• Restaurant Reviews
• Dining Directory
• On Wine
• Recipes
• Dining Divas
• Dollar Wise Gourmet

• Personality
• Snapshots
• Sacramento Women
• Sacramentions

• Snapshots
• City Highlights
• Music and Dance
• Theater
• Art
• Sacramento Magazine Events
• Charitable Events Registry

• Dwelling
• Urbanities
• Neighborhood

• 2007 Subscriber's Choice Dining Awards
• 2007 Editors' Choice Dining Awards
• 2006 Best of Sacramento Winners
• Best of Sacramento Wineries

• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• More Issues

 

Fact or Fiction?

Can your cell phone give you a brain tumor? Will cooking in nonstick pans make you sick? And the suprising truth about your hair dryer.

Feed

Everybody’s heard those dire warnings about using common, everyday products—cell phones cause brain tumors, getting your clothes dry cleaned is toxic to your health, fluoridated water will poison you. It’s enough to make you pack up the kids and hightail it to the outback, any outback, to live off the land. So what’s the scoop? Are these rumors based in science or are they simply part of a seemingly endless stream of “scare lore” that pervades  our society? We decided to investigate. Here’s what we found.

 

Cellular Telephones

As anyone who has read Steven King’s latest novel, Cell, can attest, wireless telephones (also called cell, mobile or PCS phones) can be scary. But not for the reason King posits. For years, rumors have persisted that hand-held telephones, which expose the user to microwave radiation, also known as radiofrequency energy, can cause brain cancer. 
The truth is, radio waves at high levels can permanently damage human tissue. But low emissions of RF, such as those emitted by cell phones, do not, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As to cancer, the FDA reports that three, three-year studies conducted since 2000 found no link between the use of wireless phones and cancer. The effects of long-term exposure were not determined. The National Institute of Environmental Health Services says conclusive data from epidemiological (human population) studies won’t be available for years because of the length of time it takes from exposure to a carcinogen to the diagnosis of cancer. Still, a recent study conducted by the Swedish National Institute for Working Life reported that people who frequently use cell phones have a 240 percent increased risk of developing cancer on the side of the brain where the phone is held. The FDA questions these findings and says it will meet to evaluate the research and “identify gaps in knowledge that warrant additional research.”
Federal Communications Commission guidelines set limits on the levels of RF exposure allowed in mobile phones. To learn more about these limits go to fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins (bulletins 56 and 65) or fcc.gov/oet/fccid.
 

Dry Cleaning

The dry cleaning process is a lot like washing clothes at home, except instead of using laundry soap and water in the “washing” machine, the dry cleaner uses a solvent. A key chemical in this solvent is perchloroethylene, or “perc,” an effective agent in removing soil and stains. The downside of perc, according to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is evidence of a correlation between long-term occupational exposure to perc and certain cancers. More immediate outcomes from inhaling perc vapors on the job are dizziness, drowsiness and loss of coordination.
But what is the danger to those of us who patronize dry cleaning establishments? This is more difficult to determine because the adverse effects of most chemicals are dose-related, says Sacramento County Public Health Officer Glenna Trochet, M.D. “One would need to know what the average person’s exposure dose to perc would be,” she explains.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates some 100 million Americans are exposed to residual perc from dry cleaning each year, although it maintains that current exposures are not expected to impact the average person’s health. Fortunately, there are a growing number of “green cleaners” that offer wet instead of dry cleaning. Overall, people report satisfaction with the results of this alternative process. And contrary to intuition, wet cleaning doesn’t seem to shrink fabric. As of this writing, however, the closest green cleaner is in Fairfield.

Fluoridated Drinking Water

The Centers for Disease Control tout fluoridated water as one of the 10 great public heath achievements of the 20th century—a safe and cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay. More than two-thirds of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, and tooth decay has declined by 20–40 percent, according to the American Dental Association. Then what’s the problem?
Dental fluorosis is a condition in which tooth enamel changes appearance. This happens when excess fluoride is ingested in early childhood when enamel is forming. Parents can avoid this condition by monitoring their children’s intake of fluoridated products, while allowing them to drink the water.
Another public concern is that fluoride alters the immune system. Fortunately, there is no scientific evidence that links immune problems with fluoride.
Increased hip fracture caused by drinking fluoridated water has been in the news. Studies show that over time fluoride may cause brittle bones in older people. At the same time, there are studies that repudiate these findings. Thomas Reeves, a fluoridation engineer at the CDC, says that studies on both sides have flaws. The official CDC position is that more research is needed.

Plastic Containers

It’s hard to imagine a world without plastic, especially in the kitchen. We use plastic containers to measure, store, freeze and reheat our food on a regular basis. But are they safe? If you believe the e-mails circulating in cyberspace, the answer is no. They claim that heating plastic (polyethylene terephthalate, or PET) in the microwave releases toxins—diethylhexyl adipate, or DEHA, and dioxin—into the food.
The FDA has studied the migration levels of DEHA into food and says they fall within the margin of safety. While there is no clear and present danger, you might want to follow a few simple guidelines:

•  Only use plastic containers intended for microwave use.
•  Don’t heat food in margarine tubs or take-out containers.
•  Throw away empty plastic containers previously used for prepared meals.
•  And place plastic wrap loosely over food so steam can escape.
•  Microwave-safe plastic wraps, waxed paper, cooking bags, parchment paper and white microwave-safe paper towels are OK to use, according to the FDA.
Claims that PET contains dioxins, a group of contaminants the EPA has labeled a likely carcinogen, are false. “The FDA has seen no evidence that plastic containers or films contain dioxins and knows of no reason why they would,” says Edward Machuga, Ph.D., a consumer safety officer with the FDA.

Reusing Plastic Water Bottles

DEHA, the same substance found in plastic containers, is also present in PET water bottles. Urban myth has it that this “potentially carcinogenic element” can poison you. According to the EPA, DEHA “cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.”
The danger of reusing plastic water bottles is more likely to come from spreading bacteria left on the bottles by improperly washed hands.

Nonstick Cookware

Now we turn to the rumor that cooking with nonstick pans can cause a plethora of human ailments.
Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a synthetic chemical used to make nonstick cookware, causes adverse effects in laboratory animals, and the EPA reports that PFOA has been found both in wildlife and humans. Once inside the human body, PFOA doesn’t easily break down; it sticks around for a long time.
In spite of the fact that the EPA has called for a 95 percent reduction of PFOA in products and plant emissions by 2010 and total elimination of PFOA by 2015, the agency says it doesn’t believe there is reason to stop using these products. EPA research is ongoing.
If you use nonstick cookware, keep a few things in mind. Dupont, the maker of Teflon (Teflon is not PFOA; PFOA is used to make Teflon), advises using low or medium heat when you cook. When cookware reaches 650 degrees, fumes and significant surface decomposition set in. (Most foods can be cooked at temperatures below 500 degrees.) Don’t use nonstick pans for broiling. And don’t leave empty cookware on a hot stove or in a hot oven.
If this information sounds too vague to make you comfortable, there is always cast-iron cookware. When these pans are seasoned over time, they accumulate nonstick properties, without using chemicals.

Grilled Meat

It’s summertime, time to fire up the barbecue and throw on a couple of steaks. Right?
Maybe not. It seems grilling meat may be hazardous to your health, at least if you cook it well done.
Last year, the federal government’s National Toxicology Program confirmed persistent reports that meat grilled well done or burned can cause colon cancer. The findings identify heterocyclic amines as the offending carcinogens. The longer meat cooks at high temperatures, the greater the buildup of these culprits. Another study showed that women who consumed hamburger, beef steak or bacon consistently very well done had a 4.62 times higher risk of getting breast cancer than those women who consumed the meats rare or medium rare.   
If you like your meat well done, don’t despair. The American Cancer Society recommends removing portions of blackened or burned meat before eating. The ACS also suggests precooking meat in the oven or microwave before throwing it on the grill for the final few minutes. Eat smaller portions of meat, or not as often. But don’t substitute processed meats for grilled: “Lunch” meat has its own carcinogens. A major study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reports that eating a diet high in red or processed meats may raise the risk of pancreatic cancer.

Hormones in Meat and Dairy

Hormones in meat and dairy products are all about profit.  Hormones are given to young animals to force rapid weight gain, reducing the time between feed and slaughter. In dairy cows, hormones produce more milk. The question is, are these products safe?
Up to 30 percent of dairy cows in the United States are injected with genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH, a protein that is not absorbed into the body. There are no scientifically substantiated health risks from rBGH at this time. Milk from rBGH-treated cows, however, has slightly higher levels of the naturally produced protein IGF-1, which is absorbed across the human intestinal wall. The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study found higher blood levels of IGF-1 in women with breast cancer than those without. But because IGF-1 is naturally present in humans there is no direct evidence that drinking milk with IGF-1 causes higher levels of the protein in women.
More than 80 percent of cattle in this country are treated with as many as six hormones, two of which are female sex hormones, according to the Center for Food Safety. “Think cows on steroids,” says the CFS. Because steroids pass into the bloodstream, there is concern about the safety of ingesting them in meat. The European Union, which banned the import of U.S. hormone-treated beef in 1988, has said that hormone residues found in treated cattle can cause developmental problems, interfere with the reproductive system and lead to cancer. Hormone residues in beef also have been suspected to cause the early onset of puberty in girls.
The FDA maintains that “residue levels of these hormones in food have been demonstrated to be safe, as they are well below any level that would have a known effect in humans.” Large-scale studies comparing the health of people who eat hormone-treated meat or dairy with those who eat untreated animal products need to be completed before the health debate can be conclusively decided.
Until then, you may want to buy meat or dairy products that are certified organic, which guarantees they are free of antibiotics and growth hormones.

Interior Paint

Let’s move from the kitchen to the living room and take a look at how safe it is to paint the inside of your house.
There are two kinds of interior paint: latex, a water-based paint, and alkyd paint, which is oil or solvent based. Both have volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, such as benzene, vinyl chloride, mercury and ethylene glycol. These are the fumes you smell when you paint. Breathing strong VOCs has been reported to cause everything from a runny nose, sore throat, headache and dizziness to long-term damage to the liver, kidneys and central nervous system.
Buy low- or no-VOC latex paint, which is easier to apply and can be cleaned up with soap and water. Oil-based paints require a second solvent to do the same job. EPA standards list low-VOC oil-based paint at 380 grams of VOCs per liter. Latex low-VOC paints begin at 250 g/L. Paints that earn the Green Seal (an independent, nonprofit environmental organization) certification have 50 g/L for interior flat paint and 150 g/L for interior gloss.
When painting inside, ventilate the room with outside air. Use a fan. Leave the house when you’re finished. If you must stay home, close off the painted area and open a window.

Hair Dryers

Say it isn’t so. Prolonged used of low-level magnetic fields like those emitted in hair dryers can damage brain-cell DNA, report researchers at the University of Washington’s Department of Biotechnology. What’s worse is that drying one’s hair daily can have cumulative damaging effects. These findings, obtained with rat experiments, apply to other electrical household products, including electric razors and electric blankets. Your best bet is to limit exposure time to these products.

Cosmetics

Nanotechnology is the latest wonder to hit cosmetics counters. You can find it at work in sunscreens, antiwrinkle creams and makeup from cosmetic giants like L’Oreal, Lancôme, Christian Dior, Kose Cosmetics and Shiseido. You may be using nanoproducts at this very moment.
Nanotechnology provides an effective skincare delivery system that conveys active ingredients down through the pores—vitamin A, retinol, betacarotine, titanium dioxide—in tiny biodegradable polymer capsules that range in size from 130 to 160 nanometers. (A nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter; 50 nanometers is the size of a cold virus.) These capsules hold the product inside until the skin’s natural enzymes dissolve the outer layer. They are like tiny beauty bombs exploding with benefits from the inside out, says author Gail Nakada in her article, “Under Your Skin.”
This sounds like great news for us aging baby-boomers. But wait. Vicki Colvin, director for the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University raises an important question. “It is known that under the right circumstances nanoparticles can go into cells,” she says. “Where do they go?” To date, these products have not been tested.
Suzanne Kilmer, M.D., a dermatologist with the Laser and Skin Surgery Medical Group and a leading Sacramento expert on skin care, looked into the matter and is optimistic. “It’s an advancement in allowing us to get medicines and other things to penetrate at a deeper level,” she says. “There is a real potential for good.”