The basic concepts of allergies: schools


        THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF ALLERGIES: SCHOOLS
One of the most disturbing aspects of the indoor air pollution problem is the involvement of schools. Here, the use of various chemicals can contribute to the overall chemical and food problem to cause poor performance by both children and teachers.
Poorly designed heating and cooking systems in schools are a major source of trouble. One teacher was always dopey and drowsy when he taught a class located directly above the school cafeteria, from which gas-range odors emanated. His performance improved dramatically when he transferred to a more distant room.
Children suffer all sorts of adverse reactions to chemicals in school, including hyperactivity, inattention, irritability, and the like. This is especially so among children addicted to "junk food," who live in a polluted home environment.
In 1967, Mrs. Kathleen A. Blume carried out with my help a study of indoor air pollution at a public school in Wauconda, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.8 Mrs. Blume, a home economics teacher, was aided by local parents who were concerned about the quality of air in their children's schools.
They literally sniffed out problems in the schools:
We used both eyes and nose searching and sniffing our way through . . . school trying to uncover the elusive as well as glaring causes of air contamination. In spite of advances in instruments for measuring contaminating particulates in the air, the human nose remains the chief detector of offensive odors.
It is remarkable, and depressing, how many sources of air pollution these parents were able to find stored in the school. For example, aerosol sprays are known to cause problems because of their volatile mixtures of chemicals, solvents, and the propellant, Freon (itself a mixture of carbon, chlorine, and flourine). The parents found insecticide sprays; paint, enamel, and lacquer sprays; fixatives; spray snow; spray plastic; solvent cleaner; germicidal cleaners; room deodorants; hair spray; furniture polish; disinfectants; deodorants; and even fungicidal sprays for the locker room.
Francis Silver, the engineer who studied this list and cooperated in the Wauconda study, reported that none of these, with the possible exception of the spray enamel and the fixative, could be justified from an ecological point of view.
In some cases, the children were more aware of the dangers of the sprays than the adults. One child, for instance, complained of a burning sensation in her nose, eyes, and throat after a janitor sprayed a disinfectant in a room full of children. This child's problem lasted well into the evening. When a teacher cleaned her desk top with a spray cleaner, one of the children disliked the smell so much that he asked permission to leave the room. And when another teacher sprayed fixative on chalk drawings, several children complained of the odor and asked her to open the windows.
It should be noted that such sprays not only pose a danger of provoking allergylike symptoms but can result in "spray keratitis," or damage to the sensitive cornea of the eye from chemical particles in aerosol spray cans.7
Another source of problems in the Wauconda study was janitorial supplies. Twenty-eight different chemicals were found in the supply closets, including some highly toxic products. Mrs. Blume commented:
Janitorial supplies are probably the saddest part of the story. Janitorial chemicals receive no supervision, anything goes. We are so particular about who is allowed to prescribe drugs for patients but janitors spread their products around which then evaporate into the breathed air and are then ingested.. . . If we were more interested in health and not just in treatment, we would probably be more particular about our janitors than we are about our physicians.
The use of such products in schools often represents an "overkill" of bacteria. Dr. Malcolm Hargraves, a senior consultant at the Mayo Clinic, has said:
The American people, I am afraid, are greatly oversold by any article which makes the claim that it is medicated [i.e., anti-bacterial]. The universal use of such agents with such an idea only leads to the development of more resistant strains of bacteria to plague us in the future.8
Actually, fresh air, sunshine, hot water, and unscented soap are still the best disinfecting agents. The "progress" in inventing disinfectants of the last thirty or forty years has added little to our ability to control infectious diseases, while piling up problems for the chemically susceptible. It is tragic to expose children to these and other agents so early, creating a problem which may remain with them for the rest of their lives.
*44\110\2*
Allergies

«Generic Drugs»