Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Flooding

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Flooding

Massive flooding in the state of Kentucky in late July 2022 claimed the lives of 38 people – yet another example of extreme weather events driven by the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels. We touched upon this broad issue in a previous Toxic Tuesday about the wildfires that scorched the state of California not long ago. This edition will analyze the problem of massive flooding from the perspective of toxics.

The flooding in Kentucky on its own has had devastating consequences in the region – personal property was lost or damaged, access to clean water was scarce, and poor sanitary conditions lead to a rise in diseases in the affected population. However, another major problem to the region’s health was not talked about much or even quantified; the problem of potential leaks, spills, or accidental releases of chemicals from facilities that handle or house these chemicals.

CHEJ tried to quantify this problem in the eastern part of Kentucky. This effort, lead by our intern Hunter Marion, utilized EPA’s EJ Screen database to look at the 17 counties in eastern Kentucky that were hit the hardest. Within these counties, we wanted to determine if there was an unusually large number of chemical facilities that could be susceptible to flooding, and how close they were to the population centers. We defined these facilities as:

  • Facilities that are required by law to have Risk Management Plans (RMPs) to guard against chemical leaks or spills due to extreme weather events
  • Hazardous waste facilities (including hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities)
  • Underground storage tank facilities
  • Wastewater discharge facilities

Our analysis could not yield a definite number of chemical facilities or their exact distance from the populated areas. However, we were able to use the EJ screen to place each of the 17 affected counties into a percentile of the overall US population with regards to proximity to chemical facilities. This will become clearer with an example.

In the chart above, the population of Bell County (far right) is in the 84th percentile in terms of proximity to an RMP facility. This means that, on average, a person living in Bell County is closer to an RMP facility than 84% of the US population. To put it in another way, only 16% of the US population live closer to an RMP facility than a resident of Bell County, on average.

Similar conclusions can be drawn from the following charts:

We can see across the board that a few counties continuously rank high among proximity to chemical facilities as we have defined them. Bell County is the largest offender with its average resident being closer to hazardous waste facilities than 79% of the rest of the US, closer to underground storage tanks than 64% of the rest of the US, and closer to wastewater discharging facilities than 98% of the US. Clay, Knott, and Harlan counties follow closely.

These relatively high numbers mean that residents in eastern Kentucky where flooding was at its most damaging are comparatively closer to facilities that can spill, leak, or accidentally release dangerous chemicals than the average person in the US. This should alert authorities to do something, given that the area is prone to flooding.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

The Role of Science and Information in Addressing Questions about Chemical Exposures

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

The Role of Science and Information in Addressing Questions about Chemical Exposures

It’s common to think that in science and technical information lies the answer to the many questions people ask about exposures to toxic chemicals. At CHEJ, we have not found this to be the case. While science and technical information is very important, by itself it cannot answer most of the questions people raise about exposure to toxic chemicals. People want answers and they want action to address the contamination in their community. Science and technical information can play a vital role in helping to achieve community goals, but identifying this role and learning how to use scientific and technical information is critical to the success of a local group. 

Many assume that if you hire the best scientists and engineers and make solid technical arguments, the government will do the right thing. It rarely works that way. It’s not because people who work for government don’t care, it’s just that the science is not there for government to justify acting. This is primarily because of the lack of scientific knowledge and understanding of how exposures to toxic chemicals lead to health outcomes in people. Scientists know little about the adverse health effects resulting from exposure to combinations of chemicals at low levels. As a result, when politicians and bureaucrats look for answers, the scientists usually don’t have them. 

At first glance, this may not make sense. We know so much about many toxic chemicals, like lead and dioxins, for example. But when it comes right down to it, we know very little about what happens to people when they are exposed to low level mixtures of toxic chemicals, even those that include lead and dioxins.

We can estimate risks and talk about the hazards associated with exposure, but we just don’t know much about the mechanisms of how chemicals damage the human body, especially in low level mixtures over long periods of time. This is because in most cases, there is very little information about what a person is exposed to, the concentration they are exposed to, and for how long. A person’s health conditions and prior exposures to toxic chemicals also play a role. In addition, there is no way to distinguish or fingerprint an exposure with a health outcome. 

Most scientists are reluctant to discuss how little is known about the link between health outcomes and exposures. Instead, the tendency is to discuss the “risks” of exposure which eventually leads to a debate over what’s an “acceptable” risk. This process hides the fact that scientists don’t know what happens to people who are exposed to low levels of a mixture of toxic chemicals. 

Because of this lack of scientific clarity, bureaucrats and politicians use “science” cloaked in uncertainty, not facts, to justify decisions which are based on the political and economic pressures they face. It is naïve to think that science and the many uncertainties resulting from exposures to toxic chemicals can serve as anything but a tool used by politicians and corporations to do what they want. 

In the face of these uncertainties, government sees as its main role and primary responsibility to maintain control of a situation and to assure the public that everything is fine, whether it is or not. The government cannot afford to say what it really knows about a situation, which often, is very little. If they did that, then the public would demand action that they could not scientifically justify taking. 

Despite these realities, there is a critically important role for science and information to play in addressing exposures to toxic chemicals. This role is to document the exposures and risks posed by these exposures and to support the arguments of activists and people exposed to toxic chemicals. The role of science and technical information is to be part of a larger strategic plan to help the community and the individuals who have been exposed to toxic chemicals achieve their goal, whether it’s to be relocated, or to achieve cleanup of a contaminated site. It’s important to recognize what science and technical information can tell you and what it can’t. 

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Benzene

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Benzene

Benzene is a colorless chemical with a sweet odor that is flammable and presents itself in liquid form at normal temperatures and pressures. It is part of a family of chemicals commonly referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mainly because they evaporate quickly when exposed to air. Although benzene can be formed and emitted from natural processes, exposure to it comes mostly from human activities.

Benzene is among the 20 most widely used chemicals in the United States. It is used as an industrial chemical in the production of a myriad of products including plastics, resins, synthetic fibers, rubber lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Benzene is also naturally found in crude oil and is a major part of gasoline.

The health effects of benzene include irritation of the body parts in contact with the chemical, immune problems, nervous system conditions, and even certain cancers. Acute symptoms of relatively short-term exposure to benzene include skin, eye, and respiratory tract irritation. Prolonged exposures to even low concentrations of benzene can result in central nervous system depression and arrhythmias, as well as trigger anemia and even compromise the immune system. Finally, it has been long established that benzene exposure can cause many forms of leukemia. The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) has classified it as carcinogenic to humans (IARC group 1) since 1979.

Human exposure to benzene in the environment usually takes the form of gasoline fumes, automobile exhaust, emissions from certain factories, and off gassing from some commonly used products. Areas that routinely experience heavy traffic can suffer from dangerous levels of benzene in the air. Benzene can also off gas from certain paints and glues and become concentrated in an indoor environment. Additionally, cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke can account for significant benzene exposure. Finally, industries such as oil and gas can contribute to local benzene pollution greatly.

This is the case of the community in Greeley, Colorado where a fracking well pad was in operation just 1000 feet away from the 4th– 8th grade campus of the Bella Romero Academy. Kids and teachers were being exposed to levels of benzene (emanating from the fracking operations) almost seven times higher than the lifetime safe exposure level for benzene developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). Colorado 350, a local nonprofit working on the issue, reached out to CHEJ for help in analyzing a report by Barrett Engineering on the measured levels of benzene in the school. With our help, Colorado 350 is now asking the city to reinstate air monitors and shut down the fracking operation if benzene levels do not drop below safe levels.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Interpreting Health Risks

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Interpreting Health Risks

Community leaders are constantly asking government officials and scientists to explain the risks of being exposed to toxic chemicals. The answers they get are typically all over the place. Often people hear that you don’t have to worry, that the risks from living near a toxic contamination problem is no different than smoking cigarettes, eating a peanut butter sandwich, or living in an urban area. Government and industry further argue that it has never been proven that the health of the people at Love Canal was damaged by the chemicals leaking from the landfill, that the dangers of dioxin are overstated, and that people become “hysterical” just because they have been exposed to toxic chemicals.

No question people are upset. But they’re not upset because they can’t understand complicated risk assessments or detailed toxicity information. They are upset because government and industry trivialize their concerns, because they can’t get good information on the toxicity of chemicals, and no one will give them an honest answer about potential health effects caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.

There is no question that toxic chemicals can cause adverse health effects. What’s not so clear is how chemicals cause adverse health effects in people. Part of the reason for this is that for most chemicals, there is not enough information on what happens to people when they are exposed while eating contaminated food, drinking polluted water, or breathing toxic air. A classic 1984 National Academy of Sciences report found that we had good information on only 8% of over 65,000 chemicals in use. Not much has changed since then.

While most of the information on toxicity of chemicals comes from animal studies, the workers who manufacture toxic chemicals are the greatest source of information on the toxicity of chemicals. From their experience, we found that dusty air causes lung cancer, benzene causes leukemia, radioactive paint, bone cancer, vinyl chloride, liver cancer, and certain pesticides, muscle weakness and paralysis.

In the community, an association between health problems and exposure has been harder to “prove”, but still many examples exist, especially among children who are highly susceptible to toxic chemicals. At Love Canal, children who were born and raised next to the canal had higher rates of birth defects; in Tucson, AZ, children whose parents drank water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) were born with 2-1/2 times more heart defects than normal; and in Santa Clara County, CA, state health researchers found an “unequivocal excess” of miscarriages and birth defects in a San Jose neighborhood where trichloroethane (TCA) and other toxic chemicals were found in the drinking water.

Despite these and other findings, scientists still find it extremely difficult to tell exactly what health effects will occur following exposure to toxic chemicals. There are a number of reasons for this. First, many factors determine what happens when a person is exposed to chemicals, including how an individual body responds to exposure (this varies widely from person to person), how long exposures occur, how many chemicals you’re exposed to and their toxicity. Without knowing these variables, it’s difficult to predict what will happen when a person is exposed (in most instances, most of these factors are unknown).

A second factor is that many symptoms or diseases are not specific to a particular chemical. In most instances, there can be many causes of the symptoms that people are having. And since few physicians have any experience with exposures to toxic chemicals, rarely do they look at chemicals as a possible explanation. For example, many physicians will diagnose a person who is fatigued, moody and without appetite as “depressed”, likely to have a problem at home or at work. Seldom is exposure to toxic chemicals considered, even if it’s raised by the patient.

Another problem is determining what the “normal” rate of illness or disease is in a community. Scientists simply can’t decide amongst themselves what is normal, in large part because of the many uncertainties we’ve already discussed.

As a result, interpretation of the risks posed by exposures to toxic chemicals is largely a matter of opinion, not fact. Government and industry may criticize people for being “hysterical” or emotional when trying to explain health risks. But without clear information and explanations, people are pretty much out in the cold. Scientists need to be more honest about what is known and what’s not known about low level exposures to mixtures of chemicals. Once people have this information, they may not be fully satisfied, but at least they have a good sense of what’s known and what’s not. Then people are in a better position to decide what action they need to take.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Radon

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Radon

Radon is a colorless, tasteless and odorless gas that is radioactive and can cause cancer. It forms naturally when radioactive elements like uranium, thorium, or radium break down. This element can then move around in the environment by migrating as a gas or by dissolving in moving groundwater.

The main health concern surrounding radon is lung cancer. In the United States, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, after smoking. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Surgeon General’s office estimate that radon is responsible for more than 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year in the country. This risk is greatly increased among people who smoke.

Radon can affect your health by entering the body as a gas or in one of its multiple “progeny” forms. These progenies are other radioactive elements that form when radon decays and gives off radiation. Although they are solid, these progenies can still move around because they attach to dust particles that are easily carried around in air. As a result, the main route of exposure to radon and its progenies is through inhalation of contaminated air. The main source of exposure is people’s homes, especially poorly ventilated basements. Once breathed in, radon and its progeny particles can deposit in your lungs and impart a significant dose of radiation to the lung tissue.

Radioactive dust particles similar to those formed from radon decay are a concern for the people of Rostraver Township who live around the Westmorland landfill in Pennsylvania. Although mostly a solid waste landfill, Westmoreland also accepts certain hazardous wastes including fracking waste that in many instances is radioactive. This radioactive waste, when dissolved in the landfill’s leachate (water inside the landfill with waste dissolved in it), is planned on being treated by a new and unproved system that essentially boils leachate. The result is the formation of dust particles that can contain radioactive elements attached to them. CHEJ has helped the group working with the local community, Protect PT, with this and several other issues surrounding the proposed leachate treatment system.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Bisphenol A (BPA)

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA stands for Bisphenol A and is a man-made chemical produced in large quantities for use primarily in the production of polycarbonate plastics. It is found in a large number of everyday products such as eyewear, water bottles, and epoxy resins that coat some metal food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes.

BPA is a concerning chemical because it is one of those compounds that is in almost everything we use or come in contact with. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 2003 and 2004 found detectable levels of BPA in 93% of people sampled six years and older.

While air, dust, and water are possible sources of exposure, BPA in food and beverages is the main source of exposure for most people. BPA has been observed to leach into food from the internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods. Other items that contain BPA which come in contact with food or drinking water such as polycarbonate eating utensils, food storage containers, and water bottles can also contaminate food with BPA.

Although research into the effects of BPA in humans is not conclusive, there is mounting evidence for classifying BPA as an endocrine-disrupting compound (EDC). EDCs affect human health by disrupt hormones during key developmental stages of growth. For this reason, they can cause many different adverse health outcomes including damage to sperm quality, reduced fertility, abnormalities in sex organs, early puberty, reduced immune function, and certain cancers. BPA, specifically, seems to mirror the hormone estrogen, and studies in animals have shown decreased levels of testosterone, atrophy of male genitalia, and fertility problems.

The National Resources Defense Council put together a few tips on how to avoid BPA products here. Given the uncertainty and potential severity of BPA’s health effects, it is a good idea to be proactive and avoid unnecessary exposures to it.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Risk Assessments

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Risk Assessments

It is difficult to interpret health risks when people are exposed to toxic chemicals. This is largely driven by the lack of information about what happens to people when they are exposed to toxic chemicals.  

In the face of this uncertainty, the government, primarily the USEPA, developed the process called “risk assessment” as the means for evaluating health risks. This approach calculates the probability that exposure to a single toxic chemical, considered in isolation, will result in a specific level of harm to people. And, if the calculated probability falls below a targeted risk level defined by the government as “acceptable” (say one cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed for a lifetime), then that exposure is considered acceptable.

Risk assessment was developed in the 1970s and soon became the “go to” approach for evaluating health risks resulting from exposure to toxic chemicals, whether setting cleanup standards at Superfund sites, regulating toxic air emissions or waste water discharges, or for determining safe levels of contaminants in food. But instead of protecting or even prioritizing public health, the use of risk assessment has resulted in our regulatory system allowing broad-scale contamination of the planet by defining “acceptable” levels of contamination and exposure to toxic chemicals.

The risk assessment process has improved over the years, but it still suffers many critical limitations that make it inadequate and inappropriate for assessing public health risks. These limitations begin with a primary focus on cancer, ignoring reproductive, nervous system, immune, and other noncancer effects. This narrow focus also fails to consider the likelihood of getting rashes, headaches and dizziness, breathing disorders, allergies, liver and kidney effects, etc.

Another major limitation is the consideration of exposure to only one chemical at a time. This approach ignores the multiple chemicals that people are realistically exposed to at a contaminated site, or from an industrial source, as well as from other sources that contribute to a person’s overall toxic body burden including drinking water, ambient air, and food sources. It also ignores the additive, cumulative, and synergistic effects that result from exposures that occur daily and over time from all sources combined.

There is also great uncertainty in what we know about the toxicity of most chemicals. We actually know very little about the toxic effects of most chemicals. We have good toxicity information on only about 8% of the more than 65,000 chemicals in use. Lastly, people vary greatly in genetic characteristics, age, sensitivity and pre-existing conditions that all influence how a person responds to exposures to toxic chemicals. And, we have no way to characterize or predict this response.

To address these limitations and shortcomings, Peter Montague published  a number of explicit warnings that should accompany every formal risk assessment. These warnings include the following:

  • Assessing the risks to a hypothetical “most exposed individual” has led to a world contaminated by the cumulative effects of millions of low-level discharges and small stresses.
  • Risk assessors should acknowledge that most people are routinely exposed to mixtures of chemicals (pharmaceuticals, food additives, pesticides, secondhand smoke, vehicle exhaust, disinfectants, cleaning agents, fine particle pollution, pollutants in drinking water, and releases from consumer products (among others).
  • Risk assessments can mislead, confuse and exclude the public, thereby diminishing democratic participation.
  • Risk assessments are not scientific in the sense that they often are not reproducible when different people assess the same risks. Conclusions can vary dramatically (by a factor of 1,000 or more), depending on who’s doing the assessment.   
  • The selection of data determines the conclusions. The selection and use of particular data should be explained and defended as should the exclusion of particular data.
  • Informed consent is ethically essential. For the past 50 years, the general public and environmental justice communities in particular, have been subject to chemical exposures and other stressors without their informed consent. They suffer the consequences with their health.

While these warnings are important and could help people read and use risk assessments in reduce the danger of misusing or misunderstanding the results of the risk assessment process, they don’t address a critical question posed by people exposed to toxic chemicals: How will my health, or the health of my children, family, or community, be affected?

Risk assessment cannot answer this question, no matter how well done or how much context is provided to help reduce misuse and misunderstanding. People exposed to toxic chemicals suffer for years as scientists do health studies, health assessments, data evaluations, and risk estimates. In the end, the risk assessment process typically shows that the levels of toxic chemicals people were exposed to are not likely (or some similar caveat) to cause any adverse health effects. 

No matter how well designed, risk assessments cannot answer this question. Instead, we need to think of another way to provide relief for people who suffer from toxic chemical exposures. 

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Cadmium

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Cadmium

Cadmium is a heavy metal found naturally in the earth’s crust. It is usually found as a mineral combined with other elements such as oxygen, chlorine, or sulfur. Cadmium is used in many industries and is essential in the production of batteries, certain alloys, coatings, solar cells, plastic stabilizers, and pigments. It is also found in significant quantities in cigarette smoke.

Mining and other similar industrial activities are the main source of cadmium in the environment. Once released, cadmium and cadmium compounds are relatively water soluble and, as a result, are more mobile in most mediums such as soil and water. Furthermore, they are generally more bioavailable and tend to accumulate in plant and animal life. Because of this, the main source of cadmium exposure in non-smokers is their diet. Among smokers, cigarette smoke is the main source of exposure, with numerous studies identifying cadmium blood levels 4-5 times higher than the normal population.

Cadmium is toxic to humans, affecting multiple organs/systems including the kidneys, bones and lungs. Additionally, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies cadmium as a Class 1 carcinogen. Cadmium bioaccumulates in the human body, especially in the kidneys. The accumulation of cadmium in the kidneys leads to loss of kidney function due to decreased reabsorption of proteins, glucose, and amino acids. Skeletal damage in both human and animals exposed to high levels of cadmium has been observed, while chronic obstructive airway disease has been documented among workers.

Farm workers and other residents of China’s Hunan province have experienced an epidemic of cadmium poisoning as recently as 2014. Since the early 2000s, smelting plants proliferated in the area, operating with very little government oversight. The result was heavily contaminated rice and other vegetables grown in the area. Locals developed multiple complications, including “itai-itai” disease – a sickness first recognized in Japan in the 1960s. Although some regulations from the Chinese government have limited farming activities in land with high cadmium levels, the health effects in the population remain- yet another example of industry putting profit over a community’s health.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Xylene

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Xylene

Xylene or xylenes (used interchangeably) is a colorless, sweet-smelling chemical occurring naturally in petroleum, coal and wood tar. Xylene occurs in three forms – m-xylene, o-xylene, and p-xylene – and together they are referred to as xylenes. Like toluene, which was the subject of the previous Toxic Tuesday, xylene is an aromatic hydrocarbon that is used widely as a solvent in the printing, rubber, paint and leather industries. It is also commonly found as a solvent in pesticide products.

Xylene, being easily dissolvable in fats, also has similar health effects to toluene. Various central nervous system (CNS) problems are associated with exposure to xylenes in the air at levels as low as 100 parts per million (ppm) including headaches, dizziness, ataxia, drowsiness, excitement and tremors. At slightly more elevated levels (~200ppm), xylene can irritate the lungs, cause shortness of breath, and can cause pulmonary edema, a condition that results in excess buildup of fluid in the lungs. At larger concentrations, xylene may lead to liver and kidney damage and even cause cardiac abnormalities.

Given that xylene is a volatile organic compound (VOC), the main route of exposure is through inhalation. Automobile exhaust is one of the main sources of exposure. Hazardous waste disposal sites are another major route of exposure, given that xylene has been found in significant levels in over half of all Superfund sites. Finally, contaminated drinking water can be another significant route of exposure even if the water is not ingested.

This was the case in the village of Amesville, OH. CHEJ worked with some of the town residents to analyze the testing results of their drinking water supply after the inside of the town’s water storage tank was painted with an epoxy resin coat. Low but noticeable levels of xylene and other VOCs were found in their water supply. Despite being below the threshold of EPA’s federal drinking water standards, the constant exposure to xylene through ingestion, inhalation (e.g., showers), and dermal contact was a cause for concern. The cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple chemical exposures, such as the xylenes and the other VOCs in the case of Amesville, are very poorly understood and oftentimes result in higher incidences of disease even at very low levels of exposure.

Learn about more toxics

Categories
Toxic Tuesdays

Toluene

Toxic Tuesdays

CHEJ highlights several toxic chemicals and the communities fighting to keep their citizens safe from harm.

Toluene

Toluene is one of the most heavily produced chemicals in the US and the world. This chemical is utilized as an industrial solvent in the production of many commonly used materials such as paints, paint thinners, rubber, fingernail polish, lacquers, adhesives, and used extensively in the pharmaceutical industry.

Toluene is a clear, colorless liquid that is found in vapor form at room temperature. A common sign of significant toluene concentration in the air is a sharp and sweet odor. At this concentration in ambient air, toluene can be a fire hazard given the fact that it can become flammable at temperatures above 40°F.

The main route of exposure to toluene is through inhalation. Once inhaled, toluene is easily absorbed by your lungs and dispersed through the body, even crossing the blood-brain barrier due to how easily it dissolves in fats (highly lipophilic). The result is a myriad of central nervous system (CNS) problems including headaches, dizziness, ataxia, drowsiness, euphoria, hallucinations, tremors, seizures, and even coma; as well as respiratory, cardiovascular, and reproductive/developmental effects.

Acute exposure to high levels of toluene (≥500 parts per million) can result in multiple CNS problems within 30-60 minutes of exposure. The respiratory system can develop irritated mucous membranes and liquid accumulation in the lungs, which can lead to respiratory arrest. Finally, even short exposures to elevated levels of toluene can result in irregular heart rhythm, making cardiac arrest much more likely after intense to moderate physical activity.

Prolonged exposure to toluene levels as low as 200ppm can cause chronic CNS problems such as headaches, fatigue, nausea and difficulty sleeping. Chronic irritation of the upper respiratory tract and sore throat have been reported in people exposed to small amounts of toluene for an extended period of time. Pulmonary lesions have been documented in long-term animal studies, so this can be a potential health complication for humans. Finally, although toluene has not been confirmed as a reproductive hazard, it is able to cross the placenta and is accumulated in breast milk, meaning that it can easily reach a developing fetus or newborn.

In developing countries, toluene has become a cause for major concern due to a practice among children and young adults called glue sniffing. Glue sniffing is a form of substance abuse common in many developing countries due to its relatively inexpensive nature. The high and euphoric feelings that it produces are partly due to the ability of toluene to easily enter the central nervous system and create hallucinations and euphoria. A number of studies around the world, including in places such as SingaporeSouth Africa; and India, have documented this practice and have offered insights into how to combat this practice.

Learn about more toxics