Winter Solstice Pariah People

The concept of home is universal, shared among not only the cultures of the world but much of the animal world as well, from nesting birds to burrowing rodents, to sea creatures to snails that are born with a home on their back. For most of us, animals included, home is a place to rest our weary heads, raise our young, and stay protected from the elements.

It is human nature to create a sense of home, even when transient or homeless. When I backpacked the world, a photo from home, a colorful scarf, and a small cup with a flower were enough to mark my new territory as home. Our sense of home makes us feel safe, comfortable, and grounded in our identity. Without it, we can feel uncertain, vulnerable, uncomfortable, unsettled. Nothing in life will feel exactly right if we don’t have that home base to start from.

So what about the growing sector of our population—now estimated to be between 12.6 percent and 33 percent-- that suffers from some form of environmental illness, which can include sensitivities to chemicals found in everyday products and building materials, mold, sound, light, electricity, vibrations, and extremes of temperature? Reported as the "new homeless," those with severe chemical sensitivity often find themselves living on the fringes of a chemically addicted society—in refurbished Airstream trailers, tents, and cars, in long-forgotten fields, miles from civilization.

What most people don’t realize, unless they get sick themselves and feel the effects firsthand, is that the typical American home is built with materials laden with toxic chemicals. The most common are formaldehyde (found in plywood, particle board, and other pressed wood products that are used to make furniture, cabinets, shelves, and counter tops) and solvents (used in oil-based paints, stains, wood preservatives, carpet glue, and other adhesives that release dangerous fumes containing volatile organic compounds). Many homes are†full of electrical pollution caused by problems with wiring, large appliances, cordless phones, and the now-ubiquitous WiFi and other computer and cable TV transmission systems. Homes that are designed to be hermetically sealed trap indoor pollutants and create an environment ripe for mold growth.

Even if a person with chemical sensitivities were to have sufficient resources—the finances, knowledge, energy, time, and wherewithal—to build a "safe" house for him- or her-self, there is the persistent problem of neighbors. Wafts of their fabric softeners, air-polluting particulates in smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves, ambient pesticide drifts, gas-powered exhaust-spewing lawn appliances, and those Sunday barbecues all threaten the safety and health of those with allergies and other environmental sensitivities.

What others may perceive as mere complaining is, to a person with chemical and environmental sensitivities, an actual physical—and, for that matter, emotional—threat to their well-being with each exposure to someone else’s chemicals. Reactions can range from the uncomfortable--fleeting headaches, nausea, and/or dizziness—to the near fatal. Some even go into seizure, others experience a profound brain fog that can last for days, weeks, or even months, and still others have suffered heart failure when exposed to a specific trigger. We are not talking about simple allergies here; we are talking about brain inflammation, failure of enzyme detoxification systems, and profound immune-mediated responses. There are some who have even died from the progression of chemical sensitivity, which typically affects several organ systems and can eventually lead to organ failure.

The most common response from individuals when told that their universally accepted actions (using fabric softener, wearing perfume, having a summer barbecue) are harming someone else is anger and defensiveness: "That’s your problem, not mine. I’m not going to change my actions. They need to move or protect themselves better." This is the same type of thinking that allows wealthier folks to feel smug and protected in their gated communities, while outlying districts wallow in their higher crime rates; that self-important "It’s your problem not mine" attitude. What many fail to see is that we are always part of a larger community. If we choose not to take everyone’s needs in our community into consideration, it will come back to us eventually.

If individuals are not willing to curb their use of toxic chemicals and EMF-emitting devices, the growing ranks of the chemically and electrically sensitive will be forced out of the workplace and onto disability benefits, where they will burden the community as a whole. If individuals are not willing to curb their use of toxic chemicals and EMF-emitting devices, animals and plant life will continue to bear the toxic brunt, resulting in more species’ mutations and extinctions, imbalances of our precious biodiversity, and pollution of our food sources. If individuals are not willing to curb their use of toxic chemicals and EMF-emitting devices, their children will continue to suffer from early exposure to estrogen-mimicking chemicals implicated in a host of childhood illnesses and low-level radiation, which has been thought to be linked to childhood leukemia and other diseases. If we choose not to take the needs of everyone in our communities into consideration (human and nonhuman, adult and child, rich and poor, powerful and vulnerable, alike), it will come back to us eventually.

The truth is that industry’s use of chemicals is on the rise, as is our own use of chemicals in home and personal care products, triggering a rise in environmental illnesses. The issue of a safe home will continue to be a problem—and might even become your problem. We are in need of a complete overhaul of the architecture and design industries, including how these subjects are taught in our schools. Even the "green" bandwagon many have jumped on does not completely address the issue of toxicity when it comes to building materials. Ask any person with environmental sensitivities who has tried to build green.
In an effort to better understand the basic housing needs for those with environmentally based sensitivities, I surveyed eighteen families who had built housing for someone with moderate to severe chemical and/or electrical sensitivities. What became clear was that what was good for the environment (using sustainably managed woods, renewable energy sources, etc.) was not necessarily good for people.

Case in point: Wood-burning stoves are commonly used in sustainable residential projects, making use of a local, renewable resource, and yet wood is one of the most polluting sources of heat. Gerd Oberfeld, M.D., an epidemiologist from the public health office in Salzburg, Austria has said, "I saw very strong and significant associations between tonsillitis, frequent cough, pseudo-croup, exercise-induced wheeze, food allergies and wood smoke exposure in our school children. I think that wood smoke is one of the most harmful air pollutants we have on earth."

Many eco-villages require chemical-free lifestyles of their members and would make ideal communities for those with chemical sensitivities; however, their frequent choice of wood-burning stoves as a heat source unfortunately removes them as a housing option. It’s my hope that the designers, builders, and community planners of this world take heed of this discrepancy between green and non-toxic and start changing the way our homes are built.

The health effects of today's common construction materials on those with environmental sensitivities are not to be taken lightly. This is a serious†issue affecting millions of people worldwide, and the numbers are growing. Not just affecting those with asthma, respiratory disease, and environmental sensitivities, or vulnerable populations like the elderly and children, the toxic burden created by indoor air pollution impacts us all. The issue isn't just about assisting those with special needs. This is really about building the kind of world we all want to live in.

There is one thing we can be sure of: if we do not start cleaning up our world, nature will do it for us in the form of an unpleasant—to put it lightly—collapse of our ecosystem. All the signs are pointing in that direction. It’s imperative also that we stop further polluting our planet. I would love to see a proliferation of chemical-free, electrical-free, pedestrian-based communities that return to an agrarian way of life using natural farming methods, providing for the needs of all their members, including the non-human ones. Only then can we ensure that all of us sharing this planet will have a safe place to call home.

Julie Genser has a degree in design and environmental analysis from Cornell University. She is certified in ecovillage and permaculture design. She is the founder and director of PlanetThrive.com, a grassroots community for personal wellness with a focus on healing from environmental and other chronic illnesses. A PDF download of “Safer Construction Tips for the Environmentally Sensitive” is available through Planet Thrive.

This essay was first published in the November/December 2007 issue of DESIGNER/builder: A Journal of The Human Environment, an independent and nontraditional magazine that brings social justice and issues of equity to the debate over the built and human environments.

2 Rhonda Zwillinger, “No Safe Haven,” E: The Environmental Magazine, Volume IX, Number 5, September/October 1998.

If you enjoyed Julie's article check out her most recent News Target article MTV: Smut-Peddlers or Eco-Activists? Make Up Your Mind If you are going to be remodeling or building take a look at Julie Genser's Safer Construction Tips for the Environmentally Ill. A 38-page guide for those in the planning stages of building safer housing for someone with environmental sensitivities, requiring a home free of chemicals, mold, and / or electro-magnetic frequency (EMF) waves.

Being pretty far off the street and unknown to everyone in the neighborhood except our next door neighbors, we didn't expect any trick-or-treaters and none came yesterday. Our house would look scary to suburban children, even Alaskan ones accustomed to something other than golf course-style lawns. In front we have boxes, electronics, cables, shoes, mail, books and other things that must be aired out before they can come inside. One set of wires goes to the new speakers Gary gave me for my birthday. They still smell like kerosene after several weeks outside, and after being washed in baking soda, detergent, and Everclear. The speakers themselves smell like plastic and glue, but they are airing out in the garage because they do not smell as strongly as the other items.

Our house would look scary to suburban children, even Alaskan ones accustomed to something other than golf course-style lawns.

The above scenario is just one of many protective measures that make up my life as a chemically poisoned person. I don't mind it. Doing these things necessary to live my life comfortably are second nature to me. What bothers me far more is the fact that one of my doctors is being investigated by the Texas medical licensing board. The investigation is based on an anonymous "ghost" complaint which seems likely to have been filed, not by aggrieved patients, but by an insurance company trying to avoid paying for treatment for five people injured by chemical exposures in the 9/11 attacks. Horror compounded by horrific injustice. And what further enrages me is the ghoulish predictability of the press accorded to chemical injuries and the manufactured doubt that such toxic injury exists.

The latest example is from Kim Horner of the Dallas Morning News. I sent her an e-mail:

I am writing about your October 30 article concerning Dr. William Rea. I am a formerly productive lawyer now disabled by chemical exposures for the last eleven years. I was not stressed; I was chemically poisoned, as were many others. If we lose our doctor to this political ploy, what are we supposed to do?

Doubt is being created by public relations experts funded by the exact same industries that would go deep-six economically if the truth came out.

Where has Dr. Kahn been that he could make this statement? "We don't have evidence that people are allergic or hypersensitive to chemicals," said Dr. David A. Khan, an associate professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern who heads the asthma clinic at Parkland Memorial Hospital. According to studies by the New Mexico and California departments of health, among several others, at least 3% of the population has serious problems with chemicals in small amounts. We do have evidence, but these head-in-the-sand types (usually funded by the chemical industry) just won’t hear it. Doubt is being created by public relations experts funded by the exact same industries that would go deep-six economically if the truth came out. If the public can be mollified by making the injured community out to be a bunch of hypochondriacs using "tobacco-style" tactics, who benefits?

Dr. Stephen Barrett is certainly no great expert on chemical sensitivity—he’s a psychiatrist. Why quote him?

Here is some legitimate information on the relationship between chemicals and health:

Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes by Nicholas A. Ashford, Claudia S. Miller

When Smoke Ran Like Water and The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH

The chemical industry relies on the media to do just what you have done, create doubt where there should be none. I’m sure others will fill you in on the scientific evidence. I just want to say you should be looking at the big picture. This is not about one doctor and a bunch of whiners.

Just as a matter of common sense, why is it any surprise that there would be health impacts from the chemical fog in which we live our lives? Many of the pesticides in use were developed as chemical warfare agents during World War II to kill people. Why is it so shocking that they would cause harm? Out of 100,000 chemicals in use, most have never been studied for their health impacts. Never. Three out of every four of the top 3000 chemicals in use have no toxicity data. Is this smart?

To the extent they consider it at all, I hear that some are trusting their blood brain barrier to keep out the neurotoxins, not realizing it's being shot to hell by the benzene and toluene in their carpets and cleaning products. Those are the real spook houses.

As a post-WWII child I don't remember washing clothes with lye soap, but I do remember a time when all detergents were fragrance free. They were not labeled as such, it just hadn't occurred to people at that time that "clean" had a smell. Clothes were hung outdoors to dry. Most homes had hardwood floors, and windows were open all summer. The generation after me can't imagine a home without dryer sheets and plug-in air "fresheners." To the extent they consider it at all, I hear that some are trusting their blood brain barrier to keep out the neurotoxins, not realizing it's being shot to hell by the benzene and toluene in their carpets and cleaning products. Those are the real spook houses.

Jacqueline became fascinated by chemistry when she heard that blood and sea water have the same salinity. It was a conversion experience: one hand clapping, kaleidoscope eyes, the road to Damascus. Later, she fell under the spell of a Union Carbide advertisement: a fluffy live chick placed inside a container and dropped into boiling water. After boiling, the container was removed from the water, opened up and the chick popped out, alive and well. Many years later when the spell broke, she finally thought to ask, “Was it the same chick?”

This was the slogan welcoming women to the world of equal rights--the right to develop lung cancer, COPD, cardiovascular damage and--well, you get the idea. The media now describes, in considerable detail, the manner in which environmental contaminants, including secondhand smoke, can harm individuals. Over 35 million Americans have lung diseases, many of which demonstrate basic cause-and-effect relationships with the environment. Asbestos causes mesothelioma, and diesel particulates can provoke extrinsic asthma. Toxic substances entering the body cause inflammation, a source of tissue damage now blamed for the development of many ailments including numerous forms of cancer and autoimmune diseases. From migraines to multiple sclerosis, the evidence offers every indication that the environment triggers disease--and death-- for tens of millions among us.

The economic costs of all this suffering are quickly tallied. Does the financial downside of illness and loss of life outweigh the economic upside of selling products that contain toxic ingredients? The Government Accounting Office (GAO), notes that a single human life can be valued, variably, from a maximum of 12 million dollars to a "discounted" level of 1.1 million. The precise figure used depends upon the particular cost-benefit ratio being calculated for pending legislation, such as the removal of arsenic from drinking water. Apparently, citizens over seventy are a good buy since they can be discounted a full 37% over their younger counterparts. One has to wonder if the Bill of Rights only offers 43% of the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those who have already exercised their right to life for a longer period of time than their fellow citizens.

Paradoxically, anyone actually claiming environmental illness is subsequently diagnosed with a social disease--that of potential legal liability. Your symptoms, from those immediately resulting from toxicity to the cascade of physiological events which take place post-poisoning, are suddenly removed from the rational world of cause-and-effect. You are now identified as having a defective physiology which limits your performance, not just as a disabled worker, but even more unforgivably, as a failed consumer. For some reason, your body has failed to adapt to the myriad combinations of tens of thousands of synthetic chemicals recently introduced into the world. This turns your environmentally-induced symptom constellation into an "idiopathic" illness. It is now possible to blame it on the environment without actually implicating... the environment!

You are then urged to avoid whatever unspecified substances are making you sick so you may continue your journey to the Elysian Fields. Unfortunately, that particular locale, out of Greek mythology, is most likely listed by the EPA today as a Brownfield. How does one turn the mythological status of environmental illness into fact, particularly when your life and the lives of countless others may depend upon it? That is where the science of toxicology must be introduced into our daily lives. The phrase, “Please pass the butter,” is destined to become the phrase, “Honey, where did you put the dosimeter tube?”

We are exposed to thousands of chemicals, largely untested for their effects upon our complex physiological systems, as we encounter them singly and in combinations that result in unanticipated, synergistic effects. In the European Union, some degree of remedial policy setting is taking place under the REACH legislation. This is destined to make manufacturers substitute less toxic chemicals for known hazards, while also demanding more pre-market testing of chemicals in general. However, residents within the EU have an advantage over U.S. citizens. They are allowed to know much of what is in their consumer goods because of mandates regarding labeling. In the U.S., proprietary ingredients are kept from consumers under trade secret protections. We even have a class of products that doesn’t require disclosure of ingredients to our own regulatory agencies: cosmetics.

Depending upon where you live and work, your landlord and your employer may have no duty to let you know that toxic chemicals have been introduced into your air-space through their use of a service or purchase of some product. Testing our surroundings is a novel and intimidating concept to most people. The very idea that we may not be safe in our own homes, schools, and offices is a frightening one, even when one obtains appropriate professional guidance.

Welcome to the world of applied toxicology.

Laboratories can analyze samples of air, soil, water, fabrics, or other porous materials and swipes of surfaces for myriad contaminants that can affect your health. A trip to the doctor for an inhaler won’t help you if your asthma attacks are caused by fumes from uncombusted fuel oil emitted by an inefficient furnace. Instead of dealing with painful migraines, expensive drugs and lost days of work, isn't it smarter to remove those unsealed containers of antifreeze leaching volatile organic compounds into your breathing space? When you find yourself suffering recurrent symptoms within particular locations, it is logical to investigate for the presence of irritants and toxicants (poisons).

A popular refrain today is that psychological stress is the author of all ills. But external stressors, in the form of pesticides, cleaning solvents, heating/cooking fuels, and chemically-laden construction materials are guaranteed to ‘stress’ the body maximally. Our bodies must work overtime devoting their resources to absorb what cannot be hastily ejected.

It is a difficult task trying to eject unwelcome guests who have invaded your home. However, when the invaders are the invisible, toxic residues of chemical applications in and around the home, how do you identify them, much less ask them to leave? You must ask questions: What has the landscaper done to your lawn? What did the exterminator use in his last visit? Was your contractor overly enthusiastic in his application of oil-based paints and sealers inside your home?

Toxicologists can be an invaluable resource in helping us identify these very real threats within our living and working spaces. The exposure data they provide allows physicians to confidently order appropriate medical tests that might otherwise be considered too unusual or expensive to recommend. Test results permit remediation to proceed for houses showing excessive levels of mold. Testing can save lives by revealing the hazards of ongoing toxic emissions which render a home or worksite uninhabitable. When necessary, it can offer an objective record for purposes of obtaining compensation for injury or property damage.

I have personally assessed offices and residences in which harmful concentrations of the following pesticides were found: cypermethrin, lamda-cyhalothrin, chlorpyrifos, chlordane, dieldrin, aldrin and dichlorvos. Additional findings included formaldehyde, petroleum fuel oil, methylene chloride and asbestos. No, I haven't lived in slums or worked in factories. These were just some of the invisible attributes that come along with the right of access to living and working spaces in our age of technology.

Unfortunately, while the human body has adapted itself to changes in climate and diet over the millennia, it isn’t all that forgiving over years of harmful chemicals exposures. We must recognize the unseen but heavily felt effects of our enthusiasm for progress. Toxicology is one way in which we can ensure that the price we pay for progress remains reasonable.

We’ve come a long way, baby!

Barbara Rubin is a former developmental disabilities specialist who was disabled by pesticide poisoning while working in a NYC school. She now lives in New England, and tries to increase public understanding about environmental contributions to rising rates of preventable illness. If you would like to read more of Barbara's writing go to her website, The Armchair Activist.

*With deep appreciation to LaVonne Ellis for her extensive editorial contributions.

Printer friendly versions of each article are available on the Site Index.