Over the past two decades alarms have sounded about possible health effects linked to the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) radiating from anything and everything powered by electricity.  This raises an important question: How safe are workers exposed to a wide range of electrical devices as a routine part of their jobs?  For about 100 years in North America, electricity was used with little suspicion of any negative health effects other than accidental burns and rare but tragic deaths by electrocution.

But all that changed in 1979 when EMFs suddenly made headlines.  That year, results of a study by a pair of American scientists, Wertheimer and Leeper, showed that children living near power lines experienced a two to three-fold increase in deaths from cancer.  Many citizens, workers, and their respective representatives reacted with immediate concern.  A new breed of hazard came to light.  Soon researchers turned their attention to a series of follow-up power line studies, as well as a host of other possible EMF-related health problems.

What are EMFs?

EMFs are invisible lines of force that radiate from every source of electricity including transmission and power lines, transformers, all electrical appliances, gadgets, and machinery.  These fields have both an electric and magnetic component, hence the name EMFs.  The electric component of the field may be partially or fully blocked by physical barriers, such as trees, walls, and partitions, but the magnetic component is much less easily shielded, causing more concern.

Measuring EMFs

Magnetic fields are measured in units of gauss (G) or tesla (T). Electrical equipment in offices typically measures between 5 to 100 mG about six inches from the source of power, and 0.5 to 4 mG at about three to four feet.  Two critical levels in the scientific literature about EMFs include:

2 to 4 mG for the development of childhood leukemia;

12 mG for the growth of estrogen-sensitive breast cancer cells.

How are office workers exposed?

Computer monitors are just one of many electrical devices found in a typical office environment. Photocopiers, fax machines, printers, overhead lights and desk lamps, baseboard heaters, telephone lines, mainframe computers, pencil sharpeners, and adding machines are often part of the mix.  Not to be overlooked are wall and ceiling cables, jiffy poles, switching rooms, and electrical panel boards, all of which are associated with high magnetic fields.

What are the possible health effects?

Since Wertheimer and Leeper’s study on power lines and children’s cancer in the late 1970s, hundreds of scientists around the world have studied EMFs and the effects of exposures to electric and magnetic fields.

These studies have included:

• exploration of links between extremely low frequency EMFs – those associated with devices such as video display terminals

• and various cancers;leukemias and workers in electrical vocations exposed regularly to high levels of EMFs, such as phone line and TV/radio repair workers;

• increase in female breast cancer incidence linked to EMF emissions and decreased levels of melatonin, a hormone that suppresses breast cancer cell growth;

• increased risk of miscarriages and other reproductive effects, especially among women exposed to higher frequency magnetic fields;

• links between EMFs and sleep disturbances, Alzheimer disease, depression, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), and cardiovascular disease.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has weighed in on the subject of extremely low frequency EMFs and cancer.  In a June 2001 report its expert scientific panel concluded that magnetic fields were “Possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on epidemiologic studies of childhood leukemia.  “Evidence for all other cancers in children and adults, as well as other types of exposures…was considered not classifiable either due to insufficient or inconsistent scientific information.”

To office workers concerned about the possible effects of EMFs on their health, these reports offer little guidance or reassurance.  As EMF-prevention advocate and breast cancer survivor Lorna Wilson of Brantford, Ontario says, “No scientific proof means just that. No proof it causes harm, and no proof it doesn’t!”

How can we reduce exposure?

We suggest a precautionary principle in the case of EMFs and office equipment – that it’s “better to be safe than sorry”.  While avoiding all exposure to EMFs is impossible in an office, we advocate “prudent avoidance” – minimizing exposures.

Exposure to EMFs in an office depends on three things:

• the strength of the fields in the work environment;
• distance from these sources;
• time spent in the fields.

Once EMF readings have been taken most problems can be solved by simply increasing the distance between the worker and the source.  This is often as simple as rearranging the office layout.   Another approach is for workers to reduce time spent near higher EMF sources, or to stand farther back while they are operating photocopiers, for example.  The best approach of all is to purchase and install electrical equipment with the lowest emissions.

The bottom line with EMFs is— there’s power in prudent avoidance!

It takes effort and information to keep the home work space clear of those factors that can contribute to many common illnesses.  In many cases, we are unaware of the damage that may be caused by our personal choices in the home office area, because it is hard to believe that computers, printers, and lighting sources were not designed with our health interest in mind.   As you are about to discover, safety in the chemical industry is not much different than that found in office electronics.

The following is a summary of the Russian investigations published by the Atlantis Raising Educational Center in Portland, Oregon.  Carcinogens were formed in virtually all foods tested.  No test food was subjected to more microwaving than necessary to accomplish the purpose, i.e., cooking, thawing, or heating to insure sanitary ingestion.

Here’s a summary of some of the results:

• Microwaving prepared meats sufficiently to insure sanitary ingestion caused formation of d-Nitrosodiethanolamines, a well-known carcinogen.

• Microwaving milk and cereal grains converted some of their amino acids into carcinogens.

• Thawing frozen fruits converted their glucoside and galactoside containing fractions into carcinogenic substances.

• Extremely short exposure of raw, cooked or frozen vegetables converted their plant alkaloids into carcinogens.

• Carcinogenic free radicals were formed in microwaved plants, especially root vegetables.

• Russian researchers also reported a marked acceleration of structural degradation leading to a decreased food value of 60 to 90% in all foods tested.

Among the changes observed were:

Deceased bioavailability of vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin E, essential minerals, and lipotropics factors in all food tested.  Various kinds of damage to many plant substances, such as alkaloids, glucosides, galactosides, and nitrilosides.  Degradation of nucleo-proteins in meats.

Ten Reasons to Throw out your Microwave Oven:

From the conclusions of the Swiss, Russian and German scientific clinical studies, we can no longer ignore the microwave oven sitting in our kitchens.  Based on this research, we will conclude this article with the following:

• Continually eating food processed from a microwave oven is suspected of causing long term or permanent brain damage by “shorting out” electrical impulses in the brain by de-polarizing or de-magnetizing brain tissue.

• The human body cannot metabolize (break down) the unknown by-products created in microwaved food.

• Male and female hormone production is altered by continually eating microwaved foods.

• The effects of microwaved food by-products are substantial within the human body.

• Minerals, vitamins, and nutrients of all microwaved food are reduced or altered so that the human body may get little or no benefit, or the human body absorbs altered compounds that cannot be broken down.

• The minerals in vegetables are altered into free radicals when cooked in microwave ovens, which can increase the risk of cancer.

• Microwaved foods can cause stomach and intestinal cancerous growths (tumors).  This may explain the rapidly increased rate of colon cancer in America.

• The prolonged eating of microwaved foods can cause cancerous cells to grow in human blood.

• Continual ingestion of microwaved food can cause immune system deficiencies through lymph gland and blood serum alterations.

• Eating microwaved food can cause loss of memory, loss of concentration, and emotional instability.

Have you tossed out your microwave oven yet?  After you throw out your microwave you can use a toaster oven as a replacement.  It works well for most and is nearly as quick.

Since WWII more than 80,000 synthetic chemicals have been invented.  Most have been created from petroleum and coal tar for the purposes of chemical warfare.  The sad thing is that hardly any of these substances have been tested for safety, but have been added to our food, water and cleaning products without our consent and most often without informing us of any dangers.  There is a lot of intentional suppression in this industry that adds approximately 1000 new chemicals each year.

According to the National Research Council, ”no toxic information is available for more than 80% of the chemicals in everyday-use products.  Less than 20% have been tested for acute effects and less than 10% have been tested for chronic, reproductive or mutagenic effects.”  More than 4.5 billion chemicals are known and 50,000 are commercially distributed.  What’s worse is that tests are only done on single chemicals.  There is never any testing done on combinations, which we are exposed to on a daily basis.  It requires a team of scientists, 300 mice, more than $300,000 US, and 2-3 years to determine whether one single suspect chemical causes cancer.

Governments are at the mercy of economic agendas.  Industry interests almost always win over issues regarding health or government regulation.  Only 1% of toxins are required to be listed on labels.  This is mainly because the products don’t make any claims about safety.  Companies can also classify them as “trade secrets” to avoid listing them.  Many of the ingredients labeled “inert” are actually more toxic than the active ingredients.

The retail consumer chemical companies spend billions of dollars each year advertising and promoting their brand name products.  The EPA depends on industry-sponsored tests for approval.  In 1981, one undisclosed company was found guilty of falsifying over 90% of more than 2000 studies.  Those products are still readily available.  It is difficult to realize that ninety-one percent of the population actually unwittingly brings these hazardous and dangerous substances into their lives by applying and using approximately 300 million pounds of these poisons annually, often indoors.  City dwellers use more chemicals per acre than farmers and spend more than 1 billion dollars on them annually.

The effects of these toxic chemicals include: illness, allergies, asthma, ear infections, learning disabilities, nervous disorders, respiratory difficulties and much, much more.

When Congress passed the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide And Rodenticide Act, it assumed that all these agents were “toxic.”  No guidelines were created for identifying “non-toxic” agents.  In other words, they are all “toxic.”  Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards require testing a chemical to a specified amount listed in the regulation.  If it kills half of a group of test animals, the chemical is “toxic” by this definition.  If the test animals survive after being exposed to an amount greater than that listed, the chemical is “non-toxic.”  Not very strict or reassuring, is it?  And there are no tests for long-term exposure on humans?

The American Cancer Society states “environmental pollution causes cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, coughing, asthma, nervous disorders, emphysema, wheezing, nasal congestion, burning eyes, headache, burning, tingling, skin flushing, muscle aches, irritability, mental confusion, uncoordination, hyperactivity and other debilitating illnesses.”

Additionally, the Consumer Product Safety Commission in “Chemicals Commonly Found in Homes” identified 150 chemicals as linked to allergies, birth defects, cancer and psychological abnormalities.  Ten percent cause High Blood Pressure (HBP) and migraines and 20% are responsible for mental disturbances.

In various instances, indoor air quality has been found to have five times higher toxic chemical concentrations than outdoor air.  This is also true in rural areas.  A five-year study conducted by the EPA showed many indoor air samples to be 70 times more toxic than outdoor air samples.  Could this be why almost everyone is sick, especially children and those working in public buildings little fresh air intake and air filters that are seldom changed?  A scientific paper at the “Indoor Air Conference” in 1990 in Toronto stated “because of household cleaners, housewives have a 55% higher risk of contracting cancer.”

Children are at high risk when playing on indoor floors from the residue of formaldehyde, asbestos, and pesticides generated by common household products.  Their respiration rates are three times higher than adults are and their detoxification systems are not fully developed and cannot filter these toxins out.  Have you noticed how many children are on inhalers lately?  This is akin to putting the fire out with gasoline.  The older you are, the more years of accumulation of these toxins you will have in your system.  There are tens of thousands of chemicals in use, but if you ever get tested, they will usually only test for 150 or so, and those are probably not the worst ones.  They only test us for approximately .002% of all toxins that we can be exposed to in our lives.

With all these dangers well-documented and well-known, retail consumer chemical companies still spend millions of dollars each year to convince us that we need their products.  One reason is that it would be very costly to re-formulate many of their consumer brand products that sit on your supermarket shelves.  Another reason is that it would involve much more governmental regulatory oversight and resource investment to dispose of their existing, stockpiled toxic chemical ingredients in hazardous waste dumps than to retail them into your home through supermarket aisles.

Exposure to toxins has synergistic and cumulative effects.  They are known as “xenobiotics” (foreign to the body).  The body was not designed to eliminate them, so they accumulate.  These toxic overloads have a price tag.  Is it any wonder that our health care costs are skyrocketing while we keep getting sicker and sicker?  There are huge profits being made at the expense of our health.

Another relevant term is “teratogen.”  According to American Heritage, a “teratogen”  is any agent, such as a virus, a drug, or radiation, that adversely affects and causes malformation of a developing embryo or fetus.  Chemicals can cross not only our blood-brain barriers but also blood-placental barriers.  Many pesticides fall into this category…and so do chemical ingredients used to concoct synthetic scents in our personal care and conventional cleaning products.  For example, take “Fetal Coumarin Syndrome”.  Women during pregnancy are told NOT to use coumarin as an anticoagulant.  However, coumarin is a common fragrance ingredient in perfumes and moves swiftly into the body.  “Teratogens” often cause serious birth defects.

Most of the chemicals we use today are derivatives of chemical warfare.  The first chemical warfare agent was chlorine.  World War II ended with a surplus of this cheap chemical.  In the name of huge profits, it was added to our water supply and many other products.  Chlorine is the number one cause of breast cancer and can be lethal.  Scientists won’t handle chlorine without protective gloves, facemasks, and ventilation, yet it is in most store-brand cleaners, including dishwasher detergents.  The harmful effects are intensified when the fumes are heated, as in the shower.  It is in our drinking water, swimming pools, Jacuzzis, and any other place that we want disinfected.

Fluoride is worse and there is no research to indicate that it has proven benefits for tooth decay and it’s extremely poisonous!

Still don’t believe these claims?  Then, try this test!  Take any Brand X dish soap and spill it without dilution on the grass outside your home.  Immediately soak the treated area with water until there are no more suds.  About a week later, return to the area and notice, in most instances, that the treated grass is dead.  If it kills grass, IMAGINE what it is doing to us?  After all, we are nothing more than walking vegetation.

Many household products contain harmful chemicals.  For example, formaldehyde is in almost all cleaning products, including laundry detergents, toothpaste, and shampoo.

Laundry detergents contain phosphorus, enzymes, ammonia, naphthalene, phenol, sodium nitilotriacetate, and countless other chemicals.  These chemicals can cause rashes, itches, allergies, sinus problems, and more.  The residue left on your clothes, bed sheets, etc. is absorbed through your skin, as is everything else you touch…thus, the success and popularity of transdermal patches.  Don’t fall prey to the bombardment of advertisements strongly suggesting that you absolutely need these products.  You don’t, but their profit margins do.

Air fresheners interfere with your ability to smell by releasing nerve-deadening agents or coating nasal passages with an oil film, usually methoxychlor, a pesticide-type, that accumulates in fat cells and over-stimulates the Central Nervous System.  Laundry dryer sheets fall into this category.  They are extremely toxic.  Avoid them.  (The only reason you require fabric softeners is because the chemicals in laundry soap create the static.  It may take several washings with chemical free detergents to eliminate the chemical residue static.  Your patience will be well rewarded.) Some other common “toxic” air freshening ingredients include: P-dichlorobenzene,naphthalene and formaldehyde.  Conversely, fresh, organic citrus juices, vinegar, spices, and essential oils will do a better job, risk free.

Oven cleaners are one of the most toxic products people use.  They contain lye and ammonia, which eat the skin, and the fumes linger and affect the respiratory system.  Then there is the residue that’s intensified the next time you turn your oven on.  Use sea salt and baking soda instead.

Household pesticides are the #2 cause of death by poisoning in this country.  Their residual action can linger for more than 30 years.  Inhalation can lead to nausea, cough, breathing difficulties, depression, eye irritation, dizziness, weakness, blurred vision, twitching, convulsions and more.  They are stored in body fat.  Long-term they damage liver, kidneys, lungs, and lead to paralysis, sterility, immune suppression, brain hemorrhages, decreased fertility, sexual dysfunction, heart problems, and coma.  On December 5, 2000 the EPA announced the phase-out of “diazinon”, one of the most widely used organophosphate pesticides in the United States – for indoor use, beginning in March 2001, and for all lawn, garden, and turf uses by December 2003.

Since 1996, the EPA has targeted a large group of older, riskier pesticides called “organophosphates” for review because they pose the greatest potential risk to children.  In August 1999, the EPA announced action against “methyl parathion” and “azinphos methyl” to protect children from pesticide residues in food.  The Agency reached an agreement to halt the manufacture of “chlorpyrifos”, or “Dursban”, for nearly all residential uses by December 2000.  “Diazinon” – used in homes, on lawns, and in gardens – is another organophosphate pesticide being completely phased out by 2004-05.

“Organophosphates” can affect the nervous system.  The effects from “diazinon” vary depending on the dose, but symptoms from over-exposure can include nausea, headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, and general weakness.

“Diazinon” was the most widely used pesticide by homeowners on lawns, and was one of the most widely used pesticide ingredients for application around the home and in gardens.  It was used to control insects and grub worms.  Diazinon’s use on turf poses a risk to birds, and it is one of the most commonly found pesticides in air, rain, and drinking and surface water.  Its elimination will reduce the amounts to approximately 15 million LESS pounds of undesirable pesticides in the environment annually.

The federal EPA continues to aggressively target for elimination those pesticides “that pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment, and especially those posing the greatest risk to children… this action is another major step toward ensuring that all Americans can enjoy greater safety from exposure to harmful pesticides… it will significantly eliminate the vast majority of organophosphate insecticide products in and around the home,” reported Carol M. Browner, EPA Administrator during the Clinton Administration.

These same household pesticides trigger these allergic reactions: asthma, bronchitis, eczema, migraines, death, hives, joint and muscle pain for 16 million people in this country and the numbers are growing.  For the record, “antibiotics” are technically “pesticides “.  You may be surprised to find out just how many everyday products contain this type of “pesticide” in them, such as toothpaste and shampoo.

Regular shampoos contain these harsh chemicals.  Baby shampoos advertised as gentle and “no tears” contain some of the worst chemicals, including anesthetizing agents to cover up the burning sensation that would otherwise be caused when the chemicals contact the eyes.  Imagine what effect these agents have on the eyes and brain, especially after repeated uses!

Sodium laurel sulfate and other forms of this substance lower brain acuity and attribute to blindness, yet they are commonly used in shampoos, toothpastes and other personal hygiene products.

Lice shampoo is a pesticide and may be absorbed into the brain through misuse.  “Lindane”, the main ingredient, causes convulsions, seizures, cancer, and death.  You can use your favorite shampoo several times a day, every day.  The lice will be gone in less than a week.

Regarding your pets, flea collars are “pesticides” too and release a continuous supply of dangerous substances into the bloodstream of your pet.  In addition to the great harm caused to your pet, it is absorbed through your skin every time you touch your pet.  Leave your pet a dish of brewer’s yeast; it will instinctively eat it as needed and repel fleas naturally.  PROTECT YOUR PET against chemical exposure.

You, your pets and children walk on and absorb the harmful chemicals applied to lawns and gardens.  Avoid them.  Weeds grow where soils are barren and deficient in certain nutrients — the very ones that these weeds provide.  They have longer roots that reach lower into the ground to provide those hard-to-reach nutrients, while preventing soil erosion.  If you don’t want them to spread, at least cut off the buds/flowers.  It is usually the chemical dependent lawns that attract the weeds and produce larger ones.

The main ingredient in most weed killers is 2,4-(dichlorophenoxyacetic acid).  When combined with 2,4,5-T (trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) it forms “Agent Orange”.  Use of these products creates more resistant weeds while harming us.  These chemicals eventually end up in our water table and in edible crops planted in the vicinity.  When was the last time you saw bees, butterflies, dragonflies or ladybugs? They are almost extinct because of the overuse of these and other similar chemicals and pesticides.  Are we next on the endangered species list? The effects of these chemical poisonings are often given names and treated as “new diseases”.  We know differently.  Treat your lawn by spraying it with a solution of 100% organic dish soap, coke and beer, diluted with water every month or so and use a mulching mower.

Longer grass shades weed seeds.  Plant basil to keep mosquitoes and other pests away.  There are many books available about companion planting and beneficial insects, to keep the unwelcome ones away without compromising you.

These chemicals affect your lawn the way drugs affect you.  The more dependent you are on drugs, the sicker you become and the more drugs you take.  It’s a never ending, vicious cycle of addiction.  The less drugs a person takes the stronger their immune system is, and the healthier they are.  It’s best to avoid them all.  The same goes for your lawn.  It may take a couple of years for the “withdrawal symptoms” to subside, but the wait will be more than worth it.  There is an entire ecosystem below the surface that works interdependently to ensure your soil, and your crops, flourish.  The chemicals also kill all these beneficial microorganisms, worms, etc. Nature is our friend, treat it as such.

Beware of Toxic Chemicals… The danger doesn’t end with their use.  Everything that goes down your drain eventually ends up in your drinking water supply.  This is multiplied by what your neighbors and every other person and industry put down their drains.  More than four million pounds of household cleaning chemicals go down Canadian drains each year.  Whatever goes down the sewers on the streets goes directly into the rivers.  Whatever goes into the rivers, comes back to us in our drinking water!  What we do to the planet, we do to ourselves.

Everything that goes down our drains and toilets ends up at the water treatment plants where they are mixed with even more toxic chemicals, recycled and returned to us via our water taps.  Hence the huge market for bottled water and point of use filter systems.

If a product is not friendly to the environment, it cannot be friendly to us.  If a product requires special handling or ventilation, don’t expose yourself or your environment to it.  This is where you, your family and friends have to live and breathe.  Next time you or someone you know feels ill, instead of rushing off to the doctor to get treated, why not look for the cause in a household chemical or food additive and eliminate it? This can save a lot of grief and more “toxic overload”, which will probably be labeled as some type of serious illness without looking for the cause.

In closing, many personal care and cleaning products are “toxic”, especially if misused or misapplied.  Prior to WWII they didn’t exist, homes were clean, and people, it seems, had fewer chemically-related health problems.  How many “toxic bombs” are lurking in your home? There are many safe, chemical free cleaning products on the market today, or if you prefer — use the basics; baking soda, lemon juice, vinegar and water.  You’ll be amazed at what a wonderful job they do.

Please do your own research and use the products that are the safest and best for your families.  There are numerous books on these subjects.  Don’t leave your fate in the hands of multibillion-dollar retail consumer chemical industries whose only concern is profit.  Your shopping habits create a demand.  If you don’t like what is contained in the products offered in your stores let it be known and switch stores and products.  Encourage the retail consumer cleaning chemical industry to be responsible for their products, as we must be with our purchases.  Educate your friends, neighbors and loved ones.  Don’t ever give anyone authority over your body or your health.  It’s your responsibility to be informed.  What you don’t know CAN harm you, and even kill you.

Staying Well in a Toxic World

A rapidly growing number of people here in the United States and worldwide, have the condition known as environmental illness/multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).  These chemically injured people are like the coal mine canaries and their condition should be a warning to us all.  Their symptoms vary greatly; in kind and in severity: some of them can lead a fairly normal life, with precautions; others cannot go out or function at most jobs.  When the latter come into even brief contact with people wearing scented products, walk into a room that is newly carpeted or has been treated with a pesticide or cleaned with a toxic cleaner, or eat any food containing even a trace of pesticide, they may become incapacitated, experience muscle weakness, faint, and/or feel dizzy.  Many have to live in their own, special, air filtered rooms, drink totally clean filtered water, and eat only “organic” food, which has been grown without any pesticides or chemical fertilizers.

Unfortunately, standard medicine does not recognize MCS because it is not taught in medical schools.  Modern medicine is also getting more specialized with the result that many MCS patients have been referred by their primary doctor to specialist after specialist, spending years of time and thousands of dollars on expensive, but useless drugs and tests, until their “mystery illness” is finally referred to a psychotherapist.  There again, they can spend many years and thousands of dollars, all in vain, without finding the true causes of their symptoms.  The “mystery illness” suffered by many veterans from the Gulf War is a prime example.

Standard medicine emphasizes drugs as symptom suppressants and assumes humans are basically the same: X symptom needs Y drug.  Specific drugs for specific contagious diseases have been exceedingly effective in the past.  However, when chronic diseases are exacerbated by environmental exposures, symptom-suppressing drugs are only a palliative and often worsens the patient’s underlying condition.  Chemically sensitive patients usually react to all the products of the petrochemical industry.  In our present society these products are ubiquitous.  Many drugs and their by products are petroleum-based and gradually or sometimes quickly worsen the condition of chemically sensitive patients.  Environmental medicine requires more work, but uses the uniqueness of each individual to identify the root causes of symptoms, and removes them.  Some causes turn out to be side effects of previously prescribed drugs!

Since World War II, the number of chemicals that industry produces annually has doubled every eleven years.  The overwhelming majority of these chemicals have not been tested for long-term human health effects, and even fewer are properly tested by truly objective, publicly (not industry) funded testing laboratories.  Even worse, virtually no testing is done at all on the synergistic (combined) effects of two or more of these drugs and chemicals.  As a matter of fact, it would be unbelievably complicated—if not impossible—to test the combined and changing effects of our multiple toxic exposures.

A 1984 study by the National Academy of Sciences, which concludes that “some 80 percent of the sixty-five thousand industrial chemicals then in use had ‘no toxicity information available ‘”! These chemicals are a factor contributing to chronic symptoms such as headaches, nausea, drowsiness, and fatigue that at times affect all of us—if not totally incapacitating us, at least lowering our productivity at work and making our daily lives miserable.

A quotation from the spring 1990 Kellogg Report: The Impact of Nutrition Environment & Lifestyle on the Health of Americans by  Joseph D. Beasley, MD:

The chronic diseases—both social and medical—are really symptoms of a much more vast underlying problem.  They are the final culmination of years of inadequate nutrition, a toxic environment, sedentary lifestyles, familial and social disruptions, and dependence on artificial agents (from cigarettes to coffee) for happiness.  Every cell in our bodies— from the brain to the immune system— is affected by these abuses.  The effects are particularly devastating in developing children— both in and out of the womb.

In our toxic environment, there are five primary sources of synthetic chemicals: (1) pesticide residues on our food, (2) drugs, both prescription and non-prescription, (3) indoor air pollution (sick building syndrome) primarily from rugs, cleaners, and building materials, (4) personal grooming products (used by both men and women), detergents, and fabric softeners, and (5) auto exhaust and other outdoor air pollution.

What action can we take to reduce these sickening exposures and the entrenched bureaucracies that continue to proliferate and produce all these toxic drugs and chemicals?

In our personal choices, we can simplify our lifestyle, gradually eliminate the toxic things that surround us, and buy new things carefully.  Every purchase of a pesticide treated food gives a message to the farmer and the distributor that it is all right to put poison on our food and into the earth and the air.  Similarly, every purchase of toxic clothing and other products gives the message to the manufacturers to go on producing the same things.  If instead we purchase less toxic products, ultimately we can have a revolutionary impact on agricultural methods worldwide, on the production of truly nontoxic environmentally safe products, and on the incidence of chronic health problems that have been caused by the toxic exposures.

Trouble with the Law

The many findings now available from multiple studies of people’s everyday exposure all point to a single conclusion–that the same air pollutants covered by environmental laws outdoors are usually found at much higher levels in the average American residence.  This situation has come about, at least in part, because the U.S. has made remarkable progress in improving the quality of outdoor air over the past three decades by controlling automobile and industrial emissions.  Of the hundreds of air pollutants covered under existing U.S. laws, only ozone and sulfur dioxide remain more prevalent outdoors.

So it is peculiar that more attention has not yet shifted toward indoor pollution, the main sources of which are not difficult to identify.  In fact, they are right under people’s noses–moth repellents, pesticides, solvents, deodorizers, cleansers, dry-cleaned clothes, dusty carpets, paint, particleboard, adhesives, and fumes from cooking and heating, to name a few.  Sadly, most people–including officials of the U.S. government–are rather complacent about such indoor pollutants.

If truckloads of dust with the same concentration of toxic chemicals as is found in most carpets were deposited outside, these locations would be considered hazardous-waste dumps.  In view of the scientific results comparing indoor and outdoor exposure, it would seem that the time is now ripe for a major rethinking of the nation’s environmental laws and priorities.  The initial version of the Clean Air Act, written in 1970, focused on outdoor pollution.  Even in its 1990 revision, the law has not changed much.  It does not address the fact that Americans spend 95 percent of their time inside: despite all the evidence available today, the act still relies exclusively on measurements taken at outdoor monitoring stations.  Many other U.S. laws pertaining to air pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances and pesticides are similarly flawed, because they do not require accurate information on the levels of exposure people receive.

Although the absolute level of health risk posed by many toxic pollutants may be elusive, scientists can now accurately measure the exposure caused by different sources.  Hence, to protect public health best, the broad suite of environmental laws should be reexamined and judged by how effectively they reduce people’s total exposure rather than by how they reduce total emissions.  That effort would surely be substantial, both to recast a large body of legislation and to monitor how well the laws work to reduce exposure.  But the payoff would be a dramatic reduction in health costs as well as an improvement in the economy and effectiveness of environmental regulation.

Americans concerned about toxic substances do not have to wait for their government to make these far-reaching changes.  Reducing exposure normally demands only modest alterations in one’s daily routine.  Yet people cannot take the simple steps required without adequate knowledge.  So increased education is needed.  Laws requiring more detailed labeling would also help: If a product contains a dangerous pollutant, should not the manufacturer be required at least to list the chemical by name on the package? Armed with a better understanding of the toxic substances found in common products and in other sources at home, people could then make their own informed choices.

Textiles

In the near future it will be common knowledge that most of the garments we are wearing are by-products of the petrochemical industry.  Lycra, nylon, fleece, and polyester, to name a few materials, are composed of petroleum waste products that are always marketed as the next high tech fashion breakthrough.  These cheap fibers regularly break down and off-gas chemicals directly into the skin.  In the industry it is well known that these fibers may be substituted into garments to reduce cost.

The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act passed in 1960 requires that each textile product be labeled with the generic names of the fibers from which it was made.  The generic names are established by the Federal Trade Commission and include twenty-one manmade fiber groups plus the natural fibers.  This law applies to all yarns, fabrics, household textile articles, and wearing apparel so it’s easy to identify the fabric content of textile products we use every day.  Imported goods must also adhere to this law and the label must also reveal the country of origin.

Label information applies only to the fibers used in the body of the garment.  Sometimes labels will read “100 percent natural fiber, exclusive of decoration,” without revealing the fabric of the decoration.  Sweaters labeled “100 percent cotton” often have nylon threads running through the bottom edge and sleeve cuffs to help retain their shape.  Cotton chamois shirts sometimes have nylon interfacings behind the buttons.  Polyester thread may be used in natural fiber garments, as well as synthetic zippers, elastic, trims, linings, interfacings, and plastic buttons and hooks.

All synthetic fibers, whether alone or in combination with natural fibers, will to some degree give of volatile organic compounds.  Recent technological advancements in the textile industry have made toxic fabric blends more popular.  Most indigenous cultures around the world do not have access to the technology needed to fabricate synthetic clothing and have been living for centuries using naturally derived fibers.  Naturally derived garments have stood the test of time, because they are comfortable, durable, and affordable.

All the natural fibers are made from renewable resources and have the potential to be sustainable and nontoxic.  The fibers are usually fine, but improvement is often needed in the growing and processing practices, which are highly chemical-intensive and polluting to the environment and the earth.

Cotton is the fabric of our lives.  It makes our clothes, our towels, our bedding, our diapers, as well as our currency and paper.  It’s even in some of the foods we eat.

Cotton, comprised of fiber and seed, is roughly 40 percent fiber and 60 percent seed.  Once cotton is separated in the gin the fibers go to textile mills.  The seed and various by-products often find their way untreated into the feed of dairy and beef cattle.  Cotton seed, rich in oil and high in protein, is also a common ingredient in cookies, potato chips, and prepared foods.

Globally, over 89 million acres of cotton are grown in more than 70 countries making cotton the world’s most important fiber crop and one of the most important cash crops.  It is disturbing to note that cotton is also one of the most intensively sprayed field crops in the world.  In fact, cotton alone accounts for more than 10 percent of pesticide use and almost 25% of insecticide use worldwide. The truth behind the “cotton is natural” myth, is that when cotton is conventionally grown, a long chain of chemically intensive, unnatural processes are involved.

To bring this delicate plant to harvest it is, in extreme cases, sprayed between eight and ten times a season with pesticides so poisonous they gradually render fields barren.  And that’s just the beginning.  To create finished goods, fabrics are often colored with toxic dyes and finished with formaldehyde.

To grow nine ounces of cotton – enough for one T-shirt – it’s estimated that 17 teaspoons of synthetic fertilizer as well as three-quarters of a teaspoon in pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and defoliants are used.  If you extrapolate further, that means that for every acre of cotton grown, 300 pounds of synthetic fertilizers and 13 pounds of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and defoliants are used.  In sum, conventional cotton growing takes an enormous toll on the air, water, and soil, not to mention the health of people living in cotton growing areas.

Positive alternatives for the cotton industry and its related businesses are emerging.  Over the past decade, a small number of farmers and manufacturers have pioneered the market for organically grown cotton, producing fibers and clothing while significantly reducing toxic chemicals.

“It’s been exciting to see the number and breadth of companies interested in organic cotton,” says Sandra Marquardt, coordinator of the Organic Trade Association’s Fiber Council.  The OTA is the business association representing organic agriculture industry in North America.  “Whether a company chooses to go 100 percent organic, or blends a percentage of organic fibers with its conventional cotton, it is making important strides in encouraging a healthy environment by supporting organic agriculture,” says Marquardt.

Outdoor apparel maker Patagonia is one such company.  In 1996, Patagonia converted its entire cotton sportswear division exclusively to 100 percent organically grown cotton.  Other companies have chosen to blend organic cotton into their products.  Nike, for example, blended 3 percent organic cotton into more than 20 million T-shirts, with plans to include organic cotton in all of its cotton products by 2003.  Levi Strauss purchased over 330,000 pounds of organic cotton to blend in with their 501 cotton jeans.

Linen fibers come from the inner bark of the flax plant and they are possibly the first fibers used by man.  Linen is often used in its natural beige shade, but is also bleached or dyed.  Linen is sometimes combined with cotton or silk; in colonial times it was generally mixed with wool to make “linsey-woolsey”.

Ramie is a sting less nettle indigenous to mainland China.  Most ramie is grown in Asia and is sold in America primarily blended with cotton in sweaters.

Rayon is a quasi-natural fiber.  Although rayon is man-made, it is composed of cellulose, a substance found in all plants, instead of pure petrochemicals.  Cellulose used in making rayon is taken from cotton linters, old cotton rags, paper, and wood pulp.  The cellulose is broken down with petrochemicals and then re-formed into threads resembling cotton or silk.  However the process is very toxic.  A similar fabric is the new Tencel(TM), which is also made from cellulose using a more environmentally benign process.

Silk is a protein fiber taken from the cocoon of the silkworm caterpillar.  Each cocoon is spun from one continuous silk filament extruded from the caterpillar’s body.  This fiber is certainly less toxic to humans, but more deadly for the worm.

Wool is a generic term that refers to protein fibers spun from the fleece of over two hundred different breeds of sheep, as well as from the hair of the angora rabbit, the cashmere goat, the camel, the alpaca, the llama, and the wild vicuña.

Kapok is a fiber taken from the seed pod of the tropical kapok, or silk-cotton tree.  It is used as a natural stuffing material.

Recycled natural fibers: These are made from pre and post-consumer wastes, which are collected, unraveled, and then respun into yarn for weaving or knitting.  According to the Council for Textile Recycling, nationwide over four million tons of post-consumer textiles enter the waste stream every year.  Most go to landfills, but charity groups collect around a million tons.  About half of the textile products collected are sold as second-hand items, and the rest goes eventually to rag graders.  There they are sorted for different markets and either sent to other countries for sale as used clothing, or chopped up and used to make items such as blankets.

Recycled synthetic fibers: Some polyester fabrics and stuffing materials are now being made from recycled PET plastic and soda bottles.  Although this is a renewable process it is still questionable whether wearing underwear made from petroleum waste is advisable.

Fabric finishes: Because cotton wrinkles easily, many cotton fabrics are treated with a formaldehyde-based resin for easy care.  Labels on fabrics so treated usually say “permanent pressed,” “no-iron,” or “crease resistant” because it is a selling point to the consumer, not because it is required by law.  These finishes combine formaldehyde resin directly with the fiber.  Symptoms from inhalation of vapors from freshly laundered “wrinkle resistant” clothing include coughing, swelling and irritation of the throat, watery eyes, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, tiredness, excessive thirst, nausea, disorientation, asthma attacks, and insomnia.

Dyes: Dyes can also be a problem.  Usually dyes are colorfast, but some dyes do bleed; we’ve all ended up with colored armpits or with some white clothes turned pink because we accidentally washed them with red clothes.  If the dye comes out in water, the skin can absorb it.  Virtually all commercial dyes are made from nonrenewable polluting petrochemicals and many use heavy metals which are dumped as toxic waste.

The most innovative colored fabric by far is naturally colored cotton developed by Sally Fox.  In 1982, while trying to breed insect resistance into cotton plants, she noticed that occasionally a cotton plant produced green or brown cotton, just as occasionally a flock of white sheep has a few black lambs.  So far, she has commercialized green and brown cottons, and says that light pinks and blues will probably be possible after more breeding work.  The colors deepen with age rather than fading, unlike dyed fabrics.  While Sally’s breeding nursery is certified organic, unfortunately not all the colored cotton grown on contract is grown using organic methods; pesticides are used, but no defoliants.

In the end, it is best to avoid synthetic fibers such as polyester, acrylic, and nylon because there is little scientific evidence to prove that these fibers are not harmful to health.  In addition, environmentally these fibers do more harm than good – they are made of nonrenewable crude oil, they produce toxic waste in their manufacture, they don’t biodegrade, and they can’t be recycled.

Of course, there are fashion concerns that are too often difficult to resist.  Many of the synthetic fibers have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, made clothing an almost irresistible art form.  Recycled clothing is the next best alternative to reduce the load of toxic exposure.  Vintage clothing is fashionable, has character, and is lower in chemical content because it has simply been around much longer and washed more often.  In addition, choosing to go recycled reduces the chemical toll on the environment.

Hemp fiber: Humans have cultivated hemp longer than any other textile.  Archaeologists have unearthed hemp fabric in China that is over 10,000 years old.  Its history is rich and varied throughout the world.  In ancient Japan it symbolized purity and was worn by Shinto priests.  Many of the masterpieces of the Italian Renaissance were painted on hempen canvas.  Britannia ruled the sea for centuries under the power of hempen sails.  The original drafts of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper derived from the scraps of colonial hemp cloth.  Interestingly, some time ago even American currency was made using hemp fiber.

Unique among textile plants, hemp does not require herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, or chemical fertilizers.  It is a truly sustainable crop.  Hemp is nature’s performance fiber.  It is the strongest natural fiber.  It is naturally resistant to UV light, mold and mildew, and salt water.  It has been used for centuries to make sails and rope on ocean-going ships.  Russian cosmonauts wore hemp garments as a layer underneath their space suits.

Hemp is often confused with the marijuana plant.  Both come from the plant family Cannabis sativa, but from very different varieties.  The fiber-bearing plant has been bred for thousands of years for its long, fine fibers.  Concisely, the hemp fiber plant has no drug value.

In the present economy the home office is fast becoming a necessity for those that are looking to make ends meet without sacrificing their lives to a dreary high rise.  Few of us are aware, however, that in assembling our home work space careful consideration must be taken not to turn our homes into toxic incubators.

The Computer or Video Display Unit (VDU):

In the last twenty years computers have worked themselves into a position in our homes that ranks as high as the phone and the television.  In fact, many believe the computer or VDU is well on its way toward replacing these and many other home electronic devices.  It might be very useful to consider the impact that computers are having on our health.

Over 90% of VDU operators (people that use computers) suffer from tired or sore eyes, eyestrain, stress, headaches, fatigue, nausea, and muscular problems.

VDUs produce eight different kinds of radiation:

X-rays: They are given off as a secondary emission from the impact of high-speed electrons on the viewing screen, and from the electrodes of the beam gun.  X-rays can cause genetic damage, cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, and premature aging and they can affect fertility.

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation : This is given off from the excitation of the phosphors on the inner surface of the screen. The glass should normally absorb most of the UV radiation, which can cause skin cancer, cataracts, and premature aging.  People suffering from photosensitive epilepsy could experience an increase in epileptic fits.

Infrared radiation: It is produced from the heat generated on the viewing screen by the impact of electrons on the phosphors.  The infrared radiation can cause cataracts.

Microwave radiation: The sweep oscillator circuits produce this.  Microwave radiation can cause cataracts, miscarriages, birth defects, genetic damage, cancer, blood disorders, and it can affect the central nervous system as well as fertility.

Radio frequency fields: They are generated by the electrical pulses which cause the beam to go on and off at a frequency of up to 11 MHz.  They are also generated by pulsations coming from the oscillator circuits.  They can have the following effects: Cataracts, miscarriage, birth defects, blood disorders, central nervous system effects, and cancer.

Very low frequency (VLF) fields: Electrical pulses used to move the beam horizontally generate frequencies at 15 to 20 kHz.  They can have effects on the central nervous system, the immune system, and cell membranes.  They may also cause miscarriages, birth defects, and infertility.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) fields: Frequencies between 50 and 100 Hz are produced from the electrical pulses, which cause the beam to move vertically in order to refresh the full frame on the screen.  They can cause blood disorders, leukemia, cancer, disrupted cell growth, miscarriages, birth defects, endocrinologic changes, and infertility.

Static electricity:. This is produced as a result of the electrical power used to operate the device as well as from the electron beam which is directed on to the screen and the fly back transformer.  Static can cause skin complaints.

The amounts of radiation emitted by a VDU are low, but VDU users and persons sitting behind the VDU are exposed to the radiation for longer periods.  Therefore radiation is to be considered as a serious health hazard when working with a VDU or in an office with VDU workplaces.

The Printer:

Laser printers produce the poisonous gases (acetone and freon 113).  A concentration of these gases causes headaches, nausea and irritations of the eyes, the nose, and the throat.  A dryness in the upper respiratory passages can be felt.  Dust is given off by toner used with the laser printer and by paper.  Acids, which are produced by heating the toner and paper, can cause skin irritations such as rashes or eczema.

Dry cleaning is an extremely toxic process that uses perchlorethylene to extract blemishes from fabric while weakening the integrity of garments to make them more amenable to pressing and folding.

What is perchlorethylene?

Tetrachloroethylene, more commonly referred to as perchlorethylene or PERC, is a man-made substance widely used for dry cleaning fabrics and textiles and in metal-degreasing operations.  Although PERC is a liquid at room temperature, some of the liquid can be expected to evaporate into the air producing an ether-like odor; evaporation increases as temperature increases.

Did you bring home a load of freshly dry-cleaned clothes this week? Then you may also have brought home headaches, nausea, and an increased risk of developing cancer.  Health effects associated with exposure to PERC include depression of the central nervous system; damage to the liver and kidneys; and impaired memory, confusion, dizziness, headache, drowsiness, and eye, nose, and throat irritation.

Repeated dermal exposure may result in dry, scaly, and fissured dermatitis.  There is increasing evidence of human carcinogenicity.  The uncontrolled use of PERC has the potential to cause widespread harm to the health of dry cleaning workers, the people living near dry cleaning shops, the general public, and the global environment.  Because significant adverse health effects have been discovered, many countries have imposed stringent regulations for the control of PERC exposures and emissions.

PERC has been a known animal carcinogen since the early 1990s, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently found adequate evidence to classify the solvent as a possible human carcinogen.  In December 1991, the EPA began regulating PERC as a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.  Until the 1980s, it was legal for dry cleaners to pour used PERC down the drain.  According to a government study, PERC now contaminates up to 25% of U.S. drinking water.

Modern, closed-loop machines and innovations in vapor recovery equipment and other technologies have reduced occupational exposures and environmental emissions. However, many of the modern controls that have been developed are cost prohibitive for small shops, and some work practices are inadequate.  Today, approximately 90% of U.S. dry cleaners use PERC in their machines.

What can I do?

Limit the amount of dry-clean-only clothes you buy.

Learn which dry-clean-only garments can be safely washed by non-toxic methods.

Take your clothes to a wet cleaning facility, when possible.

What is wet cleaning?

Wet cleaning by water immersion is a method for cleaning garments that would normally have been cleaned in solvent.  Wet cleaning became popular recently in Europe and the U.S. because of the strong environmental regulations restricting the use of solvents.  Most techniques are similar in that they use specially formulated wet-cleaning soaps and spotting agents, consisting of enzymes, peptides, synthetic polymers, and anionic and nonionic tensides.  Several measures are used to reduce the risks of damage to clothes, the main ones being the following:

One of the major advantages of wet cleaning is the elimination of dry cleaning solvents and their associated health and fire hazards.

Many soils are more easily removed with water than solvent.  This is particularly true for water-soluble stains resulting from sugars, salts, drinks, body fluids, starch, milk, and most foods.

Wet cleaning may help to keep the white garments whiter.  Sometimes white garments can be dulled when cleaned with recycled PERC or other solvents.

Wet-cleaned garments have a more pleasant smell when compared to the chemical odor associated with garments cleaned in solvent.

Drawbacks:

Dry cleaning solvents do a better job of removing, greases, oils, waxes, and resins.

Garments made of wool, silk, and viscose rayon cannot easily be immersed in water because of possible garment damage from fiber shrinkage or bleeding of dyes.  Most problem garments fall into one of the following categories: suit jackets with front fixing in the construction, coats, items with shoulder pads, and ornate clothing.

Wet cleaning appears to be a viable option for reducing the usage of dry cleaning solvents.  However, the technology has not developed to the point where it can completely eliminate the need for dry cleaning solvents.  If you are interested in trying this technology out, try searching for European cleaners in your area.

the typical American home can be harmful.  Fabrics that are labeled “wrinkle-resistant” are usually treated with a formaldehyde resin.  These include no-iron sheets and bedding, curtains, sleep wear – any woven fabric, but especially polyester/cotton blends, marketed as “permanent press” or “easy care.”  More modern furniture that is made of pressed wood products emits formaldehyde and other chemicals.

Carpeting is usually made of synthetic fibers that have been treated with pesticides and fungicide.  Many office carpets emit a chemical called 4-phenylcyclohexene, an inadvertent additive to the latex backing used in most commercial and home carpets, which is thought to be one of the chemicals responsible for “sick” office buildings.

An increasing number of physicians have found objective evidence of chemical injury in patients who have symptoms attributed to carpet exposure.  “At least 120 doctors and other health-care professionals from a variety of medical disciplines have signed a letter stating that they are seeing a large number of carpet-related health problems and other chemical injury problems in their patients,” said Anthony Pollina, aide to Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-VT).  The doctors submitted the letter to Congressman Sanders, who forwarded it to Carol Browner, head of the EPA.  Pollina stated the doctors are especially requesting that a uniform diagnostic test protocol or battery of objective tests be established.

“The doctors’ letter is important because it confirms that yes, doctors involved in clinical practice are seeing these problems,” said Pollina.  “It certainly brings us past the point, we feel, of simply debating the animal tests, which were valid as well, but we always felt a real serious discussion of this issue needed to involve medical doctors who are seeing the patients.”

Gunnar Heuser, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.P., immunotoxicologist and neurotoxicologist, has found consistent and objective evidence of injury in patients exposed to new carpet.  “A full workup shows abnormalities that are consistent with other types of chemical injury, including abnormal neuropsychiatric exam consistent with what is typically found in head injury patients, altered natural killer cell function, increased TA1 cells of the immune system, autoimmunity [meaning that the body's immune system has mistakenly identified its own tissues or cellular components as foreign and directed antibodies against them] including autoantibodies to thyroid, myelin of the

nervous system, and anti-nuclear antibodies,” Heuser said.

People who react to carpet and other consumer products have frequently reported problems with concentration and memory.  Heuser stated the single-photon emission computer tomography (SPECT) scan is a well-established test that provides objective evidence of brain abnormalities correlating well with those symptoms.  “We have seen hundreds of patients who say low level exposure to the types of volatile organic compounds found in carpets and other products is making them ill,” he said.  “When we have conducted SPECT scans on these people, they have consistently shown that not enough blood flow is going into certain parts of the brain, and especially the part that has to do with concentration and memory.”

Internal medicine and psychosomatic medicine specialist Stephen Schacher, M.D., of Seattle, Washington, said he is also finding abnormal SPECT scans on patients who attribute their symptoms to new carpet, as well as other toxic exposure victims.  Schacher said the scans have evidenced brain injuries, especially in the parietal lobe, the deep temporal lobe, and the posterior inferior frontal lobe.

This finding is consistent with the SPECT scan abnormalities found by environmental and occupational toxicology specialist Thomas Callender, M.D. of Lafayette, Louisiana, and neurologist Richard Nelson, M.D. of Billings, Montana.  Both have found abnormalities in the frontal lobes, temporal lobes, basal ganglia, and thalamus of the brain.  Another related test, which studies metabolism in the brain, the positron emission tomography (PET) scan, has also consistently shown abnormalities, according to Nelson and Callender.

Heuser believes the problem is widespread.  “If you take all the cases I have seen over the years, of people who say that new carpet either at work or at home makes them feel sick, it would come to a few hundred,” he said.  The worst case Heuser evaluated involved two children who spent much of their time playing directly on new carpeting.  The children developed epileptic seizures verified by electroencephalogram (EEG) tracings.  The seizures stopped when the children were no longer exposed to the carpet.

“We believe it was the carpet because while the entire family became ill with headaches, the adults and the two children who did not play on the carpet did not develop seizures and were overall much less ill than the children who did come into close, direct contact with the carpet,” noted Heuser.

Part of the problem is the large number of chemicals involved in the manufacture of carpets.  At least 1,000 chemicals are used, according to a toxicologist within the carpet industry.  “I believe this is a toxicity problem,” stated Heuser.  “Carpet and other consumer products are a complex mixture of chemicals.  Very little research

has been conducted to look at the synergistic and additive effects of chemical combinations.  Also, when you combine chemicals, new unknown compounds can

be formed that can be more toxic than the single chemicals.”

Simply inhaling fumes from a small carpet sample in a jar caused severe brain function abnormalities in a patient who was objectively assessed in a challenge EEG test measuring cognitive evoked potentials.  The pre-exposure baseline reading was normal.  After inhaling the low-level fumes for only 15 minutes, the patient’s brain

function was significantly altered.

If the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI) continues to promote all carpeting as a safe product while downplaying all evidence to the contrary, a number of researchers have

expressed concern for the most unsuspecting victims, the children.  “I think one of the dangerous things about carpet is that children crawl and play on it, so they have a much greater breathing and dermal exposure than adults,” stated Ziem.  “And I am deeply concerned about the common practice of redecorating nurseries with toxic products and putting in new carpet before babies are born.  That is the baby’s 24-hour environment.  It is a very dangerous risk to take.”

“Little children are lying on carpet in day-care centers while they are playing and learning to read,” said Mark Goldman, manager of Anderson Laboratories.  “There is enough evidence about not just the chemical hazards but also the biological contaminants and the maintenance cost and problems of carpeting in schools to be able to say that schools are much better off without it.  We have heard too many tragic stories and have seen too many devastating health problems from carpeting not to be profoundly concerned.”

Congressman Sanders’ office still plans to keep as much pressure on the carpet and rug industry as possible.  “We know a number of the chemicals that off gas from carpet are in fact dangerous, and they do create health problems for people,” said Pollina.  “We want to see some serious research conducted to look at the specific health effects of the chemicals coming off of carpet.  We want to see the manufacturers implement the kind of quality control that is necessary, and any new manufacturing methods that are necessary to see to it that they produce a safe product.  Industry is supposed to come back to us with a research plan for testing both individual chemicals and combinations of chemicals.  And we will hold them to it.”

But until then, what will you do?

Thomas Edison’s brilliant 1879 invention — the incandescent lamp — has transformed the way we live and work in the industrialized world.  As with any major innovation, however, there have been risks as well as benefits to artificial lighting.  From a health and safety standpoint, workplace lighting presents two major areas of concern.  The most obvious is visibility, including all those factors that affect our ability to see clearly and comfortably in any work situation.  The second pertains to artificial lighting’s invisible hazards: the possible link to skin cancer from exposure to fluorescent lights emitting ultra-violet (UV) rays; and increased incidence of breast cancer from exposure to light at night experienced by women working night shifts.

The first section focuses on visibility issues, while the latter part is devoted to related cancer concerns.

What are the health effects of poor lighting?

Inferior lighting can cause numerous health problems.  Below are some lighting problems commonly encountered in workplaces and their associated outcomes.

Insufficient light can result from too little illumination from fixtures and low reflective levels from ceilings and walls.  But the question of how much light is enough depends on the task at hand.  The Illuminating Engineering Society Lighting Handbook provides extensive tables listing recommended lighting levels for a variety of activities. For instance, they recommend 3000 lux for precise assembly work, 7500 lux for very precise machine tool work, and 750 lux for general office work.  Regardless, insufficient light prevents workers from seeing details, which can cause accidents, eyestrain, headaches, and musculoskeletal problems from adopting a poor posture to compensate for inadequate light.

Excessive light can also be hazardous.  More is certainly not always better, especially for office or computer workers.  The results of one study of open-plan offices showed that very high levels of lighting increased the risk of troublesome reflections, deep shadows, and excessive contrast causing eyestrain, eye irritation, and associated headaches and fatigue.  Too much direct or reflected light within the field of vision can also result in direct or indirect glare.  A review of the physical layout of a workplace should ensure that lights are not placed directly in any worker’s line of vision.  Indirect glare is a common glare problem experienced by indoor workers.  Over time it can cause deterioration of vision.  Poor posture and resulting musculoskeletal injuries are also a problem when it comes to glare, as workers will adjust their posture to avoid glare.

Incandescent lamps are the modern version of Thomas Edison’s original light bulb. They require a lot of electricity and, at the same time, produce a great deal of heat. Halogen lamps are a type of incandescent light offering intense and consistent light levels to work areas.

Fluorescent lighting: The chief appeal of this lighting is its low cost. Fluorescent tubes that are old or defective often develop a slow, visible flicker, which causes visual discomfort.  They must be replaced according to manufacturer specifications.  Since most fluorescent lights also contain toxic materials, like mercury, disposal is also an issue.

Full spectrum light is one type of fluorescent lighting.  Nonetheless it seems to address many workplace illumination problems.  It reportedly increases visual perception, reduces eyestrain, and relieves headaches and fatigue.  Full spectrum, as the name implies, is also said to imitate the benefits of natural light, reportedly causing the body to produce neurochemicals for stress regulation.  One U.S. company also reported that after installing full spectrum lighting in its computer operation, the error rate of the department fell significantly. Worker productivity and satisfaction also increased.

What about the links between cancer and lighting?

There is strong scientific evidence that supports a relationship between malignant melanoma and other skin cancers and exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation.  Although most of these studies focus on UV rays from the sun, there are many non-solar sources — including fluorescent lighting — which emit radiation in the various UV ranges, particularly the UVB class (characterized by wavelengths from 280 to 320 nanometers in the electromagnetic spectrum).

UVB light is known to alter DNA sequences and gene expression, and has been found in animal experiments to be the most effective in inducing skin cancers of both the melanoma and non-melanoma types.  Some annual workplace exposures in the UVB range from fluorescent lighting have been reported to exceed annual solar exposures of outdoor workers.

What Is Sick Building Syndrome?

Sick building syndrome (SBS) is a situation in which occupants of a building experience acute health effects that seem to be linked to time spent in a building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified.  The complaints may be localized in a particular room or zone, or may be widespread throughout the building.

What Are the Symptoms of SBS?

Building occupants complain of symptoms associated with acute discomfort.  These symptoms include headaches; eye, nose, and throat irritation; a dry cough; dry or itchy skin; dizziness and nausea; difficulty in concentrating; fatigue; and sensitivity to odors.  With SBS, no clinically defined disease or specific chemical or biological contaminant can be determined as the cause of the symptoms.  Most of the complainants feel relief soon after leaving the building.  SBS reduces worker productivity and may also increase absenteeism.

What Causes SBS?

While specific causes of SBS remain unknown, the following have been cited as contributing factors to sick building syndrome.  These elements may act in combination or may supplement other complaints such as inadequate temperature, humidity, or lighting.

Chemical contaminants from outdoor sources: Outdoor air that enters a building can also be a source of indoor pollution.  Pollutants from motor vehicle exhausts, plumbing vents, and building exhausts (bathrooms and kitchens) can enter the building through poorly located air intake vents, windows, and other openings.  Combustion byproducts can also enter a building from a nearby garage.

Chemical contaminants from indoor sources: Most indoor air pollution comes from sources inside the building.  For example, adhesives, upholstery, carpeting, copy machines, manufactured wood products, cleaning agents, and pesticides may emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including formaldehyde.  Research shows that some VOCs can cause chronic and acute health effects at high concentrations, and some are known carcinogens.  Low to moderate levels of multiple VOCs may also produce acute reactions in some individuals.  Environmental tobacco smoke and combustion products from stoves, fireplaces, and unvented space heaters all can put chemical contaminants into the air.

Biological contaminants: Biological contaminants include pollen, bacteria, viruses, and molds.  These contaminants can breed in stagnant water that has accumulated in humidifiers, drain pans, and ducts, or where water has collected on ceiling tiles, insulation, or carpet.  Biological contaminants can cause fever, chills, cough, chest tightness, muscle aches, and allergic reactions.  One indoor air bacterium, Legionella, has caused both Pontiac Fever and Legionnaire’s Disease.

Inadequate ventilation: In the 1970s the oil embargo led building designers to make buildings more airtight, with less outdoor air ventilation, in order to improve energy efficiency.  These reduced ventilation rates have been found to be, in many cases, inadequate to maintain the health and comfort of building occupants.

What Are the Solutions to Sick Building Syndrome?

Solutions to SBS problems usually include combinations of the following measures:

• Increasing ventilation rates and air distribution is often a cost-effective means of reducing indoor pollutant levels.

• Removal or modification of the pollutant source is the most effective approach to solving an indoor air quality problem when the source is known and the solution is practical.

• Air cleaning has some limitations, but it can be a useful addition to source control and ventilation.  Air filters are only effective at removing some, not all, of the pollution.

• Education and communication are important parts of any air quality management program.

The Latest Facts You Should Know

Indoor air quality: has become a hot topic among health-oriented groups and agencies.  Organizations like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Lung Association, the World Health Organization, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute have adopted or are adopting IAQ policies.  According to the EPA website, “the EPA and its Science Advisory Board have consistently ranked indoor air pollution among the top five environmental risks to public health.”  EPA statistics show levels of many airborne pollutants may be two to five – to even 100 times – higher indoors than outdoors, a noteworthy fact since most Americans spend 90 percent of their time inside.

According to the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 50 percent of all illnesses are caused by or aggravated by polluted indoor air.  U.S. Department of Energy studies suggest that improving building environments would reduce health care costs and sick leave while increasing worker performance for a productivity gain of $30 to $150 billion annually.

Mold

Molds produce tiny spores to reproduce.  Mold spores waft through the indoor and outdoor air continually.  When mold spores land on a damp spot indoors, they may begin growing and digesting whatever they are growing on in order to survive.  There are molds that can grow on wood, paper, carpet, and foods.  When excessive moisture or water accumulates indoors, mold growth will often occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or unaddressed.  There is no practical way to eliminate all molds and mold spores in the indoor environment; the way to control indoor mold growth is to control moisture.

Ten things you should know about mold:

• Potential health effects and symptoms associated with mold exposures include allergic reactions, asthma, and other respiratory complaints.

• There is no practical way to eliminate all molds and mold spores in the indoor environment; the way to control indoor mold growth is to control moisture.

• If mold is a problem in your home or school, you must clean up the mold and eliminate sources of moisture.

• Fix the source of the water problem or leak to prevent mold growth.

• Reduce indoor humidity (to 30-60% ) to decrease mold growth by: venting bathrooms, dryers, and other moisture-generating sources to the outside; using air conditioners and de-humidifiers; increasing ventilation; and using exhaust fans whenever cooking, dish washing, and cleaning.

• Clean and dry any damp or wet building materials and furnishings within 24-48 hours to prevent mold growth.

• Clean mold off hard surfaces with water and detergent, and dry completely. Absorbent materials that are moldy, such as ceiling tiles, may need to be replaced.

• Prevent condensation: Reduce the potential for condensation on cold surfaces (i.e., windows, piping, exterior walls, roof, or floors) by adding insulation.

• In areas where there is a perpetual moisture problem, do not install carpeting (i.e., by drinking fountains, by classroom sinks, or on concrete floors with leaks or frequent condensation).

• Molds can be found almost anywhere; they can grow on virtually any substance, provided that moisture is present.  There are molds that can grow on wood, paper, carpet, and foods.

The recent cellular phone/cancer controversy was generated largely by popular press coverage of a single lawsuit in which a Florida man alleged that his wife’s brain tumor was caused by her use of a handheld cellular phone.  Though the story has faded from the headlines, it is only a matter of time before the issue resurfaces, especially given the lack of definitive research on which to base claims of safety or cancer risk.  What follows is an overview of the controversy and a review of the cellular phone/cancer question in light of the available scientific evidence.

David Reynard filed suit in Pinellas County (Florida) Circuit Court on April 8, 1992, against NEC Corporation of Japan (the phone manufacturer), Coastal Radiotelephone (the phone seller), and the subsidiary of GTE Corporation that provided the phone service.  News of the suit first appeared in local newspapers and then nationally on CNN’s Moneyline.  On the Larry King Live cable television talk show January 21, 1993, Reynard stated, “It appeared that it [his wife's tumor] was in the location directly next to the antenna, and the tumor seemed to be growing inward from that direction.”  Following the Larry King interview, Reynard appeared on numerous television and radio shows, and hundreds of related articles have appeared in the U.S. and international print media.

Additionally, a class-action suit was filed on behalf of consumers on February 1 in Cook County (Illinois) Circuit Court against cellular phone manufacturers, among them Motorola, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electronics Corporation (Verb et al. v. Motorola et al.).  The suit alleges that the companies failed to adequately research the possible health threat from exposure to EMFs emitted by cellular phones.

Industry impact

The cellular phone industry initially underestimated the potential impact of the Reynard lawsuit on the public.  Cellular industry executives pointed out that the phones met all existing safety guidelines and denied any possibility of health risks.  Stated Paul Staiano, President of Motorola General Systems, “Forty years of research and more than ten thousand studies have proved that cellular phones are safe” (ABC’s 20/20, January 29, 1993).  Ronald Nessen, Vice President of Public Affairs and Communications of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), commented, “I thought when [the media] looked at this information they would see this was a law suit with an unsubstantiated charge…What a mistake.” (The Washington Post, February 9, 1993).

Following this publicity, the value of cellular phone company stocks plummeted 10-15%, but has since recovered.  Faced with a need for damage control, cellular carriers such as Bell Mobile Systems, sent literature to their customers stressing that there are no studies confirming a health hazard associated with cellular phone use, and that the radio frequency (RF) EMF levels produced by cellular phones are well below current exposure guidelines.

Existing research

The research on which current RF EMF exposure guidelines are based was mostly done at higher frequencies (such as those used for microwave ovens, communications, or radar) rather than at frequencies used for cellular phones.

Some studies of workers exposed to EMF in their jobs showed a doubling of their risk for brain tumors.  These “electrical workers” are a mixed group of individuals exposed to many different EMF frequencies, as well as toxic chemicals such as industrial solvents.  A few studies have focused on people exposed mainly to RF EMF, such as personnel exposed to high levels of microwave radiation in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, radar research workers, and military radar operators.  Results indicated no increased incidence of brain tumors, but the studied groups may have been too small to show a slight risk increase.

In the laboratory, animals have been exposed to controlled RF EMF treatments.  One long-term study of rats exposed to low levels of RF showed an increased number of cancers in the animals.

Among the laboratory experiments which have attracted the greatest interest and controversy are some performed with isolated cells and tissues.  Such experiments have shown that new growth patterns can be triggered in cells by RF EMF treatment alone or that effects of chemical agents, which cause cancer-like growth patterns, can be substantially increased by simultaneous RF EMF treatment.  Some experiments indicate that biochemical processes in cells can be stimulated or inhibited by RF EMF only if it is delivered with a particular pattern of variation in exposure level (termed “low frequency amplitude modulation”).

These results raise the possibility that EMF may act on living systems as a specific signal rather than simply as a source of heat energy.  If this is true, the specific RF EMF patterns produced by cellular phones may have to be extensively evaluated for safety instead of relying on experiments done at other EMF frequencies.

Additional research

Calls for additional research have come from virtually every quarter.  Future and ongoing studies to determine if there is a cancer causing effect from exposure to cellular phone EMFs include the following:

NCI added EMFs from cellular phones to the risk factors that will be studied in its planned review of U.S. brain cancer cases.

A study funded by McCaw Cellular Communications will determine the amount of RF EMF given off by cellular phones and its pattern of absorption in the human head and brain.  This project is headed by Om Gandhi, an electrical engineer at the University of Utah, who has worked on similar studies for many years in relation to exposure guidelines and the use of RF EMF for heating tissues as a treatment for cancer.

CTIA announced that the cellular telecommunications industry will fund government-approved research to resolve the cellular phone-cancer question.  The Department of Health and Human Services, FCC, and EPA have been asked to appoint a research review panel for this work.  On June 4, 1993, a CTIA spokesperson contacted by the EMF Health Report indicated that they are still reviewing the scientific literature to determine research needs and have not yet set a budget for the program.

Motorola will continue to sponsor research by W. Ross Adey, an experienced research scientist at the VA Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, who first suggested that weak RF fields can have effects on brain tissue in studies published in the 1970s.  Adey’s research for Motorola concerns the potential for promoting the formation of brain tumors in rats exposed to modulated RF EMF and the effects of RF EMF on isolated brain cells.

New EMF health concerns

The controversy about cellular phones has pushed the EMF-cancer debate from concern over EMF emanated by power lines into the realm of the communications industry. Although EMFs from power transmission and cellular phones are at different ends of the EMF frequency spectrum, concerns are similar.

Existing safety guidelines are primarily based on well-documented effects of high-level EMFs.  Health surveys of humans and laboratory studies have raised a possibility that extremely weak EMFs may also produce biological effects, and that some of these effects could be harmful.  This research suggests that it is not only the total energy contained in EMF that is responsible for its effects on living systems, but that there are interactions which occur only at specific frequencies and intensity levels.  The validity of these research results is controversial because many have not been repeated by independent groups of scientists.  Most scientists consider these results only suggestive of effects, but not convincing enough to support strong action to regulate EMF.

As society heads towards a “wireless world” of cellular networks, computers, fax machines, phones, etc., those anxious about possible health hazards associated with exposure to EMFs will have increasing reason for concern.  The multibillion-dollar communications industry is already banking on the possibilities of wireless communications.  Motorola, for example, is developing a $3.4 billion portable telephone satellite network, dubbed Iridium, which is slated to begin commercial operation in 1998.  With the currently limited research funding, even preliminary answers to health effects questions may not be available.

One question begs to be asked

If communications corporations have already invested billions on wireless communication satellites are they not motivated to continue producing cancer-causing cell phones to recover profit?

It will be difficult to determine the long-term health hazards created by the use of cell phones as long as the industry is able to confuse the information.  Ultimately it will be left to the consumer to decide whether or not they wish to be the test subjects for this new electronics industry experiment.