The Truth about Toxics

[Guest guest]

ENN FULL STORY

The Truth about Toxics

Environmental News Network

December 04, 2006 — By ENN

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11770 & ref=rss

Black mold. Pesticides. Mercury. Radon. The list of toxics in our

environment can seem endless and overwhelming. But which risks are

real and which are overblown media creations? Two experts say that's

a question worth asking, and they've set out to provide some

answers.

Ginsberg and Toal have spent a combined 35 years

assessing the risks of everyday toxics and addressing the public's

concerns. Their new book, What's Toxic, What's Not, provides a

single reference source for the average person who wants to cut

through the myths and mixed messages and get to the truth about

toxics. ENN sat down with Ginsberg and Toal to tap their expertise.

Environmental News Network: What do you consider to be the biggest

myth or misconception about household toxics?

Ginsberg & Toal: Toxic mold is largely a media creation. In the

1990s a study by the CDC drew an association between black mold and

lung bleeding in infants in Cleveland. This study was widely

reported, and started a panic that mold was a toxic insult to the

lungs. What hasn't been reported is that this study has since been

retracted. Once an impression is publicly on the loose it's hard

draw it back in.

The fact is that yes, mold can be a health problem for people who

are sensitive. But in general, it's not earth shattering to have

some mold in your house. There's a little bit of mold everywhere.

Humans evolved with mold in caves and straw huts. When you find a

source of mold in your home, don't panic, just remove it physically

by scrubbing and maybe using a little bleach solution.

ENN: On the flip side, is there anything out there that you feel

presents a greater danger than we're generally aware?

G & T: Most people don't pay enough attention to their drinking

water. Private wells can present big issues and problems can sneak

up on you suddenly.

Lax industrial practices in the past can have an adverse impact on

well water for decades. Some water-soluble chemicals live for a long

time in groundwater and move into neighborhoods gradually over time.

You also have to consider what's going on in your neighborhood. If

the guy down the street spilled a little gas on the ground as he was

refilling his lawnmower that alone can be enough to cause problems

in your well water.

Having a private well is particularly dangerous because there are no

local or federal statutes requiring you to test your water. You have

to keep on top of it yourself. When you move into a house with a

well, you test the water for a bare-bones set of parameters

including bacteria, nitrate, iron, and acidity. This is very

important, but doesn't account for risks from things like

pesticides, old industrial solvents, and gasoline. People really

should request a full scan when they move into a house with an

existing well. Run a radiation scan for uranium, heavy metals, and

test for arsenic as well. After that it's wise to follow up on a

regular basis with testing. Someone with no sources of contamination

within half a mile should re-test in five to 10 years. If you are

nearer than that to a gas station or other known source of

contamination, testing every two to three years makes good sense. In

addition, if you notice a change in the taste of your water, or if

there are changes in your neighborhood, test more often. People

really should see their drinking water a precious resource that

takes vigilance to protect.

ENN: How does bottled water hold up under scrutiny?

G & T: People shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security

about bottled water because it's often just urban tap water or from

a public water supply that has been distilled or filtered. There can

be bacteria, trace levels of organics and metals. In fact, less

testing is required of bottled water than city water, so it's not

necessarily any better for you than tap water. By getting a carbon

filter at home for your water intake, you're just as safe refilling

your own water bottle and saving yourself some money!

ENN: The potential health issues attributable to living in close

proximity to power lines has been in the news on and off for years.

Are the risks real or overstated?

G & T: The risks are uncertain but potentially significant – and the

level of risk may actually be on the rise as the population grows

and development puts pressure on the land. Building projects have

been creeping closer to power lines, which are being upgraded to

carry more current. This vicious cycle threatens to expose more

children to high levels of EMF. Fortunately, more regulators are

beginning to recognize a childhood leukemia connection. Since no one

wants to unnecessarily expose kids to EMF from high voltage lines,

potential health issues are beginning to influence siting decisions

in some locales.

ENN: How about appliances like heating pads and electric blankets?

G & T: These fall into the same category as power lines, as do

appliances like computer monitors and TV sets. You don't want your

kids playing right behind your TV, for example. Sitting a few feet

away from the front of the screen is fine.

One appliance that some people worry about more than they probably

should is microwaves, which today don't leak radiation like they

might have in the distant past. But it's still prudent to stand a

foot or more away when it's in use to play it safe.

Cell phones are a newer concern. There's some evidence linking heavy

cell phone usage 10 or so years ago to the development of acoustic

neuroma – slow-growing tumors of the inner ear. However, the

technology has changed so fast that the science of testing for

effects can't keep up with the technology. So it's hard to tell how

safe today's cell phones really are. We can say that cell phone

towers don't present a real risk.

ENN: If you could identify a few relatively simple things that

homeowners could do to reduce their exposure to toxics in their

households what would they be?

G & T: Radon is one of most significant – but most preventable –

household hazards. Exposure does cause lung cancer. But it's easy to

test for and easy to fix.

Carbon monoxide is another. Every house should have a carbon

monoxide detector.

Anyone with small children in older – pre-1978 – housing should be

concerned about lead paint. Even if it's buried under layers of lead-

free paint it can be chipped off and cause a hazard. Window well

paint, in particular, doesn't hold up well, and wind blows paint

dust right into the house. Keep window wells clean and free of paint

chips, and get children tested for lead at the ages of one and two.

We've already discussed drinking water, but again, good general

advice is to be aware of your supply. If you are on a public supply,

your water company is required to send out a Consumer Confidence

Report each July. Read yours to keep abreast of what's going on in

your water. We describe how to interpret these reports in the book.

At the back of the book we've included a homebuyer's guide, which

provides a comprehensive checklist of things like these to consider.

You can take a Home Toxics Test on our website, www.whatstoxic.com,

as well as get more details on the book.

ENN: Look for What's Toxic, What's Not on Amazon.com.

About the Authors of What's Toxic, What's Not:

Dr. Ginsberg is the senior toxicologist at the Connecticut

Dept. of Public Health where he helps set pollutant standards for

air, water, and soil and develops health advisories for fish and

consumer products. He has an adjunct faculty appointment at the Yale

University School of Medicine and is an Assistant Clinical Professor

at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine.

Toal is the supervisor of the Environmental and Occupational

Health Assessment Program in the Connecticut Department of Public

Health. He is project manager on grants from the U.S. Centers for

Disease Control on surveillance of environmental disease and

assessment of community risks from contaminated sites.

Related

Commentary: Toxics in Perspective: Risk Assessment at the

Biomonitoring Crossroads