Perfumes may contribute to health issues in significant percentage of population

Although I have been blogging about this subject for six months now it is always nice to read other reports, backed up by research, that the over use of synthetic scents may contribute to a potentially significant public health problem. The increasing use of synthetic chemicals in scented products in public spaces such as toilets, lobbies and restaurants is an imposition on personal air quality in the same way that smoking was. Why is it any more acceptable? Why are we allowing the large soap & cleaning product multi-nationals to make such huge profits at the expense of our health?

The Los Angeles Times reported:

“In some cases, it’s a health issue. About a quarter of the U.S. population suffers from allergic rhinitis, according to James Wedner, chief of allergy and immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo. Their eyes water or their noses run when they breathe in various substances, whether it’s dust, dander, pollen or perfumes, the last of which contain hundreds of different chemicals.

“If you figure that maybe 2% or 4% of those have major problems with odors, you can see it’s a big problem. It’s not unusual for me as an allergist to have three or four patients a week who say, ‘I went to the symphony, or a restaurant or the doctor’s office, and I had to leave because the lady in front of me had on perfume,’ ” Wedner said.”

Full article can be read here: http://bit.ly/6MB08w

Why is adding synthetic scent to public spaces acceptable?

Given the recent award against cigarette manufacturers for actual and punitive damages for the negative health effects of smoking it surprises me that major hotels and public space managers think that it is okay to add synthetic chemical scents to their air management systems.

It could be argued that I have a choice to not go to a mall or enter a certain shop. But what about the conference at a hotel or convention centre that is critical to the success of my business or a mandatory part of my employment or career development?

Does the world really need ‘warm embrace’ pumped into a lobby on a 24 hour basis? What about the long-term health of the staff that do not have a choice about where they work within that space and may not have the skills or financial safety net of exercising the ultimate choice of leaving and seeking employment elsewhere.

On our most recent trip into corporate and urban America where we, ironically, were going to a conference promoting health through traditional diets supporting local, sustainable and ethically organic farming practices, we encountered hotels that filled their public spaces with these synthetic chemicals and had rooms where the windows did not open. The entire concept of healthy air and air exchange is lost on these companies and my hope and prayer is that they realise the damage that they are doing to their employees and the environment in a timely fashion and before there are any long-term, ill-health effects.

We need to remember that a headache is one of the bodies’ ways of telling us that we are encountering a hazardous odour (ie a potential neurotoxin) and that we should react accordingly. The correct reaction is to leave the contaminated area and notify those responsible of the potential hazard, not to reach for another pill and continuing to support the pharma and soap industry domination of our lives, health and spending patterns.

Vote for health, look after our air and make your objections noted (in a polite way) when ever you encounter this phenomenon.

Clean, real air is the only acceptable standard for the air we have to breath.

New research regarding the effects of synthetic chemcials on human development

This is some research to support a theory that a lot of forward looking individuals have worked out for themselves over recent years. Hopefully this will get some recognition, with stand scientific scrutiny and assist in removing some of the toxins from our daily lives or at least inform people so that they can withdraw consent and use their dollars to create a tipping point.

http://bit.ly/TysoX

What’s under the sink? Part 3 – Bleach

We have already looked at how healthy oven cleaner is for us. In addition there are other household cleaning products that contain ammonia such as glass cleaning sprays. But more importantly one of the most common household cleaning products are or contain bleach or bleaching compounds. It is not uncommon to see it stored in the same cupboard as all our other chemicals.

There are a few reactions that can occur when bleach and ammonia are mixed in various proportions – the release of chlorine gas is just one of these.

Chlorine gas (Cl2) is one of the most dangerous byproducts of bleach and ammonia should they mix. Household bleach has a chemical formula of NaOCl – that is, one atom each of sodium, oxygen, and chlorine. Its chemical name, for the curious, is sodium hypochlorite. Ammonia has a chemical formula of NH3, that is, one atom of nitrogen and three atoms of hydrogen. When these two compounds are combined, the following reaction takes place:

2(parts)NaOCl + 2NH3 –> 2NaONH3 + Cl2.

That Cl2 on the right hand side means one part chlorine gas, made up of diatomic (two atom) molecules. It also means that the chlorine gas has been liberated from the bleach, and is quite capable of causing you harm when inhaled!

To understand the effects chlorine gas has on the body, we first need to understand the chemical properties of chlorine, particularly its valence, or number of chemical bonds chlorine can form. Chlorine is in the seventh of the traditional groups of elements, one before the group of inert gases, which, as their name suggests, are almost completely unreactive. Chlorine has seven electrons in its outer electron shell.

The Octet Rule states that all elements try to fill in their outer electron shell until they have eight electrons. When a chemical has eight electrons in its outer shell, it is then stable. Being so close to having 8 electrons in its outer shell, chlorine is quite desperate to get that one last electron – and will literally rip other atoms apart to do so. This is what happens to your respiratory system when you inhale chlorine gas. It was used as a chemical weapon during World War I and later by Nazi Germany in World War II. The gas tears into your nasal passages, trachea, and lungs by causing massive cellular damage. Obviously, chlorine gas causes a very painful death.

So we really do have a chemical cornucopia under the sink that can cause serious, and sometimes permanent, damage. More importantly it is another set of household products that cause irritation and contribute to our toxic load when we absorb or inhale small amounts of either product or by product every time we use them.

We can achieve the same result with bicarbonate soda, white vinegar, a drop of lemon essential oil and a good, vigorous scrubbing with a nail brush and a wash cloth. Choose the safe option for your health and the environment.

Sources:

What’s under the sink? Part 2 – oven cleaner

One million poisonings in Canada each year are due to household cleaner ingestion. Some are fatal. Thousands of children and adults are permanently disfigured or injured through contact with chemicals in the home each year.

Oven cleaners are one of the most toxic products people use. They contain lye and ammonia, which eat the skin, and the fumes linger and affect the respiratory system. These solutions are irritating to the eyes and mucous membranes (respiratory and digestive tracts), and to a lesser extent the skin.

Caution should be used that the ammonia is never mixed into any liquid containing bleach, or a poisonous gas may result. Mixing with chlorine-containing products or strong oxidants, for example household bleach can lead to hazardous compounds such as chloramines. Ammonia even at dilute concentrations is highly toxic to aquatic animals, and for this reason it is classified as dangerous for the environment – so think about that as you rinse out the cleaning cloth in the sink! Finally there is the residue that ís intensified the next time you turn your oven on.

Products containing ammonia are also commonly stored in next to household bleaches or products containing bleach but I will talk about that in Part 3.

So that smell coming off your ‘nice clean’ oven is a vapour containing ammonia and lye which will irritate and damage your mucous membranes respiratory system.

Baking soda and white vinegar and some elbow grease will allow you to do the same job without any harmful side effects to your health or the environment. Consider the change if you will.

What’s under the sink? Part 1 – Washing up liquids

Washing up liquids are probably one of the most common and commonly used household cleaning items as, despite the marketing from fast food companies and the availability of packaged microwave meals in supermarkets, most of us still prepare food, cook and eat which makes ‘mess’ that has to be ‘washed up’.

But what is in most washing up liquids? To avoid overwhelming you with data I will concentrate on a just two common ingredients:

Both Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) and its close relative Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) are commonly used in many soaps, shampoos, detergents, toothpastes and other products that we expect to “foam up”. Both chemicals are very effective foaming agents, chemically known as surfactants.

Unfortunately, both sodium laureth sulfate and its cousin are also very dangerous, highly irritating chemicals. Detergents and shampoos containing sodium laureth sulfate can lead to direct damage to the hair follicle, skin damage, permanent eye damage in children and even liver toxicity.

Although sodium laureth sulfate is somewhat less irritating than SLS, it cannot be metabolised by the liver and its effects are therefore much longer-lasting. This not only means it stays in the body tissues for longer, but much more precious energy is used getting rid of it.

A report published in the Journal of The American College of Toxicology in 1983 showed that concentrations of SLS as low as 0.5% could cause irritation and concentrations of 10-30% caused skin corrosion and severe irritation. National Institutes of Health “Household Products Directory” of chemical ingredients lists over 80 products that contain SLS and SLES. Some soaps have concentrations of up to 30%, which the ACT report called “highly irritating and dangerous”.

So as usual with household cleaning product ingredients, if we were using them in a work environment we would have to wear PPE (personal protective equipment), have spill kits to hand and understand the OH&S safe handling requirements. If they are used in household cleaning products they often do not have to be listed despite being present in concentrations that can cause irritation or contribute to ill health.

As always buyer beware and try to use a healthier and more environmentally sensitive alternative.

Dry cleaning fluid contamination suspected contributor to rare male breast cancer

Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a colorless solvent often used to clean grease from machinery. Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) is commonly used in dry cleaning. Both these chemicals, which are known to cause human health problems in relatively low exposures were found in the ground water and wells due to industrial dumping practices ie they were allowed to just flush their cleaning waste down the drain.

The subsequent illness however is a result of a classic case of bureaucracy using the ‘it was not at unsafe levels for the time’ clause to avoid taking prompt and early action. What kind of fool uses a well that is known to be contaminated during a heat wave rather than truck in potable water from elsewhere. I would be fairly confident that there was not a running tap or sprinkler ban during these periods of water shortage either.

Full article here: http://bit.ly/BuUA4

Research indicates synergistic effects cause damage even when used at ’safe’ levels

There have long been concerns that almost no chemical and pharmaceutical testing protocols do any tests for synergistic effects of ingredients when they are mixed with other common chemicals (either in other prescription medication or other sources of chemicals such as personal care products, household cleaning products, air fresheners or more frequently, our drinking water).

In essence this study shows (at least fort these for chemicals) that synergistic effects from so called “safe” exposure levels can have far stronger effects than measured individually. As is the case in this study (and backed by fairly empirical evidence world wide) the combined effects have massive fertility and survivability implications.

Read the research synopsis with some great background information here: http://bit.ly/CfZYa there is a further link to the full research report for those with an academic bent.

As always the rule of thumb is to avoid anything synthetic if we can as we do not know what the cumulative and synergistic effects are due to a lack of compulsory industry testing before products are released onto the market. In effect every time someone uses a modern synthetic product they taking the place of the lab rat.

Your older SIGG water bottles may contain BPAs

Sadly not all companies took the opportunity, during recent concerns in Canada and North America regarding the presence of BPAs in plastic containers and related products, to come clean regarding their own products. It appears that SIGG, who were aware that their proprietary liner contained BPAs, continued with their stance that it was ‘inert’ despite reasonable scientific evidence that plastics containing BPAs leach BPAs into water/ contents, especially when used for storage or subject to heat. This is a typical example of how a large company will let an assumption obscure the truth.

It is good to see that despite SIGG trying to hide that facts behind their claim that they were unable to discuss the make up of their liner as it was ‘proprietary’ information, that they have had to admit their error and appear to be trying to do something to replace bottles that may contain BPA. It would have been better for everyone and their reputation if they had been honest from the start.

http://bit.ly/4wBUpT

If you think that is a typical example of shoddy corporate ethics then you can apply the David Suzuki principle and “withdraw consent” by buying a similar performing product from a manufacturer who does not need a plastic liner. I leave it up to you.

Pollution in our homes at levels that would not be allowed in the work place

There is a considerable body of work that suggests that due to the development of ‘weather proof’ housing, the vast array of treatments on household goods, the incredible number of household cleaning products and personal care products that we use and the amount of time that we spend in our homes, that our homes may well be the least healthy places for us to be.

Now that may be a little bit hard to believe if you work at a lead smelter or in a coal mine but consider the differences if you will.

Work: 8-12 hours in any day, depending on shifts. Most Westerners in wage earning jobs do not work more than 40 hours per week (at any one job – I know that there is a world of multi job holders out there). Compulsory health and safety practices including work safe procedures, rest times, personal protective equipment (PPE) – including filter masks, coveralls, gloves, helmets and head covers, wash points etc, and mandatory health checks.

Home: 12-16 hours per day (depending on work and leisure schedule). Exposed to dust, spores, VOCs, synthetic chemical residues and vapours from household cleaning products and personal care products, chlorine in the water, fluoride in the water and toothpaste, triclosan in the hand wash, tooth paste and water. Radon in crawl spaces and basements. Bromides off gassing off any product that has been subject to fire retardant treatment including mattresses, fabrics and bedding. The list is fairly long and horrifying. You can read more about it in this report: http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0900web/home.html

Or just google “the hazards of ………..(choose your house hold product) and find out for yourself. As always buyer beware, check things for yourself and remember ‘just because you can buy it does not mean that it is safe for you to have in your household’.