Last month the Canadian newspaper, The Star, ran an article entitled: "New house will kill me, woman says". The woman lives on the top floor of an old apartment building which is soon to be demolished and replaced. The article is rather sensationalized making the subject matter appear dubious in credibility. But it's worth having a look at what it's about.
The woman says she becomes unwell when around certain shampoos, aftershave, perfumed deodorant, and especially fabric softeners. She has a tarp on the roof to keep out the rain because the chemicals required to repair the roof would cause her difficulties. In 1991 certain grooming products bothered her, and then in 1994 she became severely ill and after that had to live a more restricted existence to avoid exposures.
The woman says that if she isn't exposed to these chemicals she's fine and that her main challenge now is to find a home free of volatile organic compounds. As the report says: "That means a self-contained living space not contaminated by other people's perfumes and laundry and cleaning products. That also means ceramic or wood floors, not laminated ones, and other natural materials, not wallboard."
Although this information is not framed in a scientifically convincing or factual manner, the progression of many people's development of chemical sensitivity follows a similar pattern: at first they may experience slight physical disturbances when in the presence of perfumes, cosmetic products, new carpets,...; the list of possible items is long. And then later they may experience a sudden increase in the severity of their reaction to chemicals, perhaps after some large chemical exposure or increased frequencies of small exposures. At first it hardly affects a person's daily life.
This is happening to a increasing percentage of the population. They quietly fall off the radar screen of normal social life: over time, as they become more sensitive they're less able to participate in community or social situations because they need to avoid the exposures they receive in public places. Chemically sensitive people may become unable to work because of exposures, both from the workplace and the cosmetic products co-workers use. Even when unemployed they often appear to be healthy and well - a routine doctor check-up often shows normal. Their situation is, at present, almost transparent to accountability in our society.
In the meantime, mainstream science is discovering that there is much more scientists don't know in terms of toxicity than was previously conceived. Assumptions that were taken for granted as correct are now being scrutinized as likely having been mistaken.
An article posted by The Independent on September 24, "Chemicals in non-stick pans may retard babies' growth" with caption "Toxin in daily use in the home should be phased out, says researcher". This article reports that the chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), has been used so widely and is so persistent in the environment that it has been found in rain, water supplies, food, wildlife and human blood all over the world. This chemical is used to make non-stick pans and stain resistant coatings for fabrics.
Two independent studies were done recently, one in the U.S. and one in Denmark, and the results published in the journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. The article says that these studies suggest that PFOA is damaging at far lower levels in the blood than had been previously realized. The researchers found that babies with higher levels of this chemical in their umbilical cords were born smaller and also with smaller heads. It is a medically established fact that even small reductions in weight and brain development at birth is associated with health problems throughout life. The article continues with: "Laboratory research has previously shown that the chemical causes rats to be born smaller, but only at levels many thousands of times higher."
This begs the question as to whether studies in rats for chemical toxicity is a good basis for deciding whether substances are unlikely to be toxic for humans. The use of teflon pans, irons, etc. around the home is known to cause death in house pet birds.
Science Daily posted an article, based on a study published in August by the American Thoracic Society in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, entitled: "Air Pollution Linked to Cardiovascular Risk Indices In Healthy Young Adults". Researchers in Taiwan have demonstrated that urban air pollution simultaneously increases key indicators of cardiovascular risk in young adults. The lead author, Chang-Chuan Chan, Sc.D, of National Taiwan University's College of Public Health, wrote: "This study provides evidence that urban air pollution is associated with systemic inflammation / oxidative stress, impairment of the fibrinogenic system, activation of blood coagulation and alterations in the autonomic nervous system in young, healthy humans."
As our world becomes more and more congested with the use of newly developed products and the chemical combinations occurring in our environment increase, we need to take more notice of our personal choices. Like the canaries used in mines in the old days, maybe people who have chemical sensitivities are showing an early warning signal; they might be more genetically predisposed to harm from these chemicals, and it might do well to consider reducing the number of chemicals we as human beings expose ourselves to on a regular basis.
An interesting development has occurred in that there may now be a way to scientifically quantify damage caused to an individual by exposure to chemicals. On September 17 the BBC News published an article: "DNA test hope over damages claims" with caption, "Scientists say a new DNA test may help to prove if people have had their health damaged by exposure to chemicals." The article says that samples of DNA are taken from a healthy person and these are exposed to a chemical to see which genes are affected. This is then compared with the DNA of someone who claims to have been affected by that chemical or combination of chemicals. This technique was developed by Dr. Bruce Gillis at the University of Illinois.
The article cites an example in which this method was used for a man who developed gall bladder cancer. He had been exposed to a mixture of 8 chemicals. None of the chemicals on its own was a carcinogen, but this technique showed that, in combination, they increased the activity of cancer-causing genes.
There are more and more reports of complications with exposures to chemicals and as science becomes more refined in its ability to detect these problems we'll learn more. In the meantime, whatever you can do to minimize your exposure would be to your benefit and also to those around you, especially young ones. For more information on chemical exposure, chemical sensitivity and what can be done to minimize these you can also see previous posts on the DweezelJazz blog.
It's not necessarily convenient to change our lifestyle and the products we use, but it might have more paybacks to our future and those of society than imagined at the present time. Even small changes can make a big difference.
Labels: cancer, chemical sensitivity, PFOA, pollution, teflon
It was a bit of a painful process to discover the extent to which a mouse could wreak havoc 
in our home, and so I didn't think before today to take photos to post. However, we did manage to catch our little mouse during the night in the kitchen and he turned out to be extremely cute.
looking around. He appeared to be rather large, but when we saw him in the trap this morning he was super tiny.
We lured him into the cage trap using Jasmine's pellets as bait. We tried cheese and sweet yellow pepper and chocolate but these didn't entice him at all. You can see the chocolate here untouched, we had placed a pellet on top of the chocolate. We didn't have peanut butter, which apparently mice just love. It seems he had a taste for the pellets though.
His ears are paper thin and very delicate.
And they fold very neatly completely down against his head when he makes himself small and compact. And when he does that he also curls his tail right round himself and round his feet. Then he becomes so adorably cute.
With the number of droppings this little critter left everywhere it would almost seem he had tummy trouble. Oops, of course, it may also have been a girl!
Tony took him out to the fields (a long long way away from here) to a place where he would have protection from bad weather and access to good food in the field and left him a large number of Jazzy pellets to get him started. Hopefully he has a good and happy life - outside.
