Chemicals and COVID-19, Part Two

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

Forever Chemicals

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

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

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

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

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

Gas Appliances

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

Cleaners and Disinfectants

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

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

Long-haulers

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

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

14 Essential Things to Know About Disinfectants

It’s safe to say that none of us wants to have a serious battle with COVID-19, and to avoid it, we’re reaching for disinfectants in unprecedented amounts. If we’re not careful, though, we can cause ourselves and others health problems that are as potentially problematic as what we’re trying to avoid. Here are some things to know about disinfectants.

1.  Cleaning and disinfecting work in different ways. Cleaning removes germs by washing them down the drain. Disinfecting kills them.

2.  A sanitizer is similar to a disinfectant. The terms “sanitizing” and “sanitizer” are defined differently depending on who’s doing the defining. Sometimes sanitizing is used to mean the process of lowering the number of germs by either cleaning or disinfecting. Others use the term “sanitizer” to mean a disinfecting product designed for use on a person rather than a hard surface, and some say that sanitizers are for bacteria, while disinfectants also target viruses. Yet another definition is that sanitizers kill organisms, but that disinfectants kill both organisms and their spores.

3.  Disinfectants are pesticides. A pesticide is a product designed to kill a living organism. A Texas A&M publication notes, “Pesticides that fight microbes are generally called antimicrobials. . . . About 275 active ingredients are found in antimicrobials, most of which are pesticides and must have an EPA-approved label.”

4.  An EPA registration means the product should kill what it says it will. It doesn’t mean it’s been proven safe. This is from a publication entitled Green Cleaning, Sanitizing, and Disinfecting found on the EPA’s own website: “Many people mistakenly think that if a cleaning, sanitizing, or disinfecting product is sold to the public it has been reviewed and proven safe by government agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that products labeled as sanitizers or disinfectants do kill the germs that the product claims to kill, but the registration review does not evaluate all possible health risks for users of the products. Cleaning products are also not routinely reviewed by the government to identify health risks to the user. Some manufacturers choose to have the EPA evaluate their cleaning products for human health and environmental safety through the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program, but this is voluntary and most products are not reviewed.”

5.  Despite the fact that they aren’t rigorously tested, health effects associated with common disinfectants are becoming more widely known. Chemical and Engineering News published an article entitled “Do We Know Enough About the Safety of Quat Disinfectants?” Quats (quaternary ammonium compounds) are widely used in disinfectant products, but they’ve been linked to a number of potentially significant health issues which have been discovered “independently and also by chance.” These include the possibility of birth defects, fertility issues, and disruption of cellular processes.  

Other disinfectant chemicals have their own problems. A publication entitled Safer Products and Practices for Disinfecting and Sanitizing Surfaces says this: “Although all of these ‘antimicrobial’ products have risks, there are a few types that pose greater, long-term risks to custodial workers and building occupants because they contain active ingredients that have been found to cause asthma (e.g., chlorine bleach/sodium hypochlorite, peroxyacetic acid, and quaternary ammonium compounds), cancer (e.g., ortho-phenylphenol), skin sensitization (e.g., chlorine bleach, pine oil, and thymol) or other health hazards. Several also pose environmental risks as well, such as silver and quaternary ammonium chloride compounds.”

6.  It’s not just the people who use them who are affected. The Green Cleaning publication speaks to the issue of workplace asthma tied to cleaning and disinfecting products. The authors note that 80% of those affected were bystanders who weren’t working directly with the chemicals, but were simply near enough to be exposed to them.

7.  Disinfectants can cause health problems both through inhalation and skin exposure. Disinfectant chemicals, especially quats, tend to accumulate on surfaces. They can then be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream. In an article on chemical exposures in the workplace, the CDC notes that absorption of chemicals through the skin may be the most significant route of exposure in some cases, and that cleaners are among the workers at risk.

For children in particular, the route may be more direct because chemicals end up on hands, and hands end up in mouths. In an “Ask the Professor” column, the authors state that this can lead to intake that’s more than 2,000 times higher than normal. For some disinfectant chemicals, a 3-year-old takes in 55 times more than an adult does.

8.  Disinfectants can’t get to germs on a surface to kill them unless the surface has been cleaned. This has been described as trying to vacuum the floor without picking up the toys and clothes there first.

9.  If a surface has been well cleaned, it may not need to be disinfected. An environmental expert noted that more than 90% of microorganisms on a surface can be removed with soap, water, and a microfiber cloth, which is potentially more effective than using disinfectants on a surface that hasn’t been cleaned. He said, "You always want to be balancing risks and benefits, and you want to be using the safest products possible in the safest way possible. You could use a grenade to kill a fly, but a fly swatter will work just as well and cause far less damage." A guide to safer disinfectants notes that the FDA banned 19 antimicrobial ingredients from soap in 2016, because plain soap and water without the disinfectant chemicals were found to be just as effective.

10.  Disinfectants may not be as important in the fight against sickness as we seem to think they are. A publication on talking to your child’s school about using safer products mentions a study which measured bacteria on children’s hands and on classroom surfaces. The researchers found that the amount of bacteria on hands was associated with how often kids got sick with colds or flu, but that the amount of bacteria on surfaces wasn’t a factor. The same publication notes, “There is no evidence that shows using disinfecting wipes, sprays, or antibacterial soaps are any more effective at preventing illness in the classroom than washing with regular soap and water.” Regarding COVID-19 in particular, the Centers for Disease Control says that “it may be possible” to be infected through touching a surface, but that it isn’t thought to be a primary route of transmission. 

11.  The focus on surface disinfection may distract us from what actually works. An article in The Atlantic calls the widespread use of disinfectants “hygiene theater” and provides this observation: “Establishments are boasting about their cleaning practices while inviting strangers into unventilated indoor spaces to share one another’s microbial exhalations. This logic is warped. It completely misrepresents the nature of an airborne threat. It’s as if an oceanside town stalked by a frenzy of ravenous sharks urged people to return to the beach by saying, We care about your health and safety, so we’ve reinforced the boardwalk with concrete. Lovely. Now people can sturdily walk into the ocean and be separated from their limbs.” 

12.  Disinfectants are often used improperly. Like other pesticides, there are safety laws that govern how they’re used. The Texas A & M article points out that instructions on disinfectant labels aren’t just suggestions. They say, “Using even a little more disinfectant than the label allows in a cleaning solution, or failing to wear the proper safety gear specified on the label, to give two examples, is a violation of state and federal pesticide laws.”

Many establishments are using sprayers, misters, or foggers to apply disinfectant products, which often doesn’t meet label requirements. The World Health Organization warns that spraying or fogging disinfectants “will not be effective and may pose harm to individuals.”

Many people are especially concerned that students in school settings are being given disinfectant wipes for cleaning their own desks. The EPA warns against this, pointing out that labels on disinfectants all say “Keep Out of Reach of Children.”

13.  Their use can lead to stronger, medication-resistant germs.

Benzalkonium chloride (BAC) is one of the most common active ingredients found in disinfectant products, including wipes and antibacterial soaps. Researchers have found that when bacteria is exposed to low levels of BAC, its tolerance can increase up to 500-fold. Microbial resistance is especially likely to develop when disinfectants are used improperly, such as on a surface that hasn’t been cleaned first.

14.  All disinfectants are not created equal. Some ingredients are much more problematic than others. A quick way to gauge the relative toxicity of a commercial disinfecting product is to look at the “signal word” on the label. It will say either “Danger,” “Warning,” or “Caution.”  The products with a “Danger” label are thought to be the most toxic, and those that say “Caution,” the safest. Within each category, there are products with varying degrees of safety. 

Commercial disinfectants are generally mixtures of many different compounds, so even if the first ingredient listed is considered safe, the product as a whole may not be. Fragrances are commonly added to disinfectant products, and they add many chemical hazards without increasing effectiveness in any way.

Remember that you may not need a disinfectant at all if you clean surfaces well (especially with a microfiber cloth), and if you do decide you need one, there are time-tested options. As one expert in environmental chemicals notes, “Hydrogen peroxide, citric acid, or octanoic acid are safe and effective,” and they’re all listed by the EPA as effective against the virus that causes COVID-19. In fact, research finds hydrogen peroxide-based disinfectants to be more effective than quat-based products.

Microbes can certainly cause problems, and so can antimicrobials. I pray you’ll stay safe from both.

Race and Environmental Illness

In the past, I’ve focused most of my attention on toxins we use in, on, or around our bodies, clothes, and homes (or other buildings). I’ve done this in part because there are many things each of us can control, and it seems more manageable and hopeful to focus on those than on things that are harder to change. Also, I find that people tend to be more aware of the potential hazards of outdoor than indoor air and I feel inclined to share information that’s less generally understood.

The full truth, though, is that the state of the air in our neighborhoods can profoundly affect our health and quality of life. In this cultural moment when the nation is focused on racial issues, I feel a need to address the heartbreaking and uncomfortable fact that the air in our neighborhoods and the degree of toxin exposure we experience may be determined in part by the color of our skin. While the country and church are focusing on things we can do better, I don’t want us to overlook this.

Unfortunately, in the United States, dark-skinned people are exposed to more pollution than light-skinned people are. A 2018 study published in the American Journal of Public Health examined the toxic burden from small particle pollution, associated with a wide range of health effects, including cancer, heart attacks, lung disease, and more. The authors note that people living in poverty had a burden 1.35 times higher than the general population, all non-whites 1.28 times higher, and blacks carried a burden 1.54 times the rate of the population at large. An article on the study notes that the degree of toxin exposure is only partly explained by facility location. The data indicates that “the magnitude of emissions from individual factories appears to be higher in minority neighborhoods.”

As the study demonstrates, race is a more powerful factor than income when predicting disparities. Dr. Robert Bullard reports that “African American households with incomes between $50,000 and $60,000 live in neighborhoods that are more polluted than the average neighborhood of white households with incomes below $10,000.” 

Bullard has been researching environmental inequity for decades. In the early 1980s he found that from the 1930s to 1978, 82 percent of waste in Houston was dumped in mostly black neighborhoods. These days he reports that in 46 states, people of color live with more air pollution than white people do and that black Americans are 79 percent more likely than their white counterparts to live in areas where industrial pollution is especially problematic.

Given the differences in toxic exposures, it isn’t surprising to see health differences as well, in many different conditions and diseases. African Americans have the highest cancer mortality rate among racial groups and are more likely than white Americans to report having fair or poor health. In an interview for a Yale University publication, Jacqueline Patterson focuses on lung issues and notes that “An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks than a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke.“ She states that “We have communities that are losing people every day from . . . toxic exposures.”

I was pleased to learn that what’s often called a “landmark” study, “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States” was commissioned and published by a church-based organization, the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ. It was written in 1987, and 20 years later they revisited the issue in “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty.” The conclusion of the updated publication was this: “Twenty years after the release of Toxic Wastes and Race, significant racial and socioeconomic disparities persist in the distribution of the nation’s commercial hazardous waste facilities. Although the current assessment uses newer methods . . . the conclusions are very much the same as they were in 1987.”  Today, 13 years after that was written, significant racial differences in toxin exposure still exist.

What can we do to address the issue? I wish I had a simple answer. I hope we can find ways to communicate to the powers-that-be that this isn’t acceptable. I hope we can work together to try to ensure that industry takes human health effects seriously and is held responsible when they don’t.

While we work for more broad-based change we can at least keep from making the problem worse. We can choose not to add to anyone’s toxic body burden, knowing that we all have a tipping point at which our detoxification system can no longer manage everything coming in. People with smaller bodies (generally women and children), those with genetic challenges, and people already dealing with a high toxic load can handle less than others can before their systems become overwhelmed and health problems appear.

Every single product choice we make affects other people as well as ourselves. Others are exposed to our perfumes, laundry products, cleaners, pest-control solutions and more. None of us know which exposure will be the one that’s just too much. I don’t want to be responsible for pushing anyone over the edge into illness. Do you?

Chemicals and COVID -19

A recent study determined that there are more than 350,000 chemicals and chemical mixtures registered for production and use, a number three times as high as previously estimated. Up to 70,000 of these chemicals are described ambiguously and more than 50,000 are classified as “confidential,” leading to an enormous gap in knowledge. Given the woeful lack of data and study, it isn’t possible to fully understand how chemicals in the environment may be making us more susceptible to COVID-19. We do know enough, though, to take some prudent steps.  Here’s some of what’s known at this point:

1. The numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all linked to levels of fine particulate matter in the air.

Particulate matter is an airborne mixture of solid and liquid particles. The smaller or finer the particles, the more problematic they are for human health, because they can more easily evade defenses. Several recent studies examined the relationship of particulate air pollution to COVID-19. A study by the World Bank Group found that the level of fine particulate matter was a highly significant predictor of how many confirmed cases and hospital admissions there would be in a geographical area. They report that a pollution increase of 20 percent may increase COVID-19 cases by nearly 100 percent. The researchers controlled for health-related preconditions and demographic factors and note that patterns suggest the number of cases is not simply related to population density.

Particulate pollution is also associated with COVID-19 morbidity. The Guardian reports on a US study finding that “even a tiny, single-unit increase in particle pollution levels in the years before the pandemic is associated with a 15% increase in the death rate.”  It further notes that long-term exposure to particle pollution was already known to increase the risk of death from all causes, but that in the case of COVID-19 deaths, the increase was 20 times higher. The correlation held when poverty levels, smoking, obesity, and availability of COVID-19 tests and hospital beds were factored in. It also held when New York City (with many cases) and counties with few cases were removed from the data pool.

2. Indoor air is generally more polluted than outdoor air.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the air inside homes and other buildings tends to be more polluted than outdoor air even in the most populated and industrialized cities. It’s easy to feel helpless about our exposure to outdoor air pollution, but to a large degree, we can control our indoor environments.

Particulate pollution inside a home or other building can come in many forms. Combustion (burning candles or incense, using a fireplace, etc.) is a significant contributor. Household dust is also a source, and can lodge in carpets, sofas, chairs, curtains, and bedding and easily become airborne when, for example, carpets are walked on or people sit on sofas or chairs. For multiple reasons (some of which I’ll discuss later), it’s wise to address as many sources of toxicity inside a building as possible. Different types of contamination interact. As one website explains, “Particles in air are either directly emitted, for instance when fuel is burnt and when dust is carried by wind, or indirectly formed, when gaseous pollutants previously emitted to air turn into particulate matter.”

3. There are known risk factors for COVID-19 complications, and known chemical connections to them.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that people at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19 include those with lung disease or asthma, obesity, diabetes, kidney or liver disease, and heart conditions. The list of chemicals that can contribute to these conditions is long.

Researchers tested 50 types of consumer products for 66 chemicals related to asthma or hormone disruption (associated with diabetes and obesity) and found 55 of them. Implicated chemicals include those found in fragrances, cleaners, cosmetics, plastic, hair care products, detergents, and more. Some of the highest concentrations of problematic chemicals were found in fragranced products, such as dryer sheets, air fresheners and perfumes. Vinyl was also a significant source of exposure.

Because the kidney and liver are involved in detoxifying chemicals, all exposures can stress and affect them. The National Kidney Foundation notes that kidney disease may be associated with herbicides, pesticides, air pollution, and heavy metal exposure. There are at least 123 chemicals associated with fatty liver, according to a study in Toxicologic Pathology. A significant number are found in pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides). Solvents, plasticizers, fragrances, paints, polishes, and dyes are also sources. Heart disease is likewise associated with a long list of chemical exposures, including (according to an article in Interdisciplinary Toxicology) those found in pesticides, cleaning products, plastic, adhesives, paints, and many other products.

4.  It’s wise to choose disinfectants carefully.

In a warning posted soon before COVID-19 became big news, Consumer Reports noted that many people may not know that products labeled “disinfecting” contain EPA-registered pesticides. The report notes that people who use disinfectants and cleaners regularly in their work (janitors and healthcare workers, for example) have higher rates of asthma. According to Newsweek, nurses who cleaned surfaces with disinfectants at least once a week had a 24 to 32 percent higher risk of developing COPD than nurses who used the products less often.

An article entitled Safer Disinfecting at Home in the Times of Coronavirus states that quats (quaternary ammonium chlorides, commonly found in disinfectants) are associated with a list of problems, including breathing difficulty, skin irritation, reproductive harm (including possible fertility and birth defect issues) and antimicrobial resistance. Chlorine bleach can also be problematic. The author recommends using disinfectants containing hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, lactic acid, citric acid, or thymol.

5. Ventilation is our friend.

Information from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicates that fresh air and sunlight seem to have prevented deaths among those infected. An article on the subject reports that “in the 1960s, Ministry of Defence scientists proved that fresh air is a natural disinfectant. Something in it, which they called the Open Air Factor, is far more harmful to airborne bacteria — and the influenza virus — than indoor air. . . . Their research also revealed that the Open Air Factor’s disinfecting powers can be preserved in enclosures — if ventilation rates are kept high enough.”

Adequate ventilation is known to limit the spread of airborne pathogens in healthcare environments. The author of an article entitled Could the Indoor Air Quality of Our Buildings Become Part of the COVID-19 Playbook? asks whether addressing ventilation in other buildings might likewise be part of an anti-viral strategy (which also includes reducing indoor contaminants). The article notes that in their publication Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the CDC recommends increasing ventilation rates and the percentage of outdoor air.

6. Every exposure matters

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “viral load.” The viral load, however, is only a small part of a person’s overall toxic load, or toxic body burden. There are natural and man-made toxins inside every human being (even newborns). Some chemicals are metabolized relatively quickly and others stick around for decades or even a lifetime. Some chemicals have been shown to directly affect the immune system, but every substance added to the body requires resources to manage and takes a person one step closer to the tipping point at which staying healthy is no longer possible.

It can be helpful to know what chemicals are likely to cause what symptoms or diseases, or to know whether you have a genetic weakness that might make you more susceptible to the effects of a certain class of compounds. It isn’t necessary to know that, though, in order to begin to protect yourself.

A guide to addressing indoor air pollution during lockdown and beyond suggests the following:

• Minimize use of air fresheners, pesticides, harsh cleaning products, aerosol sprays, and adhesives.

• Reduce indoor burning.

• Use an exhaust fan or open windows or doors.

To those, I would add the following suggestions:

• Keep things clean (using simple, non-toxic products) and reduce the number of surfaces that hold dust. It’s not a quick, easy fix, but removing carpet can make a big difference.

• Go fragrance free. A single fragrance can contain several hundred chemicals. (Also, fragrances in the products you use affect others around you as well.)

• Determine how toxic your personal care products are and make changes if necessary. The Skin Deep database is a good source of information.

• Reduce plastic use, especially in the kitchen.

• Eat organic food.

Much needs to be done on a societal level to help us stay healthy, but there’s also much that each of us can do personally. Now is a good time to do it.

A Game of "What If"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to My Planet

It’s certainly been an interesting week or two.  So much of the time I feel like my life, both past and present, has been and is so different from the norm that I’m like an alien, living in an alternate universe.  Lately people have been visiting my planet, and I’m curious to see the effects of that.

The COVID-19 preparations and precautions have led to a bad news/potentially good news situation for those of us with chemical illness.  The bad news is that the masks and mask inserts that environmentally ill people often rely on to navigate the toxin-saturated world have been unavailable or are costing far more than normal.  This unfortunately comes at a time when there are exponentially more problematic disinfectants and hand sanitizers being used than usual.  People with chemical illness are reporting having no safe places left other than their own homes.  Many are needing family members to immediately shower and change clothes when they return from being anywhere at all. 

Maybe some good will come from all this, though.  These are some things I’d love to see:

1. I hope that people will get used to seeing others wearing masks.  Recently I’ve heard healthy people talk about wearing masks in public and feeling they look like oddballs or freaks.  I assume that means they think that’s what I look like when I wear one.  It would be nice if the look became a little more commonplace and acceptable.

2. I’d love for churches and other organizations to improve their webcast and video conference offerings.  I hope churches that don’t currently stream their services will decide to do it.  I hope churches that already do will make improvements (like making sure the volume is adequate and providing the words to the songs being sung).  If churches could figure out how to make Bible study and other small group gatherings accessible to those of us who can’t enter the church building, it would be a wonderful silver lining to the current challenging circumstances.

3. I’d be thrilled if the situation led to more understanding and compassion for people with chemical illness.  We were doing social distancing before it was cool and we’re very familiar with the feelings of loneliness and isolation.  The frustration and grief of not being able to attend events we would love to attend is a daily part of our lives. When those of you who are healthy return to full participation in society, I hope you’ll remember that some of us can’t do that without your help.  The virus threat will diminish, but the threat of synthetic fragrances, pesticides, and other chemicals will remain.

Masks and staying at home aren’t the only things I’ve had experience with. I lived in Peru during a time when there were empty store shelves and a cholera epidemic among other challenges (like terrorism, political uncertainty, and inflation of 10,000 percent).  I’m feeling less anxious about the current situation than a lot of people seem to be because it isn’t new to me.  What I learned during those years is that people are resilient.  We can find ways around challenges when we work together and help each other.  Mostly what I learned was that God’s peace expands to fill the space we give it.  When we stop to breathe, we realize that God is in us and around us and holding us tight.

It’s not just the COVID-19 situation that has made this an interesting week or two.  If you count both dates, there are nine days between the anniversary of my sister’s death on March 7th and the anniversary of my husband’s death on March 15th.  Those nine days tend to be some of the most emotionally challenging of the year for me.  This year, in the middle of my “just get through it” time, I finally crossed the finish line of my excruciatingly long book publishing process.  It’s done.  The book (Chemicals and Christians: Compassion and Caution) can be purchased on Amazon, Christianbook, or through Redemption Press.  I don’t know what to make of the timing, but I’m grateful to have finally reached this point.  Thank you for your prayers and support. Thank you for being interested enough in this topic to read my blog. Thank you for wanting to know what it’s like on my planet.

How Much Plastic Did You Have for Breakfast?

Plastic is everywhere, isn’t it?  It’s helpful, harmful, and so ubiquitous that it’s hardly noticed. I’ve made efforts through the years to reduce my use, but it seems to keep creeping back into my life. I’ve been reading things lately, though, which have motivated me to tackle the issue again.

One of the key problems with conventional plastic is that it doesn’t biodegrade.  It does, however, break off into ever smaller pieces.  As one report notes, “They may be too small to see, but they are still there, worming their way into every nook and cranny of the environment – including our bodies.”

These tiny plastic particles (known as microplastics) enter our body in a number of ways.

We eat them.  Every day we consume millions of microplastic particles.  A recent article notes that we consume 5 grams weekly, which is about the amount in a credit card or plastic bottle cap.  Some of the plastic in our food is there because of bio-accumulation in the food chain and some comes from plastic-containing dust in the air.

We drink them.  They can enter the water supply or leach into drinks bottled in plastic.  They can also enter our beverages in a more direct way.  Until recently, I was unaware that most tea bags are sealed with plastic.  A New Scientist article reports that studies have found that a single tea bag can put 11.6 billion microplastic particles into a cup of tea.  This is many times greater than the amounts found in other foods which have traditionally been considered to be high in plastic contamination.

We breathe them in.  An article titled “Microplastics are Raining Down on Cities” notes that researchers tested the air in four cities and found microplastics (up to 15 different types) in all of them.  Even low-population areas once considered pristine have been affected.  The BBC reports that “even in the Arctic, microscopic particles of plastic are falling out of the sky with snow.”

How these microplastics are affecting our health isn’t completely known, because the issue hasn’t been extensively studied.  However, a Washington Post article notes that “It’s likely that ingesting microplastics could further expose us to chemicals . . . known to be harmful.”  The chemicals include bisphenols (the most well known of which is Bisphenol A, or BPA), phthalates, styrene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  These have been linked to cancer, immune system effects, hormone disruption, damage to the nervous system, and more.  There is evidence that microplastics can cross the blood-brain barrier and they may pass from mothers to their developing children in utero.  A physics professor writes that “microplastics, like the microfibers from our clothing, can also absorb harmful chemicals—like the flame retardants we put on that same clothing—and release them later, perhaps after they’ve wound up in our gut.” 

The obvious solution to the problem is to reduce our use of plastic, but that takes some focus, in part because plastic is so much a part of our lives that we may not always even recognize and notice it.  The Washington Post notes that plastic “lines soup cans, leaches out of storage containers, hides in household dust, and is found inside of toys, electronics, shampoo, cosmetics and countless other products.” Synthetic fabrics, such as polyester, acrylic, and nylon are also easily overlooked forms of plastic.

Experts have recommended various strategies to reduce microplastic exposure, including the following:

• Avoid storing food in plastic.  Plastic with recycling codes of 3, 6, and 7 may be especially problematic.  I once heard a speaker talk about the fact that we think of plastic as non-porous, but that to understand how porous it actually is, we can remember how easily a plastic container can be stained with tomato sauce.  The food can get into the plastic, and the plastic can get into the food. Eating fresh food is wise for many reasons, including the fact that food cans, wrappers, take-out containers and other packaging are often sources of microplastic contamination.

• Don’t heat plastic.  Avoid using plastic containers in the microwave.  Don’t put plastic in your dishwasher.  To combat the issue of plastic in tea bags, look for brands that are compostable, or use loose leaf tea.  Getting rid of as much plastic in the kitchen as possible is wise, but especially consider replacing things like plastic spatulas or colanders that are often used with hot food.

• Stay away from bottled water.  A test of tap water in the United States found microplastic in 94% of the samples, but bottled water has about double the amount. Tap water can have other contaminants too, of course, so a good filter is highly recommended.

• Wear clothing made of natural fabrics like cotton, linen, and wool.  Synthetic fabrics can shed tiny particles into the air, and are also widely implicated in contaminating the water supply.  When we wash our synthetic clothes, plastic particles make their way from our washing machines into the environment.  Some of them reach the ocean, are ingested by marine animals, and become part of the food chain.

• Dust regularly and try to reduce the amount of plastic likely to be found in it. Household dust comes from everything in the home, so reducing the amount of plastic in the home environment will keep the dust from containing as many microplastic particles. High quality air filters are a good idea. Carpet collects dust and is best avoided when possible.

  Microplastic contamination is a big issue, but there are steps each of us can take to reduce our exposures, and what we do to protect ourselves may protect others as well. Lowering our toxic load is a journey, and all journeys are taken one step at a time.