Looking Backward

Household dust harbours [sic] a cocktail of toxic chemicals that have been linked to an increased risk of a range of health hazards, from cancer to problems with fertility, researchers in the US have found.

The quotation in Environmental Science and Technology certainly raises concern. And an internet essay today (September 14, 2016) by Nicola Davis adds

We think our homes are a safe haven but unfortunately they are being polluted by toxic chemicals from all our products,” said Veena Singla, co-author of the study from the Natural Resources Defense Council in California.

And

While, perhaps confusingly, homes that are too clean have been linked to an increase in allergies and asthma in children, potentially due to a lack of exposure to various microbes, the presence of toxic chemicals in dust raises separate concerns.

There's a lot more, but the article itself raises concerns about the costs of progress. Moreover it is not the only report on the subject. Perhaps we were better off a century ago, or a millennium, or in an era past; perhaps we'd live longer if we didn't have antibiotics like penicillin, or have products protected by fire retardants. We might even benefit if we washed our clothes in a (polluted) stream using rocks to beat out any dirt or other impurity. We read about the evils of modern life all the time. We hear the downside of every product introduced, with emphasis, by the media, on every potential risk.

Several decades ago, when Saturday Night Live was young, and in the midst of a rash (bad word?) of reports of (theoretically) carcinogenic products, the show presented a skit in which it was maintained that leisure suits caused cancer. It was very funny, and it pointed out the idiocy of those who panic whenever someone gets nervous, or wants to scare others away from something which he or she considers “wrong,” or when a problem is found, without anyone considering the context or implications of the ranting. Too many among us always see the cloud, rather than the opportunity that, because of them, it hides.

There is no question that side-effects have been found for each new medication – new things will always have them. As do old things. Benefits come with costs and with risks but, for the most part, products that have been cleared for distribution generally have an overall beneficial effect on our lives.

The suggestion of a researcher that “homes that are too clean have been linked to an increase in allergies and asthma in children, potentially due to a lack of exposure to various microbes, the presence of toxic chemicals in dust raises separate concerns” shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of using modern products and keeping our homes clean. It's too easy to do that. But a dirty house, with outdoor plumbing, an ice box rather than a refrigerator, home remedies instead of medications, and a dirt floor instead of floorboards or a carpet, is not a guarantee of good health and a safe life. Nonetheless that is where we are being driven by those with an agenda. (The same is true, unfortunately, of other “scientific” studies by those seeking the fast track to honors – people willing to cut corners – and others unable to recognize that they're on the wrong track.)

It certainly makes sense to fully test new products and to react quickly to any problems that might be discovered subsequently. (The same is true, of course, of items released to the public before any safeguards were in place – though that aspect of the problem is rarely considered.) But it is unfortunate that weight is given to scientific studies prematurely – before thought is given to their implications and to both the problems that might be anticipated or to the ways to deal with them.

I think, though, that by and large improvements are improvements, and I'll stick with the clean house.