 study found that toxic chemicals and air pollutants cost $76.6 billion in lost working hours, reduced IQ points, and children’s health care. The study included only a fraction of possible concerns. It didn’t, for example, look at childhood obesity related to exposure to bisphenol A, which is estimated to cost the economy $1.49 billion.

If you'd like to add your voice to those calling for meaningful reform and expressing disappointment in the Chemicals in Commerce Act, the Center for Environmental Health has provided a way for people to easily contact their representatives about the issue. There's also an online petition that can be signed on the website of the organization Safer Chemicals: Healthy Families.

It would be nice if regulations were in place that required manufacturers to prove products safe before putting them on the market and making it easy to remove them once problems surfaced. Since that doesn’t exist, each of us must continue to do our homework and to purchase products with the health of ourselves, our families, and our fellow human beings in mind.

Dan McLaughlin

On Saturday, March 15, my husband suddenly and unexpectedly passed from life to life. On a beautiful day, on an enjoyable outing, in the middle of a normal, pleasant conversation, he left the limitations of earth and entered the joy of heaven. My grief is deep. I loved him. I relied on him. I’ll miss him more than I can possibly say.

19. Pensacola, 2014 100 fb (2).JPG

I realize that I’m not an objective observer, but I can say in all honesty that Dan was a remarkable man. He was brilliant, funny, talented and faithful. Since his death, the words “most” and “best” have been spoken and written over and over by those who knew him. People have called him “the best husband and father I’ve ever seen,” “the most godly person I’ve ever met,” and “the best man I’ve ever known.”

Dan lived life wide open. Once he met you, you were his friend. Once you were his friend, he would serve you and share all of himself with you. He used to simply say, “I like to be useful.” He was a servant, through and through.

I don’t claim to understand the mystery of the relationship between God’s sovereignty, man’s free will, and natural law. Certainly God knows the time of each person’s death. Does that mean that he sets a specific day and hour for each of us? I’m not going to even try to tackle that question. Here’s what I do know about the timing of Dan’s death:

  • Dan had recently spent quality time with most of his family. In February, he flew to Virginia to visit his father. Not long after that, he and I took the campervan south for a wonderful, relaxing trip to Florida, stopping to visit our oldest son in Nashville on the way down and back. We aren’t left with many “I wish we had spent more time together” regrets.

  • I have a part-time job writing articles for an addiction treatment network. One of my topic assignments for the week before Dan died was on coping with the death of a loved one.

  • One of Dan’s favorite things to do was to sing with and occasionally direct a group of fellow music ministers. Two days before his death, he sang with them and directed the songs “When the Roll is Called up Yonder” and “I’m Bound for the Promised Land.”

  • On the morning of the day Dan died, he used his laptop to pull up a clip about heaven and near-death experiences he had been sent. Then he, our youngest son, and I had a nice conversation about heaven just a few hours before he got to see it for himself.

  • Dan’s heart attack took place while he was driving us around a state park. We had been on the highway for quite a while before we reached the park grounds. The circumstances of his death would have surely been much worse had we still been on the highway.

  • When I saw Dan was in trouble, I flagged down people in the area and someone who knew CPR appeared immediately and kept working until the ambulance arrived. It wasn’t possible to revive him, but I’m not left wondering whether it would have been.

  • A Christian family was among those in the area who came to help. When I said I wanted to pray, they prayed with me. I never felt alone.

  • Dan died on a Saturday. Sunday’s sermon topic, which had been prepared in advance, was “I am a Citizen of Heaven.”

  • The weather has been cooperative. My chemical sensitivities make it extremely difficult to be inside most public places. Amazingly we were able to find a funeral home with a patio, so during the visitation, I was able to be outside, where people could join me as they wished. We held the funeral service at the graveside. If the weather hadn’t been warm enough, it’s hard to imagine how I could have been part of the final goodbyes.

  • After his graduation from college, my youngest son traveled to Africa for a while. He returned to the states in December and has been living with us while he looks for a job. The fact that he’s here now is huge.

I’m glad I didn’t know when I married Dan that he would die in his 50s, but if I had known, I would have married him anyway. We had 30 precious years together. As do all couples, we had our disagreements and times of tension, but I never doubted we would work them out and I never wondered about his commitment to me. He took his wedding vows seriously and he cherished me in sickness and in health. I’ve thought several times since his death that there’s more than one way to lose a spouse. Many people with chronic illness are abandoned and deserted by their husbands or wives. Mine was faithful until death and I’m deeply and truly grateful.

My wise sister talks about living in the “tension of the and,” meaning that two apparently contradictory things can both be true. The day after Dan died I opened the curtains to see a robin sitting in a dusting of snow and it seemed like an appropriate allegory. It was winter and it was spring. I know the future holds both pain and peace, fear and faith, loneliness and love.

More than once in my life, I’ve taken a step back and re-examined my theology of suffering. I’ve done the “what ifs.” I believe it was author Sheldon Vanauken who said that he tried to give up his faith and found that he couldn’t – that it was like moving a stone that was too heavy for him. I’ve personally thought of unbelief as a garment. I tried it on and found that it didn’t fit. I wrestle and I question and I rage against the circumstances of life, but I always come back to faith that God is still in control and still working things out for the ultimate good of his children.

I don’t know what the future holds. There are many unanswered questions and I have to fight the temptation to panic. One thing I don’t worry about, however, is whether or not my husband’s spirit lives or whether he is with the Lord. He knew and loved Jesus Christ. He was ready to meet him. If you’re not sure that you’re ready, I urge to you read this page at the website gotquestions.org.

It’s interesting to me that death feels so unnatural, despite the fact that everyone on earth experiences it. We weren’t created for time and death. We were created for eternity. My husband’s earthly body is now uninhabited, but he lives and I’ll see him again. In the meantime, life is going to be even more challenging than it already was. Please pray for me and my sons.

Our Sensitive Sons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brain Drain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flame Retardants

I’m not keeping up with this blog very well lately, due in part to the fact that I’m spending a lot of time putting our garage back together after a fire we had in October. It seems appropriate that when I pull myself away from that task it’s to write about flame retardants. Like so many chemicals before them, they are an example of a good idea gone very wrong.

The History

The widespread use of chemical flame retardants began in 1975, when the state of California adopted a law requiring children’s products and “seating furninture” (couches, loveseats and chairs) to meet certain flammability standards. Fill material in furniture was required to withstand a small flame for at least twelve seconds. In order to comply with the law, manufacturers began adding chemicals, mostly those known as Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (“PDBEs”) to their products. A typical sofa can contain up to two pounds of chemical flame retardants.

Because California is so large, manufacturers who don’t wish to be shut out of California’s market often change their entire product lines in order to meet California’s requirements. This was the case with fire standards. Most furniture and children’s products in the U.S. are manufactured to meet California’s requirements and contain large amounts of PDBEs or similar chemicals. Flame retardants can also be found in electronics, insulation, carpet padding, children’s clothing, automobiles, crib mattresses, adult mattresses manufactured before 2007, and other products.

The Problem

Unfortunately, chemical fire retardants have been linked to a wide range of negative health and environmental effects. The Environmental Protection Agency notes that PDBEs may be “persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to both humans and the environment.” They note that since they are not chemically bound to the products in which they are used, they may easily migrate from them.

The problem of PDBEs leaching from products means that the chemicals accumulate in the home environment. Duke University reports on research showing that the concentration of flame retardants in household dust is as concentrated as that found in sewage sludge. Flame retardants can be found in the blood of virtually every American, in much higher levels than found in residents of other countries. Children often have higher levels than do adults. The Environmental Working Group notes that a 2008 study found levels of fire retardants in children’s blood to be three times higher than those of their mothers.

PBDEs are chemically similar to thyroid hormones and can mimic them in the human body. Thyroid hormones are important for brain development and metabolism and many of the health problems associated with flame retardants relate to these areas. Human and animal studies have found the following health problems associated with PDBEs and other chemical flame retardants:

  • Decreased IQ

  • Poor attention

  • Hyperactivity

  • Memory problems

  • Impaired fine-motor control

  • Weight gain

  • Anxiety

  • Thyroid abnormalities

  • Early Puberty

  • Abnormal reproductive cycles

  • Reduced fertility

  • Lower birth weight

  • Birth defects

  • DNA mutation

  • Increased cancer risk

  • Increased diabetes risk

Because house pets share the home environment, they are as affected by chemicals in the home as human residents are. Seattle’s KOMO News reports that flame retardants may be killing cats. The article notes that in recent decades, millions of indoor cats have developed hyperthyroidism, which is often fatal, and that “significant association” has been found between the illness and flame retardants.

Small Victories

There’s a small bit of good news. Recently, California has changed the way in which flammability is measured. The 12-second flame test has been replaced by a “smolder” test, based on one proposed by the American Society for Testing and Materials. It should be easier for manufacturers to meet the new requirements without using flame retardants. They will still be allowed to use the chemicals, but the hope is that increasing numbers will choose not to do so.

Although the original law was undoubtedly well-intentioned, there is little data to indicate that flame retardants have significantly reduced fire risk. Treated products still burn, and the smoke they produce when they do may be highly toxic. Many firefighters have joined the campaign to reduce flame retardant use because of the dangers associated with inhaling chemical-laden smoke. The Centers for Disease Control notes that firefighters have significantly higher rates of many types of cancer.

How to Reduce Your Exposure

Flame retardants are difficult to avoid, but there are steps people can take to reduce their exposure, including the following:

  • Avoid products made with polyurethane foam when possible. Generally fillings made of down, wool, or polyester are not treated with flame retardants.

  • Minimize your exposure to household dust. This can mean cleaning with a damp rag or mop to avoid spreading dust, using air purifiers and vacuums with HEPA filters, and replacing carpet with hard surface flooring.

  • Wash hands often, especially before eating. The Duke study noted that the amount of flame retardant on toddlers’ hands was a good predictor of the levels in their blood, suggesting that hand to mouth may be the biggest exposure pathway.

  • Watch what you drink. Oddly enough, brominated vegetable oil (BVO), which is commonly found in sports drinks and citrus sodas, was patented as a flame retardant. Many researchers are concerned that the brominated oil may have the same effects as other brominated chemicals like PBDE. BVO has been banned as a food additive in Japan and the European Union, but is allowed in the US and Canada.

As with other issues of product toxicity, consumers can advocate for change by creating demand for healthier goods. When considering the purchase of new furnishings or other products, it can be helpful to call or write the manufacturer to ask about the use of flame retardants. If we care about the issue, manufacturers need to know.

Our Chemical Inheritance

In a half-hearted attempt to organize my internet bookmarks this morning I found, for some unexplainable reason, ten or so bookmarks for the same article. I don’t recall bookmarking the page more than once, but somehow it seems to be cloning itself. Since it’s trying so hard to get my attention, I think I’ll pay it some by summarizing it here, even though I’ve touched on the issues it discusses previously.

The article, entitled “The Toxins that Affected Your Great-Grandparents Could be in Your Genes," was published in Smithsonian magazine. It makes the following points:

  • In 2005, a researcher who worked with biologist Michael Skinner botched an experiment. The two were studying the effects of a fungicide on fetal development in rats and the researcher accidentally bred the grandchildren of the original subjects.

  • When the new rats (the fourth generation of the rats who were originally exposed to the chemical) were analyzed, it was discovered that the animals had sperm defects, but that this was not due to a change in their inherited DNA.

  • The experiment was repeated many times with different rats, different chemicals, and different health effects. The pattern held that diseases related to chemical exposures showed up in the fourth and fifth generations. One pattern found was that subsequent generations of rats exposed to DDT were more likely to be obese.

  • It has long been known that an altered DNA message can be passed on to future generations. In Skinner’s rats, however, the disease process was found to be related to altered patterns of molecules called methyl groups. The author notes, “like burrs stuck to a knit sweater, these methyl molecules interfered with the functioning of the DNA and rode it down through future generations, opening each new one to the same diseases.”

  • The discovery spawned a new field, which has come to be called transgenerational epigenetics.

  • The “burrs” apparently fasten themselves in a particular arrangement, so that the biological fingerprint of the chemical may be traceable. In the future, it may be possible for doctors to screen people for methylation patterns in order to determine the chemical exposures of previous generations.

  • Skinner’s findings have been opposed by “moneyed interests” and by those still attached to the old genetic paradigm. Skinner responds by saying that “the best way to handle these things is to let the science speak for itself."

The science is speaking. Are we listening?

Non-Toxic Oven Cleaning

Thanksgiving weekend has come to a close, and for those who hosted guests, it’s time to put things back in order. If this means cleaning an oven from the effects of cooking a Thanksgiving feast, there are some things to keep in mind, including the following:

  • Commercial oven cleaners are generally very toxic. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) rated 12 oven cleaners on their safety. Of the 12, one product received a “C” grade and 11 received an “F.”

  • Self-cleaning ovens aren’t a non-toxic option, either. Self-cleaning ovens are generally coated with Teflon or similar chemicals. See the previous post titled “Sticky Chemicals” for more information on the dangers of PFCs. The burning of food particles during the self-cleaning cycle may also release small amounts of carbon monoxide and there may be fumes released from the oven’s insulation, including formaldehyde. Most oven manufacturers recommend opening windows, running ventilation fans, and/or leaving the house while the self-cleaning function is operating. Many also recommend removing pets from the home. In a Healthy Home Tip article, the EWG noted that the flu-like symptoms that people often get from heated Teflon-like chemicals are so common that they have been given a name by scientists: “Polymer fume fever.”

  • It’s possible to clean an oven safely. There are many “recipes” that have been used successfully. Some people just use baking soda and water. Others use baking soda and vinegar. One blogger posted her recipe for using baking soda and dish soap, which is similar to what I usually do, except that I use a fragrance-free dish soap made by Seventh Generation. Other methods that have been recommended are to use a pumice stick or citrus peels.

Here's what works for me.

In the evening I make a paste of baking soda, water, and fragrance-free dish soap. I apply this to the oven interior. I then boil a pot of water on the stove. When it’s boiling nicely, I remove it from the stove, stick it in the oven, and close the oven door. This allows the oven to fill with steam. I leave everything alone until morning, at which time I wipe away all the gunk. After everything looks clean, I go over everything again with water or vinegar just to make sure I’ve removed all the residue. That’s it. It almost always works. Occasionally there’s a stubborn spot that remains, but some combination of baking soda, water, and time always removes it.

The chemical industry wants us to believe that our choices are harsh chemicals, filth, or exhausting work. It isn’t true. Let’s show them we know better.

School Challenges and Victories

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discovering a Little Respect: MCS in Discover Magazine

There’s so much bad news about everyday toxins and such a lack of understanding of chemical illness that I always like to celebrate the victories. This week, I’m happy to highlight an article published in Discover magazine which describes chemical illness (which they call Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance, or TILT) in a respectful and serious manner. It makes the following points:

  • Sometimes when people get sick after a toxic exposure, their neurological and immune systems remain damaged and they lose tolerance for a wide range of chemicals. People with TILT can become more reactive to chemicals over time.

  • Substances that trigger symptoms are often unrelated structurally and include things like airborn inhalants, foods, drugs, lotions, soaps, detergents, and newsprint. Symptoms can include cardiac and neurological problems, headaches, anxiety, gut issues, asthma, depression, sleep disturbance, and impaired cognitive ability.

  • The wide range of symptoms and triggering substances has often led patients to be labeled as mentally ill.

  • TILT may be driven by epigenetic changes, which occur when an environmental exposure changes genetic expression. “Surprisingly low” doses of certain chemicals can strongly affect gene activity. Once a gene has been switched on and a cell has been reprogrammed, it’s hard for it to go back to its original state.

  • TILT has been documented in many different countries, including nine in Europe, as well as Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia.

  • Because there is no blood-brain barrier in the olfactory system, toxicants can travel straight into the brain from receptors in the nose. Even healthy people demonstrate changes in brain waves during brief exposure to olfactory stimuli that is too low to be consciously perceived.

  • Studies have shown that people with chemical intolerance have greater sensitization of their central nervous system. They also have a decrease in blood flow to specific brain areas when exposed to everyday chemical fumes. A study of Gulf War veterans suffering from TILT found decreased blood flow through the central artery in the brain when they were exposed to acetone.

  • Despite the research, controversy over the condition remains.

The article is definitely much better than most I’ve read about toxic illness. It provides some validation for those of us who suffer from it, and I hope it will also serve as a warning to those who are currently healthy. We aren’t making this stuff up. Chemical illness is a real condition and you really don’t want it. Be careful, friends.

Yellow Butterflies

There are many things on my mind that I could choose to write about this week. In the last month and a half our church split, I leaned some more things about my health, some of which are potentially quite serious, and we had a fire in the garage which filled the house with smoke and displaced me (yet again) from my home. My husband took off for a mission trip overseas and I hung out alone in a campground for five days. I’m now back to hanging out in my campervan in the driveway, while I air out the house and pray it will be habitable quickly. There are so many thoughts and feelings swirling about that it’s hard to know how to corral them into a coherent blog post. Instead of corralling them, I think I’ll ignore most of them and write about yellow butterflies.

The story of the yellow butterflies began in August two years ago. A basement flood and resulting mold growth had left me unable to be inside the house for any significant length of time. I was camped out on the back deck on my birthday, feeling somewhat sorry for myself, when a yellow butterfly landed on the rail beside me. It was just a butterfly, sitting on a deck rail, but because butterflies traditionally represent hope and new beginnings, its presence comforted me. I don’t generally keep a journal or prayer diary, but I do occasionally jot things down, and on that day I wrote the following:

“While I was on the deck I first saw a butterfly that stayed a long time (sign of freedom and change?). Then I saw a praying mantis walking very slowly. Maybe change will come through prayer, but take a while?” 

A few months later, my sister’s life was hit with some significant and painful challenges. As we talked about them, she mentioned that God had spoken a message of hope and peace to her through the appearance of a yellow butterfly. I was fascinated that we had both had the same experience.

From that time on, we both began to notice yellow butterflies. They helped sustain my sister during her crisis. Once, we were talking on the phone (we live 700 miles apart) and she saw one in her yard. As soon as she mentioned it, one appeared in my yard, too. I’ve been to her house once since the first butterfly appearance, for just a few hours, but as we were sitting outside talking, a yellow butterfly flew past.

My friend Linda posts lovely pictures on Facebook and adds scripture verses to them. In July, she posted a picture of a yellow butterfly sitting among a patch of black-eyed susans and purple coneflowers. She used Ephesians 3:20, which is one of my favorite verses (“Now glory be to God, who by his mighty power at work in us is able to do far more than we would ever dare to ask or even dream of – infinitely beyond our highest prayers, desires, thoughts, or hopes.”)

I told Linda how much I loved the picture and I told my husband and father-in-law, who was visiting, a little about it and about why it was special to me.

yellow butterfly.jpg

The day after my friend posted the picture, my husband, father-in-law and I went out for a walk. (They walk and I roll in my wheelchair, but I’m not sure what to call that.) We rounded a corner and I was treated to a beautiful sight. A yellow butterfly, identical to the one in the picture, was sitting on identical flowers. We didn’t manage to snap a picture, but my husband and father-in-law both agreed that it was a perfect re-creation of the photo. It seemed that God was reinforcing the message.

I’m writing about yellow butterflies this week, because they keep appearing. Every day in the campground I was greeted by them and sometimes they flew very close to me. I’ve had more yellow butterfly visits since I’ve been home. I realize that they’re a part of nature and that it isn’t as if I’m seeing orange elephants. Whether I’ve seen more yellow butterflies than I should normally expect to see, I don’t really know, but I know they bring me peace.

I’m sure we’ve all heard illustrations of how caterpillars enter into a vulnerable, dark place before they emerge with wings and freedom. I don’t have anything especially insightful to add. I guess I just want to remind myself, and anyone who happens to read this, that things do change, that sometimes increased challenges are a preparation for greater victory, and that no matter how long we’ve crawled along the ground, a day may come when we can fly.

Greenwashing

Last week, I wrote about “pinkwashing,” which is rampant in the month of October. The more common form of color deception, however, is greenwashing, which occurs all year long. Greenwashing is the practice of making misleading claims about a product’s environmental benefits.

A major problem with the term “green” as it is commonly used is that “the environment” is often narrowly defined. The focus tends to be on a handful of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, the indoor environments in which people spend most of their time are often overlooked.

Even those products that take a wider view of the environment and claim to be non-toxic often aren’t. An article on “green” cleaning products notes that one of the most widely-used products in the category contains up to four percent of a chemical known as 2-butoxyethanol. The substance is a petrochemical solvent linked to a wide range of problems including cancer, osteoarthritis, reproductive problems, and birth defects. The article reported on a study that analyzed 25 cleaning products, half of which claimed to be green, organic, or natural. The products emitted a total of 133 different chemicals, about one fourth of which are classified as toxic or hazardous. Every product emitted at least one chemical known to be toxic.

A publication entitled "The Sins of Greenwashing" lists the following problems with “green” claims:

  • Sin of the Hidden Trade-off – Focusing on one set of attributes while ignoring other important factors

  • Sin of No Proof – Making unsubstantiated claims that aren’t verified by reliable third parties

  • Sin of Vagueness – Making claims that are broad or poorly defined

  • Sin of Irrelevance – Making claims that are true, but irrelevant, such as claiming to be free of chemicals that have already been banned

  • Sin of Lesser of Two Evils – Making claims that are true, but distract from larger risks

  • Sin of Fibbing – Making claims that are simply false

  • Sin of Worshiping False Labels – Implying falsely, through words or images, that a product has been endorsed by a third party.

Although greenwashing is rampant, some labels and terms mean more than others do. As I wrote in a previous post, Consumer Reports maintains a website with a label search function which can be helpful. Labeling can be misleading and inconsistent, but that doesn’t mean that all products are created equal. Some are definitely less problematic than others.

As in other areas of chemical toxicity, it’s important to work for change while simultaneously doing what we can now to protect ourselves and those around us. Truly “green” cleaning, for example, is really not hard to achieve. As I noted in a previous post on cleaning, water is the universal solvent. Vinegar, lemon juice, baking soda and castile soap can also clean many, many things. The internet is full of recipes, hints, and suggestions. There are a lot of things that are hard to control. It makes sense to control what we can.

The Problem with Pink

It’s October, and that means a lot of things will be colored pink this month in support of breast cancer prevention and treatment. Breast cancer is a personal issue for my family. I lost my mother to the disease when I was a young teen and as I write this, my sister is fighting it. I grew up cancer's shadow, and I obviously support awareness and research. I get quite frustrated and angry at some aspects of the “turn everything pink” movement, though, especially the ridiculous practice of slapping a pink label on a product that contains ingredients actually known to cause cancer. This has come to be known as “pinkwashing.”

Pinkwashing is an extremely common practice. The writer of the Mommy Greenest website notes that the problem seems to be getting larger with every passing year. Some of the myriad of examples include the following:

  • Perfumes, which contain hormone disruptors and other possible carcinogens (In 2011, the Susan G. Komen Foundation commissioned a perfume which contained toluene, which is banned by the International Fragrance Association)

  • Bottled water and canned soup, both of which can leach BPA

  • Nail polish, which contains numerous known carcinogens, including formaldehyde and pthalates

  • Lipstick containing hormone disruptors and lead

It’s hard to justify selling a product with known carcinogens in the name of breast cancer prevention or treatment. It makes even less sense when you realize what a small amount of the purchase price often goes to the cause. (In some cases the amount is zero.) The Think Before You Pink campaign advises asking yourself some questions before buying a pink-labeled product. These include whether any money from the purchase goes to breast cancer programs, who will receive the donation and what will be done with it, whether or not a company caps the amount they donate, and whether the product itself raises the cancer risk.

We're surrounded by products that are known to contribute to cancer in general and breast cancer in particular. The Mommy Greenest article advises avoiding perfumes and other products with synthetic fragrances, canned foods, vinyl, many plastics, and personal care products which contain common preservatives known as parabens. An article in The Independent reported on a study finding that the products linked most strongly to breast cancer were air fresheners and mold and mildew removers. Association was also found with insect repellants.

For more information on environmental contributors to breast cancer, see the Breast Cancer Fund website. It isn’t wrong to continue to support research into treatment, but why not also act on what we already know? Knowledge isn't helpful unless we use it.