New Quick Reference: Detox Your Home Room by Room!

I’ve shared over 10 yrs of learning and talked to many experts on this blog and podcast.  Now, you can read some of my blog posts room by room.  You can find more posts in the archives.

Quick Start List.  Start Learning Today!

A Healthier Home: Room by Room
(Some of My Blog Posts, Organized!)

*For people interested in learning about the health effects of everyday products/methods AND safer alternatives…

EMPOWER YOURSELF!

Living Room:
Safer Sofas, Flooring and Sofas
Compact Fluorescent (CFL) Bulbs and Health Problems
Toxic Sofas Made in China-Sold in the UK

Kitchen:
What’s in Particleboard and Wood Products?  And Better Choices
Oven Cleaner: A Corrosive Hazard
A Non-Toxic Tip: Prevent Bugs in Flour
Teflon, Non-Stick Pans and Cooking without Harmful Fumes
What the Numbers on Plastics Mean
Fewer Cleaners to Clean Your Kitchen
What is Castile Soap?
Green Cleaning – A Free Guide with Recipes

Bathroom:
Healthier Bathrooms
How to Sanitize Without Chlorine
Freshen the Air without Harmful Chemicals
Toothpaste
Sunscreen
Disinfectant Overkill

AUDIO: EP.24- Interview w/Stacy Malkan, The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry

Bedroom:
Safer Sheets, Bedding and Fabrics
Chemical Clothing: Formaldehyde and Health
Non-Toxic Mattresses and What’s in Flame Retardants

Basement:
Humidity, Mold, Laundry and Solvents in the Basement
Hazards of Ozone Generators
Healthier Laundry

AUDIO: Ep.23 Talk with Dr. Tang Lee-Mold Prevention and    Clean-up and Health

Garage and Yard:
Mindboggling List of Household Products Made from Petrochemicals
Paints: Low Odor, No VOC, What Do The Terms Mean?

Office:
Non-Toxic Arts and Crafts: A Great Web Resource
PVC-Free School Supplies- A Web Resource

Hazards of Fragrance:
Phthalates in Air Fresheners
New Study:Toxins in Common Scented Laundry Products and Air Fresheners

AUDIO: Ep. 21 Talk with Dr. Anne Steinemann about Toxins in Products and Home

Male Fertility and Household Products:
The Disappearing Male/Infertility and Common Products
Healthier Toys- A Web Resource
Why Boys are Turning into Girls

Greenwashing and Labels:
What “Non-Toxic” on a Label Means
Greenwashing: Why Being “Green” or “Natural” is Not Enough Anymore
Organic Means Free of Pesticides, Right?  WRONG!
The Deadly Sins of Greenwashing: Download a Poster with Reminders

Building Materials:
Finding Safer Sealants and Caulk
Building Materials for the Environmentally Hypersensitive- A Book
Chinese Drywall in Homes in the US and Canada
Green Renos and Home Building-Free Guide

AUDIO- EPISODE 20 -Enviromental Inspector and Building Expert, Stephen Collette

AUDIO- EPISODE 19 -EPISODE19 – Special Guest, Stephen Collette from Yourhealthyhouse.ca

Other:
Treating Lice
Free E-Book: What’s in This Stuff?
Chemical Filters in Sunscreens Killing Coral: Greener Alternatives
Free Download: The Non-Toxic House

AUDIO: Ep. 22 Talk with Dr. Magda Havas about Electromagnetic Fields and Health

AUDIO: EPISODE17 – Earth Day Special with guest, Tim Penstone, Organic Lawn Care

Check Out More Blog Posts and Audio Interviews to Help Get Out of the Chemical Soup!

Advertisement

Claims of New Diaper Technology Giving Rashes and Burns

Article from the Toronto Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/life/2010/05/06/13843436.html

Group on Facebook wanting Return to Old Technology
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=230956705705&v=wall&ref=ts

Some Amazon.com reviewers posting about the burns/rashes on their babies and a lot just think they’re messy, thin diapers.

Toxic Leather Sofas made in China Cause Severe Burns and Other Health Problems

The cause was discovered to be a highly sensitizing fungicidal chemical called dimethyl fumarate (DMF).  Inserted as solid sachets to inhibit mold growth, the chemical off-gassed in people’s homes, causing severe burns and illness. Reports came from the UK and one person even died.

For info on safer sofas and carpets, please read a past article I’d posted.

1. More on the Chinese sofas, company names and compensation for consumers-
A BBC Article on the sofas:
Shops agree to £20m pay-out over ‘toxic sofas’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8644156.stm

2. Consumer Reports wrote about leather sofas.
Make sure to check out the comments below the article about leather
and other materials making people sick all over the world.
Is your leather sofa making you sick?
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/safety/2009/05/toxic-sofas-couches-rashes-chemical-burns-britain.html

Michael Pollan on The Precautionary Principle Regarding Toxic Chemicals

Over the years, I’ve come to understand there is a name for a new way of thinking about toxic chemicals and policy.  It’s The Precautionary Principle.  I’ve pointed out the failings of our current “dose makes the poison” and “risk management” system.  It’s not that I’m against scientific testing of chemicals.  I’m all for it and if reform happens, industry should carry the burden of proof, not consumers/individuals.

However, I don’t think scientific testing ALONE should determine our course of action, nor our public policy.

In an article from 2001, Michael Pollan makes some excellent points.

He wrote,

For the last several decades, American society has been guided by the ”risk analysis” model, which assesses new technologies by trying to calculate the mathematical likelihood that they will harm the public. There are other ways, however, to think about this problem. Indeed, a rival idea from Europe, the ”precautionary principle,” has just begun making inroads in America.

The problem with risk analysis, which came out of the world of engineering and caught on during the late 70’s, is that it hasn’t done a very good job predicting the ecological and health effects of many new technologies. It is very good at measuring what we can know – say, the weight a suspension bridge can bear – but it has trouble calculating subtler, less quantifiable risks. (The effect of certain neurotoxins on a child’s neurological development, for example, appears to have more to do with the timing of exposure than with the amount.) Whatever can’t be quantified falls out of the risk analyst’s equations, and so in the absence of proven, measurable harms, technologies are simply allowed to go forward.”

He also wrote, “Critics argue that the precautionary principle is ”antiscientific.” No and yes. No, in the sense that it calls for more science in order to dispel the uncertainties surrounding new technologies and to develop less harmful alternatives. And yet there is a sense in which the idea is ”antiscientific,” if by scientific we mean leaving it to scientists to tell us what to do. For the precautionary principle recognizes the limitations of science – and the fact that scientific uncertainty is an unavoidable breach into which ordinary citizens sometimes must step and act.”

You can read the whole article here.  http://www.sehn.org/pollan.html

Thank you, Michael, for expressing how I feel.  Variables like age and health of one’s brain won’t be accounted for in such testing.  In one bottle of hand lotion alone can be thousands of chemicals.  Who’ll be the watchdog?  And if they have to be tested in combination with other chemicals, what does this mean to testing on animals?

Don’t Be Duped: Safer Chemicals, Healthy Family Advises

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families posted this helpful article. http://www.saferchemicals.org/dont-be-duped/index.html (Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is a coalition of diverse groups united by their common concern about toxic chemicals in our homes, places of work, and products we use every day.)

In the article, we learn about what advocates and industry want regarding toxic chemical reform in the USA.

Here are some key points:

What Advocates Want vs. What the Chemical Industry Wants

1.  Advocates want ALL CHEMICALS to be proved safe before being allowed into commerce.

The industry believes only priority chemicals defined by the EPA should be tested and considered for tighter regulation. The public would be left in the dark about the others. Sound familiar?

2.  Advocates believe chemicals the EPA has already defined as likely hazardous should be regulated now.

The industry wants new risk assessments and more studies before any regulation.

3.  Advocates believe chemicals should be studied to assess the cumulative effect of exposure to multiple chemicals simultaneously.

The industry believes the health effects of only some chemicals should be studied, each in isolation and from one source at a time.

They Advise Us to Be on the Lookout for This Group:
The Coalition for Chemical Safety. They have the website with claims to be made up of “People like you”.  Well, a look at their membership list shows it to be heavily populated by industry.