Saturday, October 27, 2007

Thimerosal distribution and metabolism in neonatal mice: comparison with methyl mercury

 J Appl Toxicol. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):511-8.Click here to read Links

Thimerosal distribution and metabolism in neonatal mice: comparison with methyl mercury.

Department of Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY 14642, USA. grazyna_zareba@urmc.rochester.edu

Thimerosal, which releases the ethyl mercury radical as the active species, has been used as a preservative in many currently marketed vaccines throughout the world. Because of concerns that its toxicity could be similar to that of methyl mercury, it is no longer incorporated in many vaccines in the United States. There are reasons to believe, however, that the disposition and toxicity of ethyl mercury compounds, including thimerosal, may differ substantially from those of the methyl form. The current study sought to compare, in neonatal mice, the tissue concentrations, disposition and metabolism of thimerosal with that of methyl mercury. ICR mice were given single intramuscular injections of thimerosal or methyl mercury (1.4 mg Hg kg(-1)) on postnatal day 10 (PND 10). Tissue samples were collected daily on PND 11-14. Most analysed tissues demonstrated different patterns of tissue distribution and a different rate of mercury decomposition. The mean organic mercury in the brain and kidneys was significantly lower in mice treated with thimerosal than in the methyl mercury-treated group. In the brain, thimerosal-exposed mice showed a steady decrease of organic mercury levels following the initial peak, whereas in the methyl mercury-exposed mice, concentrations peaked on day 2 after exposure. In the kidneys, thimerosal-exposed mice retained significantly higher inorganic mercury levels than methyl mercury-treated mice. In the liver both organic and inorganic mercury concentrations were significantly higher in thimerosal-exposed mice than in the methyl mercury group. Ethyl mercury was incorporated into growing hair in a similar manner to methyl mercury. The data showing significant kinetic differences in tissue distribution and metabolism of mercury species challenge the assumption that ethyl mercury is toxicologically identical to methyl mercury. (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PMID: 17582588 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17582588&itool=iconabstr&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Scalp hair and urine mercury content of children in the Northeast United States: The New England children's amalgam trial

Environ Res. 2007 Oct 23; [Epub ahead of print]

Scalp hair and urine mercury content of children in the Northeast United States: The New England children's amalgam trial.

New England Research Institutes, 9 Galen St., Watertown, MA, USA.

Children may be at particular risk from toxic effects of mercury (Hg). Previous studies of hair (organic) and urine (inorganic) Hg levels in US children were unable to assess Hg levels while accounting for exposure to amalgam dental restorations. This analysis describes, over a 5-year period, levels and correlates/predictors of scalp hair (H-Hg) and urinary (U-Hg) mercury in 534 New England Children's Amalgam Trial (NECAT) participants, aged 6-10 years and without exposure to dental amalgam at baseline. Results: Mean H-Hg levels were between 0.3 and 0.4mug/g over 5 years. 17-29% of children had H-Hg levels 0.5mug/g, and 5.0 to 8.5% of children had levels 1mug/g, in any given study year. In adjusted models, fish consumption frequency was the most robust predictor of high H-Hg. U-Hg mean levels were between 0.7 and 0.9mug/g creatinine over two years. The percentage of those with U-Hg 2.3mug/g creatinine ranged from 4% to 6%. Number of amalgam restorations had a significant dose-response relationship with U-Hg level. Daily gum chewing in the presence of amalgam was associated with high U-Hg.

PMID: 17961541 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17961541&itool=iconabstr&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Fragrances: Beyond the Stink

Fragrances:  Beyond the Stink  
 
Perfume use began in Egypt with the burning of incense and quickly spread to Persia, Greece, and Rome.  It was often used as a prelude to love making and by royalty.  Profound change in the nineteenth century led away from alchemy, the early form of chemical technology exploring the nature of substances in medieval times, to chemistry.  New synthetic fragrances were manufactured that cost less and were less labor intensive.  The first modern day perfume was marketed in 1882.  Now, most perfumes are made from synthetic chemical ingredients.  This change increased profits and made perfume affordable for the general public.  However, this came at another price
 
Ingredients
 
Currently, many synthetic petrochemicals and volatile organic compounds can be found in perfume, including d-limonene, dihydromyrcenol, linalool, linalyl acetate, beta-citronellol, and more.
 
The manufacturer safety data sheets (MSDS) for these ingredients report many negative health effects and hazards including:
 
· May cause eye irritation.
· Causes skin irritation.
· May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
· May cause respiratory tract irritation.
· Combustible liquid and vapor.
· Fire hazard.
· Wear appropriate protective gloves to prevent skin exposure.
· Wear an approved respirator to prevent inhalation.
 
Fragrance in Science
 
Maternal depression is significantly associated with the use of air fresheners (Farrow et al, 2003).  Scientists have shown that environmental perfume exposure, such as breathing secondhand perfumes, may cause respiratory symptoms (Elberling, 2007).  Though people with asthma and allergy report respiratory symptoms more frequently, many respiratory symptoms from environmental perfume exposure may affect everyone (Elberling, 2007).
 
A study at Anderson Laboratories in Vermont concluded that fragrances may cause a variety of acute toxicities after only an hour of exposure to breathing five commercial colognes (Anderson & Anderson, 1998) at levels frequently encountered near cologne wearers.  Anderson discovered that the emissions fragranced products  caused  various  combinations  of    sensory   irritation,     pulmonary irritation, decreases in expiratory airflow velocity, as well as alterations of the functional observational battery indicative of neurotoxicity" in mice (Anderson & Anderson, 1998).  Neurotoxicity was more severe after mice were repeated exposure, implicating a cumulative effect (Anderson & Anderson, 1998). 
 
Anderson further evaluated the test atmospheres with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry to determine if any chemicals were present in the chamber.  This evaluation revealed the presence of chemicals in the air for which irritant and neurotoxic properties had been documented previously and with which the fragrances were not labeled.  This confirmed the hidden presence of these toxic chemicals in the colognes (Anderson & Anderson, 1998).
 
In 1997 Anderson also determined that the emissions of air freshener at concentrations to which many individuals are actually exposed during use were shown to cause increases in sensory and pulmonary irritation, decreases in airflow velocity, and abnormalities of behavior (Anderson & Anderson, 1997).  Glade was shown to cause ventricular fibrillation and determined to be fatal if inhaled (LoVecchio & Fullton, 2001). 
 
Counter Truth
 
The fragrance industry has countered these concerns by making claims that the dose of the myriad of toxicants in fragrance is not high enough to cause any concern; however, few studies have examined the effects of what is common use of multiple fragrance sources often found in perfumes, hair care products, lotions, laundry soaps, household cleaners, and air fresheners.  When the combined dose of the products a person, and those around them, use is considered, the dose is much higher.
 
Another way the fragrance industry has attempted to avoid responsibility is by claiming that they maintain high standards.  However, those standards are self-governed.  Trade secret laws currently protect the fragrance industry from having to reveal what is in their fragrances.  This allows for the use of many synthetic and chemical agents without any sort of independent or government regulation.  Fragrances do not contain ingredient labels, so unsuspecting buyers cannot make informed decisions about what they choose to purchase.
 
Another concern with fragrances is that they don't simply affect those who use them.  They contaminate the air when applied, worn, and sometimes even after washing them off the scent remains.  Secondhand fragrances have negative affects on those around the wearer and may cause asthma, headaches, airflow reduction, and neurotoxicity (Anderson & Anderson, 1998).
 
Taking Action
 
While lobbying congress and elected officials will get laws changed and involves time and commitment, there are some simple ways individuals can take action.
 
First, based on supply and demand, industry will only make products if people buy them.  Collective individual purchasing decisions hit industry hard in the pocketbook and guide much of their manufacturing and marketing decisions.  By not purchasing perfume, cologne, or fragranced lotions, cosmetics, hair care, cleaning, and laundry products, industry is forced to take note of the decline in sales.  Subsequently, an increase in natural and fragrance-free purchases will affect supply and demand in such a way to increase the availability of fragrance free products.    
 
Second, consumers can help guide product availability through the chain of command.  When consumers notify retailers of the products desired, particularly in mass, retailers are able to pass the requests on to their distributors, who can then pass the word on to manufacturers. 
 
Third, consumers should not be fooled or coerced by misleading advertisements.  Often manufacturers and advertisers will use misleading tactics, such as claiming there are more germs on your computer keyboard than a public toilet without telling you that the keyboard has never been wiped down and the toilet is cleaned with powerful disinfectants daily.  In this way, manufacturers use studies to mislead consumers.
 
Fourth, individual consumers can refuse to buy any product without full ingredient disclosure.  Letters written to manufacturers expressing an interest in their products, if they would disclose the ingredients, is another way for consumers to express their purchasing desires.
 
Fifth, though perfect products may be hard to find, individual consumers can choose the least questionable and most natural products they can find.  Manufacturers will be more likely to increase production of such products when they are in demand.  It is, however, useful to be aware that products labeled "natural" are not necessarily safe.  Naturally occurring toxins may be present in these products.  For example, all natural concentrated orange cleaner contains a toxin known as d-limonene, which is formed when the orange is concentrated.  Many toxicant chemicals are emitted during air-freshener use including d-limonene, dihydromyrcenol, linalool, linalyl acetate, and beta-citronellol which Singer confirmed were emitted at 35-180 mg/day over 3 days while air concentrations averaged 30-160 microg/m3 (Singer et al, 2006).  Hypoallergenic is another term to be wary of.  Just because something does not cause allergies does not mean it is nontoxic.  It is helpful to remember that most toxic reactions to environmental substances are not allergy mediated (IgE).
 
Finally, in addition to making healthier choices, individual consumers can share their knowledge about the dangers of fragrances with friends and family.
 
-LS
 
References:

Anderson, RC, & Anderson, JH.  Toxic effects of air freshener emissions.  Archives of Environmental Health.  1997;52(6):433-41.
 
Anderson RC & Anderson JH.  Acute toxic effects of fragrance products.  Arch Environ Health. 1998 Mar-Apr;53(2):138-46.
 
Elberling J, Skov PS, Mosbech H, Holst H, Dirksen A, Johansen JD.  Increased release of histamine in patients with respiratory symptoms related to perfume.  Clin Exp Allergy. 2007 Sep 17.
Farrow, A, Taylor, H, Northstone, K, Golding, J.  Symptoms of mothers and infants related to total volatile organic compounds in household products.  Archives of Environmental Health.  2003;58(10):633-41.
 
Lovechio, F, & Fullton, SE.  Ventricular fibrillation following inhalation of Glade Air Freshener.  European Journal of Emergency Medicine.2001; 8(2):153-4.
 
Singer, BC, Destaillats, H, Hodgson, AT, Nazaroff, WW.  Cleaning products and air fresheners: emissions and resulting concentrations of glycol ethers and terpenoids.  Indoor Air.  2006;16(3):179-91.
 

Copyrighted © 2007  MCS America

 

Community Spotlight: Vanessa Edgington

Community Spotlight:
                                       Vanessa Edgington

 
How did you learn you had MCS?
 
It was September 12, 1989, a drought year.  I lived on the family farm and our home was infested with crickets, as well as other kinds of bugs trying to get to some kind of moisture due to the dryer climate that year. We were eating with them, bathing with them, sleeping with them, and they were in all of my cupboards.  A local pesticide company came to spray and get rid of the infestation for us. We were at work when they came, but when we got home from work, the smell was horrible!  My husband had gotten home 3 hours prior to me and had opened all of the windows so that the smell would dissipate. It didn't. It was very strong. A little while later, I gave my 2 year old son, who enjoyed running around the house naked, a bath.  I cleaned up a puddle I thought was a little "piddle" from him. But, after I held my hand up to my nose I immediately could tell it was not urine, it was the chemical that was sprayed. So, I went to the bathroom and got a towel with soap and water to clean up the mess; all the while keeping a sharp eye on my son to make sure he didn't get into it. I wiped it up and quickly washed my hands and placed the towel into the laundry. To myself I thought, "Oh boy that was a close one, good thing I caught it before anyone got hurt."  I was very naive at the time and literally thought that you could only have problems with pesticides if you inhaled it or swallowed it.  I trusted the company and everybody else.  Besides, they all told me it was safe.  Why shouldn't I trust them?  I had no clue.
 
The next morning, I woke up groggy and realized I had a puddle of drool on my pillow.  This is something I'd never seen before on my pillow. I shared that with my husband and he blew it off by stating: "Oh, I do that sometimes too." So, I shrugged my shoulders and got up and performed all of the chores I'd done every morning to get everything ready so that I could get my son off to the sitter's house and myself off to work. I don't really know how I got it accomplished.  Soon, diarrhea developed. As the day/s went on, I began experiencing many other "weird" symptoms. My head felt very heavy, everything seemed out of focus, and I couldn't concentrate. I experienced tingling, prickly sensations - like pins and needles, headaches, nausea, weakness, and eventually muscular twitching, tremors, severe fatigue, impaired gait, and poor coordination, which was very difficult for me because I was an aerobics instructor and lived a healthy life.  During this time I also found out that I was pregnant with my second child.  People often wrote off my symptoms as a side effect of the pregnancy.  "Oh, it's just your hormones, you're just having a difficult pregnancy." 
 
However, I was scared.  By November of 1989, I had finally scheduled an appointment with a neurologist because all of my symptoms seemed neurologically based.  I just wanted to know what was going on with my body.  The neurologist tested me for ALS (Lou Gehrig's), multiple sclerosis, Lyme disease, Lupus and other diseases along those lines.  All tests came back "normal."  Remembering the smell of the pesticide and the timing, I specifically asked him, "Could a pesticide cause this?" His immediate response was "No, no, no, these chemicals are safe, you just need to learn how to relax."  I sighed a sigh of relief and went off to receive therapy for relaxation while still trying to do the many things I was used to doing all day everyday. The therapy proved to be of no assistance to reduce my symptoms.
 
By February of 1990, I was accepted by Mayo Clinic, where a complete work-up was done again.  Two departments worked together - a Medical internist and a neurologist.  I shared all of the same information with them that I had shared with the first neurologist.  This time, I actually had the name of the pesticide that was used (Dursban). I was diagnosed with organophosphate overexposure. I had no clue what that meant, "Organo-what?"   However, I was glad to know that Mayo Clinic finally found SOMETHING that was wrong with me.
 
When I got home, I went to my son's pediatrician and told him that I didn't care about myself, but I was very concerned about my son and my unborn child. He said that it was out of his league and offered to send me to the only toxicologist in the state with my son to see if he could help us.
 
I was surprised that the toxicologist focused mainly on me. He repeated the tests I'd had and a few more.   He told me that I had Multiple Chemical Sensitivities as a result of organophosphate overexposure. Worse, he said that we had to move out of our home or I would continue to get sicker because the amounts of the pesticide that were still in the house.  My body simply couldn't handle more exposure. We had our home swab tested by the state department of agriculture and the puddle I had cleaned up had left a stain 8 inches in diameter and 18 inches away from any mopboards.  That swab and many others throughout our home came back as Chlorpyrifos, the active ingredient in Dursban.  The pesticide applicators claimed to have done crack and crevice application.  The state department of agriculture or perhaps the applicators must have informed Dow Chemical that we had problems with the chemical, because I received a phone call from a public relations guy working for Dow, who informed me that I would have had to have gotten down on my hands and knees and literally lick the mopboards immediately following application to be as sick as I alleged to be.  I'll never forget that call,  I thought it was very odd at the time.
 
We tried to live in several different places and were basically homeless for 6 weeks.  We ended up moving 7 times the first year.  During that time, we looked into litigation.  The attorney informed us that he wanted me to see two other physicians from another city that he had heard were very good in the court room for victims in toxic tort cases.
 
I agreed to see those two physicians. The first was an internist specializing in toxins and poisonings and the other was a neuropsychiatrist also assisting people like me who had been poisoned.  The gamut of tests there was almost unbelievable, however the result confirmed those of the Mayo Clinic and the Toxicologist. I was diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivities as a result of organophosphate overexposure, which attacks the cholinesterase enzymes, most of which are in the brain. Cholinesterase enzymes assist with the synaptic impulses and that is why I was having the nerve- ending problems and other neurological problems. I told them to give me a shot of Cholinesterase, so I could get better and get on with my life. They told me that was an impossible task. Avoidance was the only thing and supplements like B12 injections and other anti-oxidant regimes would have to be followed. Regular follow-up appointments would also be necessary.
 
I delivered our second child in May of 1990, 3 weeks early and 1 and 1/2 pounds smaller than our son. She also appeared to experience what looked like a shaking withdrawal of some kind. She would only stop shaking if she was wrapped up very tightly in a blanket, but after a few days that subsided.
 
With our litigation underway, a new baby, all of the moves, and being very ill, I could only work 2 days each week. Even that was difficult. Of course, rumors spread like a wild-fire and any reputation and friends I had went down the drain. I was the "crazy one" now, the one to gossip about in our community.
 
Our litigation, which was not against Dow, ended 4 1/2 years later with a settlement out of the courts for an amount that did not even begin to pay for and medical expenses incurred up to that point.  Our attorney took 40% of that.
 
How has MCS changed your life?
 
That's a loaded question for someone  who  feels  as  though they have 
lived "hell on earth" after being poisoned.
 
I lost my faith.
I lost my reputation.
I lost my health.
I lost my home.
I almost lost my job.
I lost my patriotism.
I lost my self-esteem.
I learned to distrust.
I actually learned the feeling of hate for the first time in my life.
 
I lost out on the opportunity of being the mother I'd planned on being for my baby because I was too sick to even take care of myself, let alone my baby.  I did the best I could.
 
I didn't feel worthy of my husband's love and felt like I'd only be a burden. I told him to take the children and find a healthy young woman who would not be a burden and who could take care of our children.  I just wanted to fall asleep and not wake up.  I prayed that if I wasn't supposed to make it through this horrible experience, please take me tonight, because I couldn't handle it anymore.   I woke up the next morning.
 
I did everything I could possibly think of to try to make my husband leave me.  After two years, he finally placed his hands on my shoulders and said, "Vee, you just don't get it do you?"  I stood there with a blank stare.  He continued, "When I said my vows I meant them, I love you and I'm here for you.  And by the way, do you know that song, Thank God for Unanswered Prayers?  I think of you every time I hear that song."  Wow, the Good Lord has truly blessed me with the wonderful love of my life, my soul mate, my husband.
 
I used to be full of life everyday. Now, I have mostly bad days and on the good days I can get pretty wild.  I really enjoy every moment of those days.  It's the little things that God has blessed me with.  My faith returned, only much stronger.  When I get wild, I act goofy; I like to dance in the rain; I like to play board games; and, I like to laugh with my mouth open and sing in public!  I don't care who can hear me!  Life is short; break the rules; forgive quickly; kiss slowly; love truly; laugh uncontrollably; and never regret anything that made you smile.  "In this short life we have, I feel that we should all take time to sing, play and dance."
 
I guess I could say I know my life changed full-circle when the eyes of one of my sister's, to this very day, will well up with tears and state that the person she grew up with knowing as Vanessa, her younger sister, was now a totally different individual  in the same body, someone she had to get to know all over again.
 
Last year, I lost my job because of my health and I am not receiving any form of disability. Now, I am fighting to get some kind of insurance company to cover me before insurance through Cobra runs out.  My mom asked me what I'm going to do when the Cobra runs out.  I said I guess the boat to Guantanamo Bay is looking pretty good.  I don't really know, I'll have to keep searching.
 
What is the advantage of having MCS?

 
I truly don't believe there is one.
 
However, because I was poisoned at a young age and experience difficulties with MCS on a daily basis, I have been able to keep my children (as much as possible) from pesticides and other toxins.  I have been able to teach them about toxic substances and they have experienced life with a person who has MCS, so they are aware that they don't want to live their lives that way.
 
When I was first told that my cholinesterase levels were below normal , some people tried to say that my levels could have always been below normal.  I had my children's cholinesterase enzyme levels checked and recorded so no one could ever say that to my children.
 
I have a better understanding for all who suffer from any kind of disability that is "invisible" and don't receive any help. I also try to help them as much as possible.
 
My faith has grown.
 
Are you involved in any activism? If so, what do you do to get the word out?
 
I am currently a member of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity America and am working toward getting more signatures on the position statement.  I have also assisted in editing some of the information.
 
Whenever possible, I try to educate people about toxins and their affects so that they won't have to experience what I am going through.  I really, really care about others' health, especially that of my children and that of future generations. I know, it's not about me anymore!
 
I've had phone conversations and emails with the State Department of Health and am trying to provide them with research to assist them in making safer choices in regards to what communities can do, other than just going out and adulticiding, when it comes to working on the concerns about mosquitoes and the West Nile Virus. I've asked them a lot of questions to get them thinking and have tried to see if they'd be willing to place a copy of the labels of the products being used in the communities being bombed with pyrethroids.  People need to see the potential hazards and symptoms of poisoning in case it does happen, so that the members living in those communities, as well as physicians, could make more educated decisions and become a part of that decision making process. I simply feel that if the general population knew what I now know, they would not want adulticiding occurring in their communities let alone near their homes. This continues to be a project in process, though I have not worked on it recently.  However, I will continue.
 
What do you think is the most important thing the MCS community must accomplish?
 
Quite frankly, I think we need to work together more.  I believe all our end results are the same.  I don't know who said it, but, "Divided we fall, United, we Stand!", which means to me Divided we fail, United we Succeed!
 
So, let's get it together, treat each other as we would wish to be treated, and work massively as one to get MCS recognized as a very real physiological illness! Too many people are too ill, dying while waiting, and more new MCS diagnoses are being made.
 
Do any of us have that much time? Do we really want our children and grandchildren to live the lives we're attempting to live with this illness because it is not getting the recognition it deserves?
Would you like to share anything else?
 
Lord knows that for me, yesterday would not be soon enough for this illness to receive the recognition it deserves, so that all of us could receive the appropriate treatment, and perhaps even live a better life.
 
It is my prayer that we will become more united so that we will succeed.  Fighting amongst each other is exactly what the chemical industry, and everybody else who does not want MCS recognized, thrives off of.   Call me confused, but isn't recognition of MCS as a physiological illness the goal of all of us?
 
Editor's Note:
The artwork presented in this article was created by Vanessa Edgington.  The artwork is used here and in MCS America's Café Press logo shops and is reproduced  with permission of the author.

 Copyrighted © 2007  MCS America

 
 

Activist's Corner

 MCS Activist's Corner

This month, MCS America engaged in a collaborative effort with Take Back the Air to create a series of public service announcements (PSAs) entitled "Are You At Risk?".  The PSAs are available for download and resizing.

 

Announcement #1

Air fresheners

have been pulled off thousands of shelves nation-wide!

http://www.mcs-america.org/AirFreshenerPSA1.pdf

 

 

Announcement #2

When you use fragranced products,

Did you know you are wearing

toxic chemicals!

http://www.mcs-america.org/WhenYouUseFragrancedProductsPSA2.pdf

 

 

Announcement #3

Secondhand Fragrances are Like

Secondhand Smoke!

http://www.mcs-america.org/SecondHandFragrancesPSA3.pdf

 

 

Announcement #4

Scented laundry detergents and fabric softeners

pollute indoor and outdoor air!

http://www.mcs-america.org/ScentedLaundryDetergentsPSA4.pdf

 

 

Announcement #5

Wood Smoke...

The Other Secondhand Smoke!

http://www.mcs-america.org/WoodSmokePSA5BurningIssues.pdf

 

 

Announcement #6

Fragrances

undermine public health!

http://www.mcs-america.org/FragrancesPSA6.pdf

 

Scientific Studies: Acute Pesticide Poisoning

Scientific Studies

Acute Pesticide Poisoning

 

Scientists at the University of the Philippines National Institutes of Health found that pesticide exposure results in abnormal levels of cholinesterase in cut-flower farmers.      Certain pesticides are believed to attack the cholinesterase enzymes and may result in symptoms and conditions such as asthma, skin disorders, and multiple chemical sensitivity.

 

The study surveyed over 200  subjects to determine the adverse health effects of pesticides before conducting detailed laboratory tests.  The recent effort set out to determine pesticide exposure, work and safety practices, individual and family illnesses, and cholinesterase levels.  Pesticide application was most frequently associated with pesticide exposure through ocular and dermal entry.  The factor most strongly associated with pesticide-induced illness was the use of a contaminated piece of fabric to wipe off sweat and the reuse of pesticide containers to store water.   Containers should not be reused, but rather buried as they pose great health hazards and risks of contamination.

 

It is advisable to refrain from reuse of containers and to wash hands and skin thoroughly if accidental contact with pesticide is made.  Avoid contact with areas sprayed and keep pets and children clear of them as well.  The use of pesticides for prevention may be unnecessary and harmful to humans and pets.  There are alternatives to pesticide use that can be employed if an infestation occurs. 

 

One-fifth of the subjects studied had skin abnormalities and four-fifths had abnormal respiration and body temperatures.  Fifty percent of had abnormally low cholinesterase levels.  In addition, hematological parameters were also abnormal.  Hemoglobin, hematocrit, and eosinophil count were all abnormal.

 

These study findings confirm results from earlier studies on the effect of pesticides in the body.  There are many natural alternatives to pesticides that are safe, yet effective.  Once cholinesterase levels are reduced, there is no known cure or treatment to counter the effects of the pesticides that will return cholinesterase to normal.  Extreme caution should be exercised around pesticides, particularly in the home.  Keeping a clean and neat home reduces odors, food crumbs, and debris that attract insects. 

 

Reference:

Lu JL.  Acute pesticide poisoning among cut-flower farmers.  J Environ Health. 2007 Sep;70(2):38-43.

Scientific Studies: Air Freshener Dangerous

Scientific Studies:

Air Freshener Dangerous

 

Fourteen household air fresheners from the $1.72 billion air freshener industry were analyzed and  shown to contain chemicals which may cause reproductive damage and asthma, among other health problems, and are particularly dangerous to children.

 

Air fresheners are not currently tested or regulated.  There are no safety standards that manufactures must uphold.  The dangerous chemicals found in these common household air fresheners show a great need to establish such standards.

 

Consumers are often mislead by these products and assume that anything sold in stores has been tested and is safe.  However, the products are often not tested.  Only after numerous consumers are injured by a product, is it removed from the shelf.  In essence, consumers are trusting guinea pigs.  It is helpful to keep an eye on manufacturer recalls and to be wary of manufacturers with poor track records.

 

The household air fresheners tested proved to contain phthalates, which are hormone disruptors.  Some of these products were labeled as "all natural" and/or "unscented".  It is useful to know that those claims are not regulated either. 

 

Decisions to buy these products should be based on full disclosure ingredients.  Unfortunately many ingredients are hidden by terms like "fragrance".  Trade secret laws allow for nondisclosure of proprietary fragrance ingredients.  Therefore, manufacturers can, and do, use volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and other dangerous chemicals in their fragrances.

 

Wal-Mart air freshener had the highest level of phthalates and was subsequently pulled off the shelves.

 

The more these air fresheners are used, the greater the risk.  Several environmental groups including the Sierra Club, Alliance for Healthy Homes, and the National Center for Healthy Housing, filed a petition to the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) calling for a risk assessment for the dangers air fresheners pose to consumers.  The groups would like to see all air fresheners on the market tested.

 

Air fresheners are unnecessary and good alternatives include opening a window or cleaning dirt and debris that causes odor.  Air fresheners only mask odor, so the best solution is to address the root cause.  Other simple solutions include cleaning and deodorizing with baking soda and white vinegar.  Ensuring adequate ventilation is also essential. 

Scientific Study: Perfume Reduces Respiration

 

Scientific Study:

Perfume Reduces Respiration

 

Scientists have shown that environmental perfume exposure, such as breathing secondhand perfumes, may cause respiratory symptoms.  People with asthma and allergy report respiratory symptoms more frequently, though such symptoms from environmental perfume exposure may affect everyone.

 

An international brand of perfume, such as one that would be commonly found in ambient room air from perfume users, was used in the study.

 

The symptoms do not appear to be immune or allergy related as they are not associated with an immunoglobulin E (IgE) allergic reaction.  The researchers measured basophils in relation to perfume concentrations in the air.  A positive dose-response effect was found in patients with respiratory symptoms related to perfume.  The study concluded that "perfume induces a dose-dependent non-IgE-mediated release of histamine from human peripheral blood basophils", providing a measurable basis by which some reactions to perfumes may be confirmed.

 

Many perfumes are solvent based and some contain the same carcinogens as cigarette smoke.  Though perfume is a personal choice, they do invade the airspace of others much like cigarette smoke does. 

 

When royalty wore perfumes centuries ago, they were made from a safe and natural plant base.  Now, cost-concerned manufactures have cut corners and replaced plant materials with synthetic chemicals, solvents, and compounds that have been shown to cause reproductive effects, respiratory problems, neurological problems, and other health disparities.  

 

This study has provided reason to raise alarm and question the use of perfumes.  If secondhand perfumes are damaging health, what effect does actually wearing perfume have?

 

The truth is that there is no benefit to wearing perfume, as a matter of fact, a large portion of people may avoid those who wear perfume.  Hygiene can be maintained by showering regularly.  Adding perfume to cover up sweat just adds to the stink!

 

Reference:

Elberling J, Skov PS, Mosbech H, Holst H, Dirksen A, Johansen JD.  Increased release of histamine in patients with respiratory symptoms related to perfume.  Clin Exp Allergy. 2007 Sep 17.

.

Scientific Studies: Neurotoxic Injury Not Treatable

Scientific Studies:

Neurotoxic Injury Not Treatable

The Journal of Neurological Science published a review from the Department of Neurology, USF Health, University of South Florida entitled The allegory of a mountain: An environmental introduction to neurotoxicology on August 29, 2007.

-

Neurotoxicology is the science which investigates the relationship between exposures to chemical or physical agents and adverse effects on the nervous system. Most studies of neurotoxicology are carried out on animals and mammals.

-

Prockop, the researcher at the University of South Florida, states, "many of the substances to which humans are being exposed are relatively new to the environment, i.e., the products of a sophisticated industrial development. As a result humans are exposed to volatile organic compounds not previously present in our environment in significant amounts" and the effects of these VOC's on the human body has not been thoroughly studied.

-

Industry is important to the world as we know it in that it has provided for the niceties of life and the economic growth of society. Unfortunately, industry often requires the use of volatile organic compounds (VOC) which have negative effects.

-

Many illnesses may been linked to environmental pollution from industry, including autism, attention deficit disorder, sudden infant death syndrome, cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis, multiple chemical sensitivity, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and even behavioral disorders. These conditions are being seen more and more in our society, particularly among young children.

-

Prockhop feels "it is also important for us to determine what concentration of a given substance may produce short-term effects or chronic long-term effects" on the human body.

-

It is crucial to examine how human exposure can be prevented since irreversible damage may occur and there is no medical treatment that can lead to improvement. "Prevention of neurotoxic injury is essential" according to Prockhop.

-

One thing we can do as individuals is to limit our exposure to VOC's in the home and workplace. While we cannot control ambient air pollution until regulations are enacted and enforced, we can still limit our exposure by practicing avoidance where possible.

-

Remember, there is no treatment for recovery from neurotoxic injury. Prevention, avoidance, and awareness are key .

-

Reference:

Prockop LD. The allegory of a mountain: An environmental introduction to neurotoxicology. J Neurol Sci. 2007 Aug 29.

Scientific Studies: Assessing Environmental Exposure

Scientific Studies:

Assessing Environmental Exposure

 

Shendell and Pike-Paris, two researchers, recently discussed environmental exposure assessment.  As more and more children develop asthma, autism, developmental disorders, and hyperactivity, it is becoming increasingly more important to address exposure assessment in children as these conditions have all been linked to environmental exposures.  Chemical pollutants are encountered in the places where children eat, learn, play, and sleep. 

 

Children exposed to the same amount of pollution as an adult are much more susceptible to negative effects due to their smaller body size and faster respiration rate.  Growing adolescents also tend to consume more food and beverage than adults, therefore they are exposed to greater amounts of pesticides and other food contaminants. 

 

Exposure reduction and preventive measure are crucial in this vulnerable population.  Professionals in the fields of medicine, physiology, chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, and risk assessment should be aware of these issues.  It is important to note that children may have differential susceptibility dependent on their development stage.

 

There are two different kinds of information the researchers discussed:  hazard data and source data.  Hazard data refers to the amount of a pollutant released into the environment and to which a population is at risk of being exposed, including chemical agents, biological agents (pollen, bacteria, and mold), physical agents (noise, light, vibration, force, stress, and temperature), and radioactive agents (radon gas, electromagnetic fields, and nuclear waste products).

 

Source data of air pollutants includes point sources (individual industrial facilities, smoke stacks), area sources from a defined geographic area (petrochemical facility, architectural coatings composed of chemical-based solvents, consumer products, and agricultural pesticides), and mobile sources (moving vehicles). 

 

By these lists alone it is easy to see that pollution is everywhere.  Many studies have been aimed at individual sources of pollution; however, little evaluation has been done on the vast, multiple sources of pollution and the effect it has on the human population.

 

It is imperative to examine how exposure occurs and how the prevention or reduction of exposures can lead to community (public) health benefits.

 

Low or high concentrations of exposures do not always result in an adverse health outcomes. Health outcomes, whether acute or chronic, depend upon several factors: dose, quantity, and individual susceptibility.  Individual susceptibility factors include gender, age, genetics, existing health conditions, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, and presence of allergy.

 

  • There are several actions that Shendell and Pike-Paris recommend:
  • Wok to reduce or prevent exposure by understanding, identifying, and mitigating sources of environmental pollution.
  • Encourage pediatric nursing professionals to educate the public, patients, their families and caregivers.
  • Act as informed advocates for policy change and regulatory monitoring and enforcement.
  • Individuals can eliminate or substitute sources of pollution with non-toxic or less toxic alternatives to consumer products used for personal care, cleaning, hobbies, and pest control.
  • Use non-toxic or least-toxic alternatives to the chemical pesticides normally used.
  • Sources and exposure agents should be identified through a pediatric environmental history taking process.
  • Promote primary prevention and precautionary actions.
  • Limit exposure, dose, risk, and thus subsequent adverse acute and chronic health outcomes

Shendell and Pike-Paris expresdsed that protecting our children, the future generation, is essential.  After all, the continued existence of the human race requires healthy children who can reproduce and live in a social environment. 

 

-LS

 

Reference:

Shendell, DG, Pike-Paris, A.  Environmental Exposure Assessment, Pollution Sources, and Exposure Agents: A Primer for Pediatric Nursing Professionals.  Pediatr Nurs.  2007;33(2):179-182.

Blog Archive