Nexus - 0703 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

additive can be present in a compound before it is considered dan- government's plans to spray pesticides on the edge of roads, gerous. Sodium laurel sulphate is presumed to be safe at 10,000 —_ pointing out that clippers work just fine. Some people institute ppm. This may be why most of the other authors defend it, class-action lawsuits against major corporations for trying to although the question arises: How poisonous does a chemical conceal the toxicity of their products. And still others notice a have to be before its danger is recognised? As for sodium laureth relationship between the chemical waste dump next door and an sulphate, which is supposed to be a milder form of sodium laurel astronomical increase in cancer—and notify the press. sulphate and therefore more acceptable: Winter believes that The regulations that do exist have preposterous loopholes, and sodium laureth sulphate is not harmful; Steinman and Epstein chemical companies take advantage of them. We can no longer write that although sodium laureth sulphate is somewhat milder rely on government to control big business because the govern- than sodium laurel sulphate, it is still dangerous because it con- ment has become big business. tains carcinogenic compounds; while Vance reports the presence It is therefore up to each of us to take charge of our own health of a hazardous ether that causes dermatitis. There are many other _—_ and well-being. Here are some suggestions on how we can synthetic detergents that are reported by Steinman and Epstein to _ restore vitality to ourselves and our environment. be safe but which are asserted by Vance to be toxic (Hunter focus- es on food additives). 1. Notice Your Reactions to Various Products Regarding the safety of chemicals, then, because their danger is One of the most treacherous myths we must learn to overcome almost always underreported I have chosen to present the more is, "It's all in my head". I am referring to the dizzying variety of ominous information. Rather than deeming my choice biased, it symptoms that people can develop from exposure to poisons. is more realistic to remember that companies: (1) are in business Too often, people ignore what their own bodies are telling them to make money; (2) are constantly manufacturing new chemicals because they simply cannot believe that a poisonous substance and products to increase profits; (3) are responsible for conduct- would be so prominently used in the marketplace. In this case, ing their own safety tests; and (4) are trusted by our regulatory the person is giving more credibility to an idea instilled by an out- agencies to report truthfully the side authority than to his or her own hazards of their own products. experience and responses. Given these lax regulations, are Some people find it helpful to negative data likely to be reported? keep a written record of the dates of This question is rhetorical. If com- their exposure to chemicals. Since panies had nothing to hide, "watch- The bottom line is that they might not immediately observe dog" organisations would not need . a connection between exposure and to exist. Nor would they be filing our bodies were never made to later problems, the record can reveal lawsuits for personal injury and ingest or transmute synthetic patterns over time. wrongful death. chemicals Other people recognise instantly It is important to remember that . when they respond to a toxic chemi- the tests themselves (even if they are conducted with the best of intentions and accurately recorded) are not designed to produce data that human beings can easily use. cal: they sneeze when doing the laundry, break out in hives after applying a face cream, feel nauseat- ed from inhaling a room deodoriser, or have teary eyes when they clean "The tester," wrote Hunter, "hopes to find a level that does pro- the kitchen floor. Pay attention to these reactions! They are your duce a toxic effect so that a 'safe dose’ can be established at a body's way of letting you know that something is wrong. The lower level, where these effects are not observed." more you pay attention to these reactions and refuse to block them With our present knowledge, this concept appears simplistic. from your awareness, the more you will learn to trust that you are We now recognise that many adverse effects may be inflicted not crazy for focusing on something "minor" or "trivial". which at the moment are beneath the threshold of perception and It is common for industry to negate and ridicule people's reac- may not appear for 20, 30 or even 40 years—at which time the tions to chemicals until the problem reaches epidemic propor- cause may be completely undeterminable. Hence, one of the tions. But thousands of people react negatively to detergents, basic principles of traditional toxicology—the myth of a "safe food additives, medications, the chemical dump site next door. dose" level—needs to be discarded.'* Moreover, it is impossible People not specifically diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitiv- to extrapolate test results from animals to humans. Not only is ity (MCS) can still be chemically sensitive. Why wait until your animal testing cruel; if different species of mice register complete- symptoms turn into a full-blown, more serious illness? ly opposite responses when injected with or fed a poison, how can we know for sure how a human being will react to the same —_ 2. Study the Product Labels chemical? The bottom line is that our bodies were never made to Because of our vague and incomplete labelling laws, it is often ingest or transmute synthetic chemicals. It is better to err on the impossible to tell what exactly is in a product. Some products side of caution and avoid the chemicals entirely. (particularly cleansers) do carry warnings—often very scary Many readers may find this chart shocking, but unfortunately it | ones—because they are so dangerous. Lysol bathroom cleaner, is true. Until our labelling laws are changed and regulatory agen- whose principal ingredient is highly caustic lye, reads bluntly (in cies do their job, people will continue to get duped—and sick. part): "Danger: Corrosive — produces chemical burns." And the Tahal an Don Ja ~ tha government's plans to spray pesticides on the edge of roads, pointing out that clippers work just fine. Some people institute cla ction lawsuits against major corporations for trying to conceal the toxicity of their products. And still others notice a relationship between the chemical waste dump next door and an astronomical increase in cancer—and notify the press. The regulations that do exist have preposterous loopholes, and chemical companies take advantage of them. We can no longer rely on government to control big business because the govern- ment has become big business. It is therefore up to each of us to take charge of our own health and well-being. Here are some suggestions on how we can restore vitality to ourselves and our environment. chemicals. 2. Study the Product Labels Because of our vague and incomplete labelling laws, it is often impossible to tell what exactly is in a product. Some products (particularly cleansers) do carry warnings—often very scary ones—because they are so dangerous. Lysol bathroom cleaner, whose principal ingredient is highly caustic lye, reads bluntly (in part): "Danger: Corrosive — produces chemical burns." And the label on Fantastik cleaner says, after advising the consumer to notify a doctor if the product comes into contact with the eyes or skin: "Not recommended for use by persons with heart conditions or chronic respiratory problems such as asthma, emphysema or obstructive lung disease." WHAT YOU CAN DO TO AVOID POISONS More than ever, citizens are demanding to have control over what is in the food they eat, the water they drink, the products they use. I have gone to town meetings to protest my local APRIL — MAY 2000 NEXUS - 37 The bottom line is that our bodies were never made to ingest or transmute synthetic