My Sewage Facility

As far as I can tell, there is only one sewage treatment plant that serves the area I live. It is East Bay Municipal Utility District's wastewater treatment plant located at 2020 Wake Avenue in Oakland, CA. This treatment plant treats 63 million gallons of wastewater daily serving 685,000 people on the East Bay shoreline. The sewage that is treated there becomes green energy, nutrient-rich soil conditioner, and recycled water that gets released into the San Francisco Bay.

Campaign for Tap Water

If I had to create a nationwide campaign to encourage drinking tap water instead of bottled water, my slogan would be "Tick-tock TAP!" The campaign would emphasize that the time is now to make the change from drinking bottled water to drinking tap water. The campaign will highlight the cost, quality, and environmental impact of bottled water compared with that of tap water and urge people to make the switch.

Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) and Water Quality

My water is provided through the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Most of the East Bay's water comes from the Mokelumne River watershed in the Sierra Nevada. My water comes from the Pardee, Briones, and San Pablo reservoirs. The Orinda (year-round) and San Pablo (as needed) water treatment plants serve my area. From what I can tell, there were no chemicals detected outside of state and federal limits/goals, which I am pleased with. The chemicals that peaked my interest were the unregulated ones where a typical source is "release of industrial chemicals." These chemicals were Chromium, Molybdenum, Strontium, and Vanadium. Using Haz-Map, I found that the adverse effects related to Chromium include: skin sensitizer, asthma, hepatotoxin, nephrotoxin, reproductive toxin, and human carcinogen. Haz-Map did not have Molybdenum, Strontium, and Vanadium, alone. They only had other chemical compounds with these in them, so I could not find the adverse effects for those three. 

I use a BRITA filter for my tap water at home before drinking it. Just yesterday, I went to purchase a filter replacement and learned that they filter out heavy metals like Copper, Mercury, and Cadmium. BRITA also filters out Chlorine and Zinc. I do, also, drink bottled water when I am not at home and did not bring my reusable water bottle with me. After watching the Story of Bottled Water, I am definitely more inclined not to purchase bottled water. I did not realize the extent of the adverse environmental impact, especially with recycled water bottles. There really is no excuse for me to buy bottled water when I have a reusable water bottle and places to fill it at home, school, and work. 

Public Health Importance of Safe Drinking-Water

The safety of water is so important because it is the basic necessity of life. Simply put, we need water to survive. We use water for drinking, in agriculture to grow and raise our food, to generate energy, and for recreational activities, among many other things. It should be pretty obvious that safe drinking water is extremely important for the health of the public. It is amazing that only 0.007% of the 366 quintillion gallons of water on earth is potable. We need to safeguard what clean water we have, taking care not to pollute it. The Clean Water Act of 1972 helped to control water pollution in the United States by setting water quality standards and regulating pollutant discharges.

Think About It: Fragrance-Free Policy

Fragrance is in a lot of our personal care products. Shampoo, soaps, laundry detergent, deodorant, perfume/cologne, makeup...the list goes on and on. Because the use of fragrance is so widespread, it is a daunting and seemingly impossible task to implement a fragrance-free policy in an institutional setting. One thought for how this could be implemented include an information session where the potential adverse health effects of fragrance is presented along with suggestions for alternative products. If possible, using fragrance-free products should be incentivized. Perhaps, there could be a personal care product swap where individuals bring in their personal care products with fragrance and can exchange them for fragrance-free products or even receive some kind of monetary incentive so they can purchase alternative, fragrance-free products. Along the same lines, an event can be organized to feature vendors who sell fragrance-free products. On the opposite end of the spectrum of incentives, the institution can formally ban fragrances and put in place a disincentive, like a fine. This may, however, be very difficult to enforce.

Radon Awareness

The short but very informative video, "Are You Breathing Radon?," published by the Huntsman Cancer Institute had three important elements that I think would be necessary in a national awareness campaign. First, the campaign should identify the health hazards of radon. Second, how radon can be detected using low cost and easy-to-use test kits should be emphasized. Third, action steps for dealing with unhealthy levels of radon should be outlined. This would be done by providing hotline phone numbers and/or identifying local radon experts. Potential partners or stakeholders at the national level to consider are the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung Association. State or local level partners or stakeholders might include radon service providers. 

National Library TOXNET

Using the U.S. National Library of Medicine TOXNET database, I did some research on urea formaldehyde. Urea formaldehyde is used in resins and other building materials like plywood. It is also used in textiles and electrical devices. It was banned in 1982 for use in home insulation. Adverse health effects include skin sensitizer and asthma. Thus, this is an exposure concern for those in occupations that use this chemical and also for the general population who live and work in homes and buildings that have been built with materials containing urea formaldehyde.

Using the same database, I found a study published in 2016 (citation below) that investigated whether bleach used in household cleaning, or the domestic setting, is associated with respiratory outcomes like asthma among women. The case-control study found that the use of bleach 4-7 days/week was significantly associated with non-allergic asthma (aOR = 3.30). Furthermore, a significant trend between bleach use frequency and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in women without allergic sensitization was observed (p = 0.04). Though bleach is useful in keeping our whites white and as a disinfectant for cleaning purposes, bleach has adverse effects on respiratory health. The paper suggests that these adverse effects pose a public health concern and may warrant a reconsideration of the use of bleach.

Matulonga, B., Rava, M., Siroux, V., Bernard, A., Dumas, O., Pin, I., Zock, J., Nadia, R., Reynaert, B., and Moual, N. L. (2016). Women using bleach for home cleaning are at increased risk of non-allergic asthma. Respiratory Medicine, 117, 264-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2016.06.019

Transportation

For me, personally, driving is the most convenient and cost-effective mode of transportation. To travel from the BART station closest to my home to my workplace would cost me nearly $20 roundtrip. It would also take close to an hour and a half to get to work. Driving costs less and requires less than half the time it would take to use public transportation. The monetary costs and time costs are not the only factors in my decision to drive. The issue of safety plays a major role as well. Fairly recently in the news I have heard stories of stabbings and shootings and a needle prick on BART. In fact, a couple of incidents occurred at or near the BART station that is most convenient for me to use. If the cost and time didn't already dissuade me from using this form of public transportation, the fear for safety definitely does. Before moving to the Bay Area last year, I lived in Washington, DC where I did not have a car. I walked to a lot of places and used public transportation to get around the city. I really enjoyed it. I feel like I led a much healthier, less sedentary lifestyle there. I would prefer this as I know using public transportation is better for me and for the environment, but until it is cheaper and safer, I will probably continue to drive.

Air Pollution

Using GoodGuide's Scorecard, I was able to answer the following questions about Alameda County:

• Who and what are the top polluters in your zip code?
• The top 3 polluters in Alameda County and the amount of pollutants they each release are: New United Motor MFG Inc. (499,459 pounds), Arch Mirror West (44,985 pounds), and Pacific Galvanizing Inc. (23,445 pounds). The top 5 chemical pollutants released in Alameda County are: glycol ethers, xylene, n-butyl alcohol, toluene, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene. 
• What percent of the homes in your zipcode have lead-based paint?
• 3% of houses in Alameda County have a high risk for lead. 
• Are there Superfund sites in your zip?
• The Superfund was created by Congress in 1980 to clean up the most hazardous and polluted waste sites.  
• There are 4 Superfund sites in Alameda County. They are: Alameda Navy Air Station, AMCO Chemical, Lawrence Livermore Lab Site 300 (USDOE), and Lawrence Livermore Lab Site 300 (USDOE). 
• What can you tell us about the Superfund sites that are near where you live?
• Two of the four Superfund sites in Alameda County contaminated the drinking water source. 
• What did you learn about the air quality in your zip code?
• Alameda County ranked among the top 10% of dirtiest/worst counties in the U.S. as far as number of days that the national air quality standard for ozone was exceeded. Despite this, the report also says there is good air quality 86% of days (poses little to no health hazard) and moderate air quality 13% of days (poses moderate health hazard to a select few)
• How about the water quality?
• Alameda County ranked in the top 20% for dirtiest/worst counties in percentage of surface waters with impaired or threatened uses. Pesticides make up for 80% of impairments, followed by mercury (16%) and metals (12%) among other pollutants. The county also ranks above average for the number of impaired waterbodies.
• How did your zip code fair on a social justice / environmental justice basis?
• People of color were worse off than whites in releases of toxic chemicals (OR 1.06), cancer risks from hazardous air pollutants (OR 1.12), and facilities emitting criteria air pollutants (OR 1.83). Low-income families were worse off than high-income families in cancer risks from hazardous air pollutants (OR 1.11) and facilities emitting criteria air pollutants (OR 1.96). 

Environmental Justice

Before reading "Environmentalism Was Once a Social-Justice Movement," I thought of environmentalism as what is described in the article as "mainstream environmentalism" versus what the article describes as the "environmental-justice movement." I thought environmentalism was all about protecting the beautiful, natural landscapes and scenery...the mountains, the valleys, the oceans, the forests, and so on and so forth. I never really thought of "environment" as our houses, schools, and workplaces. I now appreciate, understand and side with the case that these are the most important environments and the environments we should care most about. It is a disconcerting issue when the safety of these environments and distribution of harmful toxins are determined by poverty and race. I think an environmentalism that is closely tied to social justice, like the environmental-justice movement of the past, is best in addressing this issue and will require collaboration among various activist groups and movements.

Vulnerable Populations

In the readings and videos I've watched this week, it is clear that chemicals have the potential to affect human health adversely throughout their lifetime. From the video, Little Things Matter, it is said that "the way we regulate toxins, which assumes there is a safe level, fails to protect children." Children are especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of toxins and we really should be doing more to ensure their safety and protection. In a previous class, I learned that children are a sympathetic population, meaning, as a society we are concerned and care a lot about children. So, it is curious to me why more policy and action related to the exposure to and regulation of toxic chemicals are not being written and put into practice to protect this vulnerable population.

I was also asked to consider and reflect on the following questions this week: 1) Why are we still only focused on sedentary lifestyles and diets when addressing obesity in the US? and 2) Why are we not also looking at ways to decrease exposures to those chemicals that may be contributing to the epidemic? In the 2015 presentation on reproductive health and the environment, Dr. Tracey Woodruf pointed out that doctors are the interface with patients. They have authority and are trusted. She pointed out that doctors think that one's environment is important, but at the same time they lack familiarity with the topic and they don't know what to do about it. Perhaps this is why focus has not shifted or even expanded to include environmental exposures as determinants of health. This situation was perhaps alluded to in the Ted Talk, What makes us get sick? Look upstream., given by Dr. Rishi Manchanda. In treating his patient with chronic headaches, he was the first of many doctors to ask about her home. And, in fact, her home was unsafe and was manifesting in her headaches and her son's asthma. Did other doctors not know to ask these questions about the patient's living environment? Did they think about the potential health effect of her living situation, but just did not know how they would go about addressing the issues that are not typical medical practice? Dr. Manchanda mentioned that there are not enough "upstreamists" and that we need more. I think increasing the awareness and education about environmental exposures among doctors, social workers, public health professionals, and the general public are important to begin changing the narrative and addressing harmful environmental exposures.

Biomonitoring

After watching the CNN News Special on "Body Burden" and reviewing the hypothetical lab results of chemicals found in me, I am feeling concerned, failed, and hopeless. I am concerned because the chemicals on the hypothetical lab report, for the most part, are foreign to me. I could not begin to think where or how I was exposed to most of the chemicals on the list. Could I possibly avoid or remove something in my life that would reduce my exposure to these or is the exposure not something I could personally control? I am also concerned because the potential health effects are very serious. As a woman who would like to have children in the future, the potential for infertility and reproductive issues as a result of chemical exposures is scary. One thing I found very concerning in the video was Anderson Cooper's blood test coming back positive for PCBs, which was banned in the 1970s, and a chemical he was likely exposed to from fish that he ate as a child. PCBs, then, are persistent. Do we know if or how this will affect his health? The video also mentioned that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require manufacturers to study, and therefore report, the effects of chemicals in their products on human health. Hearing this, I feel failed by government. I also feel hopeless and confused. If the EPA is responsible for regulating chemicals, it is ridiculous and mind boggling to me why testing the safety of chemicals is not required.

Personal Care Products: My Response to Safe Cosmetics 101

In responding to the opening poll of Safe Cosmetics 101, I listed and tallied the number of personal care products I use daily and arrived at about 18. These products include: shampoo and conditioner, body and face wash, hand soap, lotions, makeup, deodorant and perfume, and toothpaste. As the lecture went on, so many feelings ran through me. Anger, frustration, disgust, disappointment, betrayal... With the number of personal products I use on a daily basis, how many toxic chemicals am I being exposed to each day and how will this impact my health in the future? This is very concerning and frightening.

One segment of the lecture that specifically caught my attention was the segment on formaldehyde and 1,4 dioxane. Formaldehyde is produced by other ingredients in products and 1,4 dioxane is a byproduct of manufacturing and these harmful, carcinogenic chemicals do not need to be listed on containers. I began reading the labels on some of my own personal care products and found key ingredients, like "PEG," that point to the presence of breast carcinogen, 1,4 dioxane, on many of the labels. Additionally, I thought it was very interesting and concerning that "trade secret" protection regarding fragrances impacts what is disclosed to the customer on product labels. I couldn't help but think, is the health and wellbeing of people really less important than competition in the beauty industry? What are our priorities? I agree with the lecturer that we need to put pressure and responsibility on manufacturers to remove carcinogens from personal care products.

Before this lecture and this class, I did not really think about the chemicals in my personal care products and whether or not they are harmful or toxic. I guess I just assumed they weren't because surely they had to be tested for safety and meet specific regulations to make it into the consumer's hands, right? It is outrageous and mind-boggling that this is not the case. I am really thankful for the work and progress that has been made regarding this public health issue that the lecturer pointed out and confident that I can make better choices in personal care products to decrease my exposure to harmful agents.

Household Products

Anyone that knows me well, knows that I love to clean. Two products that I use regularly and on most of the surfaces in my bathroom and kitchen are Clorox Disinfecting Wipes and Comet. Using the National Library of Medicine's Household Products Database, I found that the Clorox Disinfecting Wipes is not considered hazardous by the 2012 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard nor are any ingredients considered carcinogenic. The overall health hazard rating is 1 (slight). The product, however, can cause eye, skin, respiratory, mucous membrane, or GI tract irritation. The Comet Disinfectant Powder Cleanser had a health hazard rating of 1. Like the Clorox Wipes, Comet can be a mild irritant. The manufacturer's MSDS does not present carcinogenicity of ingredients. This worries me slightly and has me questioning whether the manufacturer is withholding information or if there just is not enough data on the ingredients regarding carcinogenicity. Because both products are only slightly hazardous, I will probably continue to use them both but will take extra precautions, like using gloves, to minimize contact exposure.

Personal Care Products

Two personal care products that I use twice a day are Dove Beauty Bar, White and Cetaphil DermaControl Oil Control Foam Wash. Using EWG's Skin Deep Cosmetics Database, I found that both products scored a 4 (moderate hazard). The ingredient concerns that scored a moderate or high hazard in the Dove Beauty Bar were fragrance (high) and Cocamidopropyl Betaine (moderate). Two of the concerns of this product are irritation to skin, eyes or lungs, and organ system toxicity. There were 8 ingredients in the Cetaphil product that scored a moderate or high hazard. The concerns regarding this product are contamination concerns, persistence and bioaccumulation, and like the Dove Beauty Bar, irritation and organ system toxicity. This was especially concerning to me because I think my dermatologist actually recommended I use this product. The overall data availability for both products was listed as limited. If these products scored a moderate hazard on limited data, I am afraid that it is a lot less safer than it seems. Knowing all of this information, I plan to look into safer alternatives for face and body washes. I am really glad I was introduced to EWG's Skin Deep Cosmetics Database. It has given me greater awareness of what I am putting on my body. I will definitely use this tool to make changes in my personal care routine.