Curious about the ingredients in cleaning products?

Have you ever wondered what is really in all the cleaning products you use at home? The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) and the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association (CCSPA) have made it easy for you by creating an Ingredient Communication Initiative to provide consumers with information about the ingredients in various cleaning products.

The SDA Ingredient Central page provides a list of companies and their websites where you can find information on the ingredients used in their products. However, while some of the web links take you directly to the company's ingredient information page, most of them just link to the company website, and you have to do your own exploring to find your way to the ingredients page.

Please, use sunscreen to get cancer...

It seems like chemical sunscreens are a toxic brew of reproductive toxins and cancer causing chemicals...They say, "put on sunscreen to protect against skin cancer," but some new studies are suggesting that perhaps sunscreens are causing cancer.

Looking through all the sunscreen choices at the store, I've noticed that currently, most formulations contain one or more of the following active ingredients: oxybenzone and avobenzone (bad because they generate free radicals when exposed to UV radiation); cinnamates (often listed as "cinoxate," as if the abbreviation will make it seem less scary); salicylates (often listed as "homosalate" or "octisalate"); titanium dioxide and zinc oxide (physical barrier, but possibly bad because they're often nano-sized). Apparently, one of the non-active ingredients that is commonly added to sunscreens is an anti-oxidant called retinyl palmitate, a derivative of vitamin A, which presumably is supposed to help prevent skin damage from the sun. However, this compound may also be "photocarcinogenic," as it breaks down upon exposure to UV radiation to form compounds that have been shown to accelerate cancer in lab animals. There's no evidence as to what it does in humans, but it might be a good idea to be cautious.

I still haven't found a sunscreen that I like. I don't spend that much time in the sun anyway, but if I know I'll be in the sun long enough to get sunburned, then sure, I'll apply some sunscreen. Otherwise, I'll take my chances and get some vitamin D from a little sun exposure. When needed, I use California Baby's no fragrance sunscreen on my toddler. It's the best I can find so far, but I'm still a little concerned about the whole nanoparticle issue with titanium dioxide and zinc oxide formulations.

The horror! Methyl iodide as an approved pesticide??

I recall hearing a couple of years ago that California was considering using methyl iodide as a replacement for methyl bromide, which has been used extensively as a pesticide for crops, such as strawberries, but has also been wreaking havoc on the ozone layer. So, methyl bromide is being phased out, but what to replace it with? Apparently, Arysta LifeScience has been pushing the use of methyl iodide as a soil fumigant, which should work similarly but not affect the ozone layer. In 2007, the EPA actually approved its use, despite the warnings from many chemists who said they were "astonished" that the EPA was considering "broadcast releases of one of the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing into the environment."

I personally used methyl iodide in grad school, but I always took great precautions -- gloves, fumehood, syringes to transfer. This is not something you want to get on yourself. It is routinely used to methylate DNA. Can you say, "cancer"? Methyl iodide is 6 times more toxic than methyl bromide. It's still very volatile, so there is a serious inhalation risk. If used on crops, it will contaminate the air and the water, and most likely poison farm workers and people living in the vicinity (especially downwind).

A report from the California Scientific Review Committee in 2009 concluded that there was no good way to use methyl iodide safely and that its use would have a significant adverse impact on public health. Yet, on April 30, 2010, California actually proposed using methyl iodide as a pesticide for use in agriculture. What are these people thinking?? If nothing is done, methyl iodide will become legal for California farmers to use after June 29.

Interesting facts: 47 States have licensed the use of methyl iodide, and 11 states have used it at least once. It has been used mostly on strawberries and sometimes on tomatoes and peppers.

'Synthehol' In Development!

If you're a fan of Star Trek, you may be thrilled to find out that researchers at Imperial College London are working on an alcohol substitute, that may have been inspired by the "Synthehol" from Star Trek. Ideally, this alcohol substitute would let the drinker experience the buzz without getting drunk or getting hangovers. Furthermore, it could potentially be "switched off" with a pill, so that drinkers could sober up immediately. The synthetic alcohol will likely be based on benzodiazepines, which are related to the active compound in Valium, diazepam, because these compounds affect the nerves in the brain in a similar way to alcohol, but are much easier to flush out of the body.

The top 15 chemical additives in food

According to Coupon Sherpa, the top 15 chemicals that are added to food to make it look better and last longer are:

1. 1-Methylcyclopropene: also known as "SmartFresh," this gas is used to keep fruit from producing ethylene, which causes ripening. Apparently, it preserves apples for a year and bananas for a month.
2. Artificial coloring: many of the artificial colors developed since the early 1900s have been banned by the FDA as proven carcinogens. The artificial colors currently allowed in foods are: Blue #1, Blue #2, Green #3, Red #3, Red #40, Yellow #5, and Yellow #6. However, many are banned in other countries and still have potential health risks. The following have been restricted or banned: Greens #1 and #2, Reds #1, #2, #3, and #4, and Violet #1. As a safer alternative, look for natural food dyes, such as: caramel coloring, annatto, cochineal, betanin, turmeric, saffron, and paprika.
3. Artificial flavoring: apparently these have been linked to behavioral changes...
4. Aspartame: also known as Equal or NutraSweet, should be avoided by people suffering from phenylketonuria, who can't metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine. The safety of aspartame is still debatable as it breaks down into methanol, phenylalanine, and aspartic acid, and then further into formaldehyde, formic acid, and diketopiperazine.
5. Astaxanthin: is apparently added to the diet of farm-raised salmon so that their flesh acquires that pink color found in wild salmon. This is because farm-raised salmon don't get to eat crustaceans which contain a natural astaxanthin.
6. Sodium benzoate: is a preservative that is often added to soft drinks, cereals, meats. It has been linked to digestive problems, headaches, asthma attacks, and hyperactivity.
7. Antioxidants: such as BHA and BHT, are added to oil-containing processed foods, like crackers, cereals, and sausages, as a preservative to keep them from getting rancid. Both butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) are possible human carcinogens.
8. Canthaxanthin: is apparently used to make egg yolks look golden yellow. Large amounts of canthaxanthin can cause retinal damage.
9. Emulsifiers: such as agar, albumin, alginate, casein, egg yolk, glycerol monostearate, xanthan gum, Irish moss, lecithin, and soaps. These help to improve the shelf life of bread products and help oil and water to mix homogeneously. Reduced-fat and low-calorie products tend to contain emulsifiers.
   
10. High fructose corn syrup: is used as a sweetener and also helps to maintain moisture while preserving freshness. It is highly used in processed foods. In addition to causing obesity, its consumption has also been linked to diabetes, heart disease, as well as kidney and liver disease.
11. Monosodium glutamate (MSG): is the sodium salt of glutamic acid, an amino acid. MSG is used as a flavor enhancer in processed foods, such as chips, condiments, and seasonings. Some people have reported tightening in the chest, headaches and a burning sensation in the neck and forearms after consuming food containing MSG.
12. Olestra: also known as "Olean," is a fat substitute that doesn't get digested by the human body, and is often used in foods such as fat-free chips. Aside from the well-publicized "anal leakage" problem, consumption of large amounts of Olestra can also prevent our bodies from absorbing fat-soluble vitamins.
13. Partially hydrogenated oils: are a cheaper alternative to butter and are found in many processed foods. The process of hydrogenating oil can lead to the production of trans fats as a side product. Trans fats have been linked to heart disease.
14. Potassium bromate: is an oxidizing agent and is used to improve flour, so that bread dough rises higher. Most of the bromate breaks down during the breadmaking process, but traces of it can be a cancer risk.
15. Sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate: are commonly used to preserve meat and is found in cold cuts, hot dogs, and sausages. When heated to high temperatures (like frying), sodium nitrite in meat can form nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic.

I'm not sure I can rid my diet of all of these additives, but it definitely makes sense to limit our consumption of processed foods (so hard!) Check out the ingredient list of foods that you commonly buy and see if you're horrified.

A Handy Resource: The Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database

I recently came across this handy website called the Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database, which was created by the Environmental Working Group. The site is useful because it allows you to search for cosmetics and personal care products by product name, ingredient, or company/brand, and it shows you their safety rating, which is based on the potential health hazards (e.g., cancer, developmental/reproductive toxicity, allergies, etc.) linked to the individual ingredients in the product. You can also browse categories of products, such as makeup, skin care, hair care, etc., and try to find safer products to use.

You'd think that with the FDA's "strict" regulation of cosmetics and personal care products, all the products that you buy should be safe. Well, before these products can be sold to the public, the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that companies show that the products and their ingredients are safe and that they don't contain banned ingredients. But really, how do you prove that a certain chemical is "safe" before you try to market a product? A lot of these chemicals may not show any significant health effects until years down the road, and what company is willing to wait that long before marketing a product? You get the idea.

The Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database is neat in that it lists all the relevant information in an easy-to-use layout. The safety ratings are color coded -- green for "low hazard", yellow for "moderate hazard", and red for "high hazard" --so you can get an idea for how safe a product is at a glance. Of course, when I first discovered the site, I immediately started looking up all the products I use on a daily basis, and I was a little horrified at the results. There were a couple of things that I use that were in the high moderate to high hazard category. Yikes! As a result, I looked up some safer alternatives. You'll notice that a lot of the safest products will likely be hard to find in your average store, and that was something that annoyed me. I decided to look for products that you can find in the store with a decently safe rating instead.

HOWEVER -- this is a big HOWEVER... Just because the rating says a product is safe, it doesn't mean it actually is. What? You say. Well, it's important to look at the actual ingredient list. For example, a lot of the sunscreens that are rated the safest contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide nanoparticles, and recent studies have shown that these particles can be absorbed through the skin. The Australian government has been looking into this and has published a review of the scientific literature on the safety of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens. A while ago, I had bought some California Baby Sunscreen thinking that it would be safer than other kids' sunscreens. Skin Deep rates it at "1" or "low hazard," but guess what. It uses titanium dioxide nanoparticles. So, is it really safer? Not sure...

Another ingredient that has been listed as hazardous is polyethylene, which I find rather puzzling. It is listed as a cancer risk (based on a study from 1955!) Huh? Polyethylene is one of the cleanest and safest plastics out there. So, for example, Maybelline's Lash Discovery mascara is dinged pretty heavily (score: 7, high hazard) partly because it contains polyethylene... Hmm. Well, my point is, look at the ingredient list carefully. Skin Deep is a useful tool, but don't take the ratings at face value.

Cheap 'dipstick' test for pesticides in food

Researchers from McMaster University in Canada are developing a cheap "dipstick" test that can detect pesticide residues in food and drinks in less than 5 minutes. In contrast, conventional mass spectrometric testing typically takes hours to complete. The experimental paper-based test strip detects acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors, including organophosphate pesticides, and changes color depending on the amount of pesticide present. The test has pesticide detection limits on the order of 1-10 nM (bendiocarb 1 nM; carbaryl 10 nM; paraoxon 1 nM; malathion 10 nM) and should be suitable for the rapid screening of trace levels of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides.

Their work has been published in the journal Analytical Chemistry.

While the test won't be able to tell us exactly what types of pesticides are present in our food, it would be pretty neat if the test strips could eventually be available to the average consumer so that we can check the levels of pesticide residues in the stuff we buy, and make better choices about the foods we eat.

Now there's BPA in cash register receipts?

I haven't posted about bisphenol A (BPA) at all, even though there's been A LOT of coverage on the health concerns of this chemical. First it was in polycarbonate baby bottles, then in the epoxy liners for food cans. Now we find out it's in cash receipts. What's the concern? BPA is an endocrine disruptor (estrogen mimic), and some studies suggest that human exposure to the chemical could lead to negative health effects, such as reproductive problems, obesity, and cancer. Back when I was working in industry, I used BPA quite regularly as a monomer, but of course I was handling it safely, with gloves and in a fume hood.

Apparently, the carbonless copy papers that are used for most credit card receipts and the thermal imaging papers used by most cash registers both rely on BPA chemistry. How does it work? A powdery layer of BPA combined with an invisible ink is coated onto one side of the paper so that when heat or pressure is applied, the BPA and ink molecules react to produce color. Not surprisingly, the quantities of BPA on these receipts are at the milligram level (60-100 mg) -- compare that to the nanogram amounts of BPA that can leach out of polycarbonate baby bottles. Yikes. TIP: Wash your hands well before you lick your fingers...

What's next, BPA in polycarbonate CDs and DVDs? Maybe we're better off going back to vinyl records and VHS tapes.

Chemicals leach from packaging into our food

Surprise, surprise. Chemicals from packaging products leach into food -- that's the cover story in a recent issue of Chemical & Engineering News. According to folks in the packaging industry, all packaging materials leach chemicals into food, so it's not a question of whether chemicals will leach but how much will end up in your food...

These chemicals can originate from the chemical composition of the packaging itself, or it can come from chemicals that the packaging comes into contact with during manufacturing, sterilization, and shipping. Plastic is probably the most common packaging material these days, and leachables include plasticizers such as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, antioxidants like Irganox 1076, benzophenone light stabilizers, and unreacted monomers. Most recently, bisphenol A (BPA) has gotten a lot of attention for leaching out of polycarbonate baby bottles and drinking containers, as well as from epoxy-lined metal cans. Even glass containers have issues. Sometimes glass, especially the recycled variety can leach minerals or metals, and the rubber seals on caps for glass containers can also introduce chemicals such as N-nitrosamines, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Then there's the waxy paper packaging for greasy things like hamburgers, or for microwave popcorn, that can leach perfluorinated compounds. And there's more... Earlier this year, the European Food Safety Authority found that 4-methylbenzophenone, a component of printing ink used on cereal boxes, was present in the German chocolate muesli contained within said boxes. Previously, infant formula had been recalled in Italy, Portugal, Spain, and France in 2005, when another printing ink component, isopropylthioxanthone, was found in it. Ink can even migrate through two layers of plastic packaging(!) Health Canada recalled a product after it was found that a drug solution in a plastic pouch was contaminated with ink that was printed on the outside of a second plastic cover pouch...

The main problem is that these materials are sourced from tertiary or quaternary sources that supply a variety of industries that have different cleanliness requirements from food or drug industries. Trying to place controls across the entire supply chain can be difficult and must start with educating suppliers about material safety. At least some packaging companies are looking at ways to reduce the amount of leachables, but it comes at a price -- more expensive packaging, and consequently, more expensive products for consumers.

Now I wonder how much of various packaging and printing chemicals Jessie has already ingested from her uncontrollable habit of chewing on everything, especially (printed) paper products...

Would you like some lead in your lipstick?

The FDA recently (and finally!) released their test results for lead in lipstick -- they found lead in all 20 lipsticks tested. The lead was present at levels as high as 3.06 ppm, with an average of 1.07 ppm, which is 10 times higher than the FDA's limit for lead in candy. Unfortunately, the FDA doesn't have any standard for lead levels in lipstick, and they won't name the three specific manufacturers that make lipsticks with the highest levels of lead in them... Although, Campaign For Safe Cosmetics had conducted its own study back in 2007 and found lead in two-thirds of the 33 different lipsticks it tested, including ones from L'Oreal, Cover Girl, Christian Dior, and Maybelline. Why is there lead in lipstick? Because apparently, some colorants contain traces of lead, and it is also present as a by-product in ingredients such as zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, ozokerite (mineral or paraffin wax), and petroleum-based ingredients. Since lead is considered a "contaminant," you won't find "lead" listed on the ingredient labels, so how will you know if your lipstick is lead-free? I guess the best thing to do is to not wear lipstick. However, apparently there are now lipsticks on the market that are labeled "lead-free," so keep an eye out for those if you trust the claim.

• Campaign For Safe Cosmetics has posted a FAQ on lead in lipstick.

• Here's the FDA's FAQ on lead in lipstick and their latest study results published in the Journal of Cosmetic Science.

What's in your 'fragrance'?

I like nice smelling things, like soaps, and lotions, etc. However, I've found that the smell of most perfumes and many lotions gives me headaches. Maybe I have a perfume/fragrance sensitivity or allergy.

When you look at the ingredient list for cosmetic products, you often see "fragrance" listed. What is fragrance? It turns out that it can include many chemicals that the manufacturer doesn't need to disclose, such as phthalates. Phthalates are typically used as plasticizers for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics and are considered endocrine disruptors, which can cause reproductive problems, changes in hormone levels, birth defects, and possibly more -- what is it doing in fragrances?? Apparently, they're used as solvents to "fix" scents so that they last longer. Here's the FDA's take on phthalates in cosmetic products. According to the FDA, the main phthalates used in cosmetics are dibutylphthalate (DBP), dimethylphthalate (DMP), and diethylphthalate (DEP). To date, it appears that the FDA believes there is insufficient evidence to indicate that phthalates in cosmetics pose a significant health risk. Furthermore, the FDA doesn't require manufacturers to list individual fragrance ingredients, so as consumers, we will never know what's really in a product's fragrance. Think about all the products that we use that contain fragrance -- shampoos, lotions (even baby shampoos and lotions), perfumes, soaps, detergents, scented candles, air fresheners, etc.

So, we should just buy fragrance-free products, right? Well, maybe not... Apparently, "fragrance-free" products can still contain chemicals used to mask unpleasant smelling components of the formulation, but they would have to be listed in the ingredients as "fragrance." Although, if they are present at an "insignificant level," then they don't have to be listed in the ingredients...

I guess the key thing is to look for the word "fragrance" in the ingredient list of your favorite products, and then decide whether you can give it up for something potentially healthier. I say "potentially" because a lot of products are advertised as being "natural" and "healthy" when they really aren't if you look carefully.

'Natural' alternative to DEET insect repellent

I happened to come across this article about a potential alternative to DEET that is found in the South American Tauroniro tree (Humiria balsamifera). The compound, which is called "(-)-isolongifolenone," can be synthesized from cheap turpentine oil feedstock, and researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture have also patented a more cost effective method to produce isolongifolenone analogs. The researchers found that isolongifolenone worked better than DEET at repelling mosquitoes and works just as well against ticks.

Apparently, isolongifolenone derivatives have been used "safely" as fragrances in cosmetics, perfumes, deodorants, and paper products, so, I guess they're claiming that isolongifolenone is safe? Maybe. Benzene is carcinogenic, but toluene (a "benzene derivative") is not. I'd like to see more chemical evaluation data... Oh, yeah, and just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it isn't toxic...

The article doesn't discuss how the new repellent works, but one could assume that it works in a similar way to DEET. Ever since DEET was developed by the USDA and patented by the U.S. Army in 1946, scientists have believed that DEET worked by masking the smell of the host or by blocking the insect's ability to locate a host. Last year, researchers from University of California, Davis, reported groundbreaking research indicating that mosquitoes are repelled by DEET because they simply don't like its smell! If it's that simple, then surely we could find something less toxic that's odorless/pleasing to humans but stinky to mosquitoes?

Exxon to Produce Biofuel from Algae

The New York Times reports that Exxon Mobil will be investing $600 million to produce liquid biofuel from green algae for transportation purposes, in partnership with biotech company Synthetic Genomics -- though it could be 5-10 years before we see any large-scale commercial production of algae-based fuels. According to Exxon, algae has the potential to produce more than 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year, which is significantly more than the 650 gallons for palm trees, 450 gallons for sugar cane, and 250 gallons for corn. The biofuel derived from algae is supposedly similar in chemical structure to petroleum products and should be compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, algae can be grown in areas that aren't suitable for farming food crops and could help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Apparently, Exxon and Synthetic Genomics plan to genetically engineer new strains of algae that will be able to absorb significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

I was never a big fan of the idea of biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels, especially when it means using crops that would otherwise be used to feed people -- there are still millions of starving people living on this planet of ours. Furthermore, to grow the crops at a scale that will make a difference, we would have to cut down even more forests to make way for farm land. Then there's the issue of carbon emissions, and using biofuels will not help the environment in that area either. However, in this case, if Exxon and Synthetic Genomics can pull it off, then this algae-based biofuel could be promising.

[Aside: Hydrogen is the cleanest fuel, but there are still so many hurdles in the way before it can even become practical. In the meantime, it makes sense to look at other fuel alternatives, but let's hope that we don't give up quite yet on hydrogen.]

The New York Times' Green Inc. blog has posted an article about the biofuel debate.

Meth labs: Do you know the history of your home?

I've been watching the first season of the AMC television series called "Breaking Bad" in which the main character, a high school chemistry teacher, decides to use his chemistry skills to produce high quality methamphetamine with a former student, after he is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. Why? Because he wants to make sure his pregnant wife and teenage son, who has cerebral palsy, are financially secure once he is gone. I want to point out that while using your chemistry degree to make illegal drugs is bad, this is one of the few (if not the only) instances where a chemist is the main character on a TV series, and he's not your stereotypical nerdy, geeky, white male in a labcoat either. OK, maybe he starts out that way...

Anyway, I recently saw this article in the New York Times, and it's horrifying. I've heard about how once a residence has been the site of a meth lab, it's pretty much uninhabitable. What I can't believe is that such information can be withheld, and people have no idea that they're moving into and living in a toxic waste contaminated home. One homeowner later found out that there were high concentrations of meth on her kitchen countertops -- where she was sterilizing bottles and preparing baby food(!)

According to the article, people who live in these contaminated environments have succumbed to mysterious illnesses -- migraines, kidney disease, respiratory problems -- and pets have died. The fumes and chemicals from methamphetamine production can permeate drywall, carpets, insulation, and air ducts. The cost of cleaning a site can range from $5,000 - $100,000. Some states require cleanup and disclosure at the time of sale of the house's history. This obviously works really well, since one homeowner said that the former owner of their house -- who is now in prison -- had checked "no" on the disclosure form when asked if the house had ever been a meth lab...

Here is a document from the EPA titled "RCRA Hazardous Waste Identification of Methamphetamine Production Process By-products" that describes generally how methamphetamine is made, and it has a surprisingly lengthy list of chemicals commonly found at former meth labs. Here are some nastier ones: sodium/potassium/hydrogen cyanides, dimethyl sulfate, phosphine, sulfur trioxide, thionyl chloride, lead acetate, and the list goes on...

Unfortunately, there are no national standards governing meth contamination, and where there are state laws, the property owner is almost always held financially responsible for the cleanup. The CDC has a list of documents (alphabetically by state) that give a general overview of legislation, ordinances, policies, and regulations regarding methamphetamine, meth lab cleanup, and public health risks.

Do you know the history of your house?

Genetically altered mice can convert fat into carbon dioxide?

Guess what? Researchers at UCLA have shown that mice can be genetically altered to convert fat into carbon dioxide... AND they can eat a diet of "fast food" and still stay skinny. Sounds like a dream, doesn't it?

The researchers were inspired by plants and bacteria, which digest fat differently than humans and mammals. Plant seeds typically contain a significant amount of fat, and when they germinate, a set of enzymes called the "glyoxylate shunt" help them convert the fat into sugar. The researchers then introduced the genes for these enzymes into cultured human cells and found that the cells converted the fat completely into carbon dioxide. Then they introduced the genes into the livers of mice and found that the mice stayed skinny even when they ate a high-fat diet, and they also showed lower cholesterol levels and lower fat levels in the liver. What happened to all the fat? Well, it wasn't converted into sugar. It was converted into carbon dioxide!

Could you imagine if all the people in the world were treated with this "glyoxylate shunt therapy" and went on their merry way eating tons of fatty foods with no *apparent* consequence -- how much more greenhouse gases would we be adding to the atmosphere? :)

Not sure why, but I keep thinking of the humans in WALL-E ...

Recycling -- Bad for the Environment?

Who knew that recycling could be bad for the environment? Discover Magazine points out that while recycling is better than tossing in the trash, problems arise when people don't pay attention to the type of plastic they're throwing in the recycling bin, mixing plastics that shouldn't be mixed together. Why? Because the presence of other types of plastic or foreign materials like food can ruin an entire batch of recycled plastic. Of course, the plastic is first sorted at a sorting plant prior to recycling, but the automated sorting process isn't perfect, and any contamination will compromise the strength and durability of the recycled plastic that is produced. Poor quality recycled plastic will just lead manufacturers to use more new plastic instead -- and this is where recycling can be bad for the environment.

The Daily Green has a nice slideshow describing what the different recycling symbols and numbers mean.

Our city only collects number 1 (PET or PETE - polyethylene terephthalate) and 2 (HDPE - high density polyethylene) plastics for recycling. I'm very conscientious about sorting out plastic at home, but sometimes it can be tricky. I've seen some fresh fruit packaging that looked like it could be PETE, but surprisingly it turned out to be polystyrene (PS, number 6 plastic)...

New, Safer Form of Acetaminophen

Following up on my previous post about acetaminophen... Apparently, scientists in Louisiana have developed a way to scale up production of a safer form of the drug, which had previously been difficult to produce in large quantities. This alternate form of acetaminophen reportedly has similar potency to the original but with a lower risk of liver toxicity. So far, they are able to produce the drug in multigram quantities with 99% purity.

FDA Wants to Ban Popular Painkillers Containing Acetominophen

Apparently, the FDA is thinking of banning painkillers like Vicodin (hydrocodone + acetominophen) and Percocet (oxycodone + acetominophen) because they contain... acetominophen, best known as "Tylenol." Acetaminophen is added in the formulations because it acts on different pain receptors than hydrocodone and oxycodone. An FDA advisory panel argues that acetominophen can cause liver damage if it is taken at high doses and is urging the FDA to lower the recommended maximum doses for the drug. The issue with Vicodin and Percocet is that patients may not realize that they contain acetominophen and may mix them with other drugs that contain acetominophen, like NyQuil and Theraflu, and there is some research that suggests the possibility of greater liver damage with these two painkillers. If the ban on Vicodin and Percocet goes through, doctors will have to figure out how to manage their patients' pain using other (and perhaps more complicated) methods. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry is planning to fight the ban, since prescription drugs containing acetominophen generated $1.4 billion in sales in 2008.

I always thought that acetominophen was the typically recommended over-the-counter painkiller because it was "mild" -- I guess in that it doesn't irritate your stomach like aspirin and ibuprofen can. I'm also aware that combining the use of acetominophen with alcohol is bad for the liver -- so don't try to take Tylenol to take care of that awful hangover! Apparently, it's the painkiller of choice for pregnant women, as it's recommended for use in all stages of pregnancy for short-term fever and pain relief. While it's been safely used as the standard remedy for fever and pain in children, parents need to be careful not to mix Tylenol with other medicines, such as cold medicines which often already contain acetominophen or contain alchohol in their formulations. The Mayo Clinic has published an article that contains some useful information, as well as a dosage chart for children that also lists the toxic amount over a 24-hour period for a given child's weight.

I used to be a big fan of Tylenol, but I found that it took too long to take effect, so I've mostly switched to Advil (ibuprofen), and I don't take it unless I absolutely need to. I think I was given prescription strength Motrin (also ibuprofen) both when I had wisdom tooth surgery and my c-section, and I recall feeling some withdrawal symptoms, like headaches, when I stopped using it. The nurses and doctors at the hospital called me "iron woman" when they found out I stopped taking the Motrin 3 days after surgery. :)

I'm the natural mosquito repellent...

I got bitten like crazy by mosquitoes this past July 4th. It's my own fault because I don't like to use insect repellent because I don't want to absorb stuff like DEET through my skin. Besides, when I've actually succumbed to using mosquito repellent, I still get bitten. N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), the active ingredient in the most effective insect repellent formulations, is absorbed through the skin in varying amounts depending on its concentration and the presence of other chemicals (such as alcohol) in the product. Furthermore, once in the body, DEET can cross the placenta in pregnant women. Now if I were going to be in an environment where there was a very high risk of catching mosquito-borne illnesses, like West Nile Virus, malaria, or encephalitis, then I would use it, since the benefits outweigh the risks.

In any case, I was the mosquito repellent for everyone else at the party, since all the mosquitoes were attracted to me... Now, recently, I got excited when I saw the ads for the new OFF! Clip On Mosquito Repellent. What a great idea, I thought. The device is pretty simple. The "refills" consist of a piece of paper that has been impregnated with the active ingredient, and a little battery-powered fan disperses the repellent in the air around you. Then I wondered what the active ingredient was. Metofluthrin. Metofluthrin vaporizes pretty readily at room temperature, which makes it ideal for this application. Then I looked more carefully at the EPA report on the chemical, and was somewhat disturbed to find that it has been classified as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Great. If this is indeed the case, I'm not sure I want to be breathing in this stuff as it's dispersed in the air around me. It's still a relatively new chemical, so who knows?

Here's the California Department of Pesticide Regulation Public Report on Metofluthrin.

How well does the OFF! Clip On mosquito repellent work? People I know claim that it works well only if you're not moving too much. For example, wearing it while walking your dog will probably not work too well, because by the time the repellent has been dispersed in the air around you at any given moment, you will have moved away from that location...

There are some plant-based mosquito repellents, such as citronella, geraniol, p-menthane-3,8-diol (from eucalyptus), and soybean oil, but just because they seem more "natural" doesn't mean they're healthier. They also have their own health risks.

How do they make fireworks in different shapes?

We missed out on the fireworks this year. The show was after Jessie's bedtime, plus, at her age (14 months) she'd probably be more terrified than excited about all the loud booms. Chris and I miss seeing fireworks. The last time we saw a real fireworks show was in 2006, I think. My favorite types of fireworks are the kind that explode into those giant expanding 3D balls, and the blue ones -- the most expensive color. The blue color comes from copper salts, such as copper(I) chloride, which is unstable at high temperatures, so the firework has to burn bright enough to be seen, but it can't get too hot. Here's a list of metal salts and the colors that they produce in fireworks.

Have you ever wondered how they make fireworks that produce shapes like stars and hearts? Apparently they paste the metal salt pellets on a piece of paper in the desired pattern, and then place explosive charges above and below the paper in the shell. When the pellets go off, they spread out in the same pattern as they were arranged on the piece of paper. Cool!