There's Clean, and There's Unhealthily Clean
by Steve Ransom

"While ears do need to be cleaned fairly regularly, this is a job that should be done in private, using one's own truck keys." Anon

While many books have publicised the common-sense approach to good health through adequate sanitation and cleanliness, another equation to consider in examining the cause of certain illnesses is when the pendulum swings the other way and obsession with cleanliness begins to have a negative effect on health. The Pasteurian idea that disease is caused by malevolent microbes in the air, on our work surfaces and in our foods, has proved to be one of the most powerful behaviour-changing ideas in history. Author of Germ Manic, Satre Stuelke, states:

"As we look about our environment, and specifically our home, we conclude that anything that is not an intended part of our home is naturally a contaminant - the most common contaminants being dirt, dust, and dust bunnies. Before germ theory, these were considered natural inhabitants of the floor; somewhat of a nuisance, not contaminants necessarily, but certainly not pathogenic. After germ theory it then became imperative in our minds for the health of the household to prevent the previously unchecked accumulation of dust and dirt. The eventual hysterical exaggeration of germ theory's importance in our everyday lives has made it possible for a multitude of appliances and cleaning products to infiltrate our psyches."

THE INFILTRATION OF PUFFING BILLY
At the turn of the 20th century, the Prince of Wales had an analysis taken from the dust removed from his residence. Bacteriologists apparently discovered over 355 million living organisms - many potentially lethal. At around the same time, H. Cecil Booth was adding the finishing touches to the first successful suction vacuum cleaner. His first portable machine 'Puffing Billy' was mounted on a horse-drawn trolley. Before the invention of the vacuum cleaner, people kept floors clean by sweeping them or by taking rugs into the yard to beat them free of dust. 'Puffing Billy' was to revolutionise the way we thought about dust and dirt. Now, if a king could have so many bugs in his house, then what chance the dirty pauper?

SEIZE THE DAY
In 1907, with few houses having an electric power supply, US inventor J Murray Spangler developed the first portable vacuum cleaner. He sold his idea to William H. Hoover. The first 'Hoover' went on sale in 1926. Advertising and commerce recognised the avenue being opening up here by germ theory. An appropriate level of cleanliness could now be marketed as vital for 'protection' and the maintaining of adequate health. We were now being warned that germs were everywhere, and that we must eliminate them. Hence the bathroom sponge with its 10,000 deadly spores of death. In 1993, almost 70 years after the first Hoover went on sale, a new kind of vacuum cleaner appeared, claiming to suck 100% of dust. By 1997, the Dyson Dual Cyclone, which was named after its British inventor, James Dyson, had generated sales of more than £1 billion worldwide. Satre Stuelke again:

"Our culture exists now in a well-cultivated classic Pavlovian response with a twist. The stimulus has been internalized as the knowledge of germ theory. The response is to obliterate anything that can possibly be linked to the presence, even the threat of the presence, of germs. Thus our culture is plunged into a vicious circle of inventing, marketing and using products designed to quell our fear of all microbes - dangerous or not."

And nowhere do we fear the microbe more than in the home.

AT WHAT PRICE TO OUR HEALTH AND PLANET?
Now that these fears have been linked to our immediate environment, our obsessions with the dust particle and maintaining high levels of cleanliness have given rise to all manner of bottled, household precautions. Anti-bacterial soap, anti-bacterial laundry detergent, anti-bacterial kitchen and bathroom cleaning solutions, anti-bacterially packaged goods of all types, room sprays, impregnated wipes, plug-in antiseptic fragrances and air de-ionizers that eradicate microbes with high voltage arcs - this is just a small sample of the massive anti-germ arsenal now being pitched to us by the £billion. And the massive rise in personal care products, containing all sorts of anti-germ chemicals, has raked in immeasurable fortunes for the multi-nationals. But at what price to our health and planet? Take the simple example of the effects these products are having upon our water supply, for instance.

A LOT OF FROTH
The tonnage of shampoos, soaps, deodorants and shower gels flushed into the sewers from our bathrooms are done so with little awareness of our wider ecological responsibilities. Can these suds be adequately dealt with at the treatment plant? Are they poisonous to fish? And what about the damage to ourselves? Apart from the potentially harmful effects of drinking such water, many people are using aggressive 'beautifying' chemicals directly on their skins, sometimes two or three times a day, giving rise to a whole host of skin and systemic complaints that were not with us before germ theory was introduced. There is no proof that an odourless, non-secreting body is a medical necessity and unpleasant levels of body odour can quite easily be resolved by the use of the many natural, ecologically friendly products now available.

SCRUB! SCRUB! SCRUB!
Today, in the western world, half of our entire domestic water consumption goes down bathroom drains, not including the water for flushing the toilet. Regarding our unnecessarily high levels of water consumption, Klaus Lanz, the author of the Greenpeace Book of Water states:

"The ambitions of the sanitary industry go even further - an individual en-suite bathroom for every bedroom, a power shower that pumps water at high velocity. People are still kidding themselves, or being kidded, that there is an inexhaustible supply of this natural element at hand for whatever aquatic fantasy that attracts them. The fact that water is part of nature, rather than a consumer item, and that extracting it in large quantities is likely to harm the environment, is completely ignored. The provenance of the water that pours from our elegant taps and showers is something we choose not to reflect upon."

GET THEE BEHIND ME, DUST!
Dust is increasingly taking the rap as another culprit behind illness and disease. But are these accusations entirely warranted? The following information is taken from the guidelines suggested to householders by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, should anyone visit the house with a dust allergy. Recommendations include taking everything out of the room before cleaning it; emptying and cleaning all cupboards; if possible, sealing all cupboards and storing the contents elsewhere; if this is not possible, then making sure to store clothing in zippered plastic garment bags; putting all shoes in boxes and storing them off the floor; cleaning the floor and any woodwork thoroughly. Advice is also given on the installation of various electric air filters:

"… which can help reduce the number of allergy-promoting particles in the air. There are two types: self-contained room units or filters that can be attached to a furnace. Electrostatic and high-energy particulate absorption (HEPA) filters are especially effective. But remember that an electrostatic filter requires regular maintenance. If it isn't functioning well, it can emit ozone, a chemical that can irritate the lungs. Dust mites like humid conditions, so a dehumidifier may be useful. But again, these devices must be cleaned frequently or they can develop mould. And also remember that for some individuals, dry air is irritating to the nose and lungs."

In reviewing the above precautions, Senior Magazine suggested the following:

"Maintaining a dust-free zone may seem like a lot of trouble, but making these cleaning steps part of your housekeeping routine can make it easier. The results? Less laboured breathing, fewer medications, and greater freedom from allergy and asthma attacks are worth the extra effort."

DIRT AND DUST MAY BE GOOD FOR KIDS
This is all very well, but what are the longer-term implications for our health through this excessive behaviour? It is often stated that the reason why a child suffers from the same condition as the parent is because, "… it's something he inherited." But with many parents unhealthily devoted to germ eradication, what role in that child's ill-health is being played by the negative effects of parental fears? The September 2002 edition of Parenting and Pregnancy included a liberating report entitled Dirt May Be Good For Kids. A condensed account is included below:

"Behind the ongoing epidemic of allergy and autoimmune disease there's a surprising culprit: cleanliness. One of the hallmarks of the 20th century was its war on germs. Kids now live in cleaner homes and suffer fewer infections than their grandparents did. There's irony in this, according to the so-called 'hygiene' theory. It holds that a germ-free childhood warps the immune system. A report in the Sept. 19th issue of The New England Journal of Medicine now offers powerful support for this theory. The researchers carefully vacuumed up dust from the beds of 812 children from rural areas of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. The dust was measured for a basic component of dirt - the outer cell wall of common bacteria, known to scientists as endotoxin. Also collected were the kids' medical records.

The result: the kids who had the cleanest mattresses had the most hay fever, allergic asthma, and allergic reactions. The kids with the dirtiest beds - and least allergy and asthma - were most likely to live or play on farms. That's no surprise, as earlier studies showed that children raised on farms have fewer allergies and less asthma than rural kids who don't live on farms. Bacteria excreted by cows and other farm animals are the most common source of endotoxin."

So what exactly might that child have inherited? An identifiable, bloodline illness? Or is that child suffering from the ministrations of over-protective parents? The obsessive or abnormal traits parents attach to dirt, dust, spiders, etc., are 'passed on' to our offspring, leading often to that child experiencing the same bondages, fears and phobias. While the advice from Senior sounds safe and wise, what a culture shock it is to read that dirt and dust may not be such bad company after all. Jean-François Bach, MD, DSc, is the director of the INSERM immunology unit at Necker Hospital in Paris. Bach says that as the immune system develops in a child, it needs fine-tuning. Every time it fights a germ, it learns a little more. Eventually, it learns the best way to fight germs and how not to start allergic or autoimmune reactions. Bach warns that overprotection - especially by unneeded antibiotic treatments - can kill off harmless bacteria that have much to teach the immune system.

"I think the first thing is not to worry if a child has a piece of meat falling on the ground and eats it," says Bach. "Exposure to some minor infections is not bad. You don't need to sterilise and re-sterilise everything. The main thing is to avoid unnecessary antibiotic therapy."

In an article entitled, 'Allergies: Because We're Too Clean', the author stated: "The way we're living is far removed from the day-to-day confrontation with nature the way our ancestors experienced it. We're out of touch with the Earth, too safe and protected. We don't have enough cuts and bruises, or dirt under our fingernails."

CATS AND DOGS PREVENT ALLERGIES
With regard to the rise in allergies, one of the first things that an allergist will ask, when making an initial assessment, is whether there are any pets in the house. Household pets are generally off-limits to anyone who has been diagnosed with an allergy or asthma. But could pets actually help in the prevention of allergies? A study conducted by doctors in Virginia certainly indicates this. Doctors studied more than 200 children with and without allergies and tested their sensitivity to cat dander and dust mites. They found that children who grew up with cats in the home were less likely to develop allergies.

Naturally, with all this talk of dust, dirt, cats, dogs and farmyard toxins, no-one is suggesting we return to the dirt and squalor that led to so much illness and death witnessed even as late as the early part of last century. There is a sensible middle ground, wherein an appropriate level of cleanliness may be achieved without slipping into excess.

WHAT IS AN ALLERGY ANYWAY?
With the rise in childhood immune illnesses and the general dis-eases being experienced by our environmentally toxic society, there are now a huge number of non-conventional tests on offer today, claiming to be able to identify the triggers for today's skin reactions, breathing difficulties and general bodily irritations. Usually described as a food intolerance test, these tests are now very big business. In the UK, for instance, the York Laboratory has seen the number of people wanting to be tested double from 8,000 to 16,000 per annum. But how accurate is allergy testing? According to the British investigative journalist Nick Morgan, his research into allergy testing proved most disconcerting.

"Since mainstream medicine is reluctant to get involved, the alternative health lobby has been quick to fill the void. There are dozens of different tests, but are they accurate? And could they be harmful? Using myself as a guinea pig, I decide to find out…."

His journey took him to various allergy practitioners across London, each offering different advice, charging different fees and all drawing different conclusions. His diagnoses ranged from frail blood cells and fatigue to parasites that could only be detected by a particular machine. Over the range of tests, Mr Morgan was found to be 'intolerant' to over two hundred different foods. Muscle-testing, hair analysis, intuitive testing, electro-magnetic testing and blood tests, including the infamous ELISA test and the Antigen Leucocyte Cellular Antibody Test (an equally unspecific method of diagnosis), were just some of the allergy 'gadgets' that delivered these widely-varying results. Spending a total of £450, Mr Morgan concluded that allergy testing was a complete scam, albeit most times carried out by the most well-intentioned practitioners. Times Newspapers carried out a similar investigation, sending out a healthy individual who underwent seven different tests and was told she had to give up more than 50 foods. In one test, a consultant held a phial of food to the young woman's stomach to test for allergies and then spoke to her leg. Ms Penny Povey, who runs one such clinic out of a Selfridges store, told the reporter that she wasn't too surprised at the differing results. "We are moving energy and are never static. So what one practitioner gets may be very different from another."

Hmmm.

There will always be reactions to certain foods being exhibited by certain individuals, and sometimes very violent reactions. Anaphylactic shock is occurring more frequently and is surely a plain-as-day indictment of our synthetic and highly toxic, food and chemicals industry. Nick Morgan's research concluded that certain food and chemical intolerances do exist and that the best way to determine what food or household agent was causing the problem was a simple diary combined with a simple food elimination diet. Painstaking it may be, but according to one of Mr Morgan's interviewees, the two months it took to complete the diary was a much shorter and less expensive path, which also led to a successful outcome.

If we are to make any headway concerning food intolerance and allergies, especially in children, then a lot more research needs to be carried out on the damaging and accumulative effects of fast foods, vaccination, antibiotics and other medications which are injected into, and consumed by the populace on a massive scale daily.

COMMON SENSE
We are unique by design. Illness can affect everybody differently. We all have our own particular strengths and weaknesses and once again, I stress the above arguments are not prescriptive, merely pointers. Judy Rall again, making an important point:

"There is another element in this picture. It is, perhaps, the most important one - we are all unique individuals. Each person has a body which responds a little differently, sometimes a lot differently, to the same stimulus. Some are more efficient at handling emotional or physical stress, others more capable of eating foods that are not compatible with others, and some seemingly are immune to colds and flu. With rare exceptions, one culprit can't be used for the whole population. In reality, we each have our own suspects to round up in any situation. And it's up to each one of us to be aware of our own weaknesses, with the help of accurate information. Unfortunately, we are bombarded by misleading information from the media, advertising and even our own doctors at times."

PASTEURISATION
In the late 1800s, Emperor Napoleon III demanded that Louis Pasteur investigate the disease afflicting casked wines and causing considerable economic losses to the wine industry. Predictably, Pasteur stated that micro-organisms were responsible and that they could be killed by heating the wine to 55C for several minutes. Applied to beer, wine and milk, pasteurisation is now in use throughout the world, as a means of sterilising foodstuffs to combat all those horrible germs. However, heating live foods over a certain temperature causes considerable vitamin, enzyme, taste and texture loss, and in many instances, renders it edible but nutritionally void. As far as beer is concerned, the Campaign for Real Ale states:

"Alongside an overbearing gassiness, British beers in kegs usually have an insipid, stale taste, and the cardboardy tang of pasteurisation, with sometimes a caramel overtone thanks to the heat treatment. Our keg beers are nearly always poor beers, in some cases horrible, nasty beers, the brewer's receptacle for inferior ingredients. You wouldn't wish them on your worst enemy. That is why cask-conditioned beer has been placed on such a high pedestal."

And what is the opinion on pasteurisation from the connoisseur wine drinker? Take this from The Dark Side of Wine, penned by Robert Parker - a wine taster of some 14 years. Under the heading, Unspeakable Practice, he writes:

"The problem with temperature extremes is that the naturally made, minimally processed, hand-produced wines are the most vulnerable to this kind of abuse. Many importers, not wanting to assume any risks, have gone back to their suppliers and demanded 'more stable' wines. In real terms, this means the wine trade prefers to ship not living wines but vapid, denuded wines that have been 'stabilised', subjected to a manufacturing process, and either pasteurised or sterile-filtered so they can be shipped 12 months a year. While their corks may still pop out if subjected to enough heat, their taste will not change, because to all intents and purposes, these wines are already dead when they're put in the bottle. Unfortunately, only a small segment of the wine trade seems to care."
Excerpted with permission from Wake up to Health in the 21st Century by Steven Ransom

Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.