Re: The Truth about Toxics

[Guest guest]

Well another bad article about mold. These people have worked for 35

years researching. Guess I will send in my comment regarding the

misinformation about mold, and these men work for agencies that are

supposed to help the public.

--- In , " tigerpaw2c " <tigerpaw2c@...>

wrote:

>

> 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

>