Synthetic Scents in candles potentially harmful – finally some main stream media reporting

It is interesting to note that it has taken two years for the information from this research to be reported in mainstream media:

“When U.S. researchers burnt a range of candles in a laboratory for a study published two years ago, the chemicals released in harmful amounts included human carcinogens and chemicals known to cause asthma attacks, such as toluene and benzene.”

In addition to other household scented products, the candle, heavily marketed as representing ‘quality “me” time’, contains yet more toxins and irritants to further decrease the quality of our our indoor air. It is interesting that people would construct a potentially healing event (a hot bath) based around potentially toxic products (candles, synthetically scented bath salts and soaps).

Whislt proper candles exist (http://www.vonhardenbergcandles.com/) it comes back to the basic principles of quality ingredients, construction and proper use equal a safe and healthy experience. They are of course more expensive, reflective of the time taken to properly construct the candle from pure and quality ingredients and components. It also takes maintenance (triming wicks) to ensure that candles burn correctly and cleanly.

“More expensive varieties made from beeswax and soy rarely cause problems, but the majority of those sold in the UK are cheap imports made from paraffin wax, a by-product of the petroleum industry. These have been shown to release an alarming range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), substances that can be problematic to health.”

I have not been able to find any independent research as the possible negative effects of vapourised soy but as it is generally not great when consumed I cannot imgaine that it is any better for us when inhaled.

So yet another consumer product that is sold as a ‘quality’ experience is contributing to short and long term ill health.  Buyer beware, buy proper candles, use proper essential oils correctly (some should not be burnt or overheated) and ensure that there is adequate ventilation and air exchange when or after buring candles.

Full Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2012034/Could-scented-candles-kill-Theyre-womens-favourite-indulgence.html

Further doubts about the safety of wi-fi voiced by Council of Europe

Finally there appears to be some common sense coming from a recognised leadership body in Europe. Whilst not a government and lacking direct executive power the Council of Europe has a fairly strong presence within the EU and has a body of representatives that have the power to influence policy and decision-making within European governments.

It is refreshing to see that someone is finally learning from the mistakes of the past, particularly those made with asbestos, smoking (remember that doctors used to recommend smoking as a treatment for asthma!!), thalidomide and the myriad of other social and medical disasters that have effective been a result of industry not being forced to ‘prove beyond reasonable doubt’ that a product is safe for human exposure or consumption before it is approved for distribution and use.

If the cell phone and wireless industry is so confident that these communication methods pose no risk to human health and childhood development then please offer up an unlimited fund based on revenues and profits generated over the past 20 years, managed in trust, that provides for extensive, thorough and complete testing by reputable and unbiased independent bodies.

Full article  here: http://bit.ly/kJxADv

Wi-Fi – yet another untested modern introduction that may affect our long term health

An interesting article today discussing the possibility, according to a microwave warfare expert, that the wide-spread introduction of wireless internet in schools and the household, may have long-term detrimental effects on human health.

As usual the government health agency tells us that there is insufficient research to prove that it is damaging to human (and especially children’s) health.

As always they (and most governments are the same) are ignoring the most important issue which is that there is also insufficient research and evidence to prove that it is not dangerous to human health.

Why should we be the guinea pigs? Why should governments trust industry funded testing and self-regulation when there is an extensive history of industry manipulating research results and hiding evidence in order to release a product that will provide a greater profit margin or develop a new income stream. The government benefits because they gather taxes, it is a future government that is left to deal with the problem and the consequent health related financial impact.

There are a lot of things on the market that we do not need, we should insist that anything introduced for human and animal use is proven to be safe for immediate and long-term heath. If companies really had to prove that something was safe there would be far less toxic junk in the world as the returns would no be worth their investment.

Referenece article available to read at: http://bit.ly/aTvg8g

Pollution may contribute to adult diabetes

A study, recently published in Germany, concluded that all other things being equal it appears that air quality, in particular pollution, may contribute to an increase in the rate of type 2 or adult onset diabetes. The mechanism is believed to be linked to the increase in chronic, low-level, inflammation that pollution triggers.

Those in the test group that had the ability or means to reduce their exposure to air pollution. Living in better locations, using a car rather than walking along busy streets and using air conditioning rather than opening windows were cited as some examples that modified results.

A logical extension of this conclusion would be that any substance that may be considered air pollution or an irritant is likely to contribute to the low-level inflammation that contributes to the development of diabetes.

A second order conclusion could be that anything that creates inflammation in the body could be a contributor to the development of adult disease.

So the end logical conclusion is to avoid or reduce one’s exposure to anything that could create inflammation in the human body. This starts with everything that is not really necessary (for example: synthetic chemical air fresheners, dryer sheets, smell masking sprays, surface polishes and the myriad of other household items that are heavily marketed towards us) and moves through to considering other choices (closed versus open fire-place, more fuel-efficient cars and other motorised devices through to improved air quality in the home).

So as always on my website – avoid the synthetic chemical laden products that are almost certainly toxic as a good start to improved air quality and better health.

Reference article: http://bit.ly/bpUeOT

Think before you spray it on your body

Just one of many products that we get out during summer (or any time) and spray with abandon. One has to stop and consider that if it contains a chemical that will repel one of the most determined insects known to man (the female mosquito) then it must contain something that at some level is not good for a biological system to be exposed too.

We know from the medical/ pharmaceutical industry that substances placed on our skin are absorbed into our bodies. We also know from historical evidence that substances thought to be safe for human use have subsequently been proven to be extremely toxic or harmful to human health (eg thalidomide or asbestos).

So think about it – do you really need to use a substance containing DEET? Is there another way to tackle the problem of being bitten? Perhaps wear long-sleeved shirts and trousers, increase one’s vitamin B consumption?

Remember also that what we place on our skin eventually gets washed off and then accumulates in our waterways. Municipal water treatment programs are only concerned about treating sewerage and there are almost no municipal systems that address the issues of contamination from pharmaceuticals, household and back yard chemicals and everything else that gets ‘washed downstream’.

So please just think about it before grabbing the latest, television hyped, and largely untested products and slathering it all over your skin. Do you really need it? Is there a safer and more environmentally friendly alternative that you could use?

Enjoy the summer.

Original artlicle: http://bit.ly/aGvR80

Research supporting theory that household cleaning products may not be good for us.

This recent article describes how scientists have found significant links between the disease and women’s use of cleaning products, air fresheners and mould removers. In general the use of cleaners appears to have doubled the risk of breast cancer in women who used them the most.

Not unexpectedly, among the different kinds of products considered, air fresheners and mould and mildew removers had the strongest association. These are the general household products that either see the greatest use or contain the greatest concentrations of largely unregulated, toxic, synthetic chemicals

The research found that mothballs, pesticides and insect repellents had little impact on breast cancer risk.

“Study leader Dr Julia Brody, from the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, Massachusetts, said: “Women who reported the highest combined cleaning product use had a doubled risk of breast cancer compared to those with the lowest reported use.

“Use of air fresheners and products for mould and mildew control were associated with increased risk. To our knowledge, this is the first published report on cleaning product use and risk of breast cancer.”"

This does no surprise me – marketing of household fresheners and ‘freshening’ products has increased exponentially in recent years. It is quite easy to watch a Saturday night movie or one’s favourite sporting event and come away wondering why there is not a scent dispenser in every room of one’s house and perhaps one really should spray a certain masking product after every meal or after the dog comes into the house. Perhaps one should rush off to the bathroom and spray a certain product into the shower just in case a deadly mould spore is lurking there trying to end civilisation as we know it.

This constant low dose lifestyle is probably going to be proven to be more harmful in the long-term and as always the companies introducing and promoting these products are under no legal obligation to prove that they are safe for human use. There is absolutely no testing on the area of synergistic effect when multiple products are combined which is pretty much a normal use pattern for most households.

Full article at this link:

http://bit.ly/bzysas

Marketing oxymorons – lying with style

Far be it for me to mention brand names but I was horrified today to learn that a certain popular leading brand has a new ‘outdoor fresh’ scent for most of its range of synthetically scented and chemically dubious products.

By dubious I note that there is no doubt about what the products contain – well I should specify there is no doubt about what the manufacturer declares went into the product in order to create it. There is of course no legal requirement to list what the product or bottle contains once this chemical cocktail has been mixed together. But that is a diversion from my main point today.

“Outdoor Fresh” in my experience has not ever caused a sharp pain to lance through my right temporal lobe, warning me that whatever I am smelling and experiencing is probably not good for me. Not much I have experienced, created naturally by the environment, has a serious potential to contribute to ill-health and long-term adverse physical reactions ranging from asthma, through eczema to cancer and other potentially fatal conditions.

Too strong a position you may be thinking? Is it really? To the credit of the leading brand manufacturer (I like to give credit where it is due, however one positive does not outweigh a few hundred negatives in my opinion), it does provide a reference section on its website where one can access the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) for the synthetic chemicals it uses in its products. This reference section provides a litany of warnings about the probable and proven negative and harmful effects of a large majority of the synthetic chemicals used in the products it happily advertises in main stream media. Most of this advertising implies that the products have a beneficial outcome to one’s life and life style.

This manufacturer is not alone, the industry in general makes its (enormous) profits from taking a cocktail of cheaply produced synthetic chemicals which, if one read the individual MSDS, one could not handle without a protective suit, industrial goggles, gloves and a respirator/ filter mask and produces products that allegedly improve the quality of our lives (emphasised as increased leisure time). Due a disconnect in legislation that sees a higher and more honest safety standard for work place use compared to what is legislated for household or domestic use these companies are operating well within the law as regulated by the FDA and EPA (and similar organisations in other countries). In addition they have no legal requirement to prove that the products are safe for personal use.

Is a product that potentially saves one 30 seconds per day or week worth the long-term negative effects to personal health and the surrounding environment? That is a judgement I will have to leave to my readers. The facts are all there, it just requires one to look past the glossy ads and ask ‘Is this product really worth the potential negative effects?’, ‘Is is really saving me anything?’ and ‘What is this costing me in the long term?’

There is nothing ‘outdoor’ or ‘fresh’ about this scent. It is made up of synthetic chemicals that have a high probability of causing more harm than good. A world full of oxymorons or as I like to call it ‘lying with style’.

Relying on Industry to tell us a product is safe

Why isn’t the same standard of proof required in law to convict someone what we expect from the public bodies that are designed to protect the public from corporate greed.

Relying on the chemical industry to ‘prove’ that the products they bring to market are safe from the toxic side effects has proven time and again to be an incorrect way of protecting public health. This is why we vote in democracies. There is an implicit trust and by default implied responsibility that the governments we elect to govern and protect us will discharge that duty across all aspects of the public domain. That includes safety.

There is a large weight of anecdotal and scientific evidence that industry will rush a product to market without a full ‘safety’ study. A total independent scientific proof that the product has no harmful side effects and, more importantly, that all side effects and synergistic interactions are known and understood.

Scientists are clever and we would like to think that they have the best of intentions but industry is about profits and the marketing type has a completely different moral code. Time and again products have been pushed onto a trusting public only to find out within five, ten or longer years that the side effects of that product are severely damaging. Think of DDT, our view of safe levels of lead, asbestos, thalidomide to name a few.

The governments we elect have a moral duty to protect the people they represent. That means public bodies like the FDA and EPA must have the powers to impose independent test protocols (which industry pay for – they are ones that stand to profit after all) that prove, like in other aspects of the law, “beyond all reasonable doubt” that a product is safe before it is allowed to be used on the public in any way, shape or form.

http://bit.ly/bMAszr

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) – a burning issue for our skin?

Dimethyl fumarate has been found to be an allergic sensitizer at very low concentrations, producing extensive, pronounced eczema that is difficult to treat. Concentrations as low as 1 ppm may produce allergic reactions.^[1] There are only a handful of equally potent sensitizers.^[2]

The issue came to light as a result of two serous cases, relating to the treatment of (mainly) leather sofas with DMF, in Europe (Finland & Great Britain) where the solid packets of DMF became gaseous and the resulting fumes caused several severe symptoms ranging from respiratory problems to skin rashes. The difficulty in diagnosing and identifying the problem also created considerable psychological stress for the victims.

In the European Union the use of dimethyl fumarate for consumer products has been forbidden since 1998, and since January 2009 the import of products containing dimethyl fumarate is also forbidden.

This is another example of products being treated with a chemical in order to save the manufacturer on packaging and shipping costs. An educated customer, and unfortunately we all have to be these days, must ask the range of personal safety related questions when purchasing any product and thereby encourage the producers to manufacturer, package and ship in ways that reduce any possible risk to our health and reduce the unnecessary use of toxic chemicals that can potentially do us harm.

Thank you fo Wiki for the synopsis about DMF.

References:

1. Rantanen, Tapio (2008). “The cause of the Chinese sofa/chair dermatitis epidemic is likely to be contact allergy to dimethylfumarate, a novel potent contact sensitizer”. British Journal of Dermatology 159 (1): 218–221. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08622

2. “Myrkkytuoli-ihottumien syy selvisi” (in Finnish). YLE Uutiset (YLE). 2008-04-24. http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/24h/id88989.html. Retrieved 2008-06-10

Soy & Grain Industry responsible for two thirds of US National haxane emissions in 2007.

Hexane is an alkane that is widely used as cheap, relatively safe, largely unreactive, and easily evaporated non-polar solvents in many industrial applications. Due to its low boiling point it can easily contribute to a degradation in air quality as many of the processes it is used in create or require suffient heat for it to vapourise.

In 1994, n-hexane was included in the list of chemicals on the US Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).^[1] In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations on the control of emissions of hexane gas due to its potential carcinogenic properties and environmental concerns.^[2]

The long-term toxicity of n-hexane in humans is well known.

Quoting from the article:

“In order to meet the demands of health-conscious consumers, manufacturers of soy-based fake meat like to make their products have as little fat as possible. The cheapest way to do this is by submerging soybeans in a bath of hexane to separate the oil from the protein. Says Cornucopia Institute senior researcher Charlotte Vallaeys, “If a non-organic product contains a soy protein isolate, soy protein concentrate, or texturized vegetable protein, you can be pretty sure it was made using soy beans that were made with hexane.”

If you’ve heard about hexane before, it was likely in the context of gasoline—the air pollutant is also a byproduct of gas refining. But in 2007, grain processors were responsible for two-thirds of our national hexane emissions. Hexane is hazardous in the factory, too: Workers who have been exposed to it have developed both skin and nervous system disorders. Troubling, then, that the FDA does not monitor or regulate hexane residue in foods. More worrisome still: According to the report, “Nearly every major ingredient in conventional soy-based infant formula is hexane extracted.”

Full article: http://ow.ly/1AnQi

References:

1. “N-Hexane Chemical Backgrounder”. National Safety Council. http://www.nsc.org/ehc/chemical/N-Hexane.htm. Retrieved 25 May 2007.
2. Anuradee Witthayapanyanon and Linh Do. “Nanostructured Microemulsions as Alternative Solvents to VOCs in Cleaning Technologies and Vegetable Oil Extraction”. National Center For Environmental Research. http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/meetings/10_26_05/abstracts/do.html.