Toxic Shock: Avoiding Dangerous Chemicals Around Us
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 06. 2.06
Environmental reporter Martin Mittelstaedt of the Globe and Mail completed a series that exposed to a larger audience many chemical concerns discussed and argued in TreeHugger. A Canadian federal government study looked at 4,000 common chemicals used for decades to determine if they needed additonal review. Most have been tested to see if they are acutely poisonous, but many haven't "been subjected to the kind of in-depth analyses that would determine whether they cause cancer, disrupt hormone functions, interfere with fetal development or accumulate in wildlife."The biggest concerns:
Perfluorochemicals- used in the manufacture of Teflon and Scotchguard. These are accumulating in the livers of polar bears. "Some environmentalists contend that the differing approaches have caused a situation in which chemical safety calculations for wildlife are far more rigorous than those for humans."The assessments are more protective of polar bears than human children," said Rich Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, a Toronto activist organization." Read John Laumer's comments in our earlier post about Teflon Pans for more information. ::Globe and Mail: Coming to terms with perils of non-stick products
Flame Retardants like polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been building up in breast milk, blood and tissue across North America. There are concerns about it causing huperactivity but mainly about the way the levels just keep getting higher. -Such are the concerns about flame retardants that if they were introduced now, they might not be allowed, particularly in the form found in mattresses. "It may well be that it would not have been allowed on the market," said Robert Chernier, who evaluates chemical safety at Environment Canada. North Americans have 10 times the levels of Europeans, as they moved earlier to phase them out. TreeHugger has discussed them here. read ::Globe and Mail- Ottawa plans to snuff out flame retardants
Perhaps the most controversial chemical is bisphenol A, or BPA. It is so close to the female hormone estrogen that it was once studied for use as a synthetic estrogen for medical purposes. "Because BPA has a shape similar to the estrogen hormone, it is able to fit into the same receptors that estrogen uses to signal cells to turn biological functions on and off. For Dr. vom Saal, the idea that the entire population is being given a dose of a synthetic estrogen through plastic "is supported by hundreds of published articles" and is "an extremely critical public health issue." It is in trace amounts in all of us, from polycarbonates like tinted Nalgene bottles, compact discs, and dental sealants on chidrens' teeth. It is a genderbender like Phthalates- "Experiments on lab animals exposed to small doses of BPA have linked it to low sperm counts, the earlier onset of puberty, insulin resistance and diabetes, prostate abnormalities and skewed mammary gland development". ::Globe and Mail: Are plastic products coated in peril?
Tips on how to deal with this tomorrow.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
One question have, after reading through all of the material is what are our options? If plastics are literally turning us into hazardous materials, then the wise choice is to stop using plastics. What does that leave us though? Reusable containers made out of glass, titanium, or wood? I look forward to hearing the tips on how to deal with it tomorrow.
I too look forward to some solutions.
Glass baby bottles. You can microwave them or hot water bath them.
Glass microwave dishes..better all around.
Old fashioned metal canteens instead of water bottles.
Hard to avoid prepared food container coatings. All are coated with various polymeric materials.
Don't view the tradeoff in terms of "all or nothing". Simply minimize exposure to polymers in food packaging and preparation and maximize use of whole and/or locally sourced foods, You'll have two incentives: saving money and reducing a possible (no scientific consensus yet) health risk.
Alsways avoid inhaling smoke from packaging material fires or buring plastic.
China has the lowest standards bar to leap and yet they are the predominant supplier of plastic consumer items to the west. We can assume that people who want to buy organic clothing also want to avoid buying synthetics made with potentially hazardous additives. You can satisfy this market best by solving both problems at once. Theoretically, entirely safe polymers are within grasp. But you may have to pay a bit more. Big box retailers likely realize they also face this flip side of the organic coin.
You know what? We have really only had most of these chemicals / products for a little over 50 years some maybe more. I would like to know what is the big stigma with taking a step back on the "progress" scale. Is it really progress to have a semi fire resistant bed, couch, clothes when they are basically a toxic soup poisoning you every day? What about plastic itself? Do we really need a lighter, flexible material if it has toxic properties?
The main problem i see with solutions to issues like these is capitalism, globalization, and consumerism. As long as there is a buck to be made a product will be produced, "our mattresss have new fire resistant technology". Big companies have to stay big and continually grow. How do they achieve that? Remake a product but with a new gimmick, add the word "Technology" to this gimmick. "Now your car can shine and resist dirt with our new technology that adds a layer of teflon to your car". Another great example are those plastic liners you put in your crock pot so you dont have to clean it after. Any one with half a brain would see that the hastle of dealing with such a liner would create more headache that it saves, not to mention your soup would have the faint taste of plastic. But if 500 people buy, they made a profit, mission successful. Capitalism created the consumer culture and has continued to propogate it. Is there really need to have soo much stuff? There are now tv shows devoted to cleaning up the massive clutter of objects out of peoples homes because they buy too much stuff. With globalization that just makes this problem a world wide issue. Now we have wal marts,etc and western consumer influence spreading all over the world.
To Brian: if we didn't use or rely on so many items it would be easy to replace plastic. There was once a time when it did not exist, and it wasn't that long ago. What changed since from 60 odd years ago? The creation of the thought that we need certain things to operate in our society.
With the way that big companies in a capitalist environment work, It is extremely difficult to change bad habits. The whole structure of a corperation makes it difficult to alter the way it operates. You have share holders who have very little interest other than getting an ever increasing payoff out of the deal and then the workers in charge of keeping the machine profitable.
As long as structures like capitalisation and corperations exist that allow greed, lust for money/power to go out of control we will never truely "progress".
It's important to criticize and pressure companies about their treatment of the Earth. However, it's also important to recognize their improvements.
3M (Scotchguard) actually dropped perfluorooctane from their product in 2000. This CBC article (http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/05/24/pfos.html) recently reported on the rapid improvement in biomagnification that has resulted.
Amazing site. Thank you for creating it. This is what the internet was made for. I am a fan.
Does TreeHugger have a suggestion for "do it yourself" recycled furniture designs resources? I was just looking at these water bottles, I normally just put in the recycle bin and was inspired by TreeHugger to instead create something I can use. Please suggest if you have any links or articles about this. I'd appreciate.
Thanks again for your site.