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.

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.

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.