Washington day cares close to polluted roads

Small children are most affected by
air pollution, experts say.

It’s a cruel fact of physiology: kids are the hardest-hit victims of air pollution.

Pound for pound, children breathe more than adults, receiving a relatively bigger toxic dose delivered to their developing bodies. And the smaller the child, the bigger the impact. What makes an 8-year-old cough could make an infant stop breathing.

That science takes on particular significance in Washington, where 126 day cares are located beside major roads and where rules about where new facilities can open are not enforced.

Researchers say air pollution from vehicle traffic can aggravate asthma, reduce lung function and boost school absenteeism, as well as promote cancer later in life and harm developing immune systems.

An additional 439 day cares sit within 500 feet of the state’s heaviest truck routes, a new analysis by InvestigateWest shows. The diesel fuel that powers these trucks can spew 100 to 200 times more soot than gasoline engines, and the exhaust is so toxic that the World Health Organization classifies it as a carcinogen.

Nationally, more than 11 million children under 5 are enrolled in regular child care.  In Washington, one-fourth of all toddlers and one-third of all preschoolers attend a licensed child care facility, according to a 2008 survey.

The pollution risks are not always reflected in where parents choose to or are able to enroll their kids.

Just south of Everett along Interstate 5, a hedge separates the playground of Kids ‘N Us Learning Academy from a highway off-ramp. Among the dozens of day cares that fall within the pollution plume of I-5, Kids ‘N Us is one of the closest, its property line just over 300 feet from the heavily traveled road.

In Washington, the murky set of guidelines governing where day cares can operate does little in practice to protect kids from air pollution risks.

State child care licensing code does not restrict where in-home day cares — limited to 12 or fewer kids — can open.

Institutional child care centers, which have an average capacity of 69 kids, are required to be on an “environmentally safe site” and in a neighborhood “free of a condition detrimental to the child's welfare,” according to a state regulation.

The licensing process for a new day care does not require a site review by health officials to determine whether a property is safe from environmental hazards like nearby freeways. Instead, the Department of Early Learning, a fire marshal and the local planning department sign off on a new location. The agency also employs four health specialists to respond to complaints and concerns.

As is the case with schools, the construction of day cares can trigger a State Environmental Protection Act, or SEPA, review. But that process emphasizes air risks stemming from construction like dust and short-term truck traffic rather than ambient air concerns like a nearby highway.

Reducing harm from near-road exposures at day cares is something of a bureaucratic hot potato, with the Washington Department of Early Learning saying it’s not its job to correct for environmental risks, and health officials saying the initial push isn’t theirs to make.

State officials acknowledge that they are a lot more worried about keeping kids safe — meaning, for starters, alive — than in heading off seemingly subtle pollution threats. The high-profile deaths of two children in state-licensed day cares — one an accidental drowning in 2004, the other a death from E. coli in 2010 — focused regulators’ attention on acute threats to children.

Editor's note: This article has been edited for length. 

Source: Investigate West

Provide children with clean air

Concerned about the air quality in your children's day care centers or schools?

Electrocorp has designed efficient air cleaners for schools and universities, which provide cleaner and healthier air by removing airborne chemicals, odors, bacteria, viruses, particles, allergens and more.

The filtration system includes granular activated carbon and HEPA plus optional UV for the best all-around protection.

Contact Electrocorp for more information.

Flight attendants worry about risk of Parkinson's disease

More and more flight attendants report health effects from chemical exposure.

Flight attendants fear they could have been put at risk of long-term brain disorders including Parkinson's disease by regular exposure to insecticides sprayed on long-haul flights.

Five flight attendants who have developed Parkinson's have contacted law firm Turner Freeman to ask about taking legal action against the Commonwealth government, which requires the spraying in line with World Health Organisation guidelines to prevent the spread of potentially deadly mosquito-borne viruses.

The Daily Telegraph reported the case of former Qantas steward Brett Vollus, who has been diagnosed with Parkinson's, a degenerative brain condition that can severely impact on a person's ability to control their own movements.

Turner Freeman lawyer Tanya Segelov said she was investigating a claim on Mr Vollus' behalf.

“When Brett was diagnosed, his neurologist asked him what he did, and he said he worked for Qantas, and his response was: 'Oh, another one,' ” she said.

“We have now had four more long-haul flight attendants come forward this morning, and I think we are going to see more and more people coming out of the woodwork.”

Ms Segelov said that, until about the turn of the century, the government had mandated that all spraying had to be done while aircraft were full, whereas, now, at least for flights coming in to Australia, it was done before passengers boarded.

“We need to know why the government mandated that spraying on board, and why they switched,” she said.

Evidence needed

But there is little evidence proving that regular, low-level spraying with insecticide could cause Parkinson's disease.

The World Health Organisation is reviewing the chemicals used in insecticides sprayed on aircraft. But its last review of the available research, published in 2005, concluded that, while unnecessary exposure to the chemicals should be avoided, there was no evidence of long-term risk.

“They do not pose any significant health risk when they are used in compliance with their directions for use, which are intended to limit human exposure within the levels recommended for their specific applications,” the report found.

Parkinson's expert Kay Double, from the University of Sydney Medical School and Neuroscience Research Australia, said epidemiological evidence was beginning to emerge linking pesticides and herbicides to increased risks for Parkinson's disease.

“Most of the research is on farmers, who are using it in higher concentration, but are also using it in much more open spaces,” she said. “This is a relatively new suggestion; it's not something that has been around a long time.”

Associate Professor Double said, in her opinion, the evidence that exposure could cause Parkinson's was “tenuous”.

“Exposure to environmental toxins could contribute to it, but it's unlikely that it's going to make you get Parkinson's,” she said. “Being able to prove it scientifically or legally would be very difficult.”

A spokeswoman for the federal Department of Health said aircraft were treated with insecticides because Australia is free from several very serious diseases, including yellow fever and malaria.

“If any of these diseases became established in Australia, they could have a devastating effect on our community, as these diseases cause significant numbers of deaths and illness in many other countries,” she said.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

Occupational health and safety is important in any workplace. In closed-off spaces or rooms, you can control airborne chemicals, odors, toxins, particles and other contaminants by cleaning the air with an industrial-strength air purifier from Electrocorp. Contact us for more information.

Anti-bacterial soaps under scrutiny in US

Triclosan and other chemicals used in
anti-bacterial products may pose risks.
Photo by graur razvan ionut/
FreeDigitalPhotos.net

After more than 40 years of study, the U.S. government says it has found no evidence that common anti-bacterial soaps prevent the spread of germs, and regulators want the makers of Dawn, Dial and other household staples to prove that their products do not pose health risks to consumers.

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration announced recently that they are revisiting the safety of triclosan and other sanitizing agents found in soap in countless kitchens and bathrooms.

Recent studies suggest triclosan and similar substances can interfere with hormone levels in lab animals and spur the growth of drug-resistant bacteria.

The government's preliminary ruling lends new support to outside researchers who have long argued that the chemicals are, at best, ineffective and at worst, a threat to public health.

"The FDA is finally making a judgment call here and asking industry to show us that these products are better than soap and water, and the data don't substantiate that," said Stuart Levy of the Tufts University School of Medicine.

While the rule only applies to personal hygiene products, it has implications for a broader $1 billion industry that includes thousands of anti-bacterial products, including kitchen knives, toys, pacifiers and toothpaste. Over the last 20 years, companies have added triclosan and other cleaners to thousands of household products, touting their germ-killing benefits.

Under a proposed rule, the agency will require manufacturers to prove that anti-bacterial soaps are safe and more effective than plain soap and water. Products that are not shown to be safe and effective by late 2016 would have to be reformulated, relabeled or removed from the market.

"I suspect there are a lot of consumers who assume that by using an anti-bacterial soap product, they are protecting themselves from illness, protecting their families," said Sandra Kweder, deputy director in the FDA's drug center. "But we don't have any evidence that that is really the case over simple soap and water."

A spokesman for the cleaning product industry said the FDA already has "a wealth of data" showing the benefits of anti-bacterial products.

The announcement affects virtually all soap products labeled anti-bacterial, including popular brands from CVS, Bath and Body Works, Ajax and many other companies.

The rule does not apply to hand sanitizers, most of which use alcohol rather than anti-bacterial chemicals.

An FDA analysis estimates it will cost companies $112.2 million to $368.8 million to comply with the new regulations, including reformulating some products and removing marketing claims from others.

The agency will accept data from companies and researchers for one year before beginning to finalize the rule.

The proposal comes more than four decades after the FDA began evaluating triclosan, triclocarban and similar ingredients. The government only agreed to publish its findings after a three-year legal battle with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that accused the FDA of delaying action on potentially dangerous chemicals.

Triclosan is found in an estimated 75 percent of anti-bacterial liquid soaps and body washes in the U.S. More than 93 percent of anti-bacterial bar soaps also contain triclosan or triclocarban, according to the FDA.

The FDA was asked to investigate anti-bacterial chemicals in 1972 as part of a law designed to set guidelines for dozens of common cleaners. But the guidelines got bogged down in years of regulatory delays and missed deadlines. The agency published a preliminary draft of its findings in 1978, but never finalized the results until last week.

Most of the research surrounding triclosan's safety involves laboratory animals, including studies in rats that showed changes in testosterone, estrogen and thyroid hormones. Some scientists worry that such changes in humans could raise the risk of infertility, early puberty and even cancer.

FDA scientists stressed Monday that such studies are not necessarily applicable to humans, but the agency is reviewing their implications.

Other experts are concerned that routine use of anti-bacterial chemicals such as triclosan contributes to the emergence of drug-resistant germs, or superbugs, that render antibiotics ineffective.

In March 2010, the European Union banned the chemical from all products that come into contact with food, such as containers and silverware.

A spokesman for the American Cleaning Institute, a soap cleaning product trade organization, said the group will submit new data to regulators, including studies showing that company products do not lead to antibiotic resistance.

The group represents manufacturers including Henkel, Unilever and Dow Chemical Co.

Source: SFGate

Concerned about chemical exposure at work or at home? Make a difference with an industrial-strength air cleaner from Electrocorp. Its activated carbon + HEPA filter combination (and optional UV germicidal filtration) remove the widest range of indoor air pollutants, including chemicals, fumes, particles, bacteria, viruses and mold. Contact Electrocorp for more information.

Manufacturers ignore welders’ health: Experts

Welding is linked to various health risks.

A single welder produces 20 to 40 g of welding fumes per hour, which corresponds to about 35 to 70 kg per year.

Most welders understand the many health risks of working in the fabrication industry, which include electric shocks, fire, explosions and radiation exposure, but it appears that one of the biggest threats to a welder’s health - toxic welding fumes - is being ignored by many welders and their employers.

Research shows a lack of familiarity with the gases used or fumes produced during the welding processes can be a serious health risk. Workers can become ill if dangerous fumes are not removed from the workplace.

OHS groups say it is essential welders are familiar with the materials being used (such as gases, base metals, coatings and cleaners) and their possible health impact.

Research reveals fumes produced during welding processes can lead to workers experiencing eye, skin and respiratory system irritation, nausea, headaches and dizziness.

In some cases, the fumes can cause serious lung diseases and increase the risk of asthma and cancer and possibly lead to asphyxiation.

However, despite all these warnings, many manufacturers are unaware of the need for adequate fume extraction to create a safe working place.

An open roller door and a fan on the roof or in the wall may be able to affect the air changes per hour or minute, but welders are still exposed to the fumes. The area needs to be well ventilated to let toxic fumes and gases escape.

Central ventilation systems and even large extraction hoods over workbenches often fail to provide adequate protection, since the fumes still contaminate the general airflow.

Experts say that extraction-at-source is most effective – removing toxins as soon as the fumes are generated.

Fume extraction air cleaners are the most
effective when it comes to welding fumes.

Fumes from different welding methods

It has been shown that different welding methods give rise to different amounts of fumes containing different concentrations of hazardous substances.

Among the high-risk elements are hexavalent chromium Cr(VI), manganese, nickel and lead.

The particles at source are often extremely small; 0.01-0.1µm which means they are very easy to inhale deep into the lungs.

Furthermore, not only welders are at risk in unsafe environments. Production equipment, as well as end products, are negatively affected by the lack of adequate safety measures.

During welding, the intense heat of the electric arc vaporises a fraction of the metal in the electrode and weld pool.

Any metal vapour that escapes the arc area condenses as it cools and oxidises into weld fume. The vapour that develops condenses as it cools and oxidises into weld fume containing a complex mixture of metal oxides.

Particulate fume is formed mainly by vaporisation of metal and flux. As it cools, the vapour condenses and reacts with the atmospheric oxygen to form fine particles.

The size of the particles (0.01 - 1µm) tends to influence the toxicity of the fumes, with smaller particles presenting a greater danger.

Additionally, many processes produce various gases (most commonly carbon dioxide and ozone, but others as well) that can prove dangerous if ventilation is inadequate.

About 90% of the fume originates from the consumable, while the base metal only contributes very little.

The fume contains all the elements present in the consumable, but often in very different proportions. Volatile components have a higher concentration in the fume than in the consumable and the opposite is true for components with a high melting point.

The amount of welding fume varies between different welding processes: Fumes from manual metal arc (MMA) welding and fluxcored arc welding (FCAW) contain a high proportion of components coming from the electrode coating or the flux core. Comparatively little comes from the filler metal.

It has also been shown that particles in welding fumes are small enough to be suspended in the air for a long time. They can be inhaled and penetrate into the innermost area of the lungs. Over time, the particles can even reach the bloodstream.

Editor's note: This article has been edited for length.

Source: Manufacturers' Monthly

Remove toxins at the source with fume extractors

Electrocorp's LD450
welding fume extractor

Welding is dangerous enough, but the risk of inhaling harmful particles and fumes can be minimized by using an industrial welding fume extraction air cleaner from Electrocorp.

The air cleaning systems feature 40+ pounds of activated carbon for the removal of chemicals and volatile compounds, HEPA and pre-filters to trap airborne particles, a direct intake hood on an articulating arm to capture toxins at the source and a spark arrestor for welding applications.

Custom carbon blends are available for targeted chemical control.

For more information, contact Electrocorp.