The Importance Of Knowing About Our Chemical Environment, Part I

These days it pays more than ever to be well-informed. Becoming well-informed is not always easy. It requires that we glean information from reliable sources and that the currently accepted facts are indeed correct.

Modern society relies so heavily on new technology, which is wonderful in itself, but is not always fully tested in its possible short-term and long-term ramifications for human health. There have been an increasing number of articles recently that illustrate this lack of knowledge in our use of different substances. It also demonstrates that we can't simply rely on retail and manufacture to ensure that what is sold to consumers is safe in terms of our health.

On October 12th, BBC News published an article: "Housework 'can cause asthma'". The first paragraph reads: "A study found using household cleaning sprays and air fresheners as little as once a week raised the risk of asthma." It continues: "Spray air fresheners, furniture cleaners and glass cleaners carried the highest risk."

The article points out that heavy use of such products has already been linked with occupational asthma, but studies now also show that even little home use increases the risk by 15% or causes asthma in one out of seven adults. If the sprays and cleaning agents were used more often than once a week, then the risk could be higher by 30-50%.

The statistics given in this article are enough to suggest that if we limit our use, or even better, if we eliminate them altogether, and pursue other ways which are non-toxic to clean our homes, we'll reduce the risk of respiratory health problems for ourselves and our families. For more about non-toxic cleaners see previous post: Cleaning With Non-Toxic Substances.

An article published by The Independent on October 21st is entitled: "Legal threat to Apple after toxic chemicals discovered in iPhone". The article states that "Greenpeace bought an iPhone in the United States in June and had 18 of its materials and components independently tested for toxic substances. Half of them tested positive for bromine, 'suggesting widespread use' of brominated flame retardants; these are suspected of a range of threats to health, and the bromine itself can cause pollution when disposed of as waste."

The article continues: "Four items also tested positive for antimony, a toxic mineral often used with flame retardants, and others contained very small amounts of chromium and lead. ... But the greatest headache for Apple is the discovery of phthalates, used to make plastic more flexible, in the cable coating. The chemicals are suspected of causing birth defects and gender-bending effects. The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) says that under Californian law, products containing them must carry a warning label."

This following statement is the one I find most interesting: "Greenpeace says that all the chemicals found would be allowed under European law..." It is under the discretion of the local governing law to determine which chemicals are permitted to be used. It takes time for scientific findings to percolate through to law. In the meantime, citizens may be subjected to exposure to chemicals that are known to be injurious to the health, but that are not yet proclaimed illegal for use. And companies dealing in different countries may know this very well and exploit it to sell products in ways that suit them, rather than in the best interests of the consumer.

The particular products cited in these articles is certainly of interest, but there are other products on sale that almost certainly contain similar chemicals. As an example, soft plastics are much more widely available than they used to be even a year or two ago. And they're used in a vast range of products. If they contain these chemicals then it would be wise to avoid bringing too many of them into our routine use. If in doubt, it's worth finding out, or, if investigation is too difficult or time-consuming, to at least avoid them whenever possible rather than to blindly purchase them.

Ultimately we choose where and how to spend our money. If we select wisely we might at least minimize our risk for illness in the future. If we're already experiencing physical discomfort, such as asthma or chemical sensitivity for example, we might be able to reduce the symptoms if we stop using these and similar products.

It's hard to fathom the possibility of being ill when we're well, even if we've been ill before. It seems to be part of the human psyche to feel invincible and strong. But when something hits us, we soon realize our frailty.