The
Toxic School Syndrome in Australia
Anne
Stanton BA Lit B Cert IV
This
article reviews the current state of knowledge on chemical
contamination and its effects on human health, and examines
the implications for Australian children in the school
environment. It looks at some of the more hazardous substances
in use in schools, and reviews some non-toxic alternatives
to current school maintenance programs that rely on chemical
cleaning products and dangerous pesticides.
We
are approaching a time of reckoning for the health and
regulatory authorities in Australia. A time to assess
the costs to human health of the tidal wave of synthetic
chemicals produced for commercial purposes since the 1930's,
and now ubiquitous in marketplaces all over the world.
We are living in a chemical soup.
Many of these chemicals are neurotoxic,
many are cumulative poisons and weaken the immune system.
Children have been estimated to be six times more vulnerable
to damage via chemical exposure, because they inhale or
ingest more chemicals per unit of body weight.
"We are in the midst of a silent epidemic, an unrecognized
emergency, an educational 'ecotastrophe'. " (1)
This
is the opinion of Irene Ruth Wilkenfeld, a professional
free-lance medical writer & safe schools advocate
in the US. She believes that children and teachers alike
"face many unsuspecting exposures to a hidden cluster
of "subliminal stressors," that undermine their health,
mood, behavior and learning ability, and contribute to
the sick school syndrome."
Evidence
is beginning to mount that continuous exposure to chemical
contamination in the workplace or home environment may
be associated with a wide range of common 'diseases' such
as asthma and bronchitis, gastrointestinal disease, skin
disease, pernicious anaemia and chronic fatigue syndrome.
(2)
Contamination
of schools, pre-schools and daycare facilities is a serious
public health issue requiring urgent attention.
Indoor
Air Pollution
Energy-efficient, tightly sealed buildings contain the
fumes which out-gas from furnishings, carpets, pressed
board products, glue, paints, and roofing materials. Maintenance
chemicals, such as pesticides, disinfectants, deodorizers,
waxes, and surface cleaners, add to the fumes. Office
and classroom equipment, and materials used in science
labs and art rooms, also contain hazardous chemicals.
There
are approximately 900 identified indoor air pollutants,
many of which are capable of causing cognitive, behavioural
and immune dysfunction. Since the 1980's there has been
a steady flow of legal actions in the United States claiming
compensation for loss caused by exposure to indoor air
pollutants. (3)
These
legal actions have been brought against building owners
and operators, architects, building production manufacturers,
suppliers and maintenance contractors. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency now rates indoor air pollution as one
of its top four environmental concerns. (4)
Several highly
toxic chemicals are currently in use in most Australian
schools, found in cleaning products, air fresheners, classroom
stationery, art and craft supplies, and pesticides, to
name just a few sources. Existing school maintenance programs
do not adequately limit or minimise exposure to these
hazardous chemicals in the school environment.
Health
problems related to student exposure to these chemicals
may include:-
asthma, chronic respiratory disease,
upper respiratory infections,
suppressed immunity,
altered nervous system function,
possible permanent nervous system damage, and cancer.
Learning difficulties and behavioural problems are
also implicated (5), as is the absentee rate.
Children are at much greater risk of chemical exposure than
adults are because they inhale or ingest more chemicals
per unit of body weight. A child's immune and nervous systems
are still developing and are more susceptible to environmental
damage. The Toxic School may trigger chemical injury and
hypersensitivity reactions and adversely impact a child's
ability to learn.
"We
are sabotaging our children's success in school with our
ignorance, our inertia and our silence. Until school-based
environmental exposures are substantially curtailed, our
nation's youngsters will continue to fall short of our
educational goals."(6)
TABLE 1
| SOME
HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS USED IN AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS
(7) |
|
Name |
Found
in |
Used
in |
Effects |
| Xylene |
Textas, Whiteboard markers |
Classrooms |
Damages
central nervous system, eyes, gastrointestinal tract,
blood, liver, kidneys, & skin |
| 111
Trichlorethane |
Liquid
Paper |
Classrooms |
Acts
as a narcotic, depresses central nervous system, attacks
skin, eyes & cardiovascular system |
| Ethylene
Glycol MonoButyl Ether |
Spray
& wipe cleaners & Floor Polishers , Pesticides |
Classrooms
Outdoor Playing Areas |
Irritates Upper Respiratory Tract,
suppresses immune system, damages male & female
reproductive systems, causes headaches & skin
irritation, linked to anaemia and other blood disorders
|
| Aromatic
Hydrocarbons eg Toluene |
Paints
& Varnishes |
Classrooms |
Flu-like
symptoms, aggression, resumed bed-wetting, headaches,
watery eyes |
| Chlorpyrifos |
Pesticides |
Classrooms
Outdoor
Playing Areas |
Damages
central nervous system, affects behaviour, learning,
emotions. Prolonged exposure can cause permanent brain
damage. |
"Safe"
levels of Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals
Dr.
John Pollak, in his book The Toxicity of Chemical Mixtures
(CHAST & PIAC 1993), estimates that between 50,000
- 100,000 chemicals are now in common use. The quantities
of chemicals produced has also skyrocketed (8). In the
1930's, about one million tonnes of organic or carbon-based
chemicals were produced annually. By 1950, production
was 7 million tonnes/year; by 1985 it was 250 million
tonnes/year. Based on these figures, Pollak estimates
that annual production of organic chemicals will double
every 7-8 years.
Until
recently, very little research has been done on the "safe"
levels of exposure to commonly used chemicals. Threshold
Limit Values (TLV's) define the official "safe" limit
of exposure to hazardous substances, and are used as a
guide by many industries to set their guidelines for safe
practice in the workplace. NIOSH are a different set of
standards from Canada, and often conflict with TLV limits.
One
researcher found that scientists employed by the manufacturer
of the chemicals often write the documentation used to
support the TLV's. In addition, the available research
is very poor - less than 10% of chemicals have been studied
for long term effects in humans or animals, and less than
1% for their effect on immune system function. (9)
In
Australia, there is a worrying lack of co-ordination and
communication between the various organisations responsible
for setting safe levels of exposure to particular contaminants.
The National Occupational Health & Safety Commission
(Worksafe Australia) is concerned with Industrial and
Occupational exposure. The National Industrial Chemicals
Notification Assessment Scheme (NICNAS - WorkSafe), collects
MSDS on industrial chemicals.
The
National Registration Authority (NRA - Dept of Primary
Industry) deals only with Agricultural and Veterinary
chemicals, and makes recommendations regarding contaminants
in food. The National Health & Medical Research Council
(NHMRC -Dept of Health) looks only at contaminated land
issues. They will occasionally consult with the Australian
& New Zealand Energy Conservation Council (ANZECC),
who are responsible for contaminants in water and soil.
There
is a need for an information delivery system that accesses
the resources of all these official bodies in Australia,
and presents a national set of standards on the safe levels
of exposure to hazardous chemicals. It is hoped that the
National Environment Protection Council (NEPC) can make
progress towards this end, without succumbing to industry
pressure, in the setting of National Environment Protection
Measures in Australia.
Material
Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are fact sheets giving information
about the hazardous chemical ingredients in commercial
products. The manufacturer is required to provide the
MSDS for the product on request. MSDS sheets downloaded
from Canadian and U.S. sites on the internet (12) provide
up to nine pages of detailed information on each chemical,
including human health hazard data, effects of long-term
exposure, safe handling and storage guidelines and first
aid procedures.
In
Australia, the current WorkSafe requirements are very
loose on MSDS contents. As a consequence, in Australia,
there is no standard format, information varies from one
to nine pages, and for most products containing a mixture
of chemicals, no information is available on chronic toxicity.
On most MSDS sheets a full break-up of the ingredients
is not present. High quality, comprehensive information
on chemical ingredients must be available to all occupational
health & safety officers, particularly those responsible
for the welfare of children. Viable
Alternatives
Pest
Management in Schools
The
NSW WorkCover Authority presently approves ten commercial
insecticides for use in controlling cockroaches in schools.
Six of these are classed as moderately to highly hazardous
and contain highly toxic ingredients such as organophosphates
and carbamates, which affect the central nervous system
of all exposed mammals - human and insect.
Why
include highly hazardous pesticides in a list of approved
materials? There is clearly industry pressure, from manufacturers
and pest controllers, to allow unrestricted use of any
registered product. Apparently, the more toxic insecticides
have a cheaper cost per unit, and remain active for longer
periods, which allows a good margin for error when competitively
quoting on prices and warranty periods.
In
NSW schools, outsourced pest management is paid for by
Public Works, whereas the schools must pay for continuous
inspection and monitoring treatments. This has been identified
by one non-toxic pest management company in Sydney as
an economic disincentive for schools wishing to change
to less dangerous pest management methods.
Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) is a new approach to controlling
pests, combining physical, cultural, biological and chemical
methods. Preventative maintenance and appropriate hygiene
measures mean that much of the non-chemical aspects of
a pest management strategy can be safely administered
by the school, and the students' exposure to toxic chemicals
minimised. (10)
Cleaning
and Maintenance in Schools
Current
cleaning methods increase children's risk of chemical
exposure in schools. Residues and vapour from surface
cleaners and disinfectants pollute the indoor environment.
Toxic solvents like 2-butoxyethanol, banned in the UK
and US, are present in many surface-cleaning products
used by contract cleaners in Australia.
A
safe, cheap and environmentally friendly approach to school
cleaning and maintenance involves the use of Steam
Cleaning machines. Using only tap water, (approx.
1.5 litres/hour as high-pressure super-heated steam 120C+),
electricity and a variety of task-specific fibre attachments,
this method efficiently removes dirt, dust mites, bacteria
and moulds from any surface, including floors, desks,
tiles, ovens, bedding and car upholstery.
Old-fashioned
do it yourself mixtures of soap, vinegar, bi-carb and
eucalyptus oil, or ready made commercial products made
from plants and minerals, can be substituted for petro-chemical
based commercial cleaning products.
Professional
TAFE- accredited training courses are now available in
non-toxic domestic and industrial cleaning methods.(11)
At Newport Primary School in Victoria, the students help
with the cleaning. Their teacher, who is also a trainer
in Green Cleaning methods, uses the steam machine and
its attachments for a variety of maintenance purposes
in the school.
Letters
and the pamphlet Some Toxic Hazards in Schools,
were sent to 30 government primary schools in the ACT
in July 1996. Since then, letters and submissions on the
Toxic School Syndrome have been sent or presented to the
Department of Education, ACT Occupational Health and Safety,
the National Health Promoting Schools Initiative (ACT),
the ACT Chemical Inquiry and the ACT Council of P&C
Associations.
The
Canberra community is showing increasing interest in alternatives
to current school maintenance programs. NTN organised
a demonstration of non-toxic school maintenance and cleaning
methods in August '97, and a special screening of the
film,The Final Insult, a one hour documentary on chemical
sensitivity and toxic pollution.
The seminar was called "SOLUTIONS to the SICK BUILDING
SYNDROME".
Details of the seminar, and suppliers of non toxic products
& services, are available on the NON
TOXIC DIRECTORY site.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge
the enlightened efforts of the following individuals and
groups in providing information, help, and groundwork
on the Toxic School Syndrome:
Helen Gugler; Eve Hillary;
Ann Want ( Bonville Primary School); Mariann Grinter (NTN);
Mary Steel; Laurel Hines (Newport Primary School); Peter
Harding (ACTA); Jo Imig ( TEC); Des Brierly (Cleanhouse
Effect); David Speller (Connect/Green Clean)
NOTES
1.
Safe Schools - Irene Ruth Wilkenfeld; http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~wilk/
2.
Ashford, Nicholas A. & Miller, Claudia S. "Chemical
Exposures - Low Levels and High Stakes". ,Van Nostrand
Reinhold, N.Y; pp 59 - 84
3.
Steineprels, Greg, "Legal Liability for 'Sick Buildings'",
pub. in Construction Engineering & Major Projects,
Minter Ellison, November 1996, p 4
4.
Steineprels, Greg, p 4
5.
Ashford, Nicholas A. & Miller, Claudia S. p74
6.
Irene Ruth Wilkenfeld ; Safe Schools web site - index.html
7.
Stanton, Anne ;LocalWeb Canberra Environment News
web site -toxicsch.htm
8.
Pollack, John K. "The Toxicity of Chemical Mixtures."
P 2
9.Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity, a Workplace Health & Safety
Centre pub., Auckland, NZ
10.Garthwin,
Steve Toxic Playground Conference Papers p
19
11.Green
Clean ; TAFE Certificate in Industrial & Commercial
Cleaning; see Connect Employment & Training Services,
Collingwood, Vic.
12.
See Internet Resources List
REFERENCES
"The Toxic Playground - Reducing the toxic chemical load
in schools and childcare centres" Proceedings from
the Conference, May 1995, Total Environment Centre,
Sydney
"Reproductive Effects and Genetic Results of Exposure
to Toxics" Transcript of the Blackmores/ACTA Conference
1996, Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance Inc. 1997.
Steineprels, Greg, "Legal Liability for 'Sick Buildings'",
pub. in Construction Engineering & Major Projects,
Minter Ellison, November 1996
Want, Ann, "Toxic Chemicals in Schools", WellBeing
Magazine No.67, p82 -84
"Bonville cleans out the cupboard", Education Review
March 1997
Wilkenfeld, Irene Ruth,"A Closer Look at Schools and Health",
Informed Consent Nov/Dec 1993
IMF Bulletin on Occupational Health & Safety
- Special Issue on Solvents , No 7 April 1980, OH&S
Dept International Metalworkers' Federation.
Babin, Peltz & Rossol, "Children's Art Supplies Can
Be Toxic", Centre for Safety in the Arts, New York
Duehring, Cindy "Chemical Injury, CFIDS and Chemical Sensitivity
- A Crossroads for Industry & Society" An Interview
with Gunnar Heuser, Informed Consent Nov/Dec 1993
Smith, Alan, "Safe Use and Storage of Workplace Chemicals
in Schools" - NSW Dept of Education Draft Report 20 Jan
1997
"Multiple Chemical Sensitivities" by the National Academy
of Sciences, National Academy Press; and the addendum;-
"Biological Markers in Immunotoxicology",
Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Commission
on Life Sciences; National Research Council; 1992;
National Academy Press, Washington DC
Ashford, Nicholas A. & Miller, Claudia S. "Chemical
Exposures - Low Levels and High Stakes". ,Van Nostrand
Reinhold, N.Y.; a report to the new Jersey State Health
Department
Miller, Claudia S.; "Chemical Sensitivity: symptom,
syndrome or mechanism for disease?", 1995 Conference
on Risk Assessment Issues for Sensitive Human Populations
Mitchell, Frank L., (Ed), "Toxicology & Industrial
Health", US Department of Health & Human Services,
ATSDR. Volume 10, number 4/5 July - October 1994. Proceedings
of the Conference on Low-Level Exposure to Chemicals and
Neurobiologic Sensitivity.
Pollack, John K. "The Toxicity of Chemical Mixtures. An
Introduction to Recent Developments in Toxicology"; 1993.
The Centre for Human Aspects of Science and Technology
(CHAST) and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC).
Hillary, Eve "Children of a Toxic Harvest", 1997, Lothian
Short, Kate "Quick Poison Slow Poison -Pesticide Risk
in the Lucky Country", 1994, Envirobook, Sydney.
