Center for Environmental Oncology

Winter 2007 • Volume 1 • Number 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: an emerging public health risk PAGE 3 Maternal prenatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke harms babies during pregnancy PAGE 5 Center for Minority Health Addresses Health Disparities with Programs and Partnerships PAGE 6 How Many Light Bulbs Does it Take to Change the World? PAGE 8 A Heads Up on Lice PAGE 10 Fleeing From Fleas PAGE 11

ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS AGO

UPCOMING EVENTS
February 8, 2007 12 noon – 1 PM Environmental Health at the Movies, Blue Vinyl <The World’s First Toxic Comedy> (Winner Sundance Film Festival, Emmy Award Nominee for Best Documentary and Best Research) Open to the Public UPMC Cancer Pavilion 5150 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA Herberman Auditorium, Room 202 Followed by Panel Discussion. Free Healthy Lunch served. Call 412-623-1175 for more details
Continued on page 2

by: Devra L. Davis, PhD, MPH, Director, Center for Environmental Oncology of UPCI and Professor of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh and Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director, UPCI and UPMC Cancer Centers
About a hundred years ago, scientists studied smoke by comparing the color of any plume they saw to various papers shaded light gray to dark black. Today, we can rely on newly devised electronic eyes to measure the gases and particles in smoke and identify things that can be thousands of times smaller than a human hair. of these materials, common to cigarette smoke and smoke stacks, such as benzene, tars, cadmium, and butadiene, are well-known causes of cancer and other diseases in workers who have been highly exposed. Other emissions include miniscule amounts of polonium 210—concentrated levels of which were recently used Cigarette smoke remains the best-stud- to kill a former KGB agent in Britain. ied and best-known source of smoke that This newsletter expands on our prior two poses a public health threat at this time. issues (which you can access at www. But, many of the particles and gases that environmentaloncology.org) and explains arise from the smoking of tobacco also oc- how important new advances in research cur at lower levels whenever fossil fuels are making it clear that regular exposures are burned to produce energy and fuel our to small amounts of benzene and other polvehicles, or whenever accidents cause re- lutants can have grave consequences for leases of these materials into the air. Some public health.
Continued on page 2

Citation
adapted in part from 1. Davis, Devra, When Smoke Ran Like Water (New York: Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Book Groups, 2002) www.whensmokeranlikewater.com

Funding for this newletter is provided by the Highmark Foundation and the Heinz Endowments.

www.environmentaloncology.org

CEO-UPCI

About a Hundred Years Ago
Continued From Page 1

UPCOMING EVENTS
Continued from page 1 February 8, 2007 Pediatric Grand Rounds Dr. Michael Shannon of Children’s Hospital of Boston Department of Emergency Medicine will give an update on ‘Mercury’. Presented by the Departments on Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine of CHP Shannon will also speak to the residents, later at 12 noon about Global Climate Change. February 13, 2007 4-6 PM A Talk by Tyrone Hayes, PhD Assistant Professor, University of California, Berkeley “From Silent Sprint to Silent Night: Hermaphroditic Frogs, Breast Cancer and Pesticides.” Cooper Conference Center, Cooper classroom BC Please call 412-623-1175 for further information. February 14, 2007 12 -1 PM CME-accredited talk on ‘Radon’ by John Mallon, Radon Detection and Control UPMC Cancer Pavilion 5150 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh PA Herberman Conference Center, Room 201AB Please call 412-623-1175 to pre-register for healthy free lunch. March 12, 2007 12 noon – 1 PM Environmental Health at the Movies, A Healthy Baby Girl UPMC Cancer Pavilion 5150 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA Herberman Auditorium, Room 202 Followed by a Panel Discussion. Free Healthy Lunch Served. Please call 412-623-1175 for more details.
Continued on page 3

For nearly a quarter century, more than 6,000 peer-reviewed studies conducted in more than thirty different countries have consistently confirmed that regular exposures to amounts of air pollution that do not immediately kill people in the United States eventually cause between 40,000 and 100,000 people to die each year. In addition, such exposures sicken millions more with chronic coughs and lung diseases, including cancer, and cost the nation billions of dollars in work days lost and damaged crops and materials. The good news is that air pollution levels, as detected by conventional measures, have dropped dramatically—nearly fifty fold—from the days when most urban areas could be smelled before they could be seen. But the full story of what air pollution means for our health remains to be written. For instance, asthma rates have doubled despite the control of conventionally measured pollutants from cars. And what about unconventional, unmeasured pollutants? Nobody is asking whether tiny, growing emissions from degrading tires—since some chemicals in synthetic rubber are highly allergenic—could play a role. Nor are questions being raised about whether other toxic pollutants or forms of environmental degradation account for why young African American children have two to four times more asthma than whites. Using American Cancer Society information on half a million middle-class people in 154 cities from 1982 to 1998, researchers in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2003 reported that the risk of dying from lung cancer from regularly breathing air polluted with fine particulates at levels found today in America was about equal to that of living with a smoker.

In truth, warnings about this problem from the public health community were provided nearly 40 years ago. Warren Winkelstein, working for the New York State Health Department in 1968, looked at 21 areas in and around Buffalo, New York, and found that deaths from lung disease more than doubled in the dirtiest areas, compared to the cleanest. In 1955, Peter Stocks and John Campbell interviewed men dying of lung cancer in North Wales and Liverpool, England, and learned that nonsmokers living in the most polluted zones died at 10 times the rate of those living in the cleanest areas. In 1958, a study of 187,783 American Army veterans by American Cancer Society researchers Cuyler Hammond and Harold Dorn found that the death rate from lung cancer among those living in cities was twice that of residents of rural areas. What if this information had been made widely available to folks deciding where to live, and to city officials thinking about what forms of transport and energy to permit? What if, at any point in the past 48 years, these reports had been used as the grounds for making the decisions about public transport, light, heat and energy? How many lives might have been saved?1 We cannot erase history or ignore a vast body of research showing how burning fossil fuels affects our local and global health. Because our environment is so much cleaner today, it’s easy to think of pollution as something in the past, or afflicting some distant land we will never see. This newsletter makes clear that decisions we make today about how and where we live and work affect our health and that of our children for generations to come.

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

2

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

CEO-UPCI

www.environmentaloncology.org

Continued from page 2

UPCOMING EVENTS
April 5, 2007 2 – 4 PM Arlene Blum, renowned biophysical chemist, environmentalist, mountaineer and author ‘The Dilemma of Flame Retardants: Science, History, Politics’ UPMC Cancer Pavilion 5150 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA Herberman Auditorium, Room 202A April 6, 2007 5 – 7 PM, Byham Theater In collaboration with Venture Outdoors Pittsburgh: Presenting Arlene Blum, biochemist, mountaineer. Best known for leading the first American—and all women’s ascent—of Annapurna I, considered one of the world’s most dangerous mountains. First woman to attempt Mt. Everest. Author of Breaking Trail: A Climbing Life” And “Annapurna: A Woman’s Place.” Keynote speaker for the Banff Mountain Film Festival Please call 412-623-1175 for further information. April 11, 2007 12 noon – 1 PM CME-accredited talk Dr. Joe Suyama, Department of Emergency Medicine, speaking on ‘Acute Effects of Toxic Exposures’ UPMC Cancer Pavilion 5150 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA Herberman Auditorium, Room 202 Please call 412-623-1175 to pre-register for free healthy lunch. April 12, 2007 12 noon – 1 PM CME-accredited talk Dr. Jonathan Weinkle, Medicine-Pediatrics Resident and CEO Medical Consultant, speaking on ‘Environmental Health Advocacy’ (Focusing on the American Academy of Pediatrics Priorities in this area.) Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh Room B213-214 Free Healthy Lunch Served. Please call 412-623-1175 for more details.

Leaking underground storage tanks: an emerging public health risk
After World War II, the automobile became a fixture in the everyday life of Americans. The exponential growth of automobile sales resulted in the construction of thousands of gasoline stations across the country (2.2 million tanks!) Bare steel tanks, with an average tank life expectancy of 15 – 30 years, were installed underground to store gasoline. Since the 1980’s, corrosion and faulty installation and operation have resulted in widespread ground water contamination by gasoline (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX compounds) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Because fifty percent of all Americans rely on groundwater for their drinking water, these leaking underground storage tanks pose a significant public health hazard.

by: Evelyn Talbott, DrPH, Professor of Epidemiology, GSPH and Jeanne Zborowski, PhD, Senior Research Specialist, Department of Epidemiology, GSPH, University of Pittsburgh
Gasoline leaking from these tanks contaminates surrounding soil and groundwater causing both environmental and human health risks. Benzene, a component of gasoline, is categorized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a proven human carcinogen and has been linked in occupational studies to increased cancer rates, particularly of the blood forming organs (leukemia, lymphoma, etc). While workers who regularly use benzene have been consistently found to have a number of serious health problems when compared to other workers without such exposures, few studies have examined the health effects of a community exposure to low-level benzene via gasoline or other spills.
Continued on page 4

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

3

www.environmentaloncology.org

CEO-UPCI

Leaking underground storage tanks: an emerging public health risk
Continued From Page 3

POTENTIAL RISKS FROM GASOLINE EXPOSURE
For more than a century, gasoline fueled engines have been used in cars, trucks, locomotives and other motorized machinery.1 Engine exhausts contain thousands of gases and particles and are considered by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization to cause cancer. A number of key chemicals in gasoline are known to cause cancer or other serious health effects in humans or in experimental animals, including benzene, toluene, xylene, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).2 Benzene This solvent, which is also released by cigarette smoke, is known to cause cancer in humans. Long-term exposure to benzene in the workplace can cause leukemia. Regularly breathing low levels can damage the nervous system and cause anemia and other problems of the blood.3 Toluene and Xylene Although the link to cancer has not been established, regular breathing of toluene causes birth defects and brain damage, and xylene can cause loss of consciousness and even death at high levels. Importantly, in addition to the amount of benzene already present in gasoline, the EPA has determined that incomplete combustion of xylene and toluene also significantly contributes to the amount of benzene in auto exhaust. 3 MTBE Many states, including Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington D.C. have banned this gasoline additive, because of its capacity to cause cancer and damage the nervous system. MTBE from leaking underground storage tanks is found in ground water in many regions. 3 Sources 1 http://www.inchem.org/documents/ iarc/vol46/46-01.html 2 http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/EHSRM/EHS/ SARA/MSDS/gasolineunleaded2001.pdf 3 http://www.epa.gov/

In 2001 and 2002, our team of investigators from the University of Pittsburgh carried out an epidemiological study specifically examining the health effects of the Tranguch Gasoline Spill. The Tranguch Gasoline Spill has been characterized as a leakage of 50,000-900,000 gallons of gasoline from underground storage tanks in two municipalities located in northeastern Pennsylvania. As a result of the spill, it is believed that residents living within an EPA-defined remediation area were chronically exposed to low-levels of benzene sourcing from the gasoline since at least 1990. In response to community concerns, a study examined 663 individuals from 275 households that had been exposed to benzene to see whether they had a higher risk of cancer and other diseases, compared to others in Pennsylvania. Using questionnaires, we collected personal information on health, jobs, and residence. Cancers that were reported in these questionnaires were verified by physicians and cross-referenced with the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry for the period January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2000. We calculated the rate of cancer in persons exposed to benzene from leaking gasoline tanks and found that they had nearly four times more leukemia than other persons in the state. In fact, the risk of all cancer in those exposed to benzene was not higher, but the risk of leukemia, a cancer known to be tied to benzene, was greatly elevated. Four incident cases of leukemia were reported (two acute myelogenous, one chronic myelogenous, and one chronic lymphocytic). The residential location of the acute myelogenous leukemia cases directly bordered the more concentrated areas of gasoline as projected by the US Army Corps of Engineer and EPA.

The results of our University of Pittsburgh study are consistent with what has been observed in workers who regularly use benzene but with eight hour exposures, which are considerably greater. We have found that chronic low-level benzene exposure is tied with an increased risk for leukemia among residents living near the Tranguch spill site. While acute myelogenous leukemia has been definitively linked to benzene exposure in workers, our study is one of the first to suggest such an association in residents from environmental exposures in their homes. Scientists who worked on this study have met with the community to explain these results and suggested general precautions to lower personal environmental exposure to other sources of benzene, like cigarette smoke and pumping gasoline as well as housing cans of paint thinner, gasoline for lawn mowers and paint in close proximity to their living areas. Recommendations were made to public health agencies and the community based on the study’s findings. They included screening the exposed community in the future to see whether they develop other health problems. Public health officials will be engaged in surveillance in the spill-affected area in order to determine the long-term impact of this low-level exposure to gasoline. Our research is one of very few studies to extensively investigate exposures to gasoline/benzene in a community setting. Given the high prevalence of leaking underground gasoline tanks in the United States, this exposure is far from unique. Therefore, it is important for communities and public health agencies to cooperate to assess and address health effects potentially resulting from such leaks.

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

4

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

CEO-UPCI

www.environmentaloncology.org

“Studies have shown that mothers who live in zones with higher air pollution have babies with smaller heads and lower birth weights.”
Perera, F. P., Rauh, V., Tsai, Wei-Yann, Kinney, P., Camann, D., Barr, D., Bernert, T., Garfinkel, R., Tu, Yi-Hsuan, Diaz, D. Dietrich, J., and Whyatt, R. M. Effects of Transplacental Exposure to Environmental Pollutants on Birth Outcomes in a Multiethnic Population. Children’s Health. February 2003, Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 111, Number 2: 201-205

Maternal prenatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke harms babies during pregnancy
by: Stephen G. Grant, PhD, Center for Environmental Oncology of UPCI
Before becoming pregnant, many women who smoke decide that they will quit if and when they become pregnant. Whatever their thoughts on the dangers of smoking overall, they prefer not to take a chance with the health of their baby. They recognize that the problems that arise during the development of a child are likely to have life-long ramifications for his or her wellbeing. It is well known that exposures such as tobacco smoke can cause damage to DNA, the genetic material, which, if it is not repaired, becomes an irreversible “mutation.” Accumulation of such mutations occurs with age and leads to the diseases of aging, such as cancer. Thus, a child who experiences mutagenic exposure in the womb might begin life with a greater lifetime risk of developing cancer or at a In a recent study, performed under the greater risk of developing cancer at an auspices of the Center for Environmental early age. Oncology, researchers examined cells The number of mutated cord blood cells from the cord blood of babies who were and the type of mutations they carried born to mothers who either: were determined by a well-established testing procedure using a gene that should 1) smoked throughout pregnancy, have no associated health effects. 2) quit smoking when they Cells with mutations were found in blood became pregnant, or samples from all of the babies in the study, 3) were non-smokers and also because a background frequency of DNA reported whether they had significant damage and mutation is unavoidable. exposure to secondary (environmental) However, nearly twice as many mutated tobacco smoke (whether they lived or cells were found in the blood of the babies worked with smokers).
Continued on page 10

Citation
Grant, S.G. (2005) Qualitatively and quantitatively similar effects of active and passive maternal tobacco smoke exposure on in utero mutagenesis at the HPRT locus. BMC Pediatrics 5: 20

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

5

www.environmentaloncology.org

CEO-UPCI

BLUE-COLLAR WORK & INCREASED CANCER RISK
Do higher exposures to certain workplaces and environments account in part for the fact that some types of cancer are higher in African Americans? • 1 in 8 Americans is African American.1 • African American men are twice as likely to have increased cancer incidence from occupational exposures as White men. • 1 in 5 African Americans works in household cleaning and building services, or laundering and dry-cleaning. • Compared with the general U.S. population, dry-cleaning workers are at an increased risk for cancers of the esophagus, larynx, lung, and cervix. They are also at an increased risk for cancer mortality, in general.
Continued on page 7

Stephen Thomas, PhD (standing, right) and Tom Boyd, shop owner, (standing, left) with customer at Big Tom’s Barber Shop.

Center for Environmental Oncology and the Center for Minority Health Join Forces to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

by: Lora Ann Bray, BS, CCRP, Partnership Program Coordinator, NCI Cancer Information Service; Mario C. Browne, MPH, CAC, Project Director, CMH; and Stephen B. Thomas, Ph.D., FAAHB, Director, Center for Minority Health, Philip Hallen Professor of Community Health and Social Justice, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh.
In 2004, Devra L. Davis, PhD, MPH, Director, Center for Environmental Oncology of UPCI and Dr. Stephen Thomas, Director of the Center for Minority Health (CMH) in the Graduate School of Public Health (GSPH) at the University of Pittsburgh launched an innovative collaborative partnership focused on the elimination of racial and ethnic health disparities. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately 30 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. By the year 2030, that number will grow to approximately 40 percent of the U.S. population. While life expectancy and overall health of the American people have improved over the past 50 years, racial and ethnic minorities continue to suffer from a disproportionate burden of premature illness and death compared to whites. According to federal statistics, for example, the infant death rate among African Americans is still more than double that of whites; Vietnamese women suffer from cervical cancer at nearly five times the rate for white women; Hispanics accounted for 20 percent of the new cases of tuberculosis; and American Indians and Alaska Natives have disproportionately high death rates from unintentional injuries and suicide. Closing the health disparity gap will require a multidisciplinary approach that addresses both individual and environmental factors associated with chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Increasing access to health care and improving prevention, screening, and treatment services for all Americans is paramount to eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities. This is the context in
Continued on page 7

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

6

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

CEO-UPCI

www.environmentaloncology.org

Center for Minority Health Addresses Health Disparities with Programs and Partnerships
Continued from page 6

which Drs. Davis and Thomas made their commitment to make the African American community a partner in health promotion and disease prevention. Designated as a center of excellence in health by the National Institutes of Health, the CMH is at the forefront of programming to help reduce health disparities. Following the directive of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Healthy People 2010 initiative, the CMH provides community education in the disease areas of cancer, immunization, mental health, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and heart disease. To further investigate racial disparities in breast cancer incidence, researchers from the CEO and from Pitt’s GSPH, analyzed breast cancer incidence among African American and white women in the United States from 1975 to 2002. This study found that the chances of getting breast cancer in newer generations are about 21 percent higher in whites and 41 percent higher in African Americans than in previous generations of women. According to researchers at the Center for Environmental Oncology of UPCI., these findings suggest that significant resources and re-

search need to be directed toward understanding why younger African American women are at a significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer. Although there are many potential factors that could contribute to the difference in breast cancer incidence among African American and white women, environmental hormones are strong candidates, according to Dr. Davis. In particular, certain direct hormonal additives, along with hormone-mimicking compounds, such as bisphenol A, a widely used plasticizer, and preservatives, called parabens, are frequently used in personal care products used in the African American community, including deodorants, antiperspirants and many cosmetic, food and pharmaceutical products. These materials have been shown to accelerate breast cancer cell growth in cell cultures. Partnering with the African American Community for Health Promotion & Disease Prevention The CMH has established a trusted relationship with several African American owned barbershops and beauty salons in Pittsburgh. Through its H.A.I.R. (Health Advocates In Reach) initiative, the CMH

Continued from page 6

• Blue-collar women exposed to solvents in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries experience increased risk of breast cancer. • 1 in 3 African Americans works as textile pressing machine operators, bus drivers, or barbers. • Women employed in the paper and pulp industry have shown increased rates of ovarian, lung and bladder cancer. • Numerous studies have demonstrated that diesel truck drivers are approximately 50% more likely to get lung cancer than are other workers. • A 2003 study demonstrated an increased risk among male hairdressers for cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract, lung, and colon; among female hairdressers, an increased risk for cancers of the pancreas, lung, cervix, and skin (especially the scalp and neck) was noted. 1. List of workplace and cancer statistics derived from the website: http://iccnetwork.org/cancerfacts/cfs8.htm

1.)Bottom left picture - Mario Browne, MPH, (in blue shirt) and Staff members from UPMC Emergency Services Dept. at Willie Tee’s Barber Shop.

2.)Bottom right picture- Dr. Chisara Asomugha, Pediatrician, taking community resident’s blood pressure at Wade’s Barber Shop.

Continued on page 12

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

7

www.environmentaloncology.org

CEO-UPCI

How many light bulbs does it take to change the world?

by: Marcia Barr, BSCE, BBEC, Co-Director, Environmental Assessment and Control, Center for Environmental Oncology of UPCI, and Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Director, Center for Environmental Oncology of UPCI
watt CFL produces the same amount of light (lumens) as a 60-watt incandescent bulb. Using a cost of $.10 per kilowatt hour, the cost to operate a single 15watt CFL for 8,000 hours is $12 while the cost to operate six 60-watt incandescent bulbs for the same length of time is four times that amount ($48). Now consider the environmental impact. If we assume that the power plant producing the electricity for your home is also fueled by coal, that power plant will burn more coal and emit more particulates, greenhouse gases, and mercury to power an incandescent bulb than a CFL. Even though compact fluorescent lamps contain low levels of mercury (while incandescents contain no mercury), the use of CFLs results in less contamination because they last longer The math is simple. CFLs are typically and use less electricity to produce light. guaranteed to last for 8,000 hours1. Since Although CFLs are double the weight of an incandescent bulb is only guaranteed incandescents, they are 3 times cheaper for 1,250 hours on average, approximately to transport and dispose of (using a factor 6 incandescent bulbs (8,000/1,250) have of 6 for bulb longevity described above and to be bought to provide the same amount assuming costs of about $0.02 per pound of lighting as a single CFL. Because most for transportation and $0.02 per pound for of our local electricity comes from coal, disposal). If every household in our city when we make this switch we do much were to replace just one incandescent more than save money on our energy bills. bulb with a CFL that was on continuously, We reduce the amount of coal that needs we would save more than $12 million to be burned to keep our homes, schools, dollars annually, chiefly in the form of and businesses lit, and thereby lower reduced costs for electricity. the amount of air pollution in the form At this time of year, when daylight is of ultra-fine particulates, mercury, and scarce, the holidays of Christmas, greenhouse gases. Kwanzaa and Hanukah feature lighting as An old joke goes: “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?” The answer is simple, “None. The light bulb has to want to change itself.” Today, the Pittsburgh region can save millions of dollars, if each one of us would swap a single incandescent light bulb in our home for a single compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). Although they initially cost more to buy, CFLs cost much less to use because they require one-fourth as much electricity to produce the same amount of lighting, and last about six times longer than incandescents. This means that the total cost of using CFLs over their life cycle is much cheaper than incandescent light bulbs. Refer to the below table titled “A life Cycle Assessment of Incandescent Bulbs Versus Compact Fluorescent Lamps.” Now let’s look at the cost to use the bulb. part of their celebrations. A nationwide CFLs use about one quarter of the power campaign, “A light among nations” is of an incandescent. In other words, a 15- being spearheaded in Pittsburgh by the
Continued on page 9

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

8

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

CEO-UPCI

www.environmentaloncology.org

How many light bulbs does it take to change the world?
Continued From Page 8

local Jewish community to engage all of us in awareness, advocacy and action to conserve energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote energy legislation. A feature of this program (easily achievable by each of us) is to change a few of your bulbs to CFLs. To date, with just 50,000 bulbs sold nationwide, the campaign has already kept 144,000 tons of carbon

dioxide alone (.001 tons CO2 per kWh in an 8,000 hour timeframe) from entering our atmosphere. (Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The Impact of Environmental Externality Requirements on Renewable Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, July 1994). For more information, visit www.coejl.org/ climatechange.

Citations
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp 2. A 15-watt CFL produces an equivalent amount of light as a 60-watt incandescent bulb. 3. Based on shipping weights found at Target.com. 4. Assuming plant is fueled by coal. 5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4922496.stm 6. Analysis based on hours of light produced (8,000 hours = 1 CFL = 6 incandescent bulbs). Therefore, six incandescent bulbs must be compared with one CFL. 7. 0.00006452 lbs/1,000 kWh, varies regionally depending on coal content.

A LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF INCANDESCENT BULBS VERSUS COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMPS
8,000 hour timeframe1 Purchase and replacement costs (Includes energy to manufacture the bulbs and lamps) Energy required to manufacture the bulb4,5 Operational costs per 8,000 hours of light (using a cost of $.10 per kilowatt hour) Transportation costs per 8,000 hours of light Disposal costs per 8,000 hours of light Life Cycle Cost6 Mercury emissions resulting from bulb manufacture4,7 Mercury emissions resulting from generating electricity to power the bulb4,7 Non-monetized Mercury Only Environmental Burden6 60-watt Incandescent 6*$0.50 = $3.00 15-watt Compact Fluorescent2 $2. 25

1 kWh/bulb $48.00

4 kWh/bulb $12.00

6*$0.02/pound*2 ounces3 = $0.015 6*$0.02/pound*2 ounces3 = $0.015 $51.03/ 6 bulbs 0.006 ounces/6,000 bulbs

$0.02/pound*4 ounces3 = $0.005 $0.02/pound*4 ounces3 = $0.005 $14.26/ bulb 0.004 ounces/1,000 bulbs

0.5 ounces/ 6,000 bulbs

0.12 ounces/ 1,000 bulbs

0.506 ounces of mercury/6,000 bulbs

0.124 ounces of mercury/1,000 bulbs

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

9

www.environmentaloncology.org

CEO-UPCI

Maternal prenatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has the same harmful effects on the baby as active smoking
Continued From Page 5

whose mothers smoked than in the blood of those babies whose mothers neither smoked nor were exposed to secondary smoke. To our surprise, the blood of the babies whose mothers reported only secondary exposure had just as many mutant cells as those of the smoking mothers, and the mutations were of the same types, which were known to be caused by the carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Other researchers have recently reported that developing babies are particularly sensitive to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, the major type of carcinogen found in tobacco smoke. To our dismay, our findings showed that the blood of the children whose mothers quit smoking during pregnancy also had high numbers of mutant cells. This raises the possibility that tobacco smoke damages babies before the mother even

knows she is pregnant. Because of this, we concluded that smoking, and secondary exposure to tobacco smoke, should be avoided by all women who are “likely to become pregnant.” It is important to note, however, that all of the women who quit smoking reported ongoing exposure to secondary smoke, so this might be the source of the increased mutation. What these data indicate is that it is not enough for a woman to stop smoking. In order to protect her child from the effects of secondary exposure, a woman’s home and her workplace must be made smoke-free as well. In particular, the father’s smoking during the baby’s development may have harmful effects on the health of the baby, effects that may undermine the mother’s efforts to protect the health of her child.

A Head’s Up on Lice
by: Marcia Barr, BSCE, BBEC, Co-Director, Environmental Assessment and Control, Center for Environmental Oncology of UPCI
Head lice are tiny, wingless bugs about What are the symptoms? the size of a sesame seed. They have six • Itching and scratching often occurs, legs with tiny claws and live only on huwhich may lead to small red bumps man scalps. or sores. How to tell if your child has lice… • Continued scratching may result • Lice can be seen with the naked eye in bacterial infection, which may by separating hair strands with a fine require a topical or oral antibiotic. tooth comb. How are lice spread? • Adult lice are brownish tan in color • Lice are highly contagious, but and their eggs (nits) are yellow or tan. cannot fly or jump. • Nits may look like dandruff but cannot • Spreading occurs from head to be brushed or shaken off. head contact, sharing of clothing, • Nits are easier to locate than lice. towels, bed linens (pillows), combs and brushes, and hats.
Continued on page 11

INFORMATION ADAPTED FROM THE FOLLOWING WEBSITES:
http://www.safe2use.com/nntl/sitemap-n.htm http://www.getipm.com/notnicetolice/rpn-article.htm http://www.care2.com/channels/solutions/home/372 http://www.liceout.com/ http://www.headliceinfo.com/faqs.htm

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

10

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

CEO-UPCI

www.environmentaloncology.org

A Head’s Up on Lice
Continued From Page 10

How are lice treated? Lice are difficult to remove because of their size, life cycle, and their developed resistance to insecticides. If not treated correctly, they can be a persistent and recurring problem. Getting rid of head lice is a three-step process: 1 Kill all lice and nits. Beware of medicated shampoos, creams, or lotions. Familiar over-the-counter brand names include: Rid, Nix, Pronto and Clear. However, these products contain pesticides (pyrethrin, permethrin, lindane, malathion and others), also known as pediculicides, and may not be advisable for babies, pregnant women, or people with chronic disease such as asthma, cancer, or AIDS. Moreover, pesticides can enter our soils and waterways and ultimately end up in our food and drinking water.

soap and oils can be found in health food stores) to the lathered hair and apply conditioner liberally • Rinse and rewash with this same mixture • After rewashing, do not rinse, but wrap a towel around the head and wait for 30 minutes • Comb clean hair through with a normal comb first • Comb from roots along the complete length of the hair with a nit-removing comb, strand by strand, until all nits are removed (this takes a while). Dampen hair as needed. • Work methodically over the whole head for at least 30 minutes • Wash and rinse the hair. Once dry, check thoroughly for any missed nits. • Thoroughly clean the comb, hands, bedding, and clothing. Pillows can be placed in the freezer overnight. You can comb a lice-repellant essential oil through the hair. The best choices of repellent essential oils are tea tree, neem, rosemary, lavender, eucalyptus, and rose geranium. Add 10 drops of essential oil to 1 oz. oil. Comb through the hair. Or make a tea tree oil shampoo by adding 10 drops of tea tree oil to 1 oz. of shampoo. • Repeat the process every few days for at least two weeks Smothering head lice with olive oil (after washing and combing hair) is safe and effective, but can be complicated. • Lice breathe through holes in their sides. When you cover these
Continued on page 12

FLEEING FROM FLEAS
Fleas are reddish brown to black, wingless external parasites that are generally found on the skin of cats, dogs and other animals. Although fleas prefer domesticated animals, when supply is short, fleas will bite humans or other animals. What are symptoms of fleas? • Some cat fleas are suspected of transmitting murine typhus to humans; however, primarily the bites are the major nuisance. • Bites itch and appear as a central red spot surrounded by a red halo. • Some may have an allergic reaction to the bite. How to manage fleas without using pesticides* • Thoroughly clean pet beds and resting areas both indoors and outdoors in hot soapy water • Thoroughly and regularly vacuum floors, rugs, carpets, upholstered furniture, and crevices around corners to remove flea eggs and larvae • Place vacuum bags in a sealed bag and throw out since flea eggs and larvae can survive inside the bags • Use a special comb to remove fleas from your pet and comb on regular intervals to reduce occurrence of fleas • Spray your pet daily with a 50/50 mixture of white vinegar and water • Use an enzyme shampoo on your pet • Mix brewer’s yeast, or vitamin B or garlic tablets in with pet food. • Rub animal’s coat with fennel, rue, and rosemary • Place eucalyptus seeds and leaves where the animal sleeps *As a last resort and after consulting with a veterinarian, use topical liquid spot treatment

Lice can become resistant to repeated treatments with pesticides. “Retail Pharmacy News” offers an extensive list of alternatives to toxic pesticides including the following: • “Not Nice To Lice” contains filtered and purified water, and natural enzyme cleaners including Protease, Lipase, Cellulase and Amylase • “LiceOut” is a non-toxic water-based gel 2 Check for and remove all nits by wet combing and manual nit picking or by smothering with olive oil.

Wet combing and manual nit picking: • Wash hair as normal, preferably with a coconut-oil castile soap. Add a few drops of tea tree oil and neem oil (the

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3

Center for Environmental Oncology — University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute

11

Printed on chlorine-free 100% PCW Recycled Paper, with Soy-Inks.

www.environmentaloncology.org

Center for Minority Health Addresses Health Disparities with Programs and Partnerships
Continued from page 7

coordinated prostate cancer education and screening programs in the barbershops. Now, the CMH and CEO plan to partner with shops and salons to disseminate information on cancer and the environment and on strategies to reduce one’s individual risk of developing the disease. Additional Tools to Address Health Disparities In 2003, the CMH received the subcontract to operate the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Atlantic Region Cancer Information Service (CIS) for Western, Pennsylvania. The CIS provides the latest and most accurate cancer information for patients and their families, the public, and health professionals. This is accomplished through its regional CIS Partnership Program provision of technical assistance as well as program planning and implementation in partnership with organizations reaching underserved populations.

This collaboration increases the capacity of the CMH to fulfill its mission by integrating CIS services and tools into its existing infrastructure of research, training, and service. Two program planning tools, Cancer Control PLANET—a web portal on comprehensive cancer control planning and Consumer Health Profiles—a collection of geographic, demographic, and health and lifestyle data position the CMH to help partners identify the cancer burden in their community. CMH and CEO will use these tools to further advance environmental issues. Through its numerous partnerships and programs, the Center for Minority Health is making progress towards its mission to eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities.

Winter 2007 Volume 1 • Number 3
ADDITIONAL INTERNET RESOURCES
Beyond Pesticides www.beyondpesticides.org Breast Cancer Fund www.breastcancerfund.org Children’s Health and Environmental Coalition www.checnet.org Department of Environmental Quality www.deq.state.mi.us/sid-web Environmental Working Group www.ewg.org Health Goods www.healthgoods.com Health Care Without Harm www.hcwh.org OSHA www.osha.gov The American Head Lice Information Center www.headliceinfo.com

A Head’s Up on Lice
Continued From Page 11

holes with olive oil, the lice will die. However, it takes awhile for them to die, because head lice can shut down their systems for hours. Knowing how and when to use a smothering program is essential. Consult with your physician. • The least expensive pumice-grade or restaurant-grade olive oil works best. • Mineral oil (including baby oil) is not recommended because it can be harmful to mucous membranes. 3 Do a reasonable job of cleaning the infested person’s belongings and home environment.

• Thoroughly clean your child’s towels, linens, clothes, hats and toys by adding a few drops of essential oils that repel or kill lice • Wash in hot water and dry towels and linens on very high heat • Place toys and stuffed animals (that cannot be cleaned) in plastic bags and keep sealed for two weeks. This will kill the lice. • Replace all combs, brushes and barrettes, or if possible boil items in water. • Vacuum carpets and cars

The Collaborative on Health and the Environment www.healthandenvironment.org The CDC www.cdc.gov The E-House Company www.ehousecompany.com The Green Guide www.thegreenguide.com The National Cancer Institute www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics Safe 2 Use www.safe2use.com Venture Outdoors www.ventureoutdoors.org

Please share this newsletter and be sure it is recycled.

12

Photo on page 5 courtesy of Clean Air for Healthy Children and Families (cigarette and smoke were added after photo was taken)