'Snail At Night' Egg Tempera Painting

I've just finished another egg tempera painting! The painting is officially called 'Snail At Night', but I think of him as 'Mr. Snaily'.

It has been raining here every day for quite some days and looks like it'll continue to do so for at least another week. This is great news for me because less laundry is being hung out and more windows in the nearby apartments are being kept closed, with the result that there is a lower density of cleaning chemicals wafting into the apartment. I've also been spending several hours each day out in the fresh air and this is helping to make me more resilient during the time I am at home. This means I'm able to continue painting. For a better explanation of this rather strange paragraph see the last post: 'Breathing One Breath At A Time'.

One rather wet evening late last Fall we decided to go for a walk around the block - and Jazzy (Jasmine, our African Grey parrot) came with us in her travel cage. It was dusk. We came upon a snail out on the town; well, he was on top of a cement post and was heading somewhere. Luckily we had the camera with us and 'Mr. Snaily' turned out to be very photogenic. He inspired the following painting:

The painting is done in egg tempera and is 12 x 8 inches.

Breathing One Breath At A Time

I'm aware of almost every breath I take - and that's because most of the time it hurts to breathe. This discomfort increases or lessens with variations in the air quality in my environment. There are some positive aspects to this: I'm great to have around as an air quality monitor. Unfortunately there are rather too many inconveniences that arise from this situation to balance out the positive, and no one has yet offered me a job as an air quality meter!

Our town is expanding in size at a phenomenal rate, perhaps doubling or tripling in the number of apartment buildings in just the last year alone. In a two-block radius from where we live the number of cranes that can be seen actively involved in constructing new apartments is astonishing. Rapid expansion is the norm almost everywhere today, bringing with it increased activity of all types.

Traffic locally has increased dramatically as the number of households increases. And there are more cars per household because more people need to go to work to sustain the family unit in the face of increased cost of living. Our apartment block car-park is now filled to overflowing, whereas a year ago spaces were easily found at all times.

We live a block away from a large school which is at the end of a dead end road. Four times a day school buses and long lines of cars wait in line to drop children off at the school and then turn around and wait in line to exit the cul-de-sac. Diesel fumes in our neighborhood continue to rise.

Many people still choose to burn their garden refuse outside in small or large bonfires, rather than take it to the dump where it can often be disposed of in a more environmentally friendly manner. The result is that most days, usually for an hour or so, the strong acrid smell of smoke and particles of ash drifts by our apartment building.

The sky blue becomes remote and is filled instead with a brown-orange haze. Trees become less distinct, blurred by haze of pollution. Reflections no longer show bright and dazzling, instead they glow dull yellow.

When the rain and wind comes it clears the air and the sparkling brilliance and wonder of our earth is clear to see again. But with each passing year, the length of time this lasts after a rainfall is becoming less before it builds up and becomes murky from our activities again.

With every breath I take I'm aware of this progression, acutely aware because I'm forced to notice it. As a kid I traveled with my family to many places, experienced many different environmental conditions and inadvertently was exposed to a good number of toxic substances - things that are now coming to be recognized as problematic to the health.

The prolific number of articles being published these days about all kinds of substances used in products that are now being discovered to be harmful to our health is hard to miss. Here's a few about pollution:

1. "Pneumonia 'linked' to Pollution" BBC News, April 14, 2008. Professor George Knox, of the University of Birmingham, wrote in a research report that there were high mortality rates observed in areas with elevated ambient pollution levels. The strongest single effect was an increase in pneumonia deaths, but there were also higher rates of some cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and rheumatic heart disease. Richard Hubbard of the British Lung Foundation said: "What this paper does show, is that there is clear geographical variation in deaths from pneumonia, lung cancer and COPD."

2. "Pollution 'alters brain function'" BBC News, March 11, 2008. A team at Zuyd University in the Netherlands studied the effects of diesel exhaust on humans. They found that after about 30 minutes exposure to diesel fumes the brain displayed (via EEG readings, electrical signals of the brain) a stress response that indicates a change in the way information is being processed in the brain cortex. This effect continued after the people were removed from exposure to the diesel fumes.

The lead researcher, Paul Borm, said "We can only speculate what these effects may mean for the chronic exposure to air pollution encountered in busy cities where the levels of such soot particles can be very high."

The article ends with this startling statement: "But a study of dogs in Mexico found those who lived in highly-polluted Mexico City had brain lesions similar to those seen in Alzheimer's patients, while those who lived in much less-polluted rural areas showed a much lower rate of damage to the brain."

3. "Smog Can Make People Sick, Even Indoors" Scientific American, January 29, 2008. Environmental health scientist Michael Apte of Lawrance Berkeley National Laboratory in California said: "We found that outdoor air pollution, ozone, is associated with symptoms of lower-respiratory and upper-respiratory stress that occur in buildings to workers." Ozone is an air-polluting oxygen molecule O3 which is formed when sunlight interacts with car exhaust.

The article explains: "Sick building syndrome is a term used to describe a broad range of ailments, including dry eye, congestion, difficulty breathing, fatigue and headaches that strike workers inside office buildings but disappear when they leave the premises."

The results from a study of indoor air quality data from 1994-1998 and a survey of office workers in 100 buildings in 37 cities (ranging from the most smog to the cleanest) showed that of the workers surveyed on average, even in buildings with no special history of sickness:

• nearly 19% complained of dry eye
• 21% felt congested on the job
• 4% complained of difficulty breathing
• more than 19% felt fatigued
• more than 15% reported having headaches while at work.

These figures are astounding and illustrate the damage occurring to many people in our society. In this article Michael Apte speculates that the symptoms experienced by people are due to unstable ozone molecules chemically interacting with the wide range of materials found in buildings. Ozone reacts with all types of materials from polyester, plastics, carpet fibres, the skin's natural oil, and many more, to produce toxic chemicals like formaldehyde and other irritants that are far worse than the ozone itself.

The article continues: "In other words, ozone seeping into buildings combines with other chemicals to produce more noxious air."

In addition to the outside air becoming more polluted with traffic, smoke, pesticides and many other substances, the general population is using more and more household chemicals in increasingly higher concentrations.

As it's getting warmer with summer approaching it's becoming tremendously difficult to effectively keep higher concentrations of household chemicals out of our apartment. If our neighbors have their laundry drying on their balconies (and this is a daily common occurrence) then I cannot open our balcony windows without experiencing great difficulty and discomfort breathing due to the laundry detergent and fabric softener chemicals exuding from the clothes.

If our neighbors have their windows open, the strong chemical fumes of laundry detergent with fabric softeners, household cleaning agents and personal grooming products such as perfume are so strong that it's necessary to close the windows to prevent the strong mixture from swamping our apartment.

The following article about the "Health Risks of Fabric Softeners" on the Allergy and Environmental Health Association web site has some disturbing information. They state that fabric softener is the most toxic product sold for daily household use and give the following information about it:

"...a user becomes 'chronically maladapted' to it. The exposure is so constant that it can be difficult to connect the product with the signs of reactivity it causes. Neurostimulant / irritants and central nervous system toxins used in these products are known to produce an addictive-type response that may cause the user to experience a feeling of pleasure when the product is directly inhaled. Regular users of fabric softeners (and perfumes) also often claim they 'can hardly smell it'. This too is an effect of chemical ingredients on neural receptors."

"The product is designed to impregnate fibers and slowly re-release for an extended period of time. That re-releasing affects the health not only of users, but those around them."

On the subject of "Risks of Perfumes and Scented Products" it continues: "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collected samples of every perfume sold in North America in 1993. Every sample contained toluene...".  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health lists toluene in their Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, and the link can be followed to see this in more detail.

There is a list of some of the chemical ingredients found in fabric softeners and of the disorders each of these substances is known to cause. The list is worth reading.

When we first moved into this apartment building just over a year ago the stairwell was cleaned once a week with a relatively mild-scented cleaning detergent. The cleaning detergent has been changed to a more highly scented product which smells very much like the antibacterial strongly scented products that are routinely used in toilets. The stairwell is now cleaned 3 or 4 times a week with an increasingly more concentrated solution of this product.

It's becoming impossible to prevent large amounts of household cleaning chemicals from entering our apartment airflow. Even with large air filters working 24 hours a day the adverse effects are becoming worse and I'm becoming increasingly unable to function in this environment. When driving or walking in the vicinity of our apartments it's possible to smell that the area is encompassed by a cloud of chemicals.

As soon as I leave the area and enter the clean air of the foothills 20 minutes' walk behind where we live my breathing returns to normal and after a while I no longer feel lung pain. When I return to places where there are houses or apartment buildings, the fumes emanating from them cause a return of the burning pain in the lungs. Our apartment building is no exception to the norm, even passing cars leave a trail of scent from perfumes and scented products of their owners behind them.

As the intensity of the chemicals increases with the oncoming summer heat, I'm becoming more and more unwell at home. I'll have to spend much of my day outside in the cleaner air in the hills away from my home in order to reduce my exposures to these chemicals, to avoid becoming ill all the time and to try to prevent becoming even more sensitive to them.

If I'm not at home I can't paint egg tempera paintings as a full-time occupation. I had been hoping to create enough paintings to set up for an exhibition, and in time, earn enough money to be able to afford to live in a small house where I wouldn't be at the mercy of others' choices in cleaning habits.

It's frustrating beyond expression to be perfectly well in clean fresh air, but to essentially find myself poisoned in my home environment. I was hoping to get ahead with the artwork before our environment became prohibitive to my ability to function. I haven't given up, but it's becoming more and more difficult.

I wish, by sharing this information, that maybe more people can perhaps benefit from my experience and avoid having to reach this point. Even eliminating a few of these products from our daily lives can make a huge difference in how energetic and good we feel.

The cumulative impact of our choices can have a very high price in the future quality of our lives and those of our children. I wonder what it will take for us as a society to really understand the extent of the damage we're inflicting on ourselves and the wildlife around us. If you'd like to see more on chemical sensitivity, pollution, cleaning agents and the effects they're having, click here to see previous DweezelJazz posts on these topics.

How To Reduce Our Pollution Intake On Car Journeys

Ozone is a major component of urban air pollution and is associated with increased cardiovascular and pulmonary hospitalizations and deaths. An article published in the October Journal of Immunology and described by EurekAlert! says: "Ozone shuts down early immune response in lungs and body". The mechanisms for this remain unclear, and pulmonary researchers at Duke University Medical Center have been performing studies to find out more.

John Hollingsworth, M.D., and lead author of this study, said: "...it appears that ozone causes the innate immune system to overreact, killing key immune system cells, and possibly making the lung more susceptible to subsequent invaders, such as bacteria."

The article concludes: "The Environmental Protection Agency is in the final phases of reviewing and possibly updating the standards for allowable levels of ozone in the air. The current standard says that any amount greater than 85 parts per billion can be unhealthy for those at risk. Many medical groups, including the American Thoracic Society, recommend setting a stricter standard of 60 parts per billion, citing studies showing ozone's adverse effects on health, especially in children and those with compromised health."

One way we can take some control of the amount of exposure we undergo is to minimize it by using an air filter in our car. When we're out driving we can be exposed to a vast amount of pollution. Exhaust from cars and trucks, heavy duty vehicles on construction sites, ... the list is varied and long. One very effective and easy-to-install filter is the XR-100 Car air purifier. This air filter removes particles, odors, particulates and volatile organic compounds, and it cleans the air within the car 10 times per hour. This costs approximately 150 pounds UK Sterling.
It has straps to hang it from the back of a front seat and it plugs into the cigarette lighter outlet.





My experience is that it makes a tremendous difference and it's a simple and effective way to significantly reduce exposure to pollution on car journeys.
.

The Importance of Knowing About Our Chemical Environment, Part II

Being well-informed is all well and good, but situations also occur that as individuals we may not, in the short-term, necessarily be able to do anything about. We're surrounded by materials that are proving on a larger scale and varying conditions to be more problematic to the health than previously understood.

These two articles provide a good introduction into problems that can arise:

1. Prolonged respiratory problems for oil spill clean-up volunteers
2. The 9/11 Cover-Up

The first article was published in September in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, by the American Thoracic Society and is described at EurekAlert!. The article says that researchers from Spain say that workers and volunteers who helped in the clean-up effort after the 2002 Prestige Oil spill off the coast of Galicia, Spain, exhibit prolonged respiratory symptoms resulting from their exposure. More than 100,000 people participated in the clean-up effort.

Dr. Francisco Pozo-Rodriguez, M.D., lead investigator of the study, wrote: "To our knowledge, no previous study has explored long-term respiratory effects in clean-up workers of other oil spills. Our findings suggest that participation in clean-up work of oil spills may result in prolonged adverse respiratory health effects 1-2 years after exposure. Increasing awareness of the potential chronic respiratory effects among clean up workers of future oil spills, in combination with appropriate hygiene regulations, is strongly recommended."

The second article, cited above, was published in the Special Anniversary Issue of Discover magazine in October. The online version of this article can be seen here.

This article reports that up to 70% of first responders are ill as a result of 9/11 contamination. "About 70,000 New Yorkers so far have listed themselves with the World Trade Center Health Registry, a database that tracks the health impact of the 9/11 attacks. The registry has been criticized for excluding large numbers of those potentially sickened outside a designated one-square mile area. Despite the insistent denials of city and federal officials, tens of thousands of New Yorkers were unnecessarily exposed to a chemical brew without even the most rudimentary precautions."

The article continues: "Since the attacks, various scientific studies have demonstrated that New Yorkers are engulfed in billows of illness and disease related to 9/11. First the cough and mental health problems caught the attention of local doctors. Then chronic respiratory and gastrointestinal conditions began to surface. Recently a program at Mount Sinai noted the emergence of rare blood cancers among 9/11 first responders. Experts predict that more problems will surface in the next few decades."

Later it describes: "Heat up a ballpoint pen, a computer, an office sofa, electric wire, or any other object you might find in a high-rise and there comes a point when you can inhale it. The Twin Towers contained tens of thousands of computer terminals, each housing about four pounds of lead, and an untold number of fluorescent bulbs that contained mercury. Released metal particles from the smoldering pit of the World Trade Center were so fine that they could easily slip past a paper face mask and reach deep into lung tissue, where they are poorly soluble in lung fluid. Metals and glass can remain trapped there for long periods of time and make their way into the heart."

Thomas Cahill, a professor of physics and atmospheric sciences at the University of California at Davis has led some of the most exhaustive scientific studies of 9/11-related toxins. From his studies he concluded: "The fuming World Trade Center debris pile was a chemical factory that exhaled toxins in a particularly dangerous form that could penetrate deep into the lungs of rescue workers and local residents".

The Discover 9/11 article is long and sobering, but it's well worth the time it takes to read it in full. I became aware of this article by reading a post in a really great blog called BLDG BLOG by Geoff Manaugh. His post, "Inhaling 9/11", is thought-provoking with its presentation of a new viewpoint, along with a few incredible photographs. This too is very well worth reading.

Large scale disasters present us with difficulties that sometimes are not completely surmountable without injury. But foreknowledge can empower us to make better decisions. And if, on a smaller scale, we are confronted with a home or office fire, or some other incident, we may be able to avoid exposure through making choices we might not otherwise make. Knowledge provides us with a fighting chance: the power of choice.

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.

Scientifically Quantifying Damage Caused By Chemical Exposures

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.

Revisiting DweezelJazz Blog

This is the 70th post. A small landmark. It seems a fitting time for me to stop and take a look at DweezelJazz blog. I started writing for it back on May 14th.

I've written about all sorts of things. Many of the posts I wrote directly for my benefit as I was working through things that I wanted to learn how to do better, such as communication, how to get things done, setting goals....

It has been great and I've made some friends and am very grateful to be part of a community sharing ideas and thoughts on the Internet. I read a fair number of blogs now. Before I threw myself into the world of blogging I didn't know anything about it. I'm utterly blown away by the fabulous quality of blogs that are being written. I really enjoy them.

As you may have noticed, I have artwork on my web site: DweezelJazz Art. None of the artwork is priced because I haven't started selling it yet. I hope to start my art business within a year to a year and a half from now. In the meantime, I'll work to build up a portfolio and a set of paintings for sale.

Now that we've moved into our new apartment, the art priorities are calling loudly to me. Here is a new painting in progress in egg tempera that I started recently of a lighthouse in Geneva on the Lac Leman.

I've struggled with some anguish in the recent weeks, having to make a choice about the frequency of posting to the blog and dedicating more time to artwork. Time constraints are forcing me to opt for a reduced number of posts.

There are many serious things in life, but I prefer to concentrate on fun, cheerful topics with lots of bright colorful pictures. I'm a beginner in art and have no formal training. My photographs are those of a novice. But I love and enjoy how doing these things, and talking about them, makes me think and see so much more the beauty around me.

From now on, I plan to concentrate on lighthearted, creative topics in DweezelJazz blog. The one exception to this is that I may continue now and then to post information about chemical sensitivity. It's surprising how much more information is being published lately in mainstream newspapers and magazines on this topic. I have acute chemical sensitivities and it has a huge effect on my life. I hope that in sharing information about it, it may be helpful in some way to you.

I'd love to hear from you if you have any suggestions for the blog or increasing artistic creativity, or anything else. Thanks.

Cheers,
Nat Wildish

How Safe Are The Products We Use?

A BBC News article, "Office printers 'are health risk'", published July 31st, reported that an investigation of a range of printer models. The study showed that almost a third of them emitted potentially dangerous levels of toner into the air which can cause a range of health problems, including respiratory irritation and other chronic illnesses. The article states that a team of Australian scientists has found that the "humble office laser printer can damage lungs in much the same way as smoke particles from cigarettes".

As illustrated in a previous post, "Becoming More Aware of Toxins In Our Environment", it would benefit us all to be more aware of what products we use in our daily routine. While it's not possible to know which products are not beneficial to the health, we can minimize the use of those that are known or suspected to be harmful, and we can take measures to ensure that our local environment is well ventilated.

On August 16, Science Daily reported on an article published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine that states researchers in Taiwan have demonstrated for the first time that urban pollution simultaneously affects key indicators of cardiovascular risk in young adults. The lead author of the study, 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."

Another article published in the same journal and also reported on August 16 by Science Daily: "High Pollution Linked To Poor Lung Function Growth In Children In Mexico City" states that "Children who are chronically exposed to higher levels of air pollution show marked deficiencies in lung growth and function, and not just short-term breathing problems." The lead author, Isabelle Romieu, M.D., M.P.H. of the Instituto Nacional de Salud Publico in Mexico wrote: "In addition to the important impact of lung health, early lung deficits may increase the risk of developing chronic obstructive lung disease later in life, as well as cardiovascular morbidity and general mortality."

A BBC News article published July 13, "'New tests needed' for chemicals", states that scientists writing in the journal Science say that about one-third of organic substances (which could amount to approximately 10,000 substances) in commercial use need re-testing for possible toxicity to human and environmental health.

Conventional tests for toxic substances involve measuring how effectively a substance dissolves in fat versus water; the measure is called Kow. This works well to estimate the accumulative potential in food chains involving fish, shellfish and plankton. The scientists performing this study concluded that a different measure is needed to estimate the accumulation of toxic substances in air-breathing animals, that would measure how well a substance can be absorbed across the lung membrane during respiration. This measure is called Koa.

The article states: "Classes of compounds possessing low Kow but high Koa include endosulfans and HCHs, which are used as inseciticides, musk xylene, an ingredient of perfumes and soaps, and the tetrachlorobenzenes." These substances would pass the conventional tests for toxicity. It's interesting that these substances very commonly present respiratory and other problems for people with chemical sensitivities. See previous post "What Is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?"

As discussed in post, "Chemical Sensitivity and the New EU Chemical Law", there are, in addition to the omissions in the conventional measuring system, great gaping omissions in what substances are being studied at all. As individuals we can try to protect ourselves as much as possible from the hazard of the many chemicals that have found their way via products into our daily lives. There are a number of other articles here in the DweezelJazz blog, under Chemical Sensitivity, Asthma and Allergy, that you may find helpful.

Cleaning With Non-Toxic Substances

Do you ever get a headache, a sore throat, or feel dizzy after you clean the house, or after doing the laundry? Many conventional cleaning products are extremely powerful and contain many untested and toxic chemicals. For further information about the chemical content of commercially available products see previous post "Chemical Sensitivity and the New EU Chemical Law".

If you want to clean with non-toxic substances, white vinegar and baking soda can get you a long way. These two substances have many uses, both in cleaning a home and in dealing with laundry.

White vinegar diluted with water can be used around the home to clean windows, glass, floors, and to remove odors and grease from walls. The concentration of vinegar to water can be varied according to the strength needed for the job.

After working with it for a while, it becomes easier to determine what ratio is required, but a good place to start for these tasks would be approximately 1 part vinegar to 10 parts water. More vinegar can always be added as needed.

White vinegar is also good for removing calcium deposits from taps, sinks and shower heads. A shower head can be soaked directly in the vinegar, while for taps and sinks a cloth can be soaked in full strength vinegar and placed over the calcium deposits.

A very dilute solution of vinegar and water is useful for softening clothes and even hair. Rinsing the hair, after shampooing, with a weak vinegar solution makes the hair shiny and soft. A small amount added to the rinse water will also soften laundry. In both cases, if a dilute enough vinegar-water solution is used, it won't leave either the hair or the laundry smelling of vinegar.



Baking soda can be used as a mild scrubbing agent that won't scratch surfaces and it's also a good odor remover and a fairly good whitener.





White vinegar and baking soda together can be used to remove odors and some chemical substances from fabrics. Many new clothes have been treated with fire retardant chemicals and often clothes made out of cotton have a strong pesticide content. People with chemical sensitivities often find that wearing such garments can cause them to react. To learn more about chemical sensitivities see "What Is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?". A very effective way to remove these substances is to soak the fabric in water along with vinegar and baking soda.

The vinegar to water ratio that works best is approximately 2 or 3 parts vinegar to 4 water. Four to five cups of baking soda is effective for the equivalent of a small to medium load of laundry. These are approximate measures and they can be varied according to need. Using either vinegar or baking soda alone, without the other, doesn't usually work successfully. Once the fabric has been left to soak for several hours it can then be washed and rinsed as normal.

For most new items it's best to do this at least twice, and usually three times is necessary, in order to fully remove the pesticides and other chemicals. In my experience, after soaking fabric this way four times, it's unlikely that further treatment will be effective if there's still residue that causes a reaction in the user.

This process doesn't remove fabric softeners or strong laundry detergents from fabrics. I've never found a way to do that. If anyone knows a way, please tell me. I'd be very grateful to know how.






Vinegar and baking soda are easily available and economical. They provide a simple solution to using non-toxic substances for many cleaning tasks.

Chemical Sensitivity and the New EU Chemical Law

The Chicago Tribune published an interesting article yesterday, called "Exposed!", about chemical sensitivity to common chemicals. This complements a previous post written in DweezelJazz: "What Is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?".

The article points out that the disorder known as multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has been described since the 1940s and that today it affects an estimated 12% of the population. It isn't officially recognized by the U.S. medical establishment, but it is recognized by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the Americans With Disabilities Act includes MCS as a disability.

The article also gives short accounts of people's experiences with chemical sensitivity. It illustrates how difficult it is to comprehend the nature of the situation even when you know or live with someone who experiences it. Marny Turvil, a mother of two, discovered five years ago that she has MCS. Her mother suffers from it also. Turvil is quoted as saying: 'In typical mainstream fashion I thought she was nuts. Then I started having clear symptoms.' Turvil is further quoted: 'People will discredit things that threaten their well-being. To be told products you use every day are full of dangerous chemicals is a very threatening thing.'

Mainstream doctors don't recognize MCS. This is because the disorder has not been understood in medical terms; a scientific mechanism of explanation for the cause and effect has not yet been defined. Almost every aspect of modern life includes the use of innumerable chemicals in all manner of products from foods to cleaning agents to building materials...the list goes on. Our economy is based on the sale of all these items and we have grown highly dependent on the products available. It isn't convenient to find that we may need to change these things. As a result, there has been little mainstream funding dedicated to research into the disorder.

It is noticeable though that there are more frequent news items in the Press either directly addressing or skirting around the issue as is demonstrated for example in an earlier post "Toxic Fumes on Airline Flights: What's It All About?"

Public places, including hospitals, can pose grave difficulties, and can even be life-threatening, for people with MCS depending on the severity of their sensitivity. A nurse named Keith, who has MCS and has experienced difficulties when being treated at hospital, wrote an article called "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Hidden Disability" on the NurseLinkup blog to alert the nursing community.

On June 1st of this year a new EU chemicals law known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) was passed, requiring the registration and safety testing of tens of thousands of chemicals. For the first time, chemical companies will have to provide basic health and environmental safety data on the chemicals they produce. An article entitled "Beginners Guide to REACH" published by Greenpeace some years ago states that previously only chemicals that started production after 1981 required this data, which is a small fraction of chemicals on the market.

According to a BBC article, "Analysis: New EU chemicals law", manufacturers will have to register safety data for around 30,000 chemicals already in use.

There are around 100,000 chemicals for which data is not available. The 30,000 chemicals included in this system of legislation were chosen because they're produced in the highest volumes and/or are already known to have dangerous properties. The BBC article says that "these include thousands of everyday products - for example, flame retardants on sofa coverings, musks used in shampoos, and paints of all kinds - as well as specialised chemicals used only by industry."

The first deadline for registration is in 2010. This is for chemicals of the highest concern, (the European Commission estimates there are 1,500 chemicals in this category) which include carcinogens, mutagens and substances toxic to reproductive health. This deadline also applies to chemicals produced in quantities of over 1,000 tonnes per year.

The second deadline is 2013 for chemicals produced in quantities of 100 to 1,000 tonnes per year. And there is a third deadline of 2018 for substances produced in 1 to 100 tonnes per year.

The description of this law demonstrates how little legislation and scientific knowledge is available for the many products and chemicals used in our society today. The effects they are having is not accounted for, either on us as human beings or on our world and its wildlife.

While the new law is a big step in the right direction, we as consumers can have a huge impact as a result of how we spend our money. There are products available on the market through health food stores and catalog companies that do already account for their ingredients. We can help to safeguard ourselves, our loved ones and our environment right away by taking consumer action.

Some links that may be helpful in finding some of these products are Janice's and The HEALTHY HOUSE Ltd. While I can't vouch for all of the products these companies sell, I have bought some very good items from each. As with every purchase, it pays to investigate the product as thoroughly as possible.

There are also ways to clean very effectively using simple, and coincidentally economical, substances such as vinegar and baking soda, which I'll discuss in another article.

Toxic Fumes on Airline Flights: What's It All About?

In a recent post Becoming More Aware of Toxins In Our Environment, I referred to an article published on June 10, 2007 by The Independent called, "Toxic fumes on planes 'threaten thousands of passengers each year". This article reports that scientific research has shown that fumes present in planes have rendered pilots incapable of flying their aircraft safely. One of the symptoms cited was fatigue, along with many others which coincidentally are all typical of those experienced by people with chemical sensitivity.Two more articles have appeared on this subject since then. On June 19, 2007 NewScientist published an article titled: "Toxic fumes impairing our ability to fly, say pilots". It reports that pilots say that toxic fumes on planes are poisoning them, rendering them unable to fly and that they are campaigning for 'aerotoxic syndrome' to be recognized as a disease. The article also refers to symptoms: "Symptoms related to long term exposure purportedly include neurological and respiratory problems, memory loss, difficulties with speech, and chronic fatigue." This list of symptoms is remarkably similar to those experienced by people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

A third article was released today, June 25, by the BBC: "Tired pilots 'compromise safety'". This article makes no mention of the extended symptoms referred to in the other two articles cited above. Far along in the article it qualifies fatigue as 'chronic fatigue', which is known to be a common way of referring to a symptom related to an ongoing health condition, rather than incidental tiredness from lack of sleep. The paragraph with this reference reads: "Dr. Ian Perry, one of the country's leading consultants in aviation medicine, says the number of pilots coming to see him who are chronically fatigued has doubled over the last five years to four or five people a fortnight, he said."

This means that five years ago the doctor was seeing at least two pilots a fortnight who were chronically fatigued. This illustrates that this isn't a new problem. Given the importance of it, both from the perspective of pilots who are becoming ill in statistically significant numbers, and secondly, to passengers, it would be reasonable to expect the aviation industry to have taken faster action to remedy the situation.

There is another BBC article published 9 years ago, dated September 1998, "Health Cover up over pilot fatigue" in which the same Dr. Ian Perry, the examiner of pilots for the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Aviation Authority, tells that many doctors are grounding pilots for fatigue, but are giving another reason on official reports. The article says: "He admits he himself covers up the extent of the problem, which could be a factor in plane crashes." The article continues: "Research shows 70% of crashes are due to pilot error."

The last paragraph of the NewScientist article from the 19th of this month, (mentioned above) quotes Jonathan Nicholson, a spokesperson for the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as saying: "Everybody recognises that there are incidents where fumes enter cabins. We will look at further work on the issue if long-term health issues are proven."

In his blog, Seth Godin recently wrote a really relevant post called Responsibility. He calls marketing people to attention with examples, demonstrating just how influential marketing tactics are. He says: "If you get asked to market something, you're responsible. You're responsible for the impacts, the costs, the side effects and the damage. You killed that kid. You poisoned that river. You led that fight. If you can't put your name on it, I hope you'll walk away. If only 10% of us did that, imagine the changes. Imagine how proud you'd be of your work."

That is great advice, not just for marketers, but for every single one of us to strive for -- a call to live honestly, courageously, truthfully.

Air Filters For Asthma, Allergies and Chemical Sensitivity

If you have asthma, allergies or chemical sensitivies one of the best things you can do to reduce the symptoms you experience is to use an air filter. Do you often have a runny nose, congestion, sore throats, dry irritated eyes? Do you, or someone in your family, catch colds frequently? Do you have trouble sleeping? Running one or two air filters in your home can dramatically reduce the particulates and chemicals present in your indoor air. And this can have a dramatic effect on how you feel.

It's especially important also for babies and young children. Last month the Los Angeles Times published an article "Common chemicals pose danger for fetuses, scientists warn". Two hundred leading environmental scientists from five continents around the world wrote a declaration stating that exposure to common chemicals makes babies more likely to develop an array of health problems later in life. These health problems included: diabetes, attention deficit disorders, prostate cancer, fertility problems, thyroid disorders and even obesity.

In the article, Dr. Bruce Lanphear, director of the Environmental Health Center at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center is quoted as saying: "Reducing exposure would lead to tremendous benefits. We shouldn't wait for an epidemic to fully mature before we develop policies to protect children."

Pollution is also a big concern. Ozone is created when car pollutants interact with sunlight. With summer coming we're moving into a time when ozone levels in outdoor air increase. The International Herald Tribune posted a blog article today discussing the effects of ozone pollution. Ozone attacks the lung's lining and causes coughing, wheezing and watery eyes. The article says that many cities in Europe routinely exceed what the European Environment Agency deems to be harmful levels of ozone in the air. Ozone travels large distances and so it is a problem for people outside the cities also. It is suggested that people with lung problems avoid outdoor exercise when levels are high.

There are many sources of pollution that enter our homes, both from the inside and outside. An air filter is a very effective way to reduce our exposure. There are quite a variety of filters available on the market and there are a few things it is good to be aware of. The quality of the components and substances used in these filters is extremely important, otherwise the filter itself ends up introducing unwanted chemicals.

I bought a very expensive filter a year ago that was advertised as being suitable for those with chemical sensitivity, but it turned out that the unit itself was releasing chemicals that caused problems. It was housed in a soft pliable plastic, which undoubtedly makes it more durable and robust to denting, but which released chemicals that caused increased breathing difficulty.

It's also important that the manufacturer take care to ensure that oils lubricating the motor don't cause contamination. And the quality of the carbon filters also needs to be high.

I highly recommend the filter company AllerAir. They have all types of filters. The HEPA filter and high efficiency carbon filter remove airborne chemicals, gases, odors and particles. They know firsthand what materials are required for someone with chemical sensitivities because the company was established after a member of the family developed MCS and they discovered there wasn't a suitable filter on the market. AllerAir's units are made of metal and they take great care to ensure the materials they use are high quality.




The AirTube is a great choice for smaller rooms and costs around $300. It can also be a huge help as an interim solution if you don't have the funds to get a more powerful filter right away.



.











.




The Allerair 5000 MCS air purifier can have dramatic effects on how you feel after a night's sleep and during the day. The MCS unit costs approximately $1000.






After running an air filter in the indoor environment for a few weeks, a person can experience a huge increase in energy and reduction in symptoms. It's a worthwhile investment that can make a tremendous difference to current and long-term health and, as a result, even lifestyle.

Becoming More Aware of Toxins In Our Environment

There are many sources of toxins that are not within our immediate ability to control. The Independent published an article today entitled "Toxic fumes on planes 'threaten thousands of passengers each year'". The article reports that scientific research has shown that fumes present in planes have rendered pilots incapable of flying their aircraft safely.

A technology is used in which hot air is taken from the engine, cooled down and then fed, without being filtered, into the plane's cabin and cockpit. Sometimes it becomes contaminated with engine oils containing many different chemicals. These enter the air in the entire plane and are breathed by passengers and crew alike.

At University College London in a study of 27 affected pilots, 26 of them were found to suffer chronic health problems, including fatigue, sleep difficulties, fluctuating gastrointestinal problems, numbness and tingling in fingers and toes, memory loss and word-finding difficulties. Some of them reported cognitive failures, such as the inability to retain numerical data, confusing information provided by air traffic control, and being unable to remember events such as whether the undercarriage had been raised or lowered.

These symptoms are typical of those experienced by many people with chemical sensitivity. In this case, it has taken the discovery of pilot illness, and their consequent inability to fly an airplane safely, to induce studies which, it would seem, should be a routine requirement before flight.

As increasing numbers of people report health difficulties with the large numbers of chemicals we encounter daily, hopefully much more will be done proactively, by industry and regulatory organizations, to monitor environments and products more rigorously.

There are many circumstances that result in exposures to chemicals we are unaware of. Many of these, as yet, have not been officially deemed unsatisfactory for our health and well-being. Our society leads us to take for granted that our welfare is factored into the sale and creation of technologies and products that we use. Air quality during routine and repeated flights is not something we would generally question or doubt.

Many people with MCS are unable to travel by plane. For someone suffering from the symptoms of multiple chemical sensitivity, it isn't possible to ignore the effects on their bodies that they experience in different environments. It's a natural result to question much more frequently whether the official standards are being set appropriately.

For someone who doesn't experience chemical sensitivities, reading such an article might seem less compelling from a personal viewpoint with regard to exposure to toxins. However, there are other factors it does well to consider. What happens to the pilots when they are no longer able to fly, even as passengers, without becoming ill? What if this happens to frequent flyers? What happens to people who live close to busy airports where such emissions into the environment are routine? What if the cumulative exposure to other chemicals of a similar nature makes a person more susceptible to problems in the future? What if that person is you or someone you love?The pilot mentioned in this article, who now becomes ill even when traveling as a passenger, can no longer go to work as a pilot in these circumstances. Like the airplane where passengers and employees are forced to breathe the air that is piped in, there are many environments we come across where the air quality cannot be controlled by the individual. Many people who are affected by chemicals drop off the radar screen of society because they become ill in many public places, including their workplaces.

Just as being aware of the effect of human activity on the environment is vitally important to the future welfare of our planet, so is the need for our society to become aware of what is happening to a sector of its population. As long as we remain ignorant of it, it's not possible to take action to better protect ourselves, and our loved ones, by making informed choices.

What Is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?

An article in the BBC News today reports that exposure to pesticides increases the risk of contracting Parkinson's Disease. Parkinson's Disease is a progressive, degenerative neurological condition. Many pesticides are neurotoxic and there have been other studies that have found associations with exposure to pesticides and various chronic neurological diseases.

Neurotoxic chemicals are prevalent in our society today. For example, we are exposed to solvents and pesticides almost every day, in our working environment or on our way to work, very often at home, and even in our food. Gasoline, diesel and the products of combustion are something we are regularly exposed to when we're on the road, and also when traffic passes close to where we live or work. These frequent and common exposures put us at risk of developing chemical sensitivities. This is even more relevant for children.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, MCS, has been defined in a number of ways. It is difficult to define precisely because the mechanism of injury is not known and the specific symptoms can be very varied from one individual to another, and also varied in the same individual over time.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity often begins with one high-dose exposure to a chemical which is toxic in large doses, but it may also develop with long-term exposure to low levels of a chemical, or chemicals. The significance of 'low level' used here refers to the fact that this level of such a chemical is generally held to be non-toxic to the human body at this concentration. However, for many of the chemicals that we are exposed to, conclusive tests, taking into account reactions inside the body with other chemicals we are exposed to, and/or the interaction of many 'low level' concentrations of chemicals forming further chemical products before they enter the body, have not been performed.

A few examples of the ways in which people who develop MCS are commonly exposed are: working in industrial employment; living or working in a poorly ventilated building; living in conditions of high air or water pollution. Chemicals most often associated with MCS include: formaldehyde, pesticides, solvents, petrochemical fuels, waxes, detergents, cleaning products, latex, tobacco smoke, perfumes and fragrances, artificial colors, flavors and preservatives.

Products that often precipitate symptoms of MCS are: air fresheners, aerosol deodorant, asphalt, after-shave lotion, colognes, perfumes, diesel, dry-cleaning fluid, furniture polish, gasoline products, hair spray, insect repellant, insecticide, many laundry detergents, marker pens, nail polish and remover, oil-based paint and associated products, many creams and cosmetics, many hair shampoos, gels, and dyes, public restroom deodorizers, many modern cleaning products, tar, varnish, creosote, paint products, chipboard, treated lumber, many treated leathers (depending on process used), soft plastics, mold, cotton and fabrics treated with pesticides and/or antibacterial agents, antibacterial soap, fabric softeners, rubber. This may seem like a phenomenal list, and there may be other items that can cause a problem that through oversight have not been mentioned here. But this gives a good idea of how difficult it is to avoid regular exposure to 'low level' harmful agents once chemical sensitivities have been triggered in an individual.
MCS symptoms can manifest in any or