Everyday Exposure to Toxic Pollutants
"Most environmental laws in the U.S. seek to control only the release of potentially dangerous wastes into the air and water, not the amount of contact people actually have with those pollutants. This focus on emissions rather than exposure essentially disregards the reality that toxic substances produce health problems only if they reach the body." This quote shows how people are more focused on how much we're emitting rather than how those emissions are effecting us and our health. Officials often focus on limiting pollution from the most obvious sources, like automobiles and factories, which are not always the biggest problems. They fail to recognize the less obvious but also important sources. A study has discovered that most people are more likely to have the most exposure to toxic pollutants not from the suspected sources, but places they consider unpolluted, like homes, offices, and cars. The main sources seem to be ordinary consumer products like air fresheners, cleaners, and building materials. The air pollutants protected outdoors by environmental laws are usually found in much higher concentrations indoor. For example, benzene, a chemical known to cause leukemia with continuous exposure in high concentrations, is in gasoline and household products. They are also one of 4,000 chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Studies have shown that reducing cigarette smoking would be more effective than cutting industrial emissions because it would significantly reduce the chance of getting a disease caused by benzene. Another example is pesticides. Outside, they can be broken down within days, while on the inside, they can last for years, protected from degradation since the pesticides are not exposed to sunlight and bacteria.
It seems like most people are oblivious to how toxic their homes really are. I was too, before reading this article. I always assumed that outside was more toxic than inside because of all the pollution that's being emitted into the atmosphere, but in reality, inside is much more toxic. I think to reduce this problem, we should obviously try to reduce our emissions, but we should also work on what we're putting into our homes. Companies should warn their customers of any toxic chemicals in the products they buy so they can inform them of the toxins they're putting into their homes. It would also help to revise environmental laws to make them more accurate and effective. However, the best way to reduce the problem would be to educate people! If people don't know there's a problem, then they're not going to do anything to improve the problem. They have to be informed before they can do anything. The steps to reduce exposure are actually quite simple and easy, but they can make a large improvement on our health and the environment. It's time to start improving our planet!
Source: http://ogoapes.weebly.com/uploads/3/2/3/9/3239894/everyday_exposure_to_toxic_chemicals.pdf
Article in source written by Wayne R. Ott and John W. Roberts
It seems like most people are oblivious to how toxic their homes really are. I was too, before reading this article. I always assumed that outside was more toxic than inside because of all the pollution that's being emitted into the atmosphere, but in reality, inside is much more toxic. I think to reduce this problem, we should obviously try to reduce our emissions, but we should also work on what we're putting into our homes. Companies should warn their customers of any toxic chemicals in the products they buy so they can inform them of the toxins they're putting into their homes. It would also help to revise environmental laws to make them more accurate and effective. However, the best way to reduce the problem would be to educate people! If people don't know there's a problem, then they're not going to do anything to improve the problem. They have to be informed before they can do anything. The steps to reduce exposure are actually quite simple and easy, but they can make a large improvement on our health and the environment. It's time to start improving our planet!
Source: http://ogoapes.weebly.com/uploads/3/2/3/9/3239894/everyday_exposure_to_toxic_chemicals.pdf
Article in source written by Wayne R. Ott and John W. Roberts
BPA and Human Health Effects
Is BPA really harming our health, or are we just overreacting? This is a highly controversial topic in the scientific world with many people on both sides of the issue. On one side of the debate is toxicologists, "who specialize in analyzing data with mathematical models, producing information often used to set regulatory limits on chemical exposures. Their work focuses not on physical effects observed in animals or cells but on developing models that use numbers to make predictions, in this case to describe the amount of a chemical in the human body and how it may behave." On the other side is scientists who study BPA's health effects. "They have reported health effects in lab animals at very low levels of BPA exposure that they say are comparable to amounts people encounter through consumer products". As one can tell, BPA is the most controversial topic in consumer products. It is found in many products, including plastic wrap, can liners, and receipts. It is also found in a lot of people. Studies show that over 90% of people tested have trace amounts of BPA in their bodies. This is obviously not good, since BPA acts as a hormone, disrupting regular hormones. A high exposure can lead to breast/prostate cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes.
This debate is very important because the information is being used by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration to decide whether or not we should regulate BPA in consumer products like canned foods. Some companies have already taken BPA out of plastic baby bottles, receipts, and more. Justin Teeguarden, senior scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, concluded that "the levels causing effects in animal studies, particularly those caused by BPA’s interaction with estrogen receptors, are much higher than the levels his models suggest are plausible in people". He also said that the animals were exposed to much higher levels than the levels in human blood samples, and is therefore not sufficient evidence to determine if humans are at risk at current exposure levels. However, some biologists say that BPA seems to have effects at low doses that don't occur at high doses, and is capable of affecting health at exceptionally low levels of exposure.
This article was kinda confusing. I don't know which side is right. It is unclear which side of the debate is more accurate. Nonetheless, we should take action NOW. As Thomas Zoeller said, “How long do we have to see the same things repeated in studies until we say these effects are real?" We can't just sit around, waiting for something to prove that one side of the debate is correct. We should be trying to do something about it, whether or not BPA is actually harmful. It is better to be safe than sorry. If we don't take action now, we could be regretting it in the future, and we can't afford for that to happen. Let's work together and reduce BPA! Reducing BPA could really improve human health, so why not? Who knows what could happen?
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-low-doses-of-bpa-harm/
Article in source written by Elizabeth Grossman on February 20, 2013
This debate is very important because the information is being used by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration to decide whether or not we should regulate BPA in consumer products like canned foods. Some companies have already taken BPA out of plastic baby bottles, receipts, and more. Justin Teeguarden, senior scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, concluded that "the levels causing effects in animal studies, particularly those caused by BPA’s interaction with estrogen receptors, are much higher than the levels his models suggest are plausible in people". He also said that the animals were exposed to much higher levels than the levels in human blood samples, and is therefore not sufficient evidence to determine if humans are at risk at current exposure levels. However, some biologists say that BPA seems to have effects at low doses that don't occur at high doses, and is capable of affecting health at exceptionally low levels of exposure.
This article was kinda confusing. I don't know which side is right. It is unclear which side of the debate is more accurate. Nonetheless, we should take action NOW. As Thomas Zoeller said, “How long do we have to see the same things repeated in studies until we say these effects are real?" We can't just sit around, waiting for something to prove that one side of the debate is correct. We should be trying to do something about it, whether or not BPA is actually harmful. It is better to be safe than sorry. If we don't take action now, we could be regretting it in the future, and we can't afford for that to happen. Let's work together and reduce BPA! Reducing BPA could really improve human health, so why not? Who knows what could happen?
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-low-doses-of-bpa-harm/
Article in source written by Elizabeth Grossman on February 20, 2013
Flame Retardants and IQ
A decade after manufacturers have finally stopped using flame retardants in furniture and carpet padding, many of the compounds still linger in homes. These chemicals could be hurting young children that were exposed before they were even born. Researchers collected blood samples from 309 pregnant women in their third trimester to investigate the impacts of prenatal exposure to flame retardants. It was found that "spikes in the levels of one class of flame retardant, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) correlated with behavior and cognition difficulties during early childhood". The researchers then tracked their children through the first five years of their lives. Children with mothers than had high levels of PBDE's during their second trimester displayed deficits as well as hyperactivity. In addition, if mother's had a ten-fold increase in PDBE's, the child had an average of 4 points in deficit on their IQ. There were two recent U.S. studies that showed association between prenatal exposure to flame retardants and developmental deficits and reduced IQ. One looked at children and PBDE's. "That study measured PBDE's both in pregnant women and in the children themselves. It showed that there is a relationship between high PBDE exposures in utero and deficits in children’s IQ, fine motor function and attention". In humans, PBDE's lodge themselves into body lipids when contaminated air is inhaled or tainted dust swallowed, and can stay there for a long time. This is obviously not good because those chemicals can interfere with the endocrine system. The structure of PBDE's strongly resembles thyroid hormones. They can drive growth and development, in particular brain development. Children are most prone to exposure because they spend so much time close to the floor and put their hands in their mouths. The flame retardants were taken out of manufacturing in 2004 but they still remain in old furniture, the atmosphere, and dust. However, furniture makers still use PBDE's because of a state law, the California Technical Bulletin 117. It states that furniture sold within the borders must be able to withstand a 12 second exposure to a small flame without igniting. California is revising its standard by requiring products to only pass a smolder test to prevent fires but not require use of flame retardants in manufacturing.
This article made me so sad. The flame retardants are hurting innocent babies before they were even born. To reduce this problem, we should obviously stop using flame retardants in manufacturing first. However, when we stop using them, they will still continue to linger in our environments. "Parents can take precautions to reduce exposure by having children wash their hands to diminish dust ingestion, and by replacing old furniture and changing old carpet padding". If parents do this, they can reduce the amount of flame retardants their children are consuming. Also, is it really necessary to put flame retardants in furniture? It's not very likely that furniture will catch on fire so we should just stop using them. That would really really improve our health and conditions, and our future.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flame-retardants-linked-lower-iq-hyperactivitiy-children/
Article in source written by Dina Fine Maron on May 6, 2013
This article made me so sad. The flame retardants are hurting innocent babies before they were even born. To reduce this problem, we should obviously stop using flame retardants in manufacturing first. However, when we stop using them, they will still continue to linger in our environments. "Parents can take precautions to reduce exposure by having children wash their hands to diminish dust ingestion, and by replacing old furniture and changing old carpet padding". If parents do this, they can reduce the amount of flame retardants their children are consuming. Also, is it really necessary to put flame retardants in furniture? It's not very likely that furniture will catch on fire so we should just stop using them. That would really really improve our health and conditions, and our future.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flame-retardants-linked-lower-iq-hyperactivitiy-children/
Article in source written by Dina Fine Maron on May 6, 2013
Should Doctors Warn Pregnant Women about Environmental Risks?
Dr. Darragh Flynn tells her pregnant patients to avoid smoking and drinking, to eat nutritious foods, and take vitamins. She recommends them to avoid gasoline fumes, pesticides, certain types of fish and some household cleaners and cosmetics. But she is just one of a few obstetricians and gynecologists that warn their patients of hidden dangers. A nationwide survey found that out of 2,600 obstetricians and gynecologists, the majority of them don't warn their pregnant patients about chemicals in their food, consumer products, and/or environment that could harm their fetuses. But most doctors don't consider it a priority to protect pregnant women from these chemicals, "Many doctors say their priority is to protect pregnant women from more immediate dangers, and that warning them about environmental risks may create undue anxiety". Doctors don't inform pregnant patients of these dangers because they don't want to add to the stress of the patient and don't want them to worry more than they already are.
Practically all pregnant women have chemicals in their bodies that could harm the baby's development. Out of 100 different chemicals,43 of them were found in all the pregnant women that were tested. The chemicals include lead, mercury, bisphenol A, flame retardants, and phthalates. Many of these chemicals can disrupt development of the brain or reproductive systems, even at low levels of exposure. Some also increase the risk of birth defects, cancer, asthma, fertility problems, and other disorders. However, a lot of this very important information is not reaching most pregnant women. A University of California, San Francisco conducted a nationwide survey with astonishing statistics. Almost all doctors said they discussed smoking, alcohol, diets, and weight gain with their patients. 86% discuss workplace hazards, 68% warn about secondhand smoke, but only 19% talk about pesticides, and only 12% discuss air pollution. 44% discuss mercury and 11% mention volatile organic compounds, which are fumes emitted from gasoline, paint, and solvents. Even more disturbing is the fact that only 9% of doctors tell their patients about polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 8% bisphenol A (BPA), and 5% phthalates.
It's shocking how much doctors don't tell pregnant women. It's cruel that they don't tell them about the potential, harmful chemicals they could be exposing their baby to; they have a right to know. We've been making progress though. "Since 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration have warned pregnant women to avoid eating high-mercury fish such as swordfish and shark and to limit consumption of albacore tuna. In addition, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issues statements to its members on the importance of patients avoiding mercury in fish". It's good that more and more people are raising more awareness about contaminants. and the dangers of everyday products. Education is the key to a better future! Yet, 300,000 newborns every year are exposed to levels of methylmercury that exceed the guidelines the EPA set to avoid neurological effects in fetuses. If doctors informed pregnant women about contaminants and everyone spread the word, then we could really make a difference in the lives of our future children. We also need to educate the youth. Even though there's evidence that environmental factors contribute to many health problems, medical students report less than six hours of environmental health training, according to University of Texas School of Medicine researchers. That's ridiculous! They should be learning about environmental effects. Pregnant women can also make a difference themselves! Fish is a great source of protein, but if they ate fish that contained less mercury, they could be benefiting the baby. In addition, not eating canned foods, avoiding beverages with resin liners, cosmetics, and plastic containing phthalates can make a big difference; so can avoiding processed foods and toxic cleaning supplies. Let's educate everyone and help make our world a better place for our future children to live.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-doctors-warn-pregnant-women-about-environmental-risks/
Article in source written by Jane Kay on December 10, 2012
Practically all pregnant women have chemicals in their bodies that could harm the baby's development. Out of 100 different chemicals,43 of them were found in all the pregnant women that were tested. The chemicals include lead, mercury, bisphenol A, flame retardants, and phthalates. Many of these chemicals can disrupt development of the brain or reproductive systems, even at low levels of exposure. Some also increase the risk of birth defects, cancer, asthma, fertility problems, and other disorders. However, a lot of this very important information is not reaching most pregnant women. A University of California, San Francisco conducted a nationwide survey with astonishing statistics. Almost all doctors said they discussed smoking, alcohol, diets, and weight gain with their patients. 86% discuss workplace hazards, 68% warn about secondhand smoke, but only 19% talk about pesticides, and only 12% discuss air pollution. 44% discuss mercury and 11% mention volatile organic compounds, which are fumes emitted from gasoline, paint, and solvents. Even more disturbing is the fact that only 9% of doctors tell their patients about polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 8% bisphenol A (BPA), and 5% phthalates.
It's shocking how much doctors don't tell pregnant women. It's cruel that they don't tell them about the potential, harmful chemicals they could be exposing their baby to; they have a right to know. We've been making progress though. "Since 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration have warned pregnant women to avoid eating high-mercury fish such as swordfish and shark and to limit consumption of albacore tuna. In addition, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issues statements to its members on the importance of patients avoiding mercury in fish". It's good that more and more people are raising more awareness about contaminants. and the dangers of everyday products. Education is the key to a better future! Yet, 300,000 newborns every year are exposed to levels of methylmercury that exceed the guidelines the EPA set to avoid neurological effects in fetuses. If doctors informed pregnant women about contaminants and everyone spread the word, then we could really make a difference in the lives of our future children. We also need to educate the youth. Even though there's evidence that environmental factors contribute to many health problems, medical students report less than six hours of environmental health training, according to University of Texas School of Medicine researchers. That's ridiculous! They should be learning about environmental effects. Pregnant women can also make a difference themselves! Fish is a great source of protein, but if they ate fish that contained less mercury, they could be benefiting the baby. In addition, not eating canned foods, avoiding beverages with resin liners, cosmetics, and plastic containing phthalates can make a big difference; so can avoiding processed foods and toxic cleaning supplies. Let's educate everyone and help make our world a better place for our future children to live.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-doctors-warn-pregnant-women-about-environmental-risks/
Article in source written by Jane Kay on December 10, 2012