Veterinarians asked to report pesticide poisoning incidents

A new website is launched for veterinarians to help track pesticide poisoning incidents.

The data is supposed to be evaluated by the EPA. What they will do with it is yet to be seen since, as evidenced in yesterday’s post, they don’t seem to be doing much to protect people let alone pets. But I suppose it will start a database that may some day be useful if anyone wishes to change pesticide policy for the health of pets.

(”Beyond Pesticides” January 2, 2009)– Household pets and other animals are commonly exposed to toxic pesticides in lawns and parks, from homeowner use of bug sprays, in contaminated air or water, or from flea and tick control products, potentially poisoning the animal and causing acute and chronic health effects. A new website has been designed for veterinarians to help track these pesticide poisoning incidents.

The incident reporting website is part of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) webpages. It was developed by the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) with input from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticide Program, AVMA’s Clinical Practitioners Advisory Committee and Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents “to capture the optimal amount of relevant information using a form that is quick for busy practitioners to fill out.” The data is to be evaluated by EPA.

According to EPA, “Most of the reports of more severe pesticide-related incidents EPA receives are neurological or dermatologic in nature. The reports from veterinarians will help improve the quality of all animal incident data.”

Numerous studies have documented the risk of pesticides to pets over the years. A 1991 National Cancer Institute study, finds that dogs whose owners’ lawns were treated with 2,4-D, four or more times per year, are twice as likely to contract canine malignant lymphoma than dogs whose owners do not use the herbicide. Exposure to herbicide-treated lawns and gardens increases the risk of bladder cancer by four to seven times in Scottish Terriers, according to a study by Purdue University veterinary researchers published in the April 15, 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Research published in the December 1988 issue of Preventive Veterinary Medicine links hyperthyroidism in cats to flea powders and sprays, lawn pesticides and canned cat food. Allethrin, a common ingredient in home mosquito products (coils, mats, oils and sprays) and other bug sprays, has been linked to liver problems in dogs, according to a 1989 study by the World Health Organization. The 1989 edition W.C. Campbell Toxicology textbook reports that chronic exposure to abamectin, an insecticide often used by homeowners on fire ants can affect the nervous system of dogs and cause symptoms such as pupil dilation, lethargy, and tremors.

According to 2004 statistics compiled by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ Animal Poison Control Center, 22% of approximately 880 cases of pet birds being exposed to common household items involved pesticides (including rat bait and insecticides).

“I can think of numerous cases over the years of abnormal neurologic signs in dogs after exposure to ‘benign’ herbicides and a pretty severe contact dermatitis in a cat after exposure to a pesticide,” states an ER vet in California. “I will try to encourage my colleagues to report any questionable adverse event in the future.”

If you suspect your pet has been poisoned, contact the Animal Poison Control Center at 888-426-4435. Encourage your veterinarian to document the pesticide poisoning through the new AVMA website. To be sure the incident does not go undocumented, complete Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Incident Report.

For more information on how your pet may be poisoned, what pesticides do to pets, and alterative pest management strategies for your home and pet pest problems, see Beyond Pesticides factsheet Pesticides and Pets: What you should know to keep your pets safe.

Gee, I can think of numerous times over the years of abnormal neurologic signs in me after exposure to “benign” herbicides. Anyone care to send a report in on that?

Link

Photo of dog on safe lawn by Anita Thomhave

Thanks, Linda!

Pesticide exposure kills elderly woman

EPA files complaint three years later; federal pesticide law limits the penalty EPA can seek to a maximum of $4,550.

(Beyond Pesticides) The U.S. EPA has filed an administrative complaint, seeking a maximum penalty of only $4,550, against a pest control company that sprayed pesticides in a couple’s home, causing the wife to die shortly thereafter. It has been more than three years since the incident took place in Florence, Oregon.

Swanson’s Pest Management of Eugene, Oregon sent an employee to a home on June 29, 2005 to apply Conquer Residential Insecticide Concentrate, active ingredient esfenvalerate, and ULD BP-100 Contact Insecticide, active ingredient pyrethrin. The couple returned to their home two and a half hours later and immediately fell to the ground due to the fumes. Paramedics were called in and they too experienced respiratory distress or became ill when they entered the treated home. According to The Oregonian, Florence Kolbeck was 76 years old and died of cardiac arrest as a result of the exposure. Her husband, Fred, was hospitalized for respiratory distress.

The complaint was filed following a review of Swanson’s use of the two pesticides, finding that the company failed to properly ventilate the home prior to the occupants re-entering, and improperly applied Conquer as a “space spray” at nearly three times the allowable rate. All of which are violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The U.S. EPA complaint also contains alleged violations pertaining to an application at another residence that took place prior to the application that led to the women’s death. In this case, the applicator allegedly used the same tank mix of pesticides, though no adverse health affects were reported.

A 2006 article in the Seattle Times reported that Swanson’s general manager, Steve Fisher, “said his review of the case showed that the technician sprayed the home as he normally would… ‘Unfortunate things happen in just about every walk of life.’”

This past March, Fred Kolbeck settled a $2.5 million lawsuit against Swanson’s for an undisclosed amount, according to The Oregonian.

Swanson’s has 30 days from the day they received the U.S. EPA complaint to either arrange a settlement conference, file an answer to the Complaint, or pay the proposed penalty. Swanson’s operation manager, Joan Jensen told The Oregonian, “that the EPA’s allegations are not accurate” and that the “negotiations with the agency are ongoing.”

According to EPA, “The consequences of Swanson’s alleged violations were extremely serious,” yet the federal pesticide law limits the penalty EPA can seek to a maximum of $4,550.

With the phase-out of most residential uses of the common organophosphate insecticides, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, home use of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, such as the ones applied at the Kolbeck home, has increased. According to a 2008 report, pyrethrins and pyrethroids were responsible for more than 26 percent of all major and moderate human incidents involving pesticides in the United States in 2007, up from just 15 percent in 1998 - a 67 percent increase. This is based on an analysis of adverse reaction reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency by pesticide manufacturers.

While pyrethroids have been characterized as less toxic than organophosphates, the number of reported human health problems, including severe reactions and even deaths attributed to pesticides containing pyrethrins and pyrethroids, increased from 261 in 1998 to 1,030 in 2007, nearly a 300 percent increase. Pyrethrins and pyrethroids account for more incidents than any other class of pesticide over the last five years. EPA data shows at least 50 deaths attributed to this supposedly safer class of pesticides since 1992.

Pesticide products containing synthetic pyrethroids are often described by pest control operators as “safe as chrysanthemum flowers.” While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chyrsanthemum plant, they are chemically engineered to be more toxic, take longer to breakdown, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency and compromising the human body’s ability to detoxify the pesticide. Pyrethroids may affect neurological development, disrupt hormones, induce cancer, and suppress the immune system. Researchers at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) find that residential pesticide use represents the most important risk factor for children’s exposure to pyrethroid insecticides.

There are clear established methods for managing homes that prevent infestation of unwanted insects without the use of synthetic chemicals, including exclusion techniques, sanitation and maintenance practices, as well as mechanical and least toxic controls (which include boric acid and diatomaceous earth). Based on the host of health effects linked to pesticides, their use in the home is hazardous and unnecessary. Most pest problems can be solved without toxic pesticides, through sanitation, proper storage of food and trash, exclusion (sealing entryways), traps and non-volatile baits. For detailed information on preventing specific pests, see Beyond Pesticides’ Alternatives Factsheets.

For more information on the details of the Kolbeck/Swanson incident and the issues surrounding ventilation after a pesticide application, click here.

Link

Low levels of cigarette smoke residue highly toxic

“Similar to low-level lead exposure, low levels of tobacco particulates have been associated with cognitive deficits among children, and the higher the exposure level, the lower the reading score.”

So basically, once again, people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are way ahead of the curve on knowing that even extremely low levels of toxic chemicals can be neurotoxic.

Need another reason to add “Quit Smoking” to your New Year’s resolutions list? How about the fact that even if you choose to smoke outside of your home or only smoke in your home when your children are not there – thinking that you’re keeping them away from second-hand smoke – you’re still exposing them to toxins? In the January issue of Pediatrics, researchers at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (MGHfC) and colleagues across the country describe how tobacco smoke contamination lingers even after a cigarette is extinguished – a phenomenon they define as “third-hand” smoke. Their study is the first to examine adult attitudes about the health risks to children of third-hand smoke and how those beliefs may relate to rules about smoking in their homes.

“When you smoke – anyplace – toxic particulate matter from tobacco smoke gets into your hair and clothing,” says lead study author, Jonathan Winickoff, MD, MPH, assistant director of the MGHfC Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy. “When you come into contact with your baby, even if you’re not smoking at the time, she comes in contact with those toxins. And if you breastfeed, the toxins will transfer to your baby in your breastmilk.” Winickoff notes that nursing a baby if you’re a smoker is still preferable to bottle-feeding, however.

Particulate matter from tobacco smoke has been proven toxic. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, butane, ammonia, toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic, lead, chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), and polonium-210 (highly radioactive carcinogen). Eleven of the compounds are classified as Group 1 carcinogens, the most dangerous.

Small children are especially susceptible to third-hand smoke exposure because they can inhale near, crawl and play on, or touch and mouth contaminated surfaces. Third-hand smoke can remain indoors even long after the smoking has stopped. Similar to low-level lead exposure, low levels of tobacco particulates have been associated with cognitive deficits among children, and the higher the exposure level, the lower the reading score. These findings underscore the possibility that even extremely low levels of these compounds may be neurotoxic and, according to the researchers, justify restricting all smoking in indoor areas inhabited by children.

Link

Photo by lanier67

Thanks, Linda!

Canary’s Cry for Saturday, Dec. 27

A new Cal State Long Beach study finds high levels of DDT and PCB in seals and sea lions that died between 1994 and 2006, suggesting possible danger for humans.

The Los Angeles Times reports Old Chemicals Found Years Later in Marine Mammals. The new study found DDT, a once widely used agricultural pesticide now banned in the United States, in slightly lower concentrations in sea lions than was found in studies of marine mammals conducted in the early 1970s, according to the report published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin. Adult male sea lions and seals had the highest concentrations because they had the highest fat content. But the chemicals were also present in pups, who absorbed them from their mothers’ milk.

The Philadelphis Inquirer reports that fumes from a chemical used to deice planes got into the passenger cabin of an Alaska Airlines jet yesterday at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, irritating the eyes of people on board, officials said. Paramedics treated 26 people, and seven, including all five crew members, decided to go to a hospital, an airline spokeswoman said.

Chicago News reports that a South Side meat-packing plant containing hazardous chemicals burned for approximately three hours on Christmas Day before more than 160 firefighters extinguished the blaze.

The Ithaca Journal reports on more protest against the decision by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to allow retailers to sell toys in inventory that may contain a potentially harmful chemical. Continued sale of toys with phthalates - a class of chemical compound used as a softener for plastics that seeps out of toys when chewed - is possible because of a safety commission ruling that Congress’ Consumer Product Safety Act pertains only to newly manufactured or imported toys containing phthalates. In a press release, [Assemblywoman Barbara] Lifton said animal toxicity data shows that phthalates could be harmful to infants or children. Toys that are already in stock can still be sold because of pressure applied from toy and chemical companies such as ExxonMobil, she said. The Consumer Product Safety Act became law in August.

Photo by Tom Clifton

Germany strikes psychosomatic cause from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity guidelines

Germany’s Ministerium für Arbeit und Soziales removes the statement from the government’s disability guidelines that said Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is a somatoform (psychological) disorder.

This is great news for people with MCS throughout the world! The German government has struck out the statement from its MCS guidelines stating the illness is psychosomatic. This is inspiring for everyone throughout the world with MCS as a very important step toward universal recognition of MCS as a physical illness caused by chemical injury.

Here is a translation of the news received through email via Canada’s branch of the Global Recognition Campaign:

Merry Christmas for MCS patients

Silvia Mueller writes on Christmas Eve:

Here is the best message. The German Government Department for Social is the main department for disability, The Ministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. There are guidelines which are used by doctors, courts, authorities,… when it comes to a disability. In our disability guidelines MCS is a physical disease. It is registered in the part for movement disorders, because we can’t go everywhere, etc. There was one sentence in this guideline which was disturbing and used by opposition to refuse our cases and say we are psychosomatic cases. It said MCS is a somatoform disorder.

One of my people at CSN wrote to the department and asked that this nasty sentence is removed from the guidelines. Now MCS is a physical disease nothing else.  We have also the ICD-10 which says MCS is a physical disease. With these two tools nobody can discriminate us anymore.

It’s a victory - It’s Christmas for chemically sensitive people over here. We gave this information and the government letter as a present to the CS people today. After we started an online party. The motto of the party is that we think also about those who have nobody and we write poems, place links to you tube videos, write fun, greetings,… If you like to send something I can place it in for you, the people will love it.

Link to CSN Blog.

Dr. Rea and nobody else should worry. They can’t stop chemical sensitivity or declare us nuts anymore. We call it “the train is gone”.

It happened too much, and the bonds between people all over the world are too strong. Doctors find out more and more. And we all will not stop talking about it.  They can’t quiet us anymore.

Bonita Poulin

Canadian Coordinator
GLOBAL RECOGNITION CAMPAIGN
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
and other Chemically Induced Illnesses, Diseases and Injury affecting civilians and military personnel

MCS Global

Feel free to leave some comment love on the CSN Blog based in Germany. What a beautiful and supportive community they have! I feel so very happy for them. Let’s achieve this same good news in America and throughout the world!

Thanks, Linda!

Australia developing policy on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Australia’s Office of Health asks for public input on draft report on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

For all you readers in Oz, and an FYI for everyone else:

The Australian Office of Health and Office of Chemical Safety has released for public comment a working draft of a report entitled,  “A Scientific Review of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Identifying Key Research Needs.”

The report’s authors are asking for input to ensure all available scientific literature and technical information is included in the document to better identify the priority areas for research on MCS.

Here’s the Australian MCS Network’s thoughts on the Draft Report:

We feel it is important for the final document to be well informed and reflective of the current state of scientific research and thinking.

We are concerned that, despite current research evidence strongly supporting a physiological basis for MCS, the draft report appears to place emphasis on a psychogenic aetiology.

The final report will have a significant impact on the way Australians with MCS are treated and whether they get adequate access to health care and other services.

The report may be used as a key document by Government, hospitals and non government agencies, within Australia and internationally, to develop policies and services relating to MCS.

We would be grateful if you could find the time to make a submission to NICNAS on this report as it will affect the funding and direction of research into MCS.

Submissions can be emailed to:
MCS[at]nicnas.gov.au

or posted to:
MCS Report
NICNAS
GPO Box 58,
Sydney NSW 2001

The closing date is 30 January 2009.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Members of the Australian MCS Network

ASEHA Qld Inc
PO Box 96
Margate QLD 4019

Dr Geoff Pain
Scientific Advisor
Environmental Chemical Hypersensitivity Organisation
PO Box 529
Harvey WA 6220

Peter Evans, RN (formerly), Grad Dip Health Counseling Convenor
South Australian Task Force on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
PO Box 3308
Port Adelaide SA 5015

Tanya Lockett
General Manger/Community Leader
PocketWomen
PO Box 26
Rosewater SA 5013

Alexa McLaughlin
President
AIRA Inc (Allergies & Intolerant Reactions Association)
C/- 6A Gymea Street
Narrabundah ACT 2604

Julian Robinson
62/44 Jerrabomberra Ave
Narrabundah ACT 2604

Kerryn Ryan
Fragrance And Chemical Sensitivity Support Group
PO Box 162
Strathdale VIC 3550

Ann Want
Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance
309 East Bonville Road
Bonville NSW 2441

Link to information sheet on the Draft Report process

Link to full Draft Report

Thanks, Linda!

Air freshener manufacturers disclose product ingredients

Manufacturers disclose a plethora of chemicals in air fresheners including formaldehyde, benzene compounds and naphthalene.

We knew that crap was poison, didn’t we?

From The Alliance for Healthy Homes:

Under pressure from a coalition of environment and health groups, the seven largest air freshener manufacturers have disclosed their products’ ingredients to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The coalition of groups dropped a legal case regarding the issue against the EPA on December 11 and now plan to pressure the agency to evaluate the safety of the ingredients individually and in combination with each other.

The Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned EPA in September 2007 to learn the risks of air fresheners and to require that manufacturers list ingredients on labels. In December 2007, EPA denied the petition but sent letters to the top seven air freshener manufacturers, asking them to voluntarily submit the ingredients in their products and the quantities used annually. The seven companies are Blythe, Dial, Lancaster Colony, Procter & Gamble, Redkitt Benckiser, S.C. Johnson and Shell. The petitioners sued EPA in April 2008 to help ensure that the companies actually provided ingredient information to EPA – which they did in two stages. In May, EPA received data about the non-fragrance ingredients and in October the agency obtained fragrance ingredient data.

EPA now has data for all ingredients present in 0.1% concentration or greater in air freshener products made by these seven companies. This is the first time that EPA has known the main chemical ingredients in a wide number of air fresheners, the function of each ingredient, and the aggregate amount of each chemical present in the products. The agency is now in a position to assess the risks posed by those chemicals and to take appropriate regulatory action. The organizations will continue to request that ingredients present below 0.1% concentration be disclosed to the agency, too.

While EPA received the complete list of ingredients, public versions contained many redactions under company confidential business information claims. Even with the redacted version of the data, however, several hazardous chemicals are listed as air freshener ingredients. These chemicals include formaldehyde (a carcinogen and irritant deliberately generated as preservative), benzene compounds (benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen), naphthalene (a carcinogen), and other chemicals whose safety is questionable.

Because of the redactions in the public data, only EPA and the companies presently know what amounts of these chemicals are used. The coalition of groups is now attempting to use the Freedom of Information Act to challenge the companies’ confidentiality claims and hope to make more ingredient information available publicly. Industry groups are also planning a new ingredient disclosure program for 2010, but say they will continue to keep many ingredients secret including those in their dyes, preservatives and fragrances.

The original petition, EPA’s response, as well as all other public submissions from the Air Freshener Manufacturers

The submission from the fragrance houses

Photo by Crazy Wanda

Thanks, Linda!

More on Gulf War Illness

Boston.com has a story today on Gulf War Illness.

I think the findings of the study recently released showing exposure to pesticides and other toxic chemicals as the cause of Gulf War Illness are going to help our cause in having Multiple Chemical Sensitivity fully recognized by the government. Note that the Gulf War vet here in the excerpt says that the smell of perfume or a new car causes her serious physical distress. Yes, people with severe chemical injury can then develop adverse health problems from exposure to low level toxic chemicals like fragrance and off-gassing plastics. We know that, and vets with Gulf War Illness know that. The more studies that are done, the closer we are to having MCS fully recognized by government, which will affect policy in health care, housing, employment and other basic rights.

Now if they’d just start to connect the dots between the vets and the rest of us. I wish they’d hurry up for ALL of us. We’ve all waited long enough.

Tara Batista says she cannot ever recall her phone number. But she can remember clearly what she was like before she drove an ambulance through the deserts and combat zones of Saudi Arabia in the winter of 1991.

“I was 19; I was healthy,” she said in a recent phone interview. As a combat medic during the Gulf War, Batista, who now lives in Fitchburg, stood in clouds of pesticides and, under orders, took a little white pill twice a day as a precaution against a chemical attack.

Today, she says, the smell of perfume or a new car makes her lose the ability to speak, and triggers dry heaves, weakness, and pain that rises through her body like a shiver. She has recurring sinus infections and night sweats.

Last year, she contemplated killing herself.

[...]

The drug, pyridostigmine bromide, and certain pesticides used during the war to keep fleas and sand flies at bay affect the central nervous system, the report found, and are associated with memory and focus problems, persistent headaches, respiratory and digestion problems, and “widespread pain.” The report concludes that there are no effective treatments, and that the conditions of afflicted veterans have remained static or worsened in the nearly 18 years since the Gulf War ended.

“The physical symptoms are real and not in people’s heads,” said Roberta White, the scientific director for the committee, which began its evaluation of Gulf War research and programs in 2002.

Read the full story at Boston.com.

Read the full report on Gulf War Illness here.

Vandana Shiva on Earth Democracy

Vandana Shiva, a physicist, environmental activist and author, argues for a return to traditional farming practices as a way to reclaim the health of the planet. In this video she talks about the importance of saving non-GMO seeds and her concept of Earth Democracy.

The herbicide resistant crops she mentions are food crops that are genetically engineered (GMO is the acronym for Genetically Modified Organism) to withstand pesticides such as Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, allowing farmers to spray crops all they want to kill weeds without harming the crop.

Link

Thanks, Mokihana, for the inspiration for this post!

President-Elect Obama: Reform chemical policy

In this letter to president-elect Barack Obama, U.S. chemicals policy activists say, “U.S. chemical regulatory policy must understand and implement the Precautionary Principle so that we may finally join the modern chemical policies of other countries around the world.”

Rachel’s Precaution Reporter #172, December 10, 2008

LETTER OF PRINCIPLES FOR TOXIC CHEMICAL REGULATORY REFORM

To the Obama transition government

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your victory in the election for president of the United States. We look forward to the positive changes you plan on making, and send you this letter to offer our support in that endeavor, especially for the urgently needed reform of our chemical regulatory policy.

Recent reports about industry influence and possible interference with our chemical regulatory policy on chemicals at the FDA, EPA and other agencies threaten the confidence of all consumers about American products, and about our government’s role in protecting health. As we are sure you know, storms of controversy over chemicals in everything from shower curtains and lipstick, to baby bottles, infant formula, canned food, cars, toys and even pet food have increasingly unnerved parents and anyone concerned about public health.

Though its effects may not be as obvious, the deregulation of the chemical industry has hurt the United States just as much as the deregulation of Wall Street, with effects likely to last generations. Scientists, physicians, health advocates, worker organizations, parent groups, health-affected groups and many others view fundamental reform to current chemical laws as urgent and necessary to protect children, workers, communities, and the environment now and in the future.

The economic costs of current levels of chemical contamination are often hidden, though they contribute significantly to reduced worker productivity, increased hospital costs, more expensive health insurance, and greater burdens on businesses for hazardous waste storage, disposal, and clean-up fees. Uncounted in the conventional cost-benefit analysis of our chemical regulatory policies is the price we pay for children with developmental disabilities or the toll on families with chemical exposure-linked illness, not to mention eco- system impacts, made worse by global warming.

Mounting scientific studies link chemical exposure to human illness and unnecessary disabilities and chronic conditions. The most vulnerable include children, women, and communities of color and those already stressed by depressed economic conditions and diminished access to health care and information. Spikes in rates of illness linked to chemical exposure include: obesity, diabetes, thyroid disease, childhood cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, asthma, neurodevelopmental problems, learning disabilities in children that persist throughout life and other effects. Although chemical exposure knows no boundaries, communities of color located around chemical manufacturing areas and whose geographic location receives chemical drift from applications elsewhere are at particular risk.

Tragically, these preventable illnesses and health effects linked to chemical exposure are on the rise, and the effects of some chemical exposure effects can last for generations. Scientists, physicians, health advocates, worker organizations, parent groups, health-affected groups and many others view fundamental reform to current chemical laws as urgent and necessary to protect children, workers, communities, and the environment now and in the future.

People all over the United States, including Mossville, Louisiana, Glynn County, Georgia, Dixon, Tennessee, Port Arthur and Corpus Christie, Texas, agricultural communities in California, North Carolina, Washington, and Florida and elsewhere are suffering from chemical contamination. Arctic Indigenous communities are among the most highly exposed populations in the world. The Arctic has become a hemispheric sink for long-lasting chemical contaminants that travel long distances on oceanic and atmospheric currents. These chemicals accumulate up the food chain in fish, wildlife and peoples of the north.

Harm from chemical exposure from U.S. based and other chemical corporations is not limited to the U.S. Despite efforts by the international community to identify the most dangerous chemicals and phase them out, the U.S. government has obstructed this movement and has lost credibility with an international community suffering from the health effects of insidious chemical exposure caused, significantly, by U.S. corporations and their foreign allies. Ongoing efforts of the U.S. government to impede and obstruct major international policy advances such as the Stockholm Treaty and REACH have had serious economic and political consequences.

The opportunity to eliminate toxic chemical exposure and build a new green economy that supports clean production of safe consumer goods is now at hand. By designing new, safer chemicals, products, and green production systems, American businesses will protect people’s health and create healthy, sustainable jobs, and enhance our ability to compete in the international marketplace. Some leading companies are already on this path and the workers and neighboring communities benefit. They are creating safe products and new, green jobs by using clean, innovative technologies that benefit public health, the environment and the bottom line. But transforming entire markets will require policy change.

Please consider these five steps to improve the health and well being of Americans, to protect future generations, promote industry innovation and technological superiority in designing safer chemicals, products and manufacturing processes, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reward businesses that protect workers and lead the way to a new, green energy economy that will benefit all Americans.

1. Hire and Gather the Best and the Brightest for your Toxics Regulatory Team

* Deploy thoughtful leaders on: chemical exposure and environmental health, scientific and common sense solutions to the toxic chemical contamination problem, innovations in business and industry with Green Chemistry development, and other innovative thinkers to advise the administration on toxic chemical exposure as a variable in all domestic and foreign policy as well as on new appointments to agencies and departments relevant to environmental health. One example would be forming a task force on chemical regulatory reform or some other multi-stakeholder process to help expedite immediate action. These innovative thinkers should advise the administration on toxic chemical exposure as a variable in all domestic and foreign policy as well as on new appointments to agencies and departments relevant to environmental health and have no financial conflicts of interest. It will be important for this group to see the interconnectivity of issues inherent to a healthy and prosperous future.

* Set a public interest research agenda that coordinates green chemistry with green energy and green engineering technologies being developed and supported.

* The administration should adopt the position that the right to a clean and healthy environment is an inalienable right that will be protected by the courts.

2. U.S. Chemicals Policy Must Adhere to Principles and Guidelines for Ethical Chemical Regulatory Reform

* U.S. residents and all peoples have a fundamental right to protection from exposure to toxic substances, including from chemicals and nuclear radiation, in our environment and our bodies. The purpose of the U.S. chemicals regulatory policy must be to protect us from these exposures, while preventing the export of toxic substances that could harm other countries.

* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must understand and implement the Precautionary Principle so that we may finally join the modern chemical policies of other countries around the world. The Precautionary Principle forms the foundation of the European Union’s REACH law on chemicals and international treaties such as the Stockholm Convention. This foundation for U.S. chemical policy mandates adequate scientific evidence that will help to insure that a substance is safe before it is allowed to be introduced in the marketplace.

* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must provide remedies for the injustice of unequal environmental protection based on race that has exposed communities of color to significant levels of toxic pollution. Such remedies must include a legal standard that requires a safe distance between a residential population and a chemical facility and a private right of action against a federal, state, or local regulatory agency whose decision or action results in a racially disproportionate pollution burden.

* In addition to aligning with REACH, U.S. chemical regulatory policy must regain U.S. leadership by respecting the intentions of international agreements, including Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), the Stockholm Convention, Rotterdam Convention, Basel Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and a new global free standing legally binding agreement on mercury and other similar substances of concern.

3. Revamp the Chemical Evaluation Process

* A gross lack of knowledge currently exists in the U.S. about the data on chemical substances produced, imported, exported, and used in the U.S. This serious data deficiency demands immediate adoption of a comprehensive process of identifying and assessing critical information for all substances before they can be produced, marketed or allowed for continued use. Of utmost priority art chemicals that are suspected of being mutagens, carcinogens, reproductive or neurodevelopmental toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals. Examples include: phthalates, bisphenol A, perflourinated chemicals, endosulfan, lindane, perchlorate, methyl bromide, methyl iodide, organophosphates, dioxins, furans, and brominated and chlorinated flame-retardants, and non- persistent chemicals, such as benzene, which may be difficult to detect.

* Evaluation of the chemicals must be on the basis of their inherent hazards and toxicity, including threats of harm to workers who make them, the communities where they are made, the communities where the chemicals and chemical-induced products are used, disposed or destroyed, and where there is danger for impacting the health of the general public, now and in the future, as in the case of neurotoxins and many carcinogens, which can take years to trigger or manifest effects.

* Chemical evaluation processes also must be based on complete transparency and mandated data collection from the corporations that make the chemicals, removing “business security” shields from manufacturers of suspected dangerous substances. Health and safety information should not be considered confidential business information and a “No Data, No Market” rule should be implemented and enforced.

* Suspected materials must be phased out more rapidly where safer substitutes are already available.

* No U.S. government agency should be allowed to shield chemical corporations from being mandated to provide information under the guise of “national security,” in regard to chemical production facilities or transportation of these chemicals.

* Evaluation of chemicals must be conducted by U.S. government scientists and academic colleagues in a manner that that upholds the integrity of the evaluation, with public financial support as well as political support for independent research and protection for speaking freely about their findings. Scientists must be expected to report unbiased results, free from political and industry-driven influences, with all findings subject to fully transparent, independent peer review. Scientists must have support and protections to be able to conduct independent scientific study and speak freely about their findings — the “gag order” on U.S. federal scientists must be removed immediately.

* Immediate action to pursue permanent Chemical Security legislation that would require thousands of facilities, including all water treatment plants to require the use of safer chemical alternatives and processes. Millions of people inside the U.S. are at risk if an unintentional or intentional (terrorist attacks) industrial chemical accident were to occur. The framework required includes improving standards for review of safer and more secure alternatives, worker involvement, and crucial government accountability. One immediate concern is the need for a structured review of federal facilities that pose the danger of an off-site chemical emergency release. The standards for these reviews must be focused on “alternatives assessment” rather than “risk assessment.”

4. Reform “Stakeholder” Influence in Decision-Making

* U.S. chemical policy regulators, including non-scientist appointees and staff members, must be completely free of ties to the chemical industry or other entities that would attempt to influence their decisions or impact the integrity of chemical evaluations. Regulators may consult with the chemical industry, but we need a change from what has become a conventional U.S. process in which the chemical industry dictates chemical regulatory policy and writes relevant legislation. The preferred “stakeholders” in this process must be the people of the United States, not the chemical corporations.

* The people of the United States need to have access and the ability to participate in the chemical evaluation process, which requires resources for capacity building and access to expertise to represent their interests.

* The Toxic Release Inventory rule and other tools for industry transparency?must be strengthened, and the public’s right to know chemical data should be guaranteed. There must be Executive and legislative support for mandating complete transparency for all data regarding chemical exposure in communities, including pesticide use data.

* Toxic chemical exposure must also be considered an Environmental Justice issue, and previously ignored and disenfranchised communities of color and of modest economic standing must be brought into the process of identifying vulnerable populations and implementing culturally respectful policies for empowerment to become safe from chemical exposure. This can only be accomplished through dedicated resources for capacity building at the community level.

* Resources must be immediately directed toward environmental monitoring of air, water, and soil where chemical exposure is suspected in order to prevent, not just manage, exposure to workers and communities.

* When toxic chemical exposure is identified, immediate action and resources must be available to halt the exposure and protect communities, especially children, honoring the cultural integrities of each community.

* Assessment of toxic chemical exposures must be an immediate mandated component of all relief efforts for communities in times of disaster, with protection mitigations in place to prevent additional and new exposures (as in the example of the FEMA trailers) compounding existing tragedy.

5. Create Economic Strength and Strategy Via Toxic Chemical Exposure Protections

* A program of incentives must be developed to support the efforts of chemical corporations, the auto and oil industries, and other relevant industries to develop less harmful substitutions for their products. No new products should be allowed into the marketplace without adequate scientific study on health effects. The responsibility must be on the producer to demonstrate no harm. Regulatory and financial barriers for companies seeking to develop and use less toxic products, move away from reliance on petrochemicals, and reduce resource depletion in production, including use of water, should be addressed, and incentives provided for those corporations that demonstrate significant progress insuring that their workers, communities, and customers are protected.

* “Polluter pays,” reverse onus, and other precautionary policies, in addition to the Rio Principles should be adopted as a foundation for U.S. environmental protections and for restoring confidence in U.S. corporations, their standing in the community, and the products they make. Re-establish support and enforcement of Superfund policies.

* Support programs for farmers to transition to safer, less toxic means of food production must be instituted.

* Integrate Toxic Chemical Exposure Issues Throughout U.S. Government Agencies and Policies

* EPA must partner with the Centers for Disease Control and immediate resources need to be made available for biomonitoring and public health surveys of communities where chemical exposure impact is suspected. Monitoring should also include biota and human tissue contamination with the intention of tracing the sources of contamination. These agencies must develop and use a protocol for the evaluation of chemical exposure impact that is based on the Precautionary Principle

* Intentional dosing of human beings, especially children, with pesticides and other known toxic chemicals in experiments is unethical and must be prohibited.

* Chemical contamination knows no political boundaries. Testing of imported foods and other products for chemical contamination must be reinstated.

* The U.S. government must make it illegal for U.S. corporations to dump toxic waste or sell banned or restricted products outside of the country. U.S. corporations must be accountable and responsible for harm that befalls communities at home and overseas from chemical exposure caused by these corporations chemical manufacture, use (including in consumer products), and disposal. The U.S. must become a party to the Basel Treaty and uphold its principles.

* The U.S. government must define toxic substance hazard as a variable in all international trade, human rights, and other agreements and encourage and support other nations to reduce and eliminate toxic substance exposure.

* Toxic chemical exposure must be taken into account for all U.S. policies, including stimulus for the economy,?job creation, the transition away from petrochemical fuels, education, and other urgent changes in U.S. economic and social enterprises.

* A timeline must be set for putting a modern chemical regulatory process and policy in place; time is of the essence with the health of hundreds of millions of people at stake.

Thank you.

The undersigned groups are eager to assist with designing and building support for transformational change to the U.S. chemical regulatory system and offer our recommendations as enthusiastic partners of the President-Elect’s new administration to achieve necessary and timely change.

Sincerely,

Laura Abulafia, MHS, Director, Environmental Health Initiative, American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Formerly AAMR)

Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Ruth Berlin, LCSW-C, Executive Director, Maryland Pesticide Network

Joan Blades, President and Co-founder, MomsRising.org

Arlene Blum, Executive Director, Green Science Policy Institute

Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network

Elizabeth Crowe, Director, Kentucky Environmental Foundation

Kathleen Curtis, Policy Director, Clean New York

Carol Dansereau, Executive Director, Farm Worker Pesticide Project, Washington

Joe DiGangi, International Pops Elimination Network

Tracey Easthope, Environmental Health Director, Michigan Ecology Center

Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides

Christopher Gavigan, CEO, Healthy Child, Healthy World

Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment and Justice

Dori Gilels, Executive Director, Women’s Voices for the Earth

Kathryn Gilje, Executive Director, Pesticide Action Network North America

Monique Harden, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights

Amanda Hawes, attorney

Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace

Dr. J. William Hirzy, Vice-President NTEU Chapter 280 (EPA HQ Professionals Union), and Chemist in Residence, American University

John Kepner, Project Director, Beyond Pesticides

Bettie D. Kettell, RN Durham, Maine

Elise Miller, MEd, Executive Director, Institute for Children’s Environmental Health

Pam Miller, Biologist and Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics

Mark A. Mitchell, MD, MPH, President, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice

Peter Montague, PhD, Environmental Research Foundation

Suzanne Murphy, Executive Director, Worksafe

Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy Breast Cancer Fund

Judith Robinson, Director of Programs, Environmental Health Fund

Mike Schade, PVC Campaign Coordinator, The Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ)

Ted Shettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Campaigns Coordinator, Clean Water Action

Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director, Washington Toxics Coalition

Nathalie Walker, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for Environmental Human Rights

Kristen Welker-Hood, ScD MSN RN, Director, Environment and Health Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility

Charlotte Wells, Galveston BAYKEEPER®, Texas

Resources

Contaminated without Consent www.contaminatedwithoutconsent.org

Is It In Us? isitinus.org/

The Louisville Charter www.louisvillecharter.org

Principles of Environmental Justice ej4all.org/environmental.principles.php

Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders Developed by the Collaborative on Health and the Environment’s Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative February 20, 2008 (revised July 1, 2008) www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIPolicyStatement.pdf

Toxic Playroom www.toxicplayroom.org

Link

Thanks, Linda!

Warning: Avoid ozone generating air machines

While manufacturers of ozone-generating machines will tell you that the ozone is harmless and will clean the air you breathe (example of the spin here), the fact is that ozone generating machines are not only ineffective at cleaning the air, but they can be extremely harmful to your health. From the EPA website:

Manufacturers and vendors of ozone devices often use misleading terms to describe ozone. Terms such as ‘energized oxygen’ or ‘pure air’ suggest that ozone is a healthy kind of oxygen. Ozone is a toxic gas with vastly different chemical and toxicological properties from oxygen. Several federal agencies have established health standards or recommendations to limit human exposure to ozone.

Further, I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve heard about exposure to ozone from these types of machines triggering full blown Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in unsuspecting consumers. We’ve discussed ozone machines previously on The Canary Report when one of our flock was exposed in her home.

Please note that while ozone machine manufacturers will tell you that the “unused ozone always reverts back to oxygen in about an hour,” the EPA, using “sound science, only peer reviewed, scientifically supported findings and conclusions,” says, “Some of the potential by-products produced by ozone’s reactions with other chemicals are themselves very reactive and capable of producing irritating and corrosive by-products (Weschler and Shields, 1996, 1997a, 1997b).” So in reality, ozone in the home creates chemical reactions with other chemicals already in the home, and no one has ever studied the impact of that lingering toxic brew.

Here’s the astonishing thing about the regulation of these machines: The EPA has a whole page on their website dedicated to informing the public about the dangers of ozone generators that are sold as air cleaners, and yet the government still allows these machines to be manufactured, sold and used inside homes. I can’t for the life of me understand what’s going on with this. These dangerous machines should be pulled off the market NOW.

Environment News Service reports today:

The California Air Resources Board has issued a consumer alert, advising holiday shoppers not to purchase air purifiers or air cleaning devices that intentionally generate ozone.Some devices that are advertised as “air purifiers,” air cleaners, or ozone generators purposely emit large amounts of ozone, the main component of smog.

“Not only are such ozone generators ineffective at cleaning indoor air, but breathing ozone poses serious health risks,” warns the Air Resources Board, recommending that these ozone generators not be used.

“Consumers should take care when considering purchase of an air cleaning device,” said ARB Chairman Mary Nichols, “Beware of misleading advertisements offering air purifiers that are simply indoor smog-making machines.”

Consumers may unknowingly purchase these “ozone generators” from advertisers touting the so-called benefits of “activated oxygen” that can make the air inside your home “as fresh as the outdoors after a thunderstorm,” the board said, quoting the ads.

In fact, the board says, “Ozone generators are capable of emitting enough ozone indoors to far exceed outdoor health standards and can intentionally create the equivalent of a Stage 1 smog alert inside your home.”

These devices pump a well-known air pollutant into people’s homes putting everyone at risk, especially the most vulnerable - the young, elderly and infirm.

The devices can produce levels of ozone that can worsen asthma, cause serious lung inflammation, decrease lung function, and lead to hospitalization for respiratory conditions, emergency room visits for asthma, and increased school absences.

Link to more of the story at Environment News Service

Photo by M. Stephens

Canary’s Cry for Monday, Dec. 8

USA Today has put out an in-depth Special Report on Toxic Air and America’s Schools.

USA Today used an EPA model to track the path of industrial pollution and mapped the locations of almost 128,000 schools to determine the level of toxic chemicals outside. The potential problems that emerged were widespread, insidious and largely unaddressed.

Click here for USA Today Video by Garrett Hubbard, Steve Elfers, Denny Gainer, and Rhyne Piggott: USA TODAY examines the impact of industrial pollution outside the nation’s schools and explores how toxic chemicals shuttered one elementary school in Addyston, Ohio, three years ago. This video is Part One. Part Two is due out shortly. Click here for USA Today full report and supporting stories.

In other news, The New York Times reports that “A Problem Rises to the Surface in Greenpoint.” Residents of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, have toxic gases “rising into their homes from below, the legacy of dry-cleaning plants, foundries and other manufacturers that once operated in this hub, which has long been home to immigrants and, more recently, artists and young professionals. Such vapor intrusion — chemicals from contaminated soil and groundwater that become airborne, entering buildings through pores and cracks — has become a growing public health concern around the country in recent years. Contaminants that spread from industrial activity, or that were mistakenly believed to have been contained or eliminated in environmental cleanups, have been discovered wafting into basements.”

Nontoxic pest control for pets

GreenPaws.org, a project of the Natural Resources Defense Council, has tons of info about nontoxic ways to treat your pets for pests.

From GreenPaws.org:

Link to vid

GreenPaws.org

Green Paws Pocket Guide to safer flea and tick treatments

Natural Resources Defense Council’s report about Poisons on Pets

Canary’s Cry for Wednesday, Dec. 3

CNNMoney.com reports that one in three toys tested is toxic with chemicals such as lead, flame retardants and arsenic, according to a report issued Wednesday by an environmental group. Researchers for the Michigan-based Ecology Center tested more than 1,500 popular toys for lead, cadmium, arsenic, PVC and other harmful chemicals. They said they found that one-third of the toys contain “medium” or “high” levels of chemicals of concern. “Our hope is that by empowering consumers with this information, manufacturers and lawmakers will feel the pressure to start phasing out the most harmful substances immediately, and to change the nation’s laws to protect children from highly toxic chemicals,” said Ecology Center’s Jeff Gearhart, who led the research.

Related: From U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, which stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public and their health and well-being:

Trouble in Toyland: The 23rd annual survey of toy safety

The recall of 45 million toys and other children’s products in 2007 and continued recalls in 2008 reminded Americans that no government agency tests toys before they are put on the shelves. Specifically, the wave of recalls focused attention on the fact that the agency charged with protecting Americans from unsafe products—the Consumer Product Safety Commission—is a little agency with a very big job to do.

Congress responded by passing the first major overhaul of the CPSC since it was established during the Nixon administration, when it passed the landmark Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in August 2008. In addition to expanding the agency’s budget, Congress gave the CPSC more tools to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable and speed recalls, moved toward banning toxic lead and phthalates except in trace amounts and greatly improved import surveillance.

While the new law strengthens the CPSC and contains tough new protections against toxic chemicals like lead and phthalates, these protections have not yet gone into effect. As parents and other toygivers venture into crowded malls this holiday season, they should remain vigilant about often hidden hazards posed by toys on store shelves.

The 2008 “Trouble in Toyland” report is the 23rd annual Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) survey of toy safety. This report provides safety guidelines for parents when purchasing toys for small children and provides examples of toys currently on store shelves that may pose potential safety hazards. We visited numerous toy stores and other retailers to find potentially dangerous toys and identify trends in toy safety. This year, we focused specifically on toys that contain lead and phthalates in our research.

We also produced a shopping guide, which you can download here.

And for the adults: The New York Times reported last week that Bush Aides Rush To Enact A Rule Obama Opposes on worker safety. NYT says the Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job. The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health. Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.

Thanks, Missy and Linda!

Nestle says melamine in milk is from animal feed

I’ve been following the melamine debacle mainly because I’m astonished at the incompetence of the government in its handling of the mess.

Melamine is a toxic chemical used in fertilizer and plastics. It’s been showing up in a variety of products from pet food to milk meant for human consumption. At first the Food and Drug Administration said that melamine may be harmful in infant formula in any amount but that there is no known threat in American milk products for children and infants. But then when melamine showed up in American products meant for babies, they said the levels were low enough not to cause concern.

While all this was going on, the “experts” said that it was unlikely the contamination’s source was cattle feed because the melamine would have been excreted in the animal’s waste. Now the wonderful folks at Nestle are saying that contaminated feed is the source of the chemical in their baby milk sold in South Africa.

Huh?

28 Nov, 2008 - Nestle has said that contaminated animal feed was responsible for levels of melamine discovered in two brands of its formula milk in South Africa - giving credence to the possibility that the industrial chemical may be able to cross from the feed to the food chain.

The statement by Nestle, the world’s largest food and nutrition company, runs against the belief held by many experts and food safety bodies that melamine ingested by animals does not pass into the food chain, as reported exclusively by Feedinfo News Service. It challenges the perception that the industrial chemical is either excreted by the animal or is diluted to such an extent that any remaining traces are practically undetectable in human food.

The announcement by Nestle South Africa comes after a batch of the company’s Nido Growing up Milk for one-year-olds and a consignment of Lactogen Starter Infant Formula with iron were recalled by the KwaZulu-Natal health department earlier this week.

A Nestle statement said: “Testing led to the discovery of melamine in a number of samples of cattle feed which is predominantly used in winter, which explains the presence of melamine traces in these batches. Consequently, Nestlé has also taken steps to ensure that the cattle feed used by its South African milk producers is melamine free.”

Link

Photo by P1r

Thanks, Dan!

11/29 UPDATE: FDA sets limit for baby formula

Thanks, Linda!

Documentary on toxic threat to male reproduction system

I encourage you to watch this documentary, The Disappearing Male, about the toxic threat to the male reproductive system. Click on the green arrow and the link will take you to the site where you can view the vid.

“We are conducting a vast toxicological experiment in which our children and our children’s children are the experimental subjects.”

-Dr. Herbert Needleman

The Disappearing Male is about one of the most important, and least publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to the male reproductive system.

The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer.

At the same time, boys are now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia.

The Disappearing Male takes a close and disturbing look at what many doctors and researchers now suspect are responsible for many of these problems: a class of common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world.

Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are called “hormone mimicking” or “endocrine disrupting” chemicals and they may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development.

Link

Thanks, Linda!

Opportunity to participate in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity research

The Multiple Chemical Sensitivity research team at James Madison University is currently looking for people to participate in current studies.

Experiencing Environmental Sensitivities

We are interested in interviewing people who have had environmental sensitivities for 5 years or more. The interview will last approximately 30 minutes and will explore the phenomenology of what it is like to experience sensitivities and to interact with others in a chemical culture.

If you are interested in participating, please click here to open the consent form and to complete the short demographic questionnaire. If you do not have computer access or cannot use a computer, please contact our lab for a hard copy of the short demographic survey. You can call us at 540-568-6195.

Client’s Perceptions of Services from Mental Health Providers for Persons with Environmental Sensitivities

In this study we will examine people’s perceptions of any services they have received from psychological providers. People with sensitivities end up in the offices of mental health providers for a variety of reasons: for counseling, for evaluations in regard to disability applications or as requested by Vocational Rehabilitation, or when referred by a physician who perceives the problem to be psychological. There may be other reasons as well. We are interested in the treatment that people receive, whether they are accommodated by these providers, and their perceptions of how knowledgeable mental health providers are regarding sensitivities.

In addition, as part of this study we invite anyone who has received a psychological evaluation from a psychologist to submit it so we can examine how people with sensitivities are being construed by psychologists. There has been an ongoing movement to frame MCS/ES as a psychological illness. We believe it is physical and would like to attempt to begin discussion of the ways that persons with MCS are framed in evaluations.

Click here to take our survey of psychological services on Qualtrics: http://jmu.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_6DpHHiwHSysPFgE&SVID=Prod

If you are unable to take the survey online or know of someone who would like to participate without taking the survey online, we can be contacted for either an e-mail copy or a hard copy of the survey. Phone 540-568-6195 or e-mail gibsonpr@jmu.edu.

Link

Thanks, Linda!

Obama on green energy and affordable health care

Here’s President-Elect Obama’s first YouTube weekly address, just released. He includes as part of his agenda, “to build an American green energy economy… while freeing our country from the tyranny of foreign oil and saving our planet for our children.” He also includes, “making health care affordable for anyone who has it, [and] accessible for anyone who wants it.” This is music to the ears of anyone suffering from Environmental Illness: the hemorrhage of policy protecting the health, safety and welfare of the American people, the bad policy that perpetuated a filthy environment coupled with a broken health insurance system, will be stemmed.

Panel confirms Gulf War Illness caused by toxic chemicals

A congressionally mandated report on Gulf War Illness is released.

Findings of a study just released on Gulf War Illness directly correlate the chemical exposure experienced by soldiers, notably pesticide exposure, to memory and concentration problems, persistent headaches, unexplained fatigue, widespread pain, chronic digestive problems, respiratory symptoms, and skin rashes.

How many of us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity have stories of being similarly exposed to toxic chemicals resulting in the same chronic symptoms? Do you think anyone will ever mandate a study about us?

WASHINGTON - At least one in four U.S. veterans of the 1991 Gulf War suffers from a multi-symptom illness caused by exposure to toxic chemicals during the conflict, a congressionally mandated report being released Monday found.

For much of the past 17 years, government officials have maintained that these veterans — more than 175,000 out of about 697,000 deployed — are merely suffering the effects of wartime stress, even as more have come forward recently with severe ailments.

“The extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that ‘Gulf War illness’ is real, that it is the result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time,” said the report, being released Monday by a panel of scientists and veterans. A copy was obtained by Cox Newspapers.

Gulf War illness is typically characterized by a combination of memory and concentration problems, persistent headaches, unexplained fatigue and widespread pain. It may also include chronic digestive problems, respiratory symptoms and skin rashes.

Two things the military provided to troops in large quantities to protect them — pesticides and pyridostigmine bromide (PB), aimed at thwarting the effects of nerve gas — are the most likely culprits, the panel found.

[...]

It found that in terms of brain function, exposure to pesticides and the PB pills hurts people’s memory, attention and mood. Some people, it notes, are genetically more susceptible to exposures than others.

[...]

To ward off swarms of sand flies in Kuwait City and the eastern Saudi province of Dhahran, Hardie said trucks would come through at 3 a.m. and spray “clouds” of pesticides.

Fly strips that smelled toxic hung “everywhere,” especially near food. “The pesticide use was far and away (more) than what you’d see in daily life,” he said.

Several soldiers interviewed said they were ordered to dunk their uniforms in the pesticide DEET and to spray pesticide routinely on exposed skin and in their boots to ward off scorpions. Others wore pet flea collars around their ankles.

The federal panel added that it also could not rule out an association between Gulf War illness and the prolonged exposure to oil fires, as well as low-level exposures to nerve agents, injections of many vaccines and combinations of neurotoxic exposures.

Link to full story at Rome News-Tribune, well worth the read.

Photo by Lietmotiv: Oil well fires rage outside Kuwait City in the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm. The wells were set on fire by Iraqi forces before they were ousted from the region by coalition force.