You know those smoggy, hazy days when you look toward downtown to find the skyscrapers obscured behind a  ripply, gray veil? What horrible pollution, you think. And it may be.

But watch out, those other days when the skyscrapers blaze brightly under clear blue skies may be deceptively hazardous to your health as well, or maybe more so.

An article just out in Science News, somewhat confusingly entitled “Bad Breath” (we get it, we just have to think about it) looks at how finer particle air pollution can seep deep into our lungs and into our blood, causing harm without us “seeing” that we’re in any danger.

The gist, according to the article by Janet Raloff:

“Even on a clear, sunny day, many tens of thousands — and potentially millions — of tiny particles cloud every breath you take. Some are nearly pure carbon. But reactive metals, acids, oily hydrocarbons and other organic chemicals jacket most of these motes.”

Ok, we’ll get back to what a “mote” is in a moment. But here’s the scary part, these micro particles of “particulate matter” — identified as particles that are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller — may cause  premature aging and make us more susceptible not just to respiratory illnesses, but other health conditions as well. Even when they’re at levels currently deemed safe by government standards, they are able to do damage. In fact, their very microsopic nature is why they’re so insidious.

And now for the very bad news: A lot of these tiny particles and their nano cousins, known as “ultra-fine” particles apparently come from car and truck exhaust. The EPA and others have been exploring the problem of PMs for years, but it seems the science is now homing in on exactly why and how traffic fumes hurt us, and beginning to look at those ultra fine particles that have been less studied and are, even now, difficult to track.

Our government, too, is taking more of an interest in assessing the impact of traffic on our health. Recently, the EPA announced it would look at the air outside several elementary schools that were identified in a USA Today investigation as being located in high pollution sites, mainly near factories or freeways.

This week, the Centers for Disease Control launched a website called the National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network that allows people to look at data on air pollution, and other environmental factors, in their area. You can, for instance, find the counties in your state where PM 2.5 pollution exceeded EPA standards during a selected year. And there’s information about how traffic pollution may worsen heart disease, already America’s number one killer, claiming nearly 1 million lives annually.

Meanwhile, the Science News article lists other studies looking at this emerging area of inquiry of how small particulate pollution particles alter our body’s ability to stay healthy. The studies have found that direct exposure doesn’t just aggravate lung conditions, it exacerbates inflammation throughout the human body, worsening heart and a host of other conditions.

A German study in 2007 that measured coronary artery calcification among nearly 4,500 middle-aged to elderly men and women found traffic pollution was a main culprit, according to the Science News article: “After controlling for other risk factors, that study showed that the closer people lived to a major road, the worse their atherosclerosis.”

Other studies, such as one completed in the US that released findings in March in the journal, Epidemiology, have found a similar, though not as strong, correlation between traffic exposure and arteriosclerosis.

The Science News article goes on to round up the latest research on the 2.5 micron PMs, chronicling how they worsen the situation for diabetics, cause kids more asthma attacks (you probably suspected that) and can lead to shortening of the telomeres on the ends of chromosomes, at least according to one study of traffic crossing guards. (When chromosomes have shorter end caps or telomeres, they can become less effective at replicating, which alters body chemistry in a way that weakens the immune system. Shorter telomeres, in other words, can age a person biologically.)

Some of this is new and much of it is intuitive, still it adds to the growing mound of  evidence that living near expressways or even busy surface streets can be unhealthy — something that lately appears to be getting  more research attention.

(Motes, btw, are small or tiny particles, per Websters. The term also is used to define “smart dust” — a science fictiony sort of particle that’s actually real, operates like a sensor and would take another article to explain.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Quick get me to a de-tox chamber!

I hate to pile on, but underneath all the bad news about our sickly economy and fragile atmosphere is an oil slick of foreboding tidings about our ailing everyday environment.

Take last week’s study in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that people living in the smoggiest cities are more likely to die from respiratory diseases. The study of nearly half a million adults found that ground-level ozone has a longer-term impact than previously recognized, resulting in “a significant increase in the risk of death from respiratory causes”. That makes so much sense. We’re warned to stay in on “alert” days when ozone levels are high; especially the young, the old and people with asthma. It stands to reason that ozone could be cumulatively damaging.

Or consider this week’s release of a European study linking youngsters using cell phones to a five-fold elevated risk of malignant brain tumors. 

Or the new Kaiser Permanente/Silent Spring analysis showing an elevated breast cancer risk associated with certain pharmaceuticals, including an anti-fungal, a diuretic and an antibiotic?

You could quickly drown in this kind of news. But we can also be encouraged that many non-profits, government organizations and researchers are finally focusing on the connections between environmental pollution and disease, and corralling the information so we can begin to extricate ourselves.

The Silent Spring Institute and Susan G. Komen For the Cure recently surveyed the research and distilled 216 chemicals that were found to cause breast tumors in animal studies. The free database they created with this information shows that 73 of the chemicals are present in consumer products or contaminants in food and 35 are air pollutants. That’s a lot of chemicals, and it’s unclear which are the worst and there are still genetic proclivities and other factors involved in this devastatingly common disease, but these are at least visible targets.

Last week the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of groups, shone a light on harmful chemicals in baby products, for which they blame weak U.S. labeling requirements.

They found 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde in a variety of kiddie bath products such as Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and Sesame Street Bubble Bath.

Both chemicals are listed as probable carcinogens by the EPA; 1,4 dioxane is banned from personal care products at any level, even trace amounts, in Europe. Formaldehyde is banned from them in Sweden and Japan. (See more on the full report on the Environmental Working Group website.)

Some other findings from the study:

• American Girl shower products were found to contain the highest levels of 1,4-dioxane found in the tests.

• Two samples of Baby Magic Baby Lotion contained levels of formaldehyde that would trigger warning label requirements in Europe.

The report noted that the 1,4 dioxane turns up, ironically, as a byproduct of processes to make products more gentle, and its use is waning.

Beauty product manufacturers were not happy to even see the issue in the news again, saying that these trace amounts of chemicals are not cause for concern, and that their products meet current guidelines set by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States.

Naterra International Inc., which owns Baby Magic products, called the report “patently false and a shameful and cynical attempt by an activist group to incite and prey upon parental worries and concerns in order to push a political, legislative and legal agenda.”

Naterra also noted that: “When present, these chemicals would likely be found at very low levels precisely because companies have gone to great lengths in the formulation and manufacturing processes to ensure that the products are safe and gentle
for children and also protected from harmful bacterial growth.”

Of course, we don’t know the precise effect of these chemical exposures, and clearly humans can withstand an onslaught, given the glues, VOCs and flame retardants wafting around our own homes, not to mention the pesticides on our lawns and the air pollution in our cities.

That’s been part of the problem, actually. There are so many chemical agents acting in our lives that researchers often can’t nail down the links or the danger thresholds, let alone the precise causality between a problem and its trigger. Which can cause us to worry about what we should be worried about. A vexing position, at best.

The EWG, a co-founder of the Campaign for Safer Cosmetics, suggests we weigh this issues by looking at our “body burden” of chemicals, or our total load; so we can reduce our exposure, as best as we can. One person who’s trying to break through with that message is Ken Cook, co-founder of EWG. He’s on a mission to educate us about the everyday poisons that should be on our watch list. The San Francisco Chronicle recently ran an excellent article on Cook’s road show, noting that some are likening him to Al Gore, for sounding the alarm in this field.

We hope to bring you more on that soon, too.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media