A Hairy Problem

‘Tis the season for ads that tell us all the ways we don’t measure up and promise to fix it for us. Among all the “keep up with the Joneses” commercials are a good number of “you don’t look good enough for holiday gatherings” offerings. You must whiten your teeth! You must get rid of your wrinkles! You simply must do something about your hair!

I’ve been thinking about hair in particular ever since I watched the CMA awards this year and saw Mickey Guyton’s show-stopping performance of “Love my Hair.” Guyton, who’s black, wrote the song in response to an incident in which a young black girl was sent home from school because her hair didn’t meet the school’s dress code requirements.

Most of us haven’t faced anything quite that in-your-face when it comes to not meeting appearance standards, but it doesn’t mean we don’t get the message. Every culture has a standard of beauty, and the farther we think we are from it, the more time, energy, and money we’re likely to spend on trying to hit the mark. Unfortunately, that’s not all it can cost us. Beauty products are mostly unregulated and untested and can also cost us our health.

Sickening Beauty

We don’t know all we need to know about the health effects of commonly used products. We don’t even know everything that’s in them. As a Guardian article notes, the single word “fragrance” can mean a combination of 50 to 300 different chemicals. The same article also quotes an expert who says, “No state, federal or global authority is regulating the safety of fragrance chemicals. No state, federal or global authority even knows which fragrance chemicals appear in which products.”

What we do know about personal care products is alarming. The documentary Toxic Beauty (which is well worth watching) notes that many products we use every day contain chemicals which are endocrine disrupters, meaning they mess with our hormones. We have over 50, including insulin, serotonin, melatonin, cortisol, thyroid, and reproductive hormones, and disrupting them can have wide-ranging effects. The film reports surprising product ingredients, such as coal tar in soaps, creams, and lipstick; arsenic in toothpaste; mercury in skin lighteners; and formaldehyde in deodorant and shampoo. The long list of potential health effects of the nine products they list includes cancer, heart disease, infertility, miscarriage, tremors, cognitive dysfunction, lung disorders, kidney damage, insomnia, and depression.

The Gender and Color Gap

There are products almost all of us use (soap, shampoo, deodorant, and toothpaste), products more women use (makeup and nail products), and products used more by women of color (skin lighteners and hair straighteners). A Popular Science article reports that the average white woman in America is exposed to 168 personal care chemicals every day and that for women of color, the number is even higher. Not surprisingly, women, and black women in particular, have a higher body burden of the chemicals generally found in cosmetics.

Most of us aren’t going to give up soap and shampoo, but we could give up other products if we decided not to try to conform to arbitrary standards. It’s a great goal, but there are reasons we don’t. There’s plenty of research showing that physical appearance affects career success and all sorts of other things. Personally, I wear less makeup and use far fewer products than I once did, but I do still make a bit of an effort to look culturally acceptable. I feel the pressure as an aging white woman. I can only imagine the pressure for women of color.

Actually, I don’t have to just imagine. I certainly have no idea what it’s like to be black or brown in the USA with all the history and cultural baggage that entails, but I did live in Central and South America for a decade, so I know what it’s like to have skin and hair that don’t fit. I know what it’s like to be told by my friends about places I shouldn’t go because the color of my skin made it too dangerous. I know what it’s like to be pulled over while driving because of how I look.

On one hard-to-explain occasion I realized how much I had internalized the message that a normal skin tone was one that was different than mine. I drove past a brown skinned woman holding a white skinned baby and thought “That baby looks odd. He’s so white.”  It took a few beats for me to remember that I was pregnant and that my own baby was going to look like that. It took a few more beats to recall that I myself had that same strange skin.

And then there’s hair. There’s only so much we can do to change the color of our skin, but there’s a lot we can do to our hair. When I was younger and sillier, the combination of not loving my hair and not focusing on chemical dangers prompted me to get a perm. Because I lived in a country where my hair was different from the norm and the hairdresser was unfamiliar with hair like mine, the results were fairly disastrous. It led to the following conversation with my 3-year-old son.

Son: Why did you get your hair big?

Me: I thought it would be pretty. Do you think it’s pretty?

Son: No.

My point is simply this: As much as I believe the goal (for all of us, white, black, and brown) should be to get to a point where we celebrate ourselves and each other for the uniquenesses of our individual bodies, I know there are also valid reasons we try to fit in. I also understand the added pressure of being farther from the norm. So if we aren’t going to give up all the things we think will improve our appearance, we need to make sure that what we’re using isn’t going to make us sick.

Choosing Healthier Products

Fortunately, not all personal care products are created equal. The Skin Deep database is a good place to look for information on healthier options. Unfortunately, there’s disparity in product offerings as well. In 2016 the Environmental Working Group evaluated more than a thousand products marketed to black women and concluded that there were fewer healthier choices in that category.

The good news is that often we can achieve our goals without having to purchase manufactured products at all. Simple, natural ingredients can work surprisingly well in many instances. It does take time and experimentation, though, to find what works best for you. As people around me may have noticed, my experimentation with DIY mascara isn’t going particularly well (but I haven’t given up!) At least I haven’t had the experience one chemically sensitive woman shared. She used something a bit sticky on her eyelashes, then went to church and shut her eyes to pray. When she tried to open them again, she found they were stuck together.

Whatever the current state of your eyelashes, I hope you feel beautiful today (or handsome, for the guys reading this). I hope you never have to choose between trying to meet beauty standards and your health, but if you do, I hope you choose to protect your health. I hope you’ll remember that you’re made in God’s image and are his absolute masterpiece. I also truly hope you love your hair.

Race and Environmental Illness

In the past, I’ve focused most of my attention on toxins we use in, on, or around our bodies, clothes, and homes (or other buildings). I’ve done this in part because there are many things each of us can control, and it seems more manageable and hopeful to focus on those than on things that are harder to change. Also, I find that people tend to be more aware of the potential hazards of outdoor than indoor air and I feel inclined to share information that’s less generally understood.

The full truth, though, is that the state of the air in our neighborhoods can profoundly affect our health and quality of life. In this cultural moment when the nation is focused on racial issues, I feel a need to address the heartbreaking and uncomfortable fact that the air in our neighborhoods and the degree of toxin exposure we experience may be determined in part by the color of our skin. While the country and church are focusing on things we can do better, I don’t want us to overlook this.

Unfortunately, in the United States, dark-skinned people are exposed to more pollution than light-skinned people are. A 2018 study published in the American Journal of Public Health examined the toxic burden from small particle pollution, associated with a wide range of health effects, including cancer, heart attacks, lung disease, and more. The authors note that people living in poverty had a burden 1.35 times higher than the general population, all non-whites 1.28 times higher, and blacks carried a burden 1.54 times the rate of the population at large. An article on the study notes that the degree of toxin exposure is only partly explained by facility location. The data indicates that “the magnitude of emissions from individual factories appears to be higher in minority neighborhoods.”

As the study demonstrates, race is a more powerful factor than income when predicting disparities. Dr. Robert Bullard reports that “African American households with incomes between $50,000 and $60,000 live in neighborhoods that are more polluted than the average neighborhood of white households with incomes below $10,000.” 

Bullard has been researching environmental inequity for decades. In the early 1980s he found that from the 1930s to 1978, 82 percent of waste in Houston was dumped in mostly black neighborhoods. These days he reports that in 46 states, people of color live with more air pollution than white people do and that black Americans are 79 percent more likely than their white counterparts to live in areas where industrial pollution is especially problematic.

Given the differences in toxic exposures, it isn’t surprising to see health differences as well, in many different conditions and diseases. African Americans have the highest cancer mortality rate among racial groups and are more likely than white Americans to report having fair or poor health. In an interview for a Yale University publication, Jacqueline Patterson focuses on lung issues and notes that “An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks than a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke.“ She states that “We have communities that are losing people every day from . . . toxic exposures.”

I was pleased to learn that what’s often called a “landmark” study, “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States” was commissioned and published by a church-based organization, the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ. It was written in 1987, and 20 years later they revisited the issue in “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty.” The conclusion of the updated publication was this: “Twenty years after the release of Toxic Wastes and Race, significant racial and socioeconomic disparities persist in the distribution of the nation’s commercial hazardous waste facilities. Although the current assessment uses newer methods . . . the conclusions are very much the same as they were in 1987.”  Today, 13 years after that was written, significant racial differences in toxin exposure still exist.

What can we do to address the issue? I wish I had a simple answer. I hope we can find ways to communicate to the powers-that-be that this isn’t acceptable. I hope we can work together to try to ensure that industry takes human health effects seriously and is held responsible when they don’t.

While we work for more broad-based change we can at least keep from making the problem worse. We can choose not to add to anyone’s toxic body burden, knowing that we all have a tipping point at which our detoxification system can no longer manage everything coming in. People with smaller bodies (generally women and children), those with genetic challenges, and people already dealing with a high toxic load can handle less than others can before their systems become overwhelmed and health problems appear.

Every single product choice we make affects other people as well as ourselves. Others are exposed to our perfumes, laundry products, cleaners, pest-control solutions and more. None of us know which exposure will be the one that’s just too much. I don’t want to be responsible for pushing anyone over the edge into illness. Do you?

Chemicals and COVID -19

A recent study determined that there are more than 350,000 chemicals and chemical mixtures registered for production and use, a number three times as high as previously estimated. Up to 70,000 of these chemicals are described ambiguously and more than 50,000 are classified as “confidential,” leading to an enormous gap in knowledge. Given the woeful lack of data and study, it isn’t possible to fully understand how chemicals in the environment may be making us more susceptible to COVID-19. We do know enough, though, to take some prudent steps.  Here’s some of what’s known at this point:

1. The numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all linked to levels of fine particulate matter in the air.

Particulate matter is an airborne mixture of solid and liquid particles. The smaller or finer the particles, the more problematic they are for human health, because they can more easily evade defenses. Several recent studies examined the relationship of particulate air pollution to COVID-19. A study by the World Bank Group found that the level of fine particulate matter was a highly significant predictor of how many confirmed cases and hospital admissions there would be in a geographical area. They report that a pollution increase of 20 percent may increase COVID-19 cases by nearly 100 percent. The researchers controlled for health-related preconditions and demographic factors and note that patterns suggest the number of cases is not simply related to population density.

Particulate pollution is also associated with COVID-19 morbidity. The Guardian reports on a US study finding that “even a tiny, single-unit increase in particle pollution levels in the years before the pandemic is associated with a 15% increase in the death rate.”  It further notes that long-term exposure to particle pollution was already known to increase the risk of death from all causes, but that in the case of COVID-19 deaths, the increase was 20 times higher. The correlation held when poverty levels, smoking, obesity, and availability of COVID-19 tests and hospital beds were factored in. It also held when New York City (with many cases) and counties with few cases were removed from the data pool.

2. Indoor air is generally more polluted than outdoor air.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the air inside homes and other buildings tends to be more polluted than outdoor air even in the most populated and industrialized cities. It’s easy to feel helpless about our exposure to outdoor air pollution, but to a large degree, we can control our indoor environments.

Particulate pollution inside a home or other building can come in many forms. Combustion (burning candles or incense, using a fireplace, etc.) is a significant contributor. Household dust is also a source, and can lodge in carpets, sofas, chairs, curtains, and bedding and easily become airborne when, for example, carpets are walked on or people sit on sofas or chairs. For multiple reasons (some of which I’ll discuss later), it’s wise to address as many sources of toxicity inside a building as possible. Different types of contamination interact. As one website explains, “Particles in air are either directly emitted, for instance when fuel is burnt and when dust is carried by wind, or indirectly formed, when gaseous pollutants previously emitted to air turn into particulate matter.”

3. There are known risk factors for COVID-19 complications, and known chemical connections to them.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that people at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19 include those with lung disease or asthma, obesity, diabetes, kidney or liver disease, and heart conditions. The list of chemicals that can contribute to these conditions is long.

Researchers tested 50 types of consumer products for 66 chemicals related to asthma or hormone disruption (associated with diabetes and obesity) and found 55 of them. Implicated chemicals include those found in fragrances, cleaners, cosmetics, plastic, hair care products, detergents, and more. Some of the highest concentrations of problematic chemicals were found in fragranced products, such as dryer sheets, air fresheners and perfumes. Vinyl was also a significant source of exposure.

Because the kidney and liver are involved in detoxifying chemicals, all exposures can stress and affect them. The National Kidney Foundation notes that kidney disease may be associated with herbicides, pesticides, air pollution, and heavy metal exposure. There are at least 123 chemicals associated with fatty liver, according to a study in Toxicologic Pathology. A significant number are found in pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides). Solvents, plasticizers, fragrances, paints, polishes, and dyes are also sources. Heart disease is likewise associated with a long list of chemical exposures, including (according to an article in Interdisciplinary Toxicology) those found in pesticides, cleaning products, plastic, adhesives, paints, and many other products.

4.  It’s wise to choose disinfectants carefully.

In a warning posted soon before COVID-19 became big news, Consumer Reports noted that many people may not know that products labeled “disinfecting” contain EPA-registered pesticides. The report notes that people who use disinfectants and cleaners regularly in their work (janitors and healthcare workers, for example) have higher rates of asthma. According to Newsweek, nurses who cleaned surfaces with disinfectants at least once a week had a 24 to 32 percent higher risk of developing COPD than nurses who used the products less often.

An article entitled Safer Disinfecting at Home in the Times of Coronavirus states that quats (quaternary ammonium chlorides, commonly found in disinfectants) are associated with a list of problems, including breathing difficulty, skin irritation, reproductive harm (including possible fertility and birth defect issues) and antimicrobial resistance. Chlorine bleach can also be problematic. The author recommends using disinfectants containing hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, lactic acid, citric acid, or thymol.

5. Ventilation is our friend.

Information from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicates that fresh air and sunlight seem to have prevented deaths among those infected. An article on the subject reports that “in the 1960s, Ministry of Defence scientists proved that fresh air is a natural disinfectant. Something in it, which they called the Open Air Factor, is far more harmful to airborne bacteria — and the influenza virus — than indoor air. . . . Their research also revealed that the Open Air Factor’s disinfecting powers can be preserved in enclosures — if ventilation rates are kept high enough.”

Adequate ventilation is known to limit the spread of airborne pathogens in healthcare environments. The author of an article entitled Could the Indoor Air Quality of Our Buildings Become Part of the COVID-19 Playbook? asks whether addressing ventilation in other buildings might likewise be part of an anti-viral strategy (which also includes reducing indoor contaminants). The article notes that in their publication Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the CDC recommends increasing ventilation rates and the percentage of outdoor air.

6. Every exposure matters

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “viral load.” The viral load, however, is only a small part of a person’s overall toxic load, or toxic body burden. There are natural and man-made toxins inside every human being (even newborns). Some chemicals are metabolized relatively quickly and others stick around for decades or even a lifetime. Some chemicals have been shown to directly affect the immune system, but every substance added to the body requires resources to manage and takes a person one step closer to the tipping point at which staying healthy is no longer possible.

It can be helpful to know what chemicals are likely to cause what symptoms or diseases, or to know whether you have a genetic weakness that might make you more susceptible to the effects of a certain class of compounds. It isn’t necessary to know that, though, in order to begin to protect yourself.

A guide to addressing indoor air pollution during lockdown and beyond suggests the following:

• Minimize use of air fresheners, pesticides, harsh cleaning products, aerosol sprays, and adhesives.

• Reduce indoor burning.

• Use an exhaust fan or open windows or doors.

To those, I would add the following suggestions:

• Keep things clean (using simple, non-toxic products) and reduce the number of surfaces that hold dust. It’s not a quick, easy fix, but removing carpet can make a big difference.

• Go fragrance free. A single fragrance can contain several hundred chemicals. (Also, fragrances in the products you use affect others around you as well.)

• Determine how toxic your personal care products are and make changes if necessary. The Skin Deep database is a good source of information.

• Reduce plastic use, especially in the kitchen.

• Eat organic food.

Much needs to be done on a societal level to help us stay healthy, but there’s also much that each of us can do personally. Now is a good time to do it.

From my Heart to Yours

On this date three years ago, my husband's heart stopped beating. He was in his 50s, seemingly healthy and robust, and most people were genuinely shocked at his death. I didn't wake up that March morning believing that my husband would die that day, but in a general sense I was less shocked than many others seemed to be. That was partly due to life experiences (my mother died when I was young, so I grew up understanding the unpredictability of death) and partly due to understanding some of his risk factors.

I'm going to mark this anniversary by writing about heart disease and talking about some lesser known causes. At some point I'm going to talk about a risk factor or two that I wish Dan would have taken more seriously. I imagine that last sentence put some of you on edge. Believe me, I spent a lot of time debating whether or not to write this post, but I decided to do so for multiple reasons, including that I'd like to think that Dan would want me to.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control notes that it causes one out of every four American deaths. Risk factors listed by the CDC include high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, excess weight, poor diet, physical inactivity, and excessive alcohol use. I believe these are fairly well known by the general population. There are many other risk factors, however, that are less understood.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but some of the lesser known contributors to heart disease include the following:

Air pollution - Air pollution is a broad term, but in general, fine particulates in the air, such as from industrial and traffic fumes, are associated with higher rates of heart disease. The American Heart Association reports research showing increases in death and hospitalizations when there are higher rates of smog. ABC News reports on a study finding that being stuck in traffic more than triples the risk of having a heart attack.

Non-stick chemicals - As I've noted many times, chemicals in our consumer products are generally not tested for safety, so the health effects often remain unknown. Some, however, have been linked to heart disease, including a family of chemicals used in products such as non-stick pans and stain resistant coatings. A 2012 study found that people who had the highest rates of the chemical PFOA in their blood were twice as likely to experience heart disease, heart attack, or stroke as those with the lowest levels. Because of the bad press, PFOA is being replaced by other similar chemicals, but many health experts warn that there is no reason to believe that the newer versions are any less problematic.

Chemicals found in food and beverage containers - A 2014 study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health concluded that the chemical BPA, found in many places, including plastic bottles and in the lining of food cans, was associated with heart disease in both acute and chronic low-dose exposure situations. As with PFOA, the bad press about BPA has led to some changes, but a 2016 study found it present in 67% of cans tested.

Heavy metals - University Health News reports that researchers have implicated at least four heavy metals associated with clogging arteries: lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic.

Mold and other toxins found in water damaged buildings - Water damaged buildings, or those with high indoor humidity levels, tend to be breeding grounds for a multitude of organisms, including a wide variety of fungi and bacteria. Exposure can lead to chronic inflammation, which can contribute to heart disease. A study in the Internet Journal of Toxicology found an association between exposure to molds in damp buildings and high cholesterol levels.

Sleep apnea - The American Heart Association notes that sleep apnea is associated with high blood pressure, arrhythmia, stroke, and heart failure. I'm almost certain that Dan had sleep apnea, and I wish I had been successful at convincing him to get tested.

Sugar consumption - This is the big one that I worried about for years. Dr. Mark Hyman's summary of the research notes that people with the highest sugar consumption have a 400% higher risk of experiencing a heart attack than those who consume the least. Sugar (in all its various forms) is not just a problem because of its "empty calories," adding to weight without contributing nutrition, but because it is inflammatory and dangerous in and of itself.

Americans eat a lot of sugar, and the amount continues to climb. A Huffington Post article reports that the American Heart Association recommends that women cap their consumption at six teaspoons a day and men at nine, but that the average American consumes 30 teaspoons daily. There are a number of reasons for this. One is simply that American food manufacturers sweeten almost everything. I remember returning to the United States after living overseas and being astonished to find sugar in canned kidney beans. Dr. Hyman notes, "Most of us don’t know that a serving of tomato sauce has more sugar than a serving of Oreo cookies, or that fruit yogurt has more sugar than a Coke, or that most breakfast cereals — even those made with whole grain — are 75% sugar. That’s not breakfast, it’s dessert!"

Americans also eat a lot of sugar because we're addicted to it. I don't use that term lightly. Sugar affects the same reward centers of the brain that other drugs do, and produces tolerance in the same manner. People find themselves needing more and more of it to satisfy their sweet tooth and may experience withdrawal symptoms when they don't consume it at regular intervals. To quote Dr. Hyman again, " Recent and mounting scientific evidence clearly proves that sugar — and flour, which raises blood sugar even more than table sugar — is biologically addictive. In fact, it’s as much as eight times more addictive than cocaine." A 2007 rodent study reported that 94% of the animals chose sugar (or an artificial sweetener) over cocaine when given the choice.

Drug abuse is a serious and growing personal and societal problem that I don't want to trivialize in any way. An Associated Press article reports that almost 13,000 people died of a heroin overdose in 2015 and prescription painkillers killed over 17,500 people. A 2015 LA Times story reports another serious statistic: sugary drinks are linked to 25,000 deaths in the United States each year.

It seems likely that many, if not most Americans are addicted to sugar to some degree. I believe I was, until my health forced me to radically change my diet. I believe Dan was. We talked about it some through the years, and he never quite denied it, but he never quite addressed it, either. About a year before he died, he developed a persistent itchy rash that doctors had trouble diagnosing. At some point I sent him an article which suggested giving up sugar for two weeks in the case of mystery skin ailments. Not long afterwards, he remarked to me that he had decided that he wouldn't cut sugar out completely, but that maybe he would try to cut down.

I remember that conversation clearly. Dan was itchy and miserable, but not fully willing, for a a brief two weeks, to trade sugar for the possibility of relief. The basic definition of addiction is continuing to engage in a behavior despite negative consequences, and I remember feeling a wave of deep sadness and thinking, "This is a strong addiction. It could kill him." I thought there was a good possibility that his heart would cause him major problems some day, but I didn't know how soon the day would come. I think my vague thought of what might happen was that he might have a heart attack in his 60s, and that, if we were lucky, he would live through it and then maybe get serious about changing his diet.

Obviously, I don't know that sugar consumption had anything to do with Dan's sudden death. He had plenty of other risk factors, including genetic ones, and had a period of high work stress in the time period before he died, which could well have been the final straw. I'm also certainly not unaware that my own health limitations added a significant degree of stress to Dan's life. (On the flip side, I think my need to live a low-toxicity life was protective for him in some ways, as well.) I can't point to sugar and say that I know it killed my husband, but the research is clear that it is, in fact, a killer.

I'm very sensitive to "blame the victim" messages and absolutely don't want this to come across that way. This isn't blaming, but warning. It's remembering the events of this day three years ago and deeply and sincerely wanting to spare other people a similar experience. Sometimes people take things more seriously when they know people who have been affected, which is my sole motivation for sharing personal stories.

As I was debating whether or not to write this post, I ran across Leviticus 5:1, which says "If you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about, it is sinful to refuse to testify." Yes, it's Old Testament and no, it wasn't written about blog posts, but it convinced me. What I can offer the world these days is limited, but I can testify about things I have seen and know about.

I imagine I've made a lot of people mad by this point. To those who are mad because they loved Dan and are angry that I wrote some negative things about him, I'll simply say that I loved him, too, and miss him greatly. I've cried every day this month so far. I'll also remind you that I wrote a very different sort of post about him three years ago.

To those who are mad because in addition to harping about chemicals, I'm now harping about a very prevalent food choice which is a source of comfort and pleasure, I'll simply say that I get it. Those of us who became addicted to sugar were simply eating the standard American diet or found ourselves eating more sugar because we were avoiding fat and dietary cholesterol like the experts recommended. The sugar industry manipulated studies and public policy just like the chemical industry does today. It's easy to understand how we ended up in this place, but now that we're here, it's time to accept that there are real consequences.

I write because I care about you. Whether I know you personally or not, you matter to me simply because you've taken the time to read this post. I know other people care about you, too, and we all want your heart to keep beating for a very long time.

How Far Away is Far Enough?

Evidently, I haven't written a blog post since November, which is not-coincidentally when my sons and I made the decision to sell or rent out our respective houses and find a shared-but-separate home together. Since that time, I've been fairly consumed with the logistics involved in making a move. I've written about housing enough in the past that I don't think I need to rehash all the difficulties involved for people with chemical illness. It's a huge issue, and I would truly appreciate prayers for the process.

One of the initial challenges my sons and I are encountering in the house hunting journey is the difficulty of finding a home far enough away from highways and other busy roads. Unfortunately, it's difficult to say with precision how far away is far enough, even for people without chemical illness. Traffic pollution is a significant health issue, both because it's so hard to avoid and because it contains a complex mixture of both gaseous pollutants and fine particulate matter. Here's some of the information I've found:

• A publication by the National Resources Defense Council notes that health effects related to traffic pollution include cancer, heart disease, asthma, decreased lung function, pre-term birth, birth defects, and increased mortality related to such factors as heart attack, stroke, and pneumonia.

• The publication notes that dramatically elevated pollutant levels are generally found within 500 feet of busy roadways, but under certain conditions can extend much further.

• An article in the Digital Journal notes that people living within 300 feet of major roadways have higher rates of respiratory conditions, allergies, heart disease, and certain types of cancers.

• The author reports that a California study found that in the early morning hours, traffic pollution travels a mile or more from the highways.

• The article also states that the American Lung Association's 2013 "State of the Air" report determined that living or working within 0.3 miles of a highway or road is "more dangerous than people have been led to believe."

• A Time magazine article reported on a study finding that children whose families lived within 1,000 feet of a freeway when they were born were twice as likely as others to have autism.

• The Southern California Particle Center and Supersite (SCPCS) notes that many factors influence exposure to traffic pollution. These include weather conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and the speed and direction of the wind. Whether a home is upwind or downwind of the roadway is important, as is the construction of the house and the type of filtration system it has. Whether people are outdoors during peak traffic times or indoors with open windows also affects exposure levels.

So how close is too close? The SCPCS concludes that "scientists cannot say exactly how close is 'too close' at this point" and that "the closer people are to the source of traffic emissions, the higher their exposure is to many of the constituents of exhaust." Studies indicate that vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, or those with pre-existing health conditions should be especially careful. An article in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine notes that exposure to traffic-related pollution can contribute to the development of COPD and that enhanced susceptibility is seen in people with asthma, which might be expected, and diabetes, which seems to me a less obvious association. Although I haven't seen this advice in print, I've been told that one expert in toxic illness recommends that those of us who suffer from MCS live at least five miles from a highway, which seems like good advice that can be extremely difficult to follow, especially when taking the needs of other family members into account.

Mitigating the health effects of traffic pollution, especially for those not planning a move, isn't easy. Avoiding as many other sources of chemical exposures as possible will help lower the overall toxic burden on the body. Good air filtration can help, as well, and planting vegetation can also be of some use. Although, in general, indoor air pollution is higher than that found outdoors, those living near busy roadways may find it prudent to shut windows and stay indoors during peak traffic hours.

To a degree, the issue seems to be gaining more attention. As I noted in a previous post, some state and local authorities are beginning to address the issue of building schools near major roadways, while others continue to ignore the risks. Compelling evidence of health effects does not appear to be enough, in and of itself, to consistently motivate action. Perhaps a growing awareness of the issue will inspire parents to raise the issue and apply pressure when decisions are being made.

Will the pollution from busy roadways become less problematic as electric and hybrid cars increase in popularity? Yes, to a degree, but some experts conclude that fine particulates from tire wear and roadway dust may continue to be an issue. I'm personally not pinning my hopes on a quick decrease in levels of exhaust fumes and am going to continue to pass on homes that are too close to busy roadways, no matter how well they fit other criteria. I just wish it weren't quite so challenging to figure out how far away is far enough.

A “Fresh” Blog Post

I've been thinking about the word "fresh" recently. Although there are alternative meanings, the general definition of the word is "new." Often something fresh replaces something old, stale, or worn-out. We put on fresh socks or ask a friend to help us think of some fresh ideas for a project.

The air inside a building gets contaminated by the products used within it. In addition, humans inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, so when people are in a building, the air gets progressively less healthy from the simple act of breathing. We replace old, stale air with new, fresh air by opening windows or using ventilation systems. In no way whatsoever do we improve air quality by using those ridiculously named products known as “air fresheners."

Here are a handful of "air freshener" facts:

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that most air fresheners contain formaldehyde and petrochemicals. They also contain a chemical known as 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (1,4,-DCB) which is an EPA-registered pesticide. It can cause cancer and lung damage and increases asthma rates. The chemical "freshens" the air by damaging nasal receptors. It does not remove odors, but removes people's ability to smell them.

• A study comparing homes in which air fresheners were used every day with those in which they were used once a week or less found that babies in the daily-use homes had significantly more earaches and diarrhea, and their mothers suffered nearly 10% more headaches and had a 26% increase in depression.

• Many air fresheners contain acetone and propane. They are toxic to the heart, blood, respiratory system, skin, gastrointestinal system, kidney, nervous system and liver.

• Exposure to air freshener chemicals as little as once a week can increase your risk of developing asthma symptoms by up to 71%.

• Most air fresheners contain phthalates, which are hormone-disrupting chemicals that can cause birth defects and infertility. These chemicals are even found in air fresheners designated as "unscented" or "all natural".

• The human body stores chemicals like those found in air fresheners in fatty tissue. The body may hold onto fat as a way to protect itself from the release of the toxins.

• Air freshener chemicals, including camphor, phenol, ethanol, formaldehyde, and artificial fragrances can cause a wide variety of health symptoms, including dizziness, coughing, rashes, mental confusion, and headaches, including migraines.

• One study found that women with the highest usage of household chemicals, including air fresheners, had twice the risk of breast cancer of those with the lowest chemical usage rates.

Although air fresheners abuse and misuse the word "fresh," they aren't the only product to do so. I recently saw an advertisement for a laundry detergent that claimed it now had a higher percentage of "freshness." Really? I imagine what the marketers mean is that more fragrance chemicals have been added to the already potent and toxic mix. It's easy to get duped by marketing ploys, but we don't have to buy into the crazy-ness. We can break away from the crowd. We can have a fresh perspective. We can make a fresh start.

Sources: Are Air Fresheners Bad for Your Health?
Silent Menace
Air Fresheners: Easy Greening
How Air Fresheners Are Killing You
Air Fresheners' Real Impact on Indoor Air Quality

Do It for Your Future Grandkids

There are many reasons that the issue of chemical toxicity tends not to be taken very seriously by most people. Perhaps the most natural and common reason is that the issue doesn't feel personal. People don't associate their health symptoms with chemical exposures and generally assume they're handling everyday toxins just fine.

Yes, there are certainly biological differences in the way people's bodies process chemicals, and some people do have stronger detoxification systems than others. I truly believe, however, that everyone alive today is being affected by chemicals in the everyday environment to one degree or another. We're also evidently affecting the next couple of generations as well.

Chemicals can impact the human body in a number of different ways. They can directly affect organs and systems, they can mutate genes, or they can change the way genes express themselves. The latter are known as epigenetic changes and, like mutations, can be passed on to future generations.

A recent article entitled How Your Great Grandmother’s Chemical Exposures May Affect You discussed a study in which exposure to common chemicals was associated with ovarian diseases that lasted for three generations. We've long known that when a pregnant mother is exposed to certain chemicals that her child may be affected. It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that an exposure may not only affect her child, but her future grandchildren, and even their children as well. (There is also a growing awareness that a father's exposure to chemicals before a child is conceived can have significant implications. A World Health Organization publication, for instance, notes that "exposure of either father or mother to pesticides before conception . . . has been associated with an increased risk of fetal death, spontaneous abortion and early childhood cancer.")

An article entitled Epigenetics: Chemicals Turn Genes On and Off at the Wrong Times notes that epigenetic changes have been linked to a wide range of diseases and conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, obesity, breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, learning disabilities and asthma. This is serious business. It's easy for those of us past childbearing age to think the issue isn't relevant for us, but the truth is that our product choices affect others.. The personal care products we choose and the cleaning supplies, bug sprays and other products we use in our homes and churches may cause significant harm to the people around us and to individuals yet unborn. We are interconnected. Our product choices matter.