Pesticides, Chemicals and their Harmful Effects

This year marks the end of the Agricultural Health Study, a 20-year study of the effects of pesticides on farm workers and their families. Although the study focused on Iowa and North Carolina, there are still some elements that are important for Pennsylvania farmers as well as anyone who handles chemical compounds.

As the largest study of agricultural exposures in the world, this research focused on cancer in those who apply pesticides to the crops along with their spouses and children. It also looked at reproductive health, respiratory concerns, neurological symptoms, diabetes, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and injury. More than 89,000 people participated in this study that provided key information on farming practices, pesticide use and health status.

Some of the main results showed that because of pesticide exposure, farmers had a greater risk for cancers, especially prostate cancer. There was also a strong connection to Parkinson’s disease because of the exposure to rotenone and paraquat. Rotenone is an odorless chemical compound used in pesticides as well as insecticides. Paraquat is a chemical weed killer. Other significant issues discovered from pesticide exposure in both men and women in the study were asthma, diabetes and thyroid disease.

Probably the most critical finding of this study is one of the most profound and common sense discoveries: the use of gloves is a strong barrier against the harmful effects of pesticides. As part of the study, researchers took measurements of pesticides that penetrated into the body from those who wore gloves and those who did not. Those who wore gloves were 70% less likely to have pesticide residues penetrate their systems. In addition, washing your hands was another prime barrier against absorbing chemical residues into the body after handling pesticides. Furthermore, protective clothing and equipment can also provide an extra layer of protection against the harmful substances.

In all, the study resulted in 175 published reports in scientific literature regarding poor health effects from pesticide exposures.

What does this mean to the general population? Quite a bit, actually. Many of us aren’t on the farms handling pesticides or insecticides daily, but we do handle more chemicals than we think. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, there are more than 80,000 chemicals in the United States that have never been fully tested for their health and environmental effects. Advocacy groups such as the Council are working to change that. In the meantime, all we can do today is learn how to deal with the chemicals we know about and have some control over such as bug sprays, weed killers, and even chlorine or Clorox.

The Environmental Protection Agency puts out a consumer handbook on how to purchase, use and store pesticides. Here are some key elements from that book:

1. Before you buy a product, read the label. You may not need the product for your intended use.

2.  If asked to dilute the product, make sure you use measuring implements that you do not use for cooking. Even if you wash them, it is not safe to use that implement for anything other than the pesticide.

3. Wear protective clothing. If you are spraying your garden, make sure you wear long pants and long sleeves along with gloves. On windy days, you may even want to wear face protection such as a mask.

4. Never eat or smoke around these products. Many pesticides are flammable and toxic to ingest. Use common sense when using such products.

5. If using a chemical inside, such as Clorox, make sure your room is adequately ventilated. Make sure your pets and children are removed from the room when in use. If you are spraying your kitchen for pests, make sure you remove all food and pots/pans so they are not infected.

More details can be found on the EPA’s website at www.epa.gov. Use common sense with your pesticide products and you will be able to maintain good health.

 

Note: The Agricultural Health Study ran from 1993 to 2014 and was approved by the institutional review boards of the US National Institutes of Health, its contractors, and by the Health Canada’s Research Ethics Board.

 

References:

Agricultural Health Study. (n.d.). About the study. Retrieved from http://aghealth.nih.gov/about/

Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Citizen’s guide to pest control and pesticide safety. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/Publications/Cit_Guide/citguide.pdf

Hou, L., Andreotti, G., Baccarelli, A. A., Savage, S., Hoppin, J. A., Sandler, D. P. ... Alavanja, M. C. (2013). Lifetime pesticide use and telomere shortening among male pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(8), 919-924. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1206432.

Weichenthal, S., Villeneuve, P. J., Burnett, R. T., van Donkelaar, A., Martin, R. V., Jones, R. R., DellaValle, C. T., Sandler, D. P., Ward, M. H., Hoppin, J. A. (2013). Long-term exposure to fine particular matter: Association with nonaccidental and cardiovascular mortality in the agricultural health study cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(6), 609-615.

 

 

Secondary Drowning is for REAL

When you and your family hit the pool or the beach this summer, you need to be aware of a phenomenon known as secondary drowning, or dry drowning.

Secondary drowning is not a new concept, but it is one that is especially dangerous for children. Children are more susceptible to this type of drowning mainly because of their active play and splashing in the water, which causes incidental inhalation of that water into the lungs. The water can remain there for a period of time acting as an irritant and possibly posing a more serious threat.

Research has revealed inhaling water during swimming activities can damage the alveoli of the lungs. The alveoli provide the function of oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange during the breathing process. They provide a barrier that prevents harmful gases and chemical to enter the blood stream while allowing oxygen to flow freely through the body.

While you may not think it’s possible for a child to inhale enough water to damage their lungs, it doesn’t take much of it to become a significant irritant in a smaller person’s developing lungs. Furthermore, chemically treated water (i.e. swimming pools) poses a great risk because those chemicals enter the lungs with the water. However, the incident can occur in both fresh water and salt water. Of interest, it has been noted that those who suffered from salt water lung damage often struggled to recover whereas those with dry drowning symptoms from fresh water immersion have a better chance of a full recovery.

Secondary drowning is not something that you will notice immediately. It has a latent period of up to 48 hours. Symptoms include fast breathing, using the entire body to breathe, flushed face, and mood changes. Physicians have found that when a parent notices there is a respiratory problem, it is often too late.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that about 10-15 percent of drowning deaths were a result of secondary drowning between 2005 and 2010.

One of the best ways to prevent secondary drowning is to teach your child how to swim. Swim lessons teach your child how to breathe when they are in water and will be less likely to inhale it. Three locations in Meadville provide swim lessons: Allegheny College, Meadville Area Recreational Complex, and the Meadville Family YMCA.

At the Meadville Area Recreational Complex, group lessons started this week and run all summer, however, it’s not too late to get involved. They have baby swim lessons up through older children. Adult and private lessons are available by contacting the MARC. For more details on anything swim-related, contact MARC aquatics director Chris Nuzback at 814-724-6006.

Of interest, Nuzback commented on the use of floatation devices for swim assistance and how important it is that they be US Coast Guard approved. Other devices can pose a threat to your children as they may not stay inflated and may not provide the protection as intended. Nuzback is a strong proponent of water safety and commented, “The best thing you can do is pay attention to your children” when they are anywhere near water. “Just because they can stand in the water doesn’t mean they can’t drown.”

Another common location for swim lessons is at the YMCA. The Meadville Family YMCA teaches children and adults how to swim. Children can start as young as 6 months. Not only will these lessons teach you and/or your child how to swim, but they also include water safety and boating safety. Overall, it will help everyone be more comfortable in the water to prevent drowning or secondary drowning. Check out the YMCA’s website for swim lesson details: www.meadvilleymca.org/aquatics or phone them at 814-336-2196 and chat with the aquatics director, Laura Singo.

Lessons are also available through the summer at Allegheny College. Times and ages vary so you will want to call the college’s Wise Center at 814-332-3350 for details.

In the meantime, the CDC has provided several tips to prevent swimming injuries, drowning and secondary drowning. Here are the top three:

1. Closely supervisor children or designate a responsible adult to keep watch
2. Use the Buddy System – always swim with someone else who could help you in the event of an emergency
3. Watch for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress within the first 24 hours after leaving the water.

 

Works used for this article:

Pearn, J. H. (1980). Secondary drowning in children. British Medical Journal, 281(6248), 1103-1105. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1714551/.

 

Drinkable Sunscreen? It may be too good to be true

Tired of greasy, sticky hands after applying sunscreen? Even the spray-on sunscreens leave you inhaling fumes that you shouldn’t breathe. Well, enter a new era of skincare products: drinkable sunscreen.

This new product, The Osmosis Pur Medical Skincare UV Neutralizer Harmonized Water, claims to offer SPF 30 protection against the sun’s harmful UV rays. The product claims to provide protection for up to three hours in the sun. A 100ml bottle will cost you around $30.

Apparently, the product manufacturers claim that this drinkable sunscreen causes the water molecules just below the surface of your skin to vibrate. That vibration results in frequency emissions that cancel out the frequencies of UVA and UVB radiation – the ones that cause sunburn and potentially melanoma. Oh, and the product comes in tan enhancing and no tan enhancing formulas!

Too good to be true? Maybe.

Dermatologists and many other health professionals are skeptical that an ingestible product will prevent an external event such as sunburn and skin cancers. There is no scientific-based data to support the product’s claims, especially the concept that water can cause vibrations within the body. According to several news reports, the company itself did little research on the product before rolling it out. There were no independent or clinical trials. The drinkable substance was tested on about 50 people who claimed to stay in the sun for extended periods of time and found they were sufficiently protected. We know nothing about these 50 people, their health status, or potential motive for testing the liquid.

Furthermore, there’s another problem with this product: if you’re on certain medications, the it may not work. According to the Evergreen, Colorado-based company, “certain medications that have been identified as ‘sun-sensitizing’ may result in little to no sun protection if UV Water is your only form of protection.” The site lists hundreds of medications (including many over-the-counter drugs and supplements) for which this product may not work including acetaminophen (Tylenol), naproxen (Aleve), paroxetine (Paxil), fluoxetine (Prozac), St. John’s Wort, Dong Quai, Vitamin A, sertraline HCI (Zoloft), and many more. Even saccharin, the artificial sweetener, made the list.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not mention this product or any investigation of this product on its website. However, it may be considered a supplement, thus, it would not require an FDA review or approval. A similar product made by DliSODin Skin Nutrients is also available but by prescription only. It requires consumption at least 15 days before spending time in the sun. Again, if the product is considered a supplement, it would not require FDA scrutiny.

Yet, the likelihood of a drinkable substance for sun protection is not necessarily science fiction. According to many journals on nutrition and food, sun protection can come from your body’s internal mechanism, mainly from nutrients found in foods like the phytochemicals in grapes, berries, and walnuts, and sulforaphane in broccoli. In fact, food research found that the traditional Greek-style Mediterranean diet may contribute to the low rates of melanoma in that region. From an alternative health view, certain herbs can produce antioxidant activities that resist UV rays. Water was not among any of the substances studied. However, research showed that certain herbs only offer supplemental protection to an externally applied product.

Despite the potential help from internal sources that can protect against harmful UV rays, Osmosis’ product is too new to have substantial and conclusive research published for the industry or consumer. Your best bet is to continue your typical regimen and deal with the greasy sunscreens. It has proven to be the best defense against the sun so far.
 

Sources Used for this Article:

Korac, R. R. and Khambholja, K. M. (2011). Potential of herbs in skin protection from ultraviolet radiation. Pharmacognosy Reviews, 5(10), 164-173.

Osmosis Pur Medical Skincare. (2014). UV Neutralizer-Tan. Retrieved from http://www.osmosisskincare.com/HarmonizedWater-UV.aspx.

Q13Fox News Staff. (2014). Should you trust drinkable sunscreen? Retrieved from http://q13fox.com/2014/05/27/should-you-trust-drinkable-sunscreen/#axzz33CtbL8OF.

Shapria, N. (2010). Nutritional approach to sun protection: a suggested complement to external strategies. Nutrition Reviews, 68(2), 75-86.

Time Magazine. (2014). Dermatologists are skeptical of new “drinkable” SPF. Retrieved from http://time.com/#119534/dermatologists-are-skeptical-of-new-drinkable-spf/.