Carpets Can Be Toxic

Carpets Can Be Toxic

I would like to offer some comments about your recent Carpeting article (EBN, November/December 1994). First of all, there seems to be a movement afoot in some circles to discredit the work of Dr. Anderson. She and her work have been well respected since she founded her laboratory in 1987. Suddenly, rumors are circulating that she uses mice that are sick to begin with and she has poor housekeeping habits. If that were the reason for her results, then her control mice—those not exposed to carpet—would also be dying and getting sick. The controls are fine, and Dr. Anderson continues to do good work.

Second, I feel that it is important to note that the test results obtained by Anderson Laboratories have been replicated by both the EPA (as you stated) and Dr. Yves Alarie of the University of Pittsburgh, who originally developed the test procedure. Because Dr. Alarie’s results were funded by the Carpet and Rug Institute, they are not widely distributed.

Third, your article stated that the carpet samples were heated to “abnormal temperatures” and the mice were exposed to “inappropriate” concentrations. The test used (ASTM-E981) does not call for a specific temperature. Carpet samples have been tested between 22°C (72°F) and 60°C (140°F)—temperatures that the micro climate within carpeting easily reaches when it is exposed to the sun or near a radiator. It has been determined that the higher temperatures produce more-toxic results—but the lower temperatures are not completely safe. Many experts consider the temperatures used to be very appropriate. During the procedure itself, air is blown across the warmed carpet and through a chamber containing mice for one hour, twice a day, for two days. This means that mice have died after only four hours of exposure during a 48-hour period. Would you feel comfortable laying a baby on new carpet for several hours at a time?

Fourth, it is continually being reported that no one else, including the EPA, can get similar results of dead mice and neurological problems. This is because they are all using a slightly different protocol. (You stated that the EPA made “modifications to increase the validity of the tests.”) As it turns out, the drier the carpet the more toxic it is. In some of the replication attempts, the interior of the test chamber was so humid that water was condensing on the inside (not likely in houses), and the mice were fine. If I were trying to get to the root of the problem, I would consider it a valuable bit of information to know that a change in humidity affects the results. However, the EPA and those other labs using the different procedure would rather simply state that they can’t replicate Anderson’s results. It is a basic tenet of good science that if you want to replicate someone’s experiment, you must follow the same procedure exactly. Let’s quit comparing two different protocols as if they were the same. Anderson agrees that humidity is a factor—after her initial results, she too used highly humidified air, and her mice were less seriously affected.

Fifth, you mention that some people are more sensitive than others. Very true, those with MCS are extremely sensitive to many of the things that most of us take for granted. It is a medical condition that can radically change every aspect of your life. I don’t think it should be overlooked that a number of people continue to attribute the onset of MCS to having new carpeting installed. The Carpet and Rug Institute’s new label ignores the fact that the potential exists for carpeting to cause a long-term, life-altering illness.

What I find really sad about this whole affair is the fact that it has become more a matter of rumor, bending the truth, and innuendo than of good scientific inquiry. I think it’s time to get to the bottom of the problem and solve it before more people get sick. By the way, you neglected to mention that there have been as many as 20 lawsuits against the carpet industry—at least one is a class-action suit. Most of the cases that are being resolved are being settled out of court with gag orders to prevent the release of information. I wonder who will end up being more responsible for healthier carpet—lawyers or scientists.

Sincerely,

John Bower

The Healthy House Institute

Unionville, IN

In your article “Carpeting, Indoor Air Quality, and the Environment” the sins of commission and omission are disturbing. The sources of data concerning Anderson Laboratories’ methods are very curious indeed.

You rely on an architect and a chemist to review toxicology data. With respect to the opinion of the architect, the errors of fact are as follows: “The methodology is not valid.” A recent article published by the same EPA team found the method to be highly appropriate and recommended its use, as did the chemist in his report to CPSC concerning carpet emissions. The method provides data which is accepted and sometimes required by U.S. EPA, FDA and DoD. It has been used throughout the world for three decades to study toxic effects of airborne chemicals. “The method is for irritation, not toxicity.” An architect may not know that irritation is a toxic effect which occurs as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals. “The carpet samples were heated to abnormal temperatures.” As it happens, the worst sample we have tested was studied with all parts of the system at room temperature, hardly abnormal. The “inappropriate concentration” is an equally inappropriate comment. The quantity of carpet and air flow we routinely study were chosen using published mathematical models to represent a carpeted floor in a normally ventilated 10x12x8-foot room. In one specific case when the carpet size was reduced to the equivalent of a bath mat in the same room, the animals still died at room temperature.

You fail to mention that our work was replicated in full with four different samples by Dr. Yves Alarie at the University of Pittsburgh. He is the toxicologist who developed the test method at the request of the Department of Defense. He has stated that there is nothing inappropriate in the application of the method. You chose not to mention the reason the EPA had problems in their second replication efforts.

Your readers should not need to check credentials and knowledge base of the individuals you interview. Nor does reporting of blatantly incorrect information add to the credibility of your publication.

Mark Goldman

Anderson Laboratories, Inc.

Dedham, MA