Marin's Pollution

My opinion of Marin County's environmental health services is definitely positive. Having lived in the county for over ten years, I have experienced countless examples and evidence of their attention to the environment. Despite a smattering of affluent areas with a highly conservative population, I'd like to believe the majority of it holds strong to questioning their global footprint. There are more Prius' on the road than there are stars in the sky, health food stores aren't substituted by chains, there's not one Walmart, examples go on. The pictures below are from the Marin County's Environmental Health Services webpage. As you can see there a decent amount of programs ranging from sanitation, food, solid waste, medical waste, food recalls, and more.

You can see the number of facilities with emissions of air pollutants below with San Francisco on the left and Marin on the right. What can be immediately seen, all of the tons of pollutants added up in Marin is less than that of number one and two of San Francisco's. Only 1% percent of houses have a high risk of lead hazards and there are zero superfund sites in Marin County. This all is all within the parameters I imagined.

Air quality ranking is interesting. Overall Marin does look pretty good. The carbon monoxide and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions is rather frightening. The EPA describes VOC's as "Organic chemicals are widely used as ingredients in household products. Paints, varnishes, and wax all contain organic solvents, as do many cleaning, disinfecting, cosmetic, degreasing, and hobby products. Fuels are made up of organic chemicals." I cannot honestly guess why this is, but definitely gives me something to look further into.

Water quality is surprising as well. The percentage of surface waters with impaired or threatened uses is pretty frightening. I would assume all of California's water is quite threatened, but the site doesn't provide much information about what this is measuring. 

Getting out of Harm's Way

The report In Harm's Way by the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibilty's authors Ted Schettler, Jill Stein, Fay Reich, and Maria Valenti would have made Rachel Carson proud. 

The report, which I recommend you read if you haven't yet, is a wonderfully orchaestrated conversation about the current circumstance of chemical regulations and current evidence of developmental disorders in children as a result of toxicity. I felt dumbfounded looking at the increased incidence of developmental disorders in children today. I grew up with a brother who suffered from OCD and ADHD perpetually through his schooling. When he was on medication, his emotions and weight would fluctuate, and when he was off them he experienced immense difficulty in his classes. 

The colossal increase in incidence of Autism leads me back to the attempt to blame the occurrence on vaccinations. How can people point fingers at the most influential and brilliant public health/medical discovery since sanitation when we have a litany of evidence showing the levels of chemicals humans are introduced starting even before birth?

Jane Houlihan on Chemicals

Jane Houlihan, creator of the EWG and correlated Skin Deep database of personal care products had a fantastic lecture on the circumstance of toxicity in the world today for the University of Maryland School of Nursing. Her talk was interesting for many reasons, and her startling statistics are what really got to me.

Qualitative and quantitative data tend to be antagonists in describing a problem. Upon reading the EWG's website and learning about Jane, I was left with an good sense of the qualitative data she has been able to accumulate and describe. What her lecture did for me was put some depressing, but surprising statistics on what these levels of toxicity are doing to humans. I wanted to share some of my favorite findings below:

• 216 chemicals have been associated with mammary gland tumors
• girls who begin their period before the age of 12 have a 50% increased risk of cancer compared to girls at 16
• 300 compounds have been found in newborn babies through the placenta
• 150 neurotoxins were found in the umbilical cord

What she does a great job of is introducing the problem by illustrating the problem, and then providing examples of sicknesses that we have a hard time explaining origins for. For example, she illuminates that 1 in 110 children today are born with Autism, 1 in 6 with some developmental disability and 1 in 10 have asthma. Girls today are experiencing puberty much earlier than in previous generations. On the surface level this doesn't sound like that big of an issue, but she does a fantastic job of illustrating the complicated correlations here (i.e. early development for girls increases the risk of breast cancer, and the level of estrogen in everybody resulting from toxic personal care products is a huge instigator of early development). These diseases are more prevalent than they have ever been before, and its hard to ignore the waves of quantitative data Jane shares. 

She describes this overall circumstance as a "silent pandemic". It provides a perfect depiction of the problem because this is EVERYWHERE, and we're seeing countless symptoms without any real evidence of their inception.

The Products I Use

Our first objective for MPH632: Environmental and Occupational Health is to take two personal care product we currently use and share the hazard score provided by EWG's (Environmental Working Group) Skin Deep Cosmetic Database. I hate to fit the stereotype, but I use very few products. Despite that fact, there are two products I use every single day. I'll list the product followed by the EWG's hazard rating. 

 Before I share my chosen items, I wanted to do mix things up by first sharing my conclusion. Despite any toxicity level your personal care and household cleaning items have, what I conclude is the most important lesson isn't to gleam what products to avoid but instead that each and every consumer should/deserves the right to know what is inside the products they voluntarily use.

1). Old Spice Anti-perspirant Deodorant Pure Sport Scent. This is something I have worn every single day for a decade. I'd like to imagine I'm of the first to use Pure Sport because you'll find a lot of loyal users, but its chemical makeup is something I have spent some time thinking over, but not much. The results are honestly better than I surmised. I had previous knowledge of the ingredient primarily used for the anti-perspirant named aluminum zirchronium was something along the carcinogen scale. Based solely on the underwhelming former knowledge, I'm pleasantly surprise in the result. Despite a hazard rating flirting with moderate, it doesn't seem to have a high cancer rating, and the majority of the poor score resulting from the toxicity related to the fragrance.

 

2). Crest Whitening Plus Scope Toothpaste Minty Fresh Striped. I haven't strayed too far from using other toothpastes, but I guess it's never too late. EWG rates's this specific iteration of Crest with the same score as the deodorant mentioned above. They both have a 4 out of 10, with a lesser than moderate overall hazard rating. Here the hazard rating seems to be more of a concern in regards to developmental and reproductive toxicity rather than any carcinogenic (if feels odd tossing terminology like 'mild developmental toxicity' around as though it's of no concern). Despite Tom's of Maine scoring an overall hazard rating of 1, I'm not sure it's enough evidence to sacrifice the delicious clean feeling the aforementioned Mainer seems to lack.

3). Windex. My first example of a household cleaning product, one that stirs decades of memories of that kool aid blue spray, streaking countless coffee tables and windows, the conventional Windex. Despite an involuntary cringe to the chemical smell, I had never thought about its toxicity. Based on the US Department of Health and Human Service's Household Products Database, Windex has a surprisingly low toxicity rating. Despite the elevated flammability rating, it seems the greek gent from A Big Fat Greek Wedding might really be onto something.

4). Gain Laundry Detergent Original Scent. The last product I am reviewing for you attentive listeners is one who's scent gently conjures up a myriad of dorm-life memories. Having been my detergent of choice upon my stint as an University of Washington freshman, the scent is heavily tied to the plucking of the heart strings associated with the all-so-confusing time of early adulthood. Because laundry detergent tends to be synonymous with cleaning dirty clothing, I truly have never thought of the toxicity involved. You can see the result here isn't startling. The only marks upon Gain's pride is a slight rating on both Health Rating and Flammability. Conclusively, I find it a bit worrisome that settling for minute signs of toxicity is of no general concern (and if that is solely my opinion that please call me out on it and comment below).
 

"It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged."

           - Rachel Carlson