skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Gina Solomon’s Blog

Safer Chemicals Mean Safer Lives and Saved Money

Gina Solomon

Posted January 21, 2010 in Health and the Environment

Tags:
, , , , , , ,
Share | | |

When I was a resident, training in Internal Medicine and Occupational and Environmental Medicine, I saw a patient who changed the course of my life. She was a young woman, pregnant with her first child, who asked her ob/gyn whether chemicals in her workplace could harm her fetus. Her ob/gyn referred her to the clinic where I then worked.

She worked in a specialty chemicals manufacturing facility, in the quality control laboratory. She took tiny samples from each batch of chemicals and dissolved them in a solvent to test them for purity. She had a large stack of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) with some info about the chemicals she handled.

But when I started to go through the stack, I noticed some real problems. Many of the chemical names weren't listed. Instead there were annotations of "trade secret". Most of the health information was blank or unknown. I eventually threw the stack of papers on the desk in disgust. What was I supposed to tell my patient?

It was my first introduction to the flawed chemical safety system in the United States. I was shocked then to learn that chemicals that come on the market don't need to be tested for safety, manufacturers can keep most information secret, and the government doesn't have the authority to take action to protect the public from hazardous chemicals.

I saw that patient in 1994, but unfortunately nothing has changed since then.

There's a real cost to this flawed chemical safety system. In fact, although we advised that woman and her employer to play it safe and avoid exposures during pregnancy, the employer concluded there was no clear evidence that the chemicals were harmful (because they weren't tested). My patient had to decide between losing her job and risking her baby. Her Sophie's Choice turned out badly.

During her third trimester, there was a chemical spill in the lab which soaked her clothes and dissolved her gloves, she became ill, and shortly afterward, she lost her baby. Since then, the science has become clear, and the solvent she handled is considered a known reproductive toxicant. Too little, too late.

Not only is there a terrible personal and emotional toll when someone is sickened by toxic chemicals, but there is also a serious strain on our health care system.

In my blog yesterday, I mentioned a new report that is out today. It's called "The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act". Although perhaps I'm biased because I'm one of the co-authors, I really do think it's worth a read.

The report summarizes only peer-reviewed scientific literature. It cites that about 5% of childhood cancer; 10% of diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and neurodevelopmental deficiencies; and 30% of childhood asthma are likely to be attributable to environmental exposures. Unquantifiable but significant fractions of other health conditions, such as reproductive problems and miscarriages, are due to chemicals as well.

The report concludes that even if chemical policy reform only reduces these diseases by one-tenth-of-one-percent, we would save $5 billion dollars per year in health care costs. That's a big deal, especially since the chemical policy reform we need is common-sense, cost-effective, and straightforward.

But my motivation isn't just the health care cost savings. I'm fighting for my patient. She shouldn't have had to suffer because of a flawed chemical safety system. If doctors have the data they need on chemical toxicity, they can advise their patients. Then we can prevent what we cannot cure.

Share | | |

Comments

Judith Gutowski, BA, IBCLC, RLCJan 26 2010 07:07 AM

Hello Gina,
I am sorry if this is an inappropriate way to contact you. I cam a lactation consultant in Pennsylvania. I am seeking information about breastfeeding and ozone exposure. Sepcifically, I have a mother of a healthy 6 month old breastfeeding infant. At work, she has a potential exposure to an ozone process that is used to clean the water system. During pregnancy she was restricted from this area, but now is asked to do training in this space. I have read the ozone information from www.airinfonow.com which reveals local action as a lung irritant. I have searched the web for additional information finding nothing helpful. I would like to know 1) Is there potential for this to enter the bloodstream in some way that would mean it could possibly enter milk? 2) Is respirator protection adequate to prevent any inhalation exposure and possible blood stream exposure? Thank you for your help.

ChrisFeb 25 2010 05:21 PM

There has been alot published on mercury in CFLs. NRCS has been very visible in promoting their use as a green replacment for incandescent over the last several years. It has certainly done more good in reduction of CO2 and mercury then not using them would. The EPA has been very clear in its concern for mercury and has authored guidline for clean up and recycling. Most states have adopted a version of RCRA requiring classification of spent CFL as either universal waste or hazardous waste. This writer is certainly an advocate of using energy effecient lighting, including CFL especialy when they get recycled. This brings me to the point. As adoption of CFL gets deeper and broader into various industries the positive impact of using may not necessarily be offset by the cost of not recycling or mishandleing. In the case of the poultry live production business, where breeding chicken, laying eggs, or growing birds for meat it may be worth while to comment on the affect that uncontrolled use, breakage, and localized disposal of spent cfl could have in introducing mercury and led in the food and feed supply and or local water table. No doubt the EPA, in reccomending to vacate the room of all pets and humans if one breaks is warrented, but what if one or two break in a house full of chicken-time after time after time. Again , CFL have their place ,but with non mercury containning EE solutions available on the market today someone needs to look and address the reality of what is or could happen or the concerns that could be raised if CFLs begin widespread use in food production environments where the likly hood of breakage is high , usage is high, and disposal regulations are unenforced. Should anyone be concerned about exposure of live agriculture to mercury from broken or locally discarded CFL. Again CFL has their place today ,but not all sockets may make sence.

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Stay Plugged In