“Invisible Cripples”: MCS

INVISIBLE CRIPPLES

Steven Rowat
v. 3.02 (©1996-2003)

YOU DON’T SEE PEOPLE with chemical sensitivities in the hardware store, with its strong odours of fresh rubbers, plastics, and paints (1,3-butadiene, benzene, xylene). You don’t see them in new clothing or shoe stores (formaldehyde, biphenyls) or shoe and bicycle repair shops (epoxy glues). They can’t be in fast-copy or print shops (n-hexane, methyl ethyl ketone). Paint stores are particularly difficult (toluene, carbon disulfide, trichloroethylene), and so is any place with fresh paint; you won’t see them there. Most supermarkets have only moderately bad air (packaging plastics, perfumed soaps), but since the foods themselves contain pesticides and additives (chlorpyrifos, nitrosamines, BHT) that make them ill, you won’t see them at the supermarket either. In fact, the only commercial store you’re likely to see them in is the organic health-food store, if you go there. And you may find them overly effusive and chatty; wild-eyed; a bit odd. It’s almost as if this is the only place they ever get to see a human being. But that couldn’t be so, could it?

You don’t see them working in office buildings, where the levels of volatile compounds from photocopiers, laser printers, rugs, perfumes, cleaners, and insulation (ozone, styrene, phenolic resins, benzenes, aldehydes) are so high that even normally-reactive people come down with Sick Building Syndrome [1], sometimes in epidemics of several hundred people [2]. You don’t see them in libraries or other public buildings with no openable windows and poor air-exchange systems, where carpeting and office equipment fumes are trapped inside, to be breathed repeatedly [3].

You don’t see them in theatres, sitting in a seat for an entire performance, because the chairs are foam rubber with synthetic covers (hydrazine, formaldehyde); and because someone sitting near them would be wearing perfume or cologne (most are petroleum-derived [4]). The same holds true for restaurants and nightclubs. In fact, in any place where people congregate together – offices, lineups, shopping centres – perfumes and other air contaminants are a problem and keep them away. At private parties or in people’s homes there is often cigarette smoke or woodsmoke, and almost always some form of synthetic fragrance or perfume.

They may drive a car, but usually only when no-one else is on the road; Sunday mornings, or on deserted country roads. Then they can blow fresh air through the windows to get rid of the rubber and plastic smells from the passenger compartment. And their car needs to be well sealed against its own exhaust fumes (nitrogen dioxide, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, butadiene): no leaks in the body, no ill-fitting windows.

In city traffic, they may use a special in-car air filter because there’s no fresh air outside to bring in; often they wear a mask for long drives in rush hour. You might catch a glimpse of them at a stoplight, face covered with a strange protuberance. In winter, they’ll also be heavily overdressed (multiple layers of hats, mitts, coats) because they can’t use the car heater, which blows overheated rubber and vinyl gases from the connector hoses directly into the car. In this getup, they may appear to you like some sort of Martian invader. You may wonder: Has it come to this?

You won’t see them in your home, where your new carpet emits styrene, butadiene, formaldehyde and other chemicals, your natural-gas furnace leaves noticeable residue in the air, and your gas stove leaks a bit. Where your open box of perfumed laundry detergent prevents them from going into the basement, where your toilet “air-freshener” prevents them from going into the bathroom. Where your sponge mattress and pillow and synthetic sheets prevent them from sleeping in the guest bed. Where your pesticide-sprayed commercial food prevents them from accepting the meal you offer. Where will you see them?

In their own residences, if you go there. Their ‘homes’ is often too strong a word, since many of them must move frequently. They can’t work at most jobs and so usually can’t afford to own houses (and sometimes can’t afford rent either – and sometimes can’t find any apartment or house that’s nontoxic to them, regardless of their finances – and end up homeless, wandering).

And what are their residences like? Spartan. See the list above: none of those things will be there, if they can help it. No synthetic rugs or underpads, no foam-stuffed furniture, no oil, natural-gas or wood furnaces or appliances. If they need to change the living space to achieve this, and the landlord argues, they have to move. Or they may have to move if the landlord insists on pesticide-spraying or painting. Recently some landlords have been prevented from doing this by court-order (in the United States, where chemical sensitivity is an officially-recognized disability [5]) but the person with multiple chemical sensitivity is unlikely to have enough money to go to court.

And what do they do there, in their ‘residences’?

At first, not a lot. They ponder what you, the not-so-afflicted, are doing out there: raising children, going to the supermarket, making love. All those taken-for-granted human actions. They may go for walks. (If they live in a city, they can only walk early morning and late at night, otherwise the diesel and car exhaust fumes are too heavy.)

They’re often single – could you live with them? – and live alone. They go to doctors occasionally, trying to find out about chemical sensitivity/allergy, although nobody seems to know much. They usually don’t go to general practitioners, whose offices smell strongly of plastic and rubber [6] and perfume – the doctor may even wear some, and there’s perfumed soap in the bathroom – but instead to physicians specializing in environmental illness, who at least have an air-cleaner and bare floors. They may go to meetings of similarly-afflicted people to swap stories and strategies; although more commonly they talk on the phone, since travel is a minefield.

Eventually, If they have access to scientific and medical research information, say through a modem connection to Medline, or by being lucky enough to live near a medical library (or by being an M.D. [7, 8]) they may spend a year, or even longer, researching and pondering the huge number of toxic chemicals they regularly encounter during late-20th-century life (42 Common Toxic Chemicals and Effects Table).

And having collected this data; having realized that most of these chemicals have been introduced within the last two generations [3], they may ponder the society that they live in; and they may begin to suspect that their life with chemical sensitivity (so seemingly insignificant in the larger scheme of things and yet still, for them personally, very difficult) is itself a small part of two much larger patterns.

In the first pattern, there is the societal rise of several types of human dysfunction: rates of cancer are rising in industrial countries; levels of autoimmune diseases have risen; rates of asthma [9-11] and depression [12] have risen; rates of childhood defects and disability have risen [13]; rates of allergy [14-16] have risen; levels of human sperm viability have fallen [3].

In the second pattern, the amount and types of chemicals encountered indoors and outdoors, in food and air, have risen exponentially [3]: neighborhoods have become car-centered and cars are necessary for work and even to see friends; chemicals from car and diesel exhaust, incinerators, and woodsmoke turn the air in populated areas into a toxic smog [17-20]. Pollution inside average urban houses with synthetic rugs, cleaners, adhesives, paints, and petroleum heat systems has increased to the point where the levels of benzene, xylene, tetrachloroethylene and many others [21] are consistently greater indoors than outdoors, even in smog-polluted areas, often by factors of 10 or more [22]. Pesticide levels indoors are commonly greater by factors of 100, compared to outdoor levels [3, 22]. In food, residues from many common pesticides and herbicides, as well as direct chemical additives, are eaten in the average diet [23]; and many of these are untested or inadequately tested [24], while many others are already known to be toxic [23, 24].

And so the chemically reactive person may be forgiven for hypothesizing: first, that there is some connection between the thousands of new chemicals that we are all immersed in and the rise of certain human diseases; second, that their own heightened reactivity to a large number of these chemicals is one of these new diseases; and third, that this new disease has a useful function (like all disease): it’s warning them (and all of us) to stay away from the new toxic chemicals.

And then they may ponder how, thanks to their multiple chemical sensitivity, they’ve been forced to abandon almost all aspects of 20th century life that involve the smell, touch and taste of rubbers and synthetic foams, new plastics, fresh paints, petrochemical cleaners, oil and gas fuels, and petroleum-based pesticides, perfumes, food additives, and drugs. They may ponder how it’s even possible that their genes have changed [25-30], so that their inability to tolerate these chemicals may be lifelong.

And (complaints aside) if they’re lucky enough, or persistent enough (or more likely, both [31]) to find themselves living in an electrically-heated, rugless house, in a small village far from a city, a house with a yard bordering on a wild field; and to be sitting in the yard on a sunny day, breathing good air, and hearing the chirping of birds and watching their organic garden growing peacefully, and to be looking at the car parked in the driveway, which they can only stand to use once a week for a 20-minute trip (which is all they really need, anyway) it may occur to them that their multiple chemical sensitivity, as a learning experience, may not have had such a bad result, in some ways.

And it may occur to them to try to pass on what they’ve learned, so that others may also have this result; without needing to have the disease.

References

1. Molhave L, Bach B, Pedersen OF. Dose-Response Relation of Volatile Organic Compounds in the Sick Building Syndrome. Clinical Ecology. 4(2):52-56 (1986).

2. Welch LS, Sokas R. Development of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity After an Outbreak of Sick-Building Syndrome. Toxicology and Industrial Health. 8(4):47-50 (1992).

3. Ashford NA, Miller CS. Chemical Exposures and Sensitive Populations. In: Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991: 3-26.

4. Ziem G. Physical Symptoms after Neurotoxic Exposure [letter comment]. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 31(4) (1989).

5. Weidenfeller GL. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorder and Environmental Illness as Handicaps. Office of The General Counsel, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1992. Memorandum for All Regional Counsel. Report # pp.)

6. Baur X, Ammon J, Chen Z, Beckmann U, Czuppon AB. Health risk in hospitals through airborne allergens for patients presensitised to latex. Lancet. 342:1148-1149 (1993).

7. Rogers SA. A Practical Approach to the Person with Suspected Indoor Air Quality Problems. International Clinical Nutrition Review. 11(3):253 (1991).

8. Cox K. Doctor Well-Suited To Direct New Clinic. Globe and Mail. Toronto. Nov. 8, 1994, 1995. reprinted in the Allergy and Environmental Health Association Quarterly, Volume 14, #4, p.4-5.

9. Burr ML. Epidemiology of childhood asthma. Allerg Immunol (Paris). 23(8):348-50 (1991). (abstract)

10. Samet JM. Asthma and the environment: do environmental factors affect the incidence and prognosis of asthma? Toxicol Lett. 82-83:33-8 (1995). (abstract)

11. Meggs WJ. RADS and RUDS–the toxic induction of asthma and rhinitis. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 32(5):487-501 (1994).

12. Klerman G, Weissman M. Increasing Rates of Depression. Journal of the American Medical Association. 261(15):2229-2235 (1989). (cited in: Ashford NAnd Miller, Chemicals Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p.17)

13. Newacheck PW, Budetti PP, McManus P. Trends in Childhood Disability. American Journal of Public Health. 74(3):232-235 (1984).

14. Muranaka M, Suzuki S, Koizumi K, Takafuji S, Miyamoto T, Ikemori R, Tokiwa H. Adjuvant activity of diesel-exhaust particulates for the production of IgE antibody in mice. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 7:616-23 (1986).

15. Croner S. Prediction and detection of allergy development: influence of genetic and environmental factors. J Pediatr. 121(5 Pt 2):S58-63 (1992). (abstract)

16. Slater JE. Allergic reactions to natural rubber. Ann Allergy. 68(3):203-9 (1992).

17. Ipsen J, Deane M, Igenito FE. Relationships of acute respiratory disease to atmospheric pollution and meteorological conditions. Arch Environ Health. 18:462-472 (1969).

18. Ito K, Thurston GD, Hayes C, Lippmann M. Associations of London, England, Daily Mortality with Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, and Acidic Aerosol Pollution. Archives of Environmental Health. 48(4):213-220 (1993).

19. Oppelt ET. Air emissions from the incineration of hazardous waste. Toxicol Ind Health. 6(5):23-51 (1990).

20. Pearlman ME, Finklea JF, Creason JP, Shy CM, Young MM, Horton JM. Nitrogen Dioxide and Lower Respiratory Illness. Pediatrics. 47(2):391-398 (1971).

21. Dumont R. Volatile Organic Compound Survey and Summarization of Results. Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). 1992. Report # SRC I-4800-1-C-92. (59 pp.)

22. Subcommittee on Immunotoxicology. Use of Biologic Markers in Controversial Areas of Environmental Health. In: Biologic Markers in Immunotoxicology. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992: 127-148.

23. Winter R. A Consumer’s Dictionary of Food Additives.New York: Crown, 1994

24. Ashford NA, Miller CS. Origins of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and Effects on Health. In: Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991: 59-84.

25. Thaler DS. The evolution of genetic intelligence [comment] [see comments]. Science. 264(5156):224-5 (1994).

26. Ader R, Kelly K, Moynihan JA, Grota LJ, Cohen N. Conditioned enhancement of antibody production using antigen as the unconditioned stimulus. Brain Behav Immun. 7(4):334-43 (1993).

27. Farmer JD, Kauffman SA, Packard NH, Perelson AS. Adaptive dynamic networks as models for the immune system and autocatalytic sets. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 504:118-31 (1987).

28. Grossman Z, Herberman RB, Livnat S. Neural modulation of immunity: conditioning phenomena and the adaptability of lymphoid cells. Int J Neurosci. 64(1-4):275-90 (1992).

29. Ader R, Cohen N. Conditioned immunopharmacologic effects on cell-mediated immunity. Int J Immunopharmacol. 14(3):323-7 (1992).

30. Robey E, Fowlkes J. Selective events in T cell development. Annu Rev Immunol. 12:675-705 (1994).

31. Barron SR. Survey of the Medical Impact on Environmentally Hypersensitive People of a Change in Habitat. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Research Division. 1990. (Report #PE0092, 82 pp.)

____________________________

[See also S. C. Rowat,  "Integrated Defense System Overlaps as a Disease Model: With Examples for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity", in Reviews in Environmental Health, 1998, Environmental Health Perspectives 106, Supplement 1, February 1998. http://web.archive.org/web/20060502135102/www.rowatworks.com/Science/IDS-Overlaps/IDS-multipage/index.html.]

“We’re in chemical overload”

We’re in chemical overload

Viviane Maraghi expected the blood tests to show she would have some chemical pollution in her body, but nothing like this.

Story by WILLIAM MARSDEN
The Gazette

Saturday, June 21, 2008

After all, she viewed herself as “very environmentalist,” carefully monitoring what she ate and and the household products and items she purchased.

Nevertheless, lead, arsenic, mercury, PCBs, PBDEs (a flame retardant banned in Europe and eight U.S. states but still in use in Canada), plus an array of other chemicals that have been linked to cancer, birth defects and neurological diseases were all well represented in her bloodstream.

Her blood tested positive for 36 of 68 potentially toxic chemicals, many of which never actually leave the body, but continue to accumulate over time in tissues such as fat or bone.

They get there because they are in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the products we use.

Over the last 50 years, from 70,000 to 100,000 different chemicals have been introduced into the world’s markets with about 1,500 new ones added each year. They are found mostly in industrial processes and consumer products such as cosmetics, cleaners, food, plastics and more recently the circuit boards that run our computer electronics. Even a seemingly innocuous polyvinyl chloride (PVC ) shower curtain contains up to 108 toxic chemicals – some of which have already been banned by some countries, but not in Canada.

Manufacturers often argue that these chemicals have been used for decades with no reported incidents of harm. But who has ever been able to say: “I’m dying of cancer and it’s the shower curtain’s fault?” Fact is, only sporadic toxicity studies have been done on the enormous array of industrial chemicals used in Canada.

Only now are governments beginning to examine the dangers posed to human health and ecosystems. Many western governments are initiating new chemical controls as part of an international Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management agreement signed in Dubai in 2006. The agreement was sparked by the realization that nearly every square inch of the planet is now contaminated to one degree or another with a chemical pollutant. What’s more, over the next 15 years, chemical production is expected to climb 80 per cent. The main goal is to assure that by 2020 everybody uses chemicals safely.

Leading the way is the European Union with a new program called REACH (Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) that requires industry to prove the safety of their chemicals and consumer products before they reach the market.

The next 10 years will see a vast number of chemical assessments, all of which will be made public, that will shed light on the murky world of chemical toxicity. It’s a world that until now has remained hushed up or simply ignored.

The ultimate result could be a sea change in how we develop products for the consumer market. It could lead to widespread bans on some substances, which might see many consumer products disappear from the shelves or be replaced with safer equivalents.

It is an issue that is becoming increasingly important worldwide as species disappear, health costs sore, and concern grows that many diseases, particularly cancers and autoimmune diseases, might be the result of chemical pollution.

Few tests have been performed on Canadians to pinpoint and quantify the chemical pollutants accumulating in our bodies. But that is beginning to change.

Health Canada is testing 5,000 Canadians for chemical contamination and preliminary results should be available in November.

The tests done on Maraghi, 35, and her son Aladin, 12, in 2005 were part of a research project called Toxic Nation undertaken by the Toronto-based activist group Environmental Defence.

An attempt to wake up Canadians to the growing danger of chemical toxins entering our bodies, the study tested 11 individual volunteers plus five families.

Maraghi and her son took part, she said, because she was eager to help raise Canadian’s awareness of the dangers posed by the millions of kilograms of chemicals emitted into the environment each year.

Each volunteer had high levels of many different chemical pollutants in their bloodstreams.

Even Maraghi’s son Aladin, who was only 10 when the tests were performed, tested positive for 25 chemicals and had higher lead levels than his mother.

Both had high levels of organophosphate insecticides, probably because they spent three years living in the country, Maraghi said.

“It was surprising to us because we are very aware and a big part of what we eat is organic, and we try to be careful with the types of products we use in the house,” she said. “So my first reaction was, ‘what happens with people that don’t take care of that and are not aware?’ ” To date, consumers have been unsuspecting lab rats for chemical companies who have been allowed to market their products without ensuring they won’t damage human health or the environment. Bans have been imposed only after the damage is done.

So far, preliminary studies in Europe and the United States strongly indicate we all are contaminated.

A recent U.S. study found most of its subjects had rocket fuel chemicals in their bodies as well as a host of other toxins like bisphenol A, which gives the clear, pliable strength to plastic water bottles as well as baby formula bottles. Health Canada tests reveal that it disrupts the body’s hormones and could be toxic even at low levels. Because the government here is worried that bisphenol A migrates into baby formula, Health Canada is considering a ban on its use in baby bottles.

Canada, however, is still far behind the EU in assessing chemicals.

The EU’s REACH program officially began on June 1, when it required that every company register chemicals sold in the EU, in bulk or in consumer products. Companies must reveal the chemical composition and toxicity of their consumer products and must finance their own toxicity studies. All of this information will be entered into a public registry. Essentially, until a company proves the safety of its product, it cannot be sold in the EU.

The EU hopes the REACH program will motivate companies throughout the world to produce safer products. Given the enormity of the EU market (it has surpassed the U.S.), the motivation to conform will be considerable.

Canadian exports to the EU, for example, have increased 600 per cent since 1998, totalling $4.7 billion last year. Only a small percentage of our total chemical exports go to the EU (most go to the U.S.), but it is not a market Canadians would want to lose.

While public health and a safe environment for all species are the priorities of the REACH program, EU officials also note that the high costs of cleaning up contaminated sites as well as fighting diseases caused by chemical contamination are significant reasons to implement the program.

The EU says the program will cost industry up to $8.2 billion over the first 11 to 15 years. However, it estimates a reduction of .01 per cent in the overall burden of disease would save about $80 billion over 30 years.

A wide array of studies indicate a significant proportion of disease is directly related to environmental and occupational factors like chemical contamination. The World Health Organization estimates that the poor, particularly children and women, suffer disproportionately from diseases that are related to environmental contamination. In developing countries, up to 35 per cent of diseases are caused by contaminated environments.

The figures could, however, be much higher for all societies. But because few studies have examined this issue, nobody really knows. The studies that have been done indicate serious problems.

For example, scientists at Université Laval have revealed that Inuit children and their mothers in northern Quebec have high levels of organochlorines such as PCBs and the extremely toxic chemical dioxin. These chemicals can damage the immune system, especially as it develops in the womb and during infancy. This might explain why Inuit children have been found to have a much higher incidence of acute infections such as ear and lung infections compared with people living in southern Quebec. Most of the chemical pollution in the North has been brought from the South by ocean currents that circle the Arctic. The contaminants concentrate at the top of the food chain in predatory fish and mammals, which are the main food source for the Inuit.

In some cases, studies show that Inuit children’s immune systems have been so badly damaged that doctors are hesitant to prescribe antibiotics for fear they will worsen the infection.

Canada has started its own chemical assessment program. Unlike the EU program, which demands that industry foot the bill for toxicity assessments, the Canadian program is completely financed by the taxpayer.

“On the level of depth and breadth of coverage, the REACH program wins on both accounts,” John Margeson, Industry Canada’s chemical specialist, said.

Canada’s umbrella law for the regulation of chemicals is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

Under this law, which was passed in 1999, all new chemicals produced in or imported into Canada since 1994 have to be assessed for health and environmental effects by Health Canada.

However, companies can market a chemical before tests are completed. Essentially, it is up to the government to prove the chemical is a risk before it is taken off the market.

There is also no obligation for the government to keep a dangerous chemical off the shelves. The law gives the government up to two years after assessing a chemical to take action, but does not oblige it to ban a dangerous chemical.

“These chemicals are in all kinds of different products and it’s going to be very interesting to see how much political will there is and whether they have the guts to do things that are going to be disruptive to the market,” Dr. Kapil Khatter, pollution policy advisor for Environmental Defence, said. “It’s hard not to bow to the social and economic pressures.” What’s more, when the new CEPA was made law in 1999, it did not require that companies supply toxicity reports for the 23,000 chemicals already widely used Canada.

It did, however, obligate the government to sort the chemicals into those that are inherently toxic to humans or to the environment.

The sorting process was finally completed in September 2006. The government identified more than 4,000 chemicals, which it decided required further study. Of these, it labelled 200 “high priority.” Of these 200, 66 are potentially dangerous to human health and the rest pose ecological dangers. All of them have remained on the market as the government completes its assessment. The final test results for the first 15 chemicals will be published July 5. But that is nowhere near the end of the assessments.

Christine Norman, acting director of the risk and impact assessment branch of the program, said it will take two more years to complete the testing on the 200 high-priority chemicals. Then there are another 2,600 chemicals from the petroleum sector that will have to be assessed; another 1,400 are considered of medium priority. How long that will take is not clear.

So far, Health Canada has identified 16 substances that pose a high risk to humans and another 17 that are toxic to other species.

One of those substances is thiourea, which is used in metal finishing solutions as well as silver polish, tarnish removers, metal cleaners and in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and in the pulp and paper industry.

The federal government claims that in 2006, industry imported between 10,000 and 100,000 kilograms of thiourea. Norman said the government knows the exact number but won’t make it public because industry insists it is a business secret.

Importation was permitted despite the fact that dozens of studies dating back as early as 1947 showed that even at low doses rats and mice fed thiourea developed a variety of cancerous tumours. It can enter the human body orally, through inhalation or through skin contact.

The Chemical Substances Program published an assessment of thiourea on May 8 stating that it could cause cancer “at any level of exposure.” The report said thiourea should be considered a “substance that may be entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.” But despite its potential danger to humans, the chemical is still widely used in Canada.

Norman said the final assessment is still months away. She said two years after the final assessment, Health Canada will publish a risk-management assessment that will outline steps the government should take to deal with the dangers. These could include an outright or limited ban on its use, or simply a warning on packages.

The chemical bisphenol A is another example of the slow pace of government action. Global production, now more than three billion kilograms per year, is increasing. Bisphenol A has been found in high concentrations in municipal and industrial wastewaters, sludge and biosolids, which are often spread as fertilizer. As well as a danger to humans, “bisphenol A is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and is considered highly hazardous to the aquatic environment,” Health Canada states in its assessment. Yet the government is only considering a ban on its use in baby bottles, without considering its danger to wildlife or the broader Canadian population.

Khatter said the government just wants to give the appearance of taking action. “There is an intellectual gap between the people who wrote the risk assessment and the minister’s office,” he said. “The risk assessment says this stuff is really toxic to aquatic wildlife at very low levels and we have to do something about releases to the environment, period, but all the government seems to do is ban it from baby bottles.” In March 2007, Health Canada began testing 5,000 Canadians for the chemical pollution in their bodies. Tests are being done on blood, urine, hair, saliva and breast milk.

The idea is to track chemical contamination levels in a broad spectrum of the population and measure trends in exposure over time and by geographical region.

Eventually, Health Canada hopes to be able to compare the medical records with the level of chemical exposure to find a possible relationship between the two.

Statistics Canada is compiling the data. Jeanine Bustros, director of the project, said they have already completed about two thirds of the testing including subjects in Montreal and the south shore communities.

Preliminary results for heavy metals like cadmium, lead and mercury are scheduled to be made public in November. Final results for all 5,000 participants across Canada will be released January 2010, she said.

Each participant fills out a lengthy and detailed health and lifestyle survey detailing such data as illnesses, daily routines, exercise regiments, food consumption, job environment, beauty products, hobbies, stress levels and products used in the home.

“This is the first time we will have normative data on the level of chemicals in the Canadian population,” she said. “This means that we will have a point of reference to compare, say, the levels of lead in a person with the norm.” Advances in the technology of detection are making it easier for scientists to detect the present of even the smallest quantities of chemical pollutants. We can now detect chemical levels in parts per trillion.

“One part per trillion is one second in 32,000 years,” Dr. Joe Schwartz, a chemist at McGill University’s science and society department, noted. “That you can detect things in that concentration is far better than finding a needle in a haystack. It’s like finding a needle in a world full of haystacks.” Our ability to measure data, however, has outstripped our ability to interpret the data, he said. The ultimate goal has to be to find out what, if any, detrimental health or environmental effects exist. With many chemicals, this is still a black hole.

Most studies that detect potentially dangerous toxins are the result of giving large doses to rats, but what kills a rat may not have any effect on humans.

“The value of bio-monitoring is going to be long term,” Schwartz said. “If we have a good baseline now, we get good data and then we check 10, 20 years down the road to see if there is any alteration in disease patterns for those people and then you look back to see if there is any link.” So while Maraghi and her son Aladin may know the chemicals that are polluting their bodies, finding out the impact is a wait-and-see game.

She said her son never gets sick. She on the other hand is plagued with migraines.

“I have had them since I was young. But it’s hard to relate it to anything.” But just knowing about the chemical cocktail in her body is a good thing. It’s made her even more careful of what she buys.

“I lately brought a mattress for my son and since we were aware of the products they can put in, like the products against fire, we asked for a mattress without (fire retardants). Whereas before when I bought any of this furniture, I would never ask this question because I was not aware.”

- – -

Don’ts

1. Bathroom

Things to avoid: Cosmetics, toiletries and perfumes with synthetic fragrances (many contain phthalates and other harmful chemicals).

Anti-bacterial toothpaste, toothbrushes and mouthwashes that contain triclosan.

Vinyl shower curtains and fabric shower curtains with water-repellent coating.

2. Artist’s studio

Avoid: Painting and drawing materials that contain solvents, which may contain chemicals like toluene and xylene.

Pigments in paints that contain heavy metals, e.g., lead. Some pigments may be contaminated with PCBs and dioxins.

3. Bedroom

Avoid: Sheets that are wrinkle-resistant (they contain formaldehyde), or made with pesticide-treated cotton.

Moth-proof wool blankets (they contain pesticides).

Mattresses with brominated flame retardants, plastic, or foam.

Dry-clean only clothes (most dry cleaners use PERC).

Clothing with stain repellents, wrinkle-resistant treatments (they contain formaldehyde), brominated flame retardants, pesticide-treated cotton, or plastic labels.

Nursery

Avoid: Polycarbonate plastic feeding bottle (identifiable by the No. 7 marked on the bottom of the bottle inside a recycle symbol).

Latex rubber nipples.

PVC-containing toys or soothers.

Disposable diapers (most contain dyes, fragrances and plastics).

4. Home office

Avoid: Wood with a toxic finish; and particleboard, fibreboard, and plywood. These woods are used as sub-flooring, wall covering, and inside cabinets for shelving. Most products made of these wood types contain formaldehyde.

Computers and other electronics with brominated flame retardants.

5. Kitchen

Avoid: Vinyl floors.

Tinned food (the cans are lined with an epoxy resin that may leach bisphenol A).

Plastic food wrap (may contain bisphenol A).

PVC and polycarbonate plastic bottles, containers, etc., Nos. 3 and 7.

Microwaving food in plastic wrap.

Non-stick cookware.

Ceramic glazed cookware (may contain cadmium and lead).

Antibacterial soaps and cleaners that contain triclosan.

Cleaning products with harsh chemical ingredients and synthetic fragrances (often strengthened with phthalates).

6. Living room

Avoid: Carpets that contain stain repellents and brominated flame retardants.

Upholstery and furniture that are treated with stain repellents and brominated flame retardants.

Curtains that are treated with stain repellents and brominated flame retardants.

PVC-containing mini-blinds from Mexico or Asia might contain lead.

Chemical air fresheners.

7. Garden

Avoid: CCA pressure-treated wood for patios and fences (it has a green tint to it and leaches arsenic).

Chemical pesticides.

8. Basement

Avoid: Toxic chemicals and high-level VOCs in paints, varnishes, paint-stripping products, gasoline, glue, adhesives, and solvents.

Laundry detergents and fabric softeners with synthetic fragrances.

Chlorine bleach.

- – -

Do’s

1. Bathroom

Try these alternatives to chemical-laden products:

Products that don’t contain phthalates or toxic chemicals. The Guide to Less Toxic Products (www.lesstoxicguide.ca) lists Canadian products that are safe.

Organic cotton and unbleached sanitary pads.

Acrylic bathtubs, or refinish your porcelain one with a tub refinishing kit (available at hardware stores).

Hemp shower curtains.

2. Artist’s studio

Try these alternatives:

Mineral spirits – for thinning oil-based paints and varnishes or for general cleaning purposes.

Water-based markers.

Water-based and acrylic paints.

Note: Water-based paints may contain formaldehyde, acrylics may contain ammonia – but they are still considered safer than oil-based paints.

3. Bedroom

Try these alternatives:

Sheets that are 100-per-cent cotton, hemp, linen or wool, and preferably organic and unbleached.

Mattresses with cotton stuffing or cotton padding around the foam core. If a new mattress is not an option, wrap your mattress in an untreated 100-per-cent cotton cloth barrier sheet with a high thread count (250 or more).

Unbleached clothing made of organic cotton, hemp, linen or wool.

In the nursery:

Breast feeding is best. Next option is bottles made of glass or plastic No. 1, 2, 4 or 5.

Silicone nipples.

Non-flexible plastic, wooden, or organic, untreated cotton toys.

Organic, untreated cotton diapers and clothing.

4. Home office

Try these alternatives:

Solid wood with a non-toxic finish, metal, or used furniture (but avoid painted furniture from before 1960, it may contain lead). IKEA has made a commitment to sell products that are free from hazardous substances.

Electronics from companies that have eliminated PBDEs from their products – these include Apple, Dell, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, Sony and Toshiba.

5. Kitchen

Try these alternatives:

Wooden, ceramic, marble, cork or bamboo flooring.

Aluminum foil, wax paper, food-grade reusable containers.

Glass containers, or plastics Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Glass, ceramic and plastic containers that are labelled microwave safe.

Organic food.

Cast iron and stainless steel cookware.

Fragrance-free and biodegradable products, and homemade all-purpose cleaner. The Guide to Less Toxic Products (www.lesstoxicguide.ca) lists safe products and homemade recipes.

6. Living room

Try these alternatives:

Organic or natural fibre carpets, such as wool, cotton, rattan or jute.

To freshen the air, try potpourri, baking soda, or just simply open the windows.

7. Garden

Try these alternatives:

Organic gardening methods such as hand-picking weeds, mulching and planting flowers that attract beneficial insects to feast on pests.

8. Basement

Try these alternatives:

Products that are water-based, plant-oil based, and those that have low-level VOCs. EarthEasy (www.eartheasy.com) lists non-toxic paints and paint strippers.

Biodegradable, non-chlorine liquid bleach or oxygen bleach powder.

References:

environmental defence, www.environmentaldefence.ca/

toxic nation, www.toxicnation.ca/go-toxic-free/alternatives

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2008

CFS/ME: letters from Carlos

Our friend and collaborator from Madrid, Carlos González (“Carlitos”), has a wonderful blog in which he puts all the tests and treatments that he has done since he got sick with CFS-ME in 2005.
It’s in English! Enjoy:

http://pochoams.blogspot.com/

All the best,

Clara Valverde

President, Liga SFC

Spain

The New Gulf War

The New Gulf War Syndrome

By Nora Eisenberg, The Guardian
Posted on November 11, 2008, Printed on February 8, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/106497/

What does a war injury look like? In the case of Iraq, we tend to picture veterans bravely getting on with their lives with the help of steel legs or computerized limbs. Trauma injuries are certainly the most visible of health problems — the ones that grab our attention. A campaign ad for congressman Tom Udall featured an Iraq war veteran who had survived a shot to his head. Speaking through the computer that now substitutes for his voice, Sergeant Erik Schei extols the top-notch care that saved his life.

As politicians argue about healthcare for veterans, it is generally people like Sgt Schei that they have in mind, men and women torn apart by a bullet or bomb. And of course, these Iraq war veterans must receive the best care available for such complex and catastrophic injuries.

Unfortunately, the dangers of modern war extend far beyond weapons. As Iraqis know only too well, areas of Iraq today are among the most polluted on the planet — so toxic that merely to live, eat and sleep (never mind to fight) in these zones is to risk death. Thousands of soldiers coming home from the war may have been exposed to chemicals that are known to cause cancers and neurological problems. What’s most tragic is that the veterans themselves do not always realize that they are in danger from chemical poisoning. Right now, there is no clear way for Iraq war veterans to find out what they’ve been exposed to and where to get help.

In October, the Military Times reported on the open-air pits on U.S. bases in Iraq, where troops incinerate tons of waste. Because of such pits, tens of thousands of soldiers may be breathing air contaminated with burning Freon, jet fuel and other carcinogens. According to reports, soldiers are coughing up blood or the black goop that has been nicknamed “plume crud”.

In other cases, soldiers may have been exposed to poisons spread during efforts to restore Iraq’s infrastructure. In 2003, for instance, members of the Indiana national guard were put in charge of protecting a water-treatment plant. They were told not to worry about the bright orange dust lying in piles around the plant, swirling in the air and gathering in the folds of their uniforms. In fact, Indiana soldiers spent weeks or months in a wasteland contaminated with sodium dichromate. The chemical, made famous after its role as the villain in the movie Erin Brockovich, is used to peel corrosion off of water pipes. It is a carcinogen that attacks the lungs and sinuses.

Today, a decade and a half after the first Gulf war, we know that such exposure may lead to widespread suffering. In 1991, veterans began to exhibit fatigue, fevers, rashes, joint pain, intestinal problems, memory loss, mood swings and even cancers, a cluster of symptoms and conditions referred to now as Gulf war syndrome (or illness). For years, the U.S. department of defense maintained that stress caused the veterans’ symptoms. Veterans groups blamed war-related toxins. This year, the National Academy of Sciences published an extensive review of years of scientific study of Gulf war illness that concluded a cause and effect relationship existed between the widespread illnesses among veterans and exposure to powerful neurotoxins. Complementing the U.S. studies is an emerging body of epidemiological data linking increased incidence of Iraqi cancer, birth defects, infant mortality and multi-system diseases to toxic exposure.

Strangely enough, though, there has been almost no discussion of whether today’s soldiers — those fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan — have also been injured by wartime poisons. We don’t have a word yet for the constellation of cancers, psychological ills and systemic diseases that may be caused by toxins in today’s wars.

In order to care for our veterans, we must do more than offer state-of-the-art hospitals and high-tech prosthetics. Veterans will need information about what poisons they have breathed or touched or drunk and when.

What would such an effort look like? First the military would need to disclose all known incidents of toxic exposure. Then it would have to reach out to veterans and give them information about how to receive care for conditions that arise from this exposure.

This summer, senator Evan Bayh made a first stab at such a system. Bayh pushed the national guard to track down hundreds of those Indiana soldiers who may have breathed orange dust back in 2003. Most of the soldiers are now civilians scattered across the U.S., unaware that they are at high risk for lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Some of them may already be struggling with illness. The national guard is making an effort to search for these veterans and provide them with a phone number to call in order to seek medical help.

That’s a good first step. But what about all the other veterans who believe that they have returned home from the war healthy? Without knowing it, they may be carrying a small bomb inside them. And they have a right to know.

Nora Eisenberg is the director of the City University of New York’s fellowship program for emerging scholars. Her short stories, essays and reviews have appeared in such places as The Partisan Review, The Village Voice, The Los Angeles Times and Tikkun. When You Come Home, her new novel, which explores the the 1991 Gulf War and Gulf War illness, will be published this month by Curbstone Press.

© 2009 The Guardian All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/106497/

Chemical Sensitivity Now a Physical Illness in Germany

Merry Christmas for MCS patients

From
Silvia Mueller writes on Christmas Eve:

Here is the best message. The German Government Department for Social is the main department for disability. The Ministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. There are guidelines which are used by doctors, courts, authorities,… when it comes to a disability. In our disability guidelines MCS is a physical disease. It is registered in the part for movement disorders, because we can’t go everywhere, etc. There was one sentence in this guideline which was disturbing and used by opposition to refuse our cases and say we are psychosomatic cases. It said MCS is a somatoform disorder.

One of my people at CSN wrote to the department and asked that this nasty sentence is removed from the guidelines. Now MCS is a physical disease nothing else.  We have also the ICD-10 which says MCS is a physical disease. With these two tools nobody can discriminate us anymore.

It’s a victory – It’s Christmas for chemically sensitive people over here. We gave this information and the government letter as a present to the CS people today. After we started an online party. The motto of the party is that we think also about  those who have nobody and we write poems, place links to you tube videos, write fun, greetings,… If you like to send something I can place it in for you, the people will love it.

http://www.csn-deutschland.de/blog/2008/12/24/willkommen-zur-csn-christmas-party-2008/

Dr. Rea and nobody else should worry. They can’t stop chemical sensitivity or declare us nuts anymore. We call it “the train is gone”.

It happened too much, and the bonds between people all over the world are too strong. Doctors find out more and more. And we all will not stop talking about it.  They can’t quiet us anymore.