It is the pollen season for one.
Secondly, you are probably not running your air conditioning or furnace this time of year, thus you are not filtering the air through your filters.
Do not sponge on cheap furnace/AC filters, buy the pleated ones..........well worth it.
I also recommend you get a HEPA air filter on ebay...............your dust will be significantly lower.
Best of luck Sherman
FISH
Secondly, you are probably not running your air conditioning or furnace this time of year, thus you are not filtering the air through your filters.
Do not sponge on cheap furnace/AC filters, buy the pleated ones..........well worth it.
I also recommend you get a HEPA air filter on ebay...............your dust will be significantly lower.
Best of luck Sherman
FISH
We bought the house in August of 99 and have had the problem since Day 1. We don't have air ducts and the problem is year round. For example, when I go into my closet and pull something out that hasn't been worn in a while, I have to shake off the dust. Of course this is abnormal and I don't know what to do!
I think I am building a complex. I may start wearing my gas mask around the house.
Household dust contains high levels of flame retardants that are widely used in furniture, electronics and other consumer products, according to a study of 10 homes around the country.
The chemicals, which have been linked to brain and nerve damage in animals, were banned in Maine earlier this year. But their widespread presence in house dust in the new study raises the concern that people could continue to be exposed to a potential health risk for a long time to come.
House dust is a long-term reservoir for toxic substances, said Renee Sharp, co-author of "In the Dust: Toxic Fire Retardants in American Homes."
"When chemicals get into house dust, they get into your carpet," said Sharp, who works for the California-based Environmental Working Group. "They're much more shielded from moisture and light, and so their breakdown levels tend to be slower than they would be out in the environment."
The results raise special concern about children's exposure because they crawl and play on the floor, and tend to put objects into their mouths.
While the study sampled dust in just 10 homes, each home was found to have higher levels of flame retardants than have been reported in previous studies.
Maine was not included in the study, but a similar project that does include Maine is in the works, according to Steven Gurney, science and policy director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center in Portland.
Maine is one of eight states being tested in a joint project coordinated by a group called Clean Production Action, Gurney said. Results probably won't be ready until mid-June. Gurney would not say how many Maine homes were tested or where they were located.
Flame retardants are widely used in computers, televisions, upholstery, carpets, mattresses, coffee makers, hair dryers, copy machines and other consumer products. The chemicals make products fire-resistant, but as they have become more common in modern society they also have been showing up more often in the environment - even in areas as remote as the Arctic.
Studies have also shown that concentrations of flame retardants are rising in human breast milk. Concentrations in the breast milk of American women are 10 to 100 times higher than in European women, probably because the United States is the largest producer of the chemicals.
Under an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the flame retardant industry will stop manufacturing two kinds of flame retardants - known as penta and octa - next year. Industry is resisting regulation of a third type, commonly referred to as deca, which is widely used in electronics.
Environmentalists say that deca can break down into the penta and octa forms, so it needs to be regulated as well. Maine's new law, in addition to banning penta and octa, phases out deca by 2008, provided there are safe alternatives available.
"It's the only law in the country that phases out deca," Gurney said.
The Environmental Working Group study found average levels of flame retardants in the dust of nine homes to be more than 4,600 parts per billion.
A tenth home in the new study had levels of 41,000 parts per billion, twice as high as any other study. That much higher level was attributed to the fact that products containing fire retardants had been recently removed from the house, and the homeowner had been vacuuming up pieces of polyurethane foam.
The only other U.S. study to look at household dust found an average of 3,669 parts per billion in five homes on Cape Cod, Mass.
Peter O'Toole, spokesman for the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, released a statement Wednesday stating that flame retardants are safe and calling the levels found in the new study "infinitesimal."
The industry group "believes that EWG's study sample of just ten examples cannot be considered representative of American households," the statement said.
The dust study is the first to compare concentrations of fire retardants in people with levels in their homes. The homeowners who participated in the research had also been part of a study last fall examining flame retardants in breast milk.
Linda Birnbaum, director of the experimental toxicology division at the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, said the most interesting thing about the new study is that it found no correlation between the amount of chemicals in dust and in the women's breast milk.
"We don't know how these chemicals are getting into people," she said. "If we had seen a high correlation - in other words, the women with the high breast milk had high house dust - that would support the idea that house dust is a major direct exposure route."
Birnbaum, who thinks most exposure to the chemicals comes from food, said that doesn't mean dust is not of concern as an exposure route.
"We just don't know," she said. "I think that maybe for children this could be an important exposure route."
http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/040513flame.shtml
Household dust contains high levels of flame retardants that are widely used in furniture, electronics and other consumer products, according to a study of 10 homes around the country.
The chemicals, which have been linked to brain and nerve damage in animals, were banned in Maine earlier this year. But their widespread presence in house dust in the new study raises the concern that people could continue to be exposed to a potential health risk for a long time to come.
House dust is a long-term reservoir for toxic substances, said Renee Sharp, co-author of "In the Dust: Toxic Fire Retardants in American Homes."
"When chemicals get into house dust, they get into your carpet," said Sharp, who works for the California-based Environmental Working Group. "They're much more shielded from moisture and light, and so their breakdown levels tend to be slower than they would be out in the environment."
The results raise special concern about children's exposure because they crawl and play on the floor, and tend to put objects into their mouths.
While the study sampled dust in just 10 homes, each home was found to have higher levels of flame retardants than have been reported in previous studies.
Maine was not included in the study, but a similar project that does include Maine is in the works, according to Steven Gurney, science and policy director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center in Portland.
Maine is one of eight states being tested in a joint project coordinated by a group called Clean Production Action, Gurney said. Results probably won't be ready until mid-June. Gurney would not say how many Maine homes were tested or where they were located.
Flame retardants are widely used in computers, televisions, upholstery, carpets, mattresses, coffee makers, hair dryers, copy machines and other consumer products. The chemicals make products fire-resistant, but as they have become more common in modern society they also have been showing up more often in the environment - even in areas as remote as the Arctic.
Studies have also shown that concentrations of flame retardants are rising in human breast milk. Concentrations in the breast milk of American women are 10 to 100 times higher than in European women, probably because the United States is the largest producer of the chemicals.
Under an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the flame retardant industry will stop manufacturing two kinds of flame retardants - known as penta and octa - next year. Industry is resisting regulation of a third type, commonly referred to as deca, which is widely used in electronics.
Environmentalists say that deca can break down into the penta and octa forms, so it needs to be regulated as well. Maine's new law, in addition to banning penta and octa, phases out deca by 2008, provided there are safe alternatives available.
"It's the only law in the country that phases out deca," Gurney said.
The Environmental Working Group study found average levels of flame retardants in the dust of nine homes to be more than 4,600 parts per billion.
A tenth home in the new study had levels of 41,000 parts per billion, twice as high as any other study. That much higher level was attributed to the fact that products containing fire retardants had been recently removed from the house, and the homeowner had been vacuuming up pieces of polyurethane foam.
The only other U.S. study to look at household dust found an average of 3,669 parts per billion in five homes on Cape Cod, Mass.
Peter O'Toole, spokesman for the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, released a statement Wednesday stating that flame retardants are safe and calling the levels found in the new study "infinitesimal."
The industry group "believes that EWG's study sample of just ten examples cannot be considered representative of American households," the statement said.
The dust study is the first to compare concentrations of fire retardants in people with levels in their homes. The homeowners who participated in the research had also been part of a study last fall examining flame retardants in breast milk.
Linda Birnbaum, director of the experimental toxicology division at the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, said the most interesting thing about the new study is that it found no correlation between the amount of chemicals in dust and in the women's breast milk.
"We don't know how these chemicals are getting into people," she said. "If we had seen a high correlation - in other words, the women with the high breast milk had high house dust - that would support the idea that house dust is a major direct exposure route."
Birnbaum, who thinks most exposure to the chemicals comes from food, said that doesn't mean dust is not of concern as an exposure route.
"We just don't know," she said. "I think that maybe for children this could be an important exposure route."
http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/040513flame.shtml
