Archive for 'Law'

EPA to take action on chemicals used in dyes, flame retardants, and industrial detergents

Posted on Aug 19, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, Law, Susie Collins

1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released action plans to address the potential health risks of benzidine dyes, hexabromocyclododecane and nonylphenol/nonylphenol ethoxylates. The efforts are to limit exposure and reduce harm to people.

8/18/10 WASHINGTON – As part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s commitment to strengthen and reform chemical management, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released action plans today to address the potential health risks of benzidine dyes, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and nonylphenol (NP)/nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). The chemicals are widely used in both consumer and industrial applications, including dyes, flame retardants, and industrial laundry detergents. The plans identify a range of actions the agency is considering under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

“The action plans announced today are examples of EPA’s renewed dedication to improve chemical safety to protect the health of the American people and the environment.” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These action plans lay out concrete steps EPA intends to take to address the risks associated with chemicals commonly used in this country.”

Benzidine dyes are used in the production of consumer textiles, paints, printing inks, paper, and pharmaceuticals and may pose health problems, including cancer. HBCD is used as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam in the building and construction industry, as well as in some consumer products. HBCD has been shown to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment and may pose potential reproductive, developmental, and neurological effects in people. NP/NPEs are used in many industrial applications and consumer products such as detergents, cleaners, agricultural and indoor pesticides, as well as food packaging. These chemicals have been detected in people.

The range of actions on these chemicals include adding HBCD and NP/NPE to EPA’s new Chemicals of Concern list, issuing significant new use rules for all three chemicals, and, for HBCD and benzidine dyes, imposing new reporting requirements on EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory and potentially banning or limiting the manufacture or use of the chemicals.

In addition to EPA’s efforts, the Textile Rental Services Association, which represents 98 percent of the industrial laundry facilities in the U.S., has committed to voluntarily phase out the use of NPEs in industrial liquid detergents by Dec. 31, 2013 and industrial powder detergents by the end of 2014.

“While EPA intends to address the potential risks associated with these chemicals,” Owens stated, “we are pleased that the industrial laundry industry has decided to not wait for regulatory action to be completed by the agency and is voluntarily taking steps now to phase out the use of NPEs.”

EPA first announced that it planned to develop the Chemicals of Concern list last December, which indicates that the chemicals may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. This previously unused TSCA authority signals the agency’s commitment to fully use the tools currently available, while supporting legislative reform of TSCA.

Additional information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , ,

This is why justice is rare in court cases involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Posted on Aug 13, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Law, MCS, Susie Collins

15

In the 2008 case of O’Brien v Citizens Insurance Company of America, the court managed to silence Ms. Delora O’Brien’s argument about her Multiple Chemical Sensitivity before she even started, by prohibiting her from providing expert testimony at trial in support of her claims.

Justice is all too rare in court cases involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

In Oct. 2008, the Supreme Court in Suffolk County, NY., rendered a decision in a case where a woman sued her homeowner’s insurance company because of toxic remediation treatments to her home following a clothes dryer fire. The plaintiff claimed that the treatments, which included degreasers, furniture polish and window cleaners followed by an ozone treatment*, initiated her Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

In O’Brien v Citizens Insurance Company of America, the court managed to silence Ms. Delora O’Brien’s argument before she even started, by prohibiting her from providing expert testimony at trial in support of her claims of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. After listening to the Defendant’s argument discrediting MCS as an illness initiated by toxic chemical exposure, the court said, “There is nothing in the record that identifies a diagnostic test for MCS (IEI), nor are there any studies submitted which identify a mechanism or cause for MCS.” This conclusion was reached after the defendant, who refers to MCS as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance or IEI, argued that there was no proof that MCS is a recognized illness due to the absence of “proof in the form of controlled studies, clinical data, medical literature, or peer review indicating the expert’s conclusions are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.”

(By the way, always red flag any statement you see with Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance or IEI given as the name of MCS because it is designed to discredit MCS as a physiological illness.)

The court took a look at the Defendant’s argument and decided, “There is no evidence submitted to establish a causal relationship between any of the chemicals that are known to have been utilized during the remediation process at the O’Brien home and MCS (IEI). The Court concludes therefore that there is insufficient evidence to show general causation.” The final decision: Any opinions/conclusions on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as an illness initiated by toxic chemicals must be omitted from the case.

Ms. O’Brien’s credibility was further compromised by the fact that the first doctor she visited after becoming ill with “headaches, fatigue and nausea,” diagnosed her as depressed and prescribed xanax and zoloft. Can you see where this is going?

Those of us with MCS know differently than the argument presented by the Defendant and the decision reached by the court. We know that current research, peer reviewed and published, clearly shows a causal relationship between exposure to a minimum of seven classes of toxic chemicals and the initiation of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

MCS researcher Martin Pall is at the forefront of this current research. His peer reviewed research is now published as chapter 92, “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Toxicological Questions and Mechanisms,” in the international reference manual General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley and Sons). “While the majority of this paper comes from my earlier publications on MCS,” says Pall, “it also contains several very important sections that are largely novel.” Here are three of his main points germane to our discussion about this court case:

1. There are seven classes of chemicals implicated in MCS and all seven of these can indirectly produce a common response in the body, increased NMDA activity. Furthermore, animal studies have shown that members of all seven of these classes of chemicals can have their toxic responses lowered by using an NMDA antagonist. This clearly demonstrates not only that they produce such increased NMDA activity but those increases play an important role in producing the toxic responses to these chemicals. Given that we previously had six types of evidence implicating excessive NMDA activity in MCS, we now have compelling evidence that this common response plays a key role in MCS.

2. The role of these chemicals acting as toxicants in MCS has been confirmed by four genetic studies, showing that genes that determine the rate of metabolism of these chemicals, influence susceptibility to MCS (only three were available when the review was written). These studies implicate six genes as determining such susceptibility, all of which have roles in the metabolism of chemicals otherwise implicated in initiating cases of MCS. It follows that the roles of chemicals in initiating cases of MCS is undeniable.

3. There have been a series of published studies reporting objectively measurable responses to low level chemical exposure among MCS cases that are distinct from any responses in normals. At least three of these should be practical specific biomarker tests that can be applied in clinical settings. All of these studies are consistent with the NO/ONOO- cycle mechanism as it is thought to play out in MCS and all provide, therefore, evidence supporting this mechanism. We have been in great need for such specific biomarker tests for MCS and these and other approaches to developing such tests must be further studied and may provide recognized specific biomarker tests in the near future, in my judgment.

I have heard argued on other MCS forums that the problem is the name of our illness, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Use that name in the courts, people argue, and you are immediately discredited. I disagree. I think no matter the name, we would still run up against this problem in the courts. Although I think a Plaintiff may have more success if he or she has other more easily measurable co-morbid illnesses along with the MCS; a physician and attorney may be able to build stronger medical evidence through those measurable illnesses than the MCS. But what about the people who only suffer the currently difficult to measure symptoms like “brain fog”? I say keep the name as it is found in most of the scientific literature, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and back up the arguments with the peer reviewed research. When asthma was once though of as a psychological illness, did you hear people clamoring to change the name? No, you saw the research and the body of literature grow to the point that the illness could no longer be seen as psychosomatic.

Read the court’s decision and weep for Ms. O’Brien. But know that one day– I hope soon– Multiple Chemical Sensitivity will be added to the long list of illnesses that were once thought to be “idiopathic” such as asthma, autism, Parkinson’s disease, ulcers, multiple sclerosis, lupus, interstitial cystitis, migraine and ulcerative colitis, all of which have been claimed at one time to be generated by a psychological mechanism. How long it will take for the courts to catch up with the current body of literature clearly showing a causal relationship between toxic chemical exposure and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is anyone’s guess. But I think we may see more of this debate in the news as the recent BP oil well blow out in the Gulf and the subsequent health issues play out in the courts.

*Read more more about the dangers of ozone treatments here.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , ,

Danish report explores Multiple Chemical Sensitivity policy in 11 European countries

Posted on Jun 30, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Guest Bloggers, Law, MCS, Policy

3

Here is the English translation of a Danish report on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity policy in 11 European countries.

By guestblogger Harry Clark, President, MCS Society of Australia, Inc.

Cover of Danish report translated by Harry Clark, et al.

The Danish Health Ministry recently released a report about measures being taken by 11 European countries to address Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). Please find attached an English translation of the document, entitled Measures Taken by European Countries for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which I have translated with the kind assistance of several people. I extend my thanks to Sandra, Monika, Mervi, Martine and Charlotte for their invaluable assistance with translations, corrections, proofing and suggestions. I also wish to thank Martine who brought the Danish report to my attention.

Please check Eva Caballe’s blog, No Fun,  and Mariajo Moya’s blog, Mi Estrella de Mar, for subsequent Spanish translations.

SUMMARY OF REPORT

In many countries around the world, there are fascinating and important developments occurring in the realm of MCS. Yet, much of this knowledge is unintentionally restrained behind veils of the different languages used. These veils that partition MCS knowledge and restrict its flow need to be actively pushed aside so that we can all freely share in the full and developing body of MCS materials. Translations, like the one in English presented here of the Danish Health Ministry’s report, are of great importance because they enable MCS knowledge to spread further afield, which in turn empowers all of us as we engage in the challenge of improving the lives of people who have MCS.

The Danish paper represents an important snapshot of current MCS thinking and activity in Denmark and 11 other European governments. It reports on a pioneering conversation between governments. It is not full of news or attitudes that are the absolute best for those of us with MCS, but there are plenty of threads of opportunity and hope. I suggest this report reflects conversations on MCS that are occurring within some European countries and also in some offices of the European Parliament. Clearly those who wish to dismiss MCS have lost some influence, otherwise this Danish report would not exist.

To briefly summarize the Danish report:

  • Only two countries, Germany and Austria, recognize MCS as a physical disease on their ICD disease registers. In Germany this means a sick leave note and perhaps sick pay may be available, but confusingly they say that MCS is not explicitly recognized as a disease in Germany and that it is not recognised as an occupational disease there. To add to the confusion, in Austria a person disabled by MCS will likely be diagnosed as having a mental disorder in order for them to have the opportunity to gain a pension.
  • Three countries– Finland, Sweden and Germany– recommend perfume and strong detergents be avoided in the public sphere; including for example hospitals, kindergartens, schools and after school care.
  • Six countries– Finland, Luxemburg, Nederland, Sweden, Germany and Austria– follow the European Union Directive on labelling for cosmetics. Germany particularly mentioned that sensitising agents need to be listed on a products label. Britain labels according to other EU environmental legislation. Denmark says it labels all cosmetic products with declarations of their contents such that people with allergies can avoid products they might react to, but does not say what law or directive it follows.
  • France, while not identifying MCS as a special strand of study, is setting up a number of systems and studies to obtain information on Electromagnetic Sensitivities and to collect records of people who suffer symptoms that appear to be allergy related but are not proven to be allergies. They are looking at the biochemical status of 20,000 children in a longitudinal study. Allergies and their prevention is a specific focus of the Environment and Health Plan for 2009-2010.
  • The Västra Götalands region of Sweden put in place a region-wide Fragrance-Free Hospital policy in 2008 that covers 17 hospitals. Also, the Swedish EPA says that sustainable development requires the reduction of the inconvenience brought about by chemicals to people who are already hypersensitive. However they have suggested no measures to achieve this.
  • The Federal Agency for the Environment in Germany generally recommends that those with MCS should not be socially excluded.
  • Luxembourg’s environment ministry has a campaign to promote the use of organic laundry detergent and cleaning products and warns against adding fragrances that don’t aid the cleaning.

Harry Clark

President
MCS Society of Australia, Inc.
Email: MCS-Society-of-Australia@bigpond.net.au

Founder
MCS News Australia

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , ,

A timeline of health horrors caused by the BP oil well blow out

Posted on Jun 28, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, MCS, Susie Collins, Worker's Rights

15

Clean up workers are already visiting their doctors with symptoms of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

A still from the BP oil well blow out live cam taken June 28.

Have you been as crazed as I’ve been watching the images of people without respirators working on the so-called “clean up” in the Gulf? We all knew it was only a matter of time before cases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity were reported. Take a look at the timeline: reports of MCS started fairly soon after the blow out.

5/03: MSNBC reports that the oil spill has little impact on human health: gunk spreading across Gulf a disaster for ecosystem, but not the public. Yeah, right.

5/23: Gina Solomon at the Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog, called Switchboard, reports Oil Spill Clean-Up Workers Getting Sick.

5/27: The Washington Post reports that illnesses among workers highlight concerns about health risks of oil cleanup.

6/03: CNN reports on a gutsy fisherman’s wife who breaks the silence about her husband’s deteriorating health since he worked on clean up efforts in the Gulf. “After attending a lecture by Rikki Ott [sic], a toxicologist who’s worked with families affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, [fisherman's wife Kindra] Arnesen decided to organize other wives to ask questions about the safety of working near the oil.” (See next entry for more info on Riki Ott.) Here’s the CNN vid about Kindra and her husband:

Here’s a couple of asides from our Timeline– Here’s Riki Ott in the documentary film Black Wave about the Exxon Valdez spill:

Here’s more from Riki Ott on 20 years after the Exxon Valdez spill:

Back to our current disaster:

6/03: The Huffington Post reports Gulf Oil Spill Sickness: Cleanup Workers Experience Health Problems, Complain Of Flulike Symptoms.

6/07: I contacted Alison Johnson, author of Amputated Lives: Coping with Chemical Sensitivity, a book about the development of chemical sensitivity in Exxon Valdez cleanup workers, Gulf War veterans, 9/11 First Responders, and FEMA trailer residents. I spoke to Alison on the phone and she expressed concern for the people in the Gulf region that had lived through the toxic soup of hurricane Katrina, including the toxic FEMA trailers, and were now experiencing the fumes from this BP disaster. Given that MCS can be initiated by repeated exposures to toxic chemicals, people in the region should take note of Alison’s concern.

6/08: Ariel Schwartz at Fast Company warns clean up crews to Read This Before You Volunteer to Clean Up the BP Oil Disaster.

Merle Savage has a wheezy, guttural smoker’s cough. But the 71-year-old former Alaska resident and author of Silence in the Sound never smoked a day in her life. She did, however, spend four months as a general foreman during the Exxon Valdez oil spill recovery project in 1989. And she has a message for anyone working at the BP oil disaster sites: “You’ve got to use your common sense. Breathing crude oil is toxic.”

6/11: The Raw Story reports that a human rights group says BP is discouraging crews from using respirators. “BP’s logic seems to be that if the oil cleanup doesn’t look dangerous then it must not be. The oil company has told workers not to wear respirators because it’s bad for public relations, according to one human rights group.” [Emphasis added.]

AND HERE’S THE REPORT WE KNEW WAS COMING:

6/15: Janet Kwak at WOAI TV reports that a mysterious illness plagues Gulf oil disaster workers. Clean up workers are visiting their doctors with symptoms of Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance or TILT, which is another name for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

“What makes it challenging is that patients show up with non-specific symptoms. Headaches, fatigue, problems with memory and concentration, upset stomach,” lists Dr. Claudia Miller at UT Health Science Center.

The illness is called “TILT,” or Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance. Patients lose tolerance to household products, medication, or even food after being exposed to chemicals, like burning oil, toxic fumes, or dispersants from the spill.

“Things like diesel fuel, exposure to fragrances, cleaning agents that never bothered them before suddenly bother them,” adds Dr. Miller.

6/18: Politics AP reports BP’s records on ill workers tell only part of the story.

This is about the time I discover the Louisiana Environmental Action Network report on the Health Impacts Associated with Dispersants and Louisiana Sweet Crude. I felt from the beginning of the disaster that the dispersant Corexit was going to cause as much if not more damage to people, animals and the environment as the crude oil. Take a look at the lists on that page for health impacts of both the dispersant and the oil.

And yesterday I found a report in the New York Times about how Cleanup Hiring Feeds Frustration in Fishing Town. Don’t you just love how BP has managed to destroy the environment, livelihoods and probably the health of most workers and many others in the affected regions while at the same time remaining the main employer with “clean up” efforts?

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , ,

CNN investigative report Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta to rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow

Posted on Jun 05, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Media/Videos, Products, Susie Collins

2

The two-part CNN investigation “Toxic America” with Dr. Sanjay Gupta will rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow night, Sat & Sun, June 5 & 6, at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Check listings in your area to confirm times. Don’t miss it!

I was hesitant to recommend the CNN special Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta until I saw the first airing. It’s pretty good actually, although if you look at it through the lens of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity you may feel that it falls short in many areas. Still, it’s heartening to see this topic and type of investigative reporting on mainstream media. Dr. Gupta does a good job of presenting the problems of toxic chemicals in our environment and our homes, and he shows genuine concern, repeating over and over the fact that out of the 80,000 chemicals put into consumer goods, only 200 have been tested for safety.

Click here for dates and times of ONLINE replays June 7, 8, & 9.

Also, for those of you so inclined, CNN is inviting you to “Share Your Story” through video or photos:

Put yourself on video and document conditions in your area, or take photos of what’s around you. Tell us what industrial or chemical pollution may be contributing to health problems for you and those you love, and be sure not to put yourself in a dangerous situation.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Setting the record straight about Linda Sepp’s housing situation

Posted on May 09, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, MCS, Susie Collins

65

A recent article in The Toronto Star is full of misinformation and inaccuracies about Linda Sepp’s housing problems. I’d like to clear things up.

Linda Sepp

The Star reports on Linda Sepp’s house hunting and eviction in an article by Theresa Boyle entitled Can Linda Sepp possibly be helped? The article is full of inaccuracies about Linda’s situation that I’d like to clear up.

Before I pick apart the points, I’d like to make clear that I am a friend of Linda’s. No, we have never met, but we have emailed with each other daily for almost two years. We’ve laughed together, cried together, spent New Year’s Eve together, helped many people with MCS together, hunted for informational materials together, and built The Canary Report together into what it is today. She’s been my research assistant, and truth be told, she’s been my mentor as I learned the ropes about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and the problem of toxic chemicals in the marketplace and the environment. Linda is very smart. The information that she shares with others is solid; I never have to worry about checking her sources, she always backs up her claims with data and reports, and she’s thorough with her critical thinking.

But Linda is also very ill and completely disabled by chemical sensitivities, fibromyalgia, and electro hypersensitivity. The old house she was living in prior to eviction on May 5, her home of 19 years, was full of mold, and she also was frequently exposed to toxic fumes wafting in from the outside. She was living in a precarious, unsafe housing situation. And as her eviction date neared, she was becoming more and more ill in my opinion, as her emails became less frequest, less engaged and sometimes merely fragments of thoughts peppered with uncertainty about her future.

The process of house hunting for Linda as her eviction date of April 4 loomed was complicated and fraught with difficulty. She is what is known in the world of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as a universal reactor, meaning she is uber sensitive to toxic chemicals, and the smallest quantity of exposure to VOCs, pesticides, laundry products and modern fragrance (which contains known toxic chemicals), among myriad other chemicals, make her very ill very quickly. Recovery is difficult. This health problem complicates house hunting, complicates finding a safe place to live. Housing opportunities that might seem a godsend to someone who is healthy or has a less serious case of MCS, cannot work for someone as ill as Linda.

So let’s look at the article written in The Star by Ms. Boyle. First up, Ms. Boyle’s description of what Linda was asking for, which the reporter couched in an incredulous tone that says to the reader “Look at what this woman is demanding!”:

The woman, who survives on an Ontario disability cheque, said she would like a “modest” three-bedroom house on three acres of land, surrounded by trees and fresh air. It should include a sauna and a sunroom, porch, patio or gazebo for reading and artwork. There should be a small barn for chicken, goats and an animal rescue. And for guests, a bunkie and detox shower.

Except that is NOT and never was Linda’s criteria for finding safe housing. That was Linda’s dream house list (every person with MCS has a dream house in mind, am I right?), that list was never the working list that her landlord nor her housing team was using as criteria, it never was what Linda was asking for. Basically, Linda was asking for a nontoxic two bedroom with clean water and fresh outside air. Period.

Next:

But skeptics question the existence of MCS. They acknowledge that people can have chemical sensitivities and allergies, but wonder if it is a stretch to say these can be a debilitating syndrome. A June 2008 article in the Journal of Environmental Science notes that there is “considerable doubt” about the condition “from the scientific community, political leadership and many in the general public who claim that it is psychological.” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not recognize it, the article notes. But it goes on to say that it would be irresponsible of public health officials not to explore the possibility of MCS.

Who cares what the “the scientific community,” politicians or the general public think about MCS? What kind of reporting is that? Linda has sent Ms. Boyle copies of the current peer reviewed research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which clearly shows that MCS is a physiological illness of toxicological origin. Linda is not pulling that info out of her hat, this is the peer reviewed research of Martin Pall recently published as Chapter 92 in the prestigious international reference work for professional toxicologists,  General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley & Sons).  Further, and just for the record, here’s a list of research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity compiled by Professor Anne C. Steinemann and Amy L. Davis at University of Washington Seattle; this document lists about 100 citations for peer-reviewed journal articles that support a physiological basis for MCS. And I will note, the Centers for Disease Control just issued a chemical- and fragrance-free policy in all their offices nationwide because of the negative effect of those products on the health of their employees– the very products that make people with MCS ill.

Next:

Before forcing her out, W.J. [Linda's landlord] made the unheard of offer of buying a $200,000 house anywhere in the province and renting it to her for $500 a month. Her wish-list to the landlord was more reasonable than what she had provided to the city. She asked for wood floors, few stairs and access to a source of organic food. A house fitting the bill was found in Lindsay in February 2008, but after visiting it Sepp turned it down. It smelled of baby powder and made her feel sick.

W.J. proposed other homes, one in Huntsville and another in Lanark. The landlord offered to buy a Solo home, a prefabricated building that could be adapted to someone with allergies. All offers were nixed.

Although such an offer can seem above and beyond anything due Linda by her landlord, and although it can seem that Linda was unreasonable in refusing all offers, anyone with MCS knows that this deal is fraught with peril. At the most basic of levels, we all know the perils involved with a house that has been contaminated with products made from toxic chemicals like air fresheners and personal care products. I know dozens of cases of people with MCS renting homes that they thought they could decontaminate, only to be made sick for a year or longer until their lease ran out.

But Linda’s situation is more complicated than even people with MCS seem to understand. Linda was living in Toronto, unable to leave her house, and had people to shop for her. Part of her decision on taking the houses offered by the landlord was that she had to gamble that she would be able to move to the house and recover enough very quickly to be able to drive at least once a week, perhaps an hour away, to do her own shopping at organic markets. If she moved to a rural place in Ontario, not only would she have to be able to shop for herself, but also she would have to be able to handle the winters in Ontario alone in a rural setting. These are both huge responsibilities to take on if you are housebound and have been depending on people doing your errands for you. You can’t just “get it delivered.” The truth is that Linda had to take under consideration whether or not she could manage living alone rurally. That is a legitimate concern. Who knows if there would have been people locally that could help her after the move?

Next:

Friends and staff from the city’s shelter support office pored over real estate listings and thought they found the perfect solution: a $200,000 home in Bobcaygeon that had been built for someone with MCS. But Sepp turned it down because W.J. refused to pay an extra $45,000 to have a couple of extra walls installed. Besides, it had bad feng shui, she said.

This is by far the most egregious of errors in the article because it makes Linda look very bad when in fact Linda did no such thing as stated.  The landlord refused to purchase that house based on it being LISTED at $245,000, which was over the landlord’s cap of $200,000. The extra $45,000 had NOTHING to do with Linda asking for any walls to be built. The comment about the “bad feng shui” had NOTHING to do with Linda refusing an offer; at the most it was an off-handed remark made by Linda way after this house was discussed and rejected BY THE LANDLORD. In fact, had the landlord said okay to buying that house, Linda would have accepted it– I have the emails from her saying that she was ready to accept that house before she heard the landlord’s refusal to buy it.

I have received many negative emails and comments on both my blog and Linda’s blog (for which I am the admin) from people who think Linda is acting unreasonable. All the comments were generated because of this article by Theresa Boyle. I have not released any of them because I can’t see how they add anything valuable to the discussion, given that they were generated by misinformation.

To Ms. Boyle: Please be very careful about how you report on this story. Check your facts. Be open to exploring current research on MCS. Cross reference your information on Linda’s situation from two primary sources, as is your responsibility. This is a drama playing out in public about a woman whose housing problem represents the housing problems of thousands of people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Please do not add to the din of misinformation that hurts our community and adds to our struggle for full recognition, full health care, and full social services.

And to those of you getting mad at Linda for her not accepting so many offers of housing: Please try to use this as an opportunity for practicing love and compassion. Judge not lest you be judged. Linda is a member of our community, a valuable member, and this is a time when we can open our hearts and do nothing but love each other. Anger serves no purpose whatsoever. Our job, as human beings on this blessed Earth, is to be kind and to love. Just do it.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

MCS Awareness Month: Conversation starters and letters to the editor

Posted on May 08, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, MCS, Susie Collins

2

Wearing something symbolic that starts a conversation, and writing letters to the editors of your local papers, are both excellent ways to increase MCS awareness!

Kris Kuipers and friends sewed electromagnetic shielding cloth into a cape for her to wear when out in public, and appliqued the canary on the front as a conversation starter for educational purposes on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and Electromagnetic Sensitivity. "It works!" Kris says.

Canary Report member Kris Kuipers shares with us a letter to the editor she’s written. She says you are welcome to use it as a template for your own letter.

Dear Editor,

May is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness Month. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, MCS is a diagnostic label for people who suffer with multi-system illnesses as a result of contact with, or proximity to, a variety of airborne agents and other substances. Sufferers develop symptoms of toxic exposure from a variety of agents. The most common are molds, smoke, and products containing fragrances, petroleum, formaldehyde, pesticides, and herbicides. Fragrances are added to everything from personal care products to laundry and cleaning products. Symptoms of exposure to these agents ranges from headache and fatigue to reactive airway distress, neurological problems, and seizures.

I want to take this opportunity to increase awareness of this serious illness and encourage prevention. Over 48 million men, women, and children of all races that are affected. According to MCS America, “Even though MCS is of widespread epidemic prevalence, public awareness of the toxicity of common environmental insults and ways to manage and accommodate MCS remains limited.”

Chemical exposure creates functional limitations for people with MCS, which requires reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fragrance free policies for work places, schools, churches, and public bathrooms can be implemented. MCS develops from either a single large or chronic exposure to chemicals. Replacing all chemical filled products in the home with natural and fragrance free safe products, as well as caring for lawns and dealing with bugs in a non chemical way, may help to prevent the development of MCS.

I hope this letter helps educate our public in the use of these fragrances and chemicals and how harmful they are not only to people with MCS, but to all of us. I welcome questions. Please do not hesitate to give me a call. I would love to chat with you in how to implement these positive changes.

Sincerely,

Kris Kuipers

Continue Reading

Tags: , ,

The President’s Cancer Panel releases report: We must eliminate environmental carcinogens from our workplaces, schools, and homes.

Posted on May 06, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Policy, Research, Susie Collins

3

Report to the President concludes that the nation needs a comprehensive, cohesive policy agenda regarding environmental contaminants and protection of human health. The main problem they say? Toxic chemicals in the environment.

The President's Cancer Panel releases their 2008-2009 report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now." The report emphasizes prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention.

The U.S. President’s Cancer Panel released their 2008-2009 report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now. As a person with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity who has survived breast cancer, I’m pleased to see the panel addressed myriad health problems associated with toxic chemicals in the marketplace; the panel extended it’s opinion beyond carcinogens to include “other toxins” as well such as endocrine disruptors.

From the report’s introduction:

The Administration’s commitment to the cancer community and recent focus on critically needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act is praiseworthy. However, our Nation still has much work ahead to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our workplaces, schools, and homes [emphasis added]. [...]

The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. [...]

The American people—even before they are born—are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures. The Panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.

I’m really impressed with the report’s emphasis on prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention. The report also emphasizes the fact that most people are unaware “that children are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation than adults.” They recommend that this perpetual state of ignorance be corrected by increasing efforts “to inform the public of such harmful exposures and how to prevent them.” Doesn’t that sound just like what most of us with MCS do on a regular basis? It’s so nice to see this prestigious panel catch up with us!

I also was very impressed with their conclusion, where they end with an emphasis on prevention:

The Nation Needs a Comprehensive, Cohesive Policy Agenda Regarding Environmental Contaminants and Protection of Human Health.

Environmental health, including cancer risk, has been largely excluded from overall national policy on protecting and improving the health of Americans. It is more effective to prevent disease than to treat it, but cancer prevention efforts have focused narrowly on smoking, other lifestyle behaviors, and chemopreventive interventions. Scientific evidence on individual and multiple environmental exposure effects on disease initiation and outcomes, and consequent health system and societal costs are not being adequately integrated into national policy decisions and strategies for disease prevention, health care access, and health system reform.

Use this document to your full advantage. Share it with employers, family, friends, members of your church, administrators at your kid’s schools, and other people that need an education about the risks of toxic chemicals in everyday life.

What do I keep telling you? Trends are moving in our direction.

Here’s the link to the full report.

Here’s a link to an article about the report from Environmental Health News. Thanks, Roslyn!

Here’s a link to column about the report by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , ,

Linda Sepp is evicted from her home this morning, spending nite in car

Posted on May 04, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, Linda Sepp, MCS, Susie Collins

19

The day Linda Sepp had dreaded arrived with a knock at the door this morning.

Linda Sepp

The Star reports on Canary Report contributor Linda Sepp‘s eviction, which took place at 10:00 a.m this morning. I believe it’s a fairly accurate report on the events that transpired.

Toxic dilemma: Landlord, non-profit centre attempt to find replacement home for woman with chemical sensitivity, but without success.

The 50-year-old woman with chemical sensitivities was roused from her sleep by enforcement officers from the sheriff’s office. After a four-year eviction battle, they had come to throw her out of her High Park apartment.

Four enforcement officers dressed in white haz-mat coveralls and face masks — meant to keep Sepp safe from them should they have worn cologne or washed their hair with strong shampoo — hauled the woman’s possessions onto the front porch. From there, her 82-year-old father lugged bags and boxes down a flight of steps to her car.

“I’m beyond panicked. I’m blank. I’m numb,” said Sepp, who has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), a condition that causes rashes, headaches and burning sensations when she is exposed to chemicals in the environment.

[..]

She considered spending the night under the trees in High Park but changed her mind when it started to rain.

Instead, she has opted to camp out in her car in the dusty parking lot of a Buddhist temple in the west end.

Even though it’s beside a mound of garbage bags and a construction site, she says it’s the lesser of many evils.

“I don’t have anywhere to go. I’m just at a loss.”

Click here for full report at The Star.

Click here for other stories on Linda’s housing situation.

Click here for Linda’s blog.

5/5 UPDATE: Last night, it was decided that staying in her car was not safe, so Linda slept on the balcony of her father’s condo.

5/6 UPDATE: Reported in Health Zone: Woman with chemical sensitivities camps out on condo balcony.

5/7 UPDATE, FROM LINDA: Mini update – I’ve just talked with MP Gerard Kennedy and he is genuinely looking for more help and ways to resolve this mess. I love you all!

Continue Reading

Tags: , , ,

ANTI-TOXIC MANIFESTO: We know they are lying to us

Posted on May 04, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Eva Caballé, Guest Bloggers, MCS, Social Justice

5

Although they want to make us invisible, lock us up in an illness and throw away the key, poison us and shut our mouths, kill us and then plant fake flowers on our tombs, they will not be able to lock us up, shut us up, nor make us disappear.

By guestbloggers Clara Valverde and Eva Caballé, Spain.

WE KNOW THEY ARE LYING TO US

(ANTI-TOXIC MANIFESTO)

International Day of Fibromyalgia, ME/CFS and MCS

May 12, 2010

They are lying to us. We know they are lying.

For the politicians, we are the black sheep in their controlled herd.

For the doctors who lie to us, we are the misbehaved guinea-pigs.

For the industry that lies to us, we are the non-profitable broken machines.

For the pharmaceutical companies, we are the pebble in their shoe.

The disease mongers lie to us.

Those who talk of progress with one hand on their wallet, lie to us.

But we do not believe their toxic lies.

Although they want to make us invisible, lock us up in an illness and throw away the key, poison us and shut our mouths, kill us and then plant fake flowers on our tombs, they will not be able to lock us up, shut us up, nor make us disappear.

We are out of patience and we are not good patients. We do not justify ourselves nor do we explain ourselves.

If you suffer with Fibromyalgia, survive with ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, if you are agonizing with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, you should know that you are at war. Their lies do not scare us, they are the ammunition in this war that has merely started.

Eva Caballé

If you believe that you are healthy, choose your side: get sick with them or live with us.

Now is our moment: we name, we decide, we define.

We do not believe their toxic lies.

We know they are lying.

Clara Valverde & Eva Caballé

~~~

Click here for pdf of manifesto: Sabemos Que Mienten

Eva Caballé blogs about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity at NO FUN. English section here.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , ,

Sen. Lautenberg introduces “Safe Chemicals Act” to protect Americans from toxic chemicals

Posted on Apr 19, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, Policy, Susie Collins

5

Measure will require safety testing for chemicals.

U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)

This is VERY good news! The moment we’ve been waiting for. A press release from Sen. Lautenberg’s office:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today announced legislation to overhaul the “Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976” (TSCA), an antiquated law that in its current state, leaves Americans at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals. Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, introduced the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” to protect the health of families and the environment.

“America’s system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken,” said Senator Lautenberg. “Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children’s bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My ‘Safe Chemicals Act’ will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals. Chemical safety reform is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it is a common-sense issue and I look forward to building bipartisan support for this measure.”

The “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” requires safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order stay on the market. Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances. The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

Over the last several months, Sen. Lautenberg has chaired a series of hearings to help craft the “Safe Chemicals Act” with dozens of witnesses including business leaders, public officials, scientists, doctors, academics, and non-profit organizations [read about one of the hearings on a post here at The Canary Report]. Through the hearings, public health groups, environmentalists, industry representatives and the EPA have expressed support for reforms to our nation’s toxic substance laws. The “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” comports with the reform principles laid out by the Obama Administration, the American Chemistry Council and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition.

The text of the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010″ can be found here and a full summary of the bill can be found here.

Highlights of the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010”

Provides EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical’s safety. Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, while also preventing duplicative or unnecessary testing. EPA will have full authority to request additional information needed to determine the safety of a chemical.

Prioritizes chemicals based on risk. Calls on the EPA to categorize chemicals based on risk, and focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm.

Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market. Places the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals. All uses must be identified and determined safe for the chemical to enter the market or continue to be used.

Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals. Requires EPA to take fast action to reduce risk from chemicals that have already been proven dangerous. In addition, the EPA Administrator is given authority to act quickly if any chemical poses an imminent hazard.

Creates open access to reliable chemical information. Establishes a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA’s safety determinations. The EPA will impose requirements to ensure the information collected is reliable.

Promotes innovation and development of green chemistry. Establishes grant programs and research centers to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives, and brings some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

###

Although this is terrifically good news, there still remains much work to be done to ensure the reform is done right. Read more from Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and the Environmental Working Group.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , ,

Older Entries »