environment

What are flame retardants? Are flame retardants safe?

May 16, 2020 by Katherine Baker Leave a Comment

Recently, the state of Maryland passed a law banning flame retardants. I saw the news and happily shared the information on my Instagram stories, and realized that me celebrating a flame retardant ban may seem a bit random or odd. Before my MPH in Environmental Health Science, I could not have cared less about flame retardants. I probably never even gave them a second thought.

But, after learning lots about them, I grew passionate about reducing my personal exposure, and informing others about flame retardants and how to avoid them. So, here is some information about flame retardants! I hope you find it interesting. Feel free to leave comments or questions at the end of the post, or reach out to me on social media. Enjoy!

What are flame retardants?

Flame retardants are chemicals that were designed to prevent fire or slow its spread. They are often added to or applied to many products, including furniture, mattresses, curtains, carpets, blinds, electronics like laptops, phones, TVs, remotes, household appliances, wires and cables, building and construction materials, and transportation products like seats and seat covers and other parts of airplanes and trains.

There are several classes of flame retardants. Persistent brominated flame-retardants (PBDEs) are a common class of flame retardants that gained popularity in the 1970s when manufacturers began adding them to furniture, electronics, and other materials to meet certain flammability standards.

In a time where cigarette-induced couch fires were common, and people often fell asleep smoking in bed, the use of flame retardants was pushed by the tobacco industry, so that they could avoid creating a fire-safe cigarette and maintain sales.

Because flame retardants are added to products rather than chemically bound to them, they can be released into the environment. And because they are persistent, they can bioaccumulate, meaning build up, in humans and animals. Humans may also be exposed to bioaccumulate flame retardants via consumption of fatty meats, dairy, and fish.

Thanks to expert opinion and public pressure, PBDEs were slowly phased out of production starting in 2004. Unfortunately, as is common with many chemical bans and phase-outs, other flame retardants, including TBB and TBPH, simultaneously emerged onto the scene.

So even if you are buying new furniture, unless it is labeled as flame-retardant-free, it most likely has one of the new classes of flame retardants. And of course, even though new furniture may not have PDBEs added to it, there’s still a risk of owning old furniture, which may still leach out these chemicals.

Who is at risk for exposure?

Everyone who uses manufactured furniture, electronics, and certain textiles may be at risk for exposure to flame retardants.

Human exposure most often occurs through ingestion of foods or dust containing the particles. Even those who purchase flame-retardant-free products may be at risk for exposure due to build up in our environment from improper disposal of old furniture and appliances covered in flame retardants. And of course, using old furniture and textiles also encours and additional risk.

Because their brains and organs are still developing, children are especially vulnerable to flame retardants. And because children have faster rates of respiration compared to adults, are more likely to spend time on the floor, and are more likely to have frequent hand-to-mouth behaviors, they are at risk of exposing more of the

In fact, a 2017 study from the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health that tested for the presence of flame retardants on the hands and in the homes of New York City mothers and toddlers found that 100% of dust samples and 95% of hand wipe samples tested positive for containing PBCE and TPHH.

…

Air Quality and Coronavirus: What do we know so far?

April 8, 2020 by Katherine Baker Leave a Comment

Welcome to another coronavirus post. Now, I know I said I wouldn’t dwell on the topic and go back to business-as-usual science based posts, but to be honest, covering other topics interests me less than it would otherwise, considering COVID-19 is impacting our daily lives in significant ways. And of course, my public health brain can’t help but find fascination in reading the emerging science about it as it comes out. Today, I thought I’d focus on coronavirus and air quality. Like with my post on coronavirus and food safety, I’m going to focus on synthesizing what we know so far; considering COVID-19 is a novel disease, we are still learning about it and trying to understand it fully.

This post will cover two topics: first, we’ll discuss what we know so far about coronavirus and air quality, and how and why the disease may be impacting air quality. Second, given that many of us are spending most of our time indoors, we’ll chat about indoor air quality in general, and what you can do to improve the air quality in your living space.

If you’d like to learn more about COVID-19, please visit the WHO website, or feel free to visit any of my posts about it thus far below:

I plan to revisit this post once a bit more pollutant raw data is available, and am considering even running a mini analysis on my own. I am also working on a post about what increases risk of and transmission of zoonotic diseases. Stay tuned!

Are lockdowns and quarantines due to COVID-19 decreasing levels of air pollution?

News reports from around the world seem to indicate that yes, the slowdown in manufacturing and drastic decrease in transportation are decreasing levels of some pollutants.

Considering combustion emissions from vehicles are a major source of many pollutants including PM2.5 (read more about what PM 2.5 is here) and CO2, it is feasible that emission of some pollutants has decreased, given that travel has decreased and far fewer people are commuting to work or social events.

Additionally, when you consider the abrupt halt in many industrial manufacturing processes that has also occurred over the past few months, a decrease in levels of some pollutants seems feasible, as well.

However, while many media outlets have reported these decreases in air pollution across parts of Europe and in some cities in the US based on satellite data, peer-reviewed literature on the topic has been sparse.

Now, this does not mean these reports are untrue; in fact, it’s likely that they are. I just wish there was a bit more peer-reviewed literature published on the topic so I could feel more confident in synthesizing an interpretation on the matter.

I was able to find one assessment of pollution levels in China pre and post-lockdown, which found that carbon emissions dropped 25% as a result of the swift halt in industrialized activities. And a NASA report found NO2 (another pollutant) dropped 30% between January 1 – February 24, 2020.

But the NASA scientists note that this drop in pollution doesn’t necessarily mean the air quality is ‘good’ or healthy across China. Air pollution is still a major issue, even if we see what is inevitably a temporary decrease in emission levels.

A scientist at Columbia has also stated that pollution levels at her monitoring station in the city have dropped in recent weeks compared to pre-shelter-in-place levels.

Like the media reports mentioned above, these results aren’t peer-reviewed or published in any journal. In fact, I couldn’t find any peer-reviewed journal articles about air pollution levels in Europe or the United States pre and post COVID-19.

Upon some reflection, this is likely because it is a bit early to take a measurement that would span a long enough time period to be meaningful to show us what, if any, potential decreases in emissions are occuring, and if they are lasting.

Most air pollution and climate experts warn, however, that even if there is a decrease in emissions now, it is likely temporary, and not necessarily worthy of celebrations. Even if we did decrease carbon emissions by, say, 30%, the emissions levels would still be higher than they were a decade ago.

Additionally, the Trump administration issued a memorandum on March 26, 2020 that informed companies that the EPA would not be subject to fines or other legal enforcements for failing to monitor and report their levels of air, water, and soil pollution, citing the COVID-19 outbreak as the reason for the relaxation of pollution regulation enforcement.

…

Is organic food better for the environment? Is grass-fed meat more sustainable?

February 11, 2020 by Katherine Baker Leave a Comment

Hi everyone! Today I wanted to discuss sustainable eating. In particular, I want to explore the question: “Is organic food more sustainable?” I find that many people are under the impression that organic food is absolutely best for the planet, so I want to unpack how true or untrue that may be. I also want to discuss grass-fed meat, because I keep seeing the narrative that it is better for the planet and for people. Let’s dive in!

So, first of all, what is “organic?”

According to the USDA, certified organic foods are “grown and processed according to federal guidelines addressing, among many factors, soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and use of additives.

Organic producers rely on natural substances and physical, mechanical, or biologically based farming methods to the fullest extent possible.”

To be considered “certified organic,” a food must meet a certain set of requirements by the government. In the United States, the USDA has defined a list of ‘allowable’ and ‘prohibited’ substances for agricultural crops to be considered Certified Organic.

The rules are pretty strict. For example, for produce to be called organic, it must have been grown in certified organic soil that has had no prohibited substances applied for at least three years prior to harvest.

So, even if a farm is transitioning to organic, plant-foods can’t be labeled as such for at least three years since the farm started following organic agricultural procedures. There are few incentives to support farmers during this transition period; they often have to bare the costs themselves without seeing any payoff for at least three years.

To be clear, organic farms can use some pesticides and fertilizers. The key difference is: organic pesticides must be natural in origin, whereas conventional pesticides may be synthetic.

Organic meat must be raised in “living conditions accommodating their natural behaviors (like the ability to graze on pasture), fed 100% organic feed and forage, and not administered antibiotics or hormones.”

Organic foods are also not allowed to be genetically modified (no GMOs, even though there is no current evidence to suggest their consumption is detrimental to human health).

Different government agencies have their own sets of rules and regulations surrounding organic certification. It’s also important to note that phrases like “made with organic ingredients” have no real regulation at all.

Is organic food better?

It appears that most consumers think so. A recent review showed that consumers find organic labels to have some sort of health halo around them.

But do organic foods live up to the health hype? This is a complex question with complex answers.

A 2012 review of more than 200 studies showed that there was no significant difference in terms of nutrient values of organic foods compared to conventional foods. The authors did note that publication bias may have played a role in their findings.

A more recent and larger review of 343 studies found that organic and conventional vegetables contain similar levels of most vitamins and minerals, and that convention produce tends to have more protein. The same study also found that organic foods may have higher levels of antioxidants, and expose consumers to less pesticides.

Pesticides, as I’ve written about here, are known to have detrimental impacts on human health. On the other hand, organic foods don’t truly seem to have more vitamins and minerals. In fact, conventional crops may have more protein (though few Americans are protein-deprived).

It’s also important to note that there is no standard comparison of exact organic versus conventional foods, since a bunch of other variables (like soil and water quality, as well as farming practices) may have impacted the results.

Is organic food better for the environment?

There are a lot of factors to consider, and at the present moment, there is not enough comprehensive data available on soil and environmental impacts of all of the various practices involved in both conventional and organic farming to make a precise comparison.

Furthermore, organic farming and conventional farming practices may vary farm to farm, which makes comparing them on their organic status alone even more difficult.

That said, we do have some data that shows that in some ways organic farming has environmental benefits, while in other ways, conventional farming has its own set of environmental benefits.

…

How You Can Help Fight Climate Change

January 12, 2020 by Katherine Baker 2 Comments

Hi friends! How are you doing today? I hope 2020 is treating you quite well. Today we are going to be chatting about how you can help fight climate change. I spent the bulk of the work week at the 2020 NCSE conference, gathering new information and skill sets, making new friends and connections, and seeing some climate pals from all over.

It was great to re-immerse myself in the climate space. I really truly want to make a difference in this world by helping in any way that I can! I left feeling inspired and polled my Insta fam to see what climate and environmental health science questions people had.

One question I got, which I thought was an excellent question, is “What are some things I can do to be effective to fight climate change?” So today’s post is all about how you – yes YOU – can be an effective advocate in the face of the climate change crisis, and help fight climate change and its impacts!

This list is long, but by no means exhaustive. In fact, I’m sure I’ll think of many things in the coming days, weeks, months, and years, and probably come back and edit this post.

And please do not feel overwhlemed by this list of ideas for how you can help fight climate change. You do not have to engage in all of the listed opportunities below. You can make one change, two changes, or several changes. All efforts are worthy of applause.

But I hope you find it useful. Even though it’s very easy to (understandably) feel overwhelmed by the climate crisis, please, when possible, do not give up hope. It’s important to work together to do whatever we can to combat climate change, which is what I consider to be the greatest threat to our planet and all of its inhabitants.

If you want to get an estimate of your carbon footprint, take a look at this resource from UC Berkeley.

1. Support policies that encourage effective climate change action and the politicians that support them.

But before we take a deeper dive into individual actions to take to reduce your impact on the environment, I want to emphasize that one of the most important and effective things you can do to fight climate change is to advocate for policies that protect and prioritize the environment, including environmental regulations and standards (for things like air and water quality and acceptable levels of pollution), conservation initiatives, mitigation projects (projects that help damage control what’s been done or is happening), decarbonization initiates, and polices that incentivize eco-friendly behaviors or consumerism. Compliance and enforcement polices (aka things that keep us accountable) are great too.

Effective, enforceable policies are one of the most effective ways to make sweeping, large-scale impacts to fight climate change. Which is why I always stress the importance of supporting policies and politicians who advocate for environmental health and climate change action.

Why are regulations and laws so important? Well, think about it. It’s super easy for businesses and individuals to slip up on occasion if they are not being held accountable. Have you ever skipped a ‘required reading’ for a class that didn’t ever check to make sure you did it? It’s a very easy thing to do, even for individuals and businesses that have the very best intentions. And for those with a disregard for climate change and the environment, lax regulations make it very easy to exploit the environment, which is something we can no longer afford.

So how can you do this, exactly?

Well, first of all, if you are in the US, you can track environmental protection laws right and the representatives introducing them with on this government website. You can also check to see how consistently different representatives from your area (and others) have voted in favor of environmental protection with this super neat “Environmental Scorecard” tool.

In addition to seeing how politicians have handled environmental protection policies in the past, you can also check the websites of politicians to see where they stand on environmental issues when deciding how to cast your vote in upcoming elections. If we want to take environmental action seriously, we must advocate for policies that will help us reach our goals.

But what about right now? Want to put pressure on politicians to take action right now? Well, you can.

Here’s how:

Use the websites Vote Smart and GovTrack to gather information on how to get in touch with members of Congress. Use the local district office as a main point of contact, as they prioritize constituent relations.
Add your representative’s phone numbers to your phone. Consider calling them daily to express how important it is to you that they support policies that take climate change seriously. If you can site bills/laws that are upcoming and will be voted upon soon, that’s even better. Write out a script or talking points if you need to. Remember to always be kind and respectful while expressing your concerns. But be persistent. Consistently calling your representatives is something that is very easy to fall out of routine to engage in. But give it a try if you haven’t already. Public pressure can be effective.
If possible, show up in person at town halls in your area. Speak up about climate change at these meetings. Physical presence, when possible, can be impactful. Check your local town hall schedule here.
Consider using online tools to contact your representatives. NRDC has a tool to urge your governor to lead on climate action here. The Union of Concerned Scientists also has a tool to call on your senators to support policies that mitigate the climate crisis right here. You can even personalize the messages and specify how and why this is important to you.

Now, let’s see what other actions you can take as an individual to combat climate change.

2. Educate Yourself. Learn about climate change. But realize you don’t have to be an expert to be effective.

It’s important to be well-informed about the realities of climate change. Some great (free) introductory resources include the NASA Global Climate Change website, the UN’s Climate Change information page, NOAA’s Climate.gov website, NRDC’s website, and the WHO’s climate change page. I also have several blog posts under the “Climate and Health” section here on this page, and welcome topic suggestions at any time (pardon the self-promo).

While the information is important, don’t be overwhelmed or feel as though you have to be an expert to make a difference. You can be absolutely effective as a climate advocate even if you are not a climate scientist.

Climate change impacts all of us, so we must all come together to learn about its impacts and potential solutions, and work towards a greener future together. The more people on board to fight climate change, the better. More people = more pressure for policies that can make serious and impactful change.

3. Start conversations with others about climate change, and discuss how you can fight climate change together.

Engage with your community, and spread awareness about how climate change is already impacting our planet, and exchange ideas about how we can work together to combat climate change.

A super interesting 2019 survey conducted the Yale Program on Climate Communications found that Americans tend to underestimate the social consensus on climate change. It turns out 69% of Americans believe ‘global warming’ is happening, and that it is a problem, but only 54% of Americans believe other Americans feel the same way. It’s important we start connecting with others about climate change, exchanging our concerns and informing one another of effective ways to take action.

If you’re looking for resources on how to talk to climate skeptics effectively, consider your goal and your audience. Focus on empathy, shared values, shared struggles, common ground, and point out ways in which taking climate change seriously is vital to every living being on the planet.

Discussing ways in which climate change are meaningful to the audience and empower specific action (ie, exchanging ideas for how change can be made) can also be effective. For more information on talking to skeptics, check out this resource from Harvard School of Public Health or this scientific journal article.

4. Eat a more sustainable diet.

The global food system contributes 19-29% of the total human-created global greenhouse gas emissions, meaning the foods we eat can help us make a difference in the future of our planet. Sustainably eating has garnered much attention in the past few years, which is exciting because it’s a meaningful way for individuals and feeding entities to make an impact.

How can you eat more sustainably? Well, first you can start by decreasing your meat consumption. In particular, livestock agriculture foods (like lamb and beef) contribute an estimated 14.5% of all anthropometric greenhouse gas emissions, which is a significant amount. While some have said that grass-fed beef is better for the planet and its people, research shows it carries an even larger eco-footprint.

Dairy, another livestock entity, also emit a significant amount of greenhouse gasses; in fact, cheese has a larger carbon footprint than does chicken. Eating a more plant-based diet can help you reduce your eco-footprint. You do not have to go fully vegan to make a difference, so do not strive for perfection if you find that intimidating.

Reducing consumption of carbon and water-intensive animal products is one of the most impactful ways to reduce the eco footprint of your diet, and your life. A report in Science states that even the lowest-impact meat causes “much more” environmental impact than the least sustainable forms of plant-food production.

…

What are GMOs? Are GMOs Safe? Can GMOs Be Useful?

November 11, 2019 by Katherine Baker 3 Comments

Hi friends! Today on the blog, we are talking about GMOs. GMOs (or genetically modified organisms), have gathered quite a clout of controversy in recent years. Depending on who you ask, GMOs are either horrific, potentially useful, unnatural, necessary, toxic, harmful, helpful, and everything in between. With all the noise surrounding GMOs, it can be hard to decipher the truth. So what are GMOs? Are GMOs bad for you? Or are GMOs safe? Are GMOs bad for the environment? And Can GMOs be useful? Read on for all the details.

What are GMOs?

There is actually no universally agreed-upon scientific definition for the phrase “GMO,” nor is there any regulation around its use for labeling in the US.

That means things that are labeled “non-GMO,” have not had to meet any specific standards or regulations. The FDA has released voluntary guidelines, but there is no formal inspection or enforcement of the phrase “Non-GMO” on food labels.

The FDA doesn’t even use the phrase “GMO,” as most crops we eat today are genetically modified in some way. The FDA does recognize some foods as “genetically engineered” (GE), which it states is a “more precise term.”

Genetic engineering refers to genetic modification practices that utilize modern biotechnology to target a plant’s genetic makeup to give the plant a desirable trait.

This brings up an important point: there are actually very few genetically modified/engineered crops allowed.

In the US, the list includes things like alfalfa, canola, cotton, maize, papaya, rice, soybeans, roses, sugarcane, wheat and a few varieties of “Arctic” potatoes and apples, as well as FLAVRSVR tomatoes, which are rarely grown these days. Besides the major crops (rice, wheat, soy, etc), it’s actually very unlikely the produce you buy at the grocery store is a ‘GMO.’

Yup, that’s right. A vast majority of what you find in the produce section of US grocery stores is not genetically modified (the exception being papayas, which are always genetically modified in the US, read on for details).

The process for a crop to get “GM” approved costs millions to billions of dollars, and the import/export taxes upon them are also steep. Thus, even if the technology exists, very few GM crops are approved to be grown, unless they are going to be utilized widely, because of the high cost barrier for approval.

Many crops may have been selectively bred to foster certain flavors or growth characteristics, but this is not the same as genetic modification. Humans have used selective breeding techniques for thousands of years to develop crops with a range of desirable features, including various sizes, shapes, and colors of crop foods.

Perhaps you did experiments with pea plants growing up that required you to cross pollinate different pea plants to get different color flowers, etc. This is sort of like what plant breeders do to create different varieties of produce.

For example: say you see an apple in the store that’s new-to-you. You read the description. It says it’s a mix of honeycrisp and another variety (Hi, Snapdragon apples!). This is not a genetically modified apple. It’s a result of plant breeding.

Are GMOs Safe?

To date, existing evidence suggests that genetically engineered crops are safe for human consumption.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, WHO, National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and FDA have all stated that genetically modified crops are safe for consumption, based on the plethora of available data.

In the US, the FDA holds foods from GE plants to the same food safety standards and requirements as foods derived from traditionally bred plants.

…

Air Pollution and Human Health: How Poor Air Quality Leads to Chronic Illness and Death

November 7, 2019 by Katherine Baker Leave a Comment

The current air quality emergency in Delhi, where the AQI has reached 999 (which is well above the “safe” level of 100 set in the US by the EPA), has raised recent awareness about air pollution and human health.

I recently shared some articles on the #DehliAirEmergency on my social feeds, adding a comment about how air pollution caused over 8 million deaths per year. Several people reached out to me, surprised that air pollution could cause death or chronic illness, and so I thought I’d devote a post to address the health impacts of air pollution.

I must say I myself was shocked to learn about the serious and sweeping dangers of air pollution. I always assumed it could cause some respiratory distress, but didn’t think it could do much more than that.

Then, I took a job where I spent a semester researching air pollution as a justice issue for a lawyer at Mailman (she’s a legend and I learned so much…but that’s another story for another time) and I was surprised to learn it caused not only respiratory illness, but also cardiovascular diseases, cancer, neurological illnesses, and even death.

What’s alarming about air pollution, and many other environmental health exposures, is that they are, for many, unavoidable. While we can choose whether or not we smoke, do drugs, or engage in other risky health behaviors, we must all breathe air, we do not have the luxury of choosing how clean or dirty that air is.

Obviously, air pollution levels vary by geographical location, and there are luxuries afforded to privileged individuals to reduce their risks. However, air pollution, like climate change, is a threat to us all.

I hope by spreading awareness about these topics I can help others understand how and why we need to take action. I don’t think anyone wants their family, friends, and pets breathing in toxic air, because as you will learn in the text that proceeds this, air pollution can do a lot of damage to health.

So with all that said, here’s a post about how air pollution can impact human health. I hope you enjoy it As always, please feel free to leave questions or comments below, and/or reach out to me on Instagram, Twitter, or YouTube!

What is air pollution?

Air pollution is a mixture of natural and human-created substances in the air. According to the WHO, the 6 major air pollutants include ground-level ozone, particle pollution (read all about PM 2.5 here), carbon monoxide, sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxides and lead.

Air pollutants are typically divided into two main categories: outdoor air pollution, and indoor (ambient) air pollution.

Outdoor air pollution is, as the name suggests, pollution you would be exposed to the outside of the built environment, and includes things like fine particles produced by the burning of fossil fuels, ground-level ozone (which is produced from the reaction of oxygen and urban smog), tobacco smoke, and noxious gasses such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and chemical vapors.

Indoor air pollution (also known as ambient or household air pollution) is found within buildings and homes and is considered one of the most important environmental health risks worldwide.

Indoor air pollution involves exposure to household particles like building materials such as asbestos, formaldehyde, and lead, allergens from pests like cockroaches and mice, tobacco smoke, mold, and pollen. Indoor air pollution may also contain carbon monoxide, radon, and household products and chemicals found from cleaning, building, or pest control products.

In developing countries, indoor air pollution is often generated by incomplete combustion of fuels for cooking, heat, and lighting, without ventilation. Coal, charcoal, wood, kerosene, and dung are commonly burned using ‘dirty’ technologies, which do not completely burn these fuels, and emit air pollution into the home. People who spend more time around the source of the air pollution, like women and children, are at highest risk for adverse health effects.

Both forms of air pollution are important to address and both can contribute to each other.

Air Pollution and Human Health: How many people die each year from air pollution?

Air pollution is responsible for an estimated 8 million deaths each year (some estimates go up to 8.8 million deaths per year), with about 4 million of those deaths coming from indoor air pollution.

Yes, you read that correctly – over 8 million people die from air pollution each year.

To put that in perspective, the WHO estimates 7 million smokers die each year from cigarettes (and an additional 1.2 million die from secondhand smoke), meaning deaths from air pollution are roughly on par with deaths from smoking. Except individuals have the choice to smoke. AIr pollution is something people can’t escape.

…

What are VOCs? How can VOCs impact health?

October 20, 2019 by Katherine Baker 2 Comments

Hello! Welcome to this post about VOCs. You may be wondering, “What are VOCs? And how can I reduce my exposure to them?”

Or, you may be like I was before I got my MPH in environmental health science and be like “All that stuff is whatever; I’m sure it’s fine. People live with chemicals and stuff all the time.”

Ahh, sweet ignorance. Seriously though – getting my MPH in environmental health science really opened my eyes to a variety of topics I feel like more people should be educated about. It’s easy to be told and to believe that chemicals and pollutant exposure are just a part of life, and that everything is fine, but the truth is, many produce real and serious risks!

Please know that I am not an alarmist, nor do I want to ignite fear into you about any specific food or chemical. My goal is always to provide information about nutrition and environmental health science to equip people to make choices for a healthy life.

Random story…What Inspired this post

VOCs have been on my mind a lot lately, due to some 4-day-turned-4-week contract work that I was told was “low-VOC.”

Obviously, me being me, I had the urge to look up the chemical being used and to do my own risk assessment, and can say, that although it is not a known carcinogen to humans, I wouldn’t consider the work being done to carry zero risk.

I also have hypersomnia and am super sensitive to chemicals, so let’s just say…the last four weeks have been trying me. Of course, my concerns were washed over, and I was told repeatedly that “VOCs are fine!”

Sometimes it’s frustrating to have authority but not be respected. Sigh. I have legitimate training in this area, and literally was stared at like I was an alarmist idiot.

So it goes with choosing to study environmental health science and nutrition and looking young and having others make assumptions about my qualifications and level of competence. Just over here dealing with daily headaches and worried about people (and pets!) in this building! Sigh. In an attempt to turn my frustration into something positive, here is an informative post on VOCs to help you live your best life!

Anyways, let’s chat VOCs!

What are VOCs?

Volatile Organic Compounds (also known as VOCs) are compounds that are easily vaporized and turn to gases. VOCs include a variety of chemicals, emitted by a by a wide range of products, and inhaling VOCs can lead to both short and long-term health effects.

VOCs are most often found in higher concentrations indoors than outdoors. Many chemicals found in common building materials, home goods, and household cleaning products contain VOCs.

Sources of VOCs include paints, paint strippers and other solvents, wood preservatives, aerosol sprays, air fresheners, pesticides, dry-cleaned clothing, moth repellents, building materials and furnishings, office equipment such as printers, copiers, and graphic and craft materials like glues, adhesives, permanent markers and photographic solutions.

VOCs are also found in cigarettes, secondhand smoke, and vehicle exhaust.

The most common ways people are exposed to VOCs is through inhalation. Skin contact is another route of exposure.

What are the Health Effects of VOCs?

VOCs can cause a variety of short and longer-term health effects.

Early symptoms of VOC exposure include ear and respiratory irritation, headache, dizziness, and visual disorders or impairments.

More generally, VOCs can cause ear, throat, nose and eye irritation and discomfort, difficulty breathing, as well as allergic skin reaction and rash. Epistaxis, or nosebleeds, may also occur from VOC exposure.

VOCs can also cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, and loss of coordination.

Longer-term VOC exposure can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. Some VOCs, including benzene (found in tobacco smoke, paint supplies, and automobile emissions) and methylene chloride (found in paint thinners and adhesive removers) are known carcinogens in human studies.

Others, like perchlorethylene (emitted during the dry-cleaning process) are known carcinogens in animals, and suspected carcinogens in humans.

Formaldehyde, a well-known VOC, is known to impair lung function at high levels, and sensory irritation and asthma development at lower levels.

As with all chemical exposures, health effects vary based on exposure level, time period of exposure, and individual susceptibility (some people are more susceptible than others).

VOC exposure in office spaces are sometimes responsible or contributory for a phenomenon known as “sick building syndrome,” or SBS. SBS describes a medical condition where people in a building have symptoms of illness of feel nondescript “unwell” for no obvious reason.

Elderly individuals and those with asthma may be more susceptible to the impacts of VOCs. Young children, who have an increased frequency of respiration compared to adults, are also more vulnerable.

…

What is Chlorpyrifos? Is Chlorpyrifos dangerous? Here’s what you need to know about the most widely-used insecticide in the US

September 12, 2019 by Katherine Baker Leave a Comment

Hello friends! Today I’m combining my environmental health science and nutrition backgrounds to chat about pesticides – specifically chlorpyrifos. You may have heard of chlorpyrifos. It’s been the news cycle a lot the past couple of years. Long story short, it was supposed to be banned, and then the ban got delayed, and now we’re still waiting for the ban to go through. But let’s back up – what is chlorpyrifos? Is it dangerous?

What is chlorpyrifos?

Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum, chlorinated organophosphate pesticide (aka a chemical compound) commonly used for pest control on crops, animals, and in buildings. Chlorpyrifos was first introduced by DowDuPoint Chemical Company in 1965, and has a variety of registered food and non-food applications.

Chlorpyrifos is considered the most widely used insecticide in the United States.

Notably, chlorpyrifos is used as a pesticide on a variety of food crops, including many fruits, vegetables, grains, and nut trees.

It also has plenty of non-food uses, such as application to golf course turf, industrial sites, greenhouse production, farms, woods, and is often used in residential pest-control (it’s common in roach and ant bait products). It’s also been used as a public health-based application for mosquito-controls (most often in situations where the benefits of broad application outweigh the risks).

Is Chlopyrifos Dangerous?

Yes, chlorpyrifos can be harmful to human health. How exactly? Bare with me through some long scientific lingo and we’ll get to the facts soon, I promise.

Chlorpyrifos is classified as an organophosphate pesticide. Organophosphates inactivate the enzyme cholinesterase, which is responsible for deactivation of the nerve signaling protein acetylcholine, which leads to a buildup of acetylcholine, which over time causes overactivation of nerve targets, including those of the heart, brain, and digestive system, among others.

Overstimulation of these nerve targets is associated with nausea, dizziness, confusion, loss of muscle control, and death. It’s similar in chemical structure as some of the nerve agents used in WWII. It is considered a neurotoxicant.

Within the past decade, concern has risen about adverse health outcomes associated with chlorpyrifos from not only shorter, higher levels of exposure, but also longer-term lower levels of exposure.

In the early 2000s, scientific evidence began to suggest a link between chlorpyrifos use and a variety of adverse developmental outcomes. Perhaps most famously, researchers from th Child Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) at Columbia Mailman School of Public Health (HUGE shout out to the alma matar!) found prenatal exposure (from residential environments – ie, spraying for bugs and pests) to chlorpyrifos causes structural changes in brain development.

The researchers at Mailman continued to study the chemical at levels of what wound be considered typical to high exposure, and found that prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos is associated with deficits in working memory and lower IQ at age 7. Yes, that’s right. This chemical can have long-term cognitive impacts.

CCEH scientists have also shown that exposure to chlorpyrifos is also linked to lower psychomotor developmental index scores, and lower mental development index scores in children, and their research suggests boys may be more vulnerable than girls.

…

Climate Change and Wildfires: How are they connected?

August 28, 2019 by Katherine Baker Leave a Comment

Hello! Given that wildfires have been all over the news lately, I thought they would make a good topic for a blog post. Specifically, we are going to discuss what ingredients are necessary for wildfires to start, and how climate change and wildfires are connected.

Wildfires have been increasing in the Western US since the 1980s. While there are normal fluctuations in wildfires cycles and climate patterns like El Nino which may impact wildfire frequency and intensity, it is clear that they are increasing.

Projections suggest that climate change will increase wildfire frequency and areas burned moving forward.

Ingredients for a Wildfire:

Before we dive more into wildfires and how climate change exacerbates conditions for wildfires to ignite or spread, it’s first important to understand the ingredients for wildfires.

The main ingredients needed for a wildfires include:

Availability of dry vegetation (“dry fuel”)
Hot and dry wind
And human or natural fire ignition

…

What Is PM 2.5?

June 21, 2019 by Katherine Baker Leave a Comment

If you read or watch any news about pollution, you have probably seen or heard the phrase “PM 2.5.” But what is PM2.5? And how does it impact human health?

In today’s post, I’m going to feature some more environmental health-focused writing. I do a fair share of environmental health writing, but don’t do it very often on this platform. But I want to give it a whirl! So today, right here right now on my blog, we’re going to take a look at what PM stands for, what it is exactly, and why it’s relevant to human health. Get excited!

PM, Defined:

First, let’s start off by defining “PM,” which stands for Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is an air pollution term for a mixture of extremely small solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air, made up of a variety of compounds including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), metals, organic chemicals, dust, and soil.

Where does PM come from?

PM and PM precursors (which later form PM) come from a variety of human-caused sources, including motor vehicles, power plants, factories, dry cleaners, gas stations. There are also a couple natural sources of PM, including PM emitted from volcanoes and wildfires.

Size Matters:

The size of PM is directly linked to the potential for PM to cause health impacts. Generally speaking, the smaller the particle, the deeper it can penetrate into your lungs, and thus, the more likely it is to do damage. Particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter are focused upon, due to their potential to be inhaled and cause detrimental health impacts.

PM 2.5 versus PM 10:

‘PM 10’ refers to dust particles 2.5-10 micrometers in diameter. These particles are smaller than the width of a human hair and can be inhaled.

Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter are known as “PM 2.5,” and are too small to see with the naked eye. PM 2.5 can penetrate deeper into the lungs than PM 10, and thus is more likely to get into the blood supply and be carried throughout the body. Likely due to their high potential to cause negative health impacts, they are the most talked about in popular media.

…

Subscribe