Submitted questions will be posted with my response by the following Tuesday or before.
Submitted comments will be moderated and approved within 24 hours.
Chemical “Soup” Clouds Connection between Toxins and Poor Health
I highly recommend reading this article from last week’s Scientific American.
It’s an interview with Linda Birnbaum, the toxicologist who leads the National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP).
She makes some interesting statements.
How much of human disease is due to environmental exposures?
The estimates vary, and it depends on how you define environment. People often say it’s about 30 percent. I think that’s defining environment fairly narrowly, considering only environmental chemical exposures, but your environment includes the food you eat, the drugs you take, the psychosocial stress you’re exposed to and so forth. After all, what’s the difference between a drug and an environmental chemical? One you intentionally take and the other one you don’t. Considering all that, I would say then the environment is much more than 30 percent.
Why has it been so difficult to link environmental exposures to specific health consequences?
Nobody is exposed to one chemical at a time, right? I mean we live in a soup of chemicals and we live in a soup of exposures. Here, I’m having a lemonade. Well, it’s not only lemon in here. I’m sure there’s some sugar. There might be a preservative or something. I don’t know what’s in this. So think of all those things interacting, but when we test chemicals in the lab we tend to test them one at a time.
I guess we don’t consider these other types of exposures.
Right. A high-fat diet, for example, can completely change the way your body handles chemicals. Exposure to a certain chemical may lower your ability to respond to an infection. At EPA we did a lot of studies exposing rats and mice to air pollutants and then to bacterial infections or influenza infections. Those who were exposed to pollution were more likely to die, whereas those in clean air recovered.
PCBs are considered likely carcinogens, but they are also endocrine disruptors, like bisphenol A or dioxin, which is something we’ve heard a lot about in the media lately. What is your definition of an endocrine disruptor?
An endocrine disruptor is anything that affects the synthesis of a hormone, the breakdown of a hormone or how the hormone functions. We used to think it had to bind with a hormone receptor but endocrine disruptors can perturb hormone action at other stages in the process.
Why are they such a big deal?
They’re all around us, and I think they can affect us at very low levels. Our hormones control our basic homeostasis, our basic physiology. If you alter your hormone levels, you’re not going to behave the same way physiologically, and that includes mentally and everything else. I think that there’s growing evidence that some of the chemicals to which we are exposed are doing that to the population right now.
How has spending 33 years studying toxic chemicals affected your outlook on the environment?
We do know that there are many chronic health conditions, non-communicable health conditions, which have increased too rapidly in the last 20 to 40 years. These are things like autism, ADHD and, of course, obesity and diabetes. We have identified chemicals clearly at play in the obesity epidemic. I am not in any way saying to people you can stop exercising and you don’t have to watch what you eat, but the question I have is: Are we setting people up to fail because they’re exposed to something that alters their ability to metabolize fats or sugars?
Source: Scientific American: Chemical “soup” Clouds Connection ebtween Toxins and Poor Health
A Simple Solution to Block Wireless Signals
I love this story, sent to me by a reader.
Some residents of San Francisco (where I used to live) were having problems with their wi-fi. It turned out that the interiors of their Victorian and Edwardian-era houses were lined with chicken wire as a base to hold the plaster on the walls.
Want to block wireless in your home? Perhaps chicken wire will do the trick.
Source : Wall Street Journal: Culprit in Wi-Fi Failures: Chicken Wire
Study finds health and environmental risk in building insulation
Press Release – Building Research and Information [Volume 40, Issue 6] United Kingdom
Researchers in the United States are calling for a change to the US building codes, following a study showing that the mandatory flame retardants routinely added to foam insulation are not only harmful to human health and the environment, but also make no difference to the prevention of fire in buildings where a fire-safe thermal barrier already exists. Such a change would bring the US building codes in line with regulations in Sweden and Norway.
The research team, which is drawn from US-based centres of excellence including the University of California and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, conducted a thorough review of fire safety literature since the mid-1970s and conclude that the addition of halogenated organic compounds to plastic insulation materials such as polystyrene, polyisocyanurate and polyurethane is costly, ineffective and environmentally damaging. Their conclusions are published in the latest issue of the journal Building Research and Information.
Led by internationally renowned fire expert Dr Vytenis Babrauskas of Fire Science & Technology Inc., the research team investigated the impact of the “Steiner Tunnel test”, which is used to test the propagation of fire over the surface of all sorts of building materials in the early stages of fire (before flashover point is reached). Their paper suggests that changing the US building codes to exempt foam plastic insulation materials from the test would avoid the use of thousands of tonnes of flame retardants that are known or suspected to be persistent organic pollutants. They conclude:
“Such a change would … decrease the cost of foam plastic insulation and encourage the use of insulation materials for increasing building energy efficiency and mitigating climate change. The potential for health and ecological harm from the use of flame retardant chemicals would be reduced and the fire safety of buildings would be maintained.”
Their article begins with a review of the development of the US building codes in relation to fire safety, and foam insulation in particular, and explains that foam plastics used for insulation have required a thermal barrier (usually 12.7 mm (1/2 inch) thick gypsum wallboard) since 1976. In addition, chemicals such as hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and Tris (1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP) are routinely added in order to meet the requirements of the Steiner Tunnel test. The building codes have never stipulated that chemicals be added to foam plastic insulation, however doing so is the most common way to meet the Steiner test. These additives are semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) which do not bind to the insulation material and are known to be released into the environment throughout the life cycle of insulation. The chemicals can persist and accumulate, and have been implicated in thyroid hormone disruption and nervous system development problems and are potentially carcinogenic.
The experts suggest that exempting foam plastic insulation materials from the Steiner Tunnel test would mean there was no longer a need to add these flame retardants.
Which Wool is Best?
Question from Mandy
Hi there, I’m having a lot of difficulty finding some answers to my questions about wool. I’m really hoping that you (or your readers) can help me to find some answers to my questions concerning wool and yarn that is meant to be used for children’s and babies clothing, toys and craft activities.
The more I look into this the more confused I become!
When looking at organic wool yarns, would yarn dyed using “natural substances and dyed without the use of acid based chemicals” be preferable to “low impact acid dyes”?
I’ve found two companies in the U.S. that offer organic yarn but are dyed using different methods, both seem to have great products.
What poses more danger to the health of a child (particularly toddlers who put everything in their mouths), the wool or the chemicals used to dye it?
Would it be better to focus on organic wool or standard wool made with safer dyes?
Debra’s Answer
With regard to dyes, “natural substances without the use of acid based chemicals” would be preferable to “low impact acid dyes.” Here’s why. Natural substances come from living things–plants, animals and minerals–whereas low impact dyes are made from petrochemicals. Natural dyes are just more biocompatible, particularly for a baby. They are the real thing.
The Swans Island baby blankets look totally safe to me as well as beautiful, and they are using local wool. O-wool would be second choice because of use of imported wool and petrochemical dyes (though they get points for using low impact dyes).
Would it be better to focus on organic wool or safer dyes? I think they are about equal in importance. Best would be organic wool with natural dyes.
With regard to wool for craft activities, you can get undyed organic wool from Shepherd’s Dream.
Actually just received a newsletter from them announcing their crafting scraps on the very day your question came in!
Table Cloth Protector Without Toxics
Question from priya
Hi! I was trying to find a table cloth protector which is free of toxin.Any idea where I will be able to find it? Thanks
Debra’s Answer
Most table cloth protectors are made of soft vinyl, like a shower curtain.
I can’t imagine how it would be possible to make a clear table cloth protector without a toxic plastic.
There are other less toxic plastics that could be used, polyethylene is used to make plastic bags, but I don’t know if there is a clear polyethylene thick enough for a table cloth cover.
The only solution I can think of is to get a piece of glass cut to the size of the table and use that over the tablecloth, or use tablecloths you can toss in the washer, like I do.
Toxic Free Reed Diffuser
Question from priya
I am trying to find a toxic free reed diffuser. Any recommendations on that? Thanks
Debra’s Answer
When I first read your question, I thought, well wouldn’t all reed diffusers be toxic? But then I did some research and have an answer for you.
First, for those of you who don’t know what a reed diffuser is, it’s a method for delivering fragrance into the air. Most fragrances sold for reed diffusers are toxic, just like any other synthetic fragrance.
However, apparently you can make your own fragrance oil to use in reed diffusers from natural essential oils. Amie’s Aromatherapy Encyclopedia: See How to Make Essential Oil Reed Diffusers.
Low- or No-Sulfate Shampoos?
Question from adrian
Hi, Two questions. I was wondering if anyone knows of any low sulfate or no sulfate shampoos that have clean ingredients? I am using WEN Lavender cleansing conditioner, the ingredients look somewhat OK. Does anyone know about WEN ingredients?
THANK YOU!!
Debra’s Answer
I know Wen contains synthetic fragrance, which is enough reason for me to not use them.
There’s actually a whole website dedicated to locating sulfate-free products at www.slsfree.com. You would have to check all the other ingredients to see that they do not contain synthetic fragrance and any other other ingredients you want to avoid.
Swiss Diamond Cookware
Question from LT
Have you heard of Swiss Diamond Cookware? And I was wondering if you consider this safe cookware? Thanks
Debra’s Answer
Swiss Diamond Cookware has a non-stick finish made from PTFE that is manufactured without any PFOA. This, according to their website is reinforced with diamond chips, which are naturally non-stick, thus using less PTFE.
PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene) is a synthetic fluoropolymer of tetrafluoroethylene. This is a plastic.
I’ve seen other cookware stating that PTFE without PFOA is “safe,” however, I can’t recommended any plastic heated to high temperatures coming in contact with food.
The only non-stick pans I recommend are those with ceramic coatings, such as Xtrema, which is ceramic through and through, and Cuisinart’s Green Gourmet line.
The only non-stick pans I recommend are those with ceramic coatings, such as Xtrema, which is ceramic through and through, and Cuisinart’s Green Gourmet line.
Nontoxic Control for Roof Rats
Question from MCS
We recently discovered we have roof rats in our yard. A pest control service installed bait traps in our 6 citrus trees, utilizing bromethalin and brodifacoum. I am highly sensitive to pesticides and suffer numerous neurological symptoms after exposure. If I do not get close to the bait stations, will these likely cause a problem? Do you know of a safe and effective way to deal with this problem? I don’t want to cause environmental harm, but I was so stunned to find out we had this problem that I jumped into this type of treatment immediately. Thanks for all the help you provide on your website!
Debra’s Answer
Here’s a very thorough publication about roof rats and how to control them using habitat modification and trapping: The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension: Roof Rat Control around Home and Other Structures.
Choosing Between Benefit and Exposure
Question from Heavens123
I am interested in purchasing a bathroom stool from squattypotty.com
I don’t like the plasticone and the bamboo is made by a Chinese company and I am unable to track down the composition. That leaves the mdf version, which is painted mdf.
They purchase the mdf from a company called Plum Creek and when they called the distributor to ask about the mdf they were told it is low emision and CARB (California Air Resource Board) approved. A call to Plum Creek revealed that their mdf is Phase II compliant and has been for years.
While they do make a no-added formaldehyde mdf, I’m going to assume it’s the regular one being used. Is this a reasonable product to consider purchasing as the only mdf item in my home?
It’s a small stool, not a bigger piece of furniture and I see no comparable product of other materials. How stringent is CARB Phase II? If I bought it should I AFM Safeseal it? Thanks.
Debra’s Answer
Interesting product. At first I thought “There are a lot of wood bathroom stools available,” and then I clicked through and saw the unique design and healthful purpose.
OK, so, as much as I don’t recommend mdf, sometimes we need to weigh the pros vs the cons and see which is greater.
I would say in this case you would probably get a greater health benefit from using the stool than harm from the mdf exposure. Use your own judgement as to whether or not you need to apply Safeseal.
