Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 28, 1990 TAG: 9006280400
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: E-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: TERRI SHAW THE WASHINGTON POST
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Growing numbers of people are discovering that illness can, in fact, originate at home. Scientific studies over the past decade have linked hundreds of natural and manufactured substances found in the home to illnesses ranging from respiratory infections to cancer.
Environmental health specialists say concern about the effects of unhealthy indoor air has grown steadily since the late 1970s, when people began weatherizing their houses to conserve energy. As houses became "tighter," with less natural ventilation, harmful substances became more concentrated in the indoor air. Doctors began to see what they called "building-related illnesses."
James A. LaRue, director of program and research at the Housing Resource Center, a Cleveland-based organization that advises homeowners about energy efficiency and has sponsored four national conferences on "the healthy house," has investigated many cases of house-related illness in northern Ohio.
LaRue tells of one man who had read up on energy conservation and attended several of his workshops. "He did everything I told him to do" to weatherize the house, said LaRue, who is a former contractor. Then the homeowner decided to save more money by turning down the thermostat in the evenings, putting the children's homework desks and a kerosene space heater in the basement family room and having everyone spend the evening down there. Soon, family members were complaining of headaches - the unvented space heater was consuming too much oxygen.
"We don't want people to stop weatherizing," said LaRue, "but it's a balancing act. We need to do everything we can to save energy but not at the expense of our own lives or health."
Among experts in environmental health issues, cases of entire families becoming ill because of a noxious substance in the house are not infrequent.
In Connecticut, a young family arrived at a hospital emergency room complaining of congestion, sore throats, coughing and bloody noses. Shortly before, workers had done repairs on a new floor in the family kitchen. The workers had sanded the floor down to the subflooring to fix a buckling problem. Afterward, the mother, father and two pre-teenage children tried to clean up the dust with a vacuum cleaner and other tools. A sample of the dust, when tested, was found to contain 70 percent asbestos, a substance known to cause lung cancer. The family was evacuated from the house.
In January of this year, a jury in Missouri awarded $16.2 million to a family of five who said they had become ill because of particleboard flooring materials in their house. Particleboard, which is made with a formaldehyde resin, emits the toxic gas when it is new. The attorney for David and Mary Pinkerton said they and their three children suffered permanent impairment to their immune systems, reproductive system disorders and an increased risk of developing cancer in the future. The verdict is being appealed by the two defendants, particle board manufacturers, Georgia Pacific 6 1 HOUSE House Corp. and Temple Industries Inc.
Asbestos, formaldehyde and the products of combustion in gas appliances, fireplaces and unvented space heaters are major sources of building-related illnesses. Others include radon, a radioactive gas that seeps into houses from the ground; tobacco smoke; hundreds of chemicals in products ranging from upholstery to paint remover; tiny fungi and other "biologicals"; and pesticides.
Some of these substances cause immediate symptoms - eye irritation, nausea, disorientation, headaches - while others are linked to diseases like lung cancer that take 20 to 30 years to develop. Sometimes two or more substances may react to cause a different set of symptoms than one substance alone might cause.
Robert K. McLellan, director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Medicine in New Haven and a teacher at Yale Medical School, said indoor air pollution is particularly dangerous because people spend so much time indoors, and those who spend the most time indoors are most vulnerable to illness - the young, the elderly and the debilitated. In addition, he said, a wide variety of toxic substances are present indoors, and often at higher levels than outdoors.
"Health problems related to indoor air quality are vastly underrated by the medical community," he said.
Even homeowners who are certain their houses are free of the most obvious dangers - radon, tobacco smoke, lead, asbestos - may be surprised to find that the inside air is contaminated by a pesticide applied years ago by a previous owner or by formaldehyde from pressed wood products used in furniture or the building itself.
McLellan pointed out that everyone has to weigh the relative hazard of indoor air pollution compared with other dangers. The hazard, he said, depends on both the toxicity of the substance and the amount of exposure. For example, formaldehyde emitted by new draperies or cabinets may cause symptoms in younger members of the family or those who spend more time at home, but others may not be affected at all.
He added that many toxic substances are dangerous only in quantities above a certain "threshold." But carcinogens, substances known to cause cancer, have "no safe threshold," he explained. "Even the minutest exposure could cause cancer."
As in the case of the family with the space heater in the basement, much depends on the residents of the house. They can unwittingly cause a problem and, once they realize what the problem is, can do a great deal to prevent, stop or minimize it.
Studies done during the 1980s by the Environmental Protection Agency and independent scientists demonstrate that the air inside houses often has a much higher concentration of pollutants - including known carcinogens - than the outside air, even in manufacturing cities. EPA studies of carbon monoxide (conducted in 1983), volatile organic compounds (1979-85) and pesticides (1986-88) showed concentrations in the air indoors two to five times higher than outside, according to Robert Axelrad, director of the Indoor Air Division in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs. A study of 10 schools, hospitals, old-age homes and office buildings over several years in the 1980s "measured concentrations of pollutants in the three new buildings as much as 100 times outdoor levels," Axelrad said.
A study two years ago of respiratory diseases among 400,000 army trainees by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research found that recruits housed in modern, energy-efficient buildings were 50 percent more likely to have respiratory infections than those who lived in older, "leaky" barracks.
While there is growing awareness of building-related illness among builders, contractors and environmental health specialists, the subject remains in what one of LaRue's colleagues called "the never-never land between indifference and hysteria." The public, he suggested, either ignores evidence that household materials and products can be toxic or panics over reports that one household substance or another may cause cancer.
Some individuals are particularly sensitive to indoor air pollution, including those with asthma, allergies and chronic lung diseases. Another group of people, usually described as "chemically sensitive," develop symptoms such as headaches, nausea and disorientation when exposed to very small levels of chemicals. Some of these people developed the sensitivity after coming in contact with large quantities of a toxic chemical, such as a pesticide or hazardous wastes. Others apparently developed the sensitivity without suffering an overdose.
In recent years, scientists have also become aware of something called the "sick building syndrome," in which individuals or groups report symptoms that occur when they are in a building, usually where they work, and disappear when they leave. The syndrome often occurs in weatherized office buildings with inadequate ventilation and windows that do not open. It usually is caused by a combination of indoor pollutants such as fungi and bacteria in air ducts and carpets, chemicals used in building materials and furniture, tobacco smoke, pesticides and - ironically - air fresheners used in bathrooms, the EPA said.
Concern about indoor air quality is having an impact on the construction industry. Some dangerous materials, such as urea-foam formaldehyde insulation and asbestos products, are no longer sold, although they can still be found in older houses. In other cases, said Bion Howard, an energy analyst at the National Association of Home Builders National Research Center, it is difficult or impossible to find a cost-effective substitute for materials that may be toxic. There is a continuous tug of war between manufacturers and consumer advocates over whether certain products should be regulated or banned.
To shed some light on the complicated subject of indoor air pollution, the Housing Resource Center and another Cleveland group, Environmental Health Watch, have held four conferences, the most recent at the end of April. That meeting was attended by federal and state environmental and public health officials, people in the construction industry, environmental health specialists and representatives of companies offering testing services and products to solve indoor air pollution problems.
LaRue, the former contractor now with the Housing Resource Center, says many builders and renovators are confused by a lack of clear and consistent regulations and guidelines concerning materials known or thought to be toxic.
"For the builder the bottom line is, what do I have to do to get this house built? And how can I do it without dramatically increasing the cost of structure?" he said.
But, "there is a new generation of younger builders who are saying, "I must be more selective in the materials I buy and use in my structures,' " he added. "These are builders who are building more energy-efficient, tightly built structures and who are concerned that quality of life in the home is not affected. The idea that the materials we use can be affecting the quality of life is a new wrinkle to builders."
LaRue added that some builders have found it profitable to take indoor air quality into account when planning new houses.
"I know some contractors who routinely put radon abatement tubing under the slabs of new homes," he said. "They recognize consumer concern, and it's cheap and easy to do at point of construction." Then the contractors can promote the houses as having radon abatement capability.
In the final analysis, it is up to the residents of a house to weigh the risks of one pollutant or another against the expense and inconvenience of removing it. Many families may be willing to live with some risk rather than give up a useful and effective product, while others may not. But experts agree that awareness is the first step.
How to test your home
If you suspect there is a fixed source of pollution in the house, you can conduct your own tests or call in the experts. Kits available in home centers and hardware stores allow you to measure radon yourself. Local laboratories can test building materials or water for fees ranging from $30 to $150. Check the Yellow Pages under listings for "Laboratories-Testing" or "Air Pollution Control." A laboratory should be accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Some pollutants - such as asbestos insulation and lead paint - can be left alone if they are not crumbling or flaking. Before beginning a remodeling project, make sure suspicious building materials are tested before they are disturbed.
Often, toxic substances can be removed or covered. In some cases, simply improving ventilation can solve the problem. - The Washington Post
by CNB