Revealing the relationship between the natural world and the everyday lives of people
Health experts say handwashing is the single most important thing you can do to reduce your chance of getting sick or making other people sick. But as Rebecca Williams reports, recent research finds antibacterial soap is not any better than plain soap at keeping us from getting sick. And some scientists and doctors worry there might be risks to widespread use of antibacterial products:
Some studies estimate about 70% of liquid soaps on store shelves have antibacterial ingredients in them. Ingredients such as a chemical called triclosan.
Allison Aiello teaches epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Aiello is lead author of a paper in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.
She examined more than two dozen studies on antibacterial soaps containing triclosan. She says triclosan kills bacteria by going after the bacterium’s cell wall.
“The cell wall cannot be kept intact anymore; it’s not able to survive.”
But Aiello says there’s a growing body of evidence that even though antibacterial soap kills bacteria, it’s no better than regular soap at preventing illness.
Regular soap doesn’t kill bacteria, but Aiello says it works just as well at getting rid of bacteria and viruses like swine flu.
“Regular soap, is basically, it has a surfactant in it and what it does is it allows bacteria to be dislodged from hands and then the motion that you’re using under water helps dislodge it and make it go down the drain, basically.”
Aiello says it’s important to note that the soap studies were done with basically healthy people.
She says more research needs to be done to find out if antibacterial soaps could be more effective for elderly people or people with compromised immune systems.
But Aiello says generally, for healthy people, antibacterial soaps are no better than plain soaps at keeping you healthy.
And she says there could be risks to antibacterial products. She says there’s evidence from lab studies that antibacterial soaps might be adding to the emergence of super-bugs: bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
“In the laboratory setting, it is clear that there are mechanisms that can lead to antibiotic resistance when bacteria are exposed to triclosan.”
Aiello says they haven’t seen this play out for antibacterial soaps in the real world yet. But she says researchers need to keep an eye on it because antibiotic resistance might take some time to develop.
The soap industry dismisses the idea that antibacterial soaps might have something to do with antibiotic resistance.
Brian Sansoni is with the Soap and Detergent Association.
“The last thing we want to see is people discouraged from using beneficial products. Antibacterial soaps have proven benefits, they’re used safely and effectively by millions of people every day. Consumers should continue to use these products with confidence.”
The Food and Drug Administration has the final word on antibacterial soaps. But they’re still trying to figure out what to say about them.
The FDA has been trying to come up with rules for the products for more than 30 years. Right now there are no formal rules about the levels of antibacterial chemicals in soaps. And there aren’t any rules about how the products can be marketed or labeled.
There’s one thing both the soap industry and doctors agree on – Americans don’t wash up often enough with any kind of soap.
A recent study found one out of every three men walk out of the bathroom without washing their hands. Women did better than the guys, but still, about one of every ten women didn’t wash their hands either.
Experts say after you sneeze, cough or visit the restroom, you should scrub your hands with soap and water for 20 to 30 seconds.
That’s as long as it takes to sing the happy birthday song twice.
For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.
Add another state banning the
use of a pollutant in dishwashing
detergent. Rick Pluta reports it will
help clear up environmental problems
in rivers and lakes:
Well, there are dead zones in other places, including the Great Lakes.
One of the big culprits is phosphorus. It seeps into the water, and promotes the growth of
algae that chokes out other species.
Phosphorus was removed from laundry detergent back in the 1970s. But that was back
before there were a lot of automatic dishwashers, so dishwasher soap wasn’t part of the
ban.
Now, regulators are starting to catch up.
Michigan just joined at least 8 other states that have ordered phosphorus to be phased out
of dishwasher detergent.
The manufacturers aren’t arguing – some have already started eliminating phosphorus in
their products.
But there are still plenty of other ways that phosphorus is leeching into lakes, rivers, and
streams. The most common cause is agricultural fertilizers.
For The Environment Report, I’m Rick Pluta.
Most people probably don’t enjoy
cleaning. But we’ve all got to do it.
And if you’ve ever looked at the household
cleaner aisle in the grocery store, you
know there can be some pretty strong
chemicals involved. Karen Kelly reports
on a cheaper, chemical-free alternative:
(sound of store)
I’ve just arrived at my neighborhood grocery store with a plan: to find what I
need to make my own household cleaners.
I head over to the cleaning aisle and pull out a list of ingredients I got off the
internet.
I see borax and
washing soda on the shelf.
They`re both made from naturally-occuring minerals and cost about five bucks
each for a 4 to 5 pound box.
I look around for soap flakes – to make my own dish soap – and find a big bar I
can grate myself.
The only thing missing is castile soap. It’s a biodegradable soap used in a lot of
these recipes.
I’ll grab that next at the natural foods store.
To be honest, I never paid that much attention to the ingredients in household
cleaner – until I used something with dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride on
my bathtub. It comes with warnings.
I rinsed it and took a bath. My 4-year-old also took a bath.
And we both ended up with a very itchy skin rash.
That convinced me. I had to find a safer way to clean the tub that, number one,
worked. And number two, wasn’t too expensive.
Which pretty much meant I’d have to make it myself.
We decided to start with the all-purpose cleaner.
Karen Kelly: “Okay. We need borax, which we have, castile soap, hot water.”
Child: “We have that! We can just turn on the sink and make hot water!”
Kelly: “And vinegar.”
Child: “We have, do we have vinegar?”
Kelly: “Yes.”
Child: “And Mom, we have hot water.”
We mix up a recipe I found on the David Suzuki Foundation’s website.
(sound of stirring and banging)
They’ve got a whole bunch of do-it-yourself recipes for bathtub scrubbers,
laundry soap, furniture polish, you name it.
Lindsay Coulter is the person who devised these concoctions.
She says a lot of people forget that you don’t need fancy products to get your
house clean.
“You know, if you talk to your grandmothers or your great-aunts, you’ll find that
they too used things like washing soda, baking soda, white vinegar, and a basic
castile soap. Things like vinegar – it’s acidic and helps lift grease and
deodorizes. A lot of the things you’re cooking with anyways, so you probably
already have it in your kitchen. And the benefit? Just peace of mind that you
know what goes into it.”
But does it work? It’s time to find out.
(sound of spraying)
We spray. We wipe. The bathroom sink shines.
Next, we try the bath tub scrubber. It’s a mix of castile soap, vinegar – which is
a natural disinfectant – baking soda, and water.
(sound of cleaning the tub)
The tub looks great, actually. And you know what? This is a lot cheaper.
Brand name all-purpose cleaning sprays are about 4 bucks a bottle where I live.
It cost me just a dollar – and about 5 minutes – to fill that same bottle with my
own mix.
So it’s cheap, it’s easy to make, and, best of all, I don’t have to worry about chemical reaction after a soak
in the tub.
For The Environment Report, I’m Karen Kelly.
Child: “Is it recording? Okay.”
Consumer advocates say your children might
be at risk because of the soaps you use. They say
most shampoos and cosmetics contain a chemical that
might cause cancer. Julie Grant reports they want
the government to clean up these products:
(sound of laughter)
Moxii Rose has been running around all afternoon. She’s
this tiny two and a half year old. She giggles as she dumps
her toys and spills juice on the carpet.
She’s excited when it’s time for a bubble bath.
(sound of running water and child in bathtub)
And so is her mother, Khalilah Pickings. Once Moxii gets into
the tub, she finally quiets down.
“And normally when we have bubble bath time, I just sit right
here. And let her do whatever she needs to do. Gives her a
minute to calm down, and me a minute to calm down.”
Khalilah says she hasn’t thought about it a lot, but figures if
the stores can sell kids bubble bath and lotion, they must
be safe.
But some consumer advocates aren’t so sure.
David Steinman started worrying about the bubble bath his
kids were using. He heard bubble bath might have
something called ‘1, 4 dioxane’ in it. The Environmental
Protection Agency lists it as probable carcinogen.
“I took the products they liked and some others that were
from other companies to a laboratory to have them analyzed, to see
if they did contain this chemical. And they all had it. Every
single product.”
Even the products labeled ‘natural’.
Now, you won’t find 1, 4 dioxane on ingredient lists on the
back of the bottle. It’s not added to soaps and detergents.
When other chemicals are combined, they create 1, 4
dioxane. It helps make soaps foamy and work well.
Steinman says that when children get in a warm bath, their
pores open and can soak the chemical right into their
systems.
Studies show that 1,4 dioxane causes cancer in lab animals.
Scientists are debating how much those findings in rats and
mice apply to people.
Bob Hamilton’s company sells soaps and dishwashing
liquids under the Amway label. He’s an expert on the
regulation of soap.
“There is not a concern based on the best scientific review
that has been done over many decades. The levels that are
found are minor contaminant levels that are well below any
concern levels as expressed by regulators in every country
around the world.”
The US government doesn’t really have any standards for
the amount of 1, 4 dioxane allowed in products. And even
though the EPA lists it as a probable carcinogen, the agency
says the tiny amount in consumer goods is still safe.
Consumer advocate David Steinman says the government
only looks at the amount 1, 4 dioxane in each product
individually. No one considers that we’re using bubble bath,
soap, lotion, and dishwashing detergent every day.
“When do a lot of little bits of chemicals become a whole
lot?”
Steinman wants consumers to force change. He wants
people to buy only the soaps that don’t contain 1, 4 dioxane.
But single mother Khalilah Pickings says she’s already
overwhelmed with trying to be a good mom. How is she
supposed to know whether products have 1, 4 dioxane and if
it’s a real concern or just something environmentalists are
worrying too much about?
“If it hasn’t hurt anyone and if people aren’t like getting
cancer or some crazy weirdo Ebola virus soap-causing
disease, just leave me alone. I’ve got enough to think about, okay?
It’s just me and her here. I don’t have time to think about
the soap that I’m using.”
Pickings says she doesn’t really trust the government, but
she has to assume if it allows the products on the market,
they won’t hurt her little girl.
For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.
A common group of chemicals used in all kinds of products is being
associated with increased obesity. Lester Graham reports this study
is the latest to link the chemicals to health problems:
A common group of chemicals used in all kinds of products is being
associated with increased obesity. Lester Graham reports this study
is the latest to link the chemicals to health problems:
Phthalates are found in cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, lubricants, paints,
pesticides, plastics and more. A Harvard study had linked phthalates
to lower testosterone levels in men and lower sperm counts.
Testosterone also helps keep men lean.
Dr. Richard Stahlhut and his team at the University of Rochester looked
at the data and the Harvard study and took it to the next step:
“If what they found is correct, then what we should find perhaps is
that higher phthalate levels are associated with more abdominal obesity
and insulin resistance.”
And that’s what they found. The authors of the study published online
by Environmental Health Perspectives hypothesize that phthalates
might be directly linked to more belly fat and pre-diabetes in men.
The higher the phthalate level found in a person, the greater the
chance of abdominal obesity.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
That’s how the new children’s book, “The Day The Great Lakes Drained Away” begins. The author is Charles Ferguson Barker and he recently spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charity Nebbe:
The Great Lakes were flowing with water
On every Great Lakes Day;
Until something frightful happened
And made the Great Lakes drain away.
That’s how the new children’s book, The Day The Great Lakes Drained
Away begins. The author is Charles Ferguson Barker and he recently
spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charity Nebbe:
Nebbe: “Charles, in your book, all of the water disappears from the Lakes and you take us on a tour of all the lakebeds, so we see landforms and shipwrecks and a whole lot of mud… What gave you the idea to show kids what the Lakes would look like without water?”
Barker: “Well, actually, it was from looking at some maps that are put out by the National Geophysical Data Center that show, basically, what’s on the lake floors, and I, for one, had not given it much thought ’till seeing these maps. But these maps have some really cool features like ridges of rock and all kinds of neat stuff and I thought this would be a great idea for a children’s book.”
Nebbe: “What do you think some of the coolest features that you’ve been able to put into the book are?”
Barker: “Um, well, there’s a suspected meteor impact crater on the east side of Lake Ontario, and it’s not confirmed as a meteor impact crater, but a lot of other things it could be have been ruled out. So that’s pretty neat. There’s also, to me, what’s most exciting is the ridge of rock, or ridges of rock underneath Lake Huron, that, in some cases, have maybe four hundred feet of relief. And most of the maps we see of the Great Lakes are basically just a flat blue, so seeing what’s under the Lakes I thought was really exciting.”
Nebbe: “When I was reading the book, I thought, you know, if I were a kid, this would be pretty scary to me because all the water goes away from the lakes and, you know, there are fish dying in at least one picture. Why did you decide to show us the bottom of the Lakes in that way?”
Barker: “Well, actually, that’s pretty much how… the only way I could figure out how to show them, I mean, if we’re talking about features that are on the lake floors, then somehow we’ve got to get rid of the water to see those, and sort of… it’s a fanciful sort of draining away of the Lakes, if you will. The purpose of the book is almost twofold: one is to show that the lake floors are pretty cool, and there’s some neat features under there, but also to sort of reinforce that hey, we’d better make sure this never happens, you know, so it goes to the protection of the Lakes as well.”
Nebbe: “The culprit in your book is water usage among communities in the Great Lakes Basin and there are rules that govern water usage among those communities, one of them is that they have to return the amount of water that they use and that communities outside the basin can’t use the water without approval. Why did you pick that as the culprit?”
Barker: “Well, that’s a good question and it sort of goes back to the original manuscript draft, and I thought, well, gosh, the villain could be actually just everybody taking a little bit of water thinking that it doesn’t matter, but the cummulative effect of that mindset causes a problem, and I think that’s true, I work in environmental consulting, and I can attest that that’s basically how major contamination sites are created is that everybody thinking, ‘Oh well this one little thing won’t matter, this little drop of tetrachlorethyline won’t matter,’ but if everybody has that mindset, then, yeah there’s going to be a problem.”
Nebbe: “You’ve been talking to some of the kids who are reading the book, do you think that message is getting across?”
Barker: “Yeah, I think, you know, initially, they really kind of like to sort of see the pictures and hear and learn about the lake floors and whatnot, but I think it’s important to, you know, relay to kids that they’re actually going to be the ones making decisions down the road about Great Lakes withdrawals and whatnot, and recently, I was just talking to somebody and remembering back to when I was a kid, we used to sail a lot on the Great Lakes, and I remember being in the middle of Lake Erie, sort of out of the sight of land, and sailing through soap suds. It was terrible. I mean, Lake Erie was horrible. This was in the early seventies. And it was like you’re in a bath tub with soap suds. That’s more of a water quality issue, but I think it sort of became a problem because of nobody really, um, paying much attention. So, I think the more attention we pay to the Great Lakes, in terms of just making sure no wacky ideas about withdrawal go through, then that’s good. That’s what we need to do.”
Nebbe: “Charles Ferguson Barker, thank you so much.”
Barker: “Thank you.”
HOST TAG: Charles Ferguson Barker, author of The Day the Great Lakes Drained Away speaking with the GLRC’s Charity Nebbe.
Researchers might have a partial solution to the problem
of beech bark disease. The disease has killed millions of beeches
in the Northeast and is advancing on the woodlands of the Midwest.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton has this report:
Beech bark disease happens when an insect infests beech trees. Then the
trees are killed or crippled by an opportunistic fungus. Where the
disease has struck, researchers found one to five percent of the trees had
natural resistance to the insect.
Jennifer Cook is a USDA Forest Service researcher.Her experiments found that seeds from two resistant parent trees produced progeny that are also resistant. That could set the stage
for reforestation and even pro-active plantings.
“People can plant them before the disease gets there and
therefore lessen the impact on their forest lands.”
Cook says if you’ve got a big beautiful beech tree you want to save, you
can scrub the tree’s bark with insecticidal soap once a year. Of course
it would be impossible to scrub every beech tree in the forests.
For the GLRC, I’m Tracy Samilton.
Each Spring, thousands of people spend their evenings listening to frogs and toads. It’s
not just for fun. They’re helping assess the water quality of rivers and wetlands around
the country. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ed Herrmann joined the search for
amphibians, and has this essay:
I’ve always enjoyed being outside and listening to nature. Recording nature sounds is a
hobby of mine. So when I saw an ad asking for people to listen for frogs and toads, I
thought, “All right. Beats watching campaign commercials.”
I called up Friends of the Rouge…(that’s a local group dedicated to helping out the Rouge
River watershed) and a few days later I got a package in the mail. It was full of maps and
information, and had a CD with the songs of the local frogs and toads. I studied my area,
and found some good looking wet spots where I thought they might live.
I memorized the sound of the Wood Frog (sound), Chorus Frog (sound), Spring Peeper
(sound), and American Toad. Then, on the first night when the temperature and wind
conditions were just right, I headed out to hear some frogs.
(sound of traffic roaring by)
I don’t know what I was thinking. This is suburban Detroit, not exactly a wildlife refuge.
In fact, the only animal I see is a rabbit dodging traffic. And the only thing I hear is…
(more traffic sound)
The Rouge River flows into the Detroit River and then Lake Erie. It used to be one of the
dirtiest rivers around, mainly from all the industry down by the mouth. That problem is
more or less under control but now there’s a larger one.
If you look at a map from the 1970s, you see miles of wetlands, small farms and
orchards. Today you see nonstop subdivisions and shopping malls. It might seem like
progress to you, but for the river, the constant barrage of fertilizers, pesticides, soap and
other chemicals that everybody uses to keep their suburbs looking pretty is a lot worse
than an occasional dose of battery acid from a factory. Also having acres of concrete
instead of wetlands means there’s nothing to soak up and filter the water, which means
after a big rain, it floods. It’s obvious this river needs some help.
(sound of river)
In 1998, volunteers began surveying the frogs and toads in the Rouge watershed. These
creatures were chosen because they sing, so they’re easy to track. The reason they’re
good indicators is that, like other amphibians, they absorb water through their skin. That
means they get poisoned by everything that we in the civilized world pour into the water.
Plus, their eggs hatch in water and their larvae (the tadpoles) live in water. It’s pretty
simple: if the water is good, there’s plenty of frogs and toads. If not, they disappear.
So, night after night, I’m out there listening. Listening in the dark. Listening hard.
Not a peep.
I’m beginning to think that the price of all these well-manicured lawns is a silent spring.
Then finally one night, (sound of American toads) the good old American toad! All
right, it is the most common species around, but at least it’s a start.
(sound of chorus frogs and green frogs)
A few weeks later, I join a group at a “mitigated” wetland. That means that when a
developer decided that a real wetland would be the perfect place to build condos and a
golf course, the government said, “Sure, go ahead. Drain it. Just be sure to dig a hole
over here and fill it with water.” Now, five years later, some frogs have moved in and
seem to be fine.
But they still have a little problem…
(jet roars overhead, followed by a few green frogs)
Ah, location, location. This new wetland is right
next to the airport.
Now, the reason these frogs sing is to attract a mate. So if nobody hears them, there are
not going to be any tadpoles to make next year’s frogs. In order to survive, they need not
only to sing, but to be heard.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Ed Herrmann.
(frogs fade out)
The anti-bacterial soap and the toothpaste you use might be damaging the base of the food chain in your local streams. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The anti-bacterial soap and the toothpaste you use might be damaging the base of the food chain
in your local streams. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Chemicals from personal care products, including things such as certain soaps, deodorants, hair
dyes and contraceptives appear to be reducing the number of kinds of algae in streams. Algae is
the base of the food chain for aquatic life. In a report in the journal Nature, University of Kansas
researcher Val Smith and a student exposed algae to the chemicals at levels typically found after
they’ve been through the wastewater plant. The diluted chemicals from the personal care
products killed some kinds of algae in the lab experiment.
“So, that means that these anti-microbials, even though they’re designed to do other things for us,
seem to have a negative effect on something we like which, of course, is algae in streams.”
The next step is to see if the lab findings can be confirmed in the field.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
