Asthma rise 'link' to pool chemicals

Chemicals used to keep swimming pools clean may be behind the rise in asthma in children, a study suggests.

Researchers in Belgium have found that chlorine in pools can react with sweat or urine to create harmful fumes which can damage lungs.

They believe exposure to these fumes leaves children susceptible to allergens, which may then trigger asthma.

Dr Alfred Barnard and colleagues at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels carried out tests on 226 primary school children who had swum regularly - either weekly or fortnightly - in indoor pools from a young age.

They also carried out tests on 16 children, between the ages of five and 14, and 13 adults, aged between 26 and 47.

They measured levels of key lung proteins in all of these people. The proteins they measured are known to cause damage to cells in lungs if they are present in high quantities.

The researchers found that children who regularly attend indoor pools accumulate these proteins, making them more at risk from asthma.

'Minimum exposure'

They found that children who swam most frequently had protein levels similar to people who smoke regularly.

Protein levels were also high in people who had been sitting at the poolside and had not swum.

While such high levels do not in themselves cause asthma, they may increase the risks of lung damage.

The researchers suggested that they could increase the risks of children developing asthma.

But they acknowledged that further research was needed to confirm their theory.

Nevertheless, they suggested that there may be a case for pools to be cleaned with non-chlorinated disinfectants.

Writing in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, they said: "The question needs to be raised as to whether it would not be prudent in the future to move towards non-chlorine based disinfectants or at least to reinforce water and air quality control in indoor pools in order to minimize exposure to these reactive chemicals."

Is the chlorine in our drinking water acting as catalyst triggering tumor development both in atherosclerosis and cancer? The addition of chlorine to our drinking water started in the late 1890’s and had wide acceptance in the United States by 1920. Joseph Price, M. D, wrote a fascinating yet largely ignored book in the late 1960’s, entitled Coronaries Cholesterol. Chlorine, Dr Price believes, is the primary and essential cause of atherosclerosis is chlorine. "Nothing can negate the incontrovertible fact the basic cause of atherosclerosis and resulting entities, such as heart attacks and most common forms of strokes is chlorine. The chlorine contained in processed drinking water." (1)

This conclusion is based on experiments using chlorine in the drinking water of chickens. The results: 95% of the chickens given chlorine added to distilled water developed atherosclerosis within a few months.

Atherosclerosis, heart attacks and the resulting problems of hardening of the arteries and plaque formation is really the last step in a series of biochemical malfunctions. Price points out it takes ten to twenty years before symptoms in humans become evident. In many ways, this is reminiscent of cancer which can take twenty to thirty years to develop.

Can chlorine be linked to cancer too? In the chlorination process itself, chlorine combines with natural organic matter decaying vegetation to form potent cancer causing trihalomethanes (THM’s) or haloforms. Trihalomethanes collectively include such carcinogens as chloroforms, bromoforms carbon tectachloride, bischlorothane and others. The amount of THM’s in our drinking water is theoretically regulated by the EPA. Although the maximum amount allowed by law is 100 ppb, a 1976 study showed 31 of 112 municipal water systems exceeded this limit. (2)

According to some studies by 1975, the number of chemical contaminants found in finished drinking water exceeded 300. (3) In 1984 over 700 chemicals had been found in our drinking water The EPA has targeted 129 as posing the greatest threat to our health. Currently the EPA enforces federal standards for 34 drinking water contaminants. In July, 1990 they proposed adding 23 new ones and expects this list increasing to 85 in 1992. (4)

Another report claims the picture is much worse. According to “Troubled Waters on Tap" over 2100 contaminants have been detected in U. S. drinking water since 1974 with 190 known or suspected to cause adverse health effects at certain concentration levels. In total, 97 carcinogens and suspected carcinogens, 82 mutagens and suspected mutagens, 28 acute and chronic toxic contaminants and 23 tumor promoters have been detected in U. S. drinking water since 1974. The remaining 90% of the organic matter present in drinking water has not been identified by testing to-date.

“Compounds in this concentration could pose serious toxic effects, either alone or in combination with other chemicals found in drinking water. Overall, available scientific evidence continues to substantiate the link between consumption of toxins in drinking water and serious public health concerns, Studies have strengthened the association between ingestion of toxins and elevated cancer mortality risks."(5)

Studies in New Orleans, Louisiana; Eric County, New York, Washington County Maryland, and Ohio County, Ohio reveal high levels of haloforms or THM ‘s in drinking water. The result – higher levels of cancer. (6) (7) (8) (9)

“The continued use of chlorine as the main drinking water disinfectant in the United States only adds to the organic chemical contamination of drinking water supplies. The current federal standard regulation of trihalomethanes does not adequately protect water consumers from the multitude of other organic chlorination by-products that have been shown in many studies to be mutagenic and toxic.”(5)

"Chlorine is so dangerous" according to biologist/chemist Dr. Herbert Schwartz," that it should be banned. Putting chlorine in the water is like starting a time bomb. Cancer, heart trouble, premature senility, both mental and physical are conditions attributable to chlorine, treated water supplies. It is making us grow old before our time by producing symptoms of ageing such as hardening of the arteries. I believe if chlorine were now proposed for the first time to be used in drinking water it would be banned by the Food and Drug Administration."(10)

Many municipalities are experimenting with a variety of disinfectants to either take the place of chlorine or to be used in addition, as a way of cutting down on the amount of chlorine added to the water However these alternatives such as chlorine dioxide, bromine chloride, chloromines, etc., are just as dangerous as chlorine. We’ re replacing one toxic chemical with another.

On the positive side, some cities are starting to use aeration carbon filtration, ultraviolet light and ozone as safe alternatives to chemical disinfectants. But the number of cities and the number of people getting water from these methods is minimal.

How can chlorination be linked to heart disease and cancer? In Super Nutrition for Healthy Hearts Dr Richard Passwater shows how "the origin of heart disease is akin to the origin of cancer" Chlorination could very well be a key factor linking these two major diseases Chlorine creates THM's and haloforms. These potent chemical pollutants can trigger the production of excess free radicals in our bodies. Free radicals cause cell damage. Excess free radicals can cause normal smooth muscle cells in the arterial wall to go haywire, to mutate. The fibrous plaque consequently formed is essentially a benign tumor. (11) Unfortunately, this tumor is linked with the origin of heart disease.

If your drinking water is chlorinated, don’t drink it. You can purchase very effective filters which will remove 99% of the THM’s or purchase proper bottled spring water. Just this simple safeguard may save thousands from heart disease and cancer - the two major degenerative killers in the United States.

1. Price JM. Coronaries Cholesterol/Chlorine. NY: Pyramid, 1969.
2. Maugh TH. New Study Links Chlorination and Cancer Science 1983; 211 (February 13): 694.
3. Wilkins JR, Reiches NA, Kruse CW. Organic Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water and Cancer AM. J. Epidemology 1979; 114: 179-190.
4. U.S Water News. EPA Seeking to Expand Number of Drinking Water Contaminants to 34. August 1990: 8
5. Conacher D. Troubled Waters on Tap Organic Chemicals in Public Drinking Water Systems and the Failure of Regulation. Wash D. C: Center for Study of Responsive Law, 1988: 114.
6. Page T, Harris RH, Epstein SS. Drinking Water and Cancer Morality in Louisiana. Science 1976; 193: 55-57.
7. Gottlieb DG, Osborne RH. Premiminary Report on Nationwide Study of Drinking Water and Cardiovascular Diseases. J. Environmental Pathology and Toxicology. 1980; 3: 65-76.
8. Carlo GL, Mettlin CJ. Cancer Incidence and Trihalomethane Concentrations in a Public Water System. AM. J. Public Health 1980; 70 (May): 523-525
9. Wilkins JR, Comstock GW. Source of Drinking Water at Home and Site-Specific Cancer Incidence in Washington County, Maryland. AM J. Epidemology. 1981; 114: 178-190.
10. Dons Bach KW, Walker M. Drinking Water. Huntingdon Beach, CA: Int’l Institute of Natural Health Sciences, 1981.
11. Passwater R. Supernutrition for Healthy Hearts. NY: Jova 1978. Source: - Healthy Water, Martin Fox, PH.d.

In 1908, Americans starting adding chlorine to drinking water to kill bacteria and viruses that cause serious diseases like typhoid, cholera, polio and hepatitis. In the U.S. today, all public water from surface sources (rivers, streams and lakes) is chlorinated.

Chlorine is a highly reactive chemical, which is one reason why it makes such a good disinfectant even in parts-per-million concentrations. However, in addition to killing germs, chlorine reacts with organic substances found naturally in drinking water (humic acids, for example), and causes the formation of a class of chemical compounds called trihalomethanes (or THMs). Some trihalomethanes have long, obscure names like bromodichloromethane (a carcinogen in rodents), dibromochloromethane, dichloroethylene, and dichloroethane, but some are better known, such as chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and toluene, all of which are known or suspected carcinogens.

In 1974 Robert Harris, a scientist then working for the Environmental Defense Fund (a traditional environmental group) published a report showing a statistical link between cancer-causing substances in drinking water and cancer incidence among humans in New Orleans, LA. When Harris's report hit the newspapers, it created an uproar. Harris was pilloried, as Rachel Carson had been 12 years earlier for publishing Silent Spring. The water suppliers of America, municipal officials, and many Right Thinking public health scientists went berserk. "Absurd!" they said. "Hair-brained!" "Probably a communist!" According to the conventional wisdom, chlorinating water was good for people, not bad, and it was "irresponsible" to suggest otherwise.

There are people today who still believe Dr. Harris was wrong, just as there are people who believe there is no connection between smoking and illness. The Tobacco Institute, for example, still insists tobacco is harmless, and the American Cancer Society, for example, does not even list chemicals in our drinking water as a cause of cancer.

Between 1974 and today, at least 18 studies have appeared in the literature linking carcinogens in drinking water to human cancers. Now a massive new study has been reported in the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, based on analysis of the water consumption habits of 2805 white men and women who have bladder cancer, compared to 5258 white men and women (matched for age, sex, and geographic area) who do not have bladder cancer. The study drew subjects from 10 geographical regions: Atlanta, Detroit, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Seattle, plus the states of Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico and Utah.

Trained interviewers administered a standardized questionnaire to subjects (and controls) in their homes. Questionnaire items elicited a life history including lifetime use of artificial sweeteners and tobacco products, coffee consumption, use of hair dyes, a lifetime occupational history, and a history of relevant medical conditions.

In a separate survey, trained data collectors analyzed records from, and conducted interviews with managers at 1102 water companies in the 10 geographical areas the study covers (plus New York City and Chicago, because so many subjects had lived in those places at one time or another). Water samples were also collected from every water supplier, and analyzed for trihalomethanes.

People use tap water for coffee, tea, reconstituted juice, soup, and plain drinking water, as well as for cooking. (Beer and soft drinks are customarily de-ionized and charcoal filtered, removing most chlorine byproducts and other contaminants.) The average water intake among men in the study was 2 liters per person per day, 1.4 liters of it from tap water. Women drank, on average, 1.7 liters of water per day, 1.35 liters of it from tap water. The study revealed that those who drank 8 cups of chlorinated tap water for 40 to 59 years had a 40% greater risk of bladder cancer than those who drank less tap water or who drank un-chlorinated water. People who drank the most tap water for 60 years had an 80% greater risk of bladder cancer.

The effect was most pronounced among non-smokers. The researchers speculated that the effect of smoking (which does cause bladder cancer, as well as lung cancer and several other cancers) overwhelmed the effect of chlorinated water among smokers. Among non-smokers who drank chlorinated water for 60 years, the risk of bladder cancer was increased 310%.

The authors of the report emphasized that cigarette smoking and occupational exposure to carcinogens are the main causes of bladder cancer. Bladder cancer is diagnosed in 33,000 men and 12,400 women in the U.S. each year. Among men, 70% of this is caused by cigarette smoking and occupational exposure, the authors believe, and among women 40% comes from these causes.

Still trihalomethanes in drinking water appear to be a significant contributor to the nation's total bladder cancer problem. Among the subjects in the present study, 12% of the bladder cancer (336 cases) could be explained by chlorinated water, the authors calculate. Among nonsmokers, 27% of the bladder cancers are explained by chlorinated water.

Dr. Harris and many other scientists have said for a long time that we should consider changing our method of disinfecting drinking water. Europeans do not chlorinate their water because they do not like the taste it gives to the water; instead, they bubble ozone through their water, which kills germs but does not affect the taste. It also does not create cancer causing trihalomethanes.

Two conclusions: Chlorinating our drinking water solves some problems but creates others. We should switch to ozone treatment, abandoning chlorine. Second, this study gives powerful new evidence that chlorinated chemicals cause human cancers. Their industrial use should be reduced.

For a free copy of this important study, contact Dr. Kenneth Cantor, Landow Building, Room 3C08, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892; phone (301) 496-1691. Ask for a reprint of "Bladder Cancer, Drinking Water Source, and Tap Water Consumption: A Case-Control Study," JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, Vol. 79, No. 6 (Dec., 1987), pgs. 1269-1279. Footnotes 8 through 25 provide citations to 18 separate studies linking trihalomethanes to various cancers. Your local librarian can help you track down copies of the 18 studies.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.
http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_1062.pdf