EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Homes Turned Into Toxic Zones
Few people know that most chemicals used in everyday products have never been thoroughly tested for their long-term health effects and may never be. With more than 80,000 chemicals present worldwide, in everything from children's toys to furniture, and more than 1000 new chemical compounds introduced each year, individually assessing chemicals is no longer feasible.
In short, we need a new paradigm to guide the way chemicals are regulated.
Basic toxicology teaches that "the dose makes the poison" but what gets overlooked is that we are not just exposed to individual chemicals. The primordial soup we now spring from is contaminated with a multitude of manufactured chemicals that are foreign to our genes and evolutionary detoxification mechanisms.
Some manufactured chemicals have proven to be persistent and accumulative, such as DDT and dioxin, which forever swirl around in the air and water and end up in our food, clothing and shelter. Our homes are no longer safe havens and are among some of the most polluted places we'll find ourselves in.
Studies which measure chemicals in our blood, fat and breast milk reveal an alarming array of chemicals at unprecedented levels, with children having higher levels than their grandparents in some instances. Despite bland reassurances that these levels are only "small", things can only get worse if new chemicals are constantly introduced and older ones keep concentrating up the food chain.
Exposing children to chemicals can result in learning disabilities and behavioural disorders, asthma, autism, cancer, dysfunctional immune systems and reproductive disorders, the World Health Organisation says. Babies are constantly exposed to hazardous chemicals from the moment of conception and are born with hundreds of synthetic chemicals in their small bodies.
It's a sobering thought that breast milk, the most precious source of nutrition and protection for the next generation, couldn't be sold if it were a product because of contamination with banned bio-accumulative chemicals.
Growing international concern over the health effects of exposure to chemicals, particularly in children, is galvanising global action on chemical pollution. Australia is still using the risk-management model espoused by the United States to regulate chemicals rather than the precautionary approach underpinning new European Union legislation, which will ultimately lead to the quick removal of dangerous chemicals in favour of safer and greener ones.
Taking a precautionary approach requires effective regulation and incentives for green chemistry, regular bio-monitoring and rapid removal of dangerous chemicals. At present questionable chemicals are treated as innocent until proven guilty, which, as we've seen with substances such as tobacco and asbestos, can take a long time, with a great deal of damage done in the meantime.
Against this backdrop, industry is poised to introduce even more novel chemicals into the environment via nanotechnology, genetic engineering and new polymers, which has health professionals and the broader community asking if Australia's fragmented regulatory system is up to the task of protecting us.
Recent incidents with imported toys and blankets with dangerously high levels of chemicals illustrate the difficulty of regulating in a global marketplace, which is made more complicated by the fact that Australian regulators have little, if any, regulatory control over chemical components in imported products.
One group of chemicals that clearly highlights the failings of government agencies to protect the health of its people and environment are the perfluorochemicals, a group of chemicals used in products such as non-stick cookware, stain- and grease-resistant treatments, building products and electronic processing equipment. Little is known about the health or environmental effects of perfluorochemicals, but we already know some can cause tumours and reproductive damage and are toxic to the immune system. Importantly, these chemicals do not break down or degrade.
Dubbed "poisons without passports", perfluorochemicals now travel the globe on air and water currents and become widespread throughout the environment, contaminating wildlife far from sources of production and use.
Levels of some perfluorochemicals have been doubling every five to eight years in polar bears, for instance.
These emissions join other toxic chemicals given off by consumer products and contaminating the dust and air in our homes, as well as the wastewater we flush away. Effluents released into rivers from municipal wastewater treatment plants are contaminated with many persistent toxic compounds originating from the products we use.
It's time regulators took the health and environmental threats of chemical pollution seriously. Rather than the current obsession with reducing the regulatory burden and improving efficiencies for the chemical industry, we need an entirely new focus, one where the protection of public health and the environment are the centrepiece of chemical regulation.
Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith is co-chair of the International POPs Elimination Network and senior adviser to the National Toxics Network. Jo Immig is coordinator of the National Toxics Network and author of The Toxic Playground and Safer Solutions.
Copyright © 2007 The Sydney Morning Herald
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
9 Comments so far
Show AllCheck out Bisphenol A. You'll find it in your Cuisinart!
If you want to really be scared, try:
http://www1.environmentalhealthnews.org/
About ten years ago, I suddenly developed severe allergies, including chemical sensitivity. The allergist termed it adult onset multiple allergy symdrome. (Although he scoffed at the idea of chemical sensitivity.) It was so bad I had to retire a year early.
After trying a lot of drugs, I finally went to a health food store and got excellent advice. One of the books they recommended was "Home Safe Home" by Debra Lynn Dadd. It's at our public library and probably at yours. Although there are newer books out there, it is still very informative. It lists products that are or may be dangerous and simple alternatives to them.
With careful diet & judicious supplements and avoidance of chemically-based products, I got rid of almost all my bad reactions.
We can't forget asbestos and lead, lying low in millions of houses, just waiting for the wayward power tool. It's on the fine print on paint cans at Home Depot, or on a dust mask package, but Depot doesn't want any undue stress on the credit card bearing weekend renovator. The message is forget about those things that are still all over the place in houses everywhere causing neurotoxicity and cancer, new is better!
Green technology and chemical free alternatives are already on the market but are mostly developed and distributed by smaller companies. They simply don't have the marketing power of larger companies. These large enterprises are responsible for most of the toxic chemicals because it is cheap and create most profit. Look at the chemical called triclosan. They ban it it Europe and sell it in th US and Australia/Asia in internal paint and even toys.
Companies responsible for the hole in the ozone layer are selling us now sun screens which come with a whole bundle of unknown and health risk creating substances.
I agree with Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith. It is time for regulations. It seems the only way to clean up the mess.
And for all of us doing home renovations or a cleaning job, I recommend to choose the greener product even if it costs little more.
American law is based on the theory that innocence exists until guilt is established. Further, that culpability in most instances must stem from "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a climate of SO MANY trespassers it is growing impossible to single out any singular "criminal" agent. Thus the chemical industry is essentially anesthetizing itself from any legal accountability. The more shit that's poured into our air, soil, food and water, the harder to prove any link between an offending substance and its impact on those most sensitive to the invasion. As the Levy's Rye Bread commercial once touted, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." When we mess with all this toxic stuff, it's gonna compromise wellness. Nature has no way to break it down. Nature, like a great many women today, is being forced to cope with too many attacks on her homeostatic operations simultaneously... at the least, with respect to sentient women (and many men), I'm talking psychic overload. Even reading the pages on CD day after day, we load up on all the terrible things actually taking place. Not that I am advocating for the ostrich clause. I know "positive thinker" types, who happen to be rich Republicans who say, no matter what the condition before them, that "it's another beautiful day." I would argue, "It hasn't rained in weeks. Nature is dying. It is NOT a beautiful day!" I get the anxiety attack, they walk away scot-free. See what I'm glad I believe in karma!
I don't think I have chemical sensitivity so much as I get drunk when exposed to certain chemicals. Bleach seems to be the least of the evils. Propanol/propaline takes away my ballence completely. If I take a bus in the morning and there is a sniff houser in there, I spend the evening coming down off a bad trip. Some people like to turn themselves into walking sniff houses by wearing Axe or Tag or the rest of that air-freshioner laced stuff.
As far as laws go, be careful of the loopholes. Halifax passed a law banning the use of cosmetic pesticides (ie on lawns), but, according to the wording of the law, the stores are still allowed to sell the pesticides. Secondly, while the government can list the chemicals that are illegal, the law stipulates that they can't name which products contain those chemicals. Can you see where the problem is?
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/lawn_and_order/
Harry says: Green technology and chemical free alternatives are already on the market but are mostly developed and distributed by smaller companies
Meaning that they cost more than the chemical filled alternative. Those who have no choice but to use those products usually don't have very much money.
If it doesn't take you much to get wasted, and you get wasted just breathing the air at work, it means that you boss is paying to to be able to function wasted. To do that, you have to dumb down the job (which means taking the dumbed down wage that comes with such jobs). No matter how much you like the paycheck, you get to the point eventually where you can't work wasted any more. Who would choose to be a housewife if they had a choice?
RuthK did you find that if you had a hang over that lasted more than two days that it took less to get you wasted next time?
Just check the tests the EU uses to determine the presence of toxics. Many name brand US household products are banned in the EU because US corporations refuse to subject these items to the much more thorough EU testing as I understand.
"It's a sobering thought that breast milk, the most precious source of nutrition and protection for the next generation, couldn't be sold if it were a product because of contamination with banned bio-accumulative chemicals."
Wonder how long it will be before I read of a 'Forbes-400' importing a 'clean' 3rdWorld wet-nurse for their child? [Or have we insured-yet against any 3rdWorld country still containing-such?]
Ruth K:
Excellent web site - Thank You!
SiouxRose:
Very well said!