n520  0039  07 Sep 81
BC-2AIR-2takes-09-07
    HOMELIFE. See SMOKE sidebar
     By Nancy Minkoff
     The Baltimore Evening Sun (Field News Service)
    (Second of a three-part series)
    Virginia French is a long-distance runner. She worked four years as
a production specialist at the Environmental Protection Agency's
audio-visual branch in Washington, D.C..
    But she quit her job in January because she was sickened by the air
inside the building where she worked.
    From across the country come increasing reports of workers
encountering problems they say are caused by indoor air pollution.
    Dr. Katherine Farrell, chief of environmental disease control at the
stat health department, said she receives one or two complaints
about indoor air problems each day.
    She added that ''most of the complaints are related to office
buildings.''
    The modern office building is a breeing ground for indoor air
pollution. Energy efficiency - the buzword of the decade - magnifies
the problem by making fresh air passe.
    Developers today virtually seal their buildings to keep outside air
from infiltrating and upsetting high-technology, fuel-saving air
control systems. These systems can reduce the amount of fresh air
flowing through a building to a tenth of the amount that circulated
before high energy costs raised concerns.
    Sealing out the summer heat and winter wind, however, also seals in
the myriad pollutants produced inside.
    ''Air fresheners, solvents, adhesives in building products, cleaning
fluids, fire retardant chemicals, chemicals to prevent aging of
pain s all these may be turning the inside of sealed
buildings into virtual gas chambers,'' wrote Dr. George Rand, a
professor at UCLA's school of architecture and urban planning, in an
article published in the journal of the American Institute of
Architecture.
    ''To add to the problem, seemingly innocuous office furniture,
carpets and curtains may contain formaldehyde, asbestos and other
harmful substances,'' he noted. ''Copying machines can produce ozone,
which results in headaches and upper-respiratory infections.''
    Not all buildings create these problems. And not all workers suffer
the effects of pollution. But doctors and environmentalists now
suspect the nagging headaches and familiar office fatigue in the
afternoon may have causes other than simple overwork and martini
lunches.
    ''The biggest thing I see is an increase in health problems and a
loss of productivity in the workplace,'' said James Repace, of the
Environmental Protection Agency's office of policy analysis. ''It's a
sere problem, maybe more important than outdoor air pollution.''
    More than half of all American workers work in white-collar jobs,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    Most of these employees work at least eight hours every day in an
office. Because so much of workers' time is spent indoors, some
doctors fear they may face increasing risks to their health even when
levels of pollution are low.
    Many workers who suspect a problem ignore it, either out of
ignorance or out of a fear of retribution should they make an issue
of it.
    ''The horror is many people think it's themselves. They don't
realize it's their environment,'' said French, 33, who left her job
because of her sensitivities to something in the air in her office.
    ''I attributed my first symptoms to stress, agitation, jumpiness. We
all thought it was overwork,'' she said.
    ''The major thing that got me concerned was chronic sinusitis. I'd
never had sinus problems before. I'm a long distance runner and I
worked hard to stay healthy. I wanted a sports car of a body.''
    French said she discovered other workers who complained of similar
symptoms.
    ''I started keeping a calendar,'' she said. ''Everyone's symptoms
were not the same, but a pattern did emerge where, whatever our
symptoms were, they were most intense on the same days.''
    The workers complained of digestive problems, fluid retention,
changes in the menstrual cycles and headaches, French said.
    ''I used to get jabbing sinus headaches and also a dull ache. It was
a creepy feeling like something was moving across my skull. It was
very scary.
    ''When I'd go home I had feelings almost like withdrawal. I'd be in
an upswing all day and then be depressed at night. I'd be too tired
to do anything. And my digestive system was off. I couldn't drink at
all. Two beers and I'd throw up. It was like my capacity for dealing
with any poison was weakened.''
    French began to fight back after suffering several lapses of memory.
    ''At first I made lists and crib notes and put them in my pocket. I
didn't want to think that my memory was failing. Finally, I realized
something was really wrong. That was the most frightening.''
    She sought help from five doctors.
    MORE
    
nyt-09-07-81 0340edt
***************

n517  0013  07 Sep 81
BC-1AIR-2takes-09-07
    HOMELIFE. See ODOR sidebar.
    By Nancy Minkoff
    The Baltimore Evening Sun (Field News Service)
    (First of three parts)
    The Moore family shrugged off their irritating runny noses and
stinging eyes to simple sinusitis.
    Then Micky Moore developed blood blisters in one ear, her oldest son
developed a benign tumor in his neck, and her oldest daughter was
hospitalized with pneumonia. Two younger children coughed and wheezed
with the croup.
    Their doctors, at a loss to explain the family's sudden maladies,
suggested that the Moores search for clues inside their home.
    The Moores traced the beginning of their illnesses to just shortly
after they hired a contractor to insulate their 60-year-old home with
urea formaldehyde foam, a chemical agent that can cause respiratory
problems if improperly installed.
    In the name of energy efficiency, insulating has become patriotic.
    Energy efficiency has turned weatherized homes into symbols of the
American spirit worthy of an income tax credit. It has turned costly,
complex fuel saving systems into business necessities.
    But it is also turning many modern office buildings and houses into
what environmentalists, health officials and government specialists
call ''sick buildings.''
    The buildings are sick with chemicals emitted by everything from
insulation, aerosols, synthetics and copying machines to cigarettes,
gas space heaters and kerosene stoves.
    In many cases, the pollutants are every bit as dangerous as the
toxic wastes emitted by industrial smokestacks.
    But, unlike smokestack emissions, indoor air pollutants are not
washed away by the rain or blown away by the wind. Nor are they
regulated by the government.
    The poisons are trapped. And the most common trap is a modern
leakproof, weatherproof, energy-efficient building.
    ''The main problem is people just don't understand how bad the
problem is,'' said James Repace, a specialist in the Environmental
Protection Agency's office of policy analysis.
    Relatively small amounts of pollution indoors can be far more
dangerous than high levels of pollution outdoors because most persons
spend 70 to 80 percent of their time indoors.
    ''Indoor air is really more important than outdoor air because we're
in it all the time,'' explained Dr. Donald Proctor of the Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore.
    ''But, historically, indoor air has been neglected. People always
thought that there wasn't much difference between outdoor air and
indoor air.''
    In fact, indoor pollutants rarely caused problems in the past
because they leaked out through cracks and open windows.
    Today, energy-conscious engineers design buildings with windows that
do not open and walls that do not leak. Homeowners spend their
weekends caulking, insulating and weather stripping their homes.
    As a result, pollutants no longer have an easy escape route.
Instead, they linger and accumulate inside. In fact, it's not unusual
for indoor pollution to build up to levels that federal regulators
would not permit outdoors.
    When the air outdoors is dangerously polluted, most people can stay
inside, taking in only small doses of the airborne poisons while
walking to their car or down the street.
    Indoors, the same people are exposed for hours and hours every day.
Consequently, pollution levels deemed safe outdoors can be dangerous
indoors.
    Howard Ross, a supervisory engineer for the Department of Energy,
which funds a research project on indoor pollution at the Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California, said the five
most critical and prevalent contaminants in sealed buildings are
radon, nitrogen dioxide, particulates, carbon monoxide and
formaldehyde.
    Radon, a radioactive element found in soil, concrete and stone,
dissipates in a well-ventilated building without posing a threat. In
a sealed structure, radon - and the radioactive chemicals it produces
- remain inside, where it can increase the risk of lung cancer in
some persons.
    Unvented gas stoves, kerosene space heaters and wood burning stoves
all produce carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulates.
    Ordinary household products including oven cleaners and room
deodorizers emit dangerous hydrocarbons.
    Turpentine, varnishes, paint strippers and other products used in
hobbies and crafts add unhealthy organic substances to the air.
    Sealed offices harbor other indoor air pollutants. Synthetic fabrics
on portable walls emit organic gases. Copying machines give off
ozone, a throat and eye irritant.
    Cigarette smoke is probably the most notorious and easily traced
source of particulate and carbon monoxide pollution in offices and
homes.
    Asbestos, used as insulation and a fire-retardant, is a known
cancer-causing agent heavily used in the past. The federal government
now regulates the substance, but small amounts still can be found in
hair driers and potholders. Older homes and offices, as well as many
public buildings, pose greater asbestos threats.
    MORE
    
nyt-09-07-81 0314edt
***************

n519  0029  07 Sep 81
BC-ODOR-09-07
    HOMELIFE. Sidebar to 1AIR
    By Nancy Minkoff
    The Baltimore Evening Sun (Field News Service)
    Toxic synthetic fibers and polluting copying machines were hardly
the problem in the late 19th century when questions about indoor air
quality first aroused concern.
    Then, the issue was odor.
    People feared they were being contaminated by the smells emanating
from other people's bodies, explained Dr. Bill Caine, an odor
researcher at Yale University.
    The more something smelled, the greater the fear of pollution, he
said. And the everyday chemical carbon dioxide was the first to draw
the interest of the 19th-century scientists.
    ''It invoked new possibilities,'' Caine said. ''All people exhale
carbon dioxide and they found that you get odors when it gets to
certain levels. People feared that these odors could be toxic.''
    It was during this time that people actively sought to bring fresh
air into their homes, Caine explained.
    The scientists of that era concentrated on establishing standards of
safety for the chemical. Even today, carbon dioxide levels are used
as the basis for setting for most ventilation standards.
    ''In the early 20th century, the notion that people were
contaminating each other changed to a concern about comfort,'' Caine
noted.
    ''The issue turned from an occupancy odor concern to an aesthetic
concern. Again, it was found that if you keep ventilation at a
certain level, people will be more comfortable.''
    Now, however, scientists are discovering reasons - some far more
serious than an unpleasant odor - for recommending plenty of
ventilation indoors.
    END
    
nyt-09-07-81 0329edt
***************

n522  0055  07 Sep 81
BC-SMOKE-09-07
     HOMELIFE. Sidebar to 2AIR
     By Nancy Minkoff
     The Baltimore Evening Sun (Field News Service)
    In terms of indoor airborne poisons, scientists look first to
cigarette smoke, perhaps the most discussed, written about and widely
researched air pollutant found in homes and offices.
    Countless studies have been conducted on the effects of cigarette
smoke on both smokers and non-smokers of such cigarette pollutants as
carbon monoxide and particulates.
    Ventilation, of course, helps dissipate the poisons but, in this
energy-conscious era, throwing open the windows in winter is
considered unfeasible.
    The easiest solution, instead, may be separating the smokers from
non-smokers. But that often is impractical, especially in large,
older office buildings.
    Even the bold anti-smoking campaign launched several years ago by
U.S. Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano proved
ineffective.
    In 1978, Dr. Cary B. Barad, a senior personnel research
psychologist, surveyed about 70 percent of the more than 21,000
employees at the Social Security Administration's headquarters in
Woodlawn, Md.
    He found that about 31 percent of the employees smoked and that
worker stress appeared to increase as more cigarettes were smoked by
employees.
    Fewer than 3 percent of the smokers in the survey said they were
bothered by cigarette smoke, but about one third ofthe non-smokers
complained of the smoke.
    Non-smokers typically c omplained of eye irritation, coughing, sore
throats and sneezing. About a quarter of the non-smokers said they
had lung or respiratory disorders that were aggravated by cigarette
smoke.
    Barad said the study suggests smoke did not affect actual worker
output as much as it affected efficiency since non-smokers complained
that the smoke made it more difficult to concentrate.
    Most non-smokers in the survey favored creating designated smoking
areas, stricter adherence to no-smoking rules in conference rooms and
elevators and improved ventilation.
    The federal agency planned to implement some of these suggestions
and to offer help to smokers who want to kick the habit.
    Larry Massanari, acting director of human resources at the agency,
said the Woodlawn cafeteria is now divided into smoking and
non-smoking areas. In addition, smoking is prohibited in elevators,
libraries and conference rooms.
    He said the building's ventilation system is checked periodically
for routine maintenance reasons, but the need for increased
ventilation was never followed up.
    He also noted that special programs were offered in 1978 and 1979 to
help workers who wanted to quit smoking, but not since.
    END
    
nyt-09-07-81 0356edt
***************

n523  0106  07 Sep 81
BC-3AIR-2takes-09-07
    HOMELIFE. See HOMEM sidebar
    By Nancy Minkoff
    The Baltimore Evening Sun (Field anews Service)
    (Last of a three-part series)
    Those extra layers of insulation may protect against high utility
bills now, but conscientious homeowners may be paying a heavy price
later: Saving energy could cost them their health.
    Studies show that tight, fuel-saving homes that keep out biting
winds and stifling heat also seal in household pollutants.
    ''We can't think about indoor air pollution without implicating
energy and the economy,'' said Dr. Donald Proctor of the Johns
Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health in Baltimore.
    ''The energy crunch is going to be around for some time and
conserving it is a top priority. But the consequences of insulation,
what it does to the air, are also very important.''
    The consequences in the home are particularly troubling since that
is where people spend most of their time, especially those most
sensitive to toxics - the elderly, young children and pregnant women.
    ''No one keels over dead from these effects,'' George Rand wrote in
the American Institute of Architecture Journal. But, he noted, indoor
air pollution ''may impair the health, safety or comfort of the
occupants.''
    Most people, however, remain unaware of the dangers they face.
    ''People really do regard their homes as their castles. There's a
lot of hostility and anger when you suggest someone may have a
problem like this,'' said Tom Conry of the Environmental Action
Foundation in Washington. ''It's an attitude problem.''
    Meanwhile, the federal government promotes energy efficiency with
patriotic zeal, backed up by a healthy tax credit to homeowners who
insulate and weatherstrip their houses.
    ''Builders want to build energy-efficient homes and people want to
buy them,'' said Jim Berk, a program manager at the Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory at the University of California, which is studying indoor
air problems.
    An energy-efficient house seals in pollutants, where they linger.
Some scientists suspect habitual doses of low-level pollution may
prove more harmful than an occasional dose of high-level pollution.
    Separate studies here and in England suggest that children in homes
with gas ranges suffer more respiratory problems than children living
in homes with electric ranges.
    Although the data are inconclusive, scientists say gas stoves emit
nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, both irritants to the human
respiratory system.
    Since no air quality standards exist for the home, homeowners are
unable to gauge the airborne dangers in their houses.
    Environmental officials say it is difficult to set guidelines for
safety because people react differently to the pollution. Further,
because they affect the home, any standards that are set could be
only voluntary.
    Nevertheless, these officials insist, guidelines are needed.
    They say outdoor standards, which measure high levels of pollution
emanating from sources not found in the home, are useless. Standards
set for the typical workplace also would be ineffective if applied to
the home.
    The lack of reliable ventilation guidelines exacerbates the problem.
    While some local building codes include requirements for ventilating
a structure, no agency enforces the rules.
    ''You can build energy-efficient homes today that have one- or
two-tenths of an air exchange every hour. Non-energy-efficient homes
average one to one and a half air exchangers per hour,'' Berk said.
    Modern houses, apartments and mobile homes provide less ventilation
than most other buildings built today.
    The controlled air systems praised for saving energy in many
apartment buildings inadequately flush out pollutants.
    Underground parking garages, which allow auto fumes to filter upward
into living areas in many high-rise complexes, are other sources of
carbon monoxide.
    In mobile homes, the effects of indoor air pollution are more
dramatic. A well-constructed, insulated mobile home is like a sealed
tin can.
    Wood-burning stoves give off carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and
particulates. The pollutants combine with other airborne poisons to
further complicate problems.
    Cigarette smoke is an obvious indoor pollutant. Less obvious are
cleaning products, paints, plastics and synthetics, which contain
substances that contaminate the air.
    Even furniture may have toxic ingredients. That plush sofa may be
covered in fabric containing formaldehyde, a chemical that causes
drowsiness, respiratory ailments and which has been suspected of
being a cancer-causing agent.
    The coffee table may be made of particle board, another source of
formaldehyde. Even the insulation that helps to seal in those
poisonous fumes itself may be emitting formaldehyde fumes.
    Urea formaldehyde foam insulation, used to insulate 500,000 homes
across the nation, is the subject of controversy. Two U.S. Department
of Labor scientists were recently fired for refusing to back down
from their contention that the foam is a health hazard.
    MORE
    
nyt-09-07-81 0407edt
***************

n525  0126  07 Sep 81
BC-HOME-09-07
    HOMELIFE. Sidebar to 3AIR
    By Nancy Minkoff
    The Baltimore Evening Sun (Field News Service)
    Sometimes it seems it's easier to solve the problem created by
indoor airborne poisons than it is to identify the pollutants in the
first place.
    Few people realize how many ordinary household items contain
chemicals that could be dangerous. While the federal government
requires manufacturers to list ingredients in foods and cosmetics,
the same isn't true of other household products.
    Dyes, air fresheners, furniture polishes, detergents and dozens of
other items used inside the home contain potentially harmful
ingredients. The paints and glues used by hobbyists are among the
most dangerous of all indoor pollutants.
    ''The Household Pollutants Guide,'' edited by Al Fritsch and
published by Anchor-Doubleday, lists some of the products commonly
used in the home that, in some instances, are harmful:
    - Aerosols. The hydrocarbons found in some aerosol sprays are
believed to deplete the earth's ozone layer, which ultimately could
result in increased instances of skin cancer and eye damage.
    But the real dangers of aerosols may be far more immediate. The tiny
particles of aerosol spray are inhaled easily. Depending on the
product, inhaled spray may cause minor respiratory irritation or a
serious, chronic health problem. Pump spray bottles are an
alternative to aerosols.
    - Asbestos. Widely used in the past as an insulator and fire
retardant, asbestos is believed to cause cancer and serious lung
diseases. Although now regulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency, asbestos is still used in roofing materials, cement building
supplies, hair driers, paints, table padding, yarns, aprons, pot
holders and ironing board covers.
    - Fiberglass. Suspected of causing cancer, fiberglass also is a
cause of respiratory problems and skin irritation. It is found in
ceramics, scouring soaps, talcum powder, insulation, furnace filters
and roofing materials.
    - Formaldehyde. A chemical agent, formaldehyde sometimes produces
noxious fumes that have been linked with respiratory problems,
drowsiness and headaches. Most problems with formaldehyde fumes stem
from improperly installed foam insulation. But, the toxic also is
used in particle board and fabrics commonly found in homes and
offices.
    - Dry cleaning solutions and spot removers. These cleaning agents
often contain such highly toxic chemicals as perchloroethylene, which
can be lethal if inhaled in large doses. The chemical, which is
frequently found in aerosol sprays, also causes dizziness, nausea,
liver damage and depression of the central nervous system.
    - Indoor pesticides. The ingredients that make pesticides effective
against bugs also are dangerous to human beings. Some pesticide
strips and flea collars contain extremely toxic DDVP. Outdoor
pesticides, usually even more toxic than indoor products, can be
dangerous if stored in the home.
    - Paints. Key ingredients in paints are heavy metals. One of them,
lead, is both dangerous and common and used not only in paint but in
pottery glazes, some gasoline and tobacco smoke. Lead accumulates in
the body where it can cause brain damage and serious kidney ailments.
Abnormally high levels of mercury, found in some water-based paints,
causes some of the same problems as lead. Cadmium, another toxic
metal, frequently is an ingredient in orange and yellow paints and
has been linked with kidney malfunctions.
    - Plastics. Most plastics contain vinyl chloride and polyvinyl
chloride, known carcinogens. Use of both chemicals has been
restricted but still can be found in small amounts in upholstery,
wall coverings, garden hoses, toys, records, food packaging, credit
cards and floor tiles.
    - Air fresheners and disinfectants. Even the best air freshener can
only mask an odor, not get rid of it. Often, these products contain
chemicals that are far more dangerous than the odors they are
designed to destroy. Many contain cresol, which can affect the
central nervous system, liver and kidneys. Paracresol, occasionally
found in fragrances, soaps, detergents, creams and lotions in the
United States, is prohibited in these same products in some parts of
Europe.
    - Gas stoves and appliances. The combustion of natural gas gives off
nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide, which is
colorless and odorless, can be lethal. Nitrogen oxide irritates the
eyes and the upper lining of respiratory system.
    - Cooling appliances. Refrigerators and air conditioners use
coolants based on fluorocarbons, which are invisible and odorless.
    - Oven and drain cleaners. These potent cleansers usually contain
lye and other strong acids. In heavy doses, these chemicals can be
dangerous.
    END
    
nyt-09-07-81 0427edt
***************

n524  0116  07 Sep 81
BC-3AIR-1stadd-09-07
    x x x a health hazard.
    
    Contractors pump the foam into exterior walls, where it effectively
seals cracks. But when installed improperly, noxious formaldehyde
fumes can pervade the house. In severe cases, the only recourse is
tearing down the walls.
    The Consumer Product Safety Commission proposed a ban on the product
last April but has not taken final action on that proposal.
    Other forms of insulation and energy-saving devices, while not as
controversial as urea formaldehyde, also increase the dangers of
indoor air pollution.
    Fiberglass insulation irritates throats. Improperly vented gas space
heaters emit deadly carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide fumes.
    ''Indoor pollution is a serious problem and if you're going to
tighten up, you better check your sources,'' Berk said.
    A home sealed too tightly can turn even innocuous elements into
serious indoor contaminants.
    For instance, radon - a radioactive trace element found in stone,
soil, bricks, concrete and other building materials - worries many
health experts. In homes not as tightly sealed, the element
dissipates rapidly, becoming part of natural background radiation.
    In well-sealed homes, however, radon accumulates and spawns
''radioactive daughters'' that attach to airborne particles inhaled
by people. Once inside the lungs, radon has been linked as a cancer
cause.
    The Department of Energy, which is studying the effects of radon and
other indoor air pollutants at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
hopes to develop instruments homeowners can use to measure potential
airborne pollution problems.
    Meanwhile, homeowners can seek help from their local health
department or the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Health departments cannot conduct in-depth air quality monitoring,
but some can measure for carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and several
other common indoor air pollutants.
    If analysis uncovers a problem with one of these chemicals, health
authorities can work with the homeowner to trace the source of the
pollution and devise solutions.
    A number of products on the market can help cleanse the air of some
chronic pollutants, although environmentalists and energy experts
warn that consumers should be wary of some products.
    The firm which manufactures the so-called negative ion generator,
for example, says the contraption creates a negative electrical
field. This negative charge causes airborne particles to fall to the
floor or attach themselves to other surfaces.
    Stephan DeWitt of Ion Systems Inc., the California firm that markets
the generator, said the company had sold more than 20,000 negative
ion generators in the last year.
    ''The ionic attraction principle is the medium nature used to deal
with the problem in the past,'' he insisted.
    But, many scientists remain skeptical of the claims. They said the
best devices for dispersing air pollutants are those that increase
ventilation, such as exhaust fans near a gas range.
    Whole house fans, while helping to cool the house, also help reduce
pollution by circulating air throughout the house.
    The best solution - and the cheapest - simply is to open windows to
increase ventilation. In moderate climates, an open window is as
effective as a fan.
    Experts also recommend air-to-air heat exchangers, when fans prove
ineffective. A typical air exchanger costs $250 and can be installed
in a window, much like an air-conditioner.
    The exchanger draws fresh air from outside, warms it or cools it,
then releases it in the house. At the same time, the unit flushes out
polluted indoor air. The two air streams do not mix, so the incoming
air is not contaminated by the outgoing air.
    ''A lot of these solutions are fairly simple,'' said Howard Ross, a
supervisory general engineer with the Department of Energy. ''We're
still pretty far away from having guidelines set up, but we do know a
lot about the problem and we can tell people.
    ''The existing building stock poses the greatest problem. Hopefully,
we will be able to control it in newer buildings.''
    An upcoming report by the National Academy of Sciences may provide
the impetus for change.
    ''With the energy situation, it seems inevitable that indoor air
pollution should get more study,'' Proctor said. ''We're just
beginning to get the information we need. It's all work in progress.
Within 10 years, we could have enough information to solve the
problem.
    ''But it's all a matter of priorities.''
    END
    
nyt-09-07-81 0417edt
***************