Slow Death By Rubber Duck…
May 23, 2009 by Karlynn Johnston
Filed under Book Nook, Super Natural
This, although it would be an interesting read, will terrify me, and send me into hiding with my angora goat and my water purifier. I know my cosmetics are bad for me, I also know that my shampoos and conditioners are toxic, but sometimes you just can’t watch it all. Sometimes I feel that ignorance is bliss. However, that doesn’t apply to my children, and I think that the reason I can’t be bothered to read up on my own products is that I am too busy reading and researching the products that I use on my kids. And to be honest, I have yet to find a organic or natural shampoo/conditioner set that is nice on my hair. The chemical laden normal brands are the only ones that give my hair that shine and silkiness. I am slightly too vain to have bad hair days just to forgo adding to my already high chemical load.
But for those of you who are brave, perhaps you might want to have a read, I for the moment, will ignore the writings that ”describe our bodies as sponges soaking in harmful, petrochemical derivatives.” Maybe later, for some light summer reading.
From the Globe and Mail :
We are now into the fourth generation of people exposed to toxic chemicals from before conception through to adulthood,” writes noted health analyst Theo Colborn in the foreword to Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects our Health .
Its authors, Canadian environmental activists Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, describe our bodies as sponges soaking in harmful, petrochemical derivatives that leach out of common household objects – everything from the upholstered sofa and TV set to the popcorn bag and garden hose.
In one example, the authors estimate that by the time the average woman grabs her morning coffee, she has applied 126 chemicals in 12 products to her face, body and hair.
They write: “Pollution is now so pervasive that it’s become a marinade in which we all bathe every day.”
So in the tradition of Super Size Me, they holed up in Mr. Lourie’s Toronto condominium for an “adult science experiment.” In 12-hour shifts over three days, they exposed themselves to seven toxic chemicals that have been linked to long-term health risks.
To do so, they had to do remarkably little: Mr. Smith showers, shaves, washes dishes, drinks coffee in a polycarbonate cup and eats lunch heated in a plastic microwavable container. Mr. Lourie, meanwhile, eats seven meals of tuna.
The authors tracked their blood and urine before and after exposure, and spoke with The Globe and Mail about the surprising results.
What you do in that condo sounds like a banal version of anyone’s life.
Mr. Smith: We were conducting very run-of-the-mill activities, so it felt weird to be planning so methodically your tooth brushing or sandwich making.
The one rule we set for ourselves is that the tests had to mimic people’s everyday lives. It was very complicated to organize and we consulted experts all over the world to help us design the tests.
What did you find?
Mr. Smith:Just through the use of a few well-known, brand-name shampoos, aftershaves and shaving gels, I was able to raise my phthalate levels by 22 times. Just eating out of plastic warmed up in the microwave, I raised my bisphenol A [BPA] by almost eight times. Probably most mind-blowing was what happened with triclosan when I used anti-bacterial products for a couple of days: The levels of that chemical went up by 2,900 times. But with bisphenol A and phthalates, if you can limit your exposure, they can be flushed from the body within a day.
Mr. Lourie: I’ve done research on mercury for years and have been telling people about tuna, but to actually just consume seven meals of tuna over a three-day period and watch my mercury levels triple was still astounding to me.
You cite a growing body of scientific research that has linked the toxic chemicals to several types of cancer, birth defects, respiratory illnesses such as asthma, neuro-developmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reproductive problems, testicular deformities and impaired sperm quality. But what about the argument that the chemicals are often present in levels too low to harm anyone?
Mr. Lourie: That’s a spurious kind of argument. For many of these synthetic chemicals, the effect on children or a developing fetus can occur with parts per billion or parts per trillion. Quantity isn’t really the issue. It’s the particular kinds of chemicals and the way they can affect our genetic development.
Are people loath to take these links seriously because we are the guinea pigs, in effect?
Mr. Smith:Maybe there’s a little bit of denial going on, but the bisphenol A experience in Canada over the last year has been a real eye-opener for people. This is one of the most commonly manufactured chemicals in the world: It’s the plastic that CDs and DVDs are made out of, it’s in people’s eyeglasses, it’s in the interior lining of a lot of tin cans and it’s in the little, tiny windshields of my son’s toy cars. When Canada became the first country in the world last year to take action against bisphenol A in kids products, almost overnight you saw stainless-steel bottles and parents jettisoning their classic polycarbon baby bottles in favour of glass baby bottles. That happened within the space of a month or two.
You write that you had to update the book several times thanks to sweeping legislative change, including Canada’s ban on BPA baby bottles, Europe’s ban on noxious flame-retardant chemicals in televisions, and the United States’ restriction on hormone-mimicking ingredients in children’s toys.
Mr. Smith:Canada actually followed suit with deca, the most common flame retardant, in the last couple of months. We’re now matching Europe’s ban on that chemical in electronics. We’re actually waiting for a federal announcement on phthalates because now the United States and Europe have banned phthalates from kids’ toys. There’s really no choice but for Canada to follow suit.
What do you think it will take for companies to cease inserting potentially toxic chemicals into everyday products without consumer knowledge?
Mr. Smith:One of the really exciting things that’s happening now is that the corporate community is dividing into two camps. You have some companies who have eliminated these chemicals from their products and are then advertising that as a selling point. Mountain Equipment Co-op, Lululemon and Wal-Mart are deciding to be pro-active on these issues and actually trying to get out ahead of government. On the other hand, you’ve got other corporate actors who are dragging their heels and sticking their heads in the sand and increasingly being penalized by consumers. These days, especially with the Web, when parents can trade information so readily, consumers are demanding transparency and alternatives. We’re quite hopeful that increasing consumer pickiness is going to drive some market change.
What is most troubling to you right now?
Mr. Lourie: We really still do not have any systemic way of testing the kinds of chemicals that are going into our products. The reality is we looked at seven chemicals. There are thousands of chemicals in the marketplace and with 90 per cent of them, there’s been virtually no testing on the health of humans.
Mr. Smith:The intergenerational effects of these chemicals is only now starting to be realized. Bisphenol A is now known to affect the developing ovaries of fetuses. There are three generations of effect there. We’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Related posts:
