WDDTY

WHAT

DOCTORS

DONT TELL YOU

Safe Living
Protecting yourself from
environmental hazards

Contents
Hazards in the home
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
19
21
23

Painting by poisons
Flame retardants: playing with fire
Carpets: the chemicals underfoot
Pesticides: poison at your fingertips
Air fresheners: far from fresh
Triclosan: antibacterial time bomb
Natural gas: its green, but is it safe?
Teflon: its safety story doesnt stick
DIY dangers: MDF
Dry cleaning: clean but deadly
Big problems in tiny packages
Poison in your shopping basket

Electropollution
26
30
34
39
41
43
45

Power lines: short circuits to illness

Wireless technology: something in the air
Brain waves: the autism link
Mobile phones: DNA damage discovered
Casting a shadow on fluorescent lights
Filthy frequencies
The dark side of light

Water worries
47
51
53
55
57

Theres something in the water. . .

Tapping into pure water
Poisoning the wells
Fluoride and bone cancer
Bottled water everywhere

Killer cosmetics
59
61
63
65

Toxic chemicals make killer makeup

The problem with perfume
Sunscreens: protection at a price
Hair colours to die for

The threat from outdoors

67
69
71
73

Fear of flying with good reason

Artificial turf: not-so-fantastic plastic
Diesel: a better alternative?
Every breath we take

WWW.WDDTY.COM

Hazards in the home

Painting by poisons
Theres nothing like a new coat of paint to brighten up a room. But
the latest evidence suggests that frequent painting might contribute
to cancer, infertility and more.

fresh lick of paint can do

wonders for even the
dingiest, drabbest room.
But new research from the
US suggests that you could be putting
your familys health at risk every time
you pick up a paintbrush.
A study by University of California
researchers reported a significant
association between household use of
paint and childhood leukaemia
currently the most common type of
cancer afflicting children around the
world. Specifically, children exposed
to paint in the home had a 65-percent greater risk of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). As the risk
rose with frequency of paint use, a
causal relationship is suggested.
The more worrying aspect of these
findings was that mothers who used
paint during either preconception or
pregnancy were up to three times
more likely to have a child with ALL
than were non-users. This means that
paint may cause problems early on in
the development of the fetus.
The researchers concluded that
avoiding the use of paint in the
house during pregnancy and early
childhood would be a prudent
measure (Environ Health Perspect, 2009;
117: 1339).
These data add to the already
convincing body of evidence linking
paint and cancer. Indeed, a large-scale
study conducted in 2001 found a
significant doseresponse relationship between the risk of ALL and the
number of rooms painted in the
house in the year before and year

after the childs birth (Am

J Public

Health, 2001; 91: 5647).

Other studies have found an

association between childhood leukaemia and maternal occupational
exposure to paint during pregnancy
(Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 1999; 8:
78391; Cancer Res, 1989; 49: 40307; Am J
Epidemiol, 1985; 121: 21624). In a largescale case-control study by the US
Childrens Cancer Group, women
who worked with paints or thinners
while pregnant were nearly twice as
likely to have a child with ALL. And
again, paint/thinner exposure during
the preconception period further
increased the risk (Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev, 1999; 8: 78391).
Other cancers are also linked to
paint. Studies of workers in the
painting trades and paint-making
industry show higher rates of risk for
cancers of the bladder, lung, larynx,
pancreas, oral cavity, oesophagus,
liver and stomach (J Occup Environ Med,
2002; 44: 25864; Cancer Detect Prev, 1998;
22: 5339).

These findings are consistent with the decision of the

International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) to classify painting as
an occupationally related cause of
cancer (Lancet Oncol, 2007; 8: 10656).

Whats wrong with paint?

Conventional paint uses a cocktail of
hazardous chemicals, so its difficult
to pinpoint the particular cancercausing culprit. However, those identified so far are chemicals known as
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Derived from petrochemicals,

Painting more safely indoors

Schedule painting for dry periods in the summer, when you can leave
windows open for ventilation (23 days)
! Never use exterior paints indoors
! Take frequent fresh-air breaks while painting
! Watch out for tell-tale symptoms like watery eyes, headache,
dizziness or breathing problems.
!

2 WDDTY Safe Living

VOCs readily release vapours at room

temperature. Although this outgassing mostly occurs within the first
few days, it can continue for months
or even years after painting, seriously
affecting indoor air quality (Int Arch
Occup Environ Health, 1997; 69: 11524).
For most people, the worst theyll
suffer from VOC outgassing are headaches and maybe dizziness or drowsiness. But VOCs may also be causing
the increased risk of cancer seen in
those frequently exposed to paint.
Indeed, a number of VOCs in paint,
such as benzene and formaldehyde,
are known carcinogens (Environ Health
Perspect, 1996; 104 Suppl 6: 128992; www.
epa.gov/iaq/voc.html), and some are linked with higher rates of cancer in
humans (Rev Environ Health, 2007; 22:
3955; Cancer Causes Control, 1997; 8:
40619).

But cancer isnt the only health

problem related to VOCs. A study of
more than 2000 UK men found that
those regularly exposed to VOCs
especially glycol ethers, solvents
commonly found in water-soluble
paintswere more likely to have low
motile-sperm counts, a significant
predictor of infertility, compared with
those not exposed.
In men who had particularly high
exposures to glycol ethers, such as
painters and decorators, the risk of
abnormal sperm motility was more
than doubled, leading the authors to
conclude that these chemicals are a
hazard to male fertility (Occup Environ
Med, 2008; 65: 70814).
In fact, previous exposure to glycol
ethersespecially those in use from
the 1960s until recentlycontinue to
have long-lasting negative effects on
human semen quality (Occup Environ
Med, 2007; 64: 46773). Shipyard painters
exposed to two types of glycol
ethers2-ethoxyethanol and 2methoxyethanolhad lower sperm
counts and greater prevalences of
oligospermia (low semen volume)

What about lead?

Modern household paints dont contain added lead, but old housing is still
decorated with lead-containing paint, especially in Europe.
According to the UKs Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA), if your home was built before the 1960s and still has
original coats of paint, there could be some lead around. Another red flag
is if your paintwork is thick, as lead could be locked within the older layers.
Lead paintwork can pose a problem when its chipped or scratched, as
this can release harmful lead dust into your home. The easiest way to deal
with this is to seal it all in with an overcoating of modern, lead-free, nontoxic paint (see box below), but if the paints in bad condition, it really needs
to be removed. Use methods that dont create dust or fumes, such as
solvent-free, water-based paint removers (see www.defra.gov.uk/
Environment/chemicals/lead/index.htm for more information).

and azoospermia (complete absence of

sperm in the semen), findings
consistent with earlier animal studies
(Am J Ind Med, 1988; 14: 50926).
Other paint VOCssuch as the
aromatic solvents toluene and
xylenemay also have adverse effects
on human reproduction (Occup Environ
Med, 2001; 58: 63540; Fertil Steril, 1999; 71:
6906).

VOCs all around us

Its now confirmed that the levels
of several common VOCs are,
on average, two to five times
higher indoors than outdoors, and the
ever-increasing air-tightness of newer
housing is very likely making the
problem worse. A 2004 survey of people
living in newly built homes found a
significant correlation between the
amount of VOCs indoors, and throat
and respiratory symptoms, even at
relatively low VOC levels (Int Arch Occup
Environ Health, 2004; 77: 46170).
Recent
painting
significantly
contributes to household VOC levels,
and is linked to asthma, and
other respiratory and allergic effects,
particularly in children (Int Arch

ml for more information).

VOCs also have negative effects on
the state of the environment. At ground
level, VOCs react with sunlight and
oxygen to form a chemical smog, a
problem evident in most major urban
areas. Although the main culprits in
cities are vehicular exhausts, paints
certainly contribute to some extent. In
fact, up to 5 per cent of environmental
VOCs are from paints and varnishes,
according to the 2000 European report
Technology Guidelines for Vehicle
Refinishes by the Brussels-based CEPE
(Conseil Europen de l'Industrie des
Peintures, des Encres, d'Imprimerie et
des Couleurs dArt; European Advisory
for the Painters, Inks, Printers and Art
Colours Industry).
Far worse, however, is the impact of
VOCs on the earths atmosphere.
According to the European Science
Foundations VOCBAS (Volatile Organic
Compounds
in
the
Biosphere

Atmosphere System) programme, not

only do these chemicals contribute to
the greenhouse effect, but they also
damage the earths protective ozone
layer (see www.esf.org/vocbas for the
latest information and updates for this
ongoing research).

Alternatives
EU regulators have set maximum limits
for these chemicals in paints and
varnishes. However, even the more
stringent limits, due to come into force
in 2010, will permit up to 700 g/L of
VOCs in certain indoor paints (for more
details, see www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/
20052773.htm). In contrast, in the US,
350 g/L is the maximum permissible
level.
So, the best youre likely to get from
conventional manufacturers are paints
labelled low-VOC or low odour, which
can still contain significant amounts
(Indoor Air, 1999; 9: 2538). Also, to reduce
the VOCs in paint, some manufacturers
may be replacing them with other,
equally toxic ingredients.
Happily, there are safer options (see
box below). A number of small,
independent manufacturers across
Europe and the US now offer paints that
use traditional non-toxic ingredients,
including the natural dyes and
pigments historically used by artists.
The downside is that they come in a
more limited range of colours than do
conventional paints. However, when it
comes to our health and the
environment, this seems like a sacrifice
well worth making.
Joanna Evans

Non-toxic paint

Occup Environ Health, 1997; 69: 11524;

In 2006, WDDTYs sister publication PROOF! tested five leading

alternative paint manufacturers for colour, coverage, texture, odour and
quality of finish. Heres how they scored (out of five stars):

Indoor Air, 2007; 17: 25977; Am J Public

Health, 2004; 94: 5602).

As the California
Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has
pointed out, children are more
susceptible to VOCs because they
are still developing physically. They
also breathe at higher rates than
adults do, resulting in their having
higher relative doses of pollutants
than adults have with exposure to the
same air concentrations (see www.
oehha.org/public_info/facts/airkids.ht

Auro
Website: www.auro.co.uk
Tel: 01452 772 020
Rating:
*****
! Ecos
Website: www.ecospaints.com
Tel: 01524 852 371
Rating:
****
! Earthborn
Website:
www.earthbornpaints.co.uk
Tel: 01928 734 171
Rating:

***

Livos
Website: www.livos.co.uk
Tel: +49 5825 8817
Rating:
***
! Greenpaints
Website: www.greenshop.co.uk
Tel: 01452 770 629
Rating:
!

**

WDDTY Safe Living 3

Hazards in the home

Flame retardants: playing with fire

Theyre found everywhere in the homefrom carpets and computers
to TVs and toasters. But theyve also found their way into people,
where they can cause an array of adverse health effectsincluding
cancer.

olybrominated diphenyl ethers

(PBDEs),
a
group
of
neurotoxic chemicals that
are used as flame retardants,
have routinely been added to consumer
products for decades in an effort to
reduce fire-related injury and property
damage. Among other agents, theyre
probably in your sofa, carpet, toaster,
TV set and computer. However, as the
mounting evidence shows, these
chemicals are also turning up in human
breast milkand at surprisingly high
levels.
As researchers have recently
reported, there has been an alarming
increase in the concentration of PBDEs
in breast milk over the past few years.
Levels in Swedish women, for example,
increased by 60 times from 1972 to
1997 while, in North America, theyve
increased by more than 200 times over
a 25-year period (Lancet, 2007; 370: 18134).
Even more alarming, a nationwide
study by the US non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) found
unexpectedly high levels of PBDEs
in the breast milk of every woman
tested. Worse, the milk from several
mothers had among the highest levels
of these chemicals ever reported in
humans
worldwide
(www.ewg.org/
reports/mothersmilk).
PBDEs have also found their way into
human blood and adipose (fat) tissue
(Environ Health Perspect, 2004; 112: 108591),
but their presence in breast milk is
particularly unsettling. As the EWG
points out, the chemicals in breast milk
are passed on not only to the nursing
infant but, more important, to the
unborn fetus, which is especially
vulnerable to the effects of noxious
chemicals.
Precisely what impact PBDEs have on
human health is not yet known, but
more and more research is uncovering a
litany of toxic effects associated with
exposure to these poisonous agents.
Whats more, studies have found

4 WDDTY Safe Living

adverse effects at levels lower than

those now detected in many women.

Health hazards
PBDEs have regularly been used in
a range of everyday products since the
1970s, yet scientists have only now
discovered just how hazardous these
ubiquitous chemicals can be.
Although no human health studies
have been done on PBDEs, studies in
animals show nervous system,
reproductive, developmental and
endocrine effects, as well as cancer in
high-dose studies (J Occup Environ Med,
2005; 47: 199211).
Many of the known health effects of
PBDEs are thought to stem from their
ability to disrupt thyroid-hormone
balance and normal metabolism.

Indeed, a mysterious epidemic of

thyroid disease in cats may have been
due to flame retardants, according to a
small study by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). They found
extremely high levels of PBDEs in
the cats, suggesting that the toxins
could be behind common feline
hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid)
(Environ Sci Technol, 2007; 41: 63506).
In addition, says the EWG, PBDEs
may also cause hypothyroidism, or
underactive thyroid. One study in mice
found that serum T4 levels were

How are we exposed?

PBDEs are thought to enter the human body via contaminated food, house
dust and air, as well as through direct contact with certain consumer products.
Also, as they dont fully bind to the products they are used in, they escape into
the air and adhere to dust particles. Because people spend more than 80 per
cent of their time indoors, indoor dust is a major route of exposure (Environ Sci
Technol, 2005; 39: 92531).
The food we eat is another major source of PBDE exposure. The highest
levels are typically found in fish, an integral part of the diet for many people,
particularly Europeans. Lower amounts are detected in meat and dairy
products (Mol Nutr Food Res, 2007 [Epub ahead of print]; Chemosphere, 2002; 46:
63540).
Children are especially exposed to these hazardous chemicals. As surveys
indicate, while the adult dietary PBDE-intake range is 0.91.5 ng/kg/day,
nursing infants receive up to 300 ng/kg/day via breast milk (Lancet, 2007; 370:
18134).
Exposure to PBDEs in household dust is again more prevalent in younger
age groups than in adults because of greater hand-to-mouth contact. Its
estimated that toddlers exposure to the chemicals from household dust could
be 100 times higher than that for adults (Lancet, 2007; 370: 18134).
Exposure to PBDEs can even occur before birth, as virtually any substance
in the mothers body is transported to some extent into the womb via the
placenta. Indeed, a Swedish study found a strong correlation between levels
of PBDEs in maternal and cord blood, and breast milk samples (Environ Health
Perspect, 2003; 111: 123541). This is troubling as the fetusat this critical time
of its developmentis most vulnerable to toxic insults.

significantly lower in those given a

single dose as low as 0.8 mg/kg of body
weight of a commercial PBDE mixture
(Toxicology, 1994; 86: 4961).
Another study in rats discovered that
PBDEs reduced thyroid hormone levels
at an even lower dose than that
(Toxicology, 2007; 242; 8090). Although
these findings may not apply to
humans, an occupational study did find
higher rates of hypothyroidism among
workers exposed to brominated fire
retardants on the job (Environ Health
Perspect, 2001; 109 [suppl 1]: 4968).
An underactive thyroid can cause
fatigue, depression, anxiety, unexplained weight gain, hair loss and a low
libido. Moreover, the effects of
depressed thyroid-hormone levels on
developing fetuses and infants can
be devastating. Women with T4 levels
in the lowest 10 per cent of the
population during the first trimester of
pregnancy were almost three times as
likely to have a child with an IQ
of less than 85 (the lowest 20 per cent
in the range of IQs) and five times as
likely to have a child with an IQ of less
than 70in other words, mild
retardation (Clin Endocrinol, 1999; 50:
14955).
As animal studies show, even shortterm exposures to PBDEs can alter
thyroid-hormone levelsand the effects
are greater in fetuses and young
animals than in adults. These results
are worrying as human data suggest
that pregnancy itself stresses the
thyroid, and the developing fetus or
infant lacks the thyroid reserves that
adults have to protect them against
systemic insults (Biochimie, 1999; 81:
56370).
Thyroid hormones are important in
neural development as they regulate
numerous other hormones and growth
factors in the brain. So, at least in rats,
even short-term exposures to PBDEs at
critical times can cause lasting harm
(Toxicol Sci, 2005; 88: 17280). Indeed, small
doses of PBDE mixtures administered
to fetal or newborn mice and rats
caused deficits in learning, memory and
hearing, changes in behaviour, and
delays in sensory motor development.
Many of these effects became worse
with age (Toxicol Sci, 2002; 67: 98103; 1047;
Environ Health Perspect, 2001; 109: 9038).
Although animal data may not
necessarily apply to humans, the fact
that they show significant neurological effectswhich are inherently

Minimizing the risks

According to the Environmental Working Group, exposure to brominated fire
retardants is unavoidable. Even if these toxic fire retardants were phased out
immediately, it says, our exposures to them would continue through the
foods we eat or from the products in our households. Nevertheless, the EWG
offers the following tips to parents and concerned consumers:
! Avoid degraded or crumbing foam that might contain fire retardants.
Replace or cover couches, chairs and car seats that have exposed foam.
Reupholster padded furniture in homes where children or pregnant women
live.
! Be careful when removing and replacing the foam padding beneath
your carpet. Remove old carpet padding from your home and clean up well
afterwards.
! Buy products made with natural fibres (cotton and wool), which are
naturally fire-resistant.
! Breastfeed your child. Although breastfed infants are exposed to higher
levels of chemicals during the first few years of life, they still have fewer
childhood and breast cancers, and other illnesses believed to be linked
to chemical exposures. Research on PCBs, chemicals similar to PBDEs,
suggests that breastfeeding may well protect the developing brain or repair
subtle deficits induced by prenatal chemical exposures (J Toxicol Clin Toxicol,
2002; 40: 46775).
! Eat a varied diet that contains less meat and high-fat dairy products.
! Avoid fatty fish, which can be highly contaminated by PBDEs.
! Broil or grill food as much as possible, as this can reduce the amount of
PBDEs per serving (Mol Nutr Food Res, 2007 [Epub ahead of print]).

difficult to detect in rodentsraises

concerns regarding human health.

Other adverse effects

As well as causing damage to the
thyroid and nervous system, early
exposure to PBDEs have also been
linked to serious harm to the
reproductive systems of both male and
female rats. Observed effects included
reduced levels of circulating sex
steroids, delayed onset of puberty,
changes in ovarian cells, decreased
weight of male rat reproductive organs
and sperm count, and feminization of
the male rats (Environ Health Perspect, 2006;
114: 194201; Environ Health Perspect, 2005;
113: 14954).

The EWG also found PBDEassociated impaired weight gain,

enlarged livers and raised blood
cholesterol in pregnant animals. Effects
of exposures in utero on the fetus
included
limb
and
ureter
malformations, enlarged hearts, bent
ribs and delayed bone hardening. These
malformations occurred at doses much
lower than those that were harmful to
the
mouse
mothers
(www.ewg.org/reports/mothersmilk).
Even
more
alarming,
one
commercial PBDE mixture (deca)

caused liver, thyroid and pancreas

tumours at high doses when given to
rats and mice (Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep
Ser, 1986; 309: 1242). According to the
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2004 report,
the US EPA has since classified decaPBDE as a possible human carcinogen
( www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs68-pbde.
html#bookmark05).

Regulation in the future?

The growing evidence of serious health
risks associated with PBDE exposure
has prompted regulators across Europe
and the US to ban certain forms of
brominated fire retardants. And,
happily, chemical fire retardants are not
necessary for fire safety. Indeed, a
number of manufacturers, including
Ikea, Hewlett-Packard and Sony, have
redesigned their products to be
inherently less flammable without
chemical treatments. For a PBDE-free
manufacturer and product list, see
www.ewg.org/pbdefree.
Sadly, however, PBDEs are still found
in millions of homes world-wide, and
only time will tell if we will succeed in
getting rid of these nasty chemicals
from our everyday lives.
Joanna Evans

WDDTY Safe Living 5

Hazards in the home

Carpets: the chemicals underfoot

For most of us, wall-to-wall carpeting is the top choice when it comes
to flooring our homes. Carpet can reduce noise, add comfort and
warmth, and provide a soft surface for young children to crawl and play
on. However, few people realize that our favourite flooring also comes
with a number of significant health risks.

arpets are a major source of

toxic chemicals in the home,
typically containing well over
100 chemicals in its fibrebonding material, dyes, backing glues,
fire retardant, latex binder, fungicide,
and antistatic and stain-resistant
treatments. These can outgas for
weekseven yearsafter installation.
Formaldehyde, toluene, xylene, styrene,
benzene, 4-phenylcyclohexene and
methyl-benzeneknown as volatile
organic compounds (VOCs)are just a
few of the nasties that may be lurking
beneath your feet and in the air around
you.
Carpets also act as sinks for
dustmites, heavy metals, pesticides,
cigarette smoke, moulds and other
pollutants. These arent completely
removed by routine cleaning and may
easily be inhaled by the whole family
(Townsend Lett, 2001; 215: 2830).
Research now suggests that toxic
carpeting may be responsible for an
array of health problemsfrom asthma
and
allergies
to
cancer
and
neuropsychiatric disorders.

Health hazards
According to US environmental group
the Washington Toxics Coali-tion, there
have been hundredsmaybe even
thousandsof instances where people
became ill after new carpeting was
installed. In the 1990s, the US
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) received more than 6000 such
complaints (Townsend Lett, 2001; 217:
1724), with symptoms such as eye, nose
and throat irritation, rash and fatigue.
Around half of the sufferers had never
experienced an allergy before.
Ironically, in 1987, some of the most
adverse reactions were seen in the
heart of the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), when over
1000 employees complained of
symptoms after new carpeting was
installed in their headquarters.

6 WDDTY Safe Living

Although the agency publicly denied

any link between symptoms and the
new flooring, over 25,000 square yards
of carpet were removed three and a half
years later.
In 1992, in response to public
concerns, the carpet industry launched
the Green Label certification
programme, a PR initiative to reduce
VOCs in its products. However, only a
scant handful of chemicals are
measured and only a few carpets are
tested. So, a Green Label is still not a
guarantee of a carpet that will not
cause health problems.
In fact, one family in Maryland was
disabled after installing Green Label
carpeting in their store. A sample of
the carpet caused gross nervous-system
abnormalities in mice (Townsend Lett,
2001; 217: 1724).
Toxic carpets are also a concern in
the UK. In 2001, a joint report from the
Healthy Flooring Network and
Greenpeace found surprisingly high
levels of hazardous chemicals in
carpets purchased on the high street

(www.healthyflooring.org/reports.html).
Lab analyses revealed that some
carpets contain significant amounts of
the
hormone-disrupting
flameretardant BDE-209, the pesticides
permethrin (implicated in Gulf War
syndrome) and tributyltin (TBT, toxic
to the immune and reproductive systems), and formaldehyde.
Studies of carpet installers show
that they have an increased risk for
leukaemia, and testicular, bowel, oral
and pharyngeal cancers (Am J Ind Med,
1988; 14: 1524; Gastroenterology, 1978; 75:
2213; Epidemiology, 1992; 3: 3009).

Other
research reveals that carpetlayers
exposed to solvents, such as glues and
adhesives, are at an increased risk of
neuropsychiatric disordersand the

Keeping carpets safe

!

!
!

!
!
!

Use doormats at entrances, which can reduce pesticide residues on carpets

by 25 per cent, and total carpet dust residues by 33 per cent
(www.watoxics.org/files/carpet-fact-sheet).
Take your shoes off to avoid tracking in pesticides and other chemicals from
outdoors.
Vacuum your carpet frequently with a high-efficiency filtration system
(HEPA) or use a central vacuum system that exhausts to outside of the
building. For deeper cleaning, use hot-water extraction methods.
Prevent mould growth by making sure that cleaned carpets are dry within
24 hours. Provide plenty of ventilation so that the moisture evaporates into
the air. Soaked carpeting due to, say, flooding, should be professionally
cleaned and dried within 24 hours, or replaced. Always replace carpet
damaged by biologically contaminated water such as sewage.
Keep indoor humidity levels low to decrease dust mites and mould growth.
Use disposable damp cloths for dusting and mopping.
Keep chemical contamination in the home to a minimum by using lowVOC paints and other materials, as well as non-toxic cleaning agents.
WDDTYs Your Healthy House is a useful guide, or subscribe to PROOF!
(www.proof.co.uk) for specific product reviews.

greater the exposure (years on the job),

the greater the risk (Scand J Work Environ
Health, 1976; 2: 1420). Flooring workers
exposed to solvents for the longest
periods of time showed the greatest
decline in visual memory, perceptual
speed and attention, and visuospatial
skill (Occup Environ Med, 2002; 59: 4957).
The central nervous system appears to
be particularly sensitive to the toxic
effects of carpet chemicals (Br J Ind Med,
1986; 43: 1016).
In the 1990s, the Anderson Lab in
Massachusetts extensively tested
carpet sampleswith alarming results.
Mice exposed to air passing over a piece
of carpet heated to about 37 degrees
Cequivalent to sun exposure, heating
ducts or radiantly heated floors
developed severe neurological and/or
neuromuscular toxicity. One carpet
caused severe convulsions after the
second hour of exposure, and some
mice even died. Other mice had
sensory and pulmonary irritation (J Nutr
Environ Med, 1995; 5: 37586) and, on
autopsy, lesions of the brain and
liver, as well as kidney degeneration
(Townsend Lett, 2001; 217: 1724).
Although these results may not
necessarily apply to humans, the
carpet-exposed mice also developed
hypersensitivity pneumonitis, as did a
patient exposed to the identical carpet
(Townsend Lett, 2001; 217: 1724). Other
respiratory and neurological symptoms
seen in the mice have been reported by
carpet owners (J Nutr Environ Med, 1997; 7:
17786).
The Anderson Labs findings have
been confirmed by EPA researchers and
Dr Yves Alarie, at the University of
Pittsburgh, who was hired by the US
Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI).
Nevertheless, both the EPA and CRI
publicly denied any health effects.

Indoor pollution
Carpets are a reservoir for a host of
other pollutantsfrom dustmites
and animal dander to moulds and
pesticides. Along with other textiles
in the home, they act like sponges,
absorbing airborne particles and
fumes from paint, cleaning products
and synthetic fragrances, and
releasing them back into the air over
time (Environ Sci Technol, 2000; 34: 4193
8). Shoes bring in dust, particles and
pesticides, depositing them onto the
carpet. The deeper the pile, the
greater the area for toxins to collect.

Whats beneath your feet?

Here are just a few of the hundreds of chemicals that may be found in carpet:
! Formaldehyde. Concentrations above 0.01 ppm (parts per million) may
cause burning eyes, headache, tightness in chest, asthma attacks,
depression and even death (Townsend Lett, 2001; 215: 2830). Exposure also
increases the risk of several cancers, including of the lung, throat and nose.
! Styrene. Classified as a probable human carcinogen by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), this agent can cause skin, eye and
respiratory irritation as well as damage to the liver, reproductive system and
central nervous system.
! Benzene. Chronic exposure to even relatively low levels causes eye, nose
and throat irritation, headaches, loss of appetite, loss of coordination,
drowsiness and psychological disturbances. In animals, inhaling benzene
leads to cataracts, blood disorders, and lymphatic and bone marrow
diseases such as leukaemia. Some studies found it to cause cancer, birth
defects and DNA mutations.
! Pesticides. The effects depend on the chemical constituents but, in general,
they include cancer, fetal damage, liver and nerve damage, skin problems,
and irritation to the eyes and respiratory system.

Alarmingly, pesticides and other outdoor organic pollutants may be 10 to

100 times higher in carpet dust than
in the surrounding outdoor soil
( Environ Health Perspect, 1999; 107:
A3527).
Cleaning alone isnt enough. Dustmites lie deep within carpet fibres,
while chemicals can migrate into
the padding below. Shampooing can
make things worse, as damp or wet
carpet becomes the perfect breeding
ground for moulds to grow.
Children are especially at risk
from the pollutants in carpets,
mainly because they play and crawl
on carpets for hours at a time. As
their immune systems are not fully
developed, this means they are even
more susceptible to toxic exposures
(Townsend Lett, 2001; 215: 2830).
People with asthma and allergies
are another vulnerable group. As well
as triggering symptoms, pollutants
found in carpets may also cause the
onset of the condition. In one study,
synthetic carpeting was significantly
associated with the development of
asthma, wheezing and allergy in
nearly 6000 Russian schoolchildren
( Am J Public Health, 2004; 94: 5602).
Researchers at UKs University of
Birmingham found a link between
wall-to-wall carpetingand, especially, mouldy carpetsin the workplace and adult-onset asthma (Am
J Epidemiol, 2006; 164: 7429).
Clearly, although carpet may be
the cozier choice, it is certainly not
the healthiest.

Flooring alternatives
Experts agree that the best floors, in
terms of health, are of wood, tile or
other hard surfaces (www.watoxics.org/
files/carpet-fact-sheet). However, avoid
vinyl (PVC), another source of toxic
substances (www.healthyflooring.org).
Area rugs are a good option as they
can be removed from time to time for
a thorough cleaning. Tight-weave
rugs made of jute or natural grass are
ideal.
As for alternative carpeting, an
excellent choice is wool that is
stitched, not glued, to its backing and
not treated with a stainguard or
pesticides. Never glue carpets to the
floor, but use hook-and-loop installation (fastening strips) instead. If glue
is the only option, then use a lowemitting adhesive that contains less
that 5-per-cent solvent (Townsend Lett,
2001; 217: 1724).
Whatever the type of carpetand
underlayyou choose, ask to see its
emission-test results from the retailer or manufacturer. Also, request that
the carpet be unrolled and aired out
for a few days prior to delivery. During
installationand for up to a week
afterwardskeep the room well
ventilated.
By taking these steps and ensuring
that your carpet is kept as clean as
possible (see box, page 6), you can
keep your exposure to hazardous
chemicals to a minimum.
Joanna Evans
For a list of alternative flooring suppliers,
see www.healthyflooring.org/suppliers.

WDDTY Safe Living 7

Hazards in the home

Pesticides: poison at your fingertips

Mounting evidence shows that home pesticide use may be an
important risk factor for several types of cancer, so think twice before
you spray those bugs away.

urveys show that most of us

maintain a home arsenal
against a variety of house and
garden pests, and use an
average of three to four pesticide
products a year (J Expo Anal Environ

Epidemiol, 2000; 10: 15967; Sci Total Environ,

2006; 368: 46570).

Yet, household pesticide use is increasingly being linked to

serious adverse health effects.
French researchers reported that the
use
of
pesticides,
especially
insecticides, by either parent during
pregnancy was significantly associated
with childhood acute leukaemia and
non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL).
Although this isnt proof of a causal
relationship, it does suggest that
domestic pesticides may play a role in
these childhood blood cancers,
especially if children are exposed in the
womb (Environ Health Pespect, 2007; 115:
178793). Even more worrying is that
this was, in fact, old news.
A study of 162 leukaemia patients
found a link between household
pesticides and a higher risk of childhood leukaemia. Also, early exposures
were more significant than later ones,
with the greatest risk during pregnancy.

Women exposed at this critical time

were more than twice as likely to have a
child with leukaemia compared with
unexposed women (Environ Health Pespect,
2002; 110: 95560).
Other studies have also found links
between early-life pesticide exposure
and blood-cancer risk (Environ Health
Pespect, 2007; 115: 1787 93). In fact, the
risk of childhood leukaemia increased
nearly four times when pesticides
were used in the home at least once a
week, and more than six times when
garden pesticides were used at least
once a month (J Natl Cancer Inst, 1987; 79:
3946). Children whose mothers used
pesticides in the home once or twice
a week were more than two times as
likely to develop NHL. Those whose
mothers used pesticides most days
were seven times more likely to have
the disease (Cancer, 2000; 89: 231521).
Other childhood cancers are linked
to household pesticides. There is, for
example, a slightly higher risk of
Wilms tumour (of the kidney) among
children whose mothers used
insecticides in the home (Environ Health
Perspect, 2007; 115: 1347).
Childhood brain cancers and

Prevention: a green option

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Seal cracks around windows and doors with caulk or weather-stripping

Inspect groceries and used furniture for insects before bringing them
home
Trim plants and shrubs to keep them at least one foot away from your
house
Remove piles of scrap wood, mulch or leaves from around the outside of
the house
Clean up all spills and messes immediately
Keep rubbish tightly sealed, and empty rubbish and recycling containers
often
Dont leave out dirty dishes
Store all food (including petfood) in pest-proof containers with tight-fitting
lids
Clean out grease and crumbs from your kitchen regularly
Repair leaky pipes and plumbing
Get rid of old piles of paper and cardboard.
From the Agricultural Resources Center &
Pesticide Education Project factsheet, NC, USA

8 WDDTY Safe Living

tumours of the connective tissue are

also linked to home pesticides (Environ
Health Perspect, 1997; 105: 121420; Arch
Environ Contam Toxicol, 1993; 24: 8792; Am
J Public Health, 1995; 85: 24952). Some
of the worst offenders are weed-killers,
flea and tick products, and bug bombs.
Children are probably more vulnerable to pesticides because they
spend more time with pets, on the floor
and in the gardenall places where
pesticides are used. This, together with
their lower body weights, stilldeveloping organs and higher metabolic
rates, puts them at an increased risk for
adverse toxic effects (Krieger R, ed.
Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, 2nd edn.
Academic Press, 2001: 887904).

Exposure to pesticides can also take

place in the womb and through
breastfeeding. Also, as childrens detoxification pathways are incomplete,
they have fewer defences against toxic
assaults. In addition to cancer, pesticide
exposure can lead to reproductive,
neurological, neurobehavioural and
endocrine effects (Aust Fam Physician, 2007;
36: 10024).

Beyond childhood
But its not just children who are at risk.
Theres growing evidence of serious
health effects in adults, too.
A French study of nearly 700 adults
found that those who said they used
pesticides on their house plants were
more than twice as likely to have brain
cancer as those who never used such
chemicals (Occup Environ Med, 2007; 64:
50914).

Avoiding poisonous pesticides

PESTICIDE

HAZARDS

ALTERNATIVES

Sprays &
foggers

Spraying spreads a fine chemical mist

throughout your home, which is easy to
inhale and creates residues that can
hang around for a long time

Try prevention first (see box, page 8); use target

ed methods such as baits, traps, gels and pastes
(also known as crack and crevice treatments)
instead of sprays; even better, find a suitable
non-toxic alternative (see below)

Imidacloprid

Widely used in agriculture and home pest

control, especially as topical flea and tick
solutions; toxic to the nervous system;
suspected of causing reproductive
problems; breaks down very slowly

Use minimally: baits or spot applications are

preferable to sprays; alternatives include boric
acid, diatomaceous earth (both can control
cockroaches, ants and other crawling insects)
and flea combs

Lindane

A miticide used in prescription lice shampoos

and lotions; extremely hazardous, especially
to children and pregnant women; can cause
cancer in humans

Lice can be eliminated with vigilant use of lice

combs; also try natural neem or tea tree oil
products

Fipronil

An insecticide used in pet flea treatments,

and ant and roach products; can irritate
your pets skin and cause hair loss; causes
cancer in rats and is a possible carcinogen
in humans

To treat pets for fleas, give 1 tsp of yeast per

pet per meal; for an all-purpose insect spray,
mix one garlic bulb, one onion, 1 tbsp of
cayenne pepper and 4 cups of water; allow
sediment to settle, then pour through a coffee
filter; add 1 tbsp of liquid soap and apply with
a spray bottle

Pyrethroids

A large group of chemicals, including permethrin,

tetramethrin and cyfluthrin, and widely used in
insect-control products; suspected of damaging
the human reproductive system, and some are
suspected of causing cancer

Choose targeted application methods such as

baits instead of spraying these products;
diatomaceous earth, boric acid and mechanical
controls such as cleaning up messes and
caulking cracks are good alternatives

Piperonyl
butoxide

A common ingredient in insect sprays and lice

shampoos, its known as a synergistno
effects on its own, but it enhances pesticidal
actions of other chemicals; a possible
carcinogen and reproductive toxin.

See alternatives for imidacloprid, lindane and

fipronil above.

From the Agricultural Resources Center & Pesticide Education Project factsheet, NC, USA.
For more information and references, see www.PESTed.org

Pesticide exposure can lead to

neurological disorders that are now
considered common in old agewhich
is hardly surprising as pesticides are
neurotoxic
to
people
as
well as to insects (Front Biosci, 2008; 13:
12409). People who used pesticides
at home or at work had a 60-percent greater risk of developing
Parkinsons, a disease of the central
nervous system. The strongest links
were found with herbicides, and
insecticides such as organochlorides
and organophosphates (BMC Neurology,
2008; 8: 6; doi:10.1186/1471-2377-8-6).
A US study of household pesticides
also suggested that their use may

increase the risk of Parkinsons disease

(Lancet, 2000; 355: 1701).

Theyre everywhere
Pesticide overexposure is not just an
occupational hazard of agricultural and
factory workers; scientists now believe
that our homes, gardens and schools
may be a more important source of
exposure, especially among children
(Pediatr Clin North Am, 2001; 48: 118598;
Environ Health Pespect, 1995; 103: 5504).
This makes sense, considering how
pervasive household pesticides are. In
2000, UK householders doused their
homes with 4306 tonnes of the stuff,
worth around 35 million (Thomas P.

Living Dangerously. Dublin, Eire: New Leaf, 2003).

In the US, 34.5 million kg (76 million
lb) of it were used in American homes
and gardens, according to a 2001 survey
(Pediatr Clin North Am, 2001; 48: 118598).
Do we really need pesticides? Some
experts suspect that people may be
using pesticides more out of annoyance
and fear rather than actual need. And
even with a major insect problem, it is
still possible to avoid the use of
poisonous products (see box above). The
most effective means of pest control is
prevention: remove the pests sources of
food, water and entry into your home,
and they wont be able to survive.

Joanna Evans

WDDTY Safe Living 9

Hazards in the home

Air fresheners: far from fresh

Air-freshener fans beware: your
favourite plug-in may be seriously
bad for your health.

illions of consumers
around the world are
unwittingly putting their
health at risk every time
they spray, pump or plug in that
favourite air freshener. Many of us
have bought into the myth that our
homes need to be constantly sprayed
with chemicals to stay clean and
sweet-smelling. But the truth is,
synthetic air fresheners are entirely
unnecessary. In fact, a growing
mountain of evidence shows that
theyre among the most concentrated sources of poisons and pollution
in the home.
Although product names like
Island Breeze and Morning Mist
sound romantic, lurking behind that
fresh fragrance is a cocktail of
toxic chemicals, many of which are
known to cause serious damage in
both animals and humans. Far from
freshening the air, they actually
increase indoor air pollution.
According to one study, formaldehyde
(a
carcinogen
and
sensitizer), benzene (a carcinogen
and possible reproductive toxin),
styrene (a neurotoxin and suspected
carcinogen), toluene (a skin irritant
and liver/ kidney toxin) and
terpenes (irritants and sensitizers)
are
only
some
of
the chemicals that air-freshener
users are exposing themselves and
their families to on a daily basis.
The 2005 study, commissioned by
the European Consumers Organization (BEUC; Bureau Europen des
Consommateurs), analyzed indoor
air following the use of 74 different
air fresheners sold in Europe. These
included incense, natural products,
scented candles, aerosols, liquid and
electric diffusers, and gels. Most
notably, the researchers found that
emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), potent neurotoxins that attack the central and
peripheral nervous systems, were
alarmingly high. Indeed, for most of

10 WDDTY Safe Living

the products tested, the total VOCs

exceeded 200 mcg/m3, the proposed
maximum limit for indoor air in a
number of countries. Whats more,
the emissions contained substances
such as benzene and formaldehyde
that are classified as carcinogenic at
rather high concentrations.
Although the study had certain
limitations (for example, it did not
consider the ventilation rate in
rooms), a 2006 review of the BEUC
report by the European Commissions Scientific Committee on
Health and Environmental Risks
(SCHER) concluded that: Overall,
the BEUC study may be taken as an
indication that, under certain
conditions, notable concentrations
of VOCs may result in indoor air
from air fresheners.
The SCHER review also noted that
emissions from the air fresheners
contain many more compounds than
those assessed by BEUC, and several
of these may also have health effects.
Furthermore, several of the primary
emitted compounds may undergo
reactions (e.g. with ozone, hydroxyl
or nitrate radicals) to form new
compounds with other effects.
So, the situation may be even
more complicated, said the SCHER,

by the combined effects of

these substances in an already
unhealthy cocktail of chemicals
(for
both
reports,
go
to:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk
/committees/04_scher/docs/scher_
o_026.pdf).
Indeed, air-freshener ingredients
can react with other substances to
become even more hazardous. A
study by US scientists reported that
d-limonene, found in lemon- and
pine-scented air fresheners, can
react with indoor ozone to quickly
form harmful particulates known to
cause lung and heart disease (Environ
Health Perspect, 2000; 108: 113945).
Another study concluded that
terpenes emitted by air fresheners
such as d-limonene, linalool and
linalyl acetate can react with ozone
to make secondary pollutants such
as formaldehyde, a respiratory

About phthalates
If you live in the US, another chemicalor rather, family of chemicalsthat may
be lurking in your air freshener is phthalates. These are known to cause
hormonal abnormalities, birth defects and reproductive problems.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a US environmental action
group, recently analyzed a number of air fresheners on the market and
discovered phthalates in 86 per cent (12 of 14) of the products tested. None
of these items, however, listed phthalates on the labels. In fact, some air
fresheners labelled as all-natural and unscented contained measurable
amounts of these toxic chemicals.
Those in the UK may be somewhat better off, as the only phthalate in general
use in cleaning products is DEP (diethyl phthalate), which has been safetyassessed and approved by the EUs Scientific Committee for Cosmetic
Products and Non-Food Products Intended for Consumers.
However, according to the NRDC study, clinical studies have repeatedly
associated exposure to DEP in a mix of other phthalates with adverse
reproductive outcomes, including changes in hormone levels, poor semen
quality and altered genital development. Until we have more evidence, the
researchers said, it would be prudent to avoid exposure to this chemical
(www.nrdc.org/health/home/airfresheners/contents.asp).

irritant classified as a Group 1

carcinogen it has enough evidence
to conclude that it causes cancer in
humans (Indoor Air, 2006; 16: 17991).
Although exposure to the air
freshener by itself would probably
not lead to formaldehyde safety
levels being exceeded, there is
concern over how it might combine
with other indoor formaldehyde
sources, such as plywood. In
addition, mixing air freshener
with ozone in a childs bedroom
should be avoided, as should
overexposure
to
formaldehyde
among professional cleaners (see
www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/0
1-336_a.pdf).

Tips for fresher air naturally

!
!
!

Health effects
As well as highlighting the
dangerous chemicals we may be
exposed to from air fresheners,
research also reveals some of their
more worrying health effects.
A UK study of more than 10,000
women discovered that frequent use
of air fresheners and aerosols in the
home could be making mothers and
their babies ill. The study collected
data from 170 homes within the
Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents
and Children (ALSPAC), and found
that frequent use of air fresheners
and aerosols during pregnancy and
early childhood was associated with
higher levels of diarrhoea, earache
and other symptoms in infants, as
well as headaches in mothers.
But the most surprising finding
was the link between air fresheners
and maternal depression. In fact, 16
per cent of mothers who used air
fresheners reported depression vs
12.7 per cent of those who seldom
used them (Arch Environ Health, 2003; 58:
63341).
Dr Alexandra Farrow, the studys
lead author, noted that pregnant
women, and babies aged up to six
months, may be especially susceptible to the toxic chemicals emitted
by air fresheners because they spend
about 80 per cent of their time at
home. There may also be implications for other people who are
indoors most of the time, such as
the elderly, she said, and advises
limiting the use of air fresheners
and aerosols in the home.
Another population group that
may be at increased risk is those

Open the windows. Good ventilation is, by far, the best and simplest way to
eliminate odours and improve indoor air quality.
Buy houseplants such as English ivy, spider plants and peace lilies. These
can help to remove unpleasant odours and gases from your home.
Make your own air freshener: Combine equal amounts of water and white
vinegar in a spray bottle, then add 2030 drops of essential oil (peppermint,
lemon, pine, geranium or tea tree, for instance) and shake well before using.
But note: vinegar and essential oils can be eye irritants, so dont put your
face in the area youve just sprayed, and never spray directly into the face.
Use potpourri and candles with caution. Most commercially prepared
potpourris use petrochemical-derived fragrances. A safer alternative is to
make your own potpourri, or buy it unscented and scent it with your own
essential oils. Also, beware of buying aromatherapy candles marketed as
natural alternatives to conventional air fresheners as most of these also use
petrochemical fragrances instead of natural oils. Whats more, the candle
itself is often made of wax derived from petrochemicals and, as it burns, it
can release toxic soot into the atmosphere.
Buy pump sprays instead of aerosols, if you simply must buy chemical air
fresheners. They are still toxic, but you avoid breathing in propellants, which
are linked to nervous system disorders, irritation to the skin, eyes, throat and
lungs, lung inflammation and liver damage. In addition, avoid plug-in air
fresheners. Not only are they a waste of energy, but they also guarantee that
a continuous flow of toxic chemicals is pumped throughout your home.
(From Thomas P, Cleaning Yourself to Death, Dublin, Eire: Newleaf, 2001)

with asthma or other respiratory

illnesses. Data from the Third
National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (19881994),
or NHANES III, showed that
exposure to 1,4-dichlorobenzene
(1,4-DCB), a VOC found in air
fresheners, toilet-bowl deodorants
and mothballs, at levels commonly
found among the US population,
can lead to reduced lung function.
There was a 4-per-cent drop in
respiratory capacity between the
highest and lowest levels of
exposure, and even this tiny reduction can have long-term adverse
effects. In fact, reduced lung
function is a known risk factor for
cardiovascular disease, stroke and
lung cancer, and an important predictor of all-cause mortality (Environ
Health Perspect, 2006; 114: 12104).
It may be that children with
asthma and other respiratory disorders are especially sensitive to
1,4-DCB, or that this agent, along
with other VOCs, may actually be
causing asthma. In one study,
children aged from six months to
three years were found to have
higher chances of asthma with
increasing
indoor-air
concentrations of 1,4-DCB (Environ Health
Perspect, 2006; 114: 12104).

Another study found that, for

every 10-unit increase in concentrations of toluene and benzene, the
risk of asthma increased by nearly
two and three times, respectively
(Occup Environ Med, 2004; 61: 923).

What to do?
Air fresheners are not the only source of
toxic chemicals in the home, but you
can certainly live without them. Rarely
do air fresheners remove or break down
bad odours. In fact, they work by
sneakily interfering with your bodys
ability to detect smell, deadening the
nerves or coating the nasal passages
with a thin, oily film. Alternatively, they
may simply cover up one smell with
another, more powerful one (Thomas P.
Cleaning Yourself to Death. Dublin, Eire: Newleaf,
2001).

Happily, there is a variety of better

and safer ways to keep the air in your
home fresh and fragrant (see box
above). Most important of all, bad
smells can be eliminated by dealing
with the source of the odourbe it
pets, blocked drains, rising damp,
overflowing garbage bins, off-gassing
from new carpets, furniture or
wallpaper, and cigarette smoke
instead of just masking them with toxic
and dangerous chemicals.
Joanna Evans

WDDTY Safe Living 11

Hazards in the home

Triclosan: antibacterial time bomb

Triclosan is the main ingredient for domestic and industrial germ warfare.
Present in all products that claim to rid your house of household germs, this
cheap antibacterial agent is now contaminating drinking water and fish
supplies. New evidence links it to lymphomas and other serious illnesses.

ost people who live in

the developed world face
a daily bombardment of
adverts that espouse the
health benefits of antibacterial
agents. As a result, we now live in a
germ-fearing culture aggressively
established
by
manufacturers
striving to sell products that
purport to combat supposed deadly
germs and bacteria.
Germs has become a buzzword
for the hidden dangers that lurk in
peoples homes and, trading on
peoples
fear
and
paranoia,
companies have marketed goods
that contain antibacterial agents.
These agents are now present in
products
that
range
from
detergents
and
soaps
to
toothpastes and lotions. However,
some of these agents are proving
harmful to both human health and
the environment.
Triclosan is not a new chemical.
It was introduced in 1972 and was
primarily used as a surgical scrub
and as a prevention aid against
hospital-acquired infections (Beyond

Pesticides: Pesticides and You, 2004: 24: No

3; Townsend Letter, May 2006 ). Since
then there has been a marked rise
in the use of triclosan-containing
products. It is now commonly found
in cosmetics, creams, shampoos
and toothpastes, as well as in
childrens toys, paints, curtains and
countertops ( Townsend Let Doc Pat,
2006; May (274): 35-7).

Serious concerns
Triclosan is a synthetic, chlorinated
aromatic
compound
with
antibacterial,
antifungal
and
antiviral properties. Its registered
with
the
US
Environment
Protection Agency (EPA) as a
pesticide (a chemical specifically
designed to kill some life form or
another). Triclosan is also a
chlorophenola
group
of

12 WDDTY Safe Living

chemicals suspected of causing

cancer in humans.
A case-control study in the
Karkola region of Finland in 1992
was carried out after contamination
of the local lake with chlorophenols
and drinking supply. It focused on
lymphomas and leukaemia, as well
as on cancers of the colon, bladder
and soft tissues, and demonstrated
a significantly elevated risk for nonHodgkins lymphoma among people
who had consumed fish from the
lake. The study concluded that the
probable exposure to chlorophenolcontaminated
drinking
water
played a role in the increased
incidence
of
non-Hodgkins
lymphomas and was a possible
factor in the development of softtissue sarcoma (Arch Environ Health,
1992; 47: 16775).
In another study of 2026 subjects
employed in a Swedish leathertanning factory between 1900 and
1989, a significantly increased
incidence of soft-tissue sarcomas
was found, as was an excess of
multiple myelomas. The study
concluded that a probable cause for
both these effects was exposure to

chlorophenols ( Occup Environ Med,

although it is
unclear whether triclosan is
responsible.
Although triclosan is not
considered highly toxic to humans,
there have been reports of some
adverse reactions to exposure, such
as contact dermatitis and skin
irritation (Austral J Dermatol, 2004; 45:
735). There is also some evidence
that
triclosan
can
cause
photoallergenic contact dermatitis
(PACD) in skin that is photoallergic
1994; 51: 5305 ),

Its in the water

Triclosan is used as an antibacterial agent in various industrial products
and is therefore often detected in wastewater effluent. Wastewater
treatment plants invariably fail to remove triclosan from water supplies,
thus facilitating its presence in water systems. Although there is a paucity
of data on the toxicity of triclosan and its effects on aquatic organisms,
some research suggests it has a detrimental effect on the environment.
Triclosan has been found to be highly toxic to different types of algae.
One study that monitored the effects of triclosan on aquatic organisms
found the chemical was highly toxic to green algae in particular (Environ Sci,
2004; 11: 13340). Algae are the first-step producers in aquatic eco-systems,
so high levels of triclosan discharged into the environment may possibly
destroy the balance of such systems. In addition, triclosans lipophilic
nature and resistance to degradation mean it is readily available for
absorption and bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms in the environment
(Chemosphere, 2002; 46: 14859).

to ketoprofens ( Contact Dermatatis,

PACD can cause a
rash reminiscent of eczema, which
usually occurs on the face, neck,
hands and areas of the body
exposed to the sun.
In
addition,
triclosan
is
lipophilic, which means it can
accumulate in fatty tissue such as
the liver, lungs and kidneys with the
potential to reach toxic levels
(Environ Health Persp, 2003; 111: No 7;

2003; 48: 1449).

Beyond Pesticides: Pesticides and You, 2004:

24: No 3). Furthermore, there are
also
concerns
about
the
interference of triclosan with the
bodys
thyroid
hormone
metabolism. One study found that
it had a marked hypothermic effect,
lowering body temperature and
causing a non-specific depressant
effect on the central nervous
system of mice ( J Toxicol Environ
Health, 1983; 12: 24553), although this
may not apply to humans.
Symptoms of internal exposure
can include cold sweats, circulatory
collapse, convulsions and coma.
Indeed, long-term exposure to
many pesticide products can
damage the liver, kidneys, heart
and lungs, causing paralysis,
sterility, hormonal disruption and
immune suppression ( Townsend Let
Doc Pat, 2006; May).
Moreover, triclosan readily reacts
with chlorine in drinking water to
form the hazardous chemical
chloroform, a suspected carcinogen
(Environ Sci Technol, 1983; 17: 1507).
As a chlorophenol, triclosan is
categorized as a persistent organic
pollutant. It works by blocking the
active site of the enoylacyl carrier
protein reductase enzyme (ENR),
which is an essential enzyme in

fatty acid synthesis in bacteria

(Nature, 1998; 394: 5312). By blocking
this site, triclosan inhibits the
enzyme, and therefore prevents the
bacteria from synthesizing fatty
acid, which is necessary to build
cell membranes and to reproduce.
In short, it prevents the spread of
bacteria.
Triclosan is now so widely used
that it can be readily detected in
the environment and in some food
sources.
Triclosan
has
been
reported in the bile from fish that
were caged close to wastewater
treatment plants. In fact, it has also
been found in samples of human
breast milk ( Drug Metab Disposition,
2004; 32: 11629). One milk sample
contained a quantity of triclosan of
300 g/kg of lipid weight. A Swedish
study found high levels of triclosan
in three out of five randomly
selected human milk samples,
which indicates that it is indeed
absorbed into the body, often in
high quantities (Chemosphere, 2002;
46: 14859). Triclosan has also been
detected in human plasma.

The dioxin link

Fresh concerns have been raised about triclosans link to dioxin. Dioxin is
commonly considered one of the most toxic of environmental chemicals
(Lancet, 2000; 355: 185863). It can be highly carcinogenic and is known to cause
a weakening of the immune system (Environ Health Persp, 2002; 110: No 12), birth
defects, endometriosis (Hum Reprod, 1997; 12: 3735) and decreased fertility
(Beyond Pesticides: Pesticides and You, 2004: 24: No 3). It has even been found to alter
sex ratios in offspring (Lancet, 2000; 355: 185863). Research has found that
triclosan converts into dioxin on contact with ultraviolet (UV) light, raising
fears that sunlight could transform triclosan into dioxin naturally (Anal Bioanal
Chem, 2005; 381: 12948; Environ Toxicol Chem, 2005; 24: 51725). If that were true, the
public health risks could be incalculable.

Do we need to use
antibacterial agents at all?
Despite the widespread use of these
chemicals in everyday life, research
has demonstrated that there are no
extra health benefits from using
antibacterial cleaners in the
household (Emerging Infect Dis, 2001; 7:
No 3 Suppl.).
Under the correct conditions
such as in a health care setting
antibacterial agents such as
triclosan have proved effective, but
their use in cosmetics and in the
home is questionable. A study of
over 200 healthy households found
those that used antibacterial
cleaning products did not reduce
the risk of contracting infections
(Ann Intern Med, 2004; 140: 130).
Further, antibacterial agents
dont simply kill bad bacteria, they
also eliminate the good bacteria,
which can aid metabolism to
protect against harmful pathogens.
Research has shown that people
exposed to a variety of microbes
develop stronger immune systems,
while individuals who grow up in
more sterile environments are more
susceptible to respiratory allergies,
asthma and eczema (Townsend Let Doc
Pat, 2006; May).
Despite the prolific use of triclosan as an antibacterial agent, it
has not been studied extensively
and no data exist to support the
efficacy and safety of its long-term
use. Nor has its potential risks to
the environment been evaluated.
The true impact of wholesale
domestic anti-germ warfare on the
environment and on ourselves is
still anyones guess.
Amanda Diamond

WDDTY Safe Living 13

Hazards in the home

Natural gas: its green, but is it safe?

Using gas ovens and stoves is supposed to be the
green way to cook in this era of limited natural
resources. But while gas cooking is good for
the environment, it may be far less healthy for
human beings. Mounting evidence suggests that
gas appliances create all sorts of toxic effects on
the bodyfrom allergic responses to growth
retardation.

n these globally warmed times,

we are all being encouraged to
get cooking with gas. Gas is so
much more eco-friendly, were
told, because its one of the
cleanest-burning alternative fuels,
producing fewer smog-producing
and greenhouse-gas emissions.
When we light the gas burner to boil
an egg, we will use far less energy
than boiling it using electricity.
But the environment is one thing
and
environmental
medicine
another, and whats good for the
planet isnt necessarily so for the
people on it. Research is now
showing that gas appliances may be
so toxic that they may even be
stunting childrens growth.
When Dr Theron Randolph
(19061995), the great American
pioneer of environmental medicine,
first started charting his patients
toxic reactions to things in their
environment, top of his list were gas
appliances. Time and again, he
found that his patients most
common chemical sensitivity was to
the com-bustion byproducts of
natural gas. Whats more, he found
that gas cookers in the home were
often the trigger for multiple
chemical sensitivity (see box, page
15), later dubbed by the popular
press as allergy to the 20th
century.
Today, official surveys have confirmed that natural gas is one of the
major sources of indoor air
pollution. Thats because cookers
produce a cocktail of unpleasant
substances, including not only the
toxic gases carbon monoxide and
nitrogen dioxide, but also particles
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and heavy metals.
Although the usual expectation is
that these toxic substances will be

14 WDDTY Safe Living

dealt with by extractor fans, most

homes with gas cookers either dont
have or dont use extractor fans.
And even if they do, the fans dont
appear to work that well anyway. An
in-depth British study carried
out about 10 years ago showed that
womenand its still usually they
who do the cookingwith extractor
fans in their kitchens had just as
many respiratory problems as
women with unventilated cookers
(Lancet, 1996; 347: 42631).
So, exactly what are the potential
health problems that can come from
cooking with gas?
Carbon monoxide (CO) is the
most obvious hazard. Odourless,
tasteless and colourless, this gas
binds with the haemoglobin in the
blood 200 times better than oxygen
and, thus, severely reduces the
amount of oxygen transported to the
tissues of the body. At very high

doses, it can kill, as evidenced by the

many cases of fatal carbon-monoxide
poisoning in homes that are using
faulty,
poorly
maintained
or
unvented gas appliances.
But carbon-monoxide poisoning is
not all or nothing. Well before it
becomes fatal, a continuous lowlevel exposure to the gas can cause
early symptoms of CO toxicity (see
box below). In fact, hospital
accident
and
emergency
departments estimate that as much
as 5 per cent of their cases of severe
headaches and dizziness are due to
CO poisoning. The problem is
noticeably worse in winter because
of the lack of ventilation (Lambert WE,
Samet JM. Occupational and Environmental
Respiratory

Disease.

St

Louis,

MO:

MosbyYear Book, 1996: 788).

Nitrogen dioxide (N02) is another

odourless gas contained in gascooker fumes. It has long been

Look out for these signs

!
"
"
"
"
"

Early carbon-monoxide
poisoning
dizziness
dull headache
nausea
ringing in the ears
pounding heart.

!
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

!
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

Nitrogen-dioxide
poisoning
coughing
fatigue
nausea
choking
headache
abdominal pain
difficulty breathing.

"
"
"
"

Chemical sensitivity
runny nose
itchy eyes
scratchy throat
earache
scalp pain
mental confusion
fatigue
heart palpitations
nausea and/or diarrhoea
abdominal cramps
aching joints.

Note: These symptoms often appear to be

unrelated and may occur in a cluster.
Having more than three at one time could
indicate a problem.

Reducing your gas cooker risk

!
!
!
!

Keep your kitchen well ventilated

Turn the extractor fan on before you start cooking as most fumes are given
off in the first few minutes
Have the gas hob and extractor fan regularly serviced
Consider installing carbon-monoxide and methane detectors.

known to be a powerful irritant to

the eyes, nose, throat and,
particularly,
lungs.
At
high
concentrations, it can cause
extensive lung damage in both
animals and humans, whereas lower
levels can result in chronic lowgrade disease.
In tests involving young British
housewives, doctors at St Thomas
Hospital, in London, showed that
women who cooked on gas stoves
had significantly reduced lung function, along with an increased risk of
wheezing, shortness of breath and
asthma attacks ( Lancet, 1996; 347:
42631). Furthermore, N02 has been
found to worsen asthma symptoms
in general, exacerbating what might
just have been a mild reaction to
allergens such as house-dust mites
(Lancet, 1994; 344: 17336).
However, the most alarming evidence as to the adverse effects of
N02 concerns children. Researchers
in Hong Kong found a direct correlation between the amount of gasstove usage in the home and the
incidence of childhood respiratory
illnesses.
After surveying the parents of 426
children, aged six and under, on two
housing estates, the researchers
discovered that the more times a
family used gas for cooking, the
higher the incidence of allergic
rhinitis,
asthma,
bronchitis,
sinusitis and pneumonia in their
childrena clear doseresponse
relationship. In addition, although
the Chinese tend to be heavy
smokers, the researchers found that
passive smoking had far less effect
on the children than did cooking
with gas (Arch Dis Child, 2004; 89: 6316).
Its the same story in Australia,
where researchers have confirmed
that even relatively low levels of N02
can cause respiratory problems in
children. Its been calculated that
cooking on a gas stove can expose
people to air containing as much as
1000 parts per billion (ppb) of N02,

which can linger for up to an hour in

the room after the cooker has been
turned off. Even levels as low as 80
ppb can be hazardous to children (Int
J Epidemiol, 1997; 26: 78896). And, as
N02 is heavier than air and, thus,
sinks, children are likely to receive
higher doses of it than do adults.
Gas stoves also make life more
difficult for children who already
have asthma. A recent study from
Yale University found that asthma
symptoms more than doubled in
homes with gas stoves, even when
N02 levels were low. An average of
just 25 ppb of N02well below the
US official safety guidelines of 53
ppbcould cause breathing difficulties among children (Am J Respir Crit
Care Med, 2006; 173: 297303).
Theres also evidence that N02
may not only worsen asthma, but
actually cause it. An eight-year
follow-up study in Tasmania came up
with the alarming finding that, if a
child is exposed to a gas stove in the
first month of its life, it will have
twice the risk of developing housedust mite allergy by the age of eight
(Clin Exp Allergy, 2001; 31: 154452).
And gas stoves dont just produce
gasesthey also release particles,
mainly, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which researchers
are only just beginning to realize
can also be hazardous to health.
One of the earliest alerts came
from Australia, where researchers at
Monash Medical School in Victoria,
even after adjusting for the effects
of N02, found that children from
homes with gas cookers still had an
increased risk of respiratory

disorders. This suggests an

additional risk apart from the
nitrogen
dioxide
exposure
associated with gas stove use, they
said (Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 1998; 158:
8915).
The added risk could be due to
PAHs, or perhaps even heavy metals.
Its
now
known
that
toxic
compounds of mercury, arsenic and
lead can accumulate on the burners
of gas stoves. Although the precise
health consequences of this have not
yet been ascertained, its known that
these substances are highly poisonous and readily accumulate in body
tissues (Nature, 1993; 363: 680). Indeed,
people suffering from multiple
chemical sensitivity have problems
with gas rings, even when theyre
not being used.
The most worrying findings,
however, come from Kuwait, where
doctors made a comparison of the
general health of 130 children from
homes that used either electric or
gas ranges. These were middle-class
children from prosperous Kuwaiti
and European families who could
afford the luxury of air-conditioning
and mechanical ventilation.
In spite of this, there were
significant differences between the
two sets of children. The researchers
were astonished to find that children
from the gas-cooker homes not only
had impaired lung function, but
were also around 3 cmmore than
an inchshorter in height ( Arch
Environ Health, 1991; 46: 3615).
The lead author, Professor
Wieslaw Jedrychowski of Krakow
University, describes these Kuwait
results
as
only a pilot survey, a preliminary
investigation. And certainly, so far,
neither he nor anyone else appears
to have followed-up these growthrate findings in other youngsters.
Yet, could these Kuwait children be
the canaries down the mineshaft?
Tony Edwards

A whiff of a problem
Natural gas is primarily made up of methane and, because it has no smell,
odours are added to the gas to help detect leaks by scent. The usual added
odours are sulphur-based compounds, which are believed to be non-toxic.
Most people can detect them before they reach significant levels but, for
chemically sensitive people, even the slightest of gas leaks may constitute a
serious health problem.

WDDTY Safe Living 15

Hazards
in
the
home
Teflon: its safety story doesnt stick
Teflon, DuPonts trademarked heat-resistant
coating, is now everywhere. On any given morning,
you may well encounter it while curling your hair,
ironing your clothes, wearing your clothes, cooking
your breakfast or sitting on your sofa.
All the more reason to worry, then, about recent
claims that this chemical of convenience causes
disease.

eflon is the trade name

forpolymerpolytetrafluoroethyl
ene (PTFE), a thermoplastic
found in a slew of domestic
products (see box below). More than 95
per cent of Americans now show traces
of perfluorooctanic acid (PFOA), a
breakdown product of PTFE and a
potential carcinogen, in their blood
(Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2004; 39: 36380).
That doesnt bode well for the rest of
the world either.
The US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) became concerned about
PFOA
after
removing
PFOS
(perfluorooctanic sulphonates)the
active ingredient in Scotchgardfrom
the market in 2000. PFOA belongs to
the same class of environmentally
hazardous, carcinogenic chemicals.
PTFE has been around for a good 50
years, but were only beginning to
understand the health consequences of
this prevalent polymer. Once again, the
manufacturers (in this case, DuPont)
have served up decades of scientific
spin. In fact, the EPA is currently suing
DuPont for failing to report information
concerning PFOA. In the meantime,
these are the most pressing health
hazards we know of so far.

Cholesterol
A series of studies point to an increased
risk of heart attack and stroke in
workers exposed to PFOA. In 2001,
onetime PFOA manufacturer 3M
(who made Scotchgard) published
its own study showing that workers
consistently exposed to Teflon
for five to 10 years had a risk of fatal
stroke that was 15 times higher
than that of non-exposed workers
(www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20041216/index.php).

More recently, DuPont released its

own study linking PFOA to higher levels
of cholesterol. According to a January
2005 DuPont press release, analysis of

16 WDDTY Safe Living

the blood and

urine
of
62
workers exposed to PFOA showed an
approximate 10 per cent increase in
total cholesterol (most of which was in
the LDL fraction) and a rise in
triglycerides among some individuals
having PFOA levels of greater than 1000
parts per billion, which are levels
at least 200 times higher than
that
found
in
the
general
population(www2.dupont.com/Media_Center/
en_US/assets/downloads/pfoa/nr0111_05a.pdf).

Polymer fume fever

PFOA isnt the only Teflon chemical of
concern. A report by the Environmental
Working Group (EWG), a Washington,
DC-based non-profit research and
advocacy organisation, showed that
PTFE can break down when heated for
as little as two to five minutes or, in one
case, to just 396 F (202.2 C). The

higher the temperature, the more

chemicals are released. In addition to
PFOA, these include global pollutants
such as: TFE, a potential carcinogen;
PFIB, an extremely toxic chemical
warfare agent; and MFA, which is fatal at
low doses. These fumes produce a flulike illness (polymer fume fever) as well
as more severe conditions such as
pulmonary oedema, pneumonitis and
even death (Acta Astronaut, 1992; 27: 2579).
This can easily happen in any household
if an unfilled PTFE-coated saucepan is
heated or when such a pan boils dry, and
is more likely to occur if the coating is
worn or scratched. Considering that
PTFE is heated daily in most kitchens
(see box below), this is very bad news.
Its even worse news for birds, which are
even more susceptible than humans.
In days of yore, that was why canaries

Where can we find PTFE?

Airplane and auto-engine parts
Camping equipment
Carpets and rugs
Clothing and hosiery
Coffeemakers
Computer chips
Cooking utensils
Cookware
Cosmetics
Hairdryers/curling irons
Dental floss
Electrical insulation
Fast-food packaging
Firefighting foam
Furniture and soft furnishings
Gardening equipment and patio
furniture
Guitar strings
Heat lamps and portable heaters
House paint (interior and exterior)
Irons and ironing-board covers

Kitchen utensils and gadgets

Leatherwear
Light bulbs
Luggage
Medicine containers
Paper products
Pesticides
Pet bedding, leashes, collars and
harnesses
Popcorn poppers
Prosthetic devices
Raingear
Razor blades
Sandwich-and
waffle-makers
Scratch-resistant eyeglasses
Shaving foam/gel
Solar-panel coatings
Stain repellents
Stove-top burners
Surgical instruments

were placed in coalmines. Given their

small size and high metabolic rates,
birds are extremely efficient in
exchanging gases and delivering oxygen.
However, this also makes them more
susceptible to airborne toxins. In one
case report, five cockatiels died within
30 minutes of a PTFE-coated frying pan
being accidentally overheated. And
within an hour, their owner developed
symptoms of polymer fume fever (Vet Rec,
1975; 96: 1758). In another report, 264
broiler chicks, out of a flock of 2400,
developed pulmonary oedema due to
breathing a noxious gasfound to be
emanating from PTFE-coated heat-lamp
bulbsand died over a six-week period
of exposure. In another similar flock, 96
chicks died within just 24 hours of such
exposure (Avian Dis, 2000; 44: 44953).
Polymer fume fever (see box below)
usually resolves itself within 48 hours
but, in some people, its not so benign.
In one instance, textile workers exposed
to PTFE experienced recurring polymer
fume fever that eventually led to
permanent lung damage (J Occup Med,
1994; 36: 758). In a similar incident but in
a domestic situation, a 26-year-old
woman suffered respiratory distress for a
month after exposure to a defective and
melting PTFE microwave-oven part
(Thorax, 1993; 48: 3002). And, in a more
recent report, three workers in a plastics
factory suffered acute pulmonary
oedema after inhaling heated PTFE, one
of whom died as a result (Eur Respir J, 1997;
10: 140811). An epidemiological study of
workers exposed to PFOA for 10 years
revealed a more than threefold increase
in prostate cancer mortality compared
with workers not exposed (J Occup Med,
1993; 35: 9504; J Occup Health, 2004; 46:
4959). In rats, PFOA caused malignant
pancreatic, testicular and liver tumours
(Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1991; 111: 5307; Toxicol

Symptoms of polymer
fume fever
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

Chest tightness
Difficulty breathing
Dry, irritating cough
Chills
Fever
Headaches
Nausea and vomiting
Sore throat
Malaise
A 100104 F (37.840 C)
temperature

Alternative cookware
# Cast iron. Durable, naturally non-stick and able to withstand higher
temperatures than other non-stick materials, it has the added advantage of
browning meat and other foods better than PTFE-coated pans. Not surprisingly,
cast-iron cookware also leaches bioavailable iron into food, providing additional
amounts of this essential nutrient (J Nutr, 1998; 128: 8559). However, for those with
iron-absorption problems (haemochromatosis) or certain types of cancer,
excess iron should be avoided.
On the downside, they are heavy and not dishwasher-safe.
# Stainless steel. Again, stainless steel browns foods better than non-stick
surfaces. This is the most economical choice. However, stainless steel isnt
good at conducting heat, so it normally also contains a small amount of other
metals such as iron, chromium or nickel, which can leach into your food if the
pan is scratched. Having said this, the levels of nickel and other leached metals
is very low compared with the levels of these metals already in the food itself
(Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38: 30510).
Nickel is implicated in numerous health problems, notably, allergic contact
dermatitis, so if youre sensitive to nickel, youd do better to switch to cookware
not made of stainless steel (Arch Environ Contam Toxicol, 1992; 23: 2115).
Alternatively, you may well avoid this problem by purchasing copperbottomed pans for better heat conduction.
# Glass. Glass cookware is inert, or non-reactive (making it probably the safest of
all), and dishwasher-safe. In one study, there were significantly lower amounts
of nickel and chromium in the foods cooked in glass saucepans compared with
stainless steel (Contact Dermatitis, 1998; 38: 30510).
# Aluminium and anodised aluminium are not recommended. Aluminium is
inexpensive and an excellent heat conductor, but it is also toxic (it affects the
bones, and accumulates in liver and brain tissue) and readily migrates from
containers to foods, especially into acidic and salty foods (Ann Univ Mariae Curie
Sklodowska [Med], 2004; 59: 4116; Food Addit Contam, 1996; 13: 76774).
Harsh chemicals are used to make anodised aluminium, which seals off
aluminiumbut only until you scratch the surface. And its definitely not
dishwasher-friendly.
# Be cautious of the new, hybrid metals such as titanium until they are proven
to be made with chemicals that are not toxic.

Sci, 2001; 60: 4455; Dis Markers, 20032004; 19:

1925), although this may not necessarily

apply to people.
Nevertheless, the EPA recently
dubbed the chemical a likely human
carcinogena good example of
understatement, given that PFOA meets
the agencys own criteria for labelling as
a human carcinogen. For some reason,
the EPA appears to be dragging its feet
in fully condemning PFOA.
TFE has also been shown to cause
cancer of the liver and kidneys as well as
leukaemiabut again, in rodents (Natl
Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser, 1997; 450: 1321;
Toxicol Pathol, 2004; 32: 2228). However,
based on this evidence, it is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen,
according to the US Department of
Health and Human Services National
Toxicology
Program
Report on
Carcinogens (11th edition).

Birth defects
The EWG recently unearthed a decades-

old internal DuPont company-research

memo stating that PFOA had been
found in the umbilical cord blood of an
infant born to a company worker, and in
the blood of another workers baby. In
the same memo, serious birth defects in
two of seven babies born to female
Teflon-plant workers were also
recorded.
According to the memo, one baby
was born with one nostril and eye
defect; the other had an unconfirmed
eye and tear duct defect.
According to the EWG, DuPont did
remove women from the plant, but these
findings were never reported to the EPA.
This revelation sparked off an EPA review
of
DuPont
company
practices
concerning PFOA, including the
potential contamination of the Lubeck,
West Virginia, and Little Hocking, Ohio,
tap-water systems for at least 17years
(www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20040617/index.php?p
rint_ version=1).
Kim Wallace

WDDTY Safe Living 17

Hazards in the home

DIY dangers: MDF

MDF (medium-density fibreboard) is a

widely used cheap alternative to wood
that is easily machined and sanded.
However, the dust it produces has been
fingered as the cause of health
problems such as asthma and even
cancer.
Some
even
call
it the new asbestos, but officialdom
says thats nonsense.
What are the facts? MDF is mostly
finely chopped waste-wood fibres that
have been pressed and glued together
into flat sheets of variable thicknesses.
Youll now find MDF in practically every
homeas kitchen units, cabinets,
skirting boards and architraves. When
painted, its indistinguishable from
machined wood.
However, since MDF first came onto
the market 20 years ago, carpenters
have complained about the large
amount of dust it creates when sawn or
sanded. In Australia, factories that
routinely work with MDF have been
tested for dust production, and the
results show that working with MDF
does indeed produce comparatively
high levels of dust. Indeed, sanding
MDF creates five times more dust than
with wood, and often with finer
particles.
Is MDF harmful to health? No, says
the UKs Health & Safety Executive
(HSE), claiming theres no evidence of
any specific health hazards. Yet, over a
decade ago, the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC)
classified wood dust as a human
carcinogen after a score of studies had
shown that joinery industry workers had
an increased rate of nasopharyngeal
carcinoma, a rare cancer of the
nose and throat (IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog
Risks Hum, 1995; 62: 35215). So, the HSE
does impose the same exposure limits
on MDF dust as they do on wood dust
5 mg of dust/m3.
Nevertheless, in practice, this may be
difficult to achieve. The University of
Paisley in Scotland found that MDF dust
levels in a typical joinery peaked at over
90 mg/m3 (Int J Environ Health Res, 2004; 14:
3236).
Another reason to doubt that MDF is
equivalent to ordinary wood in terms of
safety is that, unlike wood, MDF

18 WDDTY Safe Living

contains
large
amounts
of
formaldehyde. The binder used
in MDF is called ureaformaldehyde,
the vapour of which is toxic. At the very
least, formaldehyde is an irritant to the
eyes and throat. But studies of
industrial workers have also shown that
the vapour can cause myeloid
leukaemia and cancer of the nose and
throat, prostate, lung and pancreas (Am
J Epidemiol, 2004; 159: 111730). Whats
more worrying about MDF is that the
formaldehyde is attached to the dust,
which is not easily expelled from the
respiratory tract and, instead, may
become lodged in the nose and lungs.
As yet, theres no hard evidence that
MDF itself is more harmful than
ordinary wood, but there are already
straws in the wind. One study in
manufactured-timber workers in New
Zealand found that workers were nearly
twice as likely to have asthma as the
general population, and four times
more likely to suffer if exposed to high
levels of formaldehyde (Ann Occup Hyg,
2003; 47: 28795). When French doctors
carried out a similar analysis
adjusting for wood-dust health effects
using pooled data from timber-factory
workers across seven countries, they
found a threefold increase in sinonasal
cancer, all directly attributable to
formaldehyde (Cancer Causes Control, 2002;
13: 14757).
Theres now growing concern that
the 5 mg/m3 safety limits of MDF dust

exposure is too low. A recent report by

Finnish researchers found high levels of
nasal, eye and skin symptoms among
MDF workerseven in those exposed to
a mere 1.2 mg/m3 (J Occup Environ
Hygiene, 2004; 1: 73844).
Clearly, this is not good news for DIY
enthusiasts, but theres probably no
reason to panic for those who work with
MDF only occasionally. Nonetheless, its
a good idea to take some sensible
precautions (see box below).
Its too early to tell if MDF is truly the
new asbestos, in part because cancers
such as asbestosis or mesothelioma
(coalminers disease) usually take
decades to show up.
Wood-dust cancers are the same.
Sinonasal cancer has been found to
have a long latency periodas much
as 48 years in at least one case (Rhinology,
2000; 38: 2045).
Nevertheless, given the strong
evidence of MDFs carcinogenic
potential, it may be best to work with
plain old wood whenever the DIY urge
takes you.
Tony Edwards

Be safe with MDF

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Never work on MDF inside the house, but use a carport or open garage
instead
Hose the dust down afterwards
If you have a workshop, use an extractor fan very close to where youre
working
Wear a good-quality, well-fitting dust mask; unlike sawdust, MDF dust is
extremely fine
Keep others away while you are working
Paint all naked MDF panels to prevent formaldehyde outgassing
After installation inside your home, ventilate for up to three days. If your
house appears to be particularly full of outgassing materials, do a bakeout: heat it up to a high temperature, usually 38 degrees C
(100 degrees F), to speed up the release of toxic chemicals, while keeping
the windows open and ventilation system running at full capacity. Repeat
this process for two or three days.

Dry cleaning: cleanbut deadly

Perchloroethylenealso known as perc, PCE, perchlor, perclene or
tetrachloroethylenehas been the most widely used chemical in the drycleaning industry for the past 50 years. Its a volatile organic compound (VOC)
now used by 85 per cent of dry cleaners. Yet, there are persistent concerns as
to its safety, particularly for those who are regularly exposed to it. Research
shows that it can cause a laundry list of adverse health effectsfrom
headaches and dizziness to cancer and liver damage.

ry cleaning is thought to
have originated in France,
in 1845, when dye-works
owner Jean-Baptiste Jolly
accidentally
spilled
lamp
oil
(kerosene, a petroleum-based solvent)
on a soiled tablecloth. When the
tablecloth dried, the stain was gone.
Jolly is credited with coining the term
dry cleaning to differentiate it from
wet
cleaningsoap-and-water
washing. He then went on to create
a firm, Jolly-Belin, that was Europes
first professional dry-cleaning service,
cleaning other peoples clothes using
solvents instead of water.
Since then, a wide range of solvents
have been used for the process of dry
cleaningfrom the highly flammable
kerosene to the ozone-eroding greenhouse gas CFC (chlorofluorocarbon)113. However, for the past 50 years,
the most popular dry-cleaning agent
worldwide
has
been
perchloroethylene, or perc. Its considered
ideal because its non-flammable,
gentle to most fabrics and an
excellent cleaner.
But while the chemical may work
wonders on your clothes, perc may be
extremely hazardous to your health.
Theres growing evidence that exposure to perc can cause neurological,
liver and kidney damage as well as
increase the risk of cancer. It also
contaminates the air, food and water.
Many countries have now imposed
stringent regulations for the control
of perc exposures and emissions. But
are they enough?

Neurological effects
In the latest report on perc-related
health effects, a team of scientists at
New York Citys Columbia University
made a shocking discovery: that
exposure to perc can increase the risk
of schizophrenia by 200300 per cent
(Schizophr Res, 2007; 90: 2514).
The
study
examined
the
relationship
between
parental

occupation as a dry cleaner and the

risk for schizophrenia in their
children. The researchers looked at a
total of nearly 89,000 children born
in Jerusalem from 1964 through
1976, and followed them from birth
to 2133 years of age.
Out of 144 dry cleaning families,
there were four cases of schizophreniaa much higher incidence
than expected within the general
population.
The
researchers
attributed this increased risk to perc
exposure, concluding that the
chemical
warrants
further
investigation as a risk factor for
schizophrenia.
Although further studies need to
be carried out to verify this particular
link, it has been known for some time
that perc can have adverse effects on
the brain. Since the 1970s, clinical
studies have shown that exposure to
perc can cause neurobehavioural
problemsthose related to emotion,
behaviour and learning. This may be
due to the depressive effect of perc on
the activity of the central nervous
system, which relays messages to and

from the brain to all other parts of

the body. The resultant symptoms can
range from mild to serious,
depending on the level of exposure.
Its also been shown that long-term
exposure to airborne percas shown
by studies involving dry-cleaning
workers and people living near drycleaning facilities in Germany, for
examplecan have a negative impact
on neurobehavioural functions such
as visual colour discrimination and
rapid visual-information processing
(Environ Res, 1995; 69: 839). In this case,
the chemical/air concentrations were
relatively low (1.36 mg/m3), yet even
this amount of exposure affected
those exposed for several years.
In another German study of acute

The perc around us

Exposure to perc can come from eating contaminated food or drinking
contaminated water but, for most people, exposure comes from breathing
in the chemical from the air. After entering the lungs, it enters the bloodstream and then the rest of the body. Some of it may be stored in fat, liver
and brain tissues for several weeks.
Perc exposure can also occur via the skin. In some places, this may be
from contaminated soil, but the average consumer is most likely to be
contaminated by dry-cleaned clothing.
Although dry-cleaning workers probably have the greatest exposure,
living in close proximity to a dry-cleaning establishment can also put you
at risk (see main text). Samples of breath, urine, blood and breast milk in
people living above dry-cleaning shops also revealed the presence of the
chemical. Moreover, high levels of perc were found in butter and other fatty
foods sold in convenience shops located next to dry-cleaning facilities
(Townsend Lett Docs, 2007; June: 2931).
As well as being used as a dry-cleaning solvent, perc can also be found
in other consumer products such as paint and spot removers, water
repellents, brake and wood cleaners, glues and suede protectors.

WDDTY Safe Living 19

Hazards in the home

perc exposure, visual and contrastperception problems were surprsingly
observed even at low inhalation levels
of 50 ppm (parts per million) (Int Arch
Occup Environ Health, 1990; 62: 4939).
Similarly, a more recent study in
New York City compared six
residential families and the workers
at a day-care centre in two apartment
buildings that had dry-cleaning
facilities on the ground floors.
Compared with matched controls,
those exposed to airborne perc,
despite being healthy, performed
poorly on tests of colour vision, perceptual speed, and sensorymotor
and cognitive functions. They were
also more likely to suffer from
central-nervous-system symptoms
(Environ Health Perspect, 2002; 110: 65564).
Short-term exposure (less than 14
days) can cause dizziness, headache,
lightheadedness, poor balance, visual
impairment, reduced test scores and
reaction time, and attention-deficit
and eyehand coordination problems
(Townsend Lett Docs, 2007; June: 2931).

Other toxic side-effects

As well as targeting the central
nervous system, perc can also cause
damage to the kidneys and liver
whether at extremely high doses over
the short term or at low levels over
the long term (Am J Ind Med, 1991; 20:
60114; Townsend Lett Docs, 2007; June:
2931; WHO Regional Office for Europe. Ch
5.13

Tetrachloroethylene,

in

Air

Quality

Guidelines, 2nd edn. Copenhagen, 2000).

In
one Italian study, changes in various
markers suggestive of diffuse kidney
abnormalities were evident in drycleaning workers exposed to very low
levels (15 ppm) of perc (Lancet, 1992;
340: 18993).
Even more worrying, occupational
exposure to perc has been linked to
reproductive problems, including
spontaneous abortion, menstrual and
sperm disorders, and reduced fertility
(Townsend Lett Docs, 2007; June: 2931).
Theres also evidence of birth defects
when women are exposed to perc
during pregnancy (Toxicol Ind Health,
2002; 18: 91106; Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological
Profile for Tetrachloroethylene (Update). US
Public Health Service, US Department of Health
and Human Services, Atlanta, GA, 1997).

20 WDDTY Safe Living

Minimizing your risk

!
!
!

!
!
!

If your dry-cleaned items have a strong chemical smell when you pick
them up, dont accept them until they have been properly dried.
If your items are returned to you with a chemical odour on subsequent
visits, find a different dry cleaner.
Remove the plastic wrapping and hang the dry-cleaned garments in a
garage or covered porch for a few days to allow volatile solvents to
dissipate.
Avoid purchasing dry clean only clothing.
Some items labelled dry clean only can be handwashed using special
detergents such as Woolite.
Use a clothes brush or spot-clean your clothing to freshen them up.

Yet another concern is that perc

exposure may increase the risk of
cancer. According to a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fact
sheet, studies of dry-cleaning workers
exposed to perc and other solvents
suggest an increased risk for cancers
of the oesophagus, kidney, bladder,
lung, pancreas and cervix (www.epa.
gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/tet-ethy.html). These data,
along with evidence from animal
studies, led the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) to
classify perc as a Group 2A
substance, one that is probably
carcinogenic to humans.
While
those
who
are
occupationally exposed to perc are
especially
vulnerable
to
its
carcinogenic effects, the general
public is also at risk. A 1996 analysis
by Consumer Reports found that one
out of 6700 people wearing freshly
dry-cleaned clothes once a week
could be expected to develop cancer
as a result of inhaling the perc fumes
clinging to the fabric (Townsend Lett
Docs, 2007; June: 2931).

Safer alternatives
As evidence accumulates as regards
percs health and environmental
risks, many countries are placing
more and more restrictions (and
fines) on dry-cleaning businesses. In
the US, the state of California has
announced a statewide ban on toxic
dry-cleaning
chemicals
and
equipment, to be in place by 2023.
As a result, a number of cleaning
firms are already offering safer
alternatives to perc.
One increasingly popular option in
the US and UK is silicone-based

siloxane D5, better known as GreenEarth. This solvent degrades to sand,

water and carbon dioxide, and poses
no health risks to workers, at least
according to the GreenEarth website
(www.greenearthcleaning.com). However, siloxane solvents are made using
chlorine, which may release dioxins
cancer-causing environmental pollutantsinto the air. Siloxane is also
highly flammable and may be a cancer hazard, according to the EPA
(Townsend Lett Docs, 2007; July: 5460).
Another option is liquid carbon
dioxide (CO 2), which has no
reported health effects and came top
in a review of alternative cleaning
methods by Consumer Reports. Also,
it produced better results than
conventional perc cleaning. And
cleaning with CO2 doesnt add to
global
warming
because
its
captured from industrial and agricultural emissions. However, the
detergents used in the process
contain volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), some of which are toxic
and/or carcinogenic, and contribute
to ground-level ozone.
By far, the safest cleaning alternative is wet cleaning, which uses water
in specialized machines along with
specially formulated detergents and
additives. The process is one
of the two methods considered
environmentally preferable by the
EPA (the other is CO2).
Nevertheless, wet cleaning may
not be suitable for all garments, and
how your clothes turn out depends
on the skill of the workers. But, at
least, you arent putting your health
at risk.
Joanna Evans

Big problems in tiny packages

Nanotechnology is used in hundreds of consumer products worldwide, yet little is known of its safety. There
are now concerns that this tiny technology may pose huge risks to the environment and human health.

anotechnology, the science

of manipulating materials
on an ultraminiscule scale,
is used in a growing range
of consumer productsfrom semiconductors and solar cells to food,
health products and cosmetics. Yet,
according to the Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution (RCEP),
this trend may represent a potential
hazard to both human health and the
environment.
Although it found no evidence of
actual harm from nanomaterials, the
report emphasizes that this is not
because they have been proved safe, but
because the research so far is
inadequate. Almost by definition, with
novel materials and particularly
nanomaterials, there are virtually no
data on chronic, long-term effects on
people, other organisms or the wider
environment, the report says, while
calling for urgent testing and tighter
regulations to address gaps in the
current knowledge.
What the report authors did find,
however, on analyzing the laboratory
data, was that some nanomaterials have
properties that make them potentially
harmful and a case for concern.
Indeed, further reports have
uncovered compelling evidence that
manufactured nanomaterials can enter
the body via inhalation, ingestion and
skin absorption, and may cause
biological damage. The adverse
biological effects have common
metabolic themes such as oxidative
stress, interference with cell-tocell transfer of molecules and
mitochondrial damage (www.rcep.org.
uk/novelmaterials.htm).
Given the more than 600 products
containing nanomaterials currently
available in the global marketplace, this
information certainly deserves our
attention.

The evidence so far

One particularly worrying nanomaterial is carbon nanotubes (CNTs),
used to make strong, lightweight
composites for everything from
medical devices and bicycle frames to

computer chips. They are the most

commonly cited when it comes to the
effects of nanoparticles on health and
the environment. The main problem
is that theyre similar in structure and
size to asbestos, leading many to
question their long-term health and
safety (Nightingale P et al. Nanomaterials
Innovation Systems: Their Structure, Dynamics
and

Regulation,

2008;

www.rcep.org.uk/novelmaterials.htm).

NASA scientists say that these tiny

light nanoparticles could pose an
occupational inhalation exposure
hazard. Their analysis of animal data
shows that, once in the lungs, CNTs
can lead to inflammation, epithelioid
granulomas (microscopic nodules),
biochemical/toxicological changes
and fibrosis. Moreover, some CNTs are
more toxic than quartz, a serious
occupational health hazard when
chronically inhaled (Crit Rev Toxicol, 2006;
36: 189217).
Another worrying nanomaterial is
nanosilver, used for its antimicrobial
properties in clothing, wound dressings and personal-care products. It
was found to damage the lungs of rats
by causing oxidative stress within
cells. In fact, the smaller the
particles, the worse the damage (J
Phys Chem B, 2008; 112: 1360819).
In the lab, nanosilover was toxic to
rat liver and human brain cells (Toxicol
In Vitro, 2005; 19: 97583; Toxicol Sci, 2006; 92:
45663), and was the most toxic to
germline stem cells of all the tested
nanomaterials. These effects can
inhibit fertility and may adversely
affect offspring, the scientists said
(Toxicol Sci, 2005; 88: 4129).
Yet another concern raised by
Friends of the Earth (FOE) is that

silver nanoparticles may interfere

with the good bacteria in our bodies
and in the environment, ultimately
resulting in more virulent harmful
bacteria (www.foe.org/pdf/nano_food.pdf).
These findings are all the more
worrying in light of a new study which
found that nanosilver can leach from
fabric when washed, and escape
through the waste water into the
environment (Environ Sci Technol, 2008;
42: 41339).
Also on the list of nanomaterials
to watch out for is titanium dioxide
(TiO2), a widely used white pigment
added to paints, coatings, plastics,
inks, foods, medicines, toothpaste,
cosmetics, sunscreens and other
personal-care products.
Recently, scientists in China
discovered that nano-sized TiO2
particles can travel from the nose to
the brain, and cause damage to the
brain cells of laboratory mice. They
also observed significant changes in
the cells of the olfactory bulb and
hippocampus following a relatively
low exposure dose and within a short
period of time (Toxicology, 2008; 254:
8290). These findings raise serious
safety concerns not only for workers
exposed to TiO2 nanoparticles, but
also for consumers, who can inhale
particles from cosmetics such as
face powder.
However, we are much more likely
to come into contact with TiO2
nanoparticles via the skin, probably
through sunscreens and cosmetics,
although several laboratory studies
have demonstrated that nano-sized
TiO2 particles do not penetrate the
skin and, therefore, pose no risk to
human health (Int J Cosmet Sci, 1999; 21:

Nanotech in numbers
Nanotechnology can be defined as dealing with materials, systems and
processes that operate at a scale of 100 nanometres (nm) or less. One
nanometre (nm) is one-thousandth of a micrometre (mcm), one-millionth of
a millimetre (mm) and one-billionth of a metre (m). To put this into context:
a strand of DNA is 2.5 nm wide, while a protein molecule is 5 nm, a red blood
cell is 7000 nm and a human hair is 80,000 nm in diameter.

WDDTY Safe Living 21

Hazards in the home

399411; Crit Rev Toxicol, 2007; 37: 25177).

Nevertheless, according to the UK

consumer-interest group Which?,
there are concerns as to the safety
of TiO2 nanoparticles when used on
damaged skin, such as skin that is
sunburnt. Although there seems to be
a reasonable amount of agreement by
experts that these nanoparticles would
not be able to get through healthy skin
because they would still be too big to
squeeze through the gaps in the barrier
that the skin presents, it isnt clear
whether they could pass through the
skin if it is damaged, says the group
(see which.co.uk for more details).
Clearly, more research is needed on
this nanomaterial to ascertain its safety.

Precautionary measures
Although test-tube and animal data
on nanomaterials may not apply to
humans in a real-life setting, the early
warning
signals
surrounding
nanotoxicity certainly warrant a
precautionary approach to this new
technology. Indeed, some publicinterest groups, such as FOE, have
called for a moratorium on the
development and manufacture of
nanomaterials
until
adequate
regulations are in place.
In the meantime, the nanotech
revolution is set to continue
unrelentingly and, once again, scant

Nanoparticle risks: what we know

Much of what is known of the hazards posed by nanoparticles is derived
from studies of unintentionally produced and released nanosized particles
such as from fossil-fuel combustion. Collectively, these studies show that:
! when inhaled, nanoparticles are highly likely to be deposited in all
regions of the respiratory tract
! nanoparticles can evade specific defence mechanisms
! when in contact with skin, they can penetrate to the dermis and then via
the lymphatics to the lymph nodes
! their small size facilitates uptake into cells and into the blood and
lymph circulation to reach sensitive target sites such as bone marrow,
lymph nodes, the spleen and heart
! unlike larger particles, nanoparticles can pass via nerve axons into the
brain
! they have a greater potential for inflammatory and oxidative stress than
larger particles
! particles with no specific toxicity, such as carbon black and titanium
dioxide, can cause fibrosis, neoplasms and lung tumours in laboratory
animals.
From Nightingale P et al. Nanomaterials Innovation Systems:
Their Structure, Dynamics and Regulation (www.rcep.org.uk)

labelling requirements put the onus

on the consumer.
One way to protect ourselves is to
stick to natural, organic products
whenever possible and to look for
companies that declare that they
dont use nanotechnology. Alternatively, finding out which companies
are the ones that use nanotechnology
can help us make educated decisions

about what to spend our money on.

One useful resource is The Project on
Emerging Nanotechnologies, whose
website (www.nanotechproject.org)
lists hundreds of nanomaterialcontaining products along with their
manufacturers.
So, staying informed may be the
best way to stay safe.
Joanna Evans

Nanomaterials in food and cosmetics

Nanomaterials are used in a wide variety of consumer
goods, but the biggest potential threat to our health is
most likely to come from the food and cosmetics
industries.
A study by environmental group Friends of the Earth
(FOE) found that nanomaterials are now in processed
foods, food packaging and food-contact materials such
as storage containers, cutlery and chopping boards.
They are used to make more potent food colourings,
flavourings and nutritional additives, and are added as
antibacterial agents. When they enter the body via the
gut, they accumulate over time. Eventually, this may
result in nanopathologies such as granulomas, lesions
(areas of damaged cells or tissue), cancer or blood
clots.
FOE identified over 100 nanomaterial-containing food
products currently on sale worldwide (including dietreplacement milkshakes, cooking oil, tea and fortified
fruit juice). But, as many food manufacturers may be
unwilling to advertise the nanomaterial content of their

22 WDDTY Safe Living

products, FOE believes that this is only a small fraction

of the total number of nano-containing products actually
out there (www.foe.org/pdf/nano_food.pdf).
Nanomaterials in cosmetics are even more worrying.
A 2006 survey by the US non-profit Environmental
Working Group identified nearly 9800 products using
nano-scale ingredients, including 256 that contained
one or more of 57 different nanoscale or micronized
ingredients, and an additional 9509 products containing
ingredients that come in nano sizes. Yet, nearly all of
these products offered no information regarding particle
size on their labels (www.ewg.org/node/21738).
Considering the lack of safety data for these
materials, such widespread use is disturbing.
Fortunately, though, the EWG has compiled a list of
potentially hazardous cosmetics (including lipsticks,
moisturizers, antiageing serums, sunscreens, body
creams, cleansers and acne treatments), so that
consumers can avoid them if they so wish (go to
www.ewg.org/node/26564).

Poison in your shopping basket

Bisphenol A, a chemical thats been polluting the environment for years, has now been found to be
contaminating people, tooby leaching out of the linings of tin cans into the food we eat. Regulatory
authorities insist the dosages from such exposure are nothing to worry about, yet the mounting evidence
shows that the chemical is toxic at disturbingly low levelsespecially to unborn babies.

f youre a consumer of canned

foodsuch as baked beans
and chicken soupthen you
may be swallowing harmful
residues of a toxic, oestrogenmimicking chemical that is linked
to cancer and damaged sexual
development.
A comprehensive report by the
US
public-health
and
environmental watchdog Environmental Working Group (EWG)
discovered that bisphenol A (BPA),
a chemical commonly used to line
the inside of food cans, is leaching
into the food product inside,
exposing the public to dangerous
levels of the noxious compound.
Although the research was
carried out in the USwhere
laboratory tests found BPA in over
half of nearly 100 cans of food
purchased from major supermarket
chainsthe EWG points out that
BPA contamination of food is
a global concern. Indeed, in studies
conducted over the past two
decades, scientists have detected
BPA in breast milk, serum, saliva,
urine, amniotic fluid and cord
blood from at least 2200 people
across Europe, North America and
Asia.
According to the EWG, these
widespread exposures are a serious
public-health concern, as even low
levels of BPA have been associated
with a diverse range of toxic effects.
The chemical may also be
contributing to the litany of
human health problems that are
on the rise among the worlds
populations,
including
breast
cancer, diabetes, obesity, infertility
and polycystic ovarian syndrome.

A real risk
BPA is produced in large amounts
across the globe. As well as being
an ingredient in the epoxy resins
that line food cans, BPA can also be
found in polycarbonate plastics
such as water bottles, baby bottles,
childrens
toys,
adhesives,

electronics, and even tooth fillings

and sealants. Nevertheless, canned
foods are thought to be the
predominant
route
of
BPA
exposure.
In recent years, various environmental groups have been warning
us that exposure to BPA from foodcan linings and other sources poses
a potential human health risk. And
now, this latest report from the
EWG shows just how real that risk
is.
Independent laborator y tests
conducted by the EWG found BPA
in 55 of the 97 cans of food
analyzedincluding chicken soup,
ravioli and infant formula
purchased from three major
supermarket chains in various
locations in the US. In one out of
every 10 cans of all foods tested,
and in one of every three cans of
baby formula, a single serving
contained enough BPA to expose a
woman or child to BPA levels that
were more than 200 times the US
governments traditional safe level
of
exposure
for
industrial
chemicals.
A survey conducted by the
Food Standards Agency in the
UK had similar findings. The
group tested 62 samples from
canned
goods
sold
in
UK
supermarkets
and
detected
BPA in almost 40 products.
The compound was found at levels

up to 0.07 mg/kg in 37 samples

and
at
0.350.42
mg/kg
in
one
further
can
( www.food.gov.uk/science/surveillance/fsis2
001/bisphenols).
Although these levels were all
within safety limits, there is
growing concern over the damage
that the chemical might cause to
health
at
even
miniscule
concentrations.

The evidence so far

According to the EWG, there is now
near irrefutable evidence that
BPA has toxic effects at low levels of
exposure. In its report, which
summarizes the extensive data in
the scientific literature so far on
the adverse effects of BPA, the
group states that, Few chemicals
have been found to consistently
display such a diverse range of
harm at such low doses.
Indeed, in a review published in
2005, researchers Dr Frederick vom
Saal, from the University of
Missouri, and Dr Claude Hughes,
from East Carolina University in
North Carolina, found over 90
studiesalbeit in animals, so the
findings may not necessarily apply
to
humansconfirming
BPA
toxicity at surprisingly low doses. In
31 of these studies, significant
effects were even seen with
exposures below the supposedly
safe or reference dose of 50

WDDTY Safe Living 23

Hazards in the home

mcg/kg/day.
At some of the lowest doses, they
found that BPA caused permanent
alterations in breast and prostate
cells that can lead to cancer,
insulin resistance [a hallmark trait
of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent)
diabetes], chromosomal damage
linked to recurrent miscarriage and
a wide range of birth defects,
including Downs syndrome.
The two scientists also noted
that rate of growth and sexual
maturation, hormone levels in
blood, reproductive organ function,
fertility, immune function, enzyme
activity, brain structure, brain
chemistry, and behaviour are all
affected by exposure to low doses of
BPA. These effects have all been
demonstrated in a wide range of
laborator y animals ( Environ Health
Perspect, 2005; 113: 92633).
Interestingly, where traditional
toxicology asserts that the higher
the dose, the greater the harm, BPA
tests show that low doses can be the
most toxic of all. In one laboratory
test, a low dose of BPA produced a
70-per-cent higher growth rate in
human prostate cancer cells in cell
cultures than did higher doses
(Molec Cancer Ther, 2002; 1: 51524).
In another investigation using
mice, it was discovered that lower
doses of BPA not only altered the

BPA and pregnancy

Among the more alarming findings is that bisphenol A (BPA) can cross the
placenta and affect the embryo or fetus during critical periods of development.
A German study detected BPA in human fetuses in the womb at levels known
to cause adverse effects in animals (Environ Health Perspect, 2002; 110: A7037).
Whats particularly worrying about prenatal exposure is the fact that, in both
animal and human fetuses, the natural detox mechanisms that deactivate and
filter BPA from the body are not yet fully developed (Neoplasia, 2002; 4: 98102).
The fetus, therefore, is especially vulnerable to the chemicals toxic effects.
In animals, exposure to BPA in the womb can cause deformities of the
reproductive organs (Neoplasia, 2002; 4: 98102; Environ Health Perspect, 2002; 110:
A7037) as well as breast and prostate cancers in later life (Reprod Toxicol, 2006;
146: 413847; Cancer Res, 2006; 66: 562432).
Moreover, the EWGs independent tests found unsafe levels of BPA in one
out of every three cans (33 per cent) of infant formula.

mammary glands, but also induced

changes in the female genital tract
( Biol Reprod, 2005; 72: 134451 ). A
possible explanation is that minute
doses of BPA fall below the radar
of the bodys own natural
detoxif ying mechanisms, thus
allowing them to do more damage.
Nevertheless,
despite
these
suggestive findings, a review by the
European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) earlier this year concluded
that BPA poses no immediate
health risks, dismissing much of
the animal data on BPA toxicity
because humans are able to
metabolize the chemical much

How to minimize your risk

In addition to food-can linings, bisphenol A (BPA) can also be found in a wide
range of other consumer products. To limit your exposure:
! consume fresh, unprocessed foods and avoid canned foods as much as
possible
! avoid number 7 plastics. Polycarbonate plastic food containers marked
with a number 7 in the recycling logo usually contain BPA. In general,
these are rigid and transparent plastic containers. Plastics that are
numbered 1, 2 and 4 are safer choices, as they dont contain BPA, says the
EWG
! use glass baby-bottles, or those made of the safer polypropylene and
polyethylene plastics. Pliable, cloudy-coloured plastic does not contain
BPA. Medela-brand bottles used to store breast milk are also labelled
BPA-free
! choose glass rather than plastic water bottles, or get your water from the
tap. See pages 49, 52 and 58 for advice on water filtration. Also, avoid metal
water bottles as they may be lined with BPA-containing plastic
! avoid using plastic containers in the microwave. Ceramic, glass and
other microwaveable dishware are good alternatives
! avoid storing food and drink in plastic containers. Glass and stainless
steel are better, safer choices.

24 WDDTY Safe Living

more quickly than animals do

( www.efsa.europa. eu/EFSA/efsa_locale1178620753812_ 1178620772817.htm).
However, Dr vom Saal, who along
with 37 other researchers has
reviewed more than 700 scientific
papers on BPA, insists that the
animal data are highly relevant. At
the cellular level, there is
essentially no difference between
the way the mouse cells respond to
BPA and humans do, he says. And
because BPA affects the hormonal
system, it can have an effect at
staggeringly
small
concentrations ( New Scientist, 2007; issue
2616).
Whats more, there is a handful
of human studies that add to the
concern over the potential hazards
posed by BPA.
Japanese scientists discovered
that women with polycystic ovarian
syndrome had higher blood levels of
BPA compared with women who
have normal ovarian function. They
also found positive correlations
between BPA concentrations and
androgen levels (Endocr J, 2004; 51:
1659 ). And polycystic ovarian
syndrome, notes the EWG, is the
most common form of female
infertility in the US, affecting 510
per cent of American women.
Blood levels of BPA in women
have also been linked to recurrent
miscarriage
and
complex
endometrial hyperplasia, where the
lining of the womb becomes
thickeneda condition generally
considered to be a precursor of

endometrial cancer ( Hum

Reprod,

2005; 20: 23259; Endocr J, 2004; 51:

595600).

In men, researchers found that

those who are occupationally exposed
to epoxy resins had higher urine
concentrations of BPA than the
controls. They also had lower amounts
of follicle-stimulating hormone, which
is critical to sperm formation.
Diminished secretion of this hormone
in men can result in reduced sperm
concentrations and infertility (Occup
Environ Med, 2002; 59: 6258).
Given these human findings as
well as the animal and laboratory
data, and the fact that human
exposure to BPA is so widespread,

to so cavalierly dismiss the

possibility that BPA can be a serious
human health risk seems to be
totally irresponsible.

Cans as health hazards

BPA is not the only chemical to
leach out of food-can linings.
European tests on just three
different can coatings revealed at
least 23 BPA-related chemicals that
leach into food (Food Addit Contam,
2004; 21: 390405). According to the
EWG, . . . these contaminants
occur at levels that can dwarf betterknown environmental pollutants
that can accumulate in food, like
PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls]

and
DDT
[dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane].
Indeed, one scientist states,
Concentrations
of
[migrant
chemicals like BPA] commonly
exceed . . . pesticides by orders of
magnitude; most of the migrating
compounds are not even identified;
and only a few have been tested for
toxicity . . . (Food Addit Contam, 1999;
16: 57990).
So, every time we eat food from a
tin, we just dont know what
dangerous concoction of chemicals
we may be exposing ourselves to. Its
just one more reason to avoid
processed foods.
Joanna Evans

WDDTY Safe Living 25

Electropollution

Power lines: short circuits to illness

EMFs from power lines have been linked to leukaemia, Alzheimers and other degenerative diseasesso
why is nobody doing anything about them?

lectromagnetic fields (or

EMFs) from electricity lines
almost certainly cause leukaemia, Alzheimers disease
and other degenerative illnesses. Yet,
most scientistsand every power
supplier and government planning
department around the world
continue to deny that power lines are a
health hazard.
The International Agency for Cancer
Research of the World Health
Organization (WHO) has classified
extremely low-frequency (ELF) EMFs as
a possible carcinogen (cancer-causing
agent) in light of the overwhelming
evidence that has been uncovered in
recent years. Indeed, the Agencys
latest position, reported in 2001, is a
complete reversal of its stance of four
years ago, when it agreed with most
scientists that there is no evidence of a

causal link between power lines and

severe illnesses. The WHO also
recommends that power lines be sited
well away from homes to reduce
peoples exposure.
In the UK, the government-funded
advisory group SAGE (Stakeholder
Advisory Group on ELF EMFs) reported
in 2007 that there is now sufficient

evidence of a causal link between power

lines and childhood leukaemia for
power companies to adopt a
precautionary approach. In particular,
SAGE recommends that, in future,
power lines should be placed
underground,
and
that
no
new homes should be built within 60
metres of existing power lines.

Reducing your EMF exposure

Power lines generate two types of electromagnetic fields
(EMFs): electrical and magnetic.
! Electrical fields: Most of the materials used in
building a typical home will substantially reduce
electrical fields from power lines. The one weak area is
window glass, but this can be strengthened by placing
a wire-mesh frame on the outside of the window over
the glass. The frame should be earthed.
! Magnetic fields: These penetrate through every kind
of material, including lead and steel. While there are
many products and devices that claim to reduce your
exposure to EMFs from mobile phones and
computers, there are few options for people living
close to a power line. One such magnetic-screen
product is called MuMetal, a nickeliron alloy, but it is
very expensiveand not designed to screen out the
magnetic fields from power lines. For this reason, it
may be better for you to negotiate with the power
company responsible for the line. Powerwatch, the
independent consumer help group, suggests the
following options:
" Find out whether the power line uses four separate
cables or if they are twisted together to form an ABC
(aerial bundled conductor) cable. Fields from ABC
cables are lower than from four individual cables;
" Negotiate with the electricity company to have the

26 WDDTY Safe Living

cabling reinstalled underground. As the cost of

laying power lines underground is around 20 times
higher than installing them above the ground on
pylons, expect to pay for the reinstallation;
" Keep windows closed and dont go out into your
garden when the wind is blowing from the direction
of the power lines towards your home.
You can also reduce the overall EMF levels in your home
by restricting your use of computers and mobile/cellular
phones. The most important room in your home is the
bedroom. Make sure your bed is at least six to eight feet
away from any device that may emit EMFs such as a
clock/radio alarm. If you use an electric blanket, always
switch it off before falling asleep.
As EMFs increase the production of harmful free
radicals in your body, its important that you counter this
effect by increasing your intake of antioxidants. You can
do this by supplementing with vitamins A, C and E as well
as by eating lots of fresh green vegetables and fruit.
You can also measure the levels of EMFs in your home
with a magnetometer. These devices can be rented or
purchased from a number of sources, including Powerwatch (www.powerwatch.org.uk; tel: 01353 778 422),
Coghill Research Laboratories (www.cogreslab.co.uk; tel:
01495 752 122) and Toms Gadgets (www.
tomsgadgets.com; tel: 0845 456 2370).

Its a view shared by the State of

California, which commissioned a $7m,
10-year review of power-line safety in
1993. The study, called the California
EMF Project (2002), concluded that
magnetic fields from power lines and
other sources are a likely cause of
childhood and adult leukaemia, adult
brain cancers, spontaneous abortions
and ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis),
the degenerative disease that afflicts
astrophysicist Dr Stephen Hawking.
The EMF Project researchers state
that even a slight additional life-time
risk could be of concern to regulators,
who
already
regulate
other
environmental concerns that convey
even lower risks.
So why do scientists persist in
remaining ambivalent over the
research-based evidence, and why are
governments, regulatory bodies and
power suppliers refusing to act when
they must certainly be aware that
overhead power lines represent a
reasonable health risk?
Before we answer these questions,
lets look at some of the studies
published since 2000, the watershed
year that heralded the beginning of all
the research that began to draw
compelling links between EMFs and
their effects on the human immune
system.

Power lines and leukaemia

The possibility that power lines cause
childhood leukaemia has attracted
more research than any other health
concern associated with EMFs.
One of the strongest associations
was established by what is now referred
to as the Draper report, a case-control
study that discovered that children
under the age of 15 years who lived
within 100 metres of power lines were
nearly twice as likely to develop
leukaemia compared with children who
lived further away (BMJ, 2005; 330: 12904).
The team of researchers, led by Gerald
Draper and based at the University of
Oxford, included a representative from
the National Grid Transco plc as
scientific advisor. They arrived at their
conclusions after examining the profiles
of 29,081 children who developed
cancer between 1962 and 1995 in
England and Wales.
Although the findings were of
considerable public interest, the UK
Governments Department of Health,
which had funded the research,

suppressed the report for four years.

Officials at the Department were first
informed of the preliminary results in
2001, yet the report was not published
until June 2005.
Whats more, even when it finally
made it into print, Geoff Watts, science
editor of the British Medical Journal,
declared that the Draper report simply
means that only five cases annually of
childhood leukaemia may be associated
with power lines compared with the 32
children who are killled annually in
house fires or the 200 who die every
year on UK roads (BMJ, 2005; 330: 12945).
Nevertheless, it was still an admission
that power lines can affect our health.
Two researchersAnders Ahlbom
from the Karolinska Institute in
Stockholm and Sander Greenland from
the UCLA School of Public Health in
Los Angeles, CAhave conducted a
range of studies into EMFs and
childhood leukaemia since 2000.
Indeed, in that year alone, they both
published papersone of which was a
pooled analysis of 15 studiesthat
demonstrated a doubling of leukaemia
rates among children exposed to the
same levels of ELF fields as are
generated by standard power lines (Br J
Cancer, 2000; 85: 6928; Epidemiology, 2000; 11:
62434).

A year later, Ahlbom followed

up with another review of the
voluminous epidemiologic literature
on EMF that confirmed the association
of childhood leukaemia and postnatal
exposures to EMFs (Environ Health Perspect,
2001; 109 [Suppl 6]: 91133).

Power lines and Alzheimers

Several studies have produced
compelling evidence for a causal
connection between EMFs and
Alzheimers disease. The latest study,
published in November 2007, comes
from Switzerland, where researchers
have established that people who are
living within 50 metres of a power line
for 15 years or more have twice the the
risk of developing Alzheimers disease
compared with those who are living 600
metres or more from such power lines.
Researchers at the University of Bern
made the discovery when they analyzed
the health profiles of 4.7 million people
in Switzerland who lived close to a
power line. They concluded that the
distance from a line, and the duration of
time spent living near such a line, were
both significant risk factors. The overall
risk of Alzheimers for anyone living

within 50 metres of a power line for any

length of time was 1.24 times greater
than that of someone who lived further
away (Am J Epidemiol, 2008; doi:
10.1093/aje/kwn297).
In fact, the conclusion that the
duration of EMF exposure is a
significant marker of Alzheimers risk
has been supported by a study of
workers in Spain whose occupations
bring them into regular contact with
ELF EMFs. A meta-analysis of 14
studies, carried out by researchers at
Valencia University, revealed that
people in those occupations had twice
the risk of developing Alzheimers in
later life compared with the general
population (Int J Epidemiol, 2008; 37:
32940).

EMFs and other diseases

As EMFs are believed to interfere with
the workings of the immune system, it
follows that they would be expected to
be responsible for causing a wide range
of degenerative, chronic diseases, as
suggested by Californias EMF Project
findings. In fact, in addition to
leukaemia, the researchers consider it
likely that magnetic fields are the
cause of spontaneous abortions
(miscarriage) and ALS, a view that has
been supported by a number of studies.
Three recent studies support the
hypothesis that EMFs cause spontaneous abortions. One such study,
which reviewed 177 cases of miscarriage in Northern California, found a
close correlation with exposure to high
levels of EMFs. Women exposed to the
highest levels were more than three
times more likely to miscarry than
those whose exposure was minimal
(Epidemiology, 2002; 13: 2131).
Scientists at the Kaiser Foundation
Research Institute in Oakland,
California, arrived at a similar
conclusion when they examined the
cases of 969 women from the San
Francisco Bay area who had experienced miscarriage. Although they
could find no correlations among
women exposed to average levels of
EMFs, those who were regularly exposed
to levels of 16 mG (milliGauss) or more
were nearly twice as likely to lose their
pregnancy (Epidemiology, 2002; 13: 920).
The third study, carried out on
laboratory mice, demonstrated that
exposure to ELF EMFs during
pregnancy would not only affect the
term of the pregnancy, but could also

WDDTY Safe Living 27

Electropollution

Are you electrosensitive?

Whatever the levels of EMFs, some people are so

disabled by them that they are unable to lead a normal
life. The problem, called electrohypersensitivity (ES),
affects around 3 per cent of the general population and,
as with any health issue, has various degrees of severity.
In the milder or early stages of the problem, the sufferer
may experience generalized feelings of malaise and
being run-down. One sufferer, Alasdair Philips of
Powerwatch, has described the onset of his ES as an
overall feeling of impending flu that never quite breaks
out (Philips A, Philips J. Electrical Hypersensitivity: A Modern Illness.
Powerwatch, 2004).
A Swedish trade union carried out a survey to
determine the major symptoms of ES and found that the
main manifestation was eye problems, such as smarting,
irritation, a grit-in-the-eye sensation and an aversion to
light (photophobia). The second major symptom was
skin problems, including irritation, warmth, itching,
dryness and tingling. Sufferers also reported reddening
of the skin that led to an outbreak of rash or even
pustules. Other problems included headache, fatigue,
loss of concentration and short-term memory problems,
depression, breathlessness, excessive thirst, numbness
and weakness in the joints, culminating in fibromyalgia
(Med Hypotheses, 2000; 54: 66371).
ES has also been likened to multiple chemical
sensitivity (MCS), a condition brought about by exposure
to toxic chemicals such as pesticides. Both share similar
features characteristic of an immune-system disorder
caused by toxic overloadand EMFs can certainly be
regarded as toxins (Becker RO. Cross Currents: The Perils of
Electropollution. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1990).
Dr William Rea, a US-based physician who suffers
from both MCS and ES, has treated thousands of
patients with environmental illnesses. Often, it is difficult
to distinguish between the two conditions as ES often
becomes worse on contact with toxic chemicals.

interfere with the development of the

offspring (Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng
Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi, 2006; 24: 46870).
Further studies also suggest that
high EMF levels may cause ALS. The
first, which analyzed the Swedish
census of 1980 against instances of
neurodegenerative disorders such as
Alzheimers disease and ALS, found
that workers in the electrical or
electronics industry had a 40-percent greater chance of developing
ALS than those who did not work in
electrical/electronic-related occupations (Epidemiology, 2003; 14: 4139).
The Swedish study findings were
supported by a later study that also

28 WDDTY Safe Living

In fact, the notion that ES and MCS are parallel

conditions has been reinforced by one study that
discovered that EMFs produce an allergic response in
the cells of the body that is similar to that produced by,
for example, pollen in hayfever sufferers (Med Hypotheses,
2000; 54: 66371).
While conventional doctors mostly regard ES as a
problem that exists solely in the head of the sufferer,
Swedish scientists have demonstrated clear objective,
measurable changes in ES patients; for example, they
display significantly different physiological features from
non-sufferers, such as changes in both heart rates and
galvanic skin responses (GSRs). ES sufferers have also
been found to be much more sensitive to physical and
psychosocial environmental stressors than the rest of us
(Bioelectromagnetics, 2001; 22: 45762).
Not surprisingly, ES sufferers are also much more
sensitive to EMFs, as was demonstrated by a study that
involved exposures to fake and real magnetic fields (Clin
Ecol, 1990; 6: 11928). In addition, Dr Rea obtained similar
results when he carried out a double-blind trial in which
neither the doctors nor the patients knew when EMFs
were actually being generated (J Bioelectr, 1991; 10: 24156).
Another study found that some ES sufferers themselves are emitting EMFs strong enough to cause
electrical equipment to malfunction (Philips A, Philips J.
Electrical Hypersensitivity: A Modern Illness. Powerwatch, 2004).
Nevertheless, although there is now sufficient evidence to conclude that ES is a genuine physiological
reaction, scientists remain unclear as to its underlying
mechanisms and why it happens. One theory, presented
at the EMF Engineering Review Symposium, held 2829
April 1998 in Charleston, SC (see www.emf-data.org/
symposium98.htm) suggests that EMFs may be able to
interfere with the bodys ability to produce melatonin, a
natural anti-cancer agent. However, these preliminary
studies have yet to be successfully reproduced.

found a direct correlation between

the development of ALS and working
in the electrical industries. The risk
for those with such occupational
exposures was more than two times
greater than for those in other
industries, although the risk was
higher stillat four timesfor Alzheimers disease (Epidemiology, 2003; 14:
4206).
In yet another study, the
researchers concluded that there
are relatively strong data indicating
that electric utility work may be
associated with an increased risk [of
ALS] (Bioelectromagnetics, 2001; suppl 5:
S13243).

Why scientists disagree

Power lines emit both electrical and
magnetic fields. The electric field is
related to the voltage running through
the linea typical cable handles
between 275 kV (kilovolts) and 400
kVwhereas the magnetic field is
dependent on the current being carried
through the cable, and this can vary
depending on the usage.
This means that any scientist
researching the impact of an EMF is
faced with the immediate problem of
how to measure something that can
fluctuate wildly over any 24-hour
period. This is why only studies that
have examined EMF effects over years

are able to discern any causal

relationship with health problems,
whereas a study that is carried out
for only a few days or weeks at a time is
only able to determine insignificant
effectsif any at all.
Scientists who deny any association
also argue that no one truly
understands how EMFs can cause
cancer or damage the immune system.
However, as Alasdair Philips of
Powerwatch,
an
independent
consumers information service, says:
We still do not know the actual
mechanisms by which cigarette
smoking, asbestos fibre or DDT cause
cancers, but we have accepted the
epidemiological evidence and have
introduced laws to limit or reduce
human exposure.
The distance from power lines is
another issue, and sceptics have argued
that people living even relatively short
distances from them should not suffer
any ill effects. In effect, they appear to
be suggesting that illnesses being
reported may just be psychosomatic
all in the head.
Professor Denis Henshaw, at Bristol
University, has spent years studying this
issue, and has come up with an
hypothesis of corona ions. He posits
that the ions emitted by high-voltage
power lines are ending up as tiny
charged particles of air pollution that
can penetrate deeply into our lungs and
bloodstream. These so-called corona
ions are carried on the wind and quickly
become attached to microscopic
particles of air pollution, thereby
electrically charging them.
Professor Henshaw believes that
these pollutants can be carried several
hundred metres away from power lines,
which would explain why children living
at greater distancesand downwind
from a line can still develop leukaemia.
One task of the BioInitiative Report,
prepared
by
14
independent
internationally based scientists in 2007,
was to try to understand why there is
still so much disagreement among
experts, despite the fact that enough
evidence has already been published to
justify improvements in safety
standards within the power industry.
Among the 10 reasons listed by the
Report, the authors concluded that:
! different scientists use different
measurements to determine the
existence of any proof;
! some scientists continue to insist

that every study should achieve the

same results;
some scientists are only looking
at short-term and acute effects,
which do not always tell the whole
story; and
vested interests appear to have a
substantial influence on the whole
issue under debate.

Industry pressures
This is an exceedingly high-stakes
game, one that goes way beyond
deciding whether power lines should be
buried under the ground or not. If
governments and power industries
accept the growing epidemiological
evidence that EMFs cause cancernot
to mention any other chronic and
degenerative diseasesthen there will
need to be a massive change in the way
we live our lives.
EMFs are emitted from the mains
electricity and all the wiring in our
homespowering everything from
microwave ovens to Wi-Fi networks
but also, and more significantly, from
mobile phones and mobile-phone
masts.
The upshot of all this is that, while it
is a matter of degrees and being
reasonable, any admission from our
health guardians that EMFs are causing
cancer would have major effects on the
worlds economynot to mention our
present
taken-for-granted
comfy
lifestyles. It is also known that the
power industry, like the drug industry,
recruits and richly rewards friendly
scientists who are always on hand to
deride any research that links EMFs to
cancer and other diseases. Indeed, the
power industry openlybut sometimes
covertlyfunds research that invariably
discovers no association between EMFs
and illness.
This is part and parcel of the damage
limitation that began in the 1960s,
when field pioneers such as Drs Ross
Adey, Milton Zaret and Robert Becker
started investigating the effects of EMFs
on humans.
Dr Zaret was among the first to
discover that EMF radiation, such as
emitted by microwaves, is biologically
harmful and can cause conditions such
as cataracts. Yet, in the course of his
work, his research funds were stopped.
Dr Becker worked for the US Navy, and
his brief was to assess the health
impact of a submarine ELF
communications system. His study

concluded that the health of significant segments of the American

population was at risk from 60-Hz
power lines. But when the State of New
York was planning the construction of
10 high-power lines, the Navy denied
that Beckers work existed, so the
high-power lines were erected.
Becker said afterwards: The way
science is currently funded and
evaluated, we are learning more and
more about less and less, and science
is becoming our enemy instead of our
friend.
Dr Adey, who died in 2004, worked
on secret CIA projects in the 1970s that
looked into the impact of EMFs on
peoples mental health. Since then,
other researchers have found that these
energy fields can cause depression:
indeed, several noted that suicide levels
were far higher among people who lived
near power lines.
In 1992, Adey reported that there
was very little doubt that EMFs affect
the immune system, interfere with fetal
development
and
cause
birth
abnormalities, damage healthy cell
growth, encourage tumour formation,
and affect the central nervous system
and the brain.
In addition, as he said on BBC Radio
Scotland on January 10, 1992, This
work is being carried out in many
laboratories worldwide so that the old
fiction that this research describes
uncorroborated experiments is no
longer true.
In the 16 years since that
programme was aired, the evidence has
become even stronger, but it will still be
a long time before governments and the
so-called guardians of our public health
admit it. As Dr John Bonnell, chief
medical officer for the UKs nowdefunct Central Electricity Generating
Board, said in 1985, on a Central TV
programme entitled The Good, the Bad
and the Indefensible: If we accepted the
dangers, it would mean an enormous
turnabout for industry and for the
country as a whole. There are no
contingency plans to cope with such a
turnabout.
Not only are there no contingency
plans in place, but we have also seen the
explosion of the mobile-phone industry
in the intervening years, making any
admission concerning the harmful
effects of EMFs physically as well as
fiscally catastrophic.
Bryan Hubbard

WDDTY Safe Living 29

Electropollution

Wireless technology: something in the air

Over the years, WDDTY has covered the dangers of mobile-phone
technology as well as the issue of sensitivity to electric fields in general.
But the latest worry is the greater potential problem of the new wireless
gadgetry now being brought into our livesboth at home, at work and
everywhere we look.

uddenly, the whole world

seems
to
be
going
wireless. It started with
mobile
phones,
then
landline phones went wireless,
and now broadband, laptops and
bluetooth devices are following
suit. Were told its inevitable by
the electronics industry. But has
it considered the potential health
hazardsor for that matter, have
we?
Day by day, I hear of more and
more microwave applications, all
of which are increasing the
electro-smog that surrounds us,
says Alasdair Philips of the UK
health-lobby group Powerwatch.
One telling piece of evidence
for this is what happened to
wireless car keys. Since remote
car keys first came on the scene
about
10
years
ago,
manufacturers have had to
increase their power output by
a massive 40 times to enable the
signal to cut through the
increasingly dense microwave
smog around us, says Philips.
The other evidence is that
microwave pollution can affect
some people badly. Two years ago,
Sarah Dacre was a successful highpowered executive, running a 70strong TV production company,
until she was struck down by a
host of debilitating symptoms,
including dizziness, loss of
balance,
chronic
Candida,
numbness in the arms, side and
legs, and deteriorating eyesight.
After months of false diagnoses
and in a state of near-total
collapseSarah finally found the
answer. At the office, I was
working all day with a laptop on
my knees, and constantly using
either a cordless phone or a
mobile. One of the clues to what
was causing the problem was that

30 WDDTY Safe Living

my symptoms were mainly rightsidedwhere I held the phones. I

now cant go anywhere near a
computer or mobile phone
without extreme care (see box,
page 31).
Another sufferer is 35-year-old
Roy Warne, who had to give up his
job as a furniture salesman after
his company installed a new
wireless computer system. Now
unable to work, he cant get
anywhere near his own laptop.
When I want to use the
computer, I have it on in one
room and sit in the hallway
looking at the screen through
binoculars, he says.
Norways first female Prime
Minister, and later DirectorGeneral of the World Health
Organization, 65-year-old Gro
Harlem Brundtland first suffered
headaches from mobile phones,
but now she finds that cordless
phones and laptops cause her
even worse problems. If I hold a
laptop to read whats on the
screen, it feels like I get an
electric shock through my arms,
she says, and I get an instant
reaction if I touch a cordless
phone.
Although much of the evidence
so far is anecdotal, even the
official UK Health Protection
Agency
(incorporating
the
cautious National Radiological
Protection
Board)
has
acknowledged in a 45-page report
(November 2005) that electrosensitivity (ES) is a genuine
health condition. One convincing
argument is that everyone reports
the same cluster of neurological
and physiological problems (see
box, page 31).
Nevertheless, the medical
profession has tended to ignore
ES sufferers, aided and abetted by

an electronics industry anxious to

protect its patch. Thats why most
of the clinical evidence on
wireless technology has come
from case histories collected by a
burgeoning number of self-help
and lobby groups both in the UK
and across the globe.
One of the most active UK
groups is ElectroSensitvity-UK. Its
technical consultant is Dr John
Rogers, a retired microwaveresearch scientist who himself
suffers from ES.
Rogers points out that many of
the so-called wireless technologies (or Wi-Fi, for wireless
fidelity) use microwaves like
those used in radar. Wi-Fi
frequencies (2.455.3 GHz) are
chosen for their high transmission
efficiency. But these frequencies
are highly bioactive, says Rogers.

Problem products
What are the wireless dangers

lurking in our homes? In pole

position, according to ES experts,
are cordless phones, especially
those called DECT (digital
electronic cordless telephone).
They enable the phone to be used
anywhere in the house, but at a
price. ES campaigners say that
having a DECT phone is like
having an Orange or Vodafone
mobile mast plonked slap-bang in
the middle of your living room.
Just like a phone mast, DECT
phones transmit 24/7, even when
theyre not being used. Like masts,
they also transmit a pulsed
signalsuspected of being more
dangerous
than
continuous
radiowaves, for example. These
pulse rates mimic the bodys own
endogenous nerve signalling rates,
thus potentially interfering with
normal functioning, says Philips.
Added to that, like masts, DECT
phones always operate at peak
power, something even mobiles
dont do, having been designed to
reduce power to the minimum
when close to a mast (which is,
incidentally, why rural mobile
users receive higher doses of
radiation that city-dwellers).
DECT phone emissions have a
power of about 6 volts per metre
(V/m) within a few feet of the base
unit. Thats well within the official
safety guidelines in the UKbut
not in Austria, Switzerland,
Sweden, China, Italy or Russia.
Indeed, the city of Salzburg
decreed a maximum exposure of
0.6 V/m after a scientist
discovered cellular effects with
emissions as low as 0.1 V/m
(Electromagn Biol Med, 2003; 22: S1619).
Likewise, in an open letter to
the Bavarian Prime Minister in
July 2005, a group of doctors
urged a reduction of safety levels
to even lowerto 0.06 V/mafter
over 300 patients reported a range
of health problems down to that
level of exposure.
The concern over DECT phones
has revived fears concerning an
older piece of wireless technologybaby alarms, which have
now also gone digital. Although
not as powerful as DECT phones,
they are potentially far more
dangerous. Theyre often mounted
close to a babys head, and a

Signs to look for

Warning signs
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

warmth or burning sensation in the face

general skin problems (rash, flushing, tingling, prickling)
dry throat
eye irritation
problems with concentration, brain fog
dizziness
memory loss
swollen mucous membranes
flu-like symptoms of headache, muscle/joint pain
unusual fatigue.

Longer-term symptoms
!
!
!
!
!
!

Neurological: depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, weakness, tremors,

muscle spasms, numbness, fever, seizures, paralysis, psychosis and stroke
Cardiac: palpitations, arrhythmias, pain/pressure in the chest, low/high
blood pressure, slow/fast heart rate, shortness of breath
Respiratory: sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma
Dermatological: skin rash, itching, burning, facial flushing
Ophthalmological: pain/burning in the eyes, pressure in/behind the eyes,
deteriorating vision, cataracts
Others: digestive problems, abdominal pain, thyroid problems,
testicular/ovarian pain, dry lips, tongue, mouth and eyes, dehydration,
nosebleed, internal bleeding, altered sugar metabolism, immune
abnormalities, hair loss, tooth pain, loss of dental fillings, impaired sense of
smell, tinnitus (ringing in the ears).

babys brain is even more

vulnerable than an adults.
Next on the list of domestic
hazards are wireless broadband
and wireless laptops. These also
use the 2.455.3 GHz microwave
frequencies, pulsed to obtain a
range of up to 90 metres. Official
figures of their power outputs are
hard to come by, but ES groups
have measured 13 V/m.
As radiation drops off rapidly
with distance, the biggest worry is
laptops, often used close to the
body. Whats more, laptops seem
to radiate downwards: outputs
similar to those from DECT
phones have been recorded from
the underside of laptops. One case
on Electro-Sensitivity-UKs files is
of a man who developed a penile
tumour that may have been
caused by a laptop, believes Dr
Rogers.

Wheres the evidence?

The electronics industry, however,
backed by the UK and US
governments, continues to argue
that any health risks from wireless
are largely imaginary, fostered by
hysterical hypochondriacs. Most

electrical engineers and doctors

agree with London Universitys
risk-expert Professor John Adams,
who mocks ES as an example of
the modern disease of compulsive
risk
assessment
psychosis
otherwise known as crap.
Yet, in countries like Sweden,
doctors recognize ES as a
widespread condition that affects
up to 3 per cent of the population
(Johanssson O, Liu P-Y. Electrosensitivity,
electrosupersensitivity and screen dermatitis: preliminary observations from ongoing
studies in the human skin, in Simunic D, ed.
Proceedings of the COST 244: Biomedical
Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 1995:
527).

Part
of
the
reason
for
professional scepticism is the lack
of an explanation for why it
happens.
The core of the problem may be
that orthodox science still doesnt
recognize that body cells communicate electromagneticallythe
orthodox view is that its all
chemistry. Yet, 30 years ago, Dr
Robert Becker showed that the
body
produces
tiny
electromagnetic fields to regulate the
immune system in general, and

WDDTY Safe Living 31

Electropollution
self-healing in particular (Becker RO,

cord) ( Am

Selden G. The Body Electric. William

51220).

Morrow, 1987).

However, some studies have

shown no cancer effect at all
although most of these were
funded by the mobile industry,
according to a Powerwatch
analysis.
An EU project called Reflex
involving 12 labs across Europe
tested the effect of mobile-phone
radiation on isolated cells.
Although the final report played
down the findings, the small print
revealed that significant DNA
breaks were seen in human and
animal cells at exposures far below
official radiation limits (European

This discovery was later confirmed and extended by scientists

such as Fritz-Albert Popp and
Jacques Benveniste, giving us at
least a theoretical basis for even
relatively small artificial electrical
fields
having
a
potentially
disruptive effect on the body.
However, precisely how they
might do harm isnt yet known.
The generally received opinion is
that microwaves act as stressors of
the immune system, particularly in
vulnerable people, says Alasdair
Philips. Support for this comes
from Professor Kjell Mild, of
rebro University, who has found
that ES sufferers also tend to have
allergic conditions or chemical
sensitivity (Bioelectromagnetics, 2001;
22: 45762). In fact, it turns out that
up to 75 per cent of ES sufferers
are chemically sensitive.
But many ES campaigners
contend that we are all victims of
microwave pollutionits just that
we either havent noticed the
symptoms, mistake them for
something else or have particularly
strong immune systems.
Growing evidence suggests they
may be right. Although Wi-Fi
technology is relatively new, weve
had over a decade of experience
with mobile phones and mast
transmitters. Like Wi-Fi, mobiles
and masts use pulsed digital
microwaves. In the last five years, a
cascade of studies and reports has
catalogued some increasingly
disturbing effects on health.

Cancer
An international review of nine
studies found a 3.5-fold increased
risk of acoustic neuromas (brain
tumours near the ear) and 4.2-fold
greater risk for uveal melanoma
(cancer of the eye) in mobile users
(J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev, 2004;
7: 35184). A German study found
that long-term use (more than 10
years) of mobile phones more than
doubled the risk of a glioma
(tumours of the brain and spinal

32 WDDTY Safe Living

J Epidemiol, 2006; 163:

Risk

Evaluation

Environmental

Hazards

Union.

of

Potential

From

Low

Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure

Using Sensitive in vitro Methods. December
2004).

This confirms nearly 30 years of

research by Professor Henry Lai, of

the University of Washington,
showing damage by electromagnetic fields to rat DNA,
particularly in the brain (Environ
Health Perspect, 2004; 112: 68794 ).
I have seen a lot of DNA damage,
which is a concern because DNA
mutation is a cause of cancer,
says Lai.

Brain damage
Study after study has shown that
mobile-phone
radiation
has
measurable effects on brain
function. Swedish scientists have
found
highly
significant
evidence for neuronal damage in
the cortex, hippocampus and basal
ganglia in rat brainsthough
these results may not apply to
humans.
They believe weak pulsed
microwaves cause a significant

WLAN & WiMAX

These are the public faces of wireless technologyover which, of course, we
have little control.
# WLAN (wireless local area network) is the system used in offices, schools
and public areas such as libraries, airport lounges and railway stations. It
enables computers/laptops to connect wirelessly to the Internet, or to a server
or printer. Most concerns centre around schools, where as many as 20
laptops may be operating in a single classroom. ES experts fear that the
overlapping microwave fields could cause dangerous hotspots. The German
consumer magazine Eco-Test (November 2002) found hotspots in a public
library that were a frightening 230 times more powerful than the official safety
limits.
Two years ago in the US, a group of Chicago parents began a class action
suit against their childrens school to halt a WLAN installation.
# WiMAX (worldwide interoperability for microwave access) is the Big
Daddy in the wireless microwave world, each transmitter being up to
400 times more powerful than WLAN. Its a system already being tested in
places such as Norwich and Milton Keyneswhich will enjoy city-wide
wireless super-broadband, according to enthusiasts.
Norwich has nine WiMAX transmitters to cover the whole town, sited
specifically to create 200 localised hotspots for optimal transmission in key
public areas, says wireless expert Dr John Rogers. Its the random hotspots
they cant control that concern me mostpossibly occurring inside peoples
homes, he says.
But WiMAX will be everywhere. There are plans to extend it nationwide
not just for broadband, but for TV transmissions to mobile phones. Already
Ofcomthe independent regulatory authority for UK communications
industriesis considering permitting much higher-power WiMAX transmitters.
The power levels they are examining do greatly concern me, says Alasdair
Philips. It seems the world is intent on microwave-zapping everybody.

pathological breaching of the

bloodbrain barrier, allowing
potential toxins to enter the brain
( Environ Health Perspect, 2003; 111:
8813).
Similar findings were reported
by Dr George Carlo, who ran a
$25m research programme for six
years for the US mobile-phone
industry and reported a 50-percent greater risk of acoustic
neuroma with cellphone use for six
years or more (Carlo G, Schram M. Cell
Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless
Age. Avalon Publishing Group, 2000).

Other rat studies have found

significant changes related to
brain growth and development,
and
widespread
brain-cell
oxidative damage due to mobilephone radiation ( Electromagn Biol
Med, 2006; 25: 6170; Clin Chim Acta,
2004; 340: 15362).

In humans, mobile phone

radiationparticularly
pulsed
radiationcan
alter
brain
potentials, blood flow and brainwave patterns ( Eur J Appl Physiol,
2000; 81: 1827; J Sleep Res, 2002; 11:
28995 ).

Pulsed radiation can

impair cognitive processing on
hearing tests and slow down
reaction times (Acta Neurol Scand,

2004; 110: 4652; Bioelectromagnetics,

2006; 27: 11926).

Significant drops
in melatonin have shown up, too,
after just half-an-hour of mobile
use ( Int J Radiat Biol, 2002; 78:
102936 )which
could explain
some of the symptoms of ES such
as poor sleep. Melatonin is key in
the regulation of both the
endocrine system and the body
clock.
Few of these adverse findings
have received much publicity.
There are fortunes being made
from mobile phonesnot only by
the mobile companies, but also by
government, says Philips. Apart
from the selling of the 3G mobile
licences for over 20bn, the UK
government also makes billions a
year on mobile phone taxes alone.

Future lawsuits?
What can you do about Wi-Fi?
Happily, there are a number of
technological
and
lifestyle
solutions that ES sufferers say
work (see box above). Or you can
simply turn your back on wireless

What to do to protect yourself

DECT
" Replace DECT phones with hardwired ones
" Or replace with low-radiation
DECT phones such as the Orchid
LR108 (about 40, from Orchid
Electronics, tel: 01536 443 677)
" If you must have DECT, site the
base station somewhere other
than in the bedroom.
Laptops
" You dont need wireless: any
laptop can be linked by cable to
broadband, an office network or
printer.
Tests
" Check for wireless hotspots
using a detector (such as
Acousti-COM,
available
at
www.emfields.org) that translates
microwaves into audible noise.
This will allow you to identify the
type and power of the radiation source.
Protection
" Against microwaves, ES sufferers often use nets (silver bobinette fabric or
Swiss Shield) made of thin metal mesh. These can be fashioned into
shawls, scarves or head protection during the day, and mosquito nets over
beds at night. Extreme sufferers could line their homes with kitchen foil to
screen out all electromagnetic fields.
Alternative treatments
" Supplement with zeolite, a naturally occurring form of silicon, thought to be
a heavy-metal chelator and with a long tradition of use in radiation
protectionalthough there is limited animal-research evidence to show
that it works (Radiats Biol Radioecol, 2001; 41: 15764). Proponents suggest using
the clinoptilolitezeolite form
" Try herbs. Ginkgo biloba prevented the oxidative damage in the brain
caused by mobile-phone radiation (albeit in rats and, thus, not necessarily
applicable to humans) (Clin Chim Acta, 2004; 340: 15362)
" Use homeopathic remedies, designed specially for electromagnetic
protection, such as Faraday Cage, Electricitas and Radioactive
" Counteract with friendly frequencies. Some energy-medicine practitioners
claim success using devices that transmit biofriendly frequencies to the
body. These help restore the bodys natural biofield after microwave
damage, says leading UK practitioner Ingrid Dickinson.

technologyalthough for those

who need to earn a living, thats
increasingly becoming impractical.
Theres no escape from microwaves in any case. Only the very
remotest parts of the UK remain
untouched by microwave pollution.
Many
schools,
public
buildings, towns and cities are
now geared up to provide Internet
and telephone access wherever we
go (see box, page 32).
This has prompted an increasing
number of experts to call for a halt to

the wireless revolutionat least until

the health risks are better
understood. Says Dr George Carlo,
Based on exposures in 1990s, were
looking at 30 to 50,000 new cases of
brain and eye cancer today; by 2010,
were anticipating 300,000 to
500,000 cases per year directly
attributable to mobile phone use.
US and UK insurance companies
will not insure mobile-phone
companies against any future
lawsuita sign of things to come.
Tony Edwards

WDDTY Safe Living 33

Electropollution

Brain waves: the autism link

New explosive evidence shows that mobile-phone radiowaves may be behind the autism epidemic.

obile
phonesand
wireless technology in
generalhave
been
very much in the press
recently,
with
some
reports
suggesting serious dangers from
the
technology,
and
others
dismissing
the
problem
as
imaginary. For example, people who
claimed to be electrosensitive
apparently couldnt detect mobilephone signals when put to the test.
On 9 November, however, a
bombshell of a paper was published
that raised the temperature of the
issue to boiling point (J Aust Coll Nutr
Environ Med, 2007; 26: 37). Wireless
technology, it claimed, could be a
major aggravating factor in autism.
That claim was made even more
explosive by linking wireless radiation with heavy-metal poisoning,
thus reigniting the whole debate
over whether or not vaccination can
lead to autism.
WDDTY obtained an advance
copy of this landmark study and
this, together with an interview
with its co-author, US-based
scientist Dr George Carlo, forms
the basis of this Special Report.

A tireless wireless
campaigner
George Carlo is a controversial
figure, and a major thorn in the
side of the mobile-phone industry.
Ironically enough, however, it was
the wireless industry itself that
propelled him from being a
relatively obscure, albeit wellrespected, epidemiologist to where
he stands today: a world authority
on the effects of wireless radiation,
and a tireless campaigner against
his former paymasters.
It all started in 1993, when the
mobile-phone industr y, with the
support of several US government
health agencies, gave Carlo and his
team $28 million to investigate the
safety of mobile phones and their
transmission masts. Initially, he
found no significant health threats

34 WDDTY Safe Living

from wireless technology. But, by

February 1999, he had changed his
mind, having by then seen evidence
of damage to DNA, an increased
risk of cancers of the eye, and
certain types of brain tumours.
Since then, Dr Carlo has developed what is probably the most
sophisticated
biological
explanation of how wireless radiation

can damage cells (see pages 39-40).

In short, his theor y is that
information-carr ying radiowaves
(ICRWs)
in
the
low-hertz
frequencies specific to mobile
phones and their masts can
interfere with normal cell function,
causing the cell membrane to shut
down in self-defence. This can have
disastrous effects, he says, one of

How to avoid brain injury

!

Test for possible mercury poisoning by:

" MSMT (metal-specific memory T-cell) test
" Hair or sweat analysis
" EAV (Electro-Acupuncture according to Dr Reinhold Voll), a
test based on acupuncture meridians
" Applied kinesiology.
Dont eat fish high in mercury, including:
" Chilean sea bass
" Grouper
" Marlin
" Rockfish
" Farmed Atlantic salmon
" Shark
" King mackerel
" Swordfish.
Consider having your dental amalgam fillings
removed (but only by an expert).

which is the buildup of toxins

within the cell.
It was this theory that led him to
autism.

The heavy-metal connection

In the last few years, a number of
radical teatments for autism have
been based on the idea that the
condition is caused, or at least
exacerbated, by the buildup of toxic
heavy metals within the cells of the
body.
The non-medical press has
tended to report this subject only
in the context of the MMR vaccine
controversy intitiated by British
gastroenterologist Dr Andrew Wakefield when his research linked the
vaccine to autism (see WDDTY vol
11 no 6). The heavy-metal
connection is based on the theory
that use of the mercury-derived
preservative thimerosal in vaccines
is the cause of autism.
However, there is now growing
evidence that the autismheavy
metals issue may reach far beyond
vaccines(see box, this page). This is
because other metals besides
mercury also appear to be involved.
Clinics have been springing up
across the US, offering to treat
autism by removing heavy metals
from the body. The principal
detoxification process used is
chelation therapy, a technique that
is often described by its detractors
as controversial, but which has, in
fact, been a well-recognized way to
remove toxic metals from the body
for more than 50 years.
Originally employed to treat
industrial workers who came into
contact with lead, chelation is an
officially approved detox treatment
for lead poisoningeven for
children.
DMSA
(dimercaptosuccinic acid) is the most
commonly employed chelating
chemical, as it binds with all heavy
metals in the blood, and comes with
a good safety record.
How successful has chelation
been in autism? One of the first
doctors to experiment with the
therapy was Dr Amy Holmes, a nowretired Louisiana physician. She
put 85 young autistic children
though a four-month chelation
treatment and, by January 2001, a
clear pattern had emerged: the

Autism and heavy metals

Although the medical authorities firmly dismiss any link between heavy
metals and autismespecially in the context of vaccinesthere is growing
clinical evidence of just such a connection. Worryingly, much of it comes
from research on the newborn.
Twenty years ago, research in the Middle East showed that mothers who
ate mercury-contaminated bread gave birth to children with neurological
problems such as psychomotor retardation and seizures (Arch Neurol, 1987;
44: 101722).
Among the first to discover the link with autism was US clinician Dr Amy
Holmes (see main story) and colleagues. She studied hair samples taken
from 94 autistic children at about 18 months of age. Compared with nonautistic infants, the damaged children had significantly less mercury in
their hair, suggesting an inability to excrete mercury. The lack of mercury
in the children's hair could be due to the metal being retained in cells,
says Dr Holmes. There was a clear doseresponse relationship: the less
mercury in the hair, the more severe the autism.
Where had the mercury come from? Holmes found that it had probably
come from the mother during pregnancy: the mothers of the autistic
children had more amalgam fillings, and had received, during pregnancy,
a Rho(D) immunoglobulin injection, which uses the mercury-based
thimerosal, as found in vaccines (Int J Toxicol, 2003; 22: 27785).
Rho(D) immunoglobulin is routinely given to Rhesus (Rh)-negative
mothers with a Rh-positive fetus. US researchers have speculated that if
the mercuryautism connection is true, there would be more autistic babies
born to Rh-negative mothers who have had the injectionand thats exactly
what they found. The medical records of nearly 1000 such mothers revealed
a near tripling of autism-spectrum disorders in their offspring (J Matern Fetal
Neonatal Med, 2007; 20: 38590).
Another source of mercury in pregnancy is fish consumption. A Harvard
study found that mothers who had eaten fish during pregnancy had more
intelligent children at six months of agealmost certainly due to the
omega-3 fats in fish. But if the mothers had inadvertently eaten fish with
high mercury levels, the reverse was seen: their children showed impaired
cognition (Environ Health Perspect, 2005; 113: 137680).
Pollution is another possible autistic factor. The California Department
of Health Services recently surveyed the homes of children with autisticspectrum disorders in the San Francisco Bay area, and found strong
correlations with levels of mercury, cadmium, nickel, trichloroethylene and
vinyl chloride in the ambient air (Environ Health Perspect, 2006; 114: 143844).
Further confirmation of the heavy-metal connection comes from two
reports. One, from France, found strong evidence that autistic children have
elevated levels of precoproporphyrin, an atypical molecule that is a
specific indicator of heavy-metal toxicity, say scientists at the Laboratoire
Philippe Auguste in Paris ( Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2006; 214: 99108). A
University of Texas study found that levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury
and lead were lower in the hair of young autistic children compared with
matched controls, indicating an inability to excrete the metals (J Toxicol
Environ Health A, 2007; 70: 71521).

younger the child, the more the

benefit.
In
the
undersix age group, 35 per cent showed
marked improvement and 39 per
cent moderate, with only 11 per
cent of the children failing to
respond at all.
However, these figures dropped
dramatically in the six-to-12 age

group, with only 4 per cent showing

marked improvement, and 28 per
cent achieving moderate benefit.
By age 18, the treatment had no
significant effects whatsoever. We
have noticed a large dependence of
excretion on age of patient, with
the younger patients excreting
much more mercury than the older

WDDTY Safe Living 35

Electropollution
patients, says Dr Holmes. We
think this difference in rapidity of
excretion
may
explain
the
differences in response between the
various age groups ( Holmes AS.
Chelation of Mercury for the Treatment of
Autism.

Published

online

5 March 2002).

However, age may not be the only

reason why metals fail to be
excreted. Tamara Mariea is a
clinical nutritionist who has used
chelation therapy to treat autistic
children at her Internal Balance
clinic in Nashville, TN. Over the last
seven years, she has treated more
than 500 autistic children, with
similar results to those of Dr
Holmes. She, too, has found that
some children fail to respond to the
therapy because, again, it fails to
clear metals from the body.

The heavy penny drops

Around three years ago, she met Dr
George Carloand the proverbial
penny dropped. They both were
asking the same question: could the
electromagnetic (EM) fields from
wireless technology be causing the
childrens cell membranes to shut
down, thus trapping the heavy
metals within the cells, preventing
them from being excreted and
cleared from the body?
They chose first to test the
theory on a 10-year-old boy with
severe autism. For seven years, his
parents had tried a variety of
treatments, including chelation
therapy, but nothing worked.
Carlo and Mariea decided on a
drastic intervention programme
designed to remove as many toxins
as possible from the boys environment. His home was turned into a
toxin-free
zone:
chemical
pollutants were banned, and
mobiles, wireless devices and
almost all electrical equipment
were removed. Marieas clinic, too,
was also turned into an EM-free
fortress,
with
all
wireless
technology
forbidden,
and
electrical equipment shielded.
Gradually, as the boy was
exposed
to
the
EM-free
environments, his hair and stool

36 WDDTY Safe Living

All in the mind?

Most scientists believe the hazards of mobile-phone radiation have been
exaggerated, with some even claiming that those who claim to be adversely
affected by the technology are self-deluded hypochondriacs. A major study,
published in November, appears to support this view.
Psychologists at UKs University of Essex tested 44 people who had
reported adverse symptoms from mobile phones, exposing them to
simulated mobile mast transmissions in a double-blind test. The subjects
could neither identify when the mast signals were on or off and showed no
changes in heart rate, blood pressure or skin conductance when the signals
were on.
Lead scientist Professor Elaine Fox avoided labelling the subjects
symptoms as imaginary or psychosomatic, but concluded: It is now
important to determine what other factors [than mobile-phone technology]
could be causing these symptoms, so appropriate research studies and
treatment strategies can be developed (Environ Health Perspect, 2007; 115:
16038).
Electrosensitive campaigning groups have criticized the study on a
number of counts: some subjects were too ill to participate, and others may
have suffered adverse effects during travel to the research centre. Indeed, the
physiological data suggest that the subjects were in a constantly aroused
state, whether the mobile signals were on or off.
Dr George Carlo also believes that such provocation studies are probably
doomed to failure: any kind of experimentation creates a powerful nocebo
effect. Electrosensitive people will have a parasympathetic response to any
perceived threat, as they have a strong physiological memory of having been
damaged in the past, he says.
His other major criticism of the study relates to the signal from the
simulated mast radiation, which failed to include voice information. It is the
modulation of the signal associated with talking that creates the informationcarrying radiowaves, which we know trigger the adverse effects, he says.
So, without talking on the signal, the biological pathway would not be
triggered.

analyses began to show heavy

metals being excreted from his
body. His autistic condition was
also considerably improved: from
having only been able to utter the
words yes and no, he now began
to speak. The noise has gone from
my head, he said to his parents.
Buoyed by that result, Mariea
then put 20 other autistic children
through a similar regime, which
mainly involved staying in the
clinics EM-free environment for
four hours, two or three times a
week. Remarkably, after three
months, heavy metals began to be
cleared
from
the
childrens
bodiesbut not through chelation.
It happened entirely spontaneously.
It is noteworthy that provocation
doses of chelating agents were not
used. The clinical goal was to assess

the subjects capacity to detoxify

and clear heavy metals on their
own, reported Carlo and Mariea in
their joint 9 November paper (J Aust
Coll Nutr Environ Med, 2007; 26: 37).
The
study
suggests
that
removing autistic children from EM
fields has the same effect as
chelation in removing heavy
metalsa stunning conclusion
which attracts the obvious criticism
of being based on what is
essentially anecdotal evidence.
Carlo is the first to acknowledge
that their study was not a proper
clinical trial and, thus, cannot
account for placebo effects.
However, there are intriguing
data in their results which are
difficult to ascribe to a placebo
response. Carlo observed that the
rate of metal excretion closely

Making wireless safe

The Safe Wireless Initiative proposes a series of practical
steps to reduce levels of information-carrying radiowaves
(ICRWs) in the environment.
! Change the infrastructure. Most mobile-phone mast
transmissions are made not to mobiles, but to other
masts. Linking masts via high-capacity fibreoptic
telephone cables would reduce the present background
ICRW levels by 85 per cent.
! Erect a network of low-power local antennas (nodes),
and apply shielding devices to the nodes to reduce
biological damage.
! Equip mobile phones with protective technologies.
There are two main types of protective/shielding devices:
" The noise-field system emits random low-power
magnetic fields which attach to ICRWs, so when the
signal reaches the cell, it doesnt resonate with the
cilia on the cell membrane. The health benefits of
adding electromagnetic noise to microwave signals
were first shown in laboratory studies a decade ago
(Bioelectromagnetics, 1997; 18: 42230), but the mobilephone industry appears to have largely ignored the
data. The leading noise-field device on the market is
Exradia's Wi-Guard, which embeds noise-field
technology within the phones batteries.

followed their molecular weights.

He noted that the first metals to be
eliminated
were
ber yllium,
aluminium and copper, followed by
antimony, mercury, lead and, finally,
uraniumin other words, from low
to high molecular weights.
This time- and molecular
weight-dependent
finding
was
determined post-hoc, says Carlo.
There
was
no
operational
knowledge of this by the subjects,
parents or clinicians. This makes a
placebo effect unlikely.
There was also a difference in
the way the children responded to
treatment. Some cleared more
aluminium, others more beryllium.
This suggests there are possibly
two categories of injured children:
those exposed as a result of
transgenerational accumulation,
and those exposed as a result of
transgestational
accumulation
during fetal development, he says.
Another
plank
in
the
CarloMariea
argument
is
epidemiology. Over the past 20
years, there has been a dramatic
increase in autism. In the 1970s,
about one child in every 10,000 was
diagnosed as autistic. By the late
1980s, however, that figure had

"

Sympathetic resonance. Some subtle-energy devices

claim to have direct biological effects, allowing cells to
communicate with each other. Two of the best known
are Q-Link and ERT, although the evidence of their
efficacy is limited.

SIMPLE STEPS TO REDUCE YOUR EXPOSURE

! Choose a mobile phone with a low SAR (specific
absorption rate)
! Use an airtube headset, not one made of wires
! Keep the phone away from the body while connecting
! Avoid using the phone when the signal strength is low, as
the phone emits stronger radiation to make a connection
! Replace DECT phones with corded phones, especially
by your bed
! Dont use Wi-Fi in the office or at home. Use oldfashioned wired links to the Internet and other networked
computers
! If pregnant, test your environment for wireless radiation
with a kit such as the Electrosmog Detector (www.detectprotect.com/k/)
! Consider screening yourself and your home by sleeping
under a mosquito net of fine metal mesh, and covering
your walls with kitchen foil.

begun to rise, and the upward curve

has been climbing steeply ever
since.
Now, according to a February
2007 report from the US Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), a staggering one in 150
children suffers from an autisticspectrum disorder. It seems we
now have an autism epidemic
afoot, says Carlo. He admits that
this huge increase could be partly
explained by higher rates of
detection of the disorder and by
mercury-based vaccines, but those
two factors alone are not enough.
The cause is more likely to be some
major environmental assault which,
itself, is also exponentially on the
rise. The most obvious candidate in
his
view
is
mobile-phone
technology, which has shot up from
low levels in 1990 to a status today
where about three in every four
people own a mobile phone.
Every one of those millions of
mobile phones is connected to
masts, creating a mesh in the
environment of ICRWs, which are
virtually impossible for anyone to
avoideven fetuses in the womb,
says Carlo.
The mechanism appears to be

this: children prone to autism have

a biological deficiency in terms of
methylation, meaning they cant
clear heavy metals efficiently.
External exposure to wireless
radiation exacerbates that problem
by
closing
down
the
cell
membranes, further trapping the
metals, disrupting intracellular
communication and leading to the
cascade of symptoms we see in
autistic kids.

Protecting the future

However, this is not just a problem
for the here-and-nowCarlo sees it
extending into the future. His
model of wireless radiation damage
foresees long-term genetic damage,
which was already presaged by a
relatively unpublicized European
Union report from three years ago,
which found gene mutations in
human cell cultures with levels of
EM radiation below the current
safety limits (Reflex, EU Contract: QLK4CT-1999-01574, 31 May 2004).
In both autism and electrosensitivity in general, you have a
genetic change induced by the
environment, says Carlo. When
the cell membrane is chronically
exposed, the membrane closes

WDDTY Safe Living 37

Electropollution
down; the messenger RNA then
picks up that information, folding
in a manner consistent with a
closed membrane; this is transmitted to the DNA in the mitochondria
and nucleus.
When the cell divides in mitosis,
the daughter cells have a closed
cell-membrane configuration, and
this is transmitted to the
succeeding mitoses, resulting in an
embedded genetic change.
Permanent cell damage may
explain why chelation therapy
sometimes fails to work in autistic
children. Its only speculation, but
the autistic patients who clear

38 WDDTY Safe Living

their heavy metals and yet have no

improvement in symptoms are
those whose cell membranes
remain closed, he says. In such
cases, chelation may actually
worsen the damage, as the heavy
metals can rip through the cell
membrane.
Carlos major concern is to
prevent damage from mobile-phone
technology in the future. He has
begun a campaign called the Safe
Wireless Initiative, primarily aimed
at persuading policymakers to
redesign the entire mobilephoneinfrastructure and to develop
shield technologies (see box, page

37).
In the meantime, for autism in
particular, he has some strong
words of warning for mothers.
We are very concerned about
pregnant mothers, he says. During embryonic development, the
fetus needs exposure to environmental challenges like microbes, as
they help to develop the immune
system. However, exposure to
ICRWs doesnt enhance the
immune systemit impedes it. It is
not a good idea for pregnant
women to be around these signals
at all.
Tony Edwards

Mobile phones: DNA damage discovered

For years, governments around the world have denied that the low level of radiation from
mobile phones is harmful to health. But now, explosive new evidence from a number of
quarters shows that cell-phone radiation causes permanent damage to the DNA in cells,
even with infrequent use.

hings have been hotting up

since our report on the
dangers of WiFi and mobile
phones. Finally, even the
official scientific government advisors
are having to acknowledge the
potential for harm from these wireless
technologies. Its partly in response to
the sheer volume of adverse published
reports in the research literature (see
box below), but its also because
theres now a plausible mechanism for
the dangers.
From the days 25 years ago, when a
mobile phone was the size of a large
brickand cost nearly its weight in
gold to buy onenowadays, over two
billion people around the world own a
mobile. Thats one-third of the worlds
population. This explosive uptake of
mobile phones has been called the
largest human biological experiment
ever (by Swedish neurosurgeon Dr
Leif Salford) because the technology
has been marketed without any safety
testing
whateveran
incredibly
bizarre omission in an era of such
blanket health-and-safety legislation.
The reason is simply that the
worlds experts originally thought
mobile phones and masts were simply
too low-powered to be harmful. The
belief was that the only danger would
be from a rise in temperature. To put it
crudely, if a mobile couldnt cook you,
it couldnt hurt you.

Trawling through the research

Thats still the official view today,
although its becoming increasingly
untenable in the light of new evidence.
One of the first scientists to question
the conventional position was
Professor of Bioengineering Dr Henry
Lai at the University of Washington, in
Seattle. Lai showed that when rat
brain cells were subjected to
electromagnetic radiation similar to
that emitted by mobile phones, breaks
occurred in the DNA of the cells. This
led him to speculate that mobilephone radiation could be directly
damaging DNA as well as its repair
mechanisms (Int J Radiat Biol, 1996; 69:

51321).

These animal findings were later

confirmed in another test-tube study,
this time using isolated human brain
cells. In this case, a team headed by
Professor Franz Adlkofer at the
University of Vienna reported evidence
of non-thermal DNA breakage by
mobile phone radiation (Mutat Res,
2005; 583: 17883).
Other significant biological effects
have been found by researchers at
Columbia University Health Sciences
in New York. This group exposed fruit
flies to a standard mobile radiofrequency output, and found an increase
in the production of heat shock
protein (hsp)70an indication of cell
stresswith no direct thermal heating
effects. This damage took place
within minutes (J Cell Biochem, 2003; 89:
4855).
Researchers at Athens University
also using fruit flies reported that
mobile telephony radiation . . . was
found to decrease significantly and
non-thermally
the
insects
reproductive capacity (Electromagn Biol
Med, 2007; 26: 3344). They also found
degeneration of large numbers of egg
chambers after DNA fragmentation of
their constituent cellsafter less
than a weeks exposure to mobilephone radiation for just a few minutes

each day (Mutat Res, 2007; 626: 6978).

A major review of the biological
effects of mobile-phone radiation was
recently done by the ECOLOG Institute in Hanover, Germany. Although
commissioned and paid for by two
mobile-phone companies, German TMobil and Deutsche Telekom, the
report was hard-hitting. It confirmed
disturbances of DNA replication
caused by mobile-phone wavelengths.
This could explain the cancer-causing
effects of these devices, the report
saideven at their relatively low
power.
Obvious disturbance of the communication between cells, which is a
prerequisite for the uninhibited
proliferation of cells that is characteristic for cancer development,
occurs at [mobile power levels of] just

Wireless update
!

!
!
!

The incidence of malignant brain tumours was found to be 5.9 times higher
risk after analogue mobile-phone use, 3.7 times higher after digital mobile
use and 2.3 times higher after cordless phone use, with more than 2000
cumulative hours (Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2006; 79: 6309).
Albeit in rats, and so may not apply to humans, mobile telephone radiation
leads to oxidative stress in cornea and lens tissues in the eye (Curr Eye Res,
2007; 32: 215).
Because of the shape of their heads, children receive 60 per cent more
radiation from mobiles than adults do (Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 34960).
Studies funded by the mobile-phone industry are the least likely to find any
evidence of harm (Environ Health Perspect, 2007; 115: 14).
A Danish study found no connection between mobile phone use and brain
tumours (J Natl Cancer Inst, 2006; 98: 170713). Critics point out that this study
(a) did not control for the amount of mobile phone use, (b) mostly involved
infrequent users, and (c) was funded by the cellular phone industry.

WDDTY Safe Living 39

Electropollution
The birds and the bees
There has been a huge decline in house sparrow numbers across Europe, an
effect that, say Belgian scientists, may be due to mobile-phone technology. In a
study of six mobile mast sites, they found that male sparrows avoided areas with
the highest electrical-field strengths (Electromagn Biol Med, 2007; 26: 6372).
Another steep decline has also been documented in the number of bees,
variously ascribed to the weather, pesticides or a virus. Campaigners think
mobile-phone radiation is the most likely culprit, and one study has been carried
out in Germany to test the theory.
Last year, scientists from the University of KoblenzLandau placed cordlessphone (DECT) base stations inside of four beehives to see what effect they
might have on the bees behaviour. As a control, an identical set of four beehives
without a DECT station was also assessed.
The results were striking. They found a 21-per-cent drop in the total weight of
the honeycombs in the DECT-radiated hives. There was also a marked
difference in the apparent willingness of the bees to return to their hives after
foraging: on average, roughly 40 bees would return in the first hour to the
normal hives compared with around eight to the DECT hives (Harst W et al. Can
Electromagnetic Exposure Cause a Change in Behaviour? Landau, Germany: University of
KoblenzLandau, 2006).

a few watts per metre, the report

stated
(Hennies K et al. Mobile
Telecommunications
Germany:

and

Health.

ECOLOG-Institut

Hanover,

fr

sozial-

kologische Forschung und Bildung GmbH,

2000).

Equally alarming is the evidence

that these effects can take place within
the brain. The body normally has a
self-protective mechanism to prevent
toxins from entering the brain, but
there is rapidly accumulating evidence
that mobile-phone frequencies can
cause this bloodbrain barrier to break
down. Indeed, there is a whole series
of studies in which a greatly increased
permeability of the bloodbrain barrier
was produced through pulsed highfrequency fields of very low intensity . .
. which corresponded to those of
mobile telephony, states the report.

The theories so far

Scientists are beginning to get a
handle on how mobile radiation might
be causing the damaging effects seen
in brain cellsalthough, at present,
these are only theories, not hard facts.
An Italian group from the University
of Padua believes that mobile radiation
may cause neuron cell membrane
gating and disruptions to cellular
calcium-regulating mechanisms (Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci, 2007; 11:
197218).

The Athens University team men-

40 WDDTY Safe Living

tioned above thinks that mobile

radiation causes the cell membrane
to vibrate, thereby disrupting its
electrochemical balance (Biochem
Biophys Res Commun, 2002; 298: 95102).
But perhaps the most developed
theory has come from the leading
American electromagnetic-radiation
expert, Dr George Carlo. An epidemiologist by training, 15 years ago,
Carlo was lavishly funded by the
cellphone industry to investigate
mobile-phone safetybut he came up
with conclusions that the industry
didnt want to hear.
Carlos theory is that mobile
radiation activates a protein vibrational receptor on the cell
membrane, which the body interprets
as a foreign invader. In self-defence,
the cell shuts down its normal
functions, striving to make the cell
membrane less permeable. This,
however, prevents necessary cell
nutrients from getting in, and also
stops waste products from getting
out. The result of this is a buildup of
free
radicals,
leading
to
a
dysfunctional celland, hence, the
breaching of the bloodbrain barrier,
says Dr Carlo.
Worse is yet to come, however. The
accumulating free radicals also interfere with DNA synthesis, causing the
strands to fragment into micronuclei, which are then free to swim

about outside of the cells. Normally

these cellular fragments would be
mopped up by macrophages but,
because the cell is now too energy
(nutrient)-deficient to cope, the
micronuclei proliferate, ultimately
leading to tumour formation.

The new sea of radiation

But arent these theories flying in the
face of common sense? After all, we
have been surrounded by electromagnetic fields (EMFs) for over a
century, with no apparent adverse
health effects.
The answer lies in the type of
electromagnetic radiation, claims Dr
Carlo. Until the advent of mobiles,
most of our artificially created EMFs
have been using frequencies similar
to those found in the earths natural
background radiation, which is being
emitted from radon gas, lightning,
the sun or the earths own magnetic
field. Also, over the course of our
human evolution, our bodies have
developed defence mechanisms
against those natural frequencies.
Whats different about mobile
phones and wireless technology is
that they use information-carrying
waves. Although they are low in
power, these waves operate at
frequencies that our bodies have
never met before but which,
nevertheless, can resonate with our
bodys cells and cause adverse
reactions.
Dr Carlos conclusion is stark.
Where you have a biological mechanism like this, which is triggered at
cell-membrane level, you have no
threshold; there is no level below
which this mechanism is not
triggered, he says.
As this sounds rather apocalyptic,
why arent we all dropping dead like
fruit flies?
His answer is that, for most of us,
the immune system can cope
at least in the short term. But there
are a substantial number of people
who will go on to develop so-called
electrohypersensitivity, for whom
the cellular damage is irreversible,
he said, in a lecture delivered at the
House of Commons in London, in
February 2007.
Tony Edwards

Casting a shadow on fluorescent lights

The UK government and the rest of the EU are busy phasing out the
standard incandescent light bulbs, replacing them with low-energy,
eco-friendly fluorescent light bulbs. But just how safe is fluorescent
lightingfor humans? And since the bulbs contain mercury, just how safe
will they really be for the environment?

n the UK, Prime Minister Gordon

Brown has announced that
standard light bulbs will be
phased out by 2011 and replaced
by compact fluorescent light bulbs
(CFLs). The European Union (EU), as
well as Australia and Canada, have
also committed to phasing out
ordinary incandescent light bulbs
over the next few years.
Currys and Co-op are the first UK
retailers to announce that they will no
longer stock these bulbs.

Environmental concerns
Why the change? CFLs are supposedly
more energy-efficient and better for
the environment than the standard
bulb. According to Greenpeace,
incandescent bulbs are inefficient and
bad for the climate. CFLs produce the
same amount of light, but emit
dramatically lower levels of carbon
dioxide, a major contributor of globalwarming pollution. They also save
moneyaround 7 ($14) per
household per year in the UK,
according to Dr Matt Prescott,
director of banthebulb.org.
The UKs Green Party MEP
Caroline Lucas has estimated that
banning old-fashioned light bulbs
across the EU would cut carbon
emissions by around 20 million
tonnes per year and save between 5 to
8 million euros [3.4 to 5.5 million]
per year in domestic fuel bills.
The advantages attributed to CFLs
are all to do with the way in which
they produce light. Incandescent
bulbs heat a filament inside the bulb
until its white-hot, producing the
light that you see. Typically, however,
about 90 per cent of the energy
consumed is converted into heat, not
light, thus wasting a lot of energy.
In contrast, fluorescents use a gas
that produces invisible ultraviolet
(UV) light when the gas is excited by
electricity. The UV light hits the white
coating inside the fluorescent, which
converts it into visible light. Because

fluorescents dont use heat to create

light, they are far more energyefficient than regular incandescent
bulbs.
However, while fluorescent lighting
may be better for the environment,
what hasnt been addressed is the
potential impact of these so-called
green bulbs on peoples health.

Effects on health
Ever since their introduction, there
has been a great deal of concern that
fluorescent lighting may contribute
to a range of health issuesfrom
headaches and eye strain to
hyperactivity in children and even
cancer.
One major worry is the amount of
UV light emitted by these bulbs
significantly more than standard
ones. And, although the amount of
UV from fluorescents is still
considerably less than in sunlight, the
fact that many people work under
fluorescent fixtures day after day, year

in and year out, has stirred fears for

the long-term.
Indeed, an early study reported a
doubling of the risk of malignant
melanomas in office workers exposed
to fluorescent lighting compared with
those occupationally exposed to sunlight (Lancet, 1982; 2: 2903). Since then,
other studies have found a connection
between exposure to fluorescent
lighting and malignant melanoma
(Am J Epidemiol, 1992; 135: 74962; Br J
Cancer, 1986; 53: 6574; Lancet, 1983; i: 704).
Yet others, however, found no such
association (BMJ, 1988; 297: 64750; Br J
Cancer, 1985; 52: 7659; Recent Results
Cancer Res, 1986; 102: 12736),

and
studies that looked solely at domestic
exposure to fluorescent lighting also
found no increased risk between
fluorescents and skin cancer (BMJ,
1988; 297: 64750). Nevertheless, with

Allergic to light
A number of health conditions can give rise to light sensitivity, including the
autoimmune disorder lupus, the genetic disorder xeroderma pigmentosum (UV
sensitivity), and skin conditions such as erythropoietic protoporphyria and
polymorphous light eruption. Prescription drugs, including sulphonamides,
tetracycline and thiazide diuretics, can also cause hypersensitivity to light.
The photosensitive reaction is usually brought on by sunlight, but fluorescent
lampsat intensities used in interior lightingcan also trigger a response (Br J
Dermatol, 1973; 89: 3519, Br J Dermatol, 1969; 81: 4208). Both UVA and UVB radiation
from fluorescents have been implicated (Ann Rheum Dis, 1994 June; 53: 3969; Ann
NY Acad Sci, 1985; 453: 31727). New research shows that even incandescent
lamps may put photosensitive individuals at risk (Ergonomics, 1998; 41: 43347).
Symptoms of photosensitivity may include a pink or red skin rash with
blotchy blisters, scaly patches or raised spots on exposed areas. These may
itch or burn and last for several days. More serious reactions, however, include
the possibility of abnormally low blood pressure and loss of consciousness
(Psychol Med, 2001; 31: 94964).
One way that photosensitive individuals can protect themselves is to make
sure that the lamp is fitted with a diffuser. In a study of patients with lupus,
standard acrylic diffusers absorbed UVB radiation, and their use was associated with almost no patient-reported problems (Arthritis Rheum, 1992; 35: 94952).
Nevertheless, this may not eliminate the risk for all individuals.

WDDTY Safe Living 41

Electropollution
more and more homes adopting
fluorescent lightingeven without
the governments forcing everyone to
do
sothere
may
well
be
a different picture in the future.
Other health problems are related
to flickering. Unlike standard lights,
conventional fluorescent light output
fluctuates in intensity. While its not
easily seen with the naked eye, some
studies hold the resultant flicker to
be responsible for headache, eye
strain,
and
reduced
reading
performance
on
visual
tasks
(Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 1991; 11: 1725;
Psychol Med, 2001; 31: 94964).
This fluorescent flicker can even
affect behaviour. When six autistic
children were observed under incandescent and fluorescent lighting, they
spent significantly more time
engaged in repetitive behaviour under
the fluorescents, attributed by the
authors to the flicker (J Autism Child
Schizophr, 1976; 6: 15762).
A 1973 study by frontier light
researcher Dr John Ott in a Sarasota,
FL, school linked cool-white fluorescent lighting to nervous fatigue,
irritability, lapses of attention and
hyperactivity (Ott JN. Lecture to the Society
for Clinical Ecology, 1974). These effects,
however, may not be due to flicker,
but to the quality of the light itself, its
overall colour appearance (known as
spectral power distribution, or SPD).
When the Florida school replaced its
fluorescent lights with full-spectrum
fluorescentssaid to mimic the SPD
of natural daylighta marked
improvement in behaviour was seen.
The children became calmer, more
interested in their work and paid
more attention (Ott JN. Lecture to the
Society for Clinical Ecology, 1974). Similar
results were seen in experiments in
two schools in California.

Modern fluorescent lighting

Is the new fluorescent lighting safe?
According to Alasdair Philips of
Powerwatch, fluorescent lighting has
come a long way since this early
research was done. Modern fluorescent lighting generates far less UV
radiation than the old-fashioned
bulbs, emits a broader spectrum of
light, and is virtually flicker-free, he
says. However, until more research

42 WDDTY Safe Living

CFLs: environmentally safe?

Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) contain the potent toxic metal mercury
(at least 5 mg per light) as well as a variety of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and other chemical pollutants from electronic components. This means
they require special disposal. The law says that fluorescent lamps need to
be treated as toxic waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), and
collected by councils or taken to recycling sites. Still, it is likely that many will
just be thrown into the dustbin, causing toxic pollution.
Indeed, Cameron S. Lory, chief author of a new report released by INFORM,
a US non-profit environmental outreach organization, states: Mercury from
broken and discarded fluorescent lamps is a major contributor to widespread
mercury contamination of the environment.

is done on this new technology

including CFLswe just dont know
for sure if its safe.
Some preliminary research on
modern fluorescents is reassuring.
Electronic high-frequency ballasts,
which control the flow of current,
have mostly replaced the old-style
magnetic ballasts and produce
dramatically less flicker. They have
been shown to reduce eye strain,
headache and other vision symptoms
(Lighting Res Technol, 1995; 27: 24356). In
one study, conventional ballasts were
associated with increased stress and
decreased performance, while modern
electronic ones were not (Ergonomics,
1998; 41: 43347).
Nevertheless, other research on
contemporary fluorescents has not
been so positive. One study found that
indoor light sources, including
fluorescent, quartz halogen and even
tungsten-filament
incandescent
lamps, emitted surprising levels of
carcinogenic
UV
radiation
(Photochem Photobiol, 2004; 80: 4751).
All of the fluorescents examined
including CFLsgave off UVA rays,
and
many
emitted
UVB
in
wavelengths as short as 280 nm,
shorter than the UVB present in
sunlight. Even standard low-watt
incandescent bulbs were found
to emit these shorter-than-sunlight
wavelengths. The concern here is that
little is known of the potential health
hazards of this type of radiation.
Although UV emissions are usually
attenuated if the bulbs are shaded or
covered, the researchers noted that, if
they are not completely filtered, then
potentially harmful UV radiation

may well be present.

The studys main concern was how
this type of radiation affects photosensitive individuals (see box, page
41). However, the findings also have
wider implications: If wavelengths
shorter than those in sunlight are
present,
exposed
skin
may
accumulate adverse effects over time
that are of concern not only for
photosensitive individuals but also for
the general population.

What to do
If you buy (or, indeed, are forced to
buy) CFLs, Alasdair Phillips offers the
following tips:
! Look for bulbs with a warm white
or yellow tint as they trap more UV
radiation.
! Make sure that the bulb has a filter;
some of the cheaper versions dont.
! Check that the CFL uses a highfrequency electronic ballast.
A better option, however, would be
full-spectrum fluorescent lighting,
said to have the same spectral
qualities as natural daylight.
Compared with CFLs, there has been
a considerable amount of research
into this type of lightingwith
positive results. As the late Dr Ott
said in his book Health and Light
(Ariel Press, 1973), full-spectrum
lighting can improve classroom and
work performance, boost immune
function, and possibly lower the risk
of diseases such as cancer,
osteoporosis and even tooth decay.
Full spectrum lighting is available
from FSL Ltd (tel: 01494 883 328)
and www.fullspectrumsolutions.com.
Joanna Evans

Filthy frequencies
A form of electromagnetic pollution known as dirty electricity may be responsible for an array of common
health problemsfrom asthma and ADHD to diabetes and depression.

irty electricity is an
ubiquitous pollutant that
has largely escaped the
attention of the general
public and scientific community. It
refers to surges of high-frequency
voltage or electromagnetic radiation
that contaminate the normal 5060
Hz power lines around us. These
surges are generated by electrical
equipment such as computers,
plasma TVs, energy-efficient lighting
and dimmer switches.
Dirty electricity was thought to
be a problem only for utility
companies, costing the industry
around $5 billion in the US alone
(Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 25968).
But emerging evidence suggests
that its also a serious public-health
issue. Advances in technology have
allowed scientists to measure dirty
electricity, and it appears that this
form of electrical pollution is
biologically activein other words,
its potentially harmful to health.
Studies carried out by Magda
Havas, of Trent University in

Ontario, Canada, have demonstrated

just how damaging dirty electricity
can be.

Wide-ranging health effects

In the first study, involving four case
studies, Havas looked at electrically
sensitive diabetics and analyzed their
blood-sugar levels in relation to dirty
electricity in their environment. She
found that, in an electromagnetically
clean environment, type 1 diabetics
required less insulin and type 2
diabetics had lower levels of blood

What is dirty electricity?

!

Just as clean water can become polluted when it travels through a

contaminated environment, electricity becomes increasingly polluted
when it comes into contact with assorted types of electronic equipment.
Regular or clean electricity enters buildings at a frequency of 5060 Hz;
power becomes dirty or polluted when it develops scattered higherfrequency signals as a result of contact with equipment such as
computers, plasma televisions and some appliances. NIR [non-ionizing
radiation] generated by dirty power may radiate to contaminate the
adjacent environment and is alleged to be potentially harmful.
Dr Stephen Genuis, University of Alberta, Canada
(Public Health, 2008; 122: 11324)

Dirty electricity refers to electromagnetic energy that flows along a

conductor and deviates from a pure 60-Hz sine wave . . . It is generated
by electronic equipment such as computers, plasma televisions, energyefficient appliances, dimmer switches, as well as arcing on electrical
conductors caused by loose wires or contact with trees. Dirty electricity
is thus produced within buildings but can also enter buildings from
neighbours who share the same transformer. Mobile or broadcast
antennas, if not properly filtered, can also contribute to high frequencies
on electrical wires in nearby buildings.
Dr Magda Havas, Trent University, Canada
(Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 25968)

sugar. Exposure to dirty electricity, on

the other hand, rapidly increased their
blood sugar.
According to Havas, these results,
along with mounting laboratory and
observational evidence, suggest a third
type of diabetes, triggered by
environmental factors such as dirty
electricity. Unlike true Type 1 and
Type 2 diabetics whose blood sugar is
not affected by dirty electricity, Havas
explains, Type 3 diabetics may be
better able to regulate their blood
sugar with less medication, and those
diagnosed as borderline or pre-diabetic
may remain non-diabetic longer, by
reducing
their
exposure
to
electromagnetic energy.
She estimates that as many as
five to 60 million diabetics worldwide
may, in fact, be type 3 diabetics who
will benefit from limiting their
exposure to dirty electricity (Electromagn Biol Med, 2008; 27: 13546).
Her second study used Graham
Stetzer (GS) filters, specially designed
to reduce dirty electricity, to
investigate the impact of power quality
on teachers wellbeing and students
behaviour in three schools in
Minnesota, USA.
A total of 541 GS filters were
installed in an elementary school,
middle school and a high school. The
teachers completed a questionnaire
each day regarding their health and the
behaviour of their students for eight
weeks. As a control, dummy filters were
also installed, and the teachers didnt
know which filters were in place at any
given time.
What Havas found was that dirty
electricity in the schools was reduced
by more than 90 per cent by the GS
filters and that, when these filters were
in place, both teachers health and
students behaviour improved in the
elementary and middle schools. Of the
44 teachers who took part, 64 per cent
felt better, 30 per cent felt worse and 6
per cent felt no different with the GS
filters installed. In particular,
headaches, asthma, general weakness,
dry eyes/mouth, facial flushing, skin
irritations and overall mood, including
depression
and
anxiety,
were

WDDTY Safe Living 43

Electropollution
significantly better among staff at
these times.
Interestingly, however, the behaviour of high-school children did not
improve, whereas younger students
were assessed as being more active
in class, more responsive and more
focused, with fewer health complaints
and a better overall learning experience
with GS filters than with dummy filters
in place (Sci Total Environ, 2008 Jun 13, Epub
ahead of print).
These studies contribute to the
accumulating body of evidence that
dirty electricity has harmful effects on
people. According to previous research
by Havas, a variety of other disorders
including asthma, multiple sclerosis,
tinnitus
and
electrical
hypersensitivityalso
improve
when
exposure to dirty electricity is reduced
(Electromagn Biol Med, 2006; 25: 25968).
Of particular interest is a study
by Havas conducted at a school in
Toronto, Canada. It found that when
GS filters were installed to reduce dirty
electricity, the behaviour of the
students, especially the younger ones,
also improved. This suggests that
younger children may well be more
sensitive to and affected by poor power
quality. Moreover, the affected
symptoms were those seen with
attention-deficit disorder (ADD) and
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD).
As Havas points out, this raises an
important question: How much of the
increase in ADD/ADHD seen among
young people nowadays is due to
electromagnetic pollution and poor
electromagnetic hygiene?
Although, clearly, more research
is needed to truly address this question,
Havas speculates that, given the
continued promotion of computers in
the classroomand the general move
towards wireless computer and
communication
technologiesthe
situation is very likely to get worse.

The cancer connection

Even more worrying, however, is
that dirty electricity has also been
linked to cancer. A recent study by
American researchers Samuel Milham
and L. Lloyd Morgan investigated the
incidence of cancer in teachers who
had worked at a school in California

44 WDDTY Safe Living

Sources of dirty electricity

!
!
!
!
!
!

Computers
Variable-speed motors
Television sets
Entertainment units
Energy-efficient lighting
Energy-efficient appliances

between 1988 and 2005. Specifically,

they were looking for a connection
between cancer and dirty electricity by
measuring the incidence of highfrequency voltage transients on the
schools electrical wiring.
Of the 137 teachers involved, 16
were diagnosed with 18 cancers,
including malignant melanoma, breast
cancer, thyroid cancer, uterine cancer,
multiple myeloma, Burkitts lymphoma
(a type of non-Hodgkins lymphoma),
and cancers of the colon, pancreas,
ovary and larynx. Two of these teachers
had two primary cancers each.
Milham and Morgan reported that
60-Hz
magnetic
fieldsclean
electricityshowed no association with
cancer incidence. However, highfrequency voltage transientsdirty
electricitywere positively correlated
with cancer. Indeed, the higher the
exposure, the higher the chances of
developing a tumour. Alarmingly, being
employed at this school for just one
year increased a teachers cancer risk
by 21 per cent (Am J Ind Med, 2008; 51:
57986).
Although no other published studies
have specifically measured dirty
electricity and risk of cancer, the
authors note that a study of electricutility workers exposed to transients
from pulsed electromagnetic fields
found an increased, cumulative
incidence of lung cancer (Am J Epidemiol,
1994; 140: 80520).
Based on the evidence so far, it is
safe to conclude that dirty electricity
may be a universal carcinogen, similar
to ionizing radiation (Am J Ind Med, 2008;
51: 57986).

Cleaning-up bad energy

Although research into dirty electricity
is still in its early stages, it is already
apparent
that
this
form
of electromagnetic energy could be a
significant health problem, and not

!
!
!
!
!
!

Dimmer switches
Power tools
Arcing on power lines
Shared transformers
Mobile-phone antennas
Broadcast antennas.

just in the US and Canada, where most

of the research has been so far
conducted.
According to Havas, who measures
power quality wherever she goes, dirty
electricity is an issue in the UK and the
rest of Europe as well. In fact, its likely
to affect most developed countries.
Schools, colleges and workplaces are
at particular risk as they are prime
candidates for poor power quality.

The future looks clean

The good news is that there is a
solution. The GS filters used by Havas
and others in scientific studies are now
commercially
available
(from
www.stetzerelectric.com). This filter,
the brainchild of Professor Martin
Graham, at the University of California at Berkeley, and power-quality
expert Dave Stetzer, can clean up both
the power that enters a building as well
as the dirty electricity generated
within that building by shorting out
the high-frequency spikes.
As studies have shown, installing
these filters results in numerous
health benefitsfrom fewer headaches
and more energy to lower blood-sugar
levels in diabetics (Electromagn Biol Med,
2006; 25: 25968).
Indeed, former voice and data
communications consultant Glynn
Hughes was so impressed with the
filters that he and his wife have set up
a UK distributorship. As they
have happily reported on their website
(www.grahamstetzer.co.uk), almost
all of our clients have had dramatically
improved health and, to date, not one
person has taken advantage of our
money-back guarantee.
If the GS filters are as effective as
they appear to be, they could be a
valuable addition to the homes of
millions of electrically sensitive
individuals around the world.
Joanna Evans

The dark side of light

Few of us would dispute the benefits of artificial light, but new research suggests that light pollutionthe
excessive or obtrusive light at nightmay have serious consequences for human health.

ithout question, the light

bulb is one of the greatest
inventions of all time,
making human activity
possible beyond daylight hours.
However, as an example of too
much of a good thing, the modern
world is now so awash with artificial
light that, in many places, true
darkness has all but disappeared. This
has been a well-known problem for
flora and fauna, but the effects of light
pollution
on
humans
are
only just beginning to surface. Now,
provocative new evidence suggests that
too much light at night could
be increasing the risk of cancer.
In a study just published in the
journal Chronobiology International,
Israeli researchers analyzed cancer
rates and satellite images from 164
countries, and found an indisputable
correlation between prostate cancer
and levels of nighttime artificial
illumination.
Countries where nighttime artificial
lighting was used most intensively had
rates of prostate cancer that were 110
per cent higher than in countries with
the lowest levels of artificial light at
night (Chronobiol Int, 2009; 26: 10825).
Although these findings do not
constitute proof of a cause-and-effect
relationship, they do add to the results
of an earlier study by the same team in
which they uncovered an intriguing
link between light pollution and breast
cancer.
Using a similar study design, the
researchers looked at 147 communities in Israel and found that women

living in neighbourhoods where it was

bright enough to read a book outside
at midnight had a 73-per-cent higher
risk of developing breast cancer
compared with those living in areas
with the least outdoor artificial
lighting. This increased risk was
apparent even after controlling for
other factors that might have had an
influence on cancer risk, such as
ethnicity, affluence and air pollution
(Chronobiol Int, 2008; 25: 6581).
The two studies taken together
suggest that light pollution may have
serious health effects for both men and
womenparticularly in places where
there is a lot of artificial light at night,
such as London, Manhattan and Las
Vegas. But how can nighttime artificial
lighting possibly cause cancer?

The melatonin connection

The leading theory is that exposure to
too much light at night disrupts the
bodys production of melatonin, a
hormone known to help regulate our
internal biological clock. Melatonin is
produced by the brains pineal gland in

Forms of light pollution

Sky glow is the bright halo that appears over urban areas at night, the
result of light being scattered by water droplets or particles in the air
! Light trespass occurs when unwanted artificial light from, say, a
streetlight spills onto the adjacent property, lighting an area that would
otherwise be in the dark
! Glare is created by light that shines horizontally
! Overillumination refers to the use of artificial light well beyond what is
needed for a specific activity, such as keeping the lights on in an
empty office building throughout the night (Environ Health Perspect, 2009;
117: A207).
!

the absence of light, but its release is

suppressed as soon as light hits the
eyes. This means that light invading
our bedrooms from outside can cause
melatonin levels to plummet.
Depressed melatonin levels have, in
turn, been associated with increased
rates of cancer.
Night-shift workers, for instancea
population that is intentionally
exposed to light at night on a regular
basisare known to exhibit lower
levels of nighttime melatonin. Whats
more, studies consistently show an
increased risk of breast cancer in these
individuals and, more recently,
endometrial cancer, too (Cancer Lett,
2008 Dec 11; Epub ahead of print). In one
of these studies, graveyard shiftwork
was associated with a 60-per-cent
higher risk of breast cancer, with a
trend towards increased risk with the
increasing years and more hours of
shiftwork per week. Interestingly, an
increased breast cancer risk was also
suggested for those shift workers who
slept in the brightest bedrooms (J Natl
Cancer Inst, 2001; 93: 155762).
The findings of yet another US study
provide what the authors call
a rational biological explanation for
the increased breast cancer risk in
female night-shift workers. Using
laboratory rats with tumours made up
of human breast cancer cells, the
scientists evaluated how nighttime
fluorescent light affects tumour
growth by injecting the animals with
blood samples from healthy women.
These samples contained varying
concentrations of melatonin, depending on the time of day they were
collected (during daylight hours,
during the night after two hours of
complete darkness and during the
night after exposure to 90 minutes
of artificial light). The results showed
that tumour growth increased on
exposure to melatonin-deficient
bloodin other words, the blood
collected during the daytime or after
exposure to light at night. On the
other hand, the blood samples that
were rich in melatoninin other
words, those collected during

WDDTY Safe Living 45

Electropollution
complete darknesswere found to
slow tumour growth significantly
(Cancer Res, 2005; 65: 1117484).
Besides breast cancer, night-shift
work has also been linked to colorectal and endometrial cancer in
women (J Natl Cancer Inst, 2003; 95: 8258;
Cancer Res, 2007; 67: 1061822), and
prostate cancer in men (Scand J Work
Environ Health, 2008; 34: 522). Although
not conclusive, the research linking
night-shift work and cancer was
convincing enough for the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), in 2007, to classify this
type of job as a probable human
carcinogen (J Pineal Res, 2009 Feb 9; Epub
ahead of print).
Nevertheless, as the latest studies
have found, its not just shift workers
who are at risk. The recent research
linking light pollution to increased
rates of breast and prostate cancer in
the general population suggest that
suppression of melatonin by artificial
light at night might be a key contributor to the overall incidence of cancer.
Clearly, more research is needed
although, so far, it appears that getting
enough darkness is an important
factor to prevent cancer.

Other health effects

Apart from cancer, too much
nighttime light can also lead to a
range of other health effectsfrom
cardiovascular disorders to vision
problems. As one mini-review
explains, Interruptions in normal
circadian light cycles and the resulting
disruption of normal melatonin
rhythms cause widespread disruptive
effects involving multiple body
systems, the results of which can have
serious medical consequences for
individuals (J Pineal Res, 2007; 43:
21524).
Again, shift-work studies form the

basis of the evidence in this review,

which showed increased rates of heart
disease, digestive problems, sleep
disorders and poor pregnancy
outcomes in such employees (Cardiovasc J Afr, 2008; 19: 2105; Environ Health
Perspect, 2009; 117: A207).

In one especially alarming study,

pregnant women who regularly worked
the night shift were 85-per-cent more
likely than daytime workers to suffer a
miscarriage late in pregnancy or to
have a stillbirth (J Occup Environ Med,
2004; 46: 11449). The same Danish
research team also found a connection
between shift work and low birth
weights (Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2004; 191:
28591).
Equally worrying is the research
linking shift work to cardiovascular
effects. According to a recent review of
the literature so far, hypertension, left
ventricular hypertrophy (abnormal
thickening of the lower left chamber of
the heart), coronary heart disease and
myocardial infarction (heart attack) all
occur more frequently, and tend to be
more severe, in night-shift workers
than in daytime workers (Cardiovasc J Afr,
2008; 19: 2105).
There are a number of possible
explanations for this, but the evidence
to support the role of melatonin
appears to be particularly convincing
(J Pineal Res, 2007; 43: 21524). Indeed, one
(albeit small-scale) study found that
patients with coronary heart disease
had significantly lower melatonin
levels at night compared with patients
without heart disease (Lancet, 1995; 345:
1408).
In addition to the shift-work studies,
there is also evidence to suggest that
too much light at night in our homes
may have detrimental health effects,
too.
A 1999 study by a team of
researchers at the University of

Getting a dark nights sleep

Avoid bright lights within three hours of bedtime
Keep computer time at night to a minimum
! Use blackout blinds or thick curtains in bedrooms to block out the glare
from streetlights
! Try not to get up in the middle of the night. If you do, minimize your
exposure to bright light by, for example, installing a dim red bulb in the
bathroom as a night light.
!
!

46 WDDTY Safe Living

Pennsylvania Medical Center and

Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia
reported that night-time light
exposure during the first two years of
life may contribute to the development of myopia, or short-sightedness
(Nature, 1999; 399: 1134).
As reported by the BBC News at the
time, children under the age of two
who slept with the lights on were up to
five times more likely to be shortsighted later on than infants who slept
in the dark, while toddlers who slept
with a night-light were three times
more
likely
to
be
myopic
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/342256.
stm).
Although other studies have failed
to replicate the above results (Br J
Ophthalmol, 2003; 87: 5802), a study of
school children in Singapore and
China did find a weak, indirect
association between night-lights and
myopia (Arch Ophthalmol, 2002; 120: 6207).
Also, another US study from the
Philadelphia team found a significant
association between the progression of
myopia and the number of hours of
complete darkness to which young
adults were exposed at night
(Ophthalmology, 2002; 109: 10328).
Beyond short-sightedness, there
is also evidence that excessive light
exposure early in life might be
contributing to an increased risk of
depression and other mood disorders.
The research is still in its early stages
but, according to Vanderbilt University
researcher Douglas McMahon, the
data would indicate that human
infants benefit from the synchronizing
effect of a normal light/dark cycle
(Environ Health Perspect, 2009; 117: A207).

Still in the dark

So, it seems that exposure to too much
light at nightwhether from obtrusive
and unnecessary outdoor lighting,
childrens night-lights or long-term
night-shift workcan disrupt our
natural bodily rhythms with wideranging effects. Although more
research is needed to clarify such
associations, particularly in terms of
the health effects of light pollution, it
appears to be already evident that
darknessjust like sunlightis vital
for health.
Joanna Evans

Water worries

Theres something in the water...

You may think youre doing your health a favour by shunning prescription drugs but, unless youve got
your own private water supply, there may be no escaping them. Astonishingly, traces of pharmaceutical
drugs are likely to be present in every glass of tap water you drink.

ears ago, a major concern

was that contraceptive pill
residues were getting into
drinking water (see box
below), but that fear has now spread
to prescription drugs in general, as
surveys across Europe and the US
reveal that your tap water is widely
polluted with everyday medications.
Whats more, chlorination isnt
helpingand, in fact, may be
making a bad situation worse.
Among the first whistleblowers
was an unlikely bunch of scientists
from the US Geological Service.
Although the USGS usually shuns
controversy, around six years ago,
these normally mild-mannered
boffins were sufficiently concerned
to sound the alarm.
Improved laboratory techniques
have led to the discovery [in water
supplies] of microbial and viral
contaminants, pharmaceuticals, and
hormones that could not be
measured before, they declared in
their 2002 annual report.
Prior to this, if the problem was
recognized at all, hazardous
compounds in the water supply were
assumed to be adequately dealt with
by the usual water-treatment
methods. However, in 2004, the
USGS put this assumption to the
testwith staggering results.
Their scientists visited a large
American water-treatment plant,
and tested the quality of both the
water entering the plant and the

drinking water leaving it. The plant

obtained its water from two small
rivers, referred to as its watershed.
In these apparently pristine
waters, the scientists found up to
40 . . . prescription and non-prescription drugs and their metabolites, fragrance compounds, flame
retardants and plasticizers, cosmetic compounds, disinfectants,
detergent metabolites, and plant
and
animal
steroids.
These

compounds, they discovered, had

been deposited into the rivers from
two sewage-treatment plants that
were located upstreamall of which
was perfectly legal.
Although the contaminants were
potentially a serious concern for the
fish and wildlife, the acid test was
whether or not the water-treatment
facility could prevent them from
getting into the human drinkingwater supply.
The answer was a resounding no.
Although the standard chlorination
treatment took care of the
detergents,
disinfectants
and
steroids, it did not completely
eliminate the rest, allowing a
substantial proportion of drugs to
enter the drinking waterup to 17
contaminants. This study provides
the first documentation that many
of these compounds can survive
conventional water-treatment processes and occur in potable-water
supplies, the USGS reported (Sci
Total Environ, 2004; 329: 99113).
Since then, hundreds more water
supplies in the US and Canada have
been tested. Most have revealed
large numbers of prescription drugs
in the watersheds that supply the
treatment plants. In the water
supply to a major drinking water
treatment facility in Ontario,
Canada, researchers found carbamazepine, cotinine, caffeine, cyclophosphamide, fluoxetine, norfluoxetine, pentoxifylline, trimethoprim,

Drinking water and the Pill

The first concern about pharmaceuticals in water was over
the contraceptive pill. About 20 years ago, the female
hormone oestrogen and its related compounds were found
to be accumulating in the effluents of sewage-treatment
works. It was then found that male fish were becoming
partially feminized and even hermaphroditic in some
species. Research also suggested that mens sperm counts
were dropping, and the finger was pointed at the sex
hormones in the Pill getting into the drinking water.

Over the past decade, however, the picture has

become more clouded. First, there are doubts over the
sperm count data: in some countries, it isnt dropping
and, in others, its actually rising. Other question marks
surround the Pill as detailed tests have shown that the
main oestrogen entering water-treatment works isnt the
artificial oestrogen used in the Pill, but oestrone and
oestradiol, both of which are naturally produced by
women and expelled in the urine.

WDDTY Safe Living 47

Water worries

How much water should you drink?

The received wisdom sticks with the eight-glasses-a-day rule, which means you have to drink at least a couple
of litres of water a day for optimal health. At first glance, this makes sense; after all, the body loses about
1.5 litres of water a day through sweat, the breath and urine.
But in April of this year, two researchers from the University of Pennsylvania claimed to have found no evidence
to support or refute this idea. Drs Stanley Goldfarb and Dan Negoianu examined the four principal alleged benefits
of a high water intakeimproved skin tone, increased removal of toxins, less hunger and fewer headachesand
found no evidence to support these benefits.
Our bottom line is that there was no real good scienceor much science at allbehind these claims. . ." said
Goldfarb. The kidneys clear toxins, yes, but they do it independently of how much water you take in. When you
take in a lot of water, all you do is put out more urine, but not more toxins in the urine (J Am Soc Nephrol, online 2
April 2008; doi:10.1681/ASN. 2008030274). However, there is also no evidence against them.
On the other hand, Dr Fereydoon Batmanghelidj, author of Your Bodys Many Cries for Water (Vienna, VA: Global
Health Solutions, 1992), has researched water intake for 20 years, and came to the conclusion that chronic
dehydration can cause or exacerbate a raft of health problems such as dyspepsia, colitis, high blood pressure,
general abdominal pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, back and neck pressure, angina and depression. However, his
supporting evidence is mostly anecdotal, probably because clinical trials on water intake dont attract much
medical interest or funding.

ibuprofen, bezafibrate, clofibric

acid, diclofenac, fenoprofen, gemfibrozil, indomethacin, naproxen
and ketoprofen.
There was also a handful of
pesticides, too, including atrazine,
simazine, propazine, prometon,
ametryn, prometryn and terbutry
(Environ Toxicol Chem, 2006; 25: 235665).
In the US last month, Associated
Press researchers concluded a fivemonth enquiry into the nations
water supplies and found that nearly
half of the countrys watersheds are
contaminated
by
prescription
drugswith many ending up in
drinking water. Here are some of
their findings.
! In Philadelphia, over 60 pharmaceuticals or their byproducts were
detected in the citys watersheds.
The local water-treatment plant
was virtually useless, managing to
remove only a few of the drugs.
Indeed, the AP researchers
discovered that Philadelphians
tapwater contains a total of 56
different
pharmaceuticals,
including
antibiotics,
pain
relievers, statins, antidepressants,
heart and asthma drugs, and
antiepileptic agents.
! In Southern California, AP found
that 18.5 million people were
exposed to antiepileptic and
antianxiety medications via their
drinking water. Washington, DC
residents routinely drink six

48 WDDTY Safe Living

pharmaceuticals via their water

supply, and 850,000 people in
northern New Jersey drink water
containing residues of antianxiety
and heart drugs.
! In all, 24 US metropolitan areas
have pharmaceuticals in their
water supply.
Predictably, the water industry
retaliated by owning up to drugs in
the water supplycould they claim
otherwise?but insisted that it
didnt matter. According to them,
the levels of drug residues are too
low to have any clinical effectsup
to 1000 times too low, they said.
One piece of their evidence is a
three-year-old report by a panel of
eight experts who concluded that
drugs in drinking water constitute
no appreciable human health risk.
Six of these experts worked for
major international drug companies
( Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2005; 42:
296312).
However, as the USGS researchers point out, the idea that low
levels of pharmaceuticals are
harmless is only an assumption.
Little is known about potential
human-health effects associated
with chronic exposure to trace levels
of multiple drugs through routes
such as drinking water, they say.
Furthermore, drinking water safety
criteria currently are based on the
toxicity of individual compounds and
not combinations of compounds.

Entering European waters

How do these drugs get into the
water supply in the first place?
One way is simply by having
people flushing them down the
toilet. Incredibly, this habit is an
officially recommended (by the FDA,
for example) way to dispose of
unused medications. Hospitals also
routinely chuck liquid medications
down the drain.
But the greatest source of most
waterborne drugs is human urine.
Thats because medications are not
completely assimilated by the body,
and end up being excreted from
the body either in their original
form or as byproducts referred to
as metabolites. These enter the
sewage system, the liquids of which
are treated and then usually
recycled back into the watersheds.
But although the whole process may
seem distasteful, that is how most of
us get our drinking water. In some
parts of London, for example, tap
water may have already passed
through the kidneys of five people
(Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2006; 3:
1804).
Indeed, last January, the Drinking
Water Inspectorate (DWI), the
official guardian of Britains tap
water, was sufficiently concerned to
commission a special study. Among
its findings was the fact that the
major source of pharmaceuticals to
the environment is via sewage

treatment works effluent and, in

some cases, the effluent treatment
was actually increasing the quantity
of pharmaceuticals by restoring
metabolites back to their parent
compounds.
Paracetamol,
for
example, is more toxic after passing
through a treatment works.
Because there is no routine
monitoring of UK drinking water for
drugs, the report admits that there
is very limited data on the
problem. Nevertheless, three major
prescription
drugscarbamazepine, diazepam (Valium) and
clofibratehave
already
been
detected and even the cancer
chemotherapy drug bleomycin,
according to the January 2008
report by the DWI and Department
for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra).
Luckily, some British experts are
not as dismissive of the potential
hazards as their US counterparts,
warning of the exposure of the
pregnant
mother,
or
more
specifically her fetus, to these drugs
via drinking water (J Hydrol, 2007;
348: 16775).

Cleaning up your water

Jug filters. The simplest and cheapest method for purer water, most
comprise two components: one filter that contains carbon particles to
absorb contaminants; and another filter made of a resin that binds to the
ions in minerals and removes them. The trouble is, theyre not 100-percent effective. According to Brita, the leading filtered-jug manufacturer,
their filters only remove 85 per cent of chlorine residues and 70 per cent
of pesticides (and may or may not eliminate pharmaceuticals).
! Plumbed-in filters. These are typically installed beneath the kitchen sink
with their own outlet tap at sink level. A major manufacturer in the UK is
Pozzani, which makes an entry-level carbon filtration kit that claims to
remove cryptosporidia, up to 90 per cent of pesticides and 99 per cent of
chlorine residues. Pozzani also offers tailor-made filtration systems
based on where you live, choosing the carbon filter likely to be the best
at removing your local pollutants.
! Reverse osmosis. A more sophisticated plumbed-in system with a price
tag to match, this claims to remove 100 per cent of chlorine residues and
pesticides. The problem is that it tends to remove beneficial minerals
from water as well, so do be sure to take supplements.
! Distillation. This removes everything, including every last molecule of
flavour. Small domestic countertop distillation units are available, but
their sales appear to be mostly confined to those with severely
compromised immune systems, as most people are put off by distilled
waters lack of taste. More important, the lack of natural minerals could
be a health hazard. Heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases and
certain types of cancer can result from having too few minerals in
drinking water (Kozisek F. Health risks from drinking demineralized water, in Nutrients
in Drinking Water. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2004).
!

Elsewhere in Europe, its a similar

story.
More than 80 compounds,
pharmaceuticals and several drug
metabolites have been detected in
the aquatic environment, say
German experts. In a few cases
[these] have also been detected at
trace levels in drinking water
samples (Toxicol Lett, 2002; 131: 517).
German rivers, for instance, are
contaminated to considerable
concentrations by drugs such as
ibuprofen, carbamazepine, phenazone, diclofenac, beta-blockers,
antibiotics and even X-ray contrast
agents. These are often persistent
and highly mobile, [and] can be
tracked from municipal sewage to
drinking water, says one authoritative survey. One example is
clofibric acid, a drug metabolite,
that is highly persistent in the
Berlin drinking water (Kummerer K, ed.
Pharmaceuticals in the Environment, 2nd edn.
Springer, 2004: 12132).

In parts of Italy, its even worse. In

Lake Maggiore, recent toxicological
testing detected carbamazepine,
sulphamethoxazole, gemfibrozil and
benzafibrate, as well as a host of
herbicides and surfactants. The bad
news was that none of these had
been removed by the local watertreatment plant, as nearly identical
levels of these agents were in the
drinking water, revealing the poor
performance of sand filtration and
chlorination (Anal Bioanal Chem, 2007;
387: 146978).
Indeed, its now recognized that
the two standard water-purifying
techniques of chlorination and
filtration are generally ineffectual
against pharmaceuticals.

Water purification:
what works
As it happens, two relatively
advanced
technologies,
first
introduced to remove pesticides,
also appear to clear pharmaceuticals. Granular activated carbon
and ozonation, when used in
tandem, are claimed to remove 100
per cent of such contaminants
although, in practice, that level of
perfection
is
probably
only
achievable in the laboratory.
In the real world, some
compounds have been shown to be
unaffected by such processes, say

WDDTY Safe Living 49

Water worries
environmental scientists at Imperial
College in London (Trends Biotechnol,
2005; 23: 1637 ).
Germany, for
example, has found clofibric acid
impossible to remove from the
drinking water ( Environ Sci Technol,
2002; 36: 385563).
The problem is exacerbated by the
lack of regulations governing the
presence of drug contaminants,
unlike the case with bacteria or
pesticides, where there are specific
limits on the levels permitted to
remain in drinking water. This
means that, in most countries, drug
contaminants come under the
general catch-all requirement that
drinking water should not be a
health hazard. In the UK, water
companies have carte blanche to
decide for themselves whats safe
and whats not in terms of drug
contaminant levels.
Its the water companies
judgement call about when to
supplement chlorination with the
more advanced treatments, the UK
DWI told WDDTY. If they detect
high levels of drugs in the
catchment waters, companies may
decide to switch over to the more
advanced water treatments.
But why not employ advanced
treatments all the time? As ever, the
answer comes down to money.
Granular activated carbon and
ozonation are too expensive to
justify for round-the-clock use
but even if they werent, theyre not
universally available as some water
companies simply dont have the
equipment.

Chlorination:
a problem or solution?
So, the purity of drinking water still
relies
on
the
100-year-old
technology of chlorination, which
mostly works if all you want to be rid
of are some bacteria and viruses.
Chlorination doesnt work on some
parasites like Cryptosporidium
protozoans. This microscopic gut
inhabitant is responsible for regular
outbreaks of waterborne poisoning,
sometimes with diarrhoea severe
enough to be fatal. Its particularly
hazardous for people with lowered
immunity such as the elderly and

50 WDDTY Safe Living

Mineral waters
Bottled water is not the obvious solution to contaminated drinking water
that it would appear to be. One problem is that purity regulations are far
more lax than those for tap water, allowing even the likes of Perrier and
Volvic to contain relatively high levels of poisons such as arsenic and
phthalates. Some bottled waters have also been found to be contaminated
by bacteria.
Another issue is the water containers themselves. Most bottled water is
stored in plastic, now known to leach a variety of hazardous chemicals into
its contents, especially the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A.

AIDS sufferers. Although water

authorities try to shift the blame
onto
poor
chlorine
plant
maintenance, the problem may well
be intractable: fatal outbreaks have
occurred in the US despite state-ofthe-art equipment and water quality
that is better than required by the
current federal standards (Ann Intern
Med, 1996; 124: 45968).
Another major downside of
chlorination is that it can react with
organic matter in the water and
form chlorine-related disinfection
byproducts,
especially
trihalomethanes (THMs). These are
present in most drinking water,
but at such low concentrations
that the water authorities initially
dismissed them as harmless.
However, this complacency has
been comprehensively undermined
by a slew of epidemiological studies
over the last 20 years. First, theres
cancer. A Canadian study found that
THMs in water double the risk of
colorectal cancer in men dosedependently: the more THMs, the
more cancer cases (Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev, 2000; 9: 8138 ). US
studies found a doubling of pancreatic cancer (Am J Epidemiol, 1992;
136: 83642) and a slight increase in
brain cancer (Am J Epidemiol, 1999; 150:
55260). The strongest link is with
bladder cancer, showing a 50-percent extra risk even with THM levels
as low as 50 parts per billion30
ppb below the US permitted level of
80 ppb (Epidemiology, 2004; 15: 35767).
As a result, the US National
Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences estimates that chlorinated
drinking water could account for
5000 cases of bladder cancer and
8000 cases of rectal cancer per
year in the US alone ( Environ Health

Perspect, 1995; 103 [Suppl 8]: 22531).

For
those who may doubt the evidence,
theres also compelling test-tube
data showing clear damage to DNA,
with
consequent
mutagenic
and/or carcinogenic . . . hazards for
human health (Mutat Res, 2002; 513:
1517).
THMs can also be injurious at the
other end of lifein the womb. One
US study of more than 5000
pregnant women found that the
rate of miscarriages was almost
doubled among mothers who drank
tap water containing more than 75
ppb of THMs (Epidemiology, 1998; 9:
13440). This suggests that THMs
can cross the placental barrier and
interfere with fetal development in
generaland evidence is mounting
that this is indeed the case. In
Norway, a five-year analysis of over
285,000 births showed a small but
significant increase in birth defects
in areas with moderate-to-high
levels of chlorine byproducts in the
water supply (Am J Epidemiol, 2002; 156:
37482). In the more highly chlorinated New Jersey, in areas with
THMs higher than the regulation 80
ppb, a three-year study of more
than 80,000 births revealed very
low birth weight . . . central
nervous system defects, neural tube
defects, and oral cleft defects . . .
and major cardiac defects ( Am J
Epidemiol, 1995; 141: 85062).
Chlorine byproducts, present in
our drinking water at vanishingly
low levels, are now known to cause
cancer and birth defects, problems
that have taken years to show up. It
may also be only a matter of time
before the supposedly safe levels of
drugs in our drinking water prove to
be equally hazardous.
Tony Edwards

Tapping in to pure water

Water chlorination has been hailed as one of the most important public-health achievements in modern
history, but recent evidence links it to birth defects, cancer and more.

hlorine has been used as a

disinfectant in drinking
water supplies for the past
100 years. Yet, according to a
new study, it may be causing serious
harm to unborn babies.
The culprit is not the chlorine per se,
but the byproducts that are formed
when the disinfectant comes into
contact with organic matter in water.
These chemical byproducts are known
as trihalomethanes, or THMs.
By looking at the birth records of
nearly 400,000 babies born in Taiwan,
researchers found that prenatal exposure to these byproducts via tap water
may increase the risk of having a child
with major congenital defects.
Analyses revealed that pregnant
women exposed to high levels of these
chemical byproducts nearly doubled
their risk of having children with
specific abnormalities such as ventricular septal defect (hole in the heart)
and anencephalus (where major portions of the brain, skull and scalp are
missing). The risk of cleft palate was
also substantially increased compared
with the control population (Environ
Health, 2008; 7: 23).
These findings should cause alarm in
pregnant women, who are exposed to
THMs by drinking tap water, showering,
bathing or swimming. Yet, the UKs
NHS
Knowledge
Service
(see
www.nhs.uk/news/) says the evidence is
not robust enough to conclude that
THMs affect the risk of any type of birth
defect, and should not cause women to
be concerned about drinking water.
Sir Muir Gray, chief knowledge officer of
the NHS, added: We need to see more
studies in different countries before
stopping adding chlorine to water.
But this is not the only study to find
a link between chlorinated water and
birth defects, and Taiwan is not the only
country to find adverse effects.

Cause for concern

Consistent with this latest report, a
large-scale study in England and Wales
also found a link between THMs in the
water supply and ventricular septal
defects. Women in the high-exposure
categories had a 43-per-cent increased

systems (Occup

Environ Med, 2000; 57:

7385).

Cancer and more

risk of having a child with this heart

abnormality compared with the reference population (Environ Health Perspect,
2008; 116: 21622).
Similarly, a Norwegian crosssectional study reported a significant
increase in heart defects in areas with
moderate-to-high levels of chlorine
byproducts in the water supply. It also
found a greater risk for defects of the
respiratory system and urinary tract
(Am J Epidemiol, 2002; 156: 37482).
In the highly chlorinated state of
New Jerseyspecifically, where THM
levels are higher than the regulation 80
parts per billion (ppb)a three-year
study by the US Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, based
in Atlanta, GA, found very low birth
weights, oral cleft defects, defects of the
central nervous system and neural tube,
and major cardiac defects due to THMs.
Other chemicals in tap water such as
dichloroethane,
and
triand
tetrachloroethylenes, also led to higher
risks of central nervous system and
heart defects (Am J Epidemiol, 1995; 141:
85062).
Yet another study found a link
between chlorinated water and
miscarriage (spontaneous abortion).
California Department of Health
Services researchers discovered that the
rate of miscarriage was almost doubled
among mothers who drank tap water
containing more than 75 ppb of THMs
(Epidemiology, 1998; 9: 13440).
In animals, these compounds are
known to be developmental and reproductive toxicants (Environ Health, 2008; 7:
23). THMs at high doses have led to
reduced fetal body weight and survival
rates, growth retardation, pregnancy
loss and sperm abnormalities. In addition, other chlorination byproducts
have caused congenital abnormalities of
the cardiovascular and neurological

So, while evidence that chlorination

byproducts can harm the fetus grows,
there is also reason to suspect that
these chemicals can contribute to
cancer. A three-year study in Spain
revealed that people living in
households with high levels of THMs
had a twofold higher risk of bladder
cancer. In addition, it was noted that
exposure occurred not only through
drinking tap water, but also through
inhalation and skin absorption while
taking a bath, showering or swimming
in pools, which also substantially
increased the risk of bladder cancer (Am
J Epidemiol, 2007; 165: 14856).
Other studies show an elevated
bladder cancer risk even with THM
levels as low as 50 ppb30 ppb below
the US permitted level (Cancer Causes
Control, 1996; 7: 596604; Epidemiology, 2004;
15: 35767). As a result, the US National
Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences estimates that chlorinated
drinking water may be responsible for
5000 cases of bladder cancer each year
in the US alone (Environ Health Perspect,
1995; 103 [Suppl 8]: 22531).
The study also found that chlorinated tap water accounted for 8000
cases of rectal cancer per year in the
US. Its also been linked to cancers of
the brain (Am J Epidemiol, 1999; 150: 552
60), pancreas (Am J Epidemiol, 1992; 136:
83642), colon (in men only) (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2000; 9: 8138), and
skin (Melanoma Res, 1994; 4: 2816).
Thus, it appears that THMsand
possibly other chlorination byproducts
as wellare potent carcinogens.
But the health hazards dont end
there. Several studies suggest that the
use of chlorine in indoor and outdoor
swimming pools can promote asthma,
especially in young children, probably
because chlorination byproducts such
as THMs are so readily inhaled (Environ
Health Perspect, 2006; 114: 156773). In fact,
asthma prevalence among adolescents
significantly increased in parallel with
the lifetime number of hours spent in
chlorinated pools, with keen swimmers

WDDTY Safe Living 51

Water worries

DIY solutions for toxic tap water

In 2004, WDDTYs sister service PROOF! reviewed nine
water filtering and treatment methods, and rated them
according to function, simplicity and cost. Heres a
selection that are still available (** = fair, *** = good,
**** = very good, ***** = excellent).
GS2 Gravity Water Purifier
Distributor: Fresh Water Filter Co Ltd,
www.freshwaterfilter.com; tel: 020 8558 7495
Price: 103.63
Rating: *****
Large but portable, this countertop filter system
produces 9 L of water using two six-stage filter
cartridgeswith a 0.5-micron membraneresulting in
serious filter power that removes all heavy metals,
pesticides, chlorine, disinfection byproducts (DPBs),
Cryptosporidium (a stubborn parasite), phenols and
solvents, yet retains beneficial trace minerals and
fluoride (although theres an extra filter for removing
fluoride if desired). It takes 1 hour to filter 1 L of water.
Pozzani IX 600
Manufacturer: Pozzani Pure Water plc,
www.pozzani.co.uk; tel: 01507 608 100
Price: 70.00
Rating: ****
Pozzani is a British company thats been making water
filters for over 70 years. This version is among the leastexpensive plumbed-in systems on the market, and is a
relatively simple DIY job to install. The filtration system is
a single cartridge, comprising a membrane, an activated
carbon plus ion-exchange resin and a carbon block. It
gets rid of up to 95 per cent of most heavy metals (lead,
aluminium, iron, copper and cadmium), 90 per cent of
organic material (such as pesticides and DBPs) and
almost all chlorine.
Its advantage over countertop systems (and reverse
osmosis) is that it produces a constant flow of water
(about 3 L/min). However, to allow such good waterflow,
the membrane has relatively large (5-micron) holes,

being up to eight times more likely to

suffer from the condition (Eur Respir J,
2008; 32: 97988).
One Belgian study concluded that
the increasing exposure of children to
chlorination products in indoor pools
might be an important cause of the
rising incidence of childhood asthma
and allergic diseases in industrialized
countries (Occup Environ Med, 2003; 60:
38594).

Alternatives to chlorine
Because of the health risks associated

52 WDDTY Safe Living

which may not remove all cryptosporidia. (If this poses a

problem, Pozzanis IX 250 does a more thorough job.)
4-Stage Reverse Osmosis
Distributor: H2Onics
www.h2onics.co.uk; tel: 0800 298 5031
Price: 249.39
Rating: ***
This system claims to remove up to 98 per cent of all
contaminantsby which they mean the usual culprits,
including bacteria. This also includes fluoride, but it
takes out all trace elements, too. This DIY under-the-sink
installation, like all reverse-osmosis (RO) kits, needs
more space than other filtration systems and requires a
separate storage tank. With a 9-L capacity, it was the
best value RO kit in the survey.
Freshwater Pur-Wa Water Distiller
Manufacturer: The Freshwater Filter Company
www.freshwaterfilter.com; tel: 020 8558 7495
Price: 246.75
Rating: **
If you want 100-per-cent guaranteed contaminant-free
water, this is for you. This product, which has a 4-L tank
capacity, offers nothing but distilled water, made in the
time-honoured way of condensing steam and passing it
through a final carbon filter to improve the taste.
You simply pour your tap water into the device, which
boils it and turns the steam into water. The result is no
pesticides, no DBPs, no nitrates, no bacteria, no viruses,
no minerals, no oxygennothing but chemically pure
H20 and, some would say, no taste.
If youre prepared to put up with that, you probably
wont mind having to wait the hour and a half to get just
1 L of water at a time.
This may appeal to very sick people who have compromised immune systems but, even then, it may have
negative health consequences as the slightly acidic
water leads to an unhealthy acidic body state.

with chlorination byproducts, particularly THMs, a number of water

authorities are phasing out so-called
free chlorine and replacing it with
supposedly safer chlorineammonia
or chlorineozone substitutes.
However, scientists have discovered
that the use of these substitutes can
lead to the formation of a new
generation of byproducts that may be
even more toxic than those from
chlorine alone (Environ Sci Technol, 2004; 38:
471322; Environ Sci Technol, 2006; 40:
717585).

Tony Edwards

Indeed, according to one study, All

of the potential alternatives may cause
some adverse health effects (Sci Total
Environ, 1981; 18: 23543).
So, how do we protect ourselves? As
bottled water isnt necessarily safer (see
pages 57-8), the only option left is to
install your own water-purification
system, such as a reverse-osmosis water
purifier (a plumbed-in system) or
carbon-block filters (see box above).
Some modern filters can even remove
the chlorine from your shower.
Joanna Evans

Poisoning the wells

Perchlorate, a rocket-fuel chemical recently found to be widespread in
Americas drinking water and food supply, was first discovered to affect
the thyroid 50 years ago. Now, the latest research shows that the
chemical is harmful at alarmingly low levels.

million
women
risk
developing thyroid problems
and, their babies, a variety of
birth defects, due to a
rocket-fuel agent that has leached
into Americas drinking water and
food supply, according to a report
from the research and public
watchdog Environmental Working
Group (EWG), based in Washington,
DC.
The chemical agent, known as
perchlorate, has been leaking from
12,000 military bases across the US
for years, contaminating the water in
at least 22 states. Not only is drinking
water affected, but also the food
supply, as agricultural and dairy farms
located near the bases are shipping
contaminated produce across the
nation. Indeed, a Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) survey found
that 93 per cent of all lettuce and
milk sold in the US is contaminated
with perchlorate (www.cfsan.fda.gov/
~dms/clo4data.html).
The main target of this toxic
chemical is the thyroid. The EWGs
study, which analyzed new data from
the US Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), found that, among women
who are deficient in iodine, exposure
to perchlorate at even low levels could
lower thyroid hormone to the extent
of requiring medical treatment
during
pregnancy
to
avoid
developmental damage to their
babies.
Low thyroid-hormone levels, or
sub-clinical hypothyroidism, can
result in IQ deficit, developmental
delay and, in severe cases, cretinism
in the unborn infant. Since, according
to the CDC data, 36 per cent of all
American women are iodine-deficient,
this means that more than one-third
of women are at a heightened risk of
perchlorate-related health effects.
The not-for-profit watchdog group
translated the amount of perchlorate
identified in the CDC study as potentially harmful as 5 ppb (parts per
billion)almost five times lower than
the 24.5 ppb standard for cleanup of

perchlorate-contaminated waste sites

adopted by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
This means that the safety
standards under consideration in
California and New Jersey6 ppb and
5 ppb, respectivelywould also fail to
protect women of childbearing age
who dont get enough iodine in their
diet. Even the more stringent
drinking-water standard already
adopted by Massachusetts2 ppb
cannot be considered safe as it would
push some borderline hypothyroid
women into the range of mild
hypothyroidism, says the EWG.
The bottom line is that millions of
women across the country will be at
an increased health risk from the
toxic effects of the chemical.
Yet, to date, there is still
no national, enforceable standard for
perchlorate in drinking water.
And its not just pregnant women
and fetuses who are likely to be affected. In a separate CDC study, researchers tested more than 2800 urine
samples around the country: perchlorate was present in every single case.
Whats more, they discovered that
children aged six to 11 had an average
of 1.6 times more perchlorate in their
urine than adults (J Expo Sci Environ
Epidemiol, 2006 Oct 18; epub ahead of print).
According to the EWG, although the
study did not look at children under
six, it raises concerns that infants and
younger children may also be exposed
to greatly elevated levels of perchlorate. This is especially true, it

points out, since infants and young

children have much higher intakes of
drinking water in proportion to their
body weightand the fact that the
perchlorate has been detected in
human breast milk at moderate to
high levels (see box below).
As infants and children have higher
iodine requirements than either
adults or even pregnant women, it
follows that they will be more likely to
suffer
from
perchlorate-related
changes in thyroid-hormone levels.
Even more worrying, recent research
shows that infants can suffer
permanent neurological damage from
just short-term thyroid-hormone
insufficiency (Ann NY Acad Sci, 2006; 1076:
16890).
Other population groupsthose
who already have an underfunctioning
thyroid, or are smokers (smoking can
interfere with the thyroids ability to
utilize iodine) and/or are elderly
may also be more prone to the
adverse effects of perchlorate. Indeed,
a report from the National Academy
of Sciences noted that for pregnant
women, infants, and children, and
people who have low iodine intake or

Rocket fuel in breast milk

Not only has perchlorate contaminated the water and food supply in America,
it has also been found in breast milk. In a study published in 2005, researchers
from Texas Tech University found perchlorate in the breast milk of every single
woman tested. They also found the chemical in all but one of the dairy milk
samples testedbut the average concentration of perchlorate in breast milk
was five times higher than in the dairy milk.
The researchers measured 47 dairy samples from 11 states and 36 human
breast-milk samples from 18 states. The average level in breast milk was 10.5
mcg/L (or parts per billion), with some samples having a concentration of
perchlorate as high as 92 mcg/L (Environ Sci Technol, 2005; 39: 20117).

WDDTY Safe Living 53

Water worries
pre-existing thyroid dysfunction, the
dose [of perchlorate] required to
cause a decrease in thyroid hormone
production may be lower [than for
non-pregnant adults] (Committee to

What to do
!

Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate

Ingestion, National Research Council. Health
Implications

of

Perchlorate

Ingestion.

Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press, 2005).

Safety in numbers?
Is there such a thing as a safe level of
this chemical? So far, this question
remains under debateand reveals
an enormous amount of political
backroom manoeuvring. The EWG
proposes
that
drinking-water
standards for perchlorate should be
set as low as possibleno more than
1 ppb. This amounts to roughly one
drop of the chemical in an Olympicsize swimming pool. This is the same
level proposed by the EPA back in
2002, in a draft assessment of
perchlorate toxicity (EPA. Perchlorate
Environmental Contamination: Toxicological
Review and Risk Characterization. 2002;
available

at

http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=24002).

However, the US Department of

Defense (DOD) and its contractors
with the help of the Bush administrationwrestled the assessment away
from the EPA, much to the Agencys
surprise, and handed it over to the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
in 2003. Subsequently, the EPA
deleted from its website the
statement that 1 ppb is the draft safe
level for perchlorate and, in 2005,
adopted the NAS recommendations
insteada level more than 20-fold
greaterwith no public comment or
review.
In 2003 and 2004, The Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a
US environmental action group, sent
more than a dozen Freedom of Information Act requests to the EPA, DOD
and the White House, asking for
information on the extent of the
national perchlorate contamination,
its toxic effects and the agencies
activities regarding the chemical.
Eventually, after a number
of lawsuits, the NRDC finally
gained access to a number of
important documents that they say

54 WDDTY Safe Living

UK residents
Although perchlorate contamination doesnt appear to be a problem in the
UK, one area of concern is citrus fruits imported from America. Citrus fruits
are often leaf-fertilized with Chilean saltpeter spray, known to contain 0.10.4
per cent perchlorate. Such products, grown from California to Florida,
supply the entire USand also the UK. So, it would be wise to be wary of
your orange juice. Also, look out for other imported foodstuffs from the US.
US residents
To find out if the water supply in your state is affected, visit the EPA website
(www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/perchlorate_map/nationalmap.htm).
Bottled water may also be contaminated, so install a water filtration unit in
your home that uses reverse osmosis. See pages 49, 52 and 58 for more
advice on water filtration.
Go organic wherever possible when buying fresh produce.

indicate that the NAS panels

recommendation was likely shaped
by
a
covert
campaign
by the White House, the Pentagon and
defense contractors to twist the
science and strong-arm the academy.
Nevertheless, the government is
still withholding thousands of
records, including virtually all of the
key papers documenting White House
and Pentagon efforts to influence the
NAS. In fact, the government was
required by the court to submit a
Vaughn Index, a list describing each
of the withheld documents. The
NRDC says that this single-spaced list
is more that 1500 pages long, an
unparalleled volume of recordwithholding in the organizations
decades of experience with the
Freedom of Information Act.
Another environmental group
Environment Californiaalso alleges
that
the
defence
industry
manipulated the NAS panel as it
prepared to set risk levels for
perchlorate.
In a report released in December
2006 called The Politics of Rocket Fuel
Pollution, Environment California
investigated the activities of the
Perchlorate Study Group (PSG), an
industry-backed group responsible for
much of the research into the health
effects of perchlorate exposure. They
reported that the PSG worked to
pressure the NAS to downplay the
risks of rocket fuel pollution. The
PSG includes manufacturers and
users of perchlorate such as Aerojet,
Lockheed Martin and Trontox

(www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/cleanwater/clean-water-program-reports/the-politicsof-rocket-fuel-pollution).

Moreover, Environment California

alleges that the group also worked to
influence professional organizations
of physicians and researchers
specializing in thyroid diseases such
as the American Thyroid Association
(ATA).
PSG consultants issued statements
through the ATA that were favourable
to the defence industry, and
presented industry research at ATA
events, according to Environment
California.
Indeed, in a statement on the ATAs
website responding to the latest
findings of the CDC, which show that
even low levels of perchlorate can be
harmful to millions of women and
their babies, the association appeared
to significantly downplay the
implications for public health, noting
that several features of the study
may limit the immediate application
to guidelines for perchlorate exposure
standards(www.thyroid.org/professionals/p
ublications/statements/06_12_13_perchlorate.h
tml).

While the American governments

agencies continue their campaign of
damage limitation, millions of
people across the country and, in
fact, the world (through food that is
imported from the US) could be at
risk of poisoning themselvesand
the following generationswith
every meal or sip of water that is
consumed.
Joanna Evans

Fluoride and bone cancer

The latest shocking evidencewhich waited five years before a
scientific journal would publish itshows that boys under 20 who drink
fluoridated water increase their risk of developing osteosarcoma, a rare
form of bone cancer, by five times.

illions of boys aross

America are at a vastly
increased
risk
of
developing bone cancer
from fluoride, according to alarming
new research. The recently published
study (Cancer Causes Control, 2006; 17:
4218) found that boys who drink
water containing levels of fluoride
considered safe by federal guidelines
are
five
times
more
likely
to develop osteosarcoma, a rare form
of bone cancer, than boys who drink
unfluoridated water.
Osteosarcoma is the most
common type of bone cancer, and
the sixth most common type of
cancer in children. Osteosarcoma
usually develops from osteoblasts
the cells that make growing bone
and, therefore, most commonly
affects teens, especially boys who are
experiencing a growth spurt. The
rate of death within the first five
years of developing the cancer is
about 50 per cent, and nearly all
survivors have limbs amputated,
usually the legs.
Research shows that teens who are
taller than average or who have
received radiation treatment have an
increased risk for osteosarcoma.
Now, according to new evidence from
Harvard University, exposure to
fluoride during the mid-childhood
growth spurt (ages six to eight) is
another important risk factor. Most
worrying is the fact that a link
between fluoride and bone cancer
was seen at fluoride levels commonly
found in both American and British
communities.
Dr Elise Bassin, who led the study,
found that drinking-water systems
with fluoride levels that were 30 to
99 per cent of that recommended by
the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC)0.71.2 ppm
raised the bone-cancer risk for boys
exposed at ages five to 10, with a
fivefold higher risk in those exposed
at age seven. When boys drank water
containing at least 100 per cent of
the recommended fluoride level,

their risk jumped to more than seven

times that of unexposed boys.
Currently, about 10 per cent of
the population in the UKsix
million people, mainly in the
Midlands and North Eastreceive
fluoridated water. In the US, around
170 million Americans live in areas
with
fluoridated
water.
The
implications of these latest findings
are massive.
The study appears to back up what
most of us already know: that
fluoride is bad for you. In fact, the
evidence comes on the heels of a US
National Research Council (NRC)
report that found that the official
safe limits for fluoride in tap water
increases the risk of dental fluorosis,
a mottling and discoloration of tooth
enamel that, in its more severe form,
can also cause cavities.
People who drink fluoridated
water at or above the amount
considered safe by the US
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)4 mg/Lalso have an
increased risk of bone fracture,
according to the report. The NRC
recommends that the allowable limit
for fluoride in tap water be lowered
immediately (Report in Brief. Fluoride in

Drinking Water. The National Academy of

Sciences, March 2006).

Significantly, the NRC acknowledged severe dental fluorosis for the

first time as an adverse health
effect, contradicting the position of
the EPA, which has always regarded
the condition to be only of
cosmetic concern.
The turnaround was a wake-up call
for the American Dental Association
(ADA), which has been the nations
leading fluoride advocate for over 50
years. In a recent position paper, the
ADA issued an alert warning parents
against preparing baby foods with
fluoridated water as it may be bad

Fluoride: other toxic effects

!

Lowered IQ. Studies from China show that an excessive intake of fluoride
can accumulate in the brain, permanently affecting a childs intelligence
(Lancet, 2006; 368: 216778).
Thyroid problems. According to the US National Research Council (NRC),
fluoride is an endocrine disrupter: the fluoride dose (0.010.03 mg/kg/day)
from fluoridated water can reduce thyroid function among people with a low
iodine intake (NRC. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006: 17388).
Bone fracture. The NRC also reports that fluoride can weaken bones,
increasing the risk of fractures, at levels as low as 1.5 ppm (parts per
million).
Stomach and bowel disorders. Even small amounts of fluoride can form
hydrofluoric acid in the stomach, leading to stomach pain, nausea and
vomiting. Young children are particularly at risk (Fluoride, 1977; 10: 14951).
Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).
Although few researchers have looked at fluoride in ME/CFS, there are
obvious similarities between key features of the condition and those of
early-stage fluoride poisoning (see WDDTY vol 9 no 12).

WDDTY Safe Living 55

Water worries
for the development of babies teeth.
Fluoride can cause fluorosis, the ADA
announced.
Nevertheless, the ADA still maintains that adding fluoride to the
water supply is a safe and effective
way to prevent tooth decay. It even
supports the US Food and Drug
Administrations recent decision to
allow bottled-water manufacturers to
claim that fluoridated water may
reduce the risk of dental cavities or
tooth decay.
Whether you drink fluoridated
water from the tap or buy it in a
bottle, youre doing the right thing
for your oral health, says ADA
executive
director
James
B.
Bramson, DDS. Thanks to the FDAs
decision, bottlers can now claim
what dentists have long knownthat
optimally fluoridated water helps
prevent tooth decay.
In response to the NRC report,
the ADA points out that the EPAs
maximum contaminant limit (MCL)
for fluoride of 4 ppm (parts per
million) is nearly four times higher
than the amount recommended by
the US Public Health Service (PHS),
the CDC, and the ADA for preventing
tooth decay Nothing in this report
calls into question the optimal levels
of 0.71.2 parts per million in community water systems, states the
ADA.
However, the new research linking
fluoride with bone cancer shows that
even those lower levelsused in both
the US and Britainare putting
millions of people at risk.
What does the ADA say? Not
surprisingly, the organization continues to maintain that adding fluoride
to community water systems is a
safe, effective public health
measure for preventing tooth
decay.
In a news release to reaffirm their
position in April 2006, the ADA
stated that the data in Bassins paper
is simply one piece of a much more
comprehensive 15-year study by the
Harvard School of Dental Medicine
scheduled for publication later this
summer. The principal investigator
of the larger Harvard study has
advised against drawing conclusions
before seeing the full study, which

56 WDDTY Safe Living

will not suggest an overall

association between fluoride and
osteosarcoma, he states. Further, an
association found in one, limited
study falls far below any scientific
standard needed to establish a causeand-effect relationship.
However, since this statement was
made, an investigation has been
launched into the conduct of the
principal investigator Dr Chester
Douglass, whose conclusions have
been called into question by the wellrespected non-profit Environmental
Working Group (EWG). Douglass was
Bassins research advisor at Harvard
and, at the same time, part of a large
government-funded study investigating fluoridated drinking water and
bone cancer. As the ADA claims,
Douglass research suggests no link
between fluoride and bone cancer.
Yet, when reporting his results to the
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS), Douglass
cited Bassins study, completed in
2001 as her doctoral thesis, to
support this conclusion.
In response, the EWG charged
Douglass, in a letter addressed to
Ms Janice Strother, the NIEHS
Ethics Coordinator, with allegedly
misrepresenting his students
findings, since Bassins findings
clearly contradicted his. What
makes this inconsistency more
curious, says the EWG, is that Dr
Douglass personally signed off on Dr
Bassins research.
As the EWG points out, Douglass
has been on the payroll of Colgate,
the toothpaste giant, as editor of its
professional newsletter, Oral Care
Report, for over a decade.
Also, although Bassin completed
her work in 2001, it took a full five
years for it to be published, raising
speculation regarding suppression of
evidence within the establishment.
In the end, Douglass has been
cleared of all of the EWGs charges
by a special Harvard panel, which
conducted its own investigation.
Nevertheless, the panel has kept its
findings strictly confidential.

Forging the fluoride link

Ultimately, whatever Douglass
position, the real issue is the

findings themselves. Although the

ADA is quick to dismiss them,
Bassins work, according to the
EWG, is the most rigorous study of
the link between bone cancer and
fluoride in tap water ever conducted
in the United States.
Her findings were based on the
data that Douglass had compiled
from US hospitals in the early 1990s.
However, she refined the analyses by
limiting cases to exposed individuals
under age 20 for a more detailed
assessment of fluoride exposure and
age-specific effects. While several
epi-demiology studies failed to find a
link
between
fluoride
and
osteosarcoma in boys, these studies
typically did not look for a
relationship between age of exposure
to fluoride and the incidence of bone
cancer in young males, says the
EWG.
In fact, Bassins conclusions are
supported by epidemiological studies
by the US PHS (Hoover RN et al. Time
trends for bone and joint cancers and
osteosarcomas
Epidemiology

in
and

the
End

Surveillance,
Results

(SEER)

Program, National Cancer Institute, in Review

of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad
Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee
to Coordinate Environmental Health and
Related Programs. US PHS, 1991: F1F7) and

the New Jersey Department of Health

(NJDH), which also found increased
rates of bone cancer in boys who
drank fluoridated tap water (Cohn PD.
A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking
Water Fluoridation and the Incidence of
Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. NJDH
Environ Health Service, 1992: 117).

The link between fluoride and

osteosarcoma during periods of rapid
growth is highly plausible. Fluoride
is known to stimulate osteoblasts
where the cancer occursduring
periods of rapid skeletal growth (Clin
Orthop Relat Res, 1991; 267: 26477).
Fluoride is also a confirmed
mutagen so it could cause genetic
damage in bone cells where it is
actively deposited (Fluoride, 2000; 33:
1548).
Based on this powerful evidence,
the EWG urges that fluoride in tap
water be declared a knownor, at
least, a probablecause of cancer.
Joanna Evans

Bottled water everywhere

We all know that drinking water is essential for optimum health.
However, when that water comes from a bottle, it may be doing us
more harm than good.

verywhere you go these days,

youll see people obsessively
clutching and sipping bottles
of water. Its all so chic.
Across the globe, bottled-water bars
have sprung up, even supplanting
liquor bars in trendier places. Some
hotels now have water sommeliers to
advise diners on which water to drink
with different courses.
Bottled water is a huge growth
industrythe biggest in the drinks
marketwith over 84 billion litres
sold worldwide each year. Although
dirt-cheap to produce, the retail price
of bottled water is as much as petrol,
three times higher than milk and
10,000 times higher than tap water.
The reasons we are prepared to pay
such a premium for water in a bottle
include portability and taste, but
mainly health. Surveys show that most
of us believe that so-called mineral
waters are better for us than tap
watera claim for which there
appears to be no hard evidence. For
example, a recent World Health
Organization
(WHO)
survey
concluded that bottled waters have no
greater nutritional value than tap
Fact
Sheet
water
(WHO
No 256, October 2000).
Yet, for people with immune
disorders or chemical sensitivity,
bottled water is often recommended
by alternative practitioners. As tap
water is routinely contaminated by
aluminium, chlorine, nitrates, pesticides and fluoride, bottled water is
thought to be a safe alternative.
But is it? The first rumblings in the
industry arose in 1990, when US toxicologists discovered traces of benzene
in Perrier, the up-market king of
mineral waters. The contamination
was traced to a faulty gas filter; Perrier
recalled over 100 million bottles and
declared the problem fixed.
But the myth of purity had been
shattered. Suspicions aroused, US
researchers soon began an in-depth
investigation of the entire bottledwater industry. First, they found out
where mineral waters actually came
from, and claimed that a staggering

40 per cent of US-bottled waters are

sourced from . . . er . . . tap water.
Even more suspect were the waters
genuinely extracted from the ground.
One brand of spring water, the label
of which displayed a picture of mountains and a lake, took its water from
a well in the car park of a disused
industrial chemical plant, according
to Erik Olson, who headed a team of
researchers for the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC).
In 1999, the NRDC presented its
voluminous report on the entire American bottled-water industry. Overall,
they found that roughly 35 of 103
brands were well-nigh illegalmany
had bacterial overgrowth, while
others contained high levels of
arsenic, chloroform, trihalomethanes
or fluoride. Even some of the top
French brands didnt escape censure.
For example, Vittel and Volvic were
found to have levels of arsenic (13
parts per billion; ppb) that are not
permitted in tap water (maximum
limit is 5 ppb). Perrier, too, had 12 ppb
of phthalates compared with the
permitted tap-water maximum of 6
ppb.

Poisonous plastics
But where were these poisons coming
from? Arsenic is understandable, as
its a natural constituent of certain
soils, but what about phthalates?
Phthalates are a group of chemical
compounds that are mainly added to
plastics to make them more flexible.
And thats the clueplastic.
Researchers are now beginning to
realize that one of the biggest causes
of contamination in bottled water may
be from its container. As more and
more manufacturers are using plastic
rather than glass bottles, concern has
grown that the plastic may be leaching
toxic chemicals into the waterlike a
slow-release teabag. Measurable quantities of whats found in plastic have
been detected in the water, with
potential health consequences.
Phthalates, for example, mimick
estrogenand the body reacts accordingly. Tests on male rats showed that

phthalates can damage the genitals,

liver, kidneys and lungs, and these
findings have now been confirmed in
humans. In two studies of baby boys,
researchers have found relatively high
concentrations of phthalates in their
urineprobably from exposure to
plastic toys. Although the amounts of
phthalates were small, the boys
showed
clear
evidence
of
feminization and abnormal gonadal
development (Environ Health Perspect,
2005; 113: 92633; Environ Health Perspect,
2006; 114: 8059).

Says US environmental health

lawyer Erik Olson, Some bottlers
and members of the plastics
manufacturing industry are vigorously
opposed to a phthalate standard,
arguing that it would cause some
bottled water to be in violation after
storage for long periods.
So, ironically, although there are
strict limits put on phthalates in tap
water, there are none in bottled water.
The root of the problem appears
to be storage time. Because the water
inside the bottles is (by and large) free
of bacteria, the permitted shelf-life of
bottled water is far longer than for
most other foodstuffsup to two
years.
Professor William Shotyk, of
Heidelberg University in Germany, has
found that the antimony content of
bottled water roughly doubles every
three months (J Environ Monit, 2006; 8:
28892). In rats, antimony damages the

WDDTY Safe Living 57

Water worries
liver, spleen and thyroid. Although
this occurs at far higher levels than
those found in bottled water,
Professor Shotyk is nevertheless still
worried: The water in [plastic
bottles] is contaminated, he says.
The most concern has recently
centred on bisphenol-A (BPA), a major
ingredient of so-called polycarbonate
plastics, widely used to store foods
and liquids, including water. As a
result, almost every one of us (in the
developed world) has BPA in our body.
Like phthalates, BPA is an estrogenmimic that was generally considered
to be weak and therefore safe.
However, scientists at the prestigious Tufts University in Boston have
reported that BPA could disrupt hormones in pregnant rats even at doses
previously considered safe (Environ
Health Perspect, 2001; 109: 67580). Indeed,
extremely low levels of BPA caused
usually
uncommon
genetic
abnormalities in mice called
aneuploidy
(variations
in
chromosome numbers). A dose of a
mere 20 ppb of BPA in the animals
water was enough to produce these
startling effectsand all within a
week (Curr Biol, 2003; 13: 54653).
Pharmacologists at the University
of Cincinnati confirmed and amplified
these results, finding that very low
concentrations of BPA can disrupt
neural development in baby rats in
the womb. They warned that BPA is
highly potent, with a potential lowdose impact on the developing brain
(Endocrinology, 2005; 146: 538896). Only
time will tell if these effects also apply
to humans.
Predictably, the plastics industry
has responded by claiming that BPA is
safe at typical levels of human
exposure, citing 11 studies that found
no such risk.
However, Dr Frederick vom Saal,
from the University of Missouri, and
Dr Claude Hughes, from East Carolina
University in North Carolina, scoured
the scientific literature and found
over 90 studies showing possible risks
at BPA doses below the official
guideline limits. They also observed
that most of the research that found
fault with BPA was independent,
whereas the 11 studies giving BPA a
clean bill of health had mostly been

58 WDDTY Safe Living

funded by the plastics industry (Environ

Health Perspect, 2005; 113: 92633).
In fact, in 31 animal studies, significant effects have been found below
the supposed safe or reference dose
of 50 mcg/kg/day and, in the lab,
estrogen-type cell disruption has been
seen with infinitesimal doses of less
than half a part of BPA per trillion
parts of water.
Even more alarming is the
discovery by doctors at Tokyo
University that, because BPA is so
widespread, it can even be detected
in the blood of human fetuses in the
womband at levels higher than
those known to cause adverse
effects in mice (Hum Reprod, 2002; 17:
283941).

What to do
So, if you want to drink bottled
water, choose those in glass, rather
than plastic, containers, especially if
youre pregnant, have environmental
sensitivities or are already ill. Water
bottled in plastic can no longer be
trusted to be healthy. And remember,
this applies as much to office watercoolers as it does to the half-pint
hand-held varieties.
But these days, very little water is
bottled in anything other than
plastic, although one bottled-water
company is bucking the trenda
small British-based enterprise called
Belu Water. Founded only last year,
it began by bottling only in glass.
But even glass is not eco-friendly
enough for CEO Reed Paget, so hes
developed a totally biodegradable
bottle made from corn starch. He
primarily wants to decrease
pollution rather than promote
health, but it turns out that Belu
bottles leach only minute quantities
of harmless lactic acid. Belu Water
is available from Waitrose.
But for those who havent access
to Belu, whats the alternative?
There can be only one: tap water.
Although water-supply companies dont often trumpet this, the
fact is that tap water has a number
of advantages over bottled water.
First, it is extremely cheap: if you
receive your water via a meter, the
price is about 0.0085 p/L. Second,
the regulations for water purity are

even stricter for tap water than for

bottled, so the chances are that the
water is bacteriologically cleaner
from your tap than from your
supermarket. And, of course, taps
are often more convenient than
bottles.
Nevertheless, the problems with
tap water are legion. Apart from the
unpleasant taste (particularly of city
water), there are chemical and
mineral contaminants. So how can
these be removed?
The simplest and cheapest
method is to use a filtered jug. Most
jug filters are made of two
components: one contains carbon
particles that absorb the nasty
chemicals, and another filter made of
a resin that binds to the ions in
minerals and removes them. The
trouble is theyre not 100-per-cent
effective. According to Brita, the
leading filtered-jug manufacturer,
the filters only remove 85 per cent of
chlorine, 70 per cent of pesticides
and none of the fluoride or nitrates
at all.
Then, there are plumbed-in filters
that are installed beneath the
kitchen sink, with their own outlet
tap at sink level. A typical one is
made by Pozzani in Lincolnshire. The
kit is surprisingly inexpensive,
costing about 60. It is claimed to
remove up to 99 per cent
of bacteria, and up to 95 per cent of
chlorine,
heavy
metals
and
pesticides.
Theres another type of plumbedin system that will totally remove
chlorine, pesticides, fluorides and
nitrates. Its called reverse osmosis;
its a sophisticated filtration system
with a pricetag to match. The other
problem besides the cost is that it
removes all of the beneficial minerals
in water as well.
Finally, theres distillation, which
should,
in
theory,
remove
everythingincluding every last
molecule of taste. Small, domestic
countertop distillation units are now
available, but their sales seem to be
confined to people with severely
compromised immune systems, as
most people are put off by the lack of
taste of distilled water.
Tony Edwards

Killer cosmetics

Toxic chemicals make killer makeup

New evidence shows that teenagers are highly polluted with chemicals from cosmetics, causing early
puberty and possibly even bigger problems later on.

s any young girl knows from

the time she has her first
Tinkerbell cosmetic case,
makeup is now an essential
part of being female. However, a new
studythe first of its kind to study
cosmetic use in teenagersshows that
even young girls are now contaminated
with a toxic brew of chemicals found in
cosmetics that can interfere with the
normal maturation process and,
eventually, even cause cancer.
According to this landmark survey,
carried out by the Washington, DCbased
non-profit
Environmental
Working Group (EWG), even young
teenagers show evidence of the
presence of multiple carcinogens and
serious hormone disruptors from
makeup at levels far higher than
reported by government agencies such
as the US Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC).
In this 2007 study that lasted for six
months, the EWG tested 20 girls, aged
14 to 19 years, from 18 cities scattered
across eight US states and the District
of Columbia. The researchers identified
16 chemicals in the girls blood and
urine that are linked to hormone
disruption.
Exposure among this age group
tended to be higher than among adults,
largely because of a heavier use of and
experimentation with makeup. The
young girls in the sampling used at least
17 productsat least 30 per cent more
products than adult womenthereby
exposing themselves to 174 chemicals
every day, compared with the 168
present in the 12 products used daily on
average by adult women.
Of the 25 chemicals that were
specifically looked for, 16 (64 per cent)
were found in the blood and urine
samples of the participants, each of
whom was contaminated by 1015
chemicals apieceand nine of these
chemicals were found in every teen
tested.
The 16 chemicals present in these
young women came from four chemical
families: phthalates; triclosan; musks;

have oestrogenic activity in rats (Toxicol

Appl Pharmacol, 1998; 153: 129). Triclosan is

and parabensall of which are known

to mimic the activity of hormones.
In laboratory studies examining the
effects of these chemicals on cell lines
and animals, all four chemical families
were capable of disrupting the
hormonal system (Environ Health Perspect,
1986; 65: 22935; Environ Sci Technol, 2004; 38:
9971002; J Toxicol Environ Health, 2005; 68:
23951). Musks, for instance, have been
found
to
interfere
with
the
communications system of aquatic
animals, which is controlled by
hormones (Environ Sci Technol, 2004; 38:
9971002), and parabens have proved to

also known to adversely affect the

thyroid gland (Aquatic Toxicol, 2006; 80:
21727).
The scientists were also alarmed to
note the high levels of parabens, used in
cosmetics as preservatives. Every girl
studied was contaminated with at least
two parabensmethylparaben and
propylparabenboth known to be
moderate hormone disruptors, and two
of the girls were contaminated by all six
of the parabens studied.
As the first study to examine paraben
levels in young girls, the high levels
found here suggest that parabens form
a large part of the chemical burden in
the bodies of women from a very young
age. This is hardly surprising as this
preservative is ubiquitous, present in 90
per cent of all cosmetics.
Of the 11 musks tested by the EWG,
researchers
found
two
types:
nitromusks and polycyclic. These
artificial fragrances are present in
anything with a scentfrom soap to
lipstick. The scientists also noted that
levels of the antibacterial agent

Cocktails for teens to avoid

Many organic products, such as nail polish, may still contain potential
carcinogens. The following chemicals are dangerous for teens (and
grownups, too), so always read the labels carefully.
! Phthalates, a solvent found in nail polish and other cosmetics,
particularly those with fragrance
! Triclosan, a preservative used in liquid hand soaps and toothpaste
! Artificial fragrances, particularly musk, which accumulate in fat tissue
and are slow to clear from the body
! Parabens, preservatives linked to cancer and hormone disruption in
animal studies, and particularly found in deodorants
! Hair dyes containing p-phenylenediamine, diaminobenzene and/or all
dark permanent hair dyes, which have been linked to cancer in human
studies
! Emulsifiers diethanolamine (DEA) and triethanolamine (TEA),
solvents that are not harmful in themselves, but become dangerous
when they react with other ingredients to form nitrosodiethanolamine
(NDEA), linked to stomach, liver and other cancers
! Nail polish and nail polish removers, which contain formaldehyde, a
suspected carcinogen.

WDDTY Safe Living 59

Killer cosmetics
operate according to an
Safer products for(ppt)which
teens
intricate
system of signaling. Any

triclosan were far higher than reported

by the CDC. In fact, all of the

The following companies offer products that are made up of mostly benign
ingredients.
!

Aubrey Organics www.aubreyorganicsuk.co.uk,

mail order: 020 8688 2366

Aveda www.aveda.co.uk, mail order: 0870 034 6700

Dr Hauschka www.drhauschka.co.uk, mail order: 01386 791 022

Green People www.greenpeople.co.uk, mail order: 01403 740 350

Jurlique www.jurlique.com, mail order: 08707 700 980

Lavera www.lavera.co.uk, mail order: 01557 870 203

Living Nature www.livingnature.com, mail order: 01794 323 222.

For more information on the dangers of cosmetics and toiletries, see

WDDTYs Your Healthy House (7.95; edited by Lynne McTaggart), available
online from www.wddtyhealthshop.com.

participants had measurable levels of

triclosan, compared with only 78 per
cent of teen girls tested by the CDC.
Whats more, although all the girls
demonstrated measurable levels of
chemicals, the degree of exposure
varied considerably, with some carrying
a body burden 1000 times higher than
others.
Nevertheless, and most interesting of
all, the measured levels of certain
chemicals did not correspond with the
ingredients in the makeup the girls
were currently using.
From this finding, the scientists
concluded that these agents, including
musk, are used in all sorts of personalcare productsfrom toiletries and
shampoos to nail polishand are now
present in most of the population. In a
blood-sample study carried out in
Germany, for instance, 90 per cent of
the samples contained significant levels
of these synthetic musks (J Chromatogr B
Biomed Sci Appl, 1997; 693: 718).
The most worrying aspect of these
findings is the potential effect of
hormone disruptors on a young persons
rapidly changing body. During
adolescence, a number of systemsthe
reproductive, immune, blood and
adrenalsare rapidly changing in
preparation for maturity, as are also the
bones and brain. These rapid changes
are accomplished by an array of
hormones present in minuscule
amountsas tiny as 1 part per billion
(ppb) and even 1 part per trillion

60 WDDTY Safe Living

hormone able to mimic this activity

could wreak havoc on the developing
body, as has also been shown in animal
studies (Toxicol Sci, 2004; 82: 598607).
Indeed, scientists are particularly
concerned that the presence of these
hormone mimics may be responsible for
the epidemic of premature adolescence
in girls. In the US, the onset of breast
development now occurs one to two
years earlier than it did 40 years ago,
with nearly 15 per cent of girls already
beginning the process between their
eighth and ninth birthdays (Pediatrics,
1997; 99: 50512). Also, preliminary studies
of phthalates show that exposure may be
linked to early puberty (Environ Health
Perspect, 2000; 108: 895900).
Furthermore, exposure to these
chemicals during puberty may even be a
timebomb, causing unusual health
effects that are not even seen in adults.
Numerous studies show that adolescent
rats exposed to phthalates are more
likely to have testicular toxicity than
adult rats (Environ Health Perspect, 1986; 65:
22935). Furthermore, based on animal
studies, the EWG scientists believe that
exposure to chemicals during breast
development may predispose the breast
to cancer later on.
In animals, parabens have already
been linked to breast cancer (Best Pract
Res Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2006; 20: 12143),
although this may not be applicable to
humans. The various synthetic,
nitromusk compounds have also been
found to be potentially carcinogenic,

increasing the growth of human breast

cancer cells in test-tube studies (Arch
Environ Contam Toxicol, 2002; 43: 25764).
Phthalates, used in cosmetics
such as nail polishusually those
containing fragrance as a solventhave
been found to damage the reproductive
system of male rat fetuses in a Scottish
study (The Daily Telegraph, 31 August 2008).
Furthermore, studies in humans have
shown that pre- and perinatal exposure
to phthalates (through breast milk, for
example) can cause incomplete
virilization in infant boys (Environ Health
Perspect, 2006; 114: 2706).
These high levels of exposure dont
simply reflect the use of grownup
makeup, but also the widespread use of
these toxins in toiletries and household
products in general. Furthermore, girls
are exposed to them at a very early age,
as even play makeup and kiddy perfumes
contain large amounts of chemicals
(Contact Derm, 1999; 41: 848).
At this time, all such products can
slip through the very loose net of
regulations for cosmetics. Incredibly, in
the US, official government health
statutes dont require companies to test
products or ingredients for safety before
they are sold. Virtually all cosmetics
contain ingredients that havent been
assessed for safety by any agency
anywhere and so are not held
accountable
to
any
standards.
Of the 20 most common fragrance
ingredients on the market, seven have
no safety data whatsoever.
Indeed, even though in most
European countries cosmetics are
subject to more regulations, they are
still more lax than those for foodor,
indeed, vitamins.
In the UK, more than 100 artificial
colours are allowed in lipstick, including
coal tars, but not in foodeven
though coal tar has long been associated
with cancer, according to the First
Annual Report on Carcinogens (in
1980) from the US National Institutes of
Health, and DNA damage in fish (J Toxicol
Sci, 1979; 4: 2119).
All the more reason for parents to
realize that giving teens the facts of life
includes providing them with important
safety information about cosmetics, the
dangers of which are far more than skin
deep.
Lynne McTaggart

The problem with perfume

New reports link perfumes to infertility, but thats not the only problem with synthetic scents.

erfumes have long been

marketed as luxury beauty
items that enhance our mood,
attractiveness and sexuality.
However, several weeks ago, this
romantic image was somewhat tainted
when the popular press reported that
perfumes may be linked to infertility.
Professor Richard Sharpe, principal
investigator at the Medical Research
Council's Human Sciences Unit in
Edinburgh, Scotland, found that the
reproductive system of male rat fetuses
could be damaged at eight weeks into
gestation by chemicals like those found
in perfumes and other cosmetics.
According to Sharpe, such damage
could lead to future problems such as
undescended testicles, low sperm
counts and even testicular cancer.
Although more studies are needed,
pregnant women were advised to avoid
using perfumes and scented creams for
the sake of their babies health (Daily
Telegraph, 31 August 2008).
The UKs Cosmetic Toiletry &
Perfumery Association (CTPA) has been

quick to respond, calling fears over

perfume unfounded. But this is not
the first time that perfume has come
under fireand its not the only
research suggesting that perfume is
potentially harmful to health.

Environmental health
In 2005, an investigation by the
environmental group Greenpeace
International sparked alarm when it
found that many well-known perfumes
use chemicals hazardous to both our
health and the environment (see www.
greenpeace.org/international/press/rep
orts/perfume-an-investigation-of).
On testing 36 brands of eau de
toilette/parfum for phthalates and
synthetic musks, results showed that
these chemicals were present in virtually

every brand tested.

The most prevalent phthalate was
diethyl phthalate (DEP), used in cosmetics and personal-care products as a
solvent and a vehicle for fragrances, and
also as an alcohol denaturant (making
the alcohol unfit to drink).
Although the EUs Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP)
considers DEP safe, clinical studies have
linked DEP and other phthalates with
adverse reproductive effects such as
changes in hormone levels, sperm DNA
damage, and genital abnormalities
(Environ Health Perspect, 2006; 114: 270
6; Hum Reprod, 2007; 22: 68895; Environ Health
Perspect, 2005; 113: 105661).

Although DEP doesnt appear to

accumulate in tissues, as Greenpeace
notes, It is clear that when applied to
the skin, DEP rapidly penetrates it and
becomes widely distributed around the
body following each exposure. Indeed,
its metabolites have been detected at
concentrations in human urine up to 32
times higher than for any other
phthalate metabolites (Environ Health

Safer scents make good sense

BRAND

PRICE

RANGE

Aroma Sciences
www.aromasciences.com
tel: 01445 731 618

From 25.50

Wide range of 100-per-cent natural perfumes;

high-quality, but can cost as much as 500 for 30 mL
of a hand-crafed individual scent

Aveda
www.aveda.com
tel: 0870 034 2979

From 24

A range of natural essences available as sprays,

rollerballs and splashes

Burren Perfumery
www.burrenperfumery.com
tel: +(353) 65 708 9102

From 35 euros

Limited range of natural parfums, colognes and

eaux de toilette

Clarins
http://uk.clarins.com

From 24.50

Eau Dynamisante and Eau Ressourante combine aromatic

essential oils with non-fragrant extracts of plants with
healing properties; available as spray or splash

Natures Gift
www.naturesgift.com
tel: +(615) 612 4270

From $6

A range of single essential oils diluted in

perfumers alcohol

Profumo
www.profumo.it
tel: +39 (0) 541 86 30 13

From 27.50 euros

(without VAT)

A wide range of intriguing blended scents from Italy, made

exclusively with natural essential oils and absolutes

WDDTY Safe Living 61

Killer cosmetics
Perspect, 2003; 111: 11649). The highest
levels are reported in women, possibly
due to their more frequent use of such
items as makeup, skincare products and
perfumes (Environ Health Perspect, 2004; 112:
3318).
Although certain phthalates have
now been banned from cosmetics in the
EU because of toxicity, DEP is still being
widely used.
The other hazardous chemicals
uncovered by Greenpeace in almost all
perfumes were synthetic musks. These
manmade chemicals are used in perfumes, aftershaves, cosmetics, skincare
products, and even cleaning products
and detergents. These chemicals do
accumulate in the body in fatty tissue,
and have been found in blood samples
and even breast milk (Chemosphere, 2005;
59: 48792; Chemosphere, 1996; 33: 203343).
Certain musksincluding those
commonly used in perfumescan even
interfere with the hormone-based
communication systems of aquatic
creatures (Environ Sci Technol, 2004; 38:
9971002;

Dietrich

DR,

Hitzfeld

BC.

Bioaccumulation and ecotoxicity of synthetic

musks in the aquatic environment, in The
Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Berlin/
Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2004: 23344),

and
significantly increased the growth of
human breast cancer cells in test-tube
studies (Arch Environ Contam Toxicol, 2002; 43:

25764). Whats more, they can worsen

the effects of exposure to other toxic
chemicals (Environ Health Perspect, 2005; 113:
1724).

Other toxic chemical effects

Perfumes contain other ingredients (see
box below)mostly petroleum-based
such as benzene derivatives, aldehydes,
and other known toxins and sensitizers
capable of causing cancer, birth defects,
central nervous system disorders, and
allergic and asthmatic reactions (see
WDDTY vol 10 no 7). Indeed, there is
ample evidence linking perfume
exposure to both acute and chronic
health effects.
Fragrances are respiratory irritants,
and several studies show that they are a
major trigger of asthmatic episodes. In
one study, 72 per cent of asthma
patients reacted badly to perfume (Am J
Med, 1986; 80: 1822), and more than
20 per cent had their symptoms made
worse by sniffing magazine-advertising
scent strips (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol,
1995; 75: 42933).
A study to determine whether its the
smell or the chemicals that cause the
asthma-like symptoms concluded that
the triggers were indeed the volatile
chemicals (Allergy, 1996; 51: 4349).
Theres also evidence that perfume
can even cause asthma (Hum Biol, 1996; 68:

Whats that smell?

A typical bottle of perfume can contain:
! acetone, on the hazardous waste lists of several government
agencies; a central nervous system (CNS) depressant; causes
dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, slurred speech and drowsiness
! benzaldehyde, a local anaesthetic and CNS depressant; causes
irritation to the mouth, throat, eyes, skin, lungs and gastrointestinal
tract, and kidney damage
! benzyl acetate, environmental pollutant and potential carcinogen linked
to pancreatic cancer; vapours irritate eyes and respiratory system;
absorbed through the skin, causes system-wide effects
! camphor, a local irritant and CNS stimulant readily absorbed through
body tissues; inhalation irritates eyes, nose and throat, and causes
dizziness, confusion, nausea, twitching muscles and convulsions
! limonene, a carcinogen, skin and eye irritant, and allergen
! linalool, a narcotic; causes CNS disorders, fatal respiratory
disturbances, poor muscle coordination, reduced spontaneous motor
activity and depression; heart effects seen in animal studies
! alpha-pinene, a sensitizer; causes damage to the immune system
! gamma-terpinene, causes asthma and CNS disorders.
From Skin Deep by Pat Thomas (Rodale, 2008)

62 WDDTY Safe Living

40514). Workers in the perfume industry

have some of the highest rates of

occupational asthma (Occup Med, 1998; 48:
4815).
Dermatitis and eczema are also
common reactions to perfumes. Indeed,
in 2007, fragrances were named
allergen of the year by the American
Contact Dermatitis Society (Pediatr Ann,
2008; 37: 1023).
Even more worrying, inhaled
fragrance chemicals, many of which are
neurotoxic, can change brainwave
patterns and blood circulation, leading
to headaches, mental confusion, listlessness, a lack of concentration,
seizures, depression and sleepiness
(Thomas P. Skin Deep: The Essential Guide to
Whats Really in the Toiletries and Cosmetics You
Use. Rodale, 2008).

Animal studies show that perfume

can be toxic to the lungs, liver and
kidneys (Flavour Fragr J, 2002; 17: 36171),
and occupational studies suggest a link
with cancer (J Occup Environ Med, 2000; 42:
51725; Br J Ind Med, 1988; 45: 2756).

Natural perfumes
It can be difficult to find a truly natural
scent, as words like hypoallergenic,
natural and floral dont necessarily
mean you can trust the product behind
the label. However, WDDTYs sister
publication PROOF! found several safer
brands (see box, page 61).
Another useful resource is the
Environmental
Working
Groups
cosmetic safety database Skin Deep
(www.cosmeticdatabase.org), which can
tell you exactly whats in a product. But,
as its an American website, the product
formulations may differ because of
tighter EU restrictions.
Another option is to make your own
unique scent using natural essential oils
such as jasmine, lemon, sandalwood and
ylang-ylang.
As few are safe to use neat on the
skin, you have to mix them in a base oil
(such as sweet almond, apricot kernel,
safflower, hazelnut or even sunflower
oil). Use no more than 1 drop of
essential oil to 1 mL of base oil.
Finally, choosing more natural
alternatives and selecting fragrancefree options can reduce our exposure to
the nearly ubiquitous and harmful
fragrance chemicals around us.
Joanna Evans

Sunscreens: protection at a price

New research from the US should make you think twice about slathering on the sunscreen this summer.
Oxybenzone, a widely used sunscreen ingredient, appears to be contaminating people as well as protecting
us from the sun.

early all Americans are

contaminated with a toxic
sunscreen
ingredient
called oxybenzone, according to a new study by the US
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC).
This chemical, also known as
benzophenone-3, or BP-3, is commonly used in sunscreen products
because of its capacity to absorb UV
(ultraviolet) radiation.
However, although it will indeed
protect you against solar radiation,
research now suggests that this skin
protection comes at the cost of
allergic
reactions,
hormone
disruption and cell damage. It may
even affect the development of
unborn babies if mothers are
exposed to the chemical during
pregnancy.
The CDC study, on analyzing the
urine of more than 2500 Americans
aged 6 and over, found oxybenzone
to be present in 97 per cent of
samples, suggesting widespread
contamination among the US
population (Environ Health Perspect, 21
March
2008;
doi:10.1289/ehp.11269 ).
Higher levels were detected in
women and girls than in men and
boys, probably because the former
tend to use more sunscreening and
other personal-care products, which
also may contain oxybenzone. Most
notably, the chemical can be found
in numerous lipsticks, lip balms and
facial moisturizers.
It is typically assumed that there
is little or no absorption of a product
applied to the skin, but this latest
study shows quite the opposite:
oxybenzone is readily absorbed into
the body and is subsequently
excreted in the urine. However, this
alarming finding is not news. An
earlier pilot study in 90 girls, aged 6
to 8 years old, found that more than
94 per cent had detectable amounts
of chemicals, including oxybenzone,
in their urine (Environ Health Perspect,
2007; 115: 11621). A study in adults
found various chemicals in 100 per
cent of the urine samples (Anal Chem,

2005; 77: 540713),

and oxybenzone in
90 per cent, according to the CDC
(Environ Health Perspect, 21 March 2008;
doi:10.1289/ehp.11269). Although these
studies were done in the US, the
problem is likely to include the UK
and other countries too, as
oxybenzone in used in products
everywhere (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol,
2008; 22: 45661).
Research in volunteer subjects
shows a wide variation in the amount
of oxybenzone absorbed into the
body, with some people absorbing as
much as 910 per cent of the applied
dose (Lancet, 1997; 350: 8634; Br J Clin
Pharmacol, 1999; 48: 6357; Br J Dermatol,

Even more
154: 33740 ).
worrying, one study found that the
subjects continued to excrete
oxybenzone for days after the last

2006;

application, suggesting that the

substance accumulates in the body
(Br J Dermatol, 2006; 154: 33740).

Safety concerns
According to the non-profit research
organization
called
the
Environmental
Working
Group
(EWG), the ubiquity of oxybenzone
and its ability to be absorbed into
the body are cause for concern
because the chemical is linked to a
number of adverse effects. Most
recently, researchers discovered that
mothers who have high levels of
oxybenzone in their bodies are more
likely to give birth to underweight
baby girls (Environ Health Perspect, 20
March 2008; doi:10.1289/ehp.11007). As the
EWG points out, a low birth weight is
a critical risk factor that is linked

Other chemicals of concern

Octyl methoxycinnamate. The most widely used sunscreen ingredient,
this is known for its low potential to cause sensitivity or act as a
photoallergen. Oestrogenic effects have been noted in lab animals at
concentrations close to those obtained by sunscreen users.
! Homosalate. A UVB protector and weak hormone disruptor, this forms
toxic metabolites and enhances the penetration of toxic herbicides.
! 4-Methylbenzylidene camphor (4-MBC). European researchers cite
concerns over thyroid toxicity and hormone disruption, and recommend
that this not be used in sunscreens.
! Octyl dimethyl-PABA. A derivative of the once-popular PABA sunscreen
ingredient, this chemical releases free radicals, damages DNA, has
oestrogenic actions and causes allergic reactions in some people.
From the EWGs cosmetic safety database
Skin Deep (www.cosmeticdatabase.com)

WDDTY Safe Living 63

Killer cosmetics
with coronary heart disease,
hypertension, type 2 diabetes and
other diseases later in life (Birth

Defects Res C Embryo Today, 2004; 72:

30012).

Other research suggests that

oxybenzone may disrupt the human
hormone system. Test-tube studies
using animal and human cells show
that oxybenzone and its metabolites, the chemicals the body makes
from oxybenzone as it attempts to
detoxify and excrete it, can cause
weak
oestrogenic
and
antiandrogenic effects ( Environ Health
Perspect, 2001; 109: 23944; Toxicol Sci,
2006; 90: 34961; Toxicol Sci, 2003; 74: 4350). Whats more, when tested with
other sunscreen chemicals, they all
demonstrated additional oestrogenreceptor effects (Toxicol Appl Pharmacol,
2005; 208: 1707 ), and one study
suggests that the chemical may
affect
the
adrenal
hormone
(endocrine) system (Int J Mol Med, 2006;
18: 11658).
Clinical studies are few on the
ground, but one has reported a
change in testosterone levels, albeit
minor, among healthy male and
female volunteers who used a cream
containing oxybenzone and two
other active sunscreen ingredients
for one week (J Invest Dermatol, 2004; 123:
5761).
Another possible adverse effect is
cell damage. When oxybenzone
soaks into the skin, it reacts with
UV light to form harmful free
radicals that, ironically, can cause
skin cancer and premature ageing.
A University of California study
showed that the longer oxybenzone
and two other sunscreen chemicals
remained on the skin, the more
free-radical damage there was (Free
Radic Biol Med, 2006; 41: 120512).
To reduce this doseresponse
effect, the researchers recommended continually applying new layers
of sunscreen to stop sunlight
penetrating the skin. But, as
suggested by other studies, this will
also serve to increase the amount
of oxybenzoneas well as other
chemicalsthat is taken up into
the body.
Furthermore, it appears that as
well as itself passing through the

64 WDDTY Safe Living

Sun-safe without chemicals

! Avoid prolonged exposure, especially between 11 am and 3 pm, when

UV rays are most prevalent.
! Cover up with clothing instead of creams during the hottest part of the
day.
! Take supplements in the run-up to sun exposure, which can bolster the
skins natural defences against sunlight:
" Antioxidants such as selenium, and vitamins C and E can help. In one
study, 2 g of vitamin C and 1000 IU of vitamin E daily reduced sunburn,
although neither on its own gave any protection against UV radiation,
suggesting a synergistic relationship (J Am Acad Dermatol, 1998; 38: 458).
" Carotenoids such as beta-carotene and lycopene have consistently
been shown to protect against sunburn. One study found that taking a
supplement of natural carotenoids (mostly beta-carotene) in daily
amounts of 30 mg, 60 mg and 90 mg gave progressively more
protection against UV radiation (Proc Soc Exp Biol Med, 2000; 223: 1704).
" Proanthocyanidins (OPCs), a group of flavonoids found in pine bark,
grape seeds and other plant sources, have shown promise in warding
off the damaging effects of UV light. Supplementing with the OPC-rich
French maritime pine bark extract Pycnogenol (1.11.66 mg/2.2 lb of
body weight/day) significantly increased the amount of UV radiation
tolerated before sunburn occurred (Free Radic Biol Med, 2001; 30: 15460).
! Eat lots of tomatoes, which contain lycopene and other antioxidants that
can help protect the skin. A daily dose of tomato paste, equal to 16 mg/
day of lycopene, significantly reduced sunburn symptoms after 10 weeks
(Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol, 2002; 15: 2916).
! Choose more natural suncreams. Few contain all-natural ingredients,
but a number of formulations are available that are free of toxic
chemicals. Visit WDDTYs sister service at Proof.co.uk for a recent review
of some of the popular alternative products on the market.

skin into the system, oxybenzone

is also a penetration enhancerin
other words, it helps other chemicals to penetrate the skin ( Toxicol
Appl Pharmacol, 2004; 195: 34854).
A more visible problem with
oxybenzone is that it can cause
allergic reactions. EWG notes that,
of the commonly used sunscreen
chemicals, oxybenzone is the one
most likely to be associated with
allergic reactions triggered by sun
exposure. One UK study revealed
that one in five allergic reactions to
photopatch tests was due to
oxybenzone (Br J Dermatol, 2006; 155:
73747).
Another
study
found
that
oxybenzone triggered reactions in
more than one-fourth of patients
with photoallergic contact dermaPhotoimmunol
titis
( Photodermatol
Photomed, 2006; 22: 18992), a condition
that causes itching, redness,
inflammation and blistering of the
skin.

Other questions remain

The main concern with oxybenzone,
however, is what we dont know
about it. What are the true effects of
the chemical in the body? Are there
long-term health risks? Can it act
synergistically with other chemicals
in the body? Are children at greater
risk?
Although, in the opinion of the
EUs 2006 Scientific Committee on
Cosmetic Products, theres not
enough available information to
know whether or not oxybenzone in
sunscreen is safe for users, the
chemical is nonetheless allowed to
constitute up to 10 per cent of a
product.
Given the safety concerns
surrounding oxybenzone and the
growing evidence that sunscreens
may actually promote skin cancer, it
may be wiser to seek more natural
ways to protect ourselves from the
sun.
Joanna Evans

Hair colours to die for

After a number of alarms over the dangers of hair dyes, manufacturers supposedly have improved their
products. However, new evidence shows that the latest formulations still carry numerous risks.

n January 2008, the UKs popular

press reported that 19-year-old
Crystal Atkinson is planning to
sue cosmetic giant LOreal over
claims that a hair dye caused her skin
to peel and her ears to swell to three
times their size. The teenaged mother
alleges that she suffered burns to her
face, neck and scalp, and a rash over
her entire body, after using LOreals
Garnier Nutrisse chestnut brown hair
dyedespite experiencing no reaction
to the skin allergy test she carried out
48 hours before using the product.
A similar incident occurred last year
to 16-year-old Stacy Ditroia. In her
case, she suffered severe swelling of the
head and neck, struggled to breathe,
and had to be taken to hospital after
dying her hair chocolate brown. Again,
a LOreal hair colouring product was to
blame.
Although LOreal, in both cases, was
quick to reassure consumers that
allergies to hair colorants are
extremely rare, new research shows
that hair dye allergy is, in fact, on the
rise, particularly among young people.
European dermatologists point out
that more and more people around the
world are dyeing their hair, and are
doing so at a younger age. As a result,
the frequency of allergic reactions to
hair dye is increasing (BMJ, 2007; 334:
220).
The main culprit, they say, is the
common chemical ingredient used in
permanent hair dyes called paraphenylenediamine, or PPD. Its found
in more than two-thirds of hair dyes
currently on the market, including
many of the top-selling brands. The
compound is an effective colorant
because of its low molecular weight, its
ability to penetrate the hair shaft and
follicle, and its strong protein-binding
capacity. However, these properties also
make PPD an idealand potent
contact allergen.
In fact, over the past several
decades, allergic reactions to PPD
became such a serious problem that
the chemical was banned completely
from hair dyes in Germany, France and
Sweden. Current European legislation
allows PPD to comprise up to 6 per

cent of the constituents of commercial

hair dyes.
Yet, despite this restricted use,
dermatologists continue to report
increasing numbers of cases of
PPD-induced contact dermatitis. A
survey of adults in a London clinic
found that cases have doubled over the
past six years, and its likely that the
increased personal use of hair dye is to
blame. The same clinic confirmed that,
during 19651975, it saw up to 11
patients a year with non-occupational
(they werent hairdressers) PPD allergy,
whereas now that figure has grown to
more than 40 cases annually. This
trend has also been observed in other
countries (BMJ, 2007; 334: 220).
A patient with contact allergy to hair
dye often presents with a simple rash
on the face or around the hairline. But
severe reactions are also seen. One
consumer complaint-based study in
Denmark identified 55 cases of severe
acute contact dermatitis caused by hair
dye, with gross swelling of the face,
scalp and ears. These cases were
responsible for 75 visits to the health
service and five admissions to hospital,
leading the researchers to conclude
that PPD, at its current concentrations
in hair dye, presents a significant
health risk for the population (Contact
Dermatitis, 2002; 47: 299303). Severe hairdye reactions among children have also
been reported (Contact Dermatitis, 2006; 54:
8791).
According to the latest research,

even hair dyes containing relatively

small concentrations of PPD can be a
problem, as the chemical accumulates
in the skin over time. This means that
intermittent exposure to lower levels of
PPD, such as from regular hair dyeing,
may elicit the same reaction as a oneoff exposure to a higher concentration
(Contact Dermatitis, 2007; 56: 2625).
Another PPD problem is crosssensitization. This means that once you
have reacted to PPD, you may become
sensitive to its chemical cousins. This
includes other types of hair dye, textile
dyes, pen ink, food dyes, medication
dyes, preservatives (parabens) and
some drugs (such as benzocaine,
procaine and sulphonamides). So, an
allergy to PPD is a lifelong problem
(Frosch PJ et al., eds. Contact Dermatitis, 4th
edn. Springer, 2006: 479).
Sensitization to PPD has also been
seen with its use as a skin paint for
temporary tattoos involving black
henna (J Cosmet Dermatol, 2003; 2: 12630).
Interestingly, PPD is not permitted for
this type of use. As the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) states, it is
not approved for direct application to
the skin (www. cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/costatt.html). However, when hair dye is
applied, it inevitably comes into direct
contact with the scalp and skin on the
forehead and around the ears. So the
fact that it triggers allergic reactions in
some people is hardly surprising.

Cancer risk
As informed readers will know, however,
allergic reactions are not the only
problem associated with hair dyes.
Although controversial, a mounting
body of evidence links hair-dye use to
several types of cancer, including rare
cancers such as non-Hodgkins
lymphoma (NHL).
Health problems among hair-dye
users, particularly of the black, darkbrown or red shades, were first noted in
the late 1970s, when several studies
found links between hair dyes and
breast cancer (NY State J Med, 1976; 76:
3946; J Natl Cancer Inst, 1979; 62: 27783).
Women who started dyeing their hair at
age 20 had twice the risk of 40-yearolds. The users at greatest risk were

WDDTY Safe Living 65

Killer cosmetics
Safer hair colouring
!

!
!

Always do a patch test first. Hair-dye makers maintain that allergic

reactions can be avoided if instructions are carefully followed and a skinsensitivity test carried out 48 hours before product use. Indeed, the
allergy test used by brands like LOreal appears to be 100-per-cent
predictive (Eur J Dermatol, 2005; 15: 1825; Eur J Dermatol, 2002; 12: 3226).
However, bear in mind that patch-testing is not always fail-safe (Br J
Dermatol, 2007; 157: 101720), particularly as there are so many potential
allergens in hair dyes besides PPD, the most commonly used allergy
marker (Contact Dermatitis, 2004; 51: 24154).
Read the label. Use the safer alternatives currently on the market (see
www.safecosmetics.org for companies that have pledged not to use
chemicals that are known to, or strongly suspected of, causing cancer,
mutations or birth defects in their products). Avoid products that contain
phenylenediamines like PPD, which includes many so-called natural
hair colours (see PROOF! vol 8 no 1). Look out for words like amino or
nitro and names of colours starting with the letters HC, which indicate
that its not natural. Use the EWG database at www.cosmeticsdatabase.
com to help figure out which ingredients and products to avoid.
Dont dye your hair too often. Leave the maximum amount of time
between colour applications.
Apply dye to the hair, not to the scalp. You can now buy hair-dye
applicators, which look like hollow combs or brushes, that allow you to
smooth the dye onto the hair with minimum contact with the scalp. Also,
leave hair dyes on the head for the minimum required time.

those aged 5079 who had been dyeing

their hair for years. Also, compared
with women who had never used hair
dyes, those who dyed their hair five or
more times a year had twice the risk of
developing ovarian cancer (Int J Cancer,
1993; 55: 40810).
It was also discovered that people
who had worked for 10 or more years as
hairdressers or barbers had a fivefold
greater risk of bladder cancer than the
general population (Int J Cancer, 2001; 91:
5759).
However, its the link with otherwise
unusual cancers that provides the most
compelling evidence of hair-dye
toxicity. Dyeing your hair can increase
the risk of non-Hodgkins lymphoma
(NHL) and multiple myeloma from two
to four times over a non-users risk (Am
J Public Health, 1988; 78: 5701; J Natl Cancer
Inst, 1994; 86: 2105).

Indeed, hair dyes

may account for as much as 20 per cent
of all cases of NHL in women (Cancer
Res, 1992; 52 [19 Suppl]: 5496s500s).
Hair dye use has increased
dramatically among men, too, over the
last few decades. Studies show that hair
colorants may be responsible for a 90per-cent greater risk of multiple
myeloma among men (Am J Public Health,

66 WDDTY Safe Living

1992; 82: 16734),

and nearly twice the

risk of NHL and leukaemia than among
non-users (Am J Public Health, 1988; 78:
5701).
Nevertheless, there are studies that
dispute the cancer risk of hair dyes.
Indeed, as a 1993 report by the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) concluded, There is
inadequate evidence that personal use
of hair colorants entails exposures that
are carcinogenic. However, the report
also stated that being a hairdresser or
barber entails exposures that are
probably carcinogenic, suggesting
that hair dyes may well lead to cancer.
The problem may lie with the older
hair-dye formulations, which were
considerably more toxic. One study
found an increased risk for NHL in
women who used permanent, intense
hair colourings (black, dark brown and
dark blonde) before 1980, but no risk
for men or women who began using
these products after that time
(Carcinogenesis, 2007; 28: 175964).
However, the researchers admit that
this finding may be because
insufficient time has passed for the
induction/latency period. In fact,
chemically induced cancers typically

take more than 20 years to develop (Crit

Rev Toxicol, 2007; 37: 52136). So, it may not
be that the new dyes dont cause
cancer, but just that its too soon to
tell.
Although there are now restrictions
on a number of ingredients, the
current hair-dye formulations still use a
cocktail of toxic chemicals that can
rapidly penetrate the skin, and are
carcinogenic and mutagenic to both
animals and humans. PPD, for example,
has also damaged DNA in test-tube
studies (Toxicol Lett, 2007; 170: 11623),
while
4-aminobiphenyl,
another
current hair-dye ingredient, is known to
cause bladder cancer (Chem Res Toxicol,
2003; 16: 116273).
According to Skin Deep, a 2004
study and ranking of 7500 cosmetic
products, published by the US nonprofit Environmental Working Group
(EWG), 69 per cent of hair-dye
products may pose cancer risks
(www.thegreenguide.com/doc/110/hair). More
recently, in an assessment of 15,000
cosmetics and personal-care products,
EWG researchers found that 82 per
cent of hair dyes and bleaching
products were contaminated with the
cancer-causing
1,4-dioxane
(see
www.ewg.org/node/ 21286 for more
details).
And if thats not enough to put you
off dyeing your hair for good, take a
look at the EWGs searchable
cosmetics-safety database (www.
cosmeticsdatabase.com). Many of the
most popular hair-dye products have a
hazard risk of 10 out of 10.

EU regulations
If you live in Europe, youre better off
than in the US. In 2006, the European
Commission banned 22 hair-dye agents
that could potentially cause bladder
cancer if used long term. At present, a
further 49 ingredients are under
consideration for such a ban. However,
a quick glance at the labels of some of
the products now on the shelves
indicates that theres still cause for
concern and, as usual, its up to the
consumer to be vigilant and select the
safest products available (see box
above).
Alternatively, maybe its time to
ditch the dye and go with the natural
look.
Joanna Evans

The threat from outdoors

Fear of flying with good reason

Flying is often cited as one of the safest ways to travel. Nevertheless, there are mounting concerns that
frequent flying might expose people to potentially harmful doses of ionizing radiation.

ir travel has become such a

convenient and accessible
mode of transport that an
estimated one billion of us
take to the skies every year (Chest, 2006;
130: 5757). Yet, theres growing concern
over the effects of air travel on our
health, particularly for frequent flyers
and those who travel over long
distancesa group that now make up a
substantial chunk of the travelling
public.
Besides jet lag and deep vein
thrombosis (DVT), a number of less wellknown health risks are linked to air
travel, including cancer.

The cancer connection

Several studies have found a link
between air travel and cancer. These
studies, however, involved people
who fly for a living. Alarmingly, the
findings consistently show increased
risks of breast cancer among female
flight attendants, and skin cancer
among both pilots and flight staff (Cancer
Invest, 2004; 22: 74361).
In one study from Japan, female
flight attendants had a 40-per-cent
increase in breast cancer compared with
the general population (J Travel Med, 2006;
13: 12732). Other studies from Finland,
Iceland, Norway, Denmark and the US
also found higher breast-cancer rates in
female cabin crew, up to five times
higher in those with five years or more
on the job (Occup Environ Med, 2003; 60:
8079).
As for skin cancer (malignant
melanoma), incidence rates for cabin
crew are two to three times the expected
rate (Occup Environ Med, 2003; 60: 8104; J
Travel Med, 2006; 13: 12732), while
commercial airline pilots may be 10
times more likely to develop melanomas
compared with the general population.
Some pilots, such as those on
international routes, appear to have an
even greater risk (Occup Environ Med, 2000;
57: 1759).
Researchers have also uncovered an
excess of other cancers among pilots,
although the studies are less consistent.

2003; 60: 81520; 8079).

One found a significantly higher risk of

acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), while
others showed higher rates of cancers of
the colon, brain, prostate and rectum,
and Hodgkins disease (Lancet, 1999; 354:
202931; Occup Environ Med, 2000; 57: 1759).
So whats the reason behind this
occupational hazard? According to
some, it is not the job per se that puts
pilots and cabin staff at risk, but the
lifestyle factors that are associated with
it. Increased rates of breast cancer
might be down to reproductive factors
(stewardesses often have no children, or
have them at a later age than average,
both of which are risk factors for breast
cancer) and higher skin-cancer rates
could be due to more sun exposure (air
crew may be spending more time in
sunshine destinations than others)
(Occup Environ Med, 2002; 59: 42833).
However, several studies have taken
these factors into account and
concluded that they are unlikely to
explain all of the increased risk of cancer
among flight crew (Occup Environ Med,

A more sinister explanation has to do

with whats in the sky. Air crews are
subjected to cosmic radiation, a form
of ionizing radiation that comes from
the sun and other stars, every time they
fly. Given the high altitudes that are the
domain of commercial airliners, their
exposure rates are hundreds of times
greater than for those of us at ground
level (J Am Board Fam Pract, 1999; 12: 1959).
Indeed, a UK National Radiological
Protection Board survey carried out in
1999 showed that nuclear workers
received a lower annual average dose of
radiation than did air crews (Occup
Environ Med, 2002; 59: 42833).

Cosmic concerns
Cosmic radiation is an important
concern because the combination of
particles and electromagnetic waves are
energetic enough to disrupt the cellular
structure of the body and potentially
have an impact on the exposed person.
In fact, a recent study found an
increased rate of chromosomal
translocationsan event commonly
seen in cancer and indicative of
cumulative
ionizing-radiation
exposurein airline pilots with longterm flying experience. For each oneyear increase in flight years, the
likelihood of such a translocation rose
by 6 per cent (Occup Environ Med, 2009; 66:
5662).
The same researchers who found the

Other flight risks

Jet lag. A disturbed body clock is known to cause problems with sleep,
and mental and physical performance. Animal studies are also showing
that chronic jet lag can lead to more serious consequences such as heart
and kidney disease, although the results may not apply to humans (Am J
Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol, 2008; 294: R167583).
! DVT. The risk of deep vein thrombosisor economy-class syndrome
increases by two- to fourfold after air travel (PLoS Med, 2007; 4: e290).
! Hypoxia (oxygen deprivation). Oxygen levels on airplanes are usually
20- to 25-per-cent lower than on the ground, which can cause problems
for those with respiratory, cardiac or postsurgical conditions. For this
reason, these people should always see a doctor before flying (Am Fam
Physician, 1999; 60: 8018, 810).
!

WDDTY Safe Living 67

The threat from outdoors

link between pilots and AML (see above)
also discovered evidence that cosmic
radiation may well be the culprit. They
found chromosomal damage in 57 per
cent of flight staff with AML or
myelodysplasia (a pre-leukaemia bonemarrow disorder) compared with only
11 per cent in non-flight staff. The
researchers concluded that the
chromosomal abnormalities seen in
myelodysplasia and AML could indicate
previous exposure to ionizing
radiation (Lancet, 2000; 356: 2158).
A number of other studies support
the idea that cosmic radiation is
responsible for the increased risks of
cancer among flight crew. A Norwegian
study found a statistically significant
exposureresponse relationship between
the cumulative radiation dose and
malignant melanoma (Scand J Work Environ
Health, 2000; 26: 10611). Whats more, the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) has concluded that there
is sufficient evidence that neutrons
which constitute 30 to 60 per cent of
cosmic radiationare carcinogenic to
humans (Occup Environ Med, 2003; 60:
81520).
Nevertheless, the research so far is
not conclusive. As some scientists point
out, the irregular working hours of flight
crew and frequent disturbance of the
circadian rhythm (jet lag) may also play
a role in increasing cancer risk (Occup
Environ Med, 2003; 60: 8056).

Other effects of flying

Besides cancer, cosmic radiation has
been associated with eye damage in
airline pilots. A recent University of
Iceland study found that commercial
pilots were three times more likely than
usual to develop cataracts. They also
noted that the increased risk could not
be explained by other factors such as
ultraviolet exposure and smoking,
known to increase the risk of cataracts,
and concluded that cosmic radiation
may be a causative factor in nuclear
cataracts among commercial airline
pilots (Arch Ophthalmol, 2005; 123: 11025).
Such an increased risk of cataracts has
also been reported by the US National
Cancer Institute in radiological staff
exposed to ionizing radiation (Am J
Epidemiol, 2008; 168: 62031)
Far more disturbing, however, is the
evidence that cosmic radiation is
dangerous to the fetuses of pregnant

68 WDDTY Safe Living

Flying safely

The World Health Organization (WHO) advises frequent flyers who are
concerned about cosmic radiation to:
! keep informed about the health effects of cosmic radiation;
! limit air travel during pregnancy.
For frequent flyers whose air time is similar to that of air crew, they are
advised to:
! record their personal cumulative radiation doses on a regular and
permanent basis;
! consider radiation exposures when selecting flight schedules.
An estimate of the radiation dose for a specific flight can be obtained from:
! www.helmholtzmuenchen.de/epcard/eng_fluginput. php;
! www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/cosmic/en/ index1.html.

flight staff. According to the US Air

Force Inspection Agency, Animal
studies of low-dose ionizing radiation
exposures, and human studies following
high-dose exposures, suggest that
pregnant aviators may inadvertently
subject their fetuses to a risk of
decreased cognitive capacity or frank
mental retardation, as well as childhood
leukaemia (Aviat Space Environ Med, 1998;
69: 10614).
For this reason, flight staff are advised
to limit air travel during pregnancy, but
may still unknowingly exceed the
recommended fetal dose limit of 1
milliSievert (mSv) over the entire
pregnancy
(www.who.int/ionizing_
radiation/env/cosmic/WHO_Info_Sheet_
Cosmic_Radiation.pdf). A recent study found
that the dose to the fetus can exceed 1
mSv after 10 round trips on commercial
flights between Toronto, Canada, and
Frankfurt, Germany (Health Phys, 2008; 95:
40712).

The risk to passengers

Clearly, cosmic radiation is a concern for
those who fly for a living, but what about
the general public?
According to radiological physicist Dr
Robert Barish, passengers are exposed
to cosmic radiation in the same way as
the crew members with whom they
travel. While this is not a problem for
the occasional traveller, radiation
exposure may be something that the
frequent flyer should consider,
particularly if pregnant.
If this radiation originated at a
regulated industrial or medical facility,
says Barish, many frequent flyers would
receive annual exposures in excess of the
present legal limit applicable to
members of the public (J Am Board Fam

Pract, 1999; 12: 1959).

However, according to Barishs

calculations, the risk of actual harm
from cosmic radiation is small. He
estimates
that
the
maximum
permissible annual radiation dose of 1
mSvachieved by flying around 75,000
mileshas a four in 100,000 chance of
leading to a fatal cancer and a three in
10,000 chance of causing a serious
health problem in the unborn child.
However, these estimates do not take
into account solar flares.
As Barish explains, Solar flares are
caused by instabilities in the nuclear
processes, which drive the fusion
reactions that produce the suns energy.
Although as many as 10,000 solar flares
occur each year, a relatively small
number (usually fewer than 20) emit
enough extra radiation to affect the
airliner environment. When they do,
however, these charged-particle events
can produce exposure rates that are 10
to 20 times their usual values. In other
words, if the radiation-producing flare
lasts as long as the flight, a single oneway trip could give as much radiation
exposure to a passenger or crew
member as they would ordinarily receive
in 10 to 20 trips (J Am Board Fam Pract,
1999; 12: 1959).
Given these complexities coupled
with the lack of data on passenger
dosages, its currently impossible to tell
whether cosmic radiation poses
a genuine threat to the air-travelling
public. Yet, considering that more and
more people are flying at higher
altitudesmany long-haul flights travel
over the poles, where cosmic radiation is
more pronouncedthe risk is certainly
one that deserves our attention.
Joanna Evans

Artificial turf: not-so-fantastic plastic

Artificial turf is springing up everywherein schools, parks, playgrounds and even homes. But, according
to a number of environmental groups, it could pose serious threats to health. Should we be worried?

cross the globe in schools,

stadiums, parks and playgrounds, natural grass is
increasingly being replaced
by low-maintenance, hard-wearing
artificial turf. It requires little upkeep, and delivers an all-weather
playing surface for children and
athletes. So-called lazy lawns are
even cropping up in our homes,
providing the not-so-green-fingered
with an enviable lush-looking lawn all
year round.
While its advantages over natural
grass are many, there are mounting
concerns that synthetic turfor at
least certain types of itmay be
hazardous to our health. In the US,
research conducted by several publicinterest groups has even prompted a
federal investigation into such artificial surfaces. In the meantime, some
health officials are proposing a ban on
new fake-turf installations until
government agencies have studied the
potential
health
risks
and
environmental hazards.
So whats all the fuss about?

Snakes in the grass

One of the main concerns voiced by
environmentalists is that synthetic
turf contains rubber from recycled
tyresknown as crumb rubber
which contains several particularly
dangerous substances. Used as an
infill material in the newer types of
synthetic turf, it provides a cushioning surface. Safety information has
generally focused on the health
benefits of crumb rubber for athletes
as this cushioning effect supposedly
reduces joint injury.
However, the spotlight is now on
the potential public health risks from
exposure to tyre crumbs, especially to
children. As Patti Wood, executive
director of the non-profit Grassroots
Environmental Education group, says,
This crumb rubber is a material that
cannot be legally disposed of in
landfills or ocean-dumped because of
its toxicity. Why on earth should we let
our children play on it?
Thats a good question. Crumb
rubber contains chemicals that are

known or suspected to cause health

problems. The most common types
of rubber used in tyres are made up of
ethylenepropylene and styrene
butadiene, plus vulcanizing agents,
fillers, plasticizers and antioxidants in
different quantities, depending on the
maker. Tyre rubber also contains
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
phthalates, heavy metals and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) (Environ
Health Perspect, 2008; 116: A11722).
Several studies suggest that some
of these chemicals can be released
and potentially inhaledfrom crumb
rubber in synthetic turf. Indeed, the
Norwegian Institute for Air Research
(NILU) found that VOCs from crumb
rubber in indoor artificial turf pitches
can become aerosolized into a
breathable form during sports use
( www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpark/SPTF/
NIAP1105.pdf). VOCs can damage the
nervous system, liver, kidney, bloodforming organs, genetic material and
reproductive organs, as well as cause
allergies and cancer.
Similarly, a report by the California
Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) found
that 49 chemicals were released from
recycled tyre crumbs, seven of which
are known carcinogens (www.ciwmb.ca.
gov/Publications/Tires/62206013.pdf).
A 2007 study commissioned by
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
(EHHI), a US non-profit organization
based in Connecticut, found offgassing and leaching from syntheticturf rubber crumbs under laboratory
conditions. It identified 25 chemical
species with 7299 per cent certainty,
including the irritants benzothiazole

and
n-hexadecane;
butylated
hydroxyanisole, a carcinogen and
suspected endocrine disruptor; and 4(t-octyl) phenol, a corrosive that can
seriously
damge
the
mucous
membranes (www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/turf_
report07.pdf).
Although the results of the study
have been criticized by the American
trade organization, the Synthetic Turf
Council, for not being true-to-life,
EHHIs director of public-health
toxicology, Dr David Brown, argues
that the lab tests do approximate
conditions found in the field. It is
clear the recycled rubber crumbs are
not inert, nor is a high temperature or
severe solvent extraction needed to
release
metals,
volatile,
or
semivolatile organic compounds, he
states (Environ Health Perspect, 2008; 116:
A11722).

A genuine health risk?

These studies are troubling as crumb
rubber can now be found in schools,
universities, public parks, stadiums
and sports facilities across the world.
Whats more, its also used in gardening mulch and, in playgrounds, as an
alternative to sand or woodchips.
But can these tiny rubber granules
really cause us harm?
According to the Norwegian
Institute of Public Health, the answer
is probably not. Based on the NILU
data from indoor sports halls, the
report concluded that off-gassing from
synthetic turf does not cause any
elevated health risk, even in
childrena group that is especially
vulnerable to chemical exposures.
Nevertheless, the report goes on to
say: A reservation must, however, be
issued as regards the development of
asthma/airway allergies, where the
knowledge that is currently available
is limited.
The researchers also point out that
little or no toxicological information
is available for many of the chemicals
shown to be released into the air from
synthetic turf. They also suggest that
there may be even more chemicals yet
to
be
identified
(www.
isss.de/conferences/Dresden%202006/

WDDTY Safe Living 69

The threat from outdoors

Technical/ FHI%20Engelsk.pdf).

In the US, the report by the California OEHHA also states: Overall, we
consider it unlikely that a one-time
ingestion of tyre shreds would produce
adverse health effects. As for cancer,
the OEHHA concluded that the risk
would be below the one-in-a-million
risk level considered acceptable.
However, as the EHHI points out,
the analysis assumes that there would
be only one single exposure
in a lifetime which, in its opinion, is
unlikely.
In fact, when the OEHHA assumed
an increased exposure (regular playground use for the first 12 years of
life), the estimated cancer risk nearly
trebled to 2.9 per one million from
ingestion (hand-to-mouth contact) of
chrysene, one of the suspected human
carcinogens found in tyre rubber.
Clearly, more research is needed to
determine whether crumb rubber
poses a significant health risk to the
public. The EHHI, however, believes
there is already enough information
available to call for a moratorium on
installing any new athletic fields or
playgrounds using ground-up rubber
tyresat least until additional
research is undertaken.

Other turf concerns

Crumb rubber isnt the only problem
with artificial turf. Concerns are
mounting that some artificial turf
fields are contaminated with lead
and its not the rubber infill thats to
blame.
A health advisory issued last June
by the US Centers for Disease Control

(CDC) described how New Jersey

health officials found high levels of
lead in the dust from an athletic field
in Newark. After determining that the
lead source was the artificial turf, they
began to test other artificial fields,
and discovered that those made of
nylon or nylon/ polyethylene-blend
fibres contain levels of lead that pose
a potential public-health problem.
However, turf made with only
polyethylene fibres contained very low
levels of lead.
It turns out that a pigment containing lead chromate is used to make
the turf green and hold its colour in
sunlight. Its not clear, though, how
widely used this pigment is.
According to the CDC, newly laid
artificial fields present a low risk for
harmful lead exposure because the
turf fibres are still intact. However, as
the turf ages and weathers, lead is
released in dust that may be ingested
or inhaled. At present, it is not known
how much lead the body may absorb
from such exposures, but we do know
that lead can cause neurological
development symptoms such as
learning
deficits
(www2a.cdc.gov/
HAN/Archive-Sys/ViewMsgV.asp?AlertNum=
00275).

Even more alarming, research by

the California-based watchdog group
Center for Environmental Health
(CEH) found that the danger of lead
poisoning from synthetic turf is not
just from sports fields. Independent
testing revealed high levels of lead in
the artificial grass used for indoor/
outdoor carpeting, fake lawns and
playgrounds (www.cehca.org/documents/

Fake grass: other concerns

!

Artificial turf can heat up to extremely high temperatures when exposed

to sunshine, which can be a hazard to users. US research shows that
synthetic turf fields can get up to 60 degrees hotter than natural grass,
with temperatures reaching 160 degrees F (71 degrees C) in summer
(Environ Health Perspect, 2008; 116: A11722).
Friction between skin and artificial turf can cause abrasions and burns to
a greater extent than natural grass, which is an issue for some sports
such as football. More worrying, the abrasions caused by artificial turf
have been linked to a greater incidence of MRSA infection (N Engl J Med,
2005; 352: 46875).
Synthetic turf fields can contribute to increased water contamination
from rain, or from spraying or misting. The EHHI study (see main story)
found that 25 different chemicals and four metals (zinc, selenium, lead
and cadmium) were released into water from the crumb-rubber infill.

70 WDDTY Safe Living

lead_in_grass.pdf).

The CEH has begun notifying each

of the 15 turf manufacturers and
retailers in the US of its intention to
sue under Californias Safe Drinking
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act
unless the companies agree to recall
their products or reformulate their
artificial turf so that it contains less
lead.
Whether lead contamination is a
problem in the UK or other countries
is not known at this time.

Towards safer turf

The CDC is currently awaiting
information from the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to
help guide future public-health
recommendations and actions on
amounts of lead in artificial turf. In
the meantime, the agency advises
washing hands and clothing after
playing on artificial turf to minimize
exposure. The CDC also recommends
sitting on a towel or blanket in a
vehicle after exposure to fake turf, and
discourages eating while sitting on
synthetic turf, or drinking from
containers left open on it or nearby.
But what about the toxic rubber
infill? Fortunately, a number of
companies have found novel ways to
address this issue. In Italy, for
example, a new thermoplastic infill
material has been developed that is
believed to be non-toxic. Floor surface
manufacturer
Mondo
makes
something called Ecofill, a polyolefinbased granule used in synthetic turf.
According to the company, Ecofill
disperses heat more efficiently, is
highly shock-absorbent, and contains
no polyvinyl chloride, chlorine,
plasticizers, heavy metals or other
harmful chemicalsand its 100-percent recyclable.
Infill made from plant-derived
materials is another alternative.
Limonta Sport USA produces an infill
made from coconut husks and cork
called Geo Safe Play. The companys
spokesperson Domenic Carapella
comments, There are certainly
alternatives to crumb rubber. There is
no longer a reason to sacrifice the
playing quality and more importantly
the health of children (Environ Health
Perspect, 2008; 116: A11722).
Joanna Evans

Diesel: a better alternative?

We all know that cars are bad for the planet, and that diesel engines are often touted as a greener choice.
Increasingly, however, studies point to significant adverse health effects from diesel exhaust fumes.

ith fuel prices soaring on

both sides of the
Atlantic, choosing a fuelefficient diesel-powered
vehicle
certainly
appears
to be a sensible option. Indeed,
advertisers often stress that diesels
use 20- to 25-per-cent less fuel, which
is not only good for your pocket, but
also better for the environment, as
reducing fuel consumption is
generally cited as the primary way to
reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
However, while diesel cars release
less CO2 than petrol-powered vehicles, they emit higher levels of
particulate matter, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrous
oxidestoxic pollutants that can
cause serious harm to human health
and the environment. In fact, some

public health agencies consider diesel

emissions to be the source of at least
70 per cent of the total toxic risk
posed by air pollutants (Environ Health
Perspect, 2002; 110: A45864).
And now, due to the expanding use
of diesel equipment, more and more
workerssuch as truckers, railroad
workers and minersare being
exposed to diesel exhaust and its
associated health hazards. Whats
more, adverse health effects are also
being seen among the general
populationand at emission levels
well
below
those
found
in
occupational settings.

Health effects
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture
of thousands of different chemical
substances,
including
carbon

Other alternative fuels

!

Biodiesel. Derived from sources such as soybeans, switchgrass, corn and

many other crops, biodiesel can reduce particulate emissions by more than
55 per cent compared with regular diesel (Environ Health Perspect, 2002; 110:
A45864). Moreover, it can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Even when just 20 per cent of a blended fuel is biodiesel, as it often is,
particulate emissionsalong with carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and
other toxic compoundsdrop by about 15 per cent (Inhal Toxicol, 2007; 19:
10339). The downside, however, is that smog-causing nitrous-oxide
emissions may slightly increase, and there is also the potential for higher
biodiesel blends to damage engine components.
Ethanol. This was one of the worlds first vehicular fuels, and its now the
most widely used alternative to gasoline. The primary source is corn. However, while its typically estimated that todays average corn ethanol cuts
global-warming pollution by about 20 per cent compared with petrol, some
researchers estimate that it may actually increase global warming (Natural
Resources Res, 2006; 15: 25570).
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Most cars powered by LPG in the UK
are hybrid vehicles, and are more environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient
than petrol engines. They produce fewer emissions of carbon dioxide,
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides than either petrol- and
diesel-powered vehicles. However, being a fossil-derived fuel, it still releases
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Compressed natural gas (CNG). CNG-powered vehicles are quieter, more
fuel-efficient and less toxic than conventional cars. But they are produced
from a non-renewable fossil-fuel energy source, and its driving range is
generally less than with comparable petrol- or diesel-fueled vehicles.
Hydrogen. Fuel-cell vehicles powered with hydrogen are currently under
development by automakers around the world. The advantage is that
hydrogen is widely available, and the only tailpipe emission is water vapour.

monoxide, sulphur oxides, nitrogen

oxides, VOCs, alkenes, aromatic
hydrocarbons and aldehydes.
The health effects of most of the
individual substances are often poorly
understood, as are the chemical
reactions that occur after the exhaust
has spread into the atmosphere.
However, more than 40 of the
chemicals found in these exhaust
fumes are known to be carcinogenic
and hazardous air pollutants (Environ
Health Perspect, 2002; 110: A45864).
Moreover, the various gaseous and
solid
particulates
can
act
synergistically to cause mutations and
cancer (Lancet Oncology, 2002; 3: 581).
Indeed, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) labels diesel
exhaust as an air-toxic and something
likely to be carcinogenic to
humans. In September 2002, the
Agency finally published its longawaited assessment of the health
consequences of diesel-engine emissions. The reportwhich had been
redrafted five timeswas the culmination of 10 years of study, review
and public hearings.
The reports main finding was that
inhaling diesel exhaust fumes from
large vehicles such as trucks and
buses, among other sources, can
substantially increase the risk of lung
cancer. Also, environmental exposure
to
such
fumes
can
invoke
immunological reactions and pose a
chronic respiratory hazard, leading to
asthma and other lung diseases
(Lancet Oncology, 2002; 3: 581).
The EPAs findings mirror other

WDDTY Safe Living 71

The threat from outdoors

studies of diesel emissions. Particularly worrying was a US study by
a coalition of state and local airpollution-control
agencies
that
calculated that an additional 125,110
people would be expected to develop
lung cancer during their lifetime as a
result of exposure to the toxic
components in diesel smoke (Lancet
Oncology, 2002; 3: 581). There is also an
association between excess lung
cancer and diesel, but not petrol
(gasoline), exhaust (Am J Epidemiol,
2007; 165: 5362).
The main concern with diesel is
that it contains a large percentage of
particlesincluding
ultrafine
nanoparticlesthat
are
easily
inhaled. Its been estimated that the
particulate emissions from diesel
engines per travelled distance is over
10 times higher than emissions from
the equivalent-sized petrol engines
running on unleaded petrol, and over
100 times higher than that from
petrol engines fitted with catalytic
converters (Eur Respir J, 2001; 17: 73346).
Even worse, the small size of diesel
exhaust particles allows them to
penetrate deeply into the lungs,
allowing them to deposit their toxic
chemicals throughout the respiratory
tract.
And researchers are increasingly
finding that diesel particulate matter
(DPM) doesnt just affect the lungs.
More and more studies show that
DPM can trigger a range of effects in
the
bodyespecially
in
the
cardiovascular and reproductive
systems (Environ Health Perspect, 2002; 110:
A45864).
In one of the latest studies, diesel
fumes were found to interact with the
fatty acids in LDL (bad) cholesterol,
raising the risk of heart disease
(Genome Biol, 2007; 8: R149; doi:10.1186/gb2007-8-7-r149). Although this was based
on mice, and so may not apply to
humans, human studies also show
diesel to have deleterious effects on
the heart.
One demonstrated that even brief
exposures to dilute diesel exhaust, at
concentrations found in urban road
traffic,
can
induce
adverse
cardiovascular effects in people with
preexisting stable coronary heart
disease as well as in healthy
volunteers (N Engl J Med, 2007; 357:

72 WDDTY Safe Living

Driving towards fuel efficiency

How you drive and take care of your vehicle affects its fuel economy and
emission levels, says the Union of Concerned Scientists, a not-for-profit
research group (www.ucsusa.org). They offer the following tips for reducing
the environmental impact of your car today:
! Drive less. Driving as little as possible is the best way to reduce the
environmental impact of your transportation needs. Link errands, carpool,
use mass transit, or bike or walk whenever possible. Choose a place to live
that reduces your need to drive. If your family already has one car, consider
trying to meet your travel needs without buying a second one.
! Drive moderately. High-speed driving and jack-rabbit starts increase both
fuel use and emissions.
! Keep your vehicle well tuned. Simple maintenance such as regular oil
changes, air-filter changes and spark-plug replacements will lengthen the
life of your car as well as improve fuel economy and minimize emissions.
! Check your tires regularly. Keeping your tires properly inflated saves fuel
by reducing the amount of drag your engine must work to overcome.
! Keep track of your fuel economy. A drop in your car's fuel usage can be
a sign of engine trouble. Keeping track of your fuel economy on a regular
basis lets you know when something is not working properly. Check your
gas mileage by recording the odometer reading and number of gallons you
purchased when you fill up. Divide the number of miles travelled between
fill-ups by the number of gallons purchased.
! Don't let your car idle for more than a minute. During start-up, your
engine burns extra gasoline. However, letting your engine idle for more than
a minute burns more fuel than turning off the engine and restarting it.
! Park in the shade. Minimize evaporation of fuel and keep your car cooler
in the summer by parking in the shade.

107582).

In addition, albeit from a study in

animals, its been found that diesel
exhaust particles can affect sperm
production (J Reprod Dev, 2007 Sep 4;
Epub ahead of print).
Its also been hypothesized that the
toxic components found in diesel
exhaust can cause oxidative and DNA
damage, which can lead to significant
reproductive and cardiovascular
effects (Mutat Res, 2007; 636: 95133).
Other health problems linked to
diesel-exhaust exposure include
diabetes, neurological problems and a
range of cancers in addition to lung
cancer (Environ Health Perspect, 2002, 110:
A45864; Int J Cancer, 2004; 111: 28692).

Cleaner diesel?
To stem the adverse health effects of
diesel emissions, regulators in both
the US and UK have asked for cleaner
diesel engines for several decades
and the standards are becoming
tighter. As a result, the total mass of
particulate emissions from new or
retrofitted engines has been sharply

reduced.
Recent studies of low-emitting
diesel engines with catalyzed particulate filters have shown that
emission rates for several worrying
chemicals are lower than that with
comparable compressed natural gas
(CNG)-fuelled engines (Inhal Toxicol,
2004; 16: 889900).
However, the fact remains that
millions of the older diesel engines
are still in use, and there are still
questions as to precisely what other
tiny pollutants the new fuels and
emissions-control methods may be
creating (Environ Health Perspect, 2002;
110: A45864).
A 1998 report by Swedens EPA
warned than new diesel cars cause
more harm to the environment and
our health than new petrol-fuelled
cars. Said Reino Abrahamsson, a
spokesperson for the agency, For the
sake of the environment, it is better if
car buyers choose a fuel-efficient
environmentally classified petroldriven car rather than a diesel.
Joanna Evans

Every breath we take

Air pollution, the chemical residue of modern livingfrom road traffic
to industrial processingis assumed to mainly assault the lungs,
causing a variety of respiratory illness. But, according to surprising
new evidence, pollution causes more deaths from heart disease than
lung disease, and has even been implicated in birth defects and
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

he air we breathe is now so

polluted that it kills three
million of us around the
world ever y year. In the
United States alone, it kills 100,000
people a year, which is more than
the death toll due to traffic
accidents. Of course, the phrase
death from air pollution never
appears on the death certificate;
instead, the cause of death is put
down
to
agitated
asthma,
bronchitis, emphysema, or some
other lung-related condition
which, nevertheless, have all been
directly linked to air pollution.
Even more startling, however, is
the evidence that exposure to air
pollution appears to affect the heart
as well as the lungs, and caneven
at low levelsincrease the risk of a
fatal heart attack or stroke. Indeed,
contrary to what you might expect,
studies show that air pollution
poses a greater risk of death from
heart disease than from any
respiratory ailment.

Air pollution and the heart

Earlier this year, a major US study
published in a prestigious peerreview journal provided some of the
most compelling evidence yet that
air pollution increases the risk of
heart disease (N Engl J Med, 2007; 356:
44758).
Previous studies have found that
high levels of air pollution are
associated with death and hospitalization for heart disease, but the
present studyamong the biggest
of its kinddiscovered that the
magnitude of health effects may be
larger than previously recognized.
The American researchers used
information from nearly 66,000
postmenopausal women, aged 50 to
79, living in 36 cities across the
nation and participating in the
Womens Health Initiative (WHI)
Observational Study. None of the
women had heart disease at the

beginning of the study but, nine

years on, 1816 of them had suffered
a heart attack or stroke, undergone
heart bypass surger y or died
because of cardiovascular causes.
The researchers linked this
information with data on the air
quality around each womans home,
and discovered that those living in
the most polluted areas had the
highest risk of developing cardiovascular disease and of dying from
it. Higher, long-term exposure to
air pollution was also linked to an
increased risk for developing heart
disease.
An interesting finding was that
only fine particulate air pollution
such as from vehicle exhausts, coalfired power plants and other
industrial sourceswas associated
with an increased risk. Other
community pollutants, including
sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
carbon monoxide and ozone, were
not linked with an increased risk of
heart disease.
But perhaps most important of
all, this new WHI study has confirmed a stronger statistical association
between fine-particle air pollution
and death from coronar y heart

disease than was found in the earlier

studies.
A study by the American Cancer
Society, for example, found that
each 10-unit increase in the level of
fine particulate matter (PM) in the
air [known as PM2.5 because the
particles measure less than 2.5
micrometres (mcm) in diameter]
increased the risk of dying from
heart disease by 12 per cent, higher
than the risk of death from
respiratory causes (Circulation, 2004;
109: 717).
Similarly, the Harvard Six Cities
study reported a 19-per-cent
increased risk of death due to
cardiovascular causes for every 10microgram (mcg) increase in fine-

The polluted heart

Scientists are not certain how particulate air pollution increases the risk of
heart disease, but several mechanisms have been proposed.
One is that inhaling the particles causes oxidative stress and inflammation
not only in the lungs, but throughout the entire body, leading to dysfunction of
the autonomic system (which regulates heart rate and blood pressure), bloodvessel damage and atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). Studies show
that a buildup of atherosclerotic plaque is higher in communities that have
greater concentrations of fine-particle pollution (N Engl J Med, 2007; 356: 5113).
Indeed, a study in miceand so the findings may not necessarily apply to
humansshowed a clear causal link between air pollution and atherosclerosis
(JAMA, 2005; 294: 300310).
Another possibility is that exposure to air pollution induces changes in
blood compositionwith potentially serious effects on the heart. For example,
particulate matter has been shown to lead to rapid and significant increases
in fibrinogen and blood coagulation factors, well-established risk factors for
heart attack and stroke (Circulation, 2004; 109: 265571).

WDDTY Safe Living 73

The threat from outdoors

particle concentration per 1 m3 of
air (N Engl J Med, 1993; 329: 17539).
This latest WHI study, however,
found that the risk increased by
considerably more than thatin
fact, a massive 76 per cent for each
10-mcg risean alarming discovery
given that the average particulate
levels for the 36 cities ranged from
3.4 mcg/m3 (in Honolulu, HI) to
28.3 mcg/m3 (in Riverside, CA).

Are women at greater risk?

According to environmental epidemiologist Douglas Dockery, of the
Harvard School of Public Health, it
is now clear that fine-particle air
pollutants pose a unique risk to
health, although why this should be
is not so clear. It may be their
chemical composition, their size, or
their ability to transport other
pollutants deep into the lungs, he
says. There is a lot of research
going on right now attempting to
figure this out (see box, page 73).
However, what we do know is that
some people appear to be more
susceptible to the cardiovascular
risks of air pollution than others.
In their commentary on the WHI
study, Dockery and fellow Harvard
expert Peter Stone point out that
women are not the same as men
when it comes to heart disease:
Womens coronar y arteries are
smaller in size and tend to harbour
more diffuse atherosclerosis than
do mens arteries, and womens
microvessels appear to be more
frequently dysfunctional than those
of men. They suggest that gender,
while
it
may
not
define
susceptibility to air pollution, may
be an indicator of an underlying
cardiac substrate that puts women
at increased risk (N Engl J Med, 2007;
356: 5113).
So, this may account for the
particularly strong association
between air pollution and death
from heart disease reported in the
all-women WHI study. Other studies
that included both men and women
have
also
found
greater
cardiovascular effects of particulate
air pollution in women than in
menespecially
older
women
(Environ Health Perspect, 2005; 113: 2016,
17239).

74 WDDTY Safe Living

That something in the air

Air pollution is a catch-all term that embraces a range of pollutants, each

generated from a different source, and each with a potential to harm you,
depending upon your health profile.
! Particulates
Source: fuel combustion from road traffic, industrial processing, agriculture
and wood-burning stoves
Health hazards: exacerbation of respiratory problems such as asthma,
bronchitis, emphysema and pneumonia; a cause of cardiovascular
disease and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
! Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Source: motor vehicles, industrial processes and other processes involving
incomplete combustion of organic compounds
Health hazards: cardiorespiratory diseases related to air pollution; cancer.
! Ozone
Source: ozone pollution, or smog, occurs at ground level when it mixes
with nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)from
power stations, cars, industrial plants and household activitiesreacting
with sunlight
Health hazards: irritates the respiratory tract and eyes; causes breathing
difficulties such as shortness of breath, coughing and wheezing (shortterm exposure). Children are especially vulnerable as their smaller lungs
are less able to cope with higher ozone levels. High levels of ozone may
also cause lasting damage to the developing fetus.
! Carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen
fluoride, benzene and ammonia
Source: various industrial, chemical and agricultural processes
Health hazards: respiratory and cardiovascular problems; increased risk of
cancer; reduced birth weight of a newborn if the mother is exposed to
excessive amounts during pregnancy (carbon monoxide).

Indeed, one of those studiesa

22-year follow-up of non-smoking
white adults in Californiashowed
an association between an increased
risk of fatal heart disease and rising
levels of fine-particle air pollution
only in women (Environ Health Perspect,
2005; 113: 17239). The researchers
suggested that particulates are
deposited differentlyand perhaps
more harmfullyin womens lungs
compared with mens (Environ Health
Perspect, 2005; 113: A8367).
Those who are elderly, diabetic
and have underlying heart or lung
disease may also be more vulnerable
to the adverse effects of air
pollution
( Circulation, 2004; 109:
265571).

Birth defects
Thus, it appears that air pollution
needs to be taken more seriously as
a risk factor for heart disease in
adultsbut it isnt just grown-ups
who are at risk. New evidence shows
that the harmful effects of dirty air

can extend even into the womb, and

cause damage to the heart of the
developing fetus.
Research carried out by the
University of California at Los
Angeles (UCLA) School of Public
Health and the California Birth
Defects
Monitoring
Program
(CBCMP) revealed that pregnant
women exposed to high levels of
ozone and carbon monoxide may
be up to three times more likely to
have a baby with a ventricular septal
defect (a hole in the wall separating
the two pumping chambers of the
heart), as well as other valvular and
aortic congenital defects.
The risk was highest when the
women were exposed to pollutants
during their second month of
pregnancy, when the fetal heart and
other organs are just beginning to
develop.
But most worrying is the fact
that virtually the entire study area,
which included the Los Angeles,
Orange, San Bernardino and

Minimizing your risk

How can we protect ourselves from the health risks of
breathing dirty air? First, become a student of your
environment. Do you live near a busy road or motorway? Is
there a farm within a few miles? Is your home or office within
a 20-mile radius of an industrial processing plant?
You also need to become a student of yourself. What is
your health like? Are you sensitive to airborne pollutants?
What is your family history? These factors will help determine
whether air pollution is a major factor in your own state of
health. But whatever the prognosis, theres plenty you can do
to offset its effects.
! Pump up your intake of antioxidants. Combat the
oxidative stress caused by air pollutants on your system
by ensuring a plentiful supply of free-radical scavengers.
Vitamins C and E are particularly effective against nitrogen
dioxide and ozone, respectively, in lung disease (Ann NY
Acad Sci, 1992; 669: 14155). However, for good all-round
benefits, take the major antioxidants at these suggested
daily dosages for adults.
" Vitamin A: 2660 IU for women; 3330 IU for men
" Vitamin C: at least 1 g
" Vitamin E: 400 IU
" Selenium: up to 200 mcg.
These dosages are all well within safety limits. However,
there is a small risk in some people who may react to too
high a dosage, so make sure you first consult a qualified
and experienced practitioner.
! Purify your environment with ionizers. Install these
devices in your car and house, or even wear a personal
ionizer around your neck. An ionizer shoots out negatively
charged particlesnegative ionsinto the air that attach
to pollutants, causing them to drop out of the air.
! Stop smoking. Evidence suggests that smoking can
interact with air pollution to increase the risk of death due
to arrhythmias, heart failure and cardiac arrest (Circulation,
2004; 109: 265571).

Riverside Counties in California,

met the federal standards for
carbon monoxide levels and were
compliant with ozone requirements
(Am J Epidemiol, 2002; 155: 1725).
Another study, involving seven
counties in Texas, also found a link
between air quality and risk of
congenital heart defects. Although
levels of carbon monoxide were
lower than in California, the
researchers found that women
exposed to the highest levels of this
pollutant were twice as likely to give
birth to babies with a heart defect
than those exposed to the lowest
levels.
Particulate matter and sulphur
dioxide were also associated with an
increased risk of heart defects, and
there is even evidence suggesting
that air pollution may influence the

Know whats out there. To keep tabs on levels of

pollution in your area, contact your local air-quality
monitoring service (in the UK: The Air Quality Archive:
www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php; in the US:
Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.gov./tri/). If
pollution levels are high:
" Stay indoors as much as you can, where the levels of
many pollutants are lower than outdoors
" If you must go outside, limit outdoor activities to before
noon or wait until after sunset, especially when smog
levels are high.
" Stay away from high traffic areas and avoid outdoor
activities near these areas at all times. Find a park for
your children to play where there is little surrounding
traffic.
" Don't exercise or exert yourself outdoors when airquality reports indicate unhealthy conditions. The faster
you breathe, the more pollution you take into your
lungs.
Do your bit. Traffic pollution is the biggest offender, so
avoid using the car as much as you can. If you have to
drive, make sure your car is as green as possible by
keeping it regularly tuneda petrol-efficient car can
considerably reduce noxious emissions. Also, keep your
speed down. A slower car burns less fuel and, thus,
produces less exhaust. For more information on
becoming a greener motorist, visit the Environmental
Transport Associations website at www.eta.co.uk, or see
www.greenercars.com.
Dont live near a main road. If youre moving house, find
one that isnt in close proximity to a busy road. One largescale study conducted in England and Wales found that
men and women living within 200 metres of a main road
had a 5-per-cent increased risk of stroke compared with
those living 1000 metres or more away (Stroke, 2003; 34:
277680).

risk of oral clefts (Am J Epidemiol, 2005;

162: 23852).

Yet more evidence comes from

Central Europe, where researchers
have observed a connection between
communities with high levels of air
pollution and increased rates of
heart and other birth defects (Acta
Chir Plast, 1998; 40: 1124; Mutat Res, 1993;
289: 14555).

Clearly, there is something in the

air that can disrupt normal fetal
development.

The evidence so far

These studies are all part of a
growing body of literature from
around the world indicating that
polluted air is taking a greater toll
than was previously believed on
infants and unborn babies. In
addition to birth abnormalities,

more than a dozen studies carried

out in the US, Brazil, Mexico, China
and the Czech Republic have linked
air pollution to low birth weight,
premature birth, stillbirth and
infant death (Am J Epidemiol, 2002; 155:
1725).
The studies differ on which pollutants are of most concern. Some
implicate gases, others blame
particles, and yet others point the
finger at both. But the general
results of the studies are consistent:
the higher the level of pollution, the
higher the risk to babies.
One of the most significant
findings is that outdoor air
pollution seems to be particularly
related to cot death, or sudden
infant death syndrome (SIDS). The
pollutant to blame appears to be
PM10, partic-ulate matter of less

WDDTY Safe Living 75

The threat from outdoors

than 10 mcm in diameter, found in
vehicle exhaust fumes.
In one international study, scientists reported a link between PM10
and 16 per cent of unexplained
deaths among babies of normal
birth weight. They suggested that
pollution above 12 mcg/1 m3 of air
contributes in a substantial way to
postneonatal infant mortality.
In that study, the average allcause death rate was 236.8 deaths
per 100,000 infants, with 14.7 per
100,000 attributed to PM10 pollution. In cases of SIDS, the figure was
11.7 per 100,000 (Environmental Health:
A Global Access Science Source, 2004; 3: 4).
Similarly, a study by Americas
Environmental Protection Agency
found that SIDS was 26 per cent
more likely in infants exposed to the
highest levels of PM10 (Environ Health
Perspect, 1997; 105: 60812). According
to an analysis of the data by nonprofit research organization The
Environmental Working Group
(EWG), this translates to 500 SIDS
cases each year attributable to airborne particle pollution in the US.
However, a Canadian study that
looked into the relationship
between SIDS and air pollution
found that gases (sulphur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide and carbon
monoxide) rather than particles
were most strongly associated with
the incidence of SIDS (Pediatrics, 2004;
113: e62831).
While more research is needed to
establish which pollutants are the
most harmful, whats already clear
is that something needs to be done
now to protect those at risk.

The countryside trap

Many of us believe they can escape polluted cities by moving to the greener
pastures of the countryside. Sadly, the truth is, youre safer in the city. Rural
areas suffer more days of air pollution than urban areas.
Levels of ozone can be 2040 per cent higher in the country. This is
because the greater concentrations of road traffic in cities and towns create
more pollutants that scrub out the newly formed ozone. Ironically, it is the
cleaner air in the countryside that allows ozone to linger and accumulate.
In 2004, urban areas recorded an average of 22 days of moderate and
higher air pollutionbut the figure was twice as high for rural areas. The same
trend was seen in 2003, when cities recorded an average of 50 days of
moderate or higher air pollution compared with 61 days in the countryside.
Although ozone levels, especially during a long hot summer, may be the
main cause of this turnabout, its also important to remember that agriculture
is among the chief culprits for spreading air pollution. In addition, industrial
conglomerates also tend to locate their processing plants in rural areas.
Despite this, large urban areas are still far worse for nitrogen dioxide from
car exhausts. Smaller towns located near major motorways are also likely to
suffer the fallout from heavy road traffic.
The same pattern can be seen on the emissions map for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide, both of which are major
components of exhaust fumes. Interestingly, although lead emissions show a
similar geographical trend, overall concentrations are lower, possibly because
of the controls on using leaded petrol. High sulphur-dioxide emissions are not
as widespread as nitrogen dioxide, tending to be focused more on areas
supporting heavy industry.

WHO says what?

There are a number of guidelines
and standards covering outdoor air
pollution, including the global airquality guidelines recently issued by
the World Health Organization
(WHO; see http://whqlibdoc.who.
int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH
_06.02_eng.pdf). This document
sets levels for particulate matter
(PM), ozone, nitrogen dioxide and
sulphur dioxide. The WHO maintains
that if its standards were to be met
for just one of these pollutantssay,

PMthen deaths due to air

pollution in cities could be reduced
by as much as 15 per cent (Lancet,
2006; 368: 1302).
But a key question is whether
there are any concentrations at
which air pollution will have no
effect on public health (Lancet, 2002;
360: 123342).
So far, the WHO notes that, at
least for PM, no such threshold has
yet been identified. In fact, adverse
effects are seen at levels that are not
much greater than the background
concentrations of PM pollution in
both the US and Western Europe
which, for particles less than 2.5
mcm (PM2.5), is around 35
mcg/m3 of air.
It is unlikely, says the WHO,
that any standard or guideline
value will lead to complete
protection for every individual
against all possible adverse health
effects.
This means its up to all of us to
guard ourselves against the very air
we breathe.
Joanna Evans, with additional
reporting by Bryan Hubbard

76 WDDTY Safe Living