ALL AROUND THE HOUSE
Indoor air
pollution. Home is where the hazard is.
Indoor Toxins may be worse for you than outdoor smog.
by Jane Kay,
Chronicle staff writer, Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Homes may be hazardous to your health.
Frying chicken at the stove, spraying ants with
insecticide, taking a hot shower, plugging in a room freshener, or sudsing
the rug with detergent -- all these release chemicals that swirl around
rooms like invisible dust devils.
Household products, furnishings and cosmetics release
vapors and particles that people can inhale or absorb through the skin.
Then there are the pollutants that are tracked into the house from outside
or allowed to waft through open windows that add to the hazard. Plunking
down on a sofa, vacuuming the rug or making the bed stirs up the
chemical-laden dust.
All of this sounds like a scary scenario out of a
horror movie, or a paranoid's nightmare of modern industrialized society.
But the nation's best researchers on indoor air
pollution are cautioning consumers that levels in houses are many times
higher than those from the outdoors, even when compared to city air where
trucks and factories belch pollution. And, they add, they can rise to
concentrations that would trigger inspections in the workplace.
"We spend so much time indoors, yet spend so little
time thinking about the quality of our indoor air,'' said Richard Corsi,
associate professor in the Texas Institute for the Indoor Environment at
the University of Texas in Austin.
"We know a lot more about the effects of occupational
exposure to high concentrations of chemicals than we do about the effects
of chemicals in our homes,'' said Corsi, author of dozens of studies on
airborne contaminants.
People spend 65 percent of their time in their houses,
and 25 percent in some other indoor environment. Transit takes from 5 to 7
percent of the time, and usually less than 5 percent is spent outdoors,
studies show.
Yet, scientists are stymied in predicting health
effects. They lack studies on the amount of exposure that people actually
get and what the exposure may do to people's health.
This month and next, six health and environmental
groups are releasing reports on toxic chemicals in the environment: flame
retardants in dust, phthalates in cosmetics, pesticides in the human body
and the chemical dangers posed to the growing child.
The groups support three bills in the California
Legislature geared toward increasing the public's right to know: Assembly
Bill 2025 requires the disclosure of reproductive toxicants and
carcinogens in cosmetics; Assembly Bill 1940 tells chemical manufacturers
to provide analytical methods for thousands of chemicals on the market;
and Senate Bill 1168 sets up a pilot program to test for toxic chemicals
in breast milk.
In the past, scientists have documented tobacco smoke,
radon gas, lead particles, mold, asbestos and some pesticides as potential
contributors to cancer, respiratory disease and other ailments.
But exotic chemicals are now emerging as potential
hazards, including those in plastic softeners, flame retardants and
so-called surfactants in detergents and cosmetics.
So what is a consumer to do? While some scientists
point out that exposures to chemicals are low, many others say they are
cumulative in humans, long-lived in the environment and insufficiently
studied. Once thought "inert, '' or inactive, many are turning up in the
human body and in fish and wildlife.
Questions going unasked
"How does the new parent know what kind of products to
buy when they prepare the new baby's room? Consumers have almost no
ability to know of the chemical composition of very common products that
are ubiquitous in our society,'' said John Spengler, professor of
environmental health in the Harvard School of Public Health and author of
the authoritative "Indoor Air Quality Handbook.''
"Nobody has asked the question, 'Do these products have
inherent risks and hazards for the population that we should address
before we disseminate them widely?' '' said Spengler. "Did anybody ask if
they could put these in our environment in the first place?''
As the European Commission considers a tough new
regulatory system to register some 30,000 chemicals in the marketplace,
representatives of the building and cosmetics industries in the United
States are involved in worldwide discussions over the safety of their
chemicals. They submit reports, and take part in scientific debates over a
growing number of studies published just in the past few years.
In the meantime, the European Union has begun to phase
out carcinogens and reproductive toxicants in consumer products, including
mercury, cadmium, chromium and some brominated flame retardants.
Effects unknown
The U.S. chemical industry's position, thus far, is
that chemicals are useful in today's society, and are not harmful to
humans at the low levels in products. Most of the 2,100 chemicals
manufactured at volumes above 1 million pounds a year, it says, are well
studied.
"The phthalates are very well studied,'' said Marian
Stanley of the American Chemical Council and an expert on the plastic
softeners. She said that the industry has long made estimates of exposure.
"Now we have numbers," she said, citing a 2003 Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention study conducted nationwide, "and they're actually lower
than the estimates that we had made.''
And as far as chemicals in the body necessarily doing
damage, high doses given to animals in lab studies may create disease,
said Chris Vandenhuevel, another spokesman for the American Chemistry
Council, formerly the Chemical Manufacturers Association. But that doesn't
mean at low levels they will create disease in humans.
People "jump to the conclusion that if you find any
number of chemicals in your body then most must be causing some negative
health effects,'' he said, in remarking on possible fallout of analyzing
chemicals in breast milk, as called for in a legislative bill.
But other scientists say there is no way of knowing
what levels of certain compounds in the body are safe.
"When we are able to measure phthalates in the blood,
it indicates there's been an exposure. But, unfortunately, we're not able
to tell you at this time what the risk is from that exposure," said George
Alexeeff, deputy director for Scientific Affairs at the California
Environmental Protection Agency. "There is a great deal of information on
lead, for example, because studies have examined the relationship between
blood levels in both adults and children and health effects. But that
information is not available for some of the newer compounds that the CDC
has been measuring in blood.''
While there are arguments about the effects of
chemicals in the body, there is no disagreement that they are there.
Last year the Mount Sinai School of Medicine tested
2,500 people -- who don't work with chemicals -- for more than 200
industrial chemicals. The tests found 167 chemicals in their bodies, with
an average of 91 chemicals per volunteer. Fifty-three can cause cancer,
and the others are linked to an array of health problems affecting the
nervous, reproductive, hormonal, cardiovascular and immune systems.
And while scientists agree that epidemiological studies
on the effects of low levels on humans are lacking, they also admit that
they are very difficult to conduct. Researchers can't easily separate out
the effects of one chemical when people are exposed to hundreds, if not
thousands, of synthetic and natural compounds as part of daily life.
Labels on household products and cosmetics aren't a
great deal of help for consumers. If chemicals aren't designated as part
of a cosmetic's "functional formula,'' for example, they don't have to
placed on the label. Even if they are listed, they may not have been fully
tested.
Oversight lacking
The Toxic Substances Control Act doesn't require that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ask for toxicology tests on many
thousands of chemicals on the market. In addition, each year the EPA
receives applications for 2,000 new chemicals -- or six a day. Yet, under
the law, the agency can't require studies from the manufacturers proving
that the chemicals are safe for humans and the environment unless the
agency can show that the chemical poses a significant risk. Without the
studies, it can't easily show a risk.
The Food and Drug Administration doesn't review or
approve cosmetic ingredients before products go to market, and it doesn't
require makers to file data on ingredients or report cosmetic-related
injuries.
Once a product is on the market, the U.S. Consumer
Products Safety Commission can't restrict or ban a product until it can
show a significant risk and that the benefits of regulation outweigh the
costs.
There are other regulatory gaps: The U.S. General
Accounting Office has called indoor air pollution "one of the most serious
environmental risks to human health,'' yet no agency has authority to
control pollutants in indoor air.
One study that contributed to the knowledge of indoor
air pollution was published last year in Environmental Science &
Technology by Harvard's Spengler and Dr. Ruthann Rudel, a scientist at the
Silent Spring Institute in Newton, Mass.
The study found 90 chemicals in both air and dust in
120 Cape Cod houses, including some that cause neurological problems,
cancer and birth defects and disrupt the endocrine system by mimicking,
and increasing, estrogen in lab animals. Every house had more than 20
compounds and some were banned substances like PCBs, DDT and the impurity
in TRIS, a flame retardant.
The most abundant were the phthalates, the plastic
softeners in polyvinyl flooring, wall coverings, raincoats and shower
curtains. Every home tested had DEHP, a phthalate suspected of causing
cancer and reproductive damage. Most of the houses had DEHP at levels
exceeding the EPA's safety guidelines. The researchers also measured
phenols, which are ingredients in disinfectants, detergents and adhesives.
"The smell you get when you open up a new shower
curtain, that's the phthalates. Over time shower curtains tend to get more
brittle. That's because the phthalates have gone out,'' said Rudel.
Phthalates are in dashboards, seats and mats in new cars.
Not just dust
In dust, the researchers found flame retardants --
PBDEs, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers -- at levels 10 times that of
European homes. California has phased out two forms of PBDEs -- penta and
octa -- and their manufacturer has pledged to stop making them by 2005.
Deca, the most widely used form, is still in use. Lab studies show that
deca, like penta, is toxic to the nervous system. Some studies, challenged
by the industry, indicate that deca breaks down to penta, which is more
likely to accumulate in the human body.
"PBDEs may be an indoor problem,'' said Kim Hooper, a
research scientist at the Hazardous Materials Lab at the Cal-EPA. "The
levels you have on the inside of your window are one to 20-fold higher
than on the outside. The biggest threat may be house dust,'' Hooper said.
PBDEs are found in carpets, draperies, auto interiors, hair dryers,
computers and television sets. "So is it really home sweet home?'' he
asked.
At the University of Texas, Corsi's team has
contributed a host of studies on the sources of hazardous air pollutants.
Chlorinated hot water in the kitchen sink, washing
machine, dishwasher and the shower can release chloroform, a carcinogen.
Emissions increase when people use chlorine bleaches and dishwater
detergents containing bleach.
Outdoor ozone, the prime ingredient in smog, can come
into the house and combine with oily terpenes. So-called "air purifiers''
also generate ozone indoors as do photocopy machines, laser printers and
electrostatic air filters. The ozone combines with the terpenes and can
produce a formaldehyde-like chemical, which enters the lungs. The terpenes
from essential oils in plants emanate from flooring, citrus scents or
solvents in air fresheners, floor cleaners, deodorizers and furniture
polishes.
Some other pollutants like the gases from cigarette
smoke stick to carpets, draperies and even fruit, and over time are eaten
or inhaled.
One of Corsi's studies found 47 chemicals released as
gas from personal computers, including hydrocarbons, or volatile organic
compounds, from the adhesives.
Inexpensive, engineered wood products such as
particleboard, plywood, medium-density fiberboard and strand board contain
adhesives that emit hydrocarbons. Some, including formaldehyde, are known
irritants and probable human carcinogens.
"I tell my green-building friends that engineered woods
are really bad for the indoor environment. 'Green' doesn't necessarily
mean healthy. Green means conserving energy. You start sealing up the
building, and you lower air exchange. Then you put all these engineered
wood products indoors,'' said Corsi.
"Eventually the occupants of those building tend not to
feel very good.''
Indoor air pollution: a history
In the 1950s and 1960s, health officials recognized
that lead paint and the lead in surface dust was exposing people to
neurological problems, particularly babies and children crawling on floors
and putting hands in their mouths. Dutch scientists found that nitrogen
dioxide, which causes respiratory problems, wasn't just an outdoor problem
but was also created indoors by gas- fired heaters and stoves.
-- In the 1970s, researchers measured cancer-causing
smoke and asbestos fibers indoors. And radon gas, first measured in the
1950s, gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s as U.S. health agencies
found it gathering in basements and houses in parts of the country where
soil contains uranium.
-- An EPA study in the 1980s, using an exposure model
for "microenvironments," revealed the startling conclusion that indoor
sources of volatile organic chemicals such as benzene are generally a
greater contributor to total personal exposure than are some industrial
sources.
-- By 1986, the U.S. surgeon general and the National
Research Council concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and
damages the respiratory health of children. Now coronary heart disease is
also linked to secondhand smoke.
-- The accumulation of studies resulted in widespread
smoking bans in the1990s. According to the World Health Organization,
passive smoke remains a worldwide problem, particularly for women and
children.
-- Disease from smoke, pest allergens, mold, radon and
other gases is avoidable. The current guidelines of the American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers recommend a
minimum air exchange rate of 35 percent per hour for houses. Homebuilders
have resisted attempts to specify mechanical means to achieve the exchange
rate.
-- J.K.
Hints for the health-minded
Tips for consumers seeking to avoid chemicals in products:
-- Look for "bioplastics" derived from agricultural
products such as sugar cane, corn and tapioca. They emit no harmful gases.
Toyota is producing car mats using the material for the Prius, and also
supplies it to cosmetics makers, including Shiseido, and office equipment
manufacturers, including Fujitsu and NEC.
-- Find toys with no polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, and no
phthalates.
-- Locate manufacturers of electronic and electrical
products, mattresses and furniture that adhere to a European Union
directive phasing out the following by 2006: lead, mercury, cadmium,
chromium, and the brominated flame retardants, PBDEs and PBBs. Brother has
removed brominated flame retardants from office machinery, and Epson is
phasing them out by 2006. Bedmakers Somnium, McRoskey, Lifekind, Ikea and
European Sleepworks say that their mattresses are PBDE-free.
-- Choose products with the smallest numbers of listed
ingredients, avoiding phthalates, detergents and antimicrobial agents.
Some stores offer no- phthalate perfume like the Body Shop's Passion
Flower Eau de Parfum or nail polish sold by Urban Decay. To meet an EU ban
on phthalates in cosmetics by September, Procter & Gamble Co. is removing
phthalates from Max Factor and Cover Girl polishes. Estee Lauder Co. is
taking it out of Clinique and MAC polishes.
-- Jute, wool, cotton and other natural fibers
typically don't need flame retardants. Petrochemical products usually do.
-- Leave shoes at the door. When vacuuming, open the
windows and ventilate. Don't spray chemicals or put on nail polish inside
the house. Avoid air fresheners, scented candles and incense.
Go to
www.ewg.org for more tips.
-- J.K.
Indoor air pollution: a history
In the 1950s and 1960s, health officials recognized
that lead paint and the lead in surface dust was exposing people to
neurological problems, particularly babies and children crawling on floors
and putting hands in their mouths. Dutch scientists found that nitrogen
dioxide, which causes respiratory problems, wasn't just an outdoor problem
but was also created indoors by gas- fired heaters and stoves.
-- In the 1970s, researchers measured cancer-causing
smoke and asbestos fibers indoors. And radon gas, first measured in the
1950s, gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s as U.S. health agencies
found it gathering in basements and houses in parts of the country where
soil contains uranium.
-- An EPA study in the 1980s, using an exposure model
for "microenvironments," revealed the startling conclusion that indoor
sources of volatile organic chemicals such as benzene are generally a
greater contributor to total personal exposure than are some industrial
sources.
-- By 1986, the U.S. surgeon general and the National
Research Council concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and
damages the respiratory health of children. Now coronary heart disease is
also linked to secondhand smoke.
-- The accumulation of studies resulted in widespread
smoking bans in the1990s. According to the World Health Organization,
passive smoke remains a worldwide problem, particularly for women and
children.
-- Disease from smoke, pest allergens, mold, radon and
other gases is avoidable. The current guidelines of the American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers recommend a
minimum air exchange rate of 35 percent per hour for houses. Homebuilders
have resisted attempts to specify mechanical means to achieve the exchange
rate. Source.
Copyright 2004 San Francisco Chronicle. |
