Paint

Paints are essentially a liquid plastic coating derived from petroleum. Even when the paint has apparently dried it continues to offgas volatile chemicals into the air.   Offgassing of paints may last days or under some conditions even months, which means the occupants of the building are chronically exposed. Even the so-called ‘water based’ paints are nothing more than plastic resins (such as acrylic) dissolved with low odour solvents (such as glycol ethers) to make them ‘water thinnable’.

The synthetic paint industry has over 1,000 substances to choose from to make its products. Some of the dangerous ingredients found in synthetic paints and varnishes are cadmium, styrene, benzene, formaldehyde, toluene, xylene, ethylene glycol, isocyanates (the chemicals responsible for the world's worst industrial accident - Bhopal) chromates, mineral turpentine and pentachlorophenol.

Toxic effects

The Painter's Hazards Handbook put out by the Operative Painters and Decorators Union, lists five main health hazards associated with the ingredients in synthetic paints. These are occupational cancer, ‘Painters’ Syndrome’ (i.e. brain and central nervous system damage), skin diseases, lung diseases and reproductive hazards.

Consumers exposed to paints, lacquers and varnishes have reported headaches, memory problems, nausea and long term health problems. A recent study also found increased respiratory problems in children associated with freshly painted homes. Some years ago we investigated a retail paint store where the manager complained of frequent headaches, concentration and memory problems and tremors. His tremors were worse later in the day and towards the end of the week. All the symptoms disappeared whenever he was absent from work. Even if he had a busy work schedule he was symptom free if he was away from the shop. His symptoms were caused by continual exposure to the VOC's emitted from paints.

Another common problem we have come across is when expecting parents paint the baby's room. Not only is it toxic to the newly born baby but also to the pregnant mother and the developing foetus. Many of these chemicals cross the placenta into the unborn child.

Alternatives

Alternatives to these petroleum products include plant-based paints which are made from a selection of approximately 150 raw materials of plant and mineral origin. While it is not intended to suggest in any way that plant based products are totally safe, it is interesting to note that a great number of them are either used as food or authorised  for use as food additives. For example, linseed oil (the oldest known food oil), soya bean lecithin, casein (made from cows milk), beeswax, orange peel oil, shellac, carnuba wax, chalk, lemon oil, bergamot oil and iron oxides. It is also interesting to note that one brand of paints, Livos Plant Chemistry, are deemed so safe they are exempt from Material Safety Data sheets in all countries where they are sold.

Sunscreens

Most of the chemicals contained in sunscreens have minimal toxicological effects when first applied to the skin. However, when exposed to sunlight, the chemicals are heated and reactions occur between the sunscreen’s active and inactive ingredients and the epidermis. Most of the risks associated with sunscreens lie in the method used to stop the UV radiation harming our skins. Sunscreens use organic compounds to either reflect or absorb different parts of the UV spectrum. When the absorption method is used to protect us from UV radiation, the particles absorbing the UV are energised, or elevated to a higher energy level. This energy is re-emitted when the particles drop back to their former, lower energy level. The released energy enters the epidermis. It is this process that causes the skin damage.

Many of the chemicals in sunscreens have been found to cause phototoxic, photoallergic or photogenotoxic (DNA altering) effects. PABA (Paramino benzoic acid) has been found to increase the development of a particular DNA defect in human cells. When this occurs in people who lack the mechanism to repair the defect, they are more susceptible to skin cancer. When exposed to sunlight, PABA also readily generates oxygen radicals which harm DNA strands . An ester of PABA, amyl paradimethylarninobenzoate (Padimate A) was found to cause phototoxic reactions. Padimate A reacts with UVA to produce symptoms widely resembling sunburn. The similarity between sunburn and a phototoxic response has led people to mistakenly believe that the sunscreen causes sunburn. An ingredient commonly used in sunscreens, 2-phenylbenzimidazole-5-sulfonic acid (PBSA), strongly absorbs UVB radiation, thus becoming energised and capable of affecting adjacent skin tissue by damaging the guanine base sites of the cell’s genetic material. This may increase the risk of developing skin cancer.

Physical sunscreens contain inert materials such as titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and/or talc. They work on the basis of reflecting, scattering or blocking UVA and UVB radiation. The effectiveness of this type of sunscreen depends on the diameter or size of the particles or the thickness of the film (application) to reflect or scatter the visible light or UV radiation. No phototoxicity, contact sensitisation or photoallergy have been produced by these agents, although they may be so occlusive (that is, block so effectively) that they may cause blockage of the sweat glands, a condition known as miliaria.

Octyl Methoxycinnamate appears to be the most common chemical used in Australian sunscreens. This forms part of the group of photon absorbing chemicals, the cinnimates. Photoallergy has been reported as well as contact allergy.

Benzophenones, a constituent in sunscreens, have been found to cause contact allergy and photoallergy. Benzophenones, oxybenzone and mexenone have the potential to mimic and exacerbate a disease. One example is chronic actinic dermatitis, found predominantly in elderly men.

Dibenzoylmethanes have been incorporated into sunscreens since 1980 as UVA absorbers. Cases of photoallergy and contact allergy have been reported as well as cross reactions from prior exposure to dibenzoylemethanes. Instances of contact and photocontact allergy with dibenzoylmethane derivatives such as 5-methoxypsolaren (5-MOP) and isopropyl dibenzoyl methane (Eusolex 8020) have been found with sunscreen usage and it is often used in conjunction with Eusolex 6300.

There are instances of people using sunscreens who have reacted to the excipients (base materials/carriers) included in the formulation, such as the preservatives, fragrances and emulsifiers, which have caused contact allergies. So there is cause for concern not only about the active ingredients in sunscreens, but about the inert ingredients as well.

The question of whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer is an ambiguous one. A review of studies on skin cancer and sunscreens by Science News, found that people who use sunscreen are more likely to develop basal cell cancer than people who do not. Science News also examined ten studies of melanoma. Five of them concluded that people who used sunscreen were more likely than non-users to develop melanoma. Three of the studies found no association between melanoma and sunscreen use, and two studies found that people who used sunscreen were the most protected. Science News 65, found that epidemiological data was not conclusive. This may be because people involved in the studies were not wearing effective sunscreen, or were staying in the sun longer because they thought they were protected.

Other PABA derivatives that have caused sensitisation or photocontact sensitisation include octyl dimethyl PABA (padimate 0) and amyl dimethyl PABA (padimate A). Padimate A causes redness of the skin. The frequency of padimate 0 causing adverse reaction is less in comparison to PABA and monoglyceryl PABA because padimate 0 is not a true PABA ester.

In general, elderly people are more susceptible to chemically induced photosensitivity, be it photoallergic or phototoxic. This is due to several factors: their skin is thinner and more easily penetrated, they may be on medication that can enhance photosensitivity and their body’s capacity to excrete such substances once penetration has occurred is much slower.

In 1994, researchers at the Harvard Medical School found that the ingredient psolaren in sunscreens is an extremely efficient carcinogen. Experiments on rodents exposed to UVA also produced the same result - psolaren was found to be carcinogenic. It is worrying that psolaren is known to be a free radical generator when activated by UV radiation, and yet it is used in sunscreen ingredients. People with psoriasis are at greater risk, as their squamous cell carcinoma rate was found to be 83 times higher than that of the general population.

3-(4-Methyl-benzylldene) camphor (known as Eusolex 6300) is a sunscreening agent used widely in Europe. However, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) disapproves of this ingredient due to the high incidence of allergic and photoallergic reactions reported.

Titanium dioxide has also been found to absorb 70% of UV, and in aqueous environments this leads to the formation of hydroxyl radicals which can initiate oxidation. This is known to cause breaks in DNA strands, leading to an increased risk of cancer. In response to titanium dioxide’s potency, manufacturers coat the particles to make them less active. Although this treatment has been found to reduce the chemical’s activity, it does not eliminate DNA damage altogether. Particles of titanium dioxide have been made smaller to stop the white paste effect on the skin, but this enables them to enter cells more easily and block sweat glands. Titanium dioxide does not itself cause photoallergic reactions on the skin, but it can create the skin condition miliaria, mentioned earlier, causing inflamed sweat glands and heat rash. Titanium dioxide is used in PABA sunscreens because it is not a sensitiser and blocks the appearance of photoallergic reactions.

Salicylates are known to cause photocontact allergy. Toxic effects from Octyl salicylate, a major derivative used in many sunscreens, has yet to be reported.

Cinnamates are chemically related to or can be found in coca leaves, cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde and cinnamon oil. They are included in perfumes, topical medication, flavourings and sunscreens. The cinnamate derivative, p-methoxymethylcinnamate has been found to be cytotoxic, while 2 Ethoxyethyl-p-cinnamate (cinoxate), a major derivative of cinnamate, and used in sunscreen, causes the majority of the allergic and photoallergic reactions in humans. Cross reactions with other cinnamate derivatives have also been reported.

Excipients act as the carriers or base materials of a product and ‘receive’ and carry the other ingredients. These chemicals include mineral oil, petrolatum, isopropyl esters, lanolin derivatives, aliphatic alcohols, emulsifiers, fragrances, thickeners and preservatives. Sunscreen toxicity can be caused by excipients in the formulations.

In studies, sensitive subjects tended to be older and often had a history of long-standing dermatitis. In a study of 603 people aged 40 and over, 114 people were tested and found to be allergic to ingredients in sunscreens. Fragrances, used extensively in sunscreens, produced the most common reaction: allergic contact dermatitis.

The FDA expressed their concerns about cancer when it was discovered that a combination of the 21 allowable sunscreen ingredients caused lesions that were not previously seen when the individual ingredients were tested separately.

BPA and plastics

A recent independent scientific report cautions women to avoid BPA to minimize their chances of breast cancer. The study said there was a "biological plausibility" that BPA is linked to breast cancer. Scientists can see a mechanism in animals by which certain substances, including BPA, might cause breast cancer, but there is not enough information to assess the risk in humans, the study said.

BPA is a harmful organic chemical compound which is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It is an environmental contaminant that disrupts reproductive processes through changing hormonal systems in the body. The effects of BPA have been studied on humans, however, There has been increased awareness of the health related risks to BPA exposure, due to recent research into its environmental distribution and its detection in humans. A recent US study found 91% have traces of BPA.

The main source of human exposure is from food and drink that has been in contact with materials containing BPA such as plastic food and drink containers. Food and beverage containers and culinary utensils are manufactured from polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. These resins are used as linings for metal products including bottletops, food cans and water supply pipes.

Studies have suggested that BPA is associated with a number of serious health effects including; causing cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and also reproductive abnormalities. BPA is also known as an endocrine disruptor, which can interfere with reproduction and development. Fetuses, infants and children are usually more susceptible than adults, due to their fast developmental stages. There is a considerable amount of evidence now that exposure to certain environmental factors in early stages of development promote the risk of numerous chronic diseases in adulthood. Research has recently highlighted the estrogen‑like and carcinogenic adverse effects of BPA and there have been increased incidences of accelerated growth and puberty linked to BPA exposure.

One of the studies carried out on the effects of BPA exposure on pregnant women and the fetus which showed BPA caused prenatal and or postnatal reproductive issues. The ability for a fetal liver to detoxify BPA is much less than that of an adult. However, studies have also shown that 8PA increases infant bodyweight due to its estrogen‑like effects. It has been recorded that there is a link between serum BPA levels and recurring miscarriage. In one study patients with a history of three of consecutive first trimester miscarriages had blood BPA levels of around three times higher than the control group with no history of miscarriage or infertility.

Lead, A Toxic Case Study

Lead is the most widely used heavy metal and a deadly toxin that has become widespread in our modern world. Lead is a neurotoxin with a long history of causing damage to the human brain, from Roman times due to lead (Pb –Latin name plumbum) in drinking vessels, through eighteenth century ‘Devonshire colic’ where cider was poisoned with lead in its manufacture, to present day occupational exposure in the lead additive and battery manufacturing industry. Some historians put the demise of the Roman empire down to the high levels of lead in the aristocracy of Rome which may have contributed to madness such as Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burnt. Before the Industrial Revolution lead poisoning commonly occurred due to adulterated food or wine, or from occupational hazards such as mining or smelting.

Naturally lead is slowly released into the environment through the weathering of rocks, igneous (volcanic) activity and through radioactive decay of naturally occurring radon gas to form the isotope 210Pb. It is a heavy pliable and resistant to corrosion and weathering. These characteristics, as well as its plentiful and accessible supply and ease to smelt, have enabled humans to use it for thousands of years. Some lead artifacts have been dated back to 6500 BC. The Romans produced approximately 80,000 tons of lead annually and were known to increase the environmental lead approximately five times the background level, and as far back as 4,500 years ago in South East Asia, when methods of smelting for lead sulphide ores and cupellation of silver were developed, widespread atmospheric lead contamination occurred.

Lead is the only heavy metal whose open-ocean concentration has been measurably influenced by civilisation. The lead content of the open ocean (Mediterranean and Pacific) has increased 3 to 5 times since the introduction of lead-based gasoline additives and 10 times since pre-industrial times. The significance of these increases in global lead concentration is very difficult to assess. There is a growing concentration of lead found in the tissues of fish, especially shell fish, and in other food, but the effect on global ecosystem processes would be nearly impossible to assess as there are huge problems in determining what is ‘normal’ when the global ecosystem is now relatively drenched in lead compared with pre-industrial times. The extent of global lead is best seen in the fact that an emission product has been diluted into the open oceans and increased in concentration dramatically, yet most lead emissions do not normally reach the oceans but are deposited on the land, particularly in cities where most of us live.

Traditional uses of lead have included building, plumbing, printing, fishing, shooting and uses as weights with the additional present day use in radiation and electrical insulation, battery manufacture with various compounds of lead being used in paints, plastics, ceramics, glass and unfortunately petrol. Historically there have been three major sources of exposure of large populations to lead. Lead paint in older homes, lead in products like jewelry and crystal and lead added to petrol.

While lead was slowly removed from petrol over 25 years, it will remain as an environmental contaminant in the form of fine dust for many more decades and the controversy around it will last even longer. Lead was added to petrol as tetra ethyl and tetra methyl lead (two highly toxic forms) primarily to boost octane ratings. Lead was emitted to the atmosphere from motor vehicle exhausts as volatile lead compounds, unburnt tetra-ethyl lead and as particulates such as lead oxide. Around 70% of these particles are less than 0.1 micron in size which are easily dispersed over large distances and the size most dangerous to human health. Particles below 0.1 micron in size can pass into the lower parts of the lungs where they do most damage.

Automotive exhausts were the major contributors to lead emissions in most cities around the world, although other sources include paint and factory emissions. In the USA it is estimated that between 90 and 98 per cent of total lead emissions are from car exhausts and in Australia it has been estimated that about 98% of lead emissions came from lead in petrol, though the lead added to petrol only represented 14% of total lead usage.

Australia was one of the last developed countries to remove lead from petrol (almost 20 years after the USA). This was despite the toxic effects of lead being known as far back as the 1950s. Leaded petrol was phased out in Australia between 1986 and 2002. Australia has an influential lead industry (the largest lead mines in the world) that fought tooth and nail alongside the petrol industry and certain government departments to keep the lead in petrol. Shamefully, the health of the average person is usually not a consideration when weighed against the “health” of the economy when large amounts of money are at stake. The result of this reluctance to act means that even still many more Australians now have elevated levels of lead in their bodies and many children have been unnecessarily exposed to this toxic metal.

Although the amount of lead has decreased in road dust and soil lead is still found as a contaminant in the dust in our homes, usually near the entrance where it is brought in on people’s shoes. This contaminated dust will accumulate in carpets, where the possibility of it being ingested or being transferred to the skin is increased, especially if the dust particles are stirred. When we studied the amounts of lead in carpets we found the highest levels near the front door. The closer the house was to a busy road or a petrol station, the higher the level of lead.

Lead can cause very serious health problems, including damage to the nervous system, leading to behavioural changes and a decreased mental ability, inhibition of enzymes, interference with the growing foetus, colic, anaemia and kidney damage. Infants and young children are the groups most susceptible to lead exposure. Even at low levels, lead poisoning in children can cause significant IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention spans and hyperactivity and other behaviour problems. A lot like ADHD symptoms. Pregnant women poisoned by lead can transfer lead to the developing foetus, resulting in adverse developmental effects including increased levels of spontaneous abortion and still-born babies. One study found a strong correlation with prenatal lead exposure and violent offences and arrests later in life and lead exposure in utero will result in poor intellect in children, especially when exposed around 28 weeks of gestation when development is most crucial.

Schizophrenia has also been associated with exposure to lead in the foetus. In one study mothers with high‑lead blood samples were more than twice as likely to have children who later became schizophrenic. As a result they estimate that up to a quarter of the schizophrenia that developed in American urban centres in the 1950s and 1960s could be traced to lead pollution in the womb. Maybe the levels in Australia were even higher as a result of our lax controls.

Another sensitive issue is what levels of lead in the body are safe for kids. According to the grandfather of lead research Dr Needleman, ‘none’. Needleman had done literally decades of work on the toxic effects of lead on kids and had concluded there is no safe level and children are the most vulnerable to its toxic effects. However, as a result of the powerful lead industry the levels of lead acceptable in the blood were around 35ug/dl of blood. In the mid 80’s it was reduced to 25, then to 10 and now levels of 5 ug/dl or above are considered not acceptable. In one situation I was involved in however, the government officials tried to argue the child did not have a problem because the levels were 4.9 ug/dl. Clearly they were very good at reading numbers but not at understanding the effects of toxic chemicals such as lead and how standards should be used including how lead levels fluctuate in the blood and the effects of lead accumulation in the body.

Dust from lead-based paints continues to pose a health problem. Although these paints were banned from indoor use decades ago, people with older homes are still being exposed to lead dust, another legacy of complacent governments. More than 80 percent of homes built before 1978 contain lead paint. It was the primary component (up to 40 percent) of white paint in Australia until the 1960s. In homes built before 1950, white lead-based paints were used as undercoats on interior and exterior timbers and walls and as a prime coat for troweled lath and plaster walls and cement rendered surfaces. One study estimated that 38 million houses in the US had lead-based paint on their walls. How many in Australia? Since then, modern paints have turned from using lead based to titanium dioxide and latex products. Unfortunately lead based paints are still used in many developing countries.

Small quantities of dust are continually produced from lead paint, settling on indoor surfaces. During periods of home renovation, there is an increase in the number of cases of lead poisoning reported. Researchers have found the household dust of recently renovated homes contains lead levels of 12,600 mg/m2. This is thousands of times higher than the normal background level. In a recent incident, a family keen to renovate an older house was assured that the old paint on the outside of their home was not lead based. At the end of the first day of paint stripping, there was a layer of fine paint dust inside the home and in the new baby’s room. Fortunately the mother listened to her intuition and had the dust tested. It was laden with lead. In this case the family acted quickly to avert potentially grave health problems. It is essential to have paint tested before you remove it if you think there may be any possibility of it being lead based. This is simple and inexpensive as the test kits are available from any reputable hardware or paint shop. Don’t assume it will be fine. It is essential to test it and be sure. The best thing to do with most lead painted surfaces is to just paint over it. It will not be released with a few extra coats of paint over it.

Another concern is the use of lead in common consumer items. In particular the use of lead paint or contamination of children’s products and toys with lead. There is growing evidence and concern over the unregulated products coming into Australia from Asia. Many are made from cheaper metals and paints and may be contaminated or even used heavy metals such as lead and cadmium in their production. I have found jewelry with high concentrations of both lead and cadmium.

Ironically we add lead oxide to the molten glass to form lead crystal. The lead leaches out into liquids fairly rapidly but increases with alcoholic content and acidity. The longer the wine or drink is left in the crystal the higher the concentrations but it only takes a few minutes for the lead to begin leaching into the crystal. Lead may also be a lesser component of pewter but the same principles will apply for it migrating into foods and drink as crystal.

Lead also makes its way into cosmetics, particularly, hair dyes, eye shadow and lipsticks. Metal salts dyes, most commonly lead and bismuth (another toxic metal) salts, are used to create a reaction to dye the hair. Metal salts gradually darken the hair over time and are used in black-brown colours. Strangely lead salts have been approved as safe for use as hair dyes in the low concentrations. Remember, there is no safe level of lead, but for beauty’s sake it seems ok?

Lead in drinking water is not a new phenomenon as lead was historically used to make water pipes and has even been contributed to be a factor of the Roman Empire's demise. Although lead pipes are no longer produced, some older homes may still contain lead pipes and thus contaminate the drinking water. Lead in tap water may also increase due to leaching of lead-bearing materials such as solders.

Lead has also been found to accumulate in the soil of orchards where crop sprays containing lead compounds have been used such as apple and pear orchards sprayed with lead arsenate. The concern here is the encroaching urban sprawl as we build new homes on old horticultural or old industrial areas without anyone being the wiser on what is in the soils.

Whilst we have become smarter when dealing with lead, and it no longer affects our IQ, the possibility of future contamination still lingers as long as we accept it in our products. No level of lead, mercury or cadmium is acceptable, and therefore the only acceptable solution is to remove them from all environmental, household and personal care products.

Chemicals, Kids and Cancer: Why kids are more vulnerable

There is little doubt that our kids have a greater susceptibility to toxic chemicals,. Everyday we expose our children to hundreds of different chemicals in an array of household products and yet remain puzzled as to why they get sick and why the rates of childhood asthma, allergies and cancer are higher than ever.

There are many contributing factors that increase rates of childhood disease: these include very important considerations such as diet, lifestyle and attitude, but I wish to draw your attention to your child's immediate environment , as it is the environment you provide in your home that will contribute greatly to either your child's enjoyment of good health or their development of disease. Over the last 40 to 50 years we have increased the number of synthetic chemicals we use with virtually no extra thought as to how vulnerable children are to these chemicals or how little we know about their subtle and accumulative toxic effects. We assume that because these chemicals are so easily purchased off the supermarket shelf, they must be safe to use. Wrong! Many of these chemicals are known to be toxic and few of them are extensively studied before they are put on the shelf, freely available to the general public. Furthermore, certain assumptions are made in the process of allowing these products to be generally available - one of these assumptions is that kids are just smaller versions of adults. Scientific and medical studies show that this is not the case and that children are much more vulnerable to chemical toxins and environmental pollutants.

The World Health Organisation has emphasized that infants and young children have different structural and functional characteristics from those of older children and adults. These characteristics are simply stages of normal growth and development but affect a child's vulnerability when exposed to chemicals. In March of this year (2005), the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) reiterated again that children are more vulnerable to gene-damaging chemicals than are adults. Kids are not simply smaller versions of adults, but this is how they're seen when it comes to developing regulations and safety standards.

For the first time the US EPA have tried to put a figure on how much more susceptible children are. They reported children two years old and younger might be 10 times more vulnerable than adults to certain chemicals and that children between the ages of two and 16 might be three times more vulnerable to certain chemicals. This means we need to make a huge shift in the way we regulate chemicals and may mean in some cases that the chemicals kids are exposed to in the home may be up to 10 times too high in concentration. Oops! Our regulators have made yet another mistake and while they will say there are no problems with the existing system and will defend it, along with the manufacturing industry, it will eventually be changed - it will just take 10 or 20 years for it to happen. I have seen this many times. It was argued for many decades that low levels of lead were not problem but in just two or three years all the regulations were changed in the reluctant recognition that even low levels were a major health concern for kids. The scientific proof of this was available 20-30 years earlier with the US removing lead from petrol in 1972. Australian authorities sat on their hands until 1986.

Kids are more vulnerable to toxic chemicals because of certain behavioural and physiological characteristics that multiply not only their exposures to environmental toxins but also increase the effects of these chemicals on them. Physiological characteristics include rapid rates of growth, immature body systems and physiology, such as enzyme systems, as well as underdeveloped barriers which prevent toxins from being absorbed. Kids are particularly vulnerable to toxins during rapid periods of growth such as those which occur in-utero, in the first 12 months of life and at puberty. A typical human infant increases in weight by about 200% and in length by 50% in his or her first 12 months. On average, the infant's brain is just over 30% of the weight of an adult brain at birth, their maximum number of neurons will be reached by age two but the brain will not structurally mature until four - six years of age. Their nervous system will not be fully developed until adolescence. The spinal cord and the peripheral nerves are protected by a fatty sheath called myelin, and the process of neural myelination is not complete until adolescence. As a result a child's nervous systems is at higher risk of damage from common household insecticides, heavy metals and solvents typically found in household products.

A child's brain is also more vulnerable because of the immaturity of the blood-brain-barrier, which is designed to protect it from toxins. Even in adults this barrier cannot protect the brain from many heavy metals and synthetic chemicals such as solvents and pesticides. In infants it is almost totally ineffective against most modern day chemicals. This dramatically increases the risk of both temporary and permanent damage to the brain. It's possible that early exposure to some chemicals may permanently reduce the effectiveness of the blood brain barrier, allowing increased passage of toxins to the brain, and increasing the person's vulnerability to certain chemicals throughout their life.

Children are also susceptible in other areas of their physiology. The many enzyme pathways that metabolise foreign compounds in the body take several years to develop and a child is at increased risk until they are fully matured. For example, infants have lower levels of the neurotransmitter cholinesterase which helps to maintain the balance in the nervous system's communication channels. Many of pesticides and the nicotine in tobacco smoke inactivate cholinesterases, allowing the stimulating neurotransmitter acetylcholine to remain and increase in concentration, causing over stimulation of the nervous system. Depressed levels of cholinesterase can cause irreversible damage. Chronic effects include weakness and malaise, headache and light-headedness and symptoms can mimic those of ADHD. While the pesticides may not accumulate to any significant degree, repeated exposures with the resultant cholinesterase-inhibiting effect, can be a significant problem. Don't expose your children (or yourselves) to pesticides - any of them. Even if claims are made as to their safety, they are not safe! The aerosol spraying method for household insect killing chemicals enables the toxins to penetrate deep into the lungs. You wouldn't expose your kids to tobacco smoke would you, so why pesticides? They are much more toxic.

A child's immature enzyme systems can also affect their ability to eliminate the environmental toxins to which they are exposed. The metabolic pathways and enzyme detoxification systems of infants and young children have reduced capacity for dealing with toxins as compared to adults. The major excretory organs in the human body (the liver and kidney) take some years to develop and become fully and efficiently functional. For example, the Phase I and II enzyme detoxification systems (stimulated in all the liver detox diets) are immature at birth and only develop gradually as an infant. The immaturity of an infant's capacity for detoxification and elimination usually produces higher blood levels of toxins for longer periods in comparison to an adult, meaning the toxic chemical hangs around a lot longer in your kids' bodies, doing more damage.

In general tissue and membrane barriers are more permeable in the early years of life to help with the demands of rapid development and growth. However, this also increases their capacity to absorb toxins. For example, absorption rates of heavy metals from the gastrointestinal tract in humans and other mammals are significantly higher in infancy compared to other ages. Lead is a well-known poison, causing irreversible neurological damage to the young, including a reduced IQ. Studies have shown that infants and young children absorb lead more efficiently than adults via the gastrointestinal tract. 40 - 90% of an oral dose is absorbed by a child less than 8 years of age, compared with 10% by an adult. Studies have also shown that retention of the absorbed dose is higher. While adults retain 10% of an ingested dose, 18% is retained by children and 32% retained by children less than 5 years of age. Absorption through the skin is also higher in children. Their skin is more permeable and they have a greater surface area relative to body weight.

Kid's are also at increased risk from environmental carcinogens. In infants and children cells are dividing more rapidly. There is a greater probability of DNA mutation and cancerous growth being initiated. Studies show that one day old rats exposed to vinyl chloride developed a much higher incidence of cancers than rats which were exposed at eleven weeks of age. Early exposure to carcinogens also means there's more time for cancer to develop over the person's lifetime. Many cancers which develop in adults are a result of exposure to carcinogens in childhood. Reducing childhood exposure to these toxic chemicals will reduce the potential for cancers later in life.

Kids' Behaviour

Aside from the physiological and biochemical reasons behind children's increased susceptibility to toxins, there are behavioural, cultural and sociological reasons as to why they are more at risk.

Increased exposure of infants and kids occurs through both their food consumption and respiration. Kilogram for kilogram of body weight, children drink more fluids, eat more food and breathe more air than adults. Children aged one to five years for example, eat three to four times more food per kilogram than the average adult. The types of food they eat also increase their exposure. In the first five to seven years of life, a child's diet is very limited. One study in the US estimated that children between one and five years of age consumed six times the amount of fruit consumed by women aged 22 - 30, and 18 times more apple and apple products, including juices and purees. More recent estimates from studies in the US suggest that the intake of apples by infants expressed as a ratio of body weight may be up to 20 times higher than that for adults. These consumption rates mean that young children face a greater risk from residues such as pesticides and fungicides in fresh produce than do adults. This highlights the need to feed our kids as much organic and biodynamic produce as possible.

Young children's play behaviour can be a potential source of exposure to toxic substances. Mouthing, whereby hands and objects are put into the mouth (an exploratory behaviour of the young called PICA), has been shown to lead to significant ingestion of soil and dust. One study found average daily estimates of soil consumed by kids ranged from 25.3 to 81.3 mg/day, and reported that this was consistent with results from other studies. This dramatically increases their risk of exposure to heavy metals and pesticides in the soil. This doesn't mean that you stop your children from playing outside. It does mean you shouldn't use any pesticides or toxic chemicals in the garden.

Other behaviour such as crawling and playing close to the ground can also contribute to higher exposure to many chemical as this is where many of the chemicals actually accumulate. Children's tendency to play around cars while the engine is running really highlights this. More than 4000 chemicals spew from the exhaust pipes of cars. I often see kids playing around the car while parents are saying their farewells. For kids, who are closer to exhaust pipe height, it's a toxic game.

Kids also don't have the experience or know how to reduce their exposure. Unlike adults who can relate a chemical smell to making them sick or causing an allergic reaction, young children have too little experienced to make the connection and often lack the necessary verbal skills. So they will continue to expose themselves to more of the toxin. We, as adults and parents, must provide the protection of a safe environment. And children are easily influenced by the conditioning of media advertising to use toxic chemicals such as deodorant spray cans or perfumes. Or to consume more junk foods with toxic food additives in them.

Research is proving the toxicity of these chemicals. Many studies, including some of our own research and other Australian studies, show that the higher the use of chemicals in the home, including cleaning chemicals, the use of spray cans and pesticides, the higher the incidence of childhood disease, such as asthma and allergies. In a few years when the research is complete, it will also show an increase in children's and adult's cancer rates.

It is also worth noting that thousands of kids are poisoned by domestic chemicals every year. Some of them are permanently damaged. Some children die. The fewer toxic chemicals you bring into the home the safer it is for your children and you.

What can YOU do?

Set a goal to reduce the amount of synthetic chemicals you have and use in the home by 50% over the next month. When you achieved this, review your chemical use again, and see if you can reduce it further.

Use safer more environmentally friendly chemicals

Use high quality, genuine fibre technology for cleaning.

Don’t use spray cans - they are major air pollutants. Just read the warning on the back of the can to see how toxic they are.

Use non toxic baits and traps for pests instead of toxic pesticides.

Do not believe the pest control company when they tell you their product is safe. They are not and they are actually not allowed to say they are safe.

Don't paint the new baby's room.

Don’t put child care centres on busy roads.

Do not believe the advertisements on TV that tell you will be better off using synthetic chemicals. You won't be. But they will make a lot of money out of you.

Ban spray cans from your child's school.

Don't allow people to smoke around children. Visit my website for a lot more information and more action you can take to protect your kids.