Slow Death By Rubber Duck

Our Mission: We ignite the movement that empowers parents to protect children from harmful chemicals. Donate »

Blog

Janelle Sorensen

Monday, April 05, 2010

“Put the argument into a concrete shape, into an image, some hard phrase, round and solid as a ball, which they can see and handle and carry home with them, and the cause is half won.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

Our perspective of life is mostly based on our senses – we believe things we can see, taste, hear, and touch. This applies to virtually everything and is a major obstacle for those of us working on toxics. We are trying to prove to people that invisible pollutants are all around us. And, we’re trying to prove they are a threat because they are chronically toxic (instead of having immediate acute effects). In the average human brain, invisible, chronic impact results in inaction. It simply does not trigger any basic instincts like reflexes or the fight or flight response.

On the contrary, people do often respond to tangible measurements that are immediately relevant to their health and well-being. We use thermometers to check our temperature to see if we’re feverish. We use scales to see if we are gaining or losing weight. We have tests done at the doctor’s to measure things like cholesterol and blood pressure. And, each of these resulting numbers can compel one to take action.

What if there was a similar way to measure our exposure to toxics? We are exposed to thousands of invisible synthetic chemicals and heavy metals every day. And, yet, usually the only one we usually measure in our bodies is lead. At least on an individual level. At a population level, the CDC has been conducting body burden testing for several years now. Currently, they have looked for, and found, 212 industrial chemicals and heavy metals in the test population. But, what does it mean? Where are they coming from? How are they getting into our bodies? Is it the same for me as the people they tested? There are too many question marks for many people to find the statistics worthy of action.

Now, we have some more concrete evidence of cause and effect. Thanks to the brave experiment of two men chronicled in “Slow Death By Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things.” Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, co-authors of the book, decided to intentionally expose themselves to several of the most common – and risky – contaminants of our modern lives. And, to measure how much of these chemicals were winding up inside their bodies after typical use.

To do so, the men first tried to avoid the substances to get a baseline measurement of what was in their bodies. Then, they spent two days in an apartment and used products and ate foods containing the contaminants of concern. Afterwards, they had their body burden tested again. The results were stunning. For example, in just 48 hours their levels of phthalates increased 22 fold, mercury increased 2.5 fold, BPA increased 7.5 times over, and Triclosan increased 2900 times over. And, they weren’t bathing in tubs of chemicals. They were simply using products containing these contaminants as anyone else would.

Watch this interview about the details of their experiment.

This book is an eye-opening, must-read. And, despite the morbid subject, it’s actually very entertaining with regular infusions of wit and comedy. The authors effectively define the problem and they also discuss solutions, emphasizing how the outcome of this global experiment is still unclear. “I don’t know whether the future form of humans is being determined by the chemical soup we’re living in – or whether the definition of our evolution as a species has now changed from ‘Survival of the Fittest’ to ‘Survival of the Chemically Immune.’”

Learn more by joining a discussion of the book. RSVP for the Slow Death By Rubber Duck Webinar, featuring author Rick Smith and leaders from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics . Tuesday, April 6, 5 p.m.PT/8 p.m. ET.

What do you think? If people could easily monitor the levels of toxicants in their bodies – like watching a dashboard – would they make different choices about the products they use and food they eat?