Is artificial tanning harmful to health: myths and truth. The health hazards of synthetic fabrics. Is a cast artificial Christmas tree dangerous?

People buy artificial Christmas trees for a number of reasons: allergies to tree pollen, ease of cleaning, the presence of a firefighter in the family who scares everyone with stories about fire-hazardous live spruce trees. But are artificial Christmas trees safe and harmless?

It's a difficult question. To begin to answer this, you need to understand what the tree is made of, which is usually a synthetic plastic called polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is also used to make pipes, children's toys, medical devices and interior decoration cars. American Christmas Tree Association - non-profit organization, which educates about live and artificial Christmas trees, says the material is “not dangerous” and “not harmful.” But many experts are willing to argue otherwise. Partly because PVC is a heat-resistant substance that can use metals such as lead, tin and barium as stabilizers. As a result, a 2004 study even found significant amounts of lead in artificial Christmas trees.

In addition, the gases emitted by PVC, known as volatile organic compounds, can cause irritation to the eyes, lungs and nasal mucosa.

Sometimes PVC may contain phthalates, which are known to disrupt the endocrine system.

But the main thing about this problem is that you never know what exactly your Christmas tree is made of. In addition, some of the potentially present substances may not have passed through laboratory research on their effect on the human body. AND hazardous substances may be considered harmless. Insufficient control over the production of artificial fir trees allows the possibility of other substances being included in their composition. chemical substances.

But is there any point in being afraid of the unobtrusive presence of not the most beneficial chemicals in the Christmas tree? Experts believe that contact with lead, even in small quantities, does not bode well for the reproductive system and blood pressure, and in children can lead to a decrease in IQ. By the way, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes that there is no safe level of lead at all.

However, you can protect yourself. Items made from PVC highlight greatest number harmful gases upon first contact with air, so when purchasing a new artificial Christmas tree, give it a chance to “ventilate” by placing it outside for several hours or even days. The longer it stays outside, the less harm it will cause you.

And don’t store it for the rest of your life - as it ages, PVC begins to release harmful substances again. Artificial Christmas trees should be replaced at least once every 9 years.

Shortly before the Christmas and New Year holidays, scientists decided to bring good news about the dangers of artificial Christmas trees. The corresponding results were published by employees of Simon Fraser University from Canada. Why are they now scaring us with artificial Christmas trees? Why are new phobias raised in relation to an old holiday?

In the course of the study, the authors found that artificial trees can threaten the health of the people who install them - especially. Because - what a horror - they contain phthalates, which reduce the level of testosterone in the body, thereby contributing to the development of infertility.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this news is the terminology. "Scientists have found that polyvinyl chloride releases when heated dangerous gases, and artificial Christmas trees also contain phthalates."

The discovery about phthalates has long been overgrown with a beard

Sorry, but this “discovery,” to put it mildly, “with a gray beard” - it could have been read long before “Eureka!” Canadian scientists. And about the dangers of PVC and the notorious phthalates. It’s just that, outside the realm of concocted sensations, minimally self-respecting sources also clarify that, in fact, “killer” polyvinyl chloride is the second most widely used plastic after polyethylene. Bottles, disposable tableware, and a number of other products are made from it. useful inventions civilization.

Phthalates are dangerous at temperatures above 60 degrees

Yes, in principle, at elevated temperatures it can release those very “dangerous gases”. Another thing is that this temperature is over 60 degrees Celsius. In nature, the air heats up to such figures only in the Sahara Desert - but not in a city apartment under New Year. However, in the last century, an artificial Christmas tree, theoretically, could be heated to 60 degrees by light bulbs from powerful garlands. But now, when even “budget” garlands made in China are made on the basis of LEDs, the overwhelming percentage of the energy used goes into light, not heat - it’s simply not serious to be afraid of heating up the Christmas tree PVC.

But, let’s say, phthalates, which Canadians also “discovered as a result of research” in plastic. Although information about their presence in polyvinyl chloride materials can be found even on Wikipedia) they will still stand out in a home with installed synthetic Christmas tree. Are they really that dangerous?

Again, theoretically, these substances can cause cancer, kidney damage, and much more. But interest Ask- why haven’t they been banned yet, at least in developed countries?! Okay, there, the “poor people” cannot do without “dangerous” plastic - but really, the “golden billion” couldn’t afford to use something so “environmentally friendly and safe” - even if it’s about 10 times more expensive than PVC?

Why haven't Christmas trees been banned yet?

There are countless examples of this. The most indicative is the EU’s practice, reaching the point of absurdity, of almost every year tightening the maximum acceptable standards harmful substances in the exhaust gases of cars - all these "Euro-1,2...5" - with no end in sight. And after all, the forced transition to every new standard forces Europeans to buy new ones, expensive cars- while they could drive old (in the sense of over 8 years old) Volkswagens and Citroens without problems for another couple of decades.

Yes, everything is elementary - it’s just that all this “harmful plastic” does not pose a real danger! In any case, dangers beyond the scope of “statistical error”- in serious scientific research cannot be considered a serious argument. That is, if out of a hundred thousand people one gets sick from plastic product even cancer means he was simply unlucky, and no one will break technologies that are safe for the remaining 99 thousand 999 consumers.

Look, in the annotations of the most popular and expensive medicines there are also such side effects, with a frequency of 1:100 thousand or even per million - that it is better to shoot yourself right away. But this in no way prevents the vast majority of sane patients from buying these - and using them to fight much more truly dangerous diseases.

In fact, the fact that the staff of Simon Fraser University did not even bother to remember the “carcinogenicity” of phthalates once again proves that this danger is more far-fetched than real. Instead, they preferred to “hit below the belt” by starting to scare the “strong half” of humanity with the “threat of infertility” due to celebrating the New Year under an artificial “green beauty”.

Why do modern men need fertility?

As for me, such a threat is akin to the textbook “they scared the hedgehog with their bare bottom.” Well, why do today’s men give up this very “fertility”? If in modern developed societies it is good if there is one and a half average children per family? And it’s not so much IVF and other methods of artificial and natural insemination that are thriving, but rather the contraceptive industry. Moreover, with the dominant mixture of male chauvinism and male “don’t care” in society - “a woman should take care of birth control, and getting pregnant is her problem.” And here is such a gift to the “beautiful half of humanity” - an unobtrusive and cheap “male contraceptive” will appear for men.

Moreover, logically, the gift to beautiful ladies will be double. After all the notorious phthalates have a negative effect on the ability of men to fertilize by simulating the action of estrogens and female sex hormones in their body. That is, for cute creatures, these same phthalates will be quite “appropriate” - increasing their sexuality and other feminine qualities. As, by the way, are phytoestrogens contained in the most common beer. That does not in the least prevent the “stronger sex” from savoring their favorite drink for centuries - for some reason without the slightest fear of turning into “eunuchs”.

The dangers of artificial Christmas trees have been greatly exaggerated

Seriously, both the “danger” for men’s health and the “bonuses” for female sexuality thanks to artificial Christmas trees are greatly exaggerated. For one simple reason - the “exposure” of finding this tree during the holidays is too small. A couple of weeks - and that’s it, the Christmas tree is sent for storage.

Well, and, most importantly, even after the “source of male infertility,” according to Canadian alarmists, goes to the mezzanine to wait for the next New Year, the people who celebrated will still not escape contact with the whole “sea” of polyvinyl chloride-phthalate plastic. This is the same as talking with pathos about the “harm of wet feet” for a person who got wet to the skin in the pouring rain.

No doubt, natural Christmas trees are a good thing. Personally, as long as I can remember, I always put pine from forestry on the holiday table, and sometimes removed it in May. Which, in general, is also not very useful from a scientific point of view - after all, a tree from the forest also contains bacteria and some other “bad” substances and microorganisms.

Phobias are specifically brought up in us

I don’t specifically indicate them precisely - in order to avoid the emergence of stupid fears. A holiday is a holiday, and the benefits of holding it in accordance with centuries-old traditions by orders of magnitude exceed the unlikely harm from one or another unpleasant factor, without which not a single object or phenomenon around us can do. So after all, you can walk in your fright and have a glass of champagne, and just festive table- how many people end up in hospitals from him after January 1!

And start to be afraid out of the blue of holiday trees, either artificial or natural, after reading the scientific nonsense of a sample of the “discovery” of Canadian scientists - another type of unfounded “phobia”.

Unfortunately, this is a difficult question.

To begin to answer this, you need to understand what the tree is made of, which is usually a synthetic plastic called polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is also used to make pipes, children's toys, medical devices and car interiors. The American Christmas Tree Association, a nonprofit organization dedicated to education about live and artificial trees, says the material is "not hazardous" and "not harmful." But many experts are willing to argue otherwise. Partly because PVC is a heat-resistant substance that can use metals such as lead, tin and barium as stabilizers. As a result, a 2004 study even found significant amounts of lead in artificial Christmas trees.

In addition, the gases emitted by PVC, known as volatile organic compounds, can cause irritation to the eyes, lungs and nasal mucosa.

Sometimes PVC may contain phthalates, which are known to disrupt the endocrine system.

But the main thing about this problem is that you never know what exactly your Christmas tree is made of. In addition, some of the potentially present substances may not have been tested in laboratory for their effects on the human body. And dangerous substances can be recognized as harmless. Insufficient control over the production of artificial trees allows for the possibility of other chemicals entering their composition.

However, you can protect yourself. Items made from PVC emit the most harmful gases when first exposed to air, so when purchasing a new artificial tree, give it a chance to “air out” by placing it outside for several hours or even days. The longer it stays outside, the less harm it will cause you.

The equipment used in tanning salons and special lamps are artificial tanning devices that claim to provide an effective, fast and harmless alternative to natural tanning. sunlight. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from tanning bed lamps can harm your skin and increase your risk of skin cancer.

Every year, about 132,000 cases of malignant melanoma (the most dangerous type of skin cancer) and more than two million cases of other skin cancers occur worldwide. One out of every three cancers diagnosed worldwide is skin cancer. Most skin cancers develop as a result of overexposure to natural UV radiation.

Many countries have a ban on visiting solariums for minors - Germany, USA. Along with such countries, there are countries with a complete ban on solariums: the UK and Brazil, and from January 2015 the last solarium in Australia is due to close. The Australian Department of Health has decided to ban tanning salons due to the high risk of developing skin cancer in people visiting solariums. The Australian Department of Health spends up to $100 million a year on the prevention and control of skin cancer. Visiting tanning salons increases the incidence of skin cancer and over the past 30 years, the incidence of skin cancer has quadrupled. This is the fastest growing indicator in the group of oncological diseases. Young people under 25 years of age are most at risk.

According to a study conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO), people using fake tan up to 35 years of age, the risk of developing Melanoma is one of the most dangerous forms of skin cancer.

1. Skin cancers

UV radiation, both natural radiation from the sun and radiation from artificial sources such as tanning lamps, is a known risk factor for the development of skin cancer. It was found that short-wave UV rays of the B spectrum (280-315 nm) are carcinogenic to experimental animals. There is now growing evidence that long-wave UV A rays (315-400 nm), used in tanning equipment and penetrating deeper into the skin, also cause cancer. A study conducted in Norway and Sweden showed a significant increase in the risk of developing malignant melanoma in women who regularly use tanning equipment.

The additional exposure to UV rays emitted from tanning equipment apparently increases the well-known harmful effects of excessive exposure to the sun's UV rays. There is no reason to believe that exposure to UV rays emitted by any type of tanning equipment is any less harmful than exposure to UV rays from the sun. Precancerous keratoses and Bowen's disease have also been found in fair-skinned individuals who protect their skin from sun damage but regularly use tanning equipment for two to three years.

2. Aging skin, eye damage and other adverse health effects

Any excessive exposure to UV rays, not just from artificial sources, can cause structural damage to human skin. Burns, cracks and scars may soon appear, and later photoaging. Photoaging, caused by the destruction of collagen in the skin under the influence of UV rays, manifests itself in the formation of wrinkles and loss of elasticity.

Among eye damage caused by UV rays, it is necessary to note cataracts, pterygium (growth of white spot on the cornea) and eye inflammations such as photokeratitis and photoconjunctivitis. In addition, excessive exposure to UV rays can weaken the immune system, increasing the risk of infectious diseases.

3. Some skin types are not suitable for tanning.

There are six various types skin (I - VI) in terms of its sensitivity to sunburn. People with skin type I have the fairest skin, which can remain completely untanned even after repeated use of tanning equipment. As a rule, sunburn occurs on such skin.

Visitors to solariums are forced to determine that their skin type is not suitable for artificial tanning on their own, or, what is much worse, to be convinced of this through sad experience sunburn. Therefore, it is necessary to train operators of tanning equipment to correctly determine the skin type of visitors. While people with skin type II and above can tan, overexposing their skin to UV rays can also cause skin damage.

4. Dangers of Children's Exposure to UV Rays

Children's exposure to UV rays and childhood burns, both from the sun and from tanning equipment, are known to increase their risk of developing melanoma in the future. For this reason it is necessary to pay Special attention ensuring that children and teenagers are not allowed to use tanning equipment. Exposure to tanning lamps and equipment is "recognized as a human carcinogen" by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the risk increases with length of exposure, especially for people under 30 years of age.