Healthy Homes Or Why Are Most Homes Filled With Cancer Causing Substances (Carcinogens), Endrocrine Disruptors and Substances That Cause Birth Defects (Teratogens)?

Is that title a subtle Dr. Strangelove reference? ;)

I expected that part of the post was also going to mention that increased sealing and insulation of homes has increased the amount of toxins in homes. While older homes are less efficient, they often have better indoor air quality because air is exchanged at a faster rate than newer, well sealed homes. I don't mean to recommend poor insulation, but to point out that it is a factor.
Great post and good suggestions. Many people really do not realize how bad their cleaners and so-called air fresheners are and it's good to call attention to this.

--
editor note: You are absolutely right and efficient houses should be designed to allow as much fresh air inside as possible without compromising too much insulation.

I think it might have been a subliminal reference!

I think it's important to be aware of dangers in the home, however, we also need to watch how we sensationalize issues. Yes, there are toxins surrounding us, but that does not mean they are in such quantities that we have to worry about them causing birth defects. Take a look at the March of Dimes report on birth defects... nowhere will you see carpeting as a prime factor.

Whiplash,

There's a difference between sensationalizing and highlight ing facts that tend to get overlooked. Here's some info on PBDE (fire retardant chemicals) and birth defects from the Environmental Working Group:

PBDEs may pose the same threats to humans as a related family of chemicals, carcinogenic PCBs, which were banned in the 1970s after they were found to cause birth defects and neurological disorders and increase the risk of some cancers.

This page is about a study finding high levels of PBDE in mother's milk:
http://www.ewg.org/reports/inthedust/part2.php

The entire report:
http://www.ewg.org/reports/inthedust/

Justin

But, what do you do with all the toxic household stuff once you've ripped it out of your home?

I mean, I know you throw it out. Obviously. But, if it's so toxic, shouldn't there be some kind of disposal kiosk at the landfill? You know, like they have for paints and things.

Different people have wildly different sensitivities to these substances. A friend of mine recently passed out and had to be hospitalised overnight because of out-gassing from a pile of treated lumber that her husband had recently stored in their (internal access) garage. Granted, this is fairly extreme, and she is definitely one of our "environmental canaries" - has huge food intolerances etc as well. But it seems sensible to me that if some people among us have reactions that severe, then the rest of us will be afftected to a greater or lesser extent - even if it's "only" the odd headache or irritability or fatigue.

Dalila is right; sealing homes tighter in an effort to increase energy-efficiency in heating and cooling has had a bad impact on Indoor Air Quality. The important thing to know is that this can be mitigated by a proper heating/ventilating/air conditioning system that allows you to circulate filtered fresh air through your home at all times, without necessarily running the furnace or AC. We really don’t want to compromise on insulation / air tightness at this point, we just need to know there is a solution to this problem.
It’s like I remember my dad telling me when I got my first car, an old beater, that I should always have the vent running in case there was an exhaust leak somewhere in the car. I am lucky enough to not be unusually chemically sensitive and don't need filtered air, so I always have a window open in the house somewhere. That being said, I live in LA right off Venice Boulevard, so the OUTDOOR air quality probably ain’t so hot either! :)

Notice that the claims made in the article fail to make any reference whatsoever to any scientific data.

The potential risks alluded to are, by all objective standards, entirely hypothetical -- as hypothetical as the risk posed by a large knife in your kitchen potentially being used by an escaped lunatic to stab you to death. Possible, just not statistically very likely.

It is curious that the author advocates eliminating the hypothetical risk of "toxic" fire retardants and substituting more flammable mattresses and carpets -- thereby increasing the *very* *real* risk of death and injury by fire.

Nowhere in the article is it even hinted that overall cancer incidence rates and cancer deaths have actually been declining for several decades in North America. But let's not allow the facts to dampen a perfectly good baseless hysteria.

--
editor note: And what are your sources?

The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim, not on me to disprove it. It is a rather dubious and extraordinary claim that "Most modern homes and apartments are toxic environments". It is not my intention to "disprove" the claim since no attempt to prove it was ever made in the first place. I am merely suggesting that in light of commonly available data, the claim is highly doubtful, at best.

Since, as far as I know, no epidemiological evidence exists which proves a causal link between cancer and environmental chemical exposure, you would be demannding that I attempt to prove a negative -- an impossible task, I'm sure you'll agree.

I assumed that it was a fairly uncontroversial and well-known fact that there hasn't been an overall increase in cancer rates in several decades, and you appear skeptical that this is in fact that case, I suggest you peruse the statistical information available from the American Cancer Society.
http://www.cancer.org

--
editor note: I wasn't saying I was skeptical of a decline in cancer rates, but a statistic alone doesn't prove anything. f.ex., the decline in smoking rates can explain many things.

As for the toxicity levels in houses, I don't think anybody is saying that everybody living in "modern hosues" will drop dead, but it's fairly common sense to say that exposure to toxins is not a good thing and should be avoided as much as possible.

You seem to be saying that we have a choice between burning in a fire or being exposed to toxic chemicals, but it is possible to avoid both with good design I suggest you read Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart

dryer sheets? air fresheners? first Ive heard of this...

"I wasn't saying I was skeptical of a decline in cancer rates, but a statistic alone doesn't prove anything. f.ex., the decline in smoking rates can explain many things.

No, a statistic doesn't "prove" anything, but it this case, it would certainly rule out any corelation between environmental chemical exposure and cancer incidence.

As far as reduction in smoking skewing the overall cancer statistics, I'm afraid that's not the case. Lung cancer incidence is anomalous in that it rose independently of other forms of cancer and only began to level off or decline around 1990. This is not true of other forms of cancer. A review of the statistical data at the American Cancer Society or Centers for Disease Control website will make this clear.

"As for the toxicity levels in houses, I don't think anybody is saying that everybody living in "modern hosues" will drop dead, but it's fairly common sense to say that exposure to toxins is not a good thing and should be avoided as much as possible."

The article doesn't explicitly say anyone will "drop dead", but then, the article isn't too explicit to begin with. I think the intent of the first sentence, "Most modern homes and apartments are toxic environments" pretty clearly sets the tone, and speaks for itself!

I agree that avoiding toxins is common sense. However, avoiding non-existent toxins doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What is being overlooked here is that it is axiomatic that the dose makes the toxin. Virtually any substance can be toxic given sufficient concentrations. Oxygen or water can be highly toxic with high enough exposure and concentrations. A an ordinary cup of "fair trade" "organic" coffee contains no less than 2% of known cacinogens by weight.

Clearly this sort of hysterical article uses the term "toxic" in a -- to say the least -- imprecise manner, as though any potential carcinogen has carcinogenic effects in the real world. Given the sorts of advertisements on this website, and what I imagine is your revenue model, I wonder if there isn't a reason for that?

You might wish to read an interesting and educational interview with Dr. Bruce Ames, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, who actually invented the test which determines which substances are potentially carcinogenic.
http://reason.com/amesint.shtml

I, for one, won't be tearing out my carpets or replacing my mattress with a sack of straw, in order to avoid hypothetical toxins.

Milton,

You're all over the place here - let's not muddy the issues!

First off, I'm not paid by any corporation, including the advertisers on this site.

Moreover, calling my condemnation of PBDE "hysterical" is disingenuous since PBDEs are recognized around the world as a problem. The European ban on the chemical went into effect this year. The state assembly of California has voted to ban the use of "penta" and "octa" varieties of PBDEs by 2008.

Everything is toxic given sufficient concentrations, indeed. But do you have any kind of information to back your claim that PBDEs are "non-existent toxins"?

The American Cancer Society, is unreliable, because it is funded largely by corporations involved in producing equipment and drugs used to treat cancer. The Society does very little research into what causes cancer in the first place.

Yes, I'm recommending that you sleep on a mattress filled
with wool or organic cotton, or at least something chemical free. Straw wouldn't be my first choice!

Um... Presumably spring mattresses are ok? They're much nicer to sleep on than foam ones, too, in my opinion.

As for the rest of it, a lot of it seems reasonable, i mean, does anyone think that artificial air fresheners improve the quality of air? Much better to ventilate your loo or empty the bins more regularly!

I notice on the link to the Ecology Center that much is made of toluene... we were told at school that toluene (methyl-benzene) was now banned because of its carcinogenic properties, and a less toxic relative (1,2 di-methyl-benzene, if I remember correctly) was now generally used. Don't know if that's true.
Also, the suggestion that sun cream can cause cancer must be balanced against the presumably much larger risk of sun cancer...

Justin, the report mentioned provides no concrete evidence that items in our homes cause birth defects.

The report is filled with "possibly"'s and "could"'s and "might"'s, yet your headline blatantly states that our homes are "filled with cancer causing substances... that cause birth defects."

That's simply not true, and the statistics back me up. And that's what I mean by sensationalist reporting.

Sure you got me to read the story.... only to be disappointed with the lack of evidence supporting the headline. That's frustrating to me as a reader, and hurts your credibility as a reporter. It's also is the key reason that the environmental movement is often not taken seriously. Which is unfortunate.

As for discounting the American Cancer Society... now you're sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

Whiplash,

I guess sensationalism is in the eye of the beholder.

The problem is that PBDEs are newly examined chemicals and there are no benchmarks for what levels of exposure are safe. What is known is that it is extremely similar to other toxins and that its levels are growing in the environment and in humans. Animal studies have indicated results very similar to those of known toxic chemicals.

Also, for the record, I believe the FDA, EPA and organizations like the Cancer Society are unduly influenced by lobbying groups and corporate funding. If you wish to view this opinion as a conspiracy theory, be my guest.

Saw this today:

"Ottawa wants retardants on toxic list"

The federal government wants to add two chemicals that have been widely used in the production of stain repellants and flame retardants to Canada's list of toxic substances, one of the most aggressive regulatory actions in the world against the compounds.

The substances, polybrominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorooctane sulfonate, have been widely used for decades in consumer products such as computers, mattresses, televisions, furniture and clothing. They are probably found in most homes in the country.

Ottawa is taking action because the chemicals, neither of which are manufactured in Canada, have been linked to a range of troubling symptoms in recent laboratory tests using rodents. The problems include conditions that resemble attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders in children, thyroid hormone disruption, decreased sperm counts, and in some cases, death.

Trace levels of the two chemicals have been detected in the bodies of almost all Canadians who have been tested. Elevated amounts have been found in wildlife, including Arctic mammals such as polar bears that are far from any known manufacturing facilities.

(Note: I somewhat suspect that the editors of this website will refuse to post this response. However, I feel that the author's obfuscations and evasions -- particularly the odious comments regarding a noble organisation like The American Cancer Society -- must not go unanswered. I apologise if I come off as too strident, but the smug denials of the author are quite outrageous.)

Justin, (I'm assuming you are Justin Thomas, the author of the above article) --

"First off, I'm not paid by any corporation, including the advertisers on this site."

From what I can see from your bio on this website, you are the editor of "Metaefficient.com", and I'm guessing you are collecting revenue to shill their products, which seem to be aimed at consumers susceptible to this kind of deceptive and sensationalistic misinformation. Correct me if I'm wrong?

"Moreover, calling my condemnation of PBDE "hysterical" is disingenuous since PBDEs are recognized around the world as a problem. The European ban on the chemical went into effect this year. The state assembly of California has voted to ban the use of "penta" and "octa" varieties of PBDEs by 2008."

Of course, politicians are known to be paragons of common sense -- so long as they happen to agree with you. California legislators are the same fine people who introduced a law making it illegal to curse on a mini-golf course.

In any case, many individual scientists and scientific organisations have gone on public record to voice their disapproval of such politically based legislation which misuses and distorts scientific data:

Poison experts attack 'hysteria' over chemicals
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1572700,00.html

"Everything is toxic given sufficient concentrations, indeed. But do you have any kind of information to back your claim that PBDEs are "non-existent toxins"?"

Once again, you are demanding that I prove a negative. I'm still trying to "prove" that giant talking bunny-rabbits don't exist. The onus is on you to provide evidence of harm, since you are making the claim that these substances are harmful. So far you have failed to produce any positive proof that even one single person has been either harmed or killed by these substances. All you have to this point are empty hypotheses and innuendo.

"The American Cancer Society, is unreliable, because it is funded largely by corporations involved in producing equipment and drugs used to treat cancer. The Society does very little research into what causes cancer in the first place."

That statement would be slanderous, if it weren't so utterly ludicrous and misinformed. You clearly haven't got the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Let's assume your feverish imagining were true -- wouldn't it be logical for them to exaggerate cancer statistics, rather than under-report them, to sell more cancer drugs? As far as half-baked conspiracy theories go, your's is pretty lame, to say the least.

I notice that a few comments later you cast your net even wider to also indict the FDA and EPA of corruption on a grand scale. Needless to say, you don't bother to back this up with any facts.

Unfortunately for you, virtually every agency in the world which tracks cancer statistics says the same thing about cancer rates in Western industrialised countries, including the World Health Organisation and the National Cancer Institute. I'm sure by your reckoning that can only mean they're all in on the conspiracy. Time to get yourself fitted for a tinfoil hat.

By the way, The American Cancer Society (had you even bothered to check) has this to say about themselves:

The aim of the Society’s research program is to determine the causes of cancer and to support efforts to prevent and cure the disease. The American Cancer Society is the largest source of private, nonprofit cancer research funds in the United States, second only to the federal government in total dollars spent.

I find it rather disgusting that you would impugn an oranganisation such as this, to which so many hardworking volunteers have given their time and money -- all in order to peddle your sack of magic beans.

"Yes, I'm recommending that you sleep on a mattress filled
with wool or organic cotton, or at least something chemical free. Straw wouldn't be my first choice!"

I wonder, if not "chemicals", then of what is cotton and wool composed? Magic fairy dust?

Two thumbs up for Milton -- very nice analysis. Always good to see a rational response to the usual uninfomed hysteria.

PS: I hadn't realized that swearing on a miniture golf course causes cancer.

SherbornSean --

Huh! Come to think of it, I hadn't realised that cursing on a mini-golf course causes cancer, either, until you pointed it out.

I mean, the fact that they've passed a law against it proves that it causes cancer, right? Q.E.D.

See how much we've learned from this discussion? I feel smarter already! ;-)

Milton,

Your vituperative demands and accusations are tiresome.

If you are truly interested in more information I would refer you these books as an introduction:

- Our Stolen Future by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peter Meyers
- Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough, Michael Braungart

Get indoor plants from the following list:

* Rubber plant (Ficus elastica)
* Peace lily (Spathiphyllum sp.)
* Areca palm (Chrysalidocarpus lutescens)
* Lady Palm (Rhapis excelsa)
* Ficus alii (Ficus macleilandii)
* Golden pothos (Epipremnun aureum)

Plant list based on NASA research conducted by Dr. Bill Wolverton on the benefits of indoor plants to alleviate dangerous air pollutants like formaldehyde

Milton, many people with tree huggery leanings subscribe to the precautionary principle - the idea that if the consequences of an action are potentially severe or irreversible, the absence of full scientific certainty should not be used to prevent action- this is a wiki definition and it's not perfect but it will suffice.

Furthermore most of the people who read tree hugger are relatively well versed in eco issues particularly as they pertain to human health. Polyvinyl chloride, for example, which is in most people's homes (shower curtains, floor tiles, vinyl siding etc), has been shown to cause a host of problems including cancer. Furthremore there are many, many, many more chemicals - and when tree huggery people tend to use the word chemical they mean things not ordinarily found in nature, like Splenda - which a growing body of research indicates are dangerous for human health. There's no definitive answer yet because our society often follows the opposite of the precautionary principle; namely we try something first and then look to see if it's dangerous. Too often it's turned out that the substance in question was dangerous. This practice has gotten worse in recent years, not better, as the requirements for testing have been weakened while methods for distribution have strengthened. Problems with drugs in the Pharmeceutical industry are a good example of this.

You're correct in that quantity of a substance matters. The biggest problem, however, is that we're rarely subjected to just one chemical. We're subjected to a host of them simultaneously. I spray air freshner in the bathroom that I hang vinyl curtains which I clean with Tilex and scrubbing bubbles after slathering myself with a body wash filled with sodium lauryl sulfate and a separate face wash filled with lord only knows what, and in between that I brush my teeth with my toothpaste filled with artificial tooth whiteners, slather up with a chemical sunblock before going out to my wood deck that was treated with formaldahyde, while eating my chemicalized breakfast of pop tarts which is filled with genetically modified corn which I chase down with milk from cows that have been pumped full of antibiotics and a chemical to pump up milk production. Organizations such as the EPA are only beginning to test the effects of chemicals in tandem.

Lastly, cancer. Lung Cancer and a handful of other cancers are really wonderful cancers from a researchers point of view. Until recently, most people who got lung cancer were smokers. If you wanted to avoid lung cancer you didn't smoke. There are a couple other forms of cancer which are very closely linked to behaviors or diseases (like Aids related Lymphoma), and you can even pass off a decent number of cancer cases on genes. But the majority of cancers are caused basically by nobody knows what. Precisely why does a 26 year old non-smoker get lung cancer? Why does a 40 year old married woman active, vegetarian with none of the markers get colorectal cancer? Why does a 24 year old male get testicular cancer? Are more teenagers getting skin cancer because they're tanning more heavily or is something else going on? And in seemingly benign issues, why has the average rate for the onset of menstruation in girls decreased? On a larger scale when we dump our water - water that was in many municipalities never meant to handle chemical waste such as birth control hormones that get excreted during urination - we wreak havoc on local environments, particularly on frog populations.

You're right that the original post made some underlying assumptions and made his points with a broad stroke, but that often happens when you're speaking to a like minded audience.

As for sources that's a bit tricky because I read a lot, but for the stuff on Vinyl I reccommend the Documentary Blue Vinyl, google the term precautionary principle, and you can also check out these articles:

Chemical Danger to Child Growth
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=625332004

Burden of Proof
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2003/03/19/burden/index.html

Lastly I know you're going to ask about the seemingly arbitrary line between what is chemical and what isn't. I guess a better word than chemical would be synthetic. The line isn't so arbitrary. Most tree huggers are well aware that nature isn't so kindly. The natural world has many, many, many naturally occuring poisons - cyanide, mushrooms, venom etc. But one man's poison is another man's meat - this is a world that has designed, through evolution, our bodies to fit into it, and which the world around us has also been designed to fit. We have not been designed to deal with all of the chemical bombardments that we are currently facing. It's a new thing and potentially a dangerous thing.

This is one of the most educational posts I have ever read on TreeHugger. Not for the article but more for the conversation that followed.

This has been great research for me, as I am preparing for a show on toxicity that I am recording for a podcast which will soon be launching at GreenTech.fM.

Milton made some very good statements. It is great to see such a clear rebuttal of what may have not been a completely clear article. I am very careful to try and understand the reality of what we know as compared to the all-too-common scare tactics that are often present in the media.

This does not mean that Justin's article was without merit, but Milton does bring up some excellent points. The main problem with his comments though is that he is exceptionally rude and condescending.

A far superior rebuttal was then provided by SoFarSoGood. He makes educated points without reverting to insults. Notice the difference between the two sets of posts. It goes to show that you can disagree and still maintain respect for our fellow humans.

This has been an excellent discussion, and I commend TreeHugger for creating an environment where this can occur.

For those interested in finding ways that you can decrease your footprint and reduce consumption, please check out the website we are launching this fall at www.iRent2u.com It has nothing to do with toxicity, but shows ways we can all reduce our consumption and waste, while increasing value and without sacrificing anything.

I hope to see you all there.