The prevalence of environmental diseases is increasing worldwide and these
diseases are an onerous burden both to the individual and to the public
health. Urban air pollution is a grave problem in majority of metropolises,
which contain high levels of traffic congestion generating great amounts of
genotoxic substances. The contribution of such environmental exposure to
increase prevalence of many allergic, environmental diseases and multiple
chemical sensitivity or other related syndromes, as a result of an abnormal
immune response based on environmental damage of lymphocyte subsets, is
marked. Benzene is one of the most important air pollutants that are emitted
by oil industry, since they are involved in almost every refinery process.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a major group of air pollutants and
play a crucial role in ecological damages, disturbing the ecosystem and
human health. The variability of pollutants is an important factor in
determining human exposure to these chemicals. The immune system possess a
capacity to distinguish between innocuous and harmful foreign antigens and
controls this action by mechanisms of central and peripheral tolerance,
where crucial role play regulatory T cells (Tregs). We analyzed the
characteristics of human Tregs of inhabitants living near gasoline industry
which have assessed moderate spyrometric tests and compared them with those
situated in rural areas. Our data demonstrate that the chronic inhalation
exposure increases the percentage of Tregs cells, but contrary those of
inhabitants with decreased spirometry values have shown diminished number of
Tregs, which may contribute to the new therapeutic approach of environmental
diseases.

PMID: 19860098 [PubMed - in process]

As you'll soon see, the stuff is everywhere. you. turn. Then look in the mirror.

And if you want to know WHY, this might help.

Dusty Horwitt, Environmental Working Group's Senior Counsel, has worked tirelessly to document the environmental depredations of a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing.

Earlier this week, National Public Radio correspondent John Burnett covered yet other possible health dangers of natural gas production. The Barnett Shale gas deposit in Northern Texas is now the site of some 1,300 gas compression stations, Burnett reported.

Eleven compressors surround the town of Dish, population around 200. Burnett says that Texas environmental regulators have detected elevated levels of benzene, a known human carcinogen, near the compressors and that constant low-frequency rumbling plagues residents and their livestock.

The story quoted people who described unexplained health problems such as migraines and ruptured ear drums and mysterious neurological illnesses in horses.

As the U.S. presses for energy independence, the natural gas debate is sure to escalate.

In the meantime, public opposition is causing some drillers to rethink their plans to drill in sensitive and populous areas.

• Red Russian Kale
• Purple Mustard Greens
• Radishes
• Beets (if something doesn't dig them up and eat them)

This blog series breaks down EWG's recent report on cell phone radiation - so far we've talked about the science of cell phone radiation and simple steps to limit your exposure.

By now you may be wondering where the government is in all this - shouldn't they be making sure that products on the market are safe for everyone? Read on to learn about current US cell phone standards, how they stack up (not well) and what you can do to make them stronger.

How the government regulates cell phone radiation
Mobile phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which established rules on how much radiation cell phones can legally emit back in 1996 (did you have a cell phone 13 years ago?). These limits are based on specific absorption rate (SAR) values, which measure the rate at which energy is absorbed by your body's tissue.

Phone manufacturers use plastic models of the head to test how much radiation their phones emit and then submit the data to either the FCC or an FCC-approved certifier for authorization.

The permissible amount of radiation depends on the part of the body:

• Head: up to 1.6 W/kg


• Whole body: up to 0.08 W/kg


• Hands, wrists, feet, and ankles: up to 4 W/kg

The FCC based its cell phone regulations on suggestions made in 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), an industry body. These dated standards rely on data from animal studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s that assume a SAR value of 4 W/kg as the highest permissible exposure level before adverse health effects may begin to take place.

17 years later, we see a few problems with these assumptions:

1. There's no margin of safety

   Generally a margin of safety is between 50 and 100 times lower than the point at which health problems might occur. But for cell phone radiation exposures to the head, the standard for cell phones allows a SAR value up to 1.6 W/kg - a margin of safety of only 2.5 times. And for exposures to hands, wrists, feet and ankles, cell phones can legally have a SAR value of 4 W/kg - no margin of safety.

   Because of their thinner skulls, SAR values can be twice as high for children as for adults - and though younger and younger kids are using cell phones, current standards do not account for children's extra risk.

2. The assumed "safe" SAR level may be too high
   The growing body of research on cell phone radiation indicates that even 4 W/kg may be too high to be considered a safe amount of exposure - more and more studies show biological effects at SAR levels far below.


3. They don't consider long-term exposure

   The studies on which the 4 W/kg threshold is based only focused on short-term exposure to radiation. Recent research shows long-term cell phone use associated with a higher risk of health effects, so the current standard may not adequately take into account the potential effects of a lifetime of cell phone talking, especially for those who begin at a young age.

The strongest recent statement by a US agency comes from an FDA Office of Women's Health publication saying "more studies on cell phone radiation are needed" and "people who use cell phones need to be told of any bad effects." So much for proactively protecting public health.

What should our government be doing?
It's time for the FCC to bring its regulations into the 21st century by taking all of the most recent research into account to create a standard that is protective for all Americans, especially the youngest and most vulnerable.

A recent Capitol Hill hearing on cell phone radiation, at which EWG testified, shows some renewed interest on the part of Congress in funding more cell phone research. But your government officials need to hear from you: use EWG's easy form to send an email telling the FCC and FDA to modernize cell phone safety standards.

In the meantime, take steps to reduce your exposure to radiation by following EWG's 8 simple steps to reduce cell phone radiation exposure. And come back for the next installment in our cell phone series: finding a low-radiation phone.

read more

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has promised to mark up climate legislation in her committee on Tuesday, as planned, despite an expected boycott of the work session by the committee's Republican members.

While two members from the minority party (currently, the Republicans) are usually required for a quorum when the committee is marking up a bill, Boxer plans to use a provision in the rules that will allow the Democrats to proceed as long as a majority of committee members are present and votes in favor of the bill. Democrats outnumber Republicans on the committee 12 to 7, so Boxer is confident of her majority.

Led by U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee's top-ranked Republican member, all of the Republican members plan to skip the scheduled mark up tomorrow, claiming the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to do a full economic impact analysis of the climate bill. Boxer and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.)--the two primary sponsors of the bill--rejected this claim and cited the many different ways the legislation has been examined and analyzed. They urged the Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to reconsider and rejoin their Democratic colleagues to finish their work on the bill this week. Regardless of what the Republicans decide, however, Boxer says she will proceed with the mark up.

But this battle of wills goes much deeper than the details of the EPA's economic analysis or, for that matter, of the bill itself.

Read more...

Republicans to Boycott Senate Climate Bill Mark Up; Boxer to Proceed Regardless originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 19:51:33.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

That's a lot of searches, by a lot of people seeking safer personal care products. Seeking products that don't contain toxic chemicals that are increasingly linked to serious adverse heath effects.

And Skin Deep isn't the only such tool. In September, our friends at The Ecology Center in Michigan released another great search tool, Healthy Stuff, based on tests on 5,000 consumer products. And it's popular, too.

Then there's EWG's recent cell phone radiation database, our Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, Z Recommends, The Soft Landing, Safe Mama, and many, many others.

So what gives? Why are so many people seeking safer products? Oh right. It's because they don't know what's safe anymore.

They don't trust their government to protect them because until very recently it has done so very little. And they don't trust industry to be honest with them.

Why not?

Because government is not sufficiently regulating chemicals or product safety and the companies are greenwashing.

As may of us are now saying, parents shouldn't have to be toxicologists to protect their kids' health - one of our most important jobs. Dr. Harvey Karp, a well-known Los Angeles-based pediatrician, said it well at a Los Angeles rally to ban BPA in August:

...your job is to do other really important things like cook dinner, clean the house, raise your children, give them a good education. And while you're sleeping at night, you hope the government is doing its job to regulate the dangers that your family is exposed to.

The good news is we're doing more than hope at EWG. We're having the tough - but critical - conversations, working with Congress, adding important, policy-changing research to the debate, and involving constituents - like you.

And me.

Because I, too, am a parent who would rather be doing the real job of parenting instead of researching kid-safe water bottles and baby bottles and cookware and sleepwear and soap and diaper cream and toothpaste and you get the picture that it's time to stop searching and start demanding change.

My final opinion is going to be no, the thyroid is not entirely to blame for MCS, but thyroid performance (and what it needs to function properly) may be a big part of the story. Or at least it seems to be for me, this could be entirely different for someone else since there is such a great variation with multiple chemical sensitivity. I got it from working at an unventilated indoor construction zone while living in one of America's worst cities for air pollution. My MCS experiences might contrast with those who got this way from pesticide or toxic mold exposure.

Co-morbid chronic fatigue syndrome is probably my worst symptom, and like many afflicted people I want to know how it works in order to find the most effective treatment, and possibly a cure. Because the thyroid produces hormones that are directly related to the body's energy production and metabolism, its normally suspected to be related in some way to MCS.

In my Gland To Meet You post I wrote about the possibility of being diagnosed with hypothyroidism and mentioned some of the symptoms. Since then I've had my blood sampled for the thyroid hormones regularly and I've been borderline hypothyroidism for the past two visits. It's something that's checked every time I see the doctor now, which I'm sure just absolutely thrills my insurance provider when they get the bill.

Afterwards I did a little research. It's something I'm good at, besides amassing a giant shoe collection I never wear anymore after getting MCS, and formerly restoring antique bicycles, another thing that MCS has stolen from me (and my sister who I promised a bike to). It turns out that in the 1920's iodine deficiency was a near epidemic in a big part of America, and the deficiency was causing people to have thyroid problems.

The thyroid needs iodine, it uses it as a fuel. Iodine is a naturally occurring element, but it isn't found everywhere. Another thing that was already well established as a dietary requirement was salt. Although Americans are eating too much salt now it was considered a vital necessity back in the day, and everybody had a big bag of salt in their kitchen instead of a bunch of empty McDonalds Happy Meal containers and a half eaten pizza from Dominos. The government made all the salt manufacturers put iodine in the salt, and some bakeries used it in bread. It solved the widespread iodine deficiency problem and it was generally considered to be a great success.

About the same time big business really starting lobbying politicians on a grand scale, mandatory iodine supplementation was discontinued even though the main condition which causes the deficiency hasn't changed. There's a large stretch of the American continent where iodine is absent in the soil where crops are grown called the goiter belt. Because iodine is not in the soil or water it's not in the food, and if it's not in the food it's not in the body unless somebody puts it in there. Big business doesn't have to do it now even though it was PROVEN to work once before and it was PROVEN not to be a significant financial burden on the companies that were required to comply. It's not their problem, we shouldn't put our health in front of what some people in this country (and the current Supreme Court) think is a corporation's God given right to make a profit. Even if it kills us. Besides, if anyone in government makes all the free market food producers start putting iodine in salt and bread again, Glenn Beck's head will explode. SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!! BOOOM!!!!!!

And to make matters worse, the bread companies started putting a real nasty iodine substitute called bromide into bread, which bonds to iodine receptors resulting in an inability to absorb future iodine, but that shouldn't really matter anyway. We are simply meant to shop until we die in this country. After all, isn't the last purchase everybody has to make a casket?

Ironically I'm writing this on Halloween night, which has become one of the bigger spending holidays in America. And for the last stop on the pessimism train, if salt manufacturers and bread makers don't put iodine in salt anymore because it's cheaper not to do so, you can be absolutely guaranteed that fast food and processed food corporations sure as heck aren't using it either.

So back to iodine and MCS. Here are the facts as I started my iodine research and experimental dietary supplementation: my energy level was bottoming out, I was gaining weight again and about to hit 250 lbs, my average basal temperature was 96.2 despite sleeping in flannel pajamas and underneath a multilayer combination of blankets so thick it could quite possibly be radiation proof, I had lived in the goiter belt since 2006, and none of the cheap bastards who made the salt I was using had put iodine in it. I went to a health store and bought kelp, which contains 150 mcg of iodine per dose, and started taking it daily. After two weeks, here is the result, with the good stuff first:

• Weight loss of 5.5 pounds a week despite no change in diet or exercise. And by no change in exercise, that means no exercise, period. I've currently lost a total of 12 pounds since beginning supplementation about two weeks ago. If any diet-only people read this post and think they've discovered the holy grail, I should tell you that my diet is far better than the average Americans, thanks to MCS chemical avoidance strategies. If you don't have MCS you're going to have a hard time finding the discipline to stick to the program.
• Slightly less hungry feeling before lunch or dinner.
• On the first week, my average basal temperature was 96.8. The second week, 97.2.
• No real qualitative change in energy level, but I'm able to stay awake about 1 hour more per night without any new fibromyalgia pains the next day. On the plus side of that equation, I've taught myself how to type while lying down. It's not like I'm doing jumping jacks for the last hour.

• In terms of energy level, I haven't felt any different than before. Overall fatigue was just as bad.
• Slight reduction in the quality of sleep.
• Iodine certainly didn't protect me from getting pink eye, that's for damn sure.
• Although my average temperature has improved consistently, it still varies greatly throughout the day. I hit a low of 95.1 a couple of times during the past two weeks, which is the exact same low I recorded when first monitoring my temperature nearly 6 months ago, long before iodine supplementation. I'm having a hard time trying to figure that one out.
• I experienced a tendency to get migraines during the later hours of the work day, especially the days I worked in the office where episodic chemical exposures occur more frequently.

So once again, this is what happened with me. I can't predict how iodine supplementation will affect anyone else with multiple chemical sensitivity, and I can't endorse it unless an iodine producer starts paying me Glenn Beck money to do it. If that happens, I have no problem making myself look like a fool on a daily basis just like he does. The difference will be I know I'm playing the fool, and I look better in a suit.

The best news is I'll be visiting the doctor again in a couple of weeks, and when I do I'll get the exact level my thyroid hormones are at. Then those numbers can be compared to the previous numbers derived in a labratory environment, instead of relying upon my bathroom scale and a cheap digital thermometer. Everything else like temperature and weight are secondary indicators from non-calibrated equipment, but I consider hormone levels a better measurement of iodine supplementation effectiveness.

It's worth noting that the tests for thyroid hormone levels aren't considered absolutely completely 100% accurate regarding thyroid dysfunction. But when I went through 6 months of almost every medical test known to man before I was formally diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity, they measured my hormones and at that time they were normal. I had MCS, but my hormones weren't in the lower ranges that places one at-risk of hypothyroidism like they are now. Based on that I theorize that the thyroid isn't the exact cause of MCS as far as my medical history is concerned (might be different for others), but the thyroid does seem to be involved with MCS in the long run (or the one early test I had was wrong and the numerous recent tests are more reliable. I didn't think my first doctor really had my best interests in mind).

People may or may not have thyroid issues before MCS, but they might eventually experience thyroid dysfunction after getting it. After all, people with MCS are often found after-the-fact to be low in magnesium and other beneficial minerals, which is believed to be from the toxic heavy metals bonding to the receptor sites that normally absorb those specific minerals. I'm low in magnesium and calcium.

So when I see the doctor I'll get a more definitive measure of how iodine affected my hormones. It's possible that iodine could impact my temperature or weight without changing the hormone level, or something else I haven't thought of is responsible for all that....I know my dad prays for me a lot.

Ultimately, if I had to make any recommendation, it would be for anyone else who suspects iodine deficiency, whether they have multiple chemical sensitivity or not, is to talk to your doctor about it. If you think you're deficient don't run out and buy a bunch of kelp or dessicated thyroid glands, talk to your doctor about it first. Or as it exists in the US today, make an appointment to see your doctor and then wait 4 months for the appointment to come due. And if you don't have insurance, you can use the time to sell a bunch of your personal belongings on craigslist because whenever you walk into a doctor's office and your first words aren't "Who ordered the pepperoni pizza?" it's going to cost you about $500. That or you can move to a country with universal health care.

There's some evidence that suggests iodine deficiency results in an increased susceptibility for MCS. There's a mixed bag of personal evidence from my own short term experience (utilizing unscientific methods) that iodine helps after getting MCS. There's some evidence that suggests there are risks with taking supplemental iodine. I'm willing to take a few measured chances with my own body because there's so little of it left after getting multiple chemical sensitivity (the healthy parts anyway), but I'm not willing to take any chances with yours. See the doctors before making a move, even if such a thing comes with certain limitations. The doctors can tell you what to do, and Glenn Beck will tell you what to do, I'm only going to tell you what I think, what I have done, and what I might do in the future.

If you aren't attending WILD9--the weeklong World Wilderness Congress (November 6-13) that will bring together many of the world's leading conservationists and wilderness experts to debate and take action on critical environmental issues--you can still pull up a chair and join in through a variety of social networking tools that The WILD Foundation is using to broaden global participation in the event.

Read more...

Go Wild at the World Wilderness Congress—Without Leaving Home originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 16:19:14.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

• A serious wind storm can still mess me up, but it mostly just makes me tired.
• I forgot which kind of submarine (it starts with a 't') takes 40 minutes to turn around, but in 70 degree water, 40 minutes is long enough to develop a serious case of hypothermia, so they take their man-overboard drills pretty seriously.
• From what I'm hearing on the phone, the guy selling the generic car wants something like ten times what it is worth.

And no, I'm not sewing their costumes from scratch (far from it, actually: I'm midnight emailing friends whose kids have cool costumes to borrow).

So when I read this week's report about lead in face paints, I was (for once!) glad to be behind. Now I can praise the beauty of plain faces under pointy hats and crowns BEFORE promising to paint them.

What's wrong with face painting?
Nothing - IF the paints are safe for our skin, especially the more sensitive skin of little trick-or-treaters. But if there's a chance of lead in the paint, and other heavy metals, too (think: nickel, chromium, and cobalt), it's a better bet to skip the paint. The potential of short and longer-term allergic reactions to heavy metals isn't worth the risk, nor is the possibility of adding to a child's lead burden.

Paint safely if you paint
For those of us who have already promised or just want to paint already, here are some tips from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics for safe face painting this week (and beyond):

• Choose costumes that don't require face paint or masks (which may also contain toxic chemicals and impair vision and breathing).


• Make your own face paint with food-grade ingredients. The Campaign put together a few recipe ideas.


• If you do use face paint, keep it away from kids' mouths and hands so they don't ingest it.

None.

And since lead and other heavy metals aren't exactly listed on the label and products aren't required to be tested for safety, it takes expensive tests like the ones used in this report to know whether your face paint is safe or not. Sure makes shopping for a Halloween costume harder than it needs to be.

BUT. The most serious lead exposures are from house paint
While avoiding lead exposures of any kind is prudent and makes sense to most parents, focusing your attention on the most likely routes of exposure is important.

Most children are exposed when they eat lead paint chips (it was allowed for house painting before 1978) or inhale lead dust during home rehabilitation. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has excellent tips on preventing your children from coming into contact with lead.

Read the full report from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, "Pretty Scary: Could Halloween Face Paint Cause Lifelong Health Problems?"

[Many thanks to Flickr CC & L2F1 for the great Spider Man face]

The United Nations has named Tinker Bell--a leading citizen of both Disneyland and Neverland--as its "Honorary Ambassador of Green" to help promote environmental awareness among children.

Kermit the Frog once observed in song that "it's not easy being green," but he was talking about skin color, not lifestyle. For Tinker Bell, being green isn't just easy, it's as natural as flying.

Read more...

Never Say Never(land): UN Names Tinker Bell Ambassador of Green originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 14:15:04.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

That's roughly the same figure the EPA calculated for similar legislation that the U.S. House of Representatives passed in June, although the Congressional Budget Office estimates the annual household cost of the House bill at approximately $175 in 2020.

No matter which estimate you use, it works out to somewhere between 20 cents and 50 cents per day for a typical U.S. household, and proponents of the measures argue that's a small price to pay reduce greenhouse gas emissions, cut air pollution, create millions of new jobs, and put America on the path to a sustainable, clean-energy economy.

Critics of the Senate bill and the cap-and-trade system it would create call it a massive new energy tax, and some industry studies claim the measure could cost consumers as much as an extra $3,000 every year. (That kind of wild hyperbole doesn't do much to further the debate.)

EPA Places Annual Cost of Climate Bill at $100 Per U.S. Household originally appeared on About.com Environmental Issues on Saturday, October 24th, 2009 at 02:29:37.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

read more