PEAK food conditions/ Public Health Response

One of the major themes of this semester has been sustainability. The rate at which we are using resources is just simply not sustainable. Humans are straining resources and that's creating issues and challenges. We need to be using resources that are renewable and that are not depleting our earth's natural resources to extinction.

While it may seem like a stretch, Dr. Robert Lawrence, the director of the Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, offers some insight into the nature of peak food conditions and the public health implications. He offers big picture items:

 1) Move away from heavy reliance on fertilizer and pesticides

2) Use science to improve food shelf life

3) Reduce refrigeration and freezing 

4) Increase food system energy efficiency and further reliance on renewables

5) Eat less meat, and eat less processed food and reduce long distance fuel transportation

As individuals, Dr.Lawrence recommends the following: eat less meat and dairy; eat more seasonal, low-processed, local, organic food; reduce the number of trips we take to the store; use less packaging and bring our own bags; and waste less food- 40% of food produced gets wasted. While these changes are probably difficult for the average consumer, public health campaigns can do their part to promote behavior change and maintenance of that change. 

We are on a collision course with food insecurity worldwide. As public health professionals, it should be a priority for us to respond to this emerging crisis. Public health implications would include methods to enable the community to make changes and sustain those changes. Public policies should focus on subsidizing healthier foods and making easy for communities to provide organic food options for its pupils. Additionally, federal dollars should be spent to increase public awareness of ways to improve sustainability of food production. 

Finally, the diagram below gives a visual demonstration the potential impact changing diets from animal based to plant based. 

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)

Material Name: Fluorouracil Injection
Trade Name: Fluoroblastin;Fluroblastin;Adrucil
Chemical Family: Mixture
Intended use: Antineoplastic

Health Risks: The health risks associated with this chemotherapy drug include both long term and short term. In the short term, if this drug is absorbed through the skin or if swallowed it can cause systemic effects. In the long term, repeat-dose studies in animals have shown a potential to cause adverse effects on blood and blood forming organs.

Known clinical effects: GI disturbances such as nausea, dyspepsia, and vomiting and gastrointestinal irritation. Effects on blood forming organs are also noted.

Statement of hazard: May impair fertility. May cause harm to the unborn child. May cause heritable genetic damage.

Exposure Control: The material safety data sheet recommends four different kinds of Personal Protective Equipment or PPE. To protect the hands, disposable gloves (double suggested) are recommended if skin contact with drug product is possible and for bulk processing operations. To protect the eyes, safety glasses or goggles are recommended. To protect the skin, the MSDS recommends wearing impervious disposable protective clothing. Finally, if airborne exposures exceed the occupational exposure band range, respirators are recommended.

Training: I have received extensive training on the proper handling of chemotherapy. I have had the opportunity to work in seven different organizations and each time I have gone through orientation, I have received training about proper safety measures when handling chemo drugs. It is well known that chemo drugs are unsafe for pregnant women so nurses who are pregnant or could be pregnant are not given patients receiving chemo just to be extra cautious.

ToxNet Findings: I did not find any discrepancies between what was reported on the MSDS and ToxNet. ToxNet reported some studies that showed less potential for poor outcomes when exposed. However, I did find an interesting section that was not included on the MSDS. ToxNet included a section on signs and symptoms of exposure to fluoroblastin. Toxicity could lead to short term and long term neurotoxicity. Typically, acute neurotoxicity presents itself as an encephalopathy. The good news is that acute toxicity is generally self-limiting and should resolve. Delayed neurotoxicity is immune mediated and typically responds to treatment with corticosteroids. This is important for clinicians to be aware of potential sign/symptoms of toxicity if a patient receiving this drug presents with neurologic problems.

MSDS Tool: I think this is an adequate tool for helping nurses understand proper techniques to reduce their risk of exposure to chemotherapuetic agents. I think a good quality improvement project for local hospitals would be to analyze and update their MSDS tools to include signs and symptoms of toxicity.

Acts that save lives

Both the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 are critically important to public health. The Clean Water Act was initially vetoed by President Nixon, but later congress over road his decision. Prior to the passing of this act, only about 1/3 of the nation's water was safe to fish in or drink. Much of the water in United States had been contaminated by phosphorus, nitrogen, and compounds like dioxin. Water treatment facilities only served about eight million in the United States. Water was so polluted that rivers in Ohio would catch fire. The Safe Drinking Water Act was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S and focuses on all the waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, i.e. above ground or underground sources. Under the act, the EPA established minimum standards to protect tap water and minimum standards for state programs that protect underground sources of drinking water.

The public health impact of these two acts is beyond words, however there are notable holes within the acts that led to later amendments and controversy. One of the biggest accomplishments of the clean water act was that it established the responsibility of water quality at the federal level. Furthermore, the legislation establish a new way of dealing with our nation's water pollution problem by requiring a government permit to discharge pollutants in the first place. Additionally, the act provided generous financial assistance to state and local governments to construct wastewater treatment facilities.

While these acts are forty years old, the work is still not done and we will continue to see the issues of water quality in the near future. Recent findings of health risks associated with fracking and the contamination of Flint's water source continue to demand enforcement of both acts. A comprehensive new look at substantial research demonstrates that fracking inevitably pollutes water and air and harms people. In Flint, Michigan, residents have been dealing with strange colors and smells from their tap water for more than a year. City officials assured the community that everything was OK. In the last few weeks, the city revealed that the water had indeed been contaminated and the children of flint had been found to have increased lead levels in the blood. The plan is to connect Flint's water source back with Detroit's in order to restore and improve the safety and quality of Flint's water.

We know that water is the basis of life. We also know that consuming contaminated water with lead and other chemicals can lead to poor outcomes. In the past forty years, the acts have substantially increased the quality and safety of the United States' water. Today, more than two thirds of water in the U.S. meet EPA standards. Our overall goal should be 100% water quality; however, we have made progress. We must continue to hold companies accountable for water pollution. We must also continue to frequently test our community's water source to ensure its safety and quality. Finally, as public health experts we know anytime you have to weigh money against the health and welfare of people, it always has to be the health and welfare. In the end, these acts have saved countless lives and continue to do so.

Sewage Treatment Facilities

Above is a photo of the Sewage treatment facility for my geographic location, Sacramento, CA. Regional San is responsible for taking the waste out of my drinking water and has been in operation since 1982. In addition to providing standard services by sewage waste treatment facilities such as management of trace metals, organics, bacteria, microbiological and toxicological analysis of water, the lab for regional San also conducts field monitoring. The laboratory collects samples from ground water and monitors the water quality of the Sacramento and American Rivers around Sacramento. At least once a week, workers travel to various parts of the rivers and collect water samples and perform water quality measurements.

Ideal Chemical Policy

I remember sitting in class last Thursday reviewing the Louisville Charter Background papers and being amazed that it is 2015, yet we are still allowing chemicals that could harm us to be used in our everyday hygiene products. My group had very similar ideas on the elements of an ideal chemical policy and those included in the reform measures proposed by the Louisville Charter work group. Below are the elements of what I believe to be an ideal chemical policy.

1. Give the public workers the right to know and participate: I think this is a huge issue. I have a bachelors degree in nursing, yet until taking this course I was very ignorant to my daily exposures to known carcinogens and toxic chemicals. There is a saying, "What you don't know, can't hurt you." I completely disagree. We have been warned time and time again with books such as Silent Spring, Generations at Risk, and Our stolen Future, yet we have not had a change in policy for more than forty years. Furthermore, the idea of a trade secret needs to be addressed. A fragrance can have anything potentially toxic in it and the producer does not have to disclose the ingredients because they have a patent to it. By protecting a company's right to trade secret, the public workers and consumer are not yielded the right to know. Finally, many workers are exposed to known carcinogens on a daily basis and are unaware of the potential hazard. This closely relates to social determinants of health and is a form of social injustice. 
2. Require comprehensive safety data for all chemicals: As of now, it is the burden of the EPA to demonstrate a chemical's safety. This is backwards. We need a chemical policy in the United States that is similar to the REACH model in the UK. It is unethical to be producing personal care products for the masses without demonstrating their safety. We have seen a dramatic increase in the incidence of breast cancer in the United States and many experts in the field believe it has to do with the utilization of chemicals that are estrogen disruptors. 
3. Take immediate action to protect communities and workers: For a long time, Johnson & Johnson, utilized formaldehyde in their baby shampoo. While it is unclear why the company was utilizing the formaldehyde, but it was likely because formaldehyde is an excellent preservative. A group of nurses took action and refused to put the Johnson & Johnson products in the baskets for patients to take home with them until the company removed the known carcinogens form their products. Almost immediately, the company responded by removing the chemicals. While we don't know if formaldehyde will cause cancer in a baby, the real question is why is there a known carcinogen in shampoo? Furthermore, something to consider is that all exposure is cumulative. 
4. Require safer substitutes and solutions: Just as Johnson & Johnson responded rather quickly as they saw their products sales' drastically decline, as consumers we have the ability to put pressure on these other companies to remove harmful chemicals from their products. An ideal chemical policy would require the most safe products available to be utilized. This would tie into the comprehensive safety data and immediate action to protect all consumers. While it may be cost effective for companies to be using toxic, preservative-laden products, it is unethical to continue to expose consumers to these chemicals. 

We should follow the UK lead and develop a program similar to REACH. Burden of proof should not rest of the EPA for demonstrating harmful effects of chemicals. Furthermore, companies should be required to use safe chemicals in their products and take immediate action to remove known carcinogens and harmful substances from personal care products. After all, how sad is it that a human's first exposure to harmful chemicals is now in utero?

Environmental Racism, The Tragedy of Chester, Pennslyvania

In a course I took last Spring, theory of health behavior change, the first class focused completely on social determinants of health. Environmental racism is unfortunately a reality and determinant of health that many races in this country, especially African Americans have to endure. 

One of the most significant examples of this in our history is The Tragedy of Chester, Pennsylvania. Chester, Pennsylvania is predominantly poor and Black (65%) community and home to 42,000 residents. The median family income for Chester is $24,893. Only about one-fourth of residents in Chester have some college education and Chester has a substantial percentage of non-highschool graduates. 

Since the mid 1980's, Chester City has been the home of  four hazardous and municipal waste treatment facilities, including the nation's largest infectious medical waste treatment facility. Unfortunately, those residents live next to one of the largest waste facilities in the country. Furthermore, the facility that burns waste is the seventh largest garbage-burning incinerator in the nation. Sadly, the this facility also burns waste from all over the east coast. 

This exposure to toxic substances and pollution went on for years. The social determinants of living in Chester seriously impacted that quality of life and residents complained of heavy pollution in the air and the side effects of it, i.e. constant headaches, sore throats, skin disorders, and asthma. Property values were also impacted and dropped given the structural damage to homes from trash and waste in community. 

Finally, in 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) got involved and after a six month cumulative risk assessment, there was no denying the presence of environmental racism. Through the risk assessment, the EPA identified the following: Chester had the highest percentage of low-weight births in the state, nearly double the rate for the entire county, and a mortality and a lung cancer rate that was 60% higher than the rest of their county. The children of Chester were also tested and were found to have the highest concentration of lead in their bloodstream relative to the children in the rest of the state.  Unfortunately, the EPA ruled that they had no real power to make meaningful change and permits are still be granted to build toxic dump sites. 

 

Consumer Confidence Reports

This was quite the adventure attempting to find my CCR. I even emailed the EPA....then I simply asked my fiance to take a peek and he found the report within 5 minutes. I guess it helps having someone around that has spent the past sixteen years in information security! The good news with finding information this way was I got to include Nathan on my search and discuss with him the implications and risks of having a contaminated water source.

I live in Southeast Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, California. Water is delivered to me in the Cordova System and it is a blend of groundwater, pumped from the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, and surface water treated at Golden State Water Company's Coloma Water Treatment Plant. Groundwater is pumped from the nearby basin through wells. The surface water is delivered from the American River via the Folsom South Canal from Lake Natoma.

According to the report, "Golden State Water strictly adheres to federal and state drinking water quality guidelines required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)," and "they routinely test the water quality for more than 230 regulated and unregulated elements in the water distribution system." I am happy to report that according to the data, there are no detectable levels of any inorganic constituents except nitrate. The level of nitrates found is also well below the maximum contaminant level. The report also states the major source of nitrates is from runoff and leaching from fertilizer use. No volatile organic constituents or radioactive constituents were found either.

Alarmingly, I did find out that lead and copper are present in my water source. They are below the "safe level," however this is very concerning to me. As Dr. Sattler says, "These substances should never be in the human body, at any level." The report suggests that if water has been sitting for several hours, you can reduce your risk of lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to two minutes before drinking or cooking. A bit ironic given the state of the drought, eh?

There is some evidence of chloroform bacteria. These are naturally occurring in the environment. I had a microbiology professor tell me once that all water has bacteria in it and that the reason people get diarrhea when they travel is because they are not used to the bacteria in the water. They are essentially used to their bacteria from their water source. I am not overly concerned about this given the above and I do use a filter for my drinking water.

This brings up the interesting topic of bottled water. As discussed in previous posts, I used to drink bottled water all the time. Some of it was out of convenience. Some of it was out of habit and doing what others were doing.  After watching the Story of bottled water and reading my water quality report, I will stick with filtered water and my BPA free plastic reusable water bottle. Now, if I can just get my fiance on board :)

"The Story of Stuff" reaction

When I was twenty four, I packed up all of my stuff, sold all but what couldn't fit in my car, and moved 3,000 miles across the country. This wasn't difficult to do, as I have always held myself to minimalism. I came from a very humble background, so I grew up with very little to begin with. I also reside to the Quaker faith, which encourages minimalism, simplicity, and generosity in all areas of your life.  I purchased a home recently and this was a big step for me because I am such a minimalist, however I viewed the home as an investment, rather than a place to fill with things.

I watched the assigned video on "The Story of Stuff" and "The Story of Bottled Water" and became more and more irritated with the culture of the United States. The videos just scream greed and self-interest. I understand the idea that consumerism makes the world go round and the economy boom, it is just disgusting. Concepts like planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence seem to support that 99% of stuff that Americans purchase will be in the trash within six months. Revealing even more about our society, Americans now see more advertisements in one year than fifty years ago saw in a lifetime.

I like that the author of the video explained the story of stuff and how it has impacted Americans lives in a "work, watch, spend treadmill" example. We spend more and more on stuff every day, however, we are not any happier than we were previously. Not to mention that once we throw away  all that stuff (within six months) that is supposed to make us happier, it ends up in a landfill and many times is incinerated before its disposal. Incineration is the number one source of dioxin in our environment.  The sad thing is, even though we are consuming more and more, destroying our planet, we aren't any happier than we were fifty years ago. The overall level of happiness in Americans continues to decrease. I heard a story on NPR a while back that theorized that a possible source of the unhappiness in the United States has its roots in income inequality.

I must admit, I was a bit embarrassed  after watching the video on bottled water. I have until recently purchased and drank rather expensive bottled water. I lived in Los Angeles when I was twenty four for a period of 6 months. I was living in a bad part of town and very inexpensive housing. I tried for three weeks to drink the water. I had diarrhea continuously and the water tasted bad. I switched to bottled water for the rest of the six months I lived there and the diarrhea resolved. My boyfriend at the time told me to buy bottled water because the water quality in many parts of LA is akin to many parts of northern Mexico. Reading the CCR from that area, I now know, I was more than likely being poisoned by chemicals and bacteria from contaminated water.

On the other hand, in college and my early twenties, I purchased bottled water because I thought it tasted better and because that's what my friends at the time were doing. Even after I moved back to Sacramento, I purchased bottled water to take with me on my jogs and physical activity endeavors. I'm ashamed to admit that unless there were trashcans advertising recycling, I never once participated in recycling. The good news is, however, when I purchased my home, I also purchased a refrigerator with a filter in it so there is no need to buy bottled water anymore. I even have a bag next to my trashcan for recycling the things that are recyclable :)

I think the big takeaways from the videos were how trusting I had been. I was a big fan of Fiji water and to think nearly 50% of its contents came from tap water! How ridiculous?!?! I think after watching these videos, I won't be buying bottled water anymore. I will even take in a deep breath and remind myself that eventually all my trash is burned in the incinerator and releases dioxin; something I definitely don't want to breathe in. I guess I will stick with my minimalism in all things-bottled water included!

Reflection of class on 9/24/15

Thursday night was a very powerful class for me. I took a course in behavior change theory last Spring and this class is utilizing and tying in many of the same concepts presented during that course. I appreciated the activity seen above in the photo for many reasons, but especially because the activity was based on the Adult Learning Theory. I also really appreciated how the activity demonstrated systems theory and the social ecological theory. The first rule of ecology is that everything is connected to everything else.

I often tell people that public health is where our healthcare system begins. Often times, when public health has failed, we see people in the acute care setting. Within the last month, my eyes have really been opened up to how much the environment truly impacts our health. I think in many ways this reality ties into social determinants of health and how certain populations are disproportionately effected by certain diseases.

I feel empowered now. I feel that zeroing in on a portion of environmental health will allow me to improve patient outcomes across the board.

My hometown zipcode scorecard

I grew up in the Midwest in Springfield, MO. I remember my senior year of high school, I had a history teacher that told me she had moved to Springfield from New York because her son's asthma was so bad they thought he was going to die. She told me that when she and her husband researched air quality across the United States, Springfield had the cleanest air in the country. My findings from the zipcode scorecard suggest otherwise.

According to my zipcode scorecard, Greene country, my community, ranks among the dirtiest/worst 20% of all counties in the U.S. in terms of cancer risk score. The top company polluters in Greene County are:

1) James River Power Station, 2) Southwest Power Station, 3) Carlisle Power Transmission Prods. Inc. , 4) Clariant LSM (Missouri) INC, 5) Ridewell Corp, 6) Paul Mueller Inc, 7) Ozarks Cultured Marble, 8) Webco Inc, 9) Kerr Mcgee Chemical, 10) Loren Cook Co.

The top chemicals released are:

1) Hydrochloric acid, 2) Sulfuric acid, 3) hydrofluoric acid, 4) Toulene, 5) Zinc compounds, 6)Dichloromethanc, 7) Xylene, 8) Styrene, 9) Chloromethanes, 10) Barium, 11) Bromine, 12)Creosotes, 13) Methanol, 14) Copper, 15) Manganese, 16) N-Hexane

While I don't recognize all of these chemicals, many of them were discussed in Silent Spring and Generations at Risk. These are toxic and known environmental hazards, especially to a developing fetus.

Lead Hazards: About two percent of houses in green country have a high risk of lead hazards. The home I grew up in was built in the early 1900s, so I'm pretty sure I was at risk for lead exposure while growing up :)

Superfund: Greene ranks among the cleanest/best 20% of all counties in the U.S. in terms of the number of designated Superfund sites. A Superfund is a toxic waste site and there is one located in Springfield. It is called Solid State Circuits Inc. This site covers about one acre in Republic, Missouri. During investigations, the state found the Circuits Inc. guilty of burying debris in the soil contaminated with TCE.  This TCE then seeped into well system and contaminated the drinking water for the city of Republic. Further investigation revealed contamination of ground water by lead on site. Thankfully, there is only one superfund near the 65802 zipcode.

Air Quality: According to the scorecard, Greene county ranks among the top 10% all of all counties for dirty air. The top polluters can be seen above. It was interesting to note, however, the scorecard gives a rating of the overall quality of air by days of healthy air per year. According to this source, about 89% of the time, there is good quality air.

Water Quality: Greene county has clean water ranks better than 80% of other counties in the country on clean water. There are about ten bodies of water around the county that are impaired, being contaminated with metals, organic compounds, or pathogens.

Environmental Justice: This was an interesting result. In the Springfield area, the north side of the city is known as the poor, urban area with a lot of "white trash" and poor black people. The south side is where all the rich kids live; out in surburbea with all the nice schools, nice houses, and nice cars. The results of the score card for social justice what not what I expected. In nearly all the categories, there was equitable distribution among the environmental burden. I did not see any race or income disproportionately burdened by exposure to superfund sites, chemical exposures, or toxic chemicals. In many ways, more educated, white, higher income recipients had greater exposure to theses measures than people of color, those less educated, and those living below the poverty line.

I did find something very remarkable in my search. African Americans are disproportionately effected by cancer risk in the Greene county area. Given the data I viewed on the environmental scorecard, I believe this risk must have something to do with social determinants of health and remnants of the social ecological theory. Something to think about at least.

Environmental Health Services provided by Sacramento County

I was shocked to find the number of services provided by the Sacramento County Health department in regards to environmental health. Per the Environmental Health website of Sacramento county, its mission is to "protect health, prevent disease and promote health for all persons in Sacramento County."

Programs include:

• Food Protection
• Food Safety Education
• Recreational Health
• Tobacco Retailer Program
• Noise Control
• Detention Facilities
• Body Art
• Stormwater Inspections
• Waste Tires

Response to Chemical Connections Presentation by Jane Houlihan

Response to Chemical Connections Presentation by Jane Houlihan

What an incredible video! I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation by Miss Houlihan and I actually watched it a couple of times! I must say that the research she presented correlates very well with the facts presented in Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, and Generations at Risk, by Schettler et al.
The plethora of facts revealed during this presentation are terrifying yet somewhat of a 'call to action', so to speak for the listeners.

It is amazing to me that seventy four billion pounds of pollution are generated daily in United States. Furthermore, 1.4 billion of that pollution is found in the air; not to mention the 1,000 contaminants found in drinking water. Miss Houlihan discussed a study that her group conducted on bottled water. The study found that the bottle water tested contained 38 known contaminants two of which were arsenic and tylenol. Several of the contaminants had known estrogenicity properties.

I also was very intrigued by her discussion of the biomonitoring research that she and her colleagues conduct. She discussed a cross sectional type of study of teenage girls across the United States. These girls were very diverse; coming from all areas of the United States with different ethnic and racial backgrounds. All of the girls tested contained chemicals in their blood that shouldn't be there. This couldn't have anything to do with the 12 personal products utilized daily by women :) The chemicals present in these teenage girls have a variety of concerns but many of them were known hormone disrupters. Furthermore, it was noted that puberty and breast development has been occurring earlier in young girls in the recent decades. Now, on average, breast development is beginning at age 10. Also, the average age of puberty for white girls is age 7 and black girls age 6. Finally, she gave a startling statistic; childhood cancer has increased by 26% from 1975-2002.

Miss Houlihan then shifted to a topic that is close to my heart and fits nicely with the book I'm reading for my book review for this course. It is so sad to me that we now as a society have to say industrial pollution begins in the womb. The presenter also sited that 7.3 million American couples have trouble becoming pregnant each year; the women most effected by this are under the age of twenty five. This is concerning for so many reasons and especially for those of us that are planning childbearing for later on in life. I've already began making small changes. Hopefully, by the time I am ready to conceive, I can eliminate the majority of potential pollution that my baby could be exposed to within the womb.

Finally, I now have a better idea of what I should buy organic and the others that I can skip on. It is scary that  eight different pesticides can be detected when purchasing a conventional peach! The presentation provided a "dirty dozen" list that gives the twelve fruits and vegetables that should only be purchased organic. The "clean 15" list also provides the fifteen items that are safe to buy nonorganic.

After viewing this video, I definitely feel like I have a better understanding of the potential toxins and risks to my health that I am exposed to on a daily basis right in my own environment. At any rate, the information is more on my radar and I am able to make better choices that could impact my life expectancy as well as my future offsprings' health.

Household Products

Household cleaning products

I'm on chapter 13 of Silent Spring, so I am officially paranoid! The last few weeks has been a constant battle; what exactly is in the food I am ingesting? Is the air I am breathing safe? Is the washing detergent safe or am I absorbing several chemicals that will lead to a premature death?!?! I am somewhat of a neat/clean freak. I clean on a regular/daily basis. Honestly, I had never put much thought into the chemical toxicity of the products I use until now. For this part of the module, I went to my pantry and picked out two products that I use on a frequent basis.

The first product, Lysol, is an all purpose cleaner and I assume to be a staple of most homes! The label promises that is "cuts tough grease" and "kills 99.9% of virus and bacteria". I use this product to clean most of my kitchen including my stove, counters, sink, cabinets and refrigerator. I looked up this cleaner on the Household Products Database website and I am happy to report that this product is rated at only a "slight" hazard to humans. The database sites both ingesting the liquid cleaner and eye or skin contact as being potentially harmful. These warnings are displayed on the back of the bottle as well as the poison control number in the event of ingestion. This Lysol product does not contain any known carcinogens. Based on the above findings, I am going to continue to use the product for cleaning purposes. I also learned that you should not reuse an empty container. From now on, I will dispose of the container appropriately.

My second product is laundry detergent. For the last eight months, I have been suffering from a severe rash that I really could not identify the source of. The doctor ran all the autoimmune disease lab work and everything was negative, so the source had to be environmental. I decided to switch detergents to see if the rash would subside. The detergent I chose is Arm & Hammer brand and is "clinically tested for sensitive skin". The product is listed as having a "moderate" risk to health but the product is practically nontoxic if ingested because it is heavily diluted in water. Ironically, the biggest risk of the product is skin and eye irritation. This product also has a recommendation of disposing of the container and not reusing it when its empty. There are no known carcinogens found is this detergent. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services does recommend that the detergent be stored at room temperature and to avoid extremes of hot and cold. I have been in the habit of just leaving the detergent on top of the washer, so I will remedy that and put it in the cabinet!

Based on the above findings, I will continue to use my current detergent. While I still have rash outbreaks, they are not as severe, and I believe the rash could be related to my beauty product use. It is funny to note though, the detergent that is "for sensitive skin" has a risk of skin irritation. I think once I have finished the bottle of detergent, I will investigate utilizing detergent that has no scent and perhaps is less irritating to the skin.

Beauty Products: More than you bargained for

Beauty Products

I did not come from an affluent background and so the majority of my upbringing I settled with what I believed were "subpar" beauty products; whatever the Walmart special happened to be. I used the run of the mill Suave shampoo and Degree deodorant. I remember thinking, "Man, when I am older and have my own money, I am going to buy all the expensive beauty products that money can afford. I will spoil myself silly!" I recognize now that back then I was probably naive about those products and mistaken about the quality and potential risks that their use could potentially have.

I am now in my mid twenties, have a stable job, and have some disposable income that I choose to spend on more expensive beauty products.  I am about half way through Silent Spring and I have already become somewhat paranoid of not only my environment but also of the food and products that I expose myself to on a daily basis.

For module two I had no problem finding two products to research on the Skindeep Cosmetic Database website. It is a bit scary, but the first two products I chose from my bathroom popped up on in the database. I, like many twenty-something Millennials, am a huge fan of Jennifer Aniston. I grew up watching her as Rachel on Friends and have always admired her hair and skin. I have been in awe of how elegantly she has aged and her near wrinkle free skin. I researched her heavily and found out that she has her own line of beauty products. While expensive, I decided to treat myself about eight months ago to both her shampoo and her daily moisturizer. By purchasing these products, I realize I have opened myself up to more than just clean hair and supple skin.

Jennifer Aniston's line of shampoo, Living Proof, has a rating of a 5 which is a moderate overall hazard. This rating is based limited data and was last updated in July of 2013. The biggest concerns with the shampoo are with the ingredients, especially the fragrance. The fragrance itself has an 8 rating and is considered a high hazard. Additionally, the fragrance can cause irritation to the skin, eyes or lungs, induce an allergic reaction/immune response, and has potential organ system toxicity (non-reproductive).

Among the list of ingredients (beyond the fragrance) found in my shampoo include the following: methylchloroisothiazolianonaine, PEG-7 Glyceryl cocoate, Cocamindopropyl betaine, PEG-150 pentaerythrityl Tetrasterate, PEG-6 Caprylic/Capricglyerate, Lactaminde MEA, Tetrasodium etra, and hydrolyzed wheat protein. All the ingredients are known to be harmful to multiple organs and may cause immune responses. All of these concerns are based on a "fair" amount of data. I do know that some of these ingredients contain derivatives of nitrates. Nitrates are found in certain types of lunch meat which women are advised to avoid during pregnancy.

I was shocked at the findings of my moisturizer. It has a rating of a high hazard! The fragrance is listed as a known irritant to the eyes, skin, and lungs. The oxybenzone ingredient is listed as causing biochemical and even cellular level changes. Methylchloroisothiazolianonaine is also found in my moisturizer and has the same effects that it has when used in shampoo: harm to multiple organs and causing an immune response. Titanium dioxide, octinate homosalate, and octisalate are all listed as active ingredients with concerns for cancer, enhanced skin absorption, biochemical or cellular level changes, and allergies/immunotoxicity.

For the past eight months, I have been suffering from a rash. My doctor diagnosed it as a "stress" rash. I can't help but think that I have absorbed a tremendous amount of chemicals from my moisturizer and shampoo and that this is what is causing my rash. All the available research suggests that the hive like rash I have experienced is very difficult to pinpoint the exact cause. With the knowledge that I have gained through this module, I have chosen to discard my beauty products. I am going to investigate all my beauty products and eliminate the ones with known hazards or concerns. I may end up using nothing at all! This has also shown me that famous and more expensive is clearly not better or less toxic. Looks like I have a busy few weeks ahead of me attempting to find less chemically hazardous beauty products :)