Why Are You Interested in EDF's Chemical Wristband Study?

I'm interested in science and the environment. I think we need more science, more data, more documentation.

I've looked into the quantified self movement for personal health improvement and think that a similar focus could transform all of our environments -- especially the indoor spaces we spend most of our time in.

 I recently ordered a Air Quality Meter  to attempt to look at chemicals in the environment.

So I'm also interested in EDF's Chemical Detection Initiative, that recently documented our exposure to hundreds of chemicals in the environment.

The graphic above describes how this technology works.

I'm hoping to learn the identity, industrial use, and possible harm of chemicals from my environment. It would be a great opportunity to learn chemistry! I took the 23andme test last year for my wife and I -- and it was a great opportunity to learn about state-of-the-art genomics.

I'm also interested to connect with others who have similar chemical exposure patterns and join a growing community of people interested in improving their own health and become agents of change to all of society.


Level of Concern pre-test:

Pesticides -4

Air Pollution -3


Chemicals in cosmetics/skin care products - 2


Chemicals in cleaning products - 2


Chemicals in furniture and building materials - 4


Pharmaceuticals - 4

Antinutrient Resources

In general, plant secondary metabolites can have positive and negative effects (Weston A. Price). The reason I don't try to categorically avoid them, but treat them with caution, is that these effects are multiplicitious and biological: very hard to predict what they will do, good or bad...

However, unless we know about the problems with antinutrients, we won't know why eating raw flour or dough is dangerous, why green potatoes are toxic, or how many raw red kidney beans it takes to kill a man (not very many).

But on the whole, unless you are allergic, most antinutrients will be digested, and some are actually good for you. For example, this article mentions that inositol hexaphosphate is a break-down product of phytic acid. Most phytic acid is broken down by digestion, and there is evidence that it can have beneficial effects as well as deleterious effects.

This article points out that most sweet potato antinutrients are destroyed by baking, as opposed to boiling. This FAO article on all the major food crops and their antinutrients specifies that " Heating to 90°C for several minutes inactivates trypsin inhibitors", which explains why baked sweet potatoes are nontoxic. (But the article also points out that diseased or moldy sweet potatoes may have toxins that are not completely deactivated by cooking ....moldy vegetables should not be consumed. Apparently, toxins in normal potatoes are also not destroyed by normal cooking methods. Furthermore, sweet potatoes do not have lectins, but normal potatoes do. These compounds can have some antidigestive effects, but most should be destroyed by cooking.

Antinutrients are important, but I think methionine and nutrient density / glycemic index considerations are more important overall. A few potatoes or slices of bread shouldn't hurt most people, but if you have the luxury of chooses less toxic plant products, sweet potatoes and especially squash and pumpkins are some of the best sources of nutrients, with the least amount of antinutrients.

Physiological Toxicology

Different toxic compounds come to rest in different organs and regions of the body, depending on their mode of transport in the human body. For example, many toxins are "mistaken" for similar compounds, and stored accordingly. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are fat soluble and look like cholesterol, so they are stored in fat deposits. Lead "looks like" calcium, so it is stored in the bones.

"Substance X causes cancer in animals...."

Consider two statements, S1 and S2: S1: ‘‘Would you agree or disagree that the way an animal reacts to a chemical is a reliable predictor of how a human would react to it?’’

The second statement, S2, is a little more specific: ‘‘If a scientific study produces evidence that a chemical causes cancer in animals, then we can be reasonably sure that the chemical will cause cancer in humans.’’

How did you respond? How would a scientist respond?

from P. Slovic, ‘‘Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield,’’ in Environment, Ethics, and Behavior, M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, and K. A. Wade-Benzoni (eds.) (San Francisco, New Lexington, 1997), pp. 277–313.