Wellness Exchange: Health Discussions
Forever Chemicals Steal 80 Minutes of Sleep Nightly
(upbeat music) - Welcome to Listen2. This is Ted. The news was published on Friday, October 4th. Joining us today are Eric and Kate. Our topic is the link between forever chemicals and sleep quality in young adults. Let's start with the basics. Eric, what are these forever chemicals and why are they called that? - Well, Ted, these forever chemicals are actually per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS for short. They're called forever chemicals because they're like that annoying house guest who just won't leave. These suckers don't break down easily and can hang around in the environment for decades. Imagine if your trash never decomposed. That's basically what we're dealing with here. - That's right and it's crucial to understand that these chemicals are everywhere. They're in our non-stick pans, our waterproof jackets, even in our food and water. It's like we're living in a chemical soup. And get this, the vast majority of Americans have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. It's not just a few people we're talking about here, it's practically all of us. - Interesting. Now the study focused on four specific types of PFAS. Kate, can you tell us which ones and what the researchers found? - Absolutely, Ted. The study zeroed in on four PFS baddies, PFDA, PFHXS, PFOA, and PFOS. Sounds like alphabet soup, right? But here's the kicker. Young adults with high blood levels of these chemicals experienced worse sleep. We're talking shorter sleep duration and more tossing and turning. It's like these chemicals are throwing a party in our bodies when we're trying to catch some Zs. - Hold on, Kate. While the study does show a correlation, we can't jump to conclusions about causation. There could be other factors at play here. - But Eric, the evidence is pretty darn clear. The study found that participants with high levels of these chemicals slept an average of 80 minutes less per night. That's like losing an entire episode of your favorite Netflix show. - I hear you Kate, but we need to consider other lifestyle factors that could affect sleep, diet, exercise, screen time. All of these could play a role. It's not as simple as pointing the finger at one chemical boogeyman. We need to look at the whole picture here. - Let's dig deeper into the specifics. Eric, what did the study reveal about the biological mechanisms behind this connection? - All right, Ted. Let's get a bit sciency here. The researchers identified seven genes that PFS seem to be messing with and these genes influence sleep. One big player is the HSD11B1 gene. Now this little fella helps produce cortisol, which is like the body's internal alarm clock. It helps regulate when we feel sleepy and when we feel awake. - Exactly, and they also found a link to cathepsinB, a gene related to cognitive function and memory. This enzyme is a precursor to those nasty amyloid beta proteins we find in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. It's like these chemicals are not just messing with our sleep, but potentially setting us up for some serious brain issues down the road. - While that's interesting, we should be cautious about drawing direct links between PFS exposure and Alzheimer's disease based on the study alone. We're dealing with complex systems here. - But Eric, don't you think these findings are concerning enough to warrant immediate action on regulating these chemicals? We can't just sit on our hands while people-- - I understand your concern, Kate, but I believe we need more comprehensive studies before making drastic policy changes. We shouldn't rush to conclusions based on a single study with a relatively small sample size. It's important to get a fuller picture before we start making sweeping changes that could have far-reaching consequences. Now, let's put this study in a broader context. Can you think of any similar historic events where everyday chemicals were found to have unexpected health impacts? Eric, what comes to mind? - The most striking parallel that comes to mind is the discovery of the harmful effects of lead exposure, particularly in leaded gasoline. For decades, we were basically driving around in toxic time bombs. Lead was added to gasoline to improve engine performance, but we were totally clueless about its devastating health impacts. It's like we were poisoning ourselves in the name of better car mileage. - Absolutely, and just like PFAS, lead accumulates in the body over time. It's not a one-and-done deal. The consequences of lead exposure, especially in children, are horrifying. We're talking cognitive deficits, behavioral problems, and even lower IQ scores. It's like we were unknowingly dumbing down an entire generation. - That's true, Kate. The discovery of lead's toxicity led to a gradual phase out of leaded gasoline, starting in the 1970s. By 1995, leaded gasoline was banned for use in road vehicles in the US. It wasn't an overnight change, but a careful measured approach that balanced public health concerns with economic realities. - And we've seen significant health improvements since then. Studies have shown that the ban on leaded gasoline has resulted in a dramatic decrease in blood lead levels in the population. It's like we gave everyone's brains a chance to breathe again. - I agree that the lead ban had positive effects, but let's not forget that it took decades of research and policy work to get there. We can't just assume PFAS will follow the same path without-- - Eric, I think you're missing the point here. We already have substantial evidence linking PFAS to various health issues, including cancer and immune system problems. - We shouldn't wait decades to act, as we did with lead. Every day we delay is another day people are exposed to these harmful chemicals. - I understand your urgency, Kate, but the economic impact of completely banning PFAS could be enormous. These chemicals are used in a wide range of industries. We're talking about potentially disrupting everything from electronics manufacturing to firefighting equipment. We need to consider the broader implications. - The potential health costs of inaction could be even higher, Eric. We need to prioritize public health over corporate profits. How can we put a price tag on people's well-being? It's not just about sleep. - I'm not saying we shouldn't regulate PFAS, but we need a balanced approach that considers both health and economic factors. We can't just pull the rug out from under entire industries. - There's nothing balanced about allowing known toxic substances to remain in our environment and our bodies, Eric. We need to take a stand for public health, even if it means some short-term economic pain. - Looking ahead, how do you think this situation with PFAS will unfold? Eric, what's your prediction? - I believe we'll see a gradual phase out of the most problematic PFAS. Similar to what happened with leaded gasoline, it won't be an overnight change, but a careful transition. Companies will invest in developing safer alternatives, and regulations will tighten over time. It's like slowly turning a big ship. It takes time, but we'll get there. - That's too slow, Eric. We need immediate action. I predict we'll see a surge in public awareness and demand for stricter regulations, leading to rapid bans on PFAS in consumer products. People will start voting with their wallets, choosing PFAS-free products. It'll be like the organic food and-- - Cake, sudden bans could lead to unintended consequences. What if the alternatives haven't been properly tested and turn out to be just as harmful? We could be jumping out of the frying pan. - We can't let fear of the unknown prevent us from addressing a known threat, Eric. The precautionary principle should apply here. It's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to public health. We're not talking about a minor inconvenience. We're talking about chemicals that could be messing with our sleep, our brains, and who knows what else. - Interesting perspectives. Now let's consider the potential impact on sleep health. How do you see this playing out in the coming years? - I think we'll see more research into the connection between environmental toxins and sleep. This could lead to new treatments for sleep disorders that target the effects of chemical exposure. Imagine a future where your sleep doctor not only asks about your bedtime routine, but also checks your PFAS levels. It could revolutionize how we approach sleep medicine. - I agree that more research is crucial, but I also predict we'll see a rise in PFAS-free products marketed specifically for better sleep health. Consumers will demand transparency about chemical content in everything from mattresses to pajamas. It'll be like the gluten-free craze, but with actual science backing it up. - That's a fair point, Kate. However, we need to be cautious about potential greenwashing where companies make misleading claims about their products being PFAS-free. It's not enough to slap a label on something and call it a day. We need rigorous testing and verification. True, which is why we need strong regulations and enforcement to back up these claims. Consumers deserve to know what's in the products they use. It's not just about sleep. It's about transparency and trust in the products we bring into our homes. - I can agree with that, but let's not forget that sleep is influenced by many factors. We shouldn't fixate solely on PFAS at the expense of addressing other important aspects of sleep hygiene, things like consistent sleep schedules, reducing screen time, and managing stress are still crucial. - Of course not, but removing a potential chemical disruptor could make other sleep interventions more effective. We need a comprehensive approach to improving sleep health. It's like trying to lose weight, diet and exercise work best together, not separately. - Well, it seems we've covered a lot of ground today. From the basics of forever chemicals to their potential impact on sleep and broader health issues, we've certainly given our listeners plenty to think about. Thank you, Eric and Kate, for sharing your insights and perspectives on this important topic. Until next time, this is Ted from Listen2, signing off.