Toxics: Stop Stop Stop | The Canary Report

Guest Blog: Working to change policy about the use of toxic chemicals at my son’s daycare facility

Sep 252011

Following a presentation about toxic cleaning products I made to the board of the daycare, they decided to adopt the Toronto District School Board’s Scented Products Awareness Program. But there is still more change needed to make the facility a truly nontoxic and safe place.

By guest blogger Nancy in Toronto.

When my family toured my son’s new daycare at the end of the summer 2010, I spied dryer sheets in the laundry room attached to the preschool room. At the time, I figured that if the daycare stopped using the dryer sheets, I would be comfortable sending my child to the program.

But after the dryer sheets were taken out of the classroom, my son still came home with so much chemical fragrance in his hair and on his clothes that it literally made me sick to have him sit on my lap. I was worried about what the health risks were for him being in that environment all day.

After some mostly promising and then progressively colder back-and-forth emails, the president of the board of the daycare asked me to speak to the board about my concerns about chemical cleaning products and personal care products in the classroom.

I decided to do a presentation and in my research, I learned that the science was already there identifying the risks that chemicals pose to children (including cancer, learning problems and aggression problems). As well, it was a surprise to learn that 100% plant-based products designed for the commercial/institutional setting are already available and that they cost less locally than the products currently in use at the daycare.

There was no quorum at the board meeting where I was asked to speak, but I spoke informally to the people that were there. I was not provided with the date of the board meeting where the matter was finally discussed, however, as a result of my presentation, I was informed that the daycare board made the decision to, as they phrased it, “go green.” They tasked the daycare director to choose a brand for the first four target products and, within a few months, an order was placed for Ecomax Laundry Wash and Hand Cleanser.

Despite the changes, my son was still on occasion coming home with fragrance in his hair and on his clothes, and on some days the classroom still had a heavy smell. Sure enough, one day I asked about it and let my nose sniff around and it turned out that one of the teachers was wearing perfume. The conversation deteriorated quickly and soon enough I got a nasty email. I replied by drawing their attention to the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Scented Products Awareness Program, the Environmental Working Group’s 50- page report on perfume and toxicity , and a one hour lecture on childhood cancer:

In response, the daycare decided to adopt the TDSB’s Scented Products Awareness Program. This program promotes voluntary compliance with scent reduction, including avoiding scented products and scented laundry products. The board members told me very clearly, however, that this may not be the daycare for my family. I was also aggressively told at the same meeting that for this board, “green” means the adoption of the products I focused on in my presentation, and that they would not be doing anything more. I proposed they make use of an environmental health checklist put out by a reputable group based in Toronto and they said very quickly “no” without putting the matter to a vote.

The board also advised me they would not be spending any time on the matter, would not form a committee to look at environmental health issues (which I’ve been asking for since my first communication and offered to lead), and would not make the landslide of decisions that would be necessary on the “green” path, simply because it would involve a lot of work. They stated flat out that for the most part people don’t care (they said most certainly people don’t care about preventing cancer or learning problems). They said that this is not “that kind” of daycare, and that I am the only parent who has ever expressed any concern like this.

The daycare has elected a new board and I have now asked them to reduce the chemicals in the daycare menu:

Step one: eliminate food colouring.
Step two: eliminate other additives.
Step three: reduce pesticides by avoiding the Dirty Dozen and taking advantage of resources such as purchasing organic food in bulk from the Ontario Natural Food Coop and Foodshare.

This time I did as much research as possible in finding economical alternatives before raising the topic and I have received an enthusiastic response from the very person who seemed least supportive last time around. I am sure this wave of change will take several months, but I feel good about lessening my own child’s risk of developing disorders like Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder and diseases like cancer and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

Click here to view a PDF of my presentation to the daycare board about cleaning products.

Nancy in Toronto

Photo by Kirsten Jennings.

Happy Birthday to The Story of Cosmetics video, one year educating the public!

Posted by Admin

Jul 212011

Please watch the video and share with everyone you know!

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reports that the video The Story of Cosmetics has been circulating around the internet for one year, educating the public about the pervasive use of toxic chemicals in our everyday personal care products, from lipstick to baby shampoo. Produced by Free Range Studios and hosted by Annie Leonard, the 7-minute film reveals the implications for consumer and worker health and the environment, and outlines ways we can move the industry away from hazardous chemicals and towards safer alternatives. The film concludes with a call for viewers to support legislation aimed at ensuring the safety of cosmetics and personal care products.

Annie Leonard hosts The Story of Cosmetics.

Can you believe that it’s been one year to the day since the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics released The Story of Cosmetics with our friends at The Story of Stuff Project?

Since then, more than 775,000 people have watched the hard-hitting short video explaining that under our current broken regulatory system, it’s perfectly legal to use toxic chemicals in personal care products (like baby shampoo and lipstick) and in salon products (like nail and hair-straightening products).

The Story of Cosmetics outlines the solution to this problem, too: We need responsible companies to make truly safe products, and legislation that will empower the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate the $50 billion cosmetics industry. Can we get there? Totally – we’re well on the way!

We’re thrilled to also announce the re-introduction of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 – a very smart piece of legislation that will eliminate the most harmful chemicals from cosmetics (as Europe and other countries are already doing!), and ensure that personal care products are reviewed for safety, while at the same time protecting and enhancing small businesses opportunities. The Campaign is working with true leaders in the beauty industry, including cosmetics companies, retailers, salons, makeup artists and others committed to protecting consumers, workers and the environment from unnecessary exposure to toxics. How about that!

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has so much to be proud of, and since you’re a part of this Campaign, so do you. Please celebrate with us by encouraging everyone you know to watch The Story of Cosmetics, and to in turn share it with their communities by hosting viewing parties, sending it to friends or posting it on their Facebook pages (see below for a sample status update!).

Thanks for all you do!

Be well,

Mia, Stacy, Lisa, Janet, Marisa and all of us at the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

P.S. Here is a sample Facebook update you can simply copy and paste to your Facebook page: “The Story of Cosmetics is one year old! Please watch this surprising 8-minute video and share it with everyone you know! Together, we’ll make sure cosmetics are safe for everyone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfq000AF1i8”

P.P.S. And here’s a tweet! “Happy Birthday, Story of Cosmetics! Pls watch the video & share w/ everyone you know! #SafeCosmetics http://bit.ly/aFSPwJ“

Letter: New device virtually eliminates pollution from wood burning stoves

Posted by Guest Blogger

Feb 262011

The government is dragging its feet on testing an affordable device that can be used on any existing wood-burning appliance to practically eliminate all particulate pollution.

The solution to wood smoke pollution is a device which has already been designed and built by Stanford biology professor Dr. Dennis Grahn. It is an “afterburner” which can be used on ANY existing wood-burning appliance, practically eliminates all particulate pollution, and is amazingly affordable (about $350 per unit).

Letter by Marcia Patrice Ganeles-Kislik.

Dear U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey, and Assembly Member Jared Huffman,

I am hoping you might be able to help me and millions of other Americans with a huge problem whose solution seems to be totally within our grasp, but held up by needless red tape from the Environmental Protection Agency. The problem is the pollution from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. I hope I don’t need to inform you of the extreme health hazards, damage to the ozone, etc. etc. of wood smoke—all of which is well documented and not even debatable.

The solution is a device which has already been designed and built by a Stanford biology professor named Dr. Dennis Grahn. It is an “afterburner” which can be used on ANY existing wood-burning appliance, practically eliminates all particulate pollution, and is amazingly affordable (about $350 per unit).

The problem is that the EPA will not test an after-market accessory that can be used on an older, non-EPA phase II woodburner. The EPA will only consider certification for complete wood burning systems. This is great for the manufacturers of wood stoves, but is a true tragedy for all of us whose lives are being literally shortened by living in areas where wood smoke is killing us. This is an outrage and we need someone with power and influence to take the reins and cut through this asinine red tape. This device promises to do so much, not only for the health of millions of Americans, but for the planet itself, that it simply MUST be addressed. This device could put many Americans back to work, fabricating and installing the device. It is truly a win-win for everyone!

There was a short article about this invention in the S.F. Chronicle on Feb. 27, 2009. Dr. Grahn is anxious to hear from anyone who might help get this off the ground. His email address is dagrahn@Stanford.edu. He can explain more clearly the red tape preventing this from happening. I am just an advocate for clean air who is hoping, along with many others, that someone in Washington can do the right thing. Please consider having someone work on this potentially beneficial project. I think your constituents would be very pleased.

Thank you for your time.

Marcia Patrice Ganeles-Kislik

~~~

Have something you’d like to say? Readers of The Canary Report can use this link to Submit a Letter to the Editor.

Photo credit.

City of Portland, Oregon, strives for a scent-free workplace

Posted by Admin

Feb 222011

The new policy will be classified as an “advisement,” but if a worker complains about a coworker wearing scent, a ban will be imposed for that work group.

Anna Kanwit, assistant director at City of Portland Human Resources

KGW.com, Oregon, reports Portland leaders approve anti-scent policy in city offices.

The new policy will be classified as “an advisement,” but if a worker complains about a coworker wearing scent, a ban will be imposed.

“If an employee comes forward with a sensitivity, then it’s a ban for that work group,” says Anna Kanwit, assistant director at City of Portland Human Resources.

But don’t you just love the people in the video who don’t give a dink about people’s health? I especially love the guy who says, “People should just learn to cope with things that might annoy them.” Oh yeah, I always get so annoyed when I can’t breathe or think properly because of someone’s toxic fragrance fumes.

It’s so sad that the city worker who supports the ban felt she had to stay anonymous with her statement.

By the way, YAY for unions working on this issue!

AFSCME union spokesman Rob Wheaton said they’ve been in talks with the city over the issue for years.

“If someone has a legitimate bonafide allergy to a perfume it does create some serious consequences for them,” Wheaton said. “Likewise on the other end of it I think employees can kind of get annoyed by not being able to wear perfumes, but overall this ordinance that they’re passing just codifies what’s already an existing practice.”

Health study on effects of Gulf oil well blow out about to launch; Chemical Sensitivity Foundation seeks people who have developed MCS

Posted by Admin

Feb 212011

Alison Johnson, chair of the Chemical Sensitivity Foundation, is looking for people in the Gulf of Mexico region who were exposed to oil or dispersant during the BP blow out and have since developed Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

Workers clean up Mississippi beach after BP oil well blow out, July 2010.

Workers clean up beaches after BP oil well blow out, July 2010.

Nola.com reports that a health study on effects of Gulf of Mexico oil spill revs up.

A division of the National Institutes of Health is nearing the launch of what researchers say could be a potentially ground-breaking study on the human health effects in the aftermath of an oil spill.

The study aims to interview 55,000 people along the upper Gulf Coast who have had varying levels of exposure to crude oil and the dispersant Corexit in the months following the Deepwater Horizon explosion last April. The target is cleanup workers and those who had direct exposure to the crude and dispersant.

Alison Johnson

Alison Johnson, chair of the Chemical Sensitivity Foundation, left a comment on the article. She’s looking for Gulf region citizens and workers who developed Multiple Chemical Sensitivity after exposure to the oil and/or dispersant Corexit.

As chair of the Chemical Sensitivity Foundation, I would like to suggest that those exposed to the BP oil spill or Corexit were put at significant risk for developing not only cancer, respiratory problems, and other diseases but also for developing multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), a condition in which people react to everyday chemicals like those in perfume, air fresheners, cigarette smoke, household cleaners, auto exhaust, pesticides, paint, etc., with symptoms like headaches, respiratory problems, muscle and joint pain, and extreme fatigue. In my book “Amputated Lives: Coping with Chemical Sensitivity,” I trace the development of MCS among Exxon Valdez cleanup workers, Gulf War veterans, 9/11 First Responders, and Katrina victims housed in toxic FEMA trailers. See my website, www.alisonjohnsonmcs.com for the books and documentaries I have written or produced on MCS. I would be interested in hearing from anyone exposed to the oil or dispersants who has developed MCS. Alison Johnson

Contact info:

Alison Johnson
MCS Information Exchange
4 Wren Drive
Topsham, ME 04086
207-725-8570
info[at]alisonjohnsonmcs.com

Bio from her website:

Alison Johnson, BA., M.A., is a summa cum laude graduate of Carleton College and studied mathematics at the Sorbonne on a National Science Foundation Fellowship. She received a master’s degree in mathematics from the University of Wisconsin, where she studied on a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship. Johnson has produced and directed documentaries titled Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: How Chemical Exposures May Be Affecting Your Health, Gulf War Syndrome: Aftermath of a Toxic Battlefield, and The Toxic Clouds of 9/11: A Looming Health Disaster. She has also edited a book titled Casualties of Progress: Personal Histories from the Chemically Sensitive and has written books titled Gulf War Syndrome: Legacy of a Perfect War and Amputated Lives: Coping with Chemical Sensitivity. The latter contains chapters on the health problems affecting the workers who helped clean up the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the soldiers who developed Gulf War Syndrome in the 1991 war, New Yorkers exposed to the toxins released by the World Trade Center collapse and fires and residents of FEMA trailers post-Katrina.

Mississippi beach photo credit

Removed

Posted by Admin

Oct 282010

Removed

Guest Blog: Chemical sensitivity is the result of industrialization, manufacturing trends

Posted by Guest Blogger

Oct 282010

Today there are 100,000 different chemicals constantly circulating in the environment, and the impact of the vast majority of these chemicals on the human organism is not known.

By guest blogger Bodil Dam Bak Nielsen, MCS Fokus, Denmark.

Smokestacks at an industrial factory belching out toxic fumes.

The result of industrial development is that today over 100,000 different chemicals are constantly circulating in the environment, and we do not yet know the impact of the vast majority of these chemicals on the human organism.

According to physician Stephen Hawking, Earth is at risk of a devastating disaster, and life can only be carried on by colonizing outer space. What concerns him most is a potential asteroid collision with Earth which would wipe out life. However, I do not think we need to wait for this disaster. Man already carries out the mission of wiping out life on Earth pretty well!

Life has existed on Earth, our planet, for more than 3½ billion years. Homo sapiens appeared about 50,000 years BC, and until about 100-150 years ago, mankind communed well with nature and had until then, a lifestyle that only intervened to a limited extent in nature’s sensitive ecosystems. However, a drastic change occurred approximately 150 years ago. Industrialization started and manufacturing and refinement processes could be enhanced by using steam, gas, oil, and electricity as power sources. In the 1950s, the consumption of chemicals exploded; it became trendy to produce food additives, chemicals, detergents to ease housewives daily chores, and personal care products full of chemicals, etc.

Manufacturing and consumption of chemicals

The result of this development is that today over 100,000 different chemicals are constantly circulating in the environment, and we do not yet know the impact of the vast majority of these chemicals on the human organism. Yet, today the cocktail effect of chemicals is being gradually discussed. A number of various chemicals together are much more harmful than single isolated chemicals. However, the motivation to investigate into this problem is not particularly high. A number of chemicals have a hormone-like-effect thus resulting in presexual maturity, childlessness, etc. It is a known fact that some chemicals are cancer-producing, but even this fact is being ignored to a large extent.

Pesticides are sprayed by farmers

Farmers spray increasingly more aggressively with a huge number of various pesticides – substances designed to kill living organisms: pests, weeds, and fungi. It is a known fact that these pesticides certainly seep down into the groundwater. But what is being done about it? Oh yes, limit values are set forth on how much pollution is allowed in our drinking water. Limit values are set for how much toxic waste our food may contain. That is indeed sheer madness. Without protest, we accept eating, drinking and breathing in toxic waste. If pesticides are designed to kill living organisms, what makes us believe that these harmful chemicals are harmless to humans?

Chemical disasters have become everyday occurrences

Nearly every day we are being flooded with stories on TV and in newspapers about various chemical disasters. A tidal wave of poisonous mud buries entire villages in Hungary. Contaminated plots of land are detected and chemicals are dumped around in the open countryside. The industry sends huge quantities of toxic waste water and toxic smoke out into the environment, thus causing harmful damage to humans and animals. Certain fish are no longer edible due to heavy metals contamination. Even polar bears, living so far away from civilization, are exposed to chemicals and pollution via their food, thus developing deformed genital organs. The air is thick with pollution, and we incinerate fossil fuels in increasing quantities. We have gradually developed ”immunity” to all these gruesome stories. The madness goes on, driven by man’s tendency toward greediness.

Environmental diseases such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are the result of all this chemical production and pollution

Over the last 50 years or so, gradually, increasing numbers of people turn up, developing environmental diseases such as MCS. No wonder that the weakest of us is defeated by this devastating chemical pressure, foreign to the human body, as well as by the increasing spread of wireless devices, also being a devastating and unnatural strain on the human organism. Man was created to live commune with nature, so even if it feels ”natural” to live as society does today, having daily contact with and consumption of hundreds of chemicals, the body is of course, not geared to defend against all those substances foreign on the human body. Some members of society become ill from this overwhelming chemical build up of pressure and develop chemical sensitivity.

Why do politicians, scientists, physicians, and others deny the existence of the environmental disease MCS?

If animals become ill from chemical filth, why shouldn’t a number of people react likewise against this devastating chemical pressure foreign to the human body by becoming ill? Shouldn’t it be a natural thing to take environmentally sick people seriously? Shouldn’t society react by raising the alarm and by initiating serious research in this field? Shouldn’t the medical world immediately offer these seriously environmentally sick people fair and thorough medical examination, counseling and treatment for their disabling disease MCS?

Why is there instead such an extensive and massive objection against accepting MCS as the environmental disease that it is? Who has a special interest to deny chemical sensitivity and instead attempt to explain it away by declaring it to be a mental disease? Could it be that the chemical industry, the insurance industry, and certain politicians have a huge interest in not recognizing MCS as an environmental disease due to chemicals? If MCS was recognized as a disease caused by chemicals, the aforementioned groups would be in very big financial trouble. However, if instead these patients are diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, these special interests would save huge amounts in loss of earnings, claims for damages, disability pension payouts, etc., so it is obvious, here we find the reason why globally there is such vigorous objection of fair and thorough research of MCS, and why the limited number of environmental physicians have constant attempts to be discredited by any means possible.

There are always greedy research scientists and physicians who can be bought off to produce predetermined research results, as well as predetermined diagnoses. That was evident with regard to the impact of tobacco on health, and that is also evident with regard to the impact of toxic chemicals on health. Many physicians diagnose MCS sufferers with psychiatric disorders, but such misdiagnoses do not, of course, make MCS sufferers less chemically sensitive. On the contrary, increasingly more people do develop MCS, and if the chemical problem is not taken seriously very soon, Stephen Hawking’s prophesy can easily come true. Man is the disaster about to destroy Earth and life on Earth.

MCS suffers are just the first victims. They are the yellow canaries in the coal mines.

Bodil Dam Bak Nielsen is co-founder of MCS Fokus, Denmark.

English translation by Dorte Pugliese, edited by Christi Howarth.

Photo by Torben Bøjstrup, Topperfoto.dk.

Why I boycott Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Posted by Admin

Oct 172010

Beware: Breast Cancer Awareness Month turns breast cancer into just another marketing campaign.

Metastatic Breast Cancer cells in Pleural Fluid

Metastatic breast cancer in pleural fluid.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and I’d like to add my two cents to the discussion: I am a breast cancer survivor and I boycott Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Rather than jumping on the very popular pink bandwagon, I boycott all breast cancer “awareness” tied to pink ribbon campaigns, subscribing to a CAUSE not CURE approach to the epidemic of breast cancer.

My highly critical view of Breast Cancer Awareness Month is along the lines of Samantha King’s, who, in her book Pink Ribbons, Inc., “traces how breast cancer has been transformed from a stigmatized disease and individual tragedy to a market-driven industry of survivorship.” King maintains that corporations, under the guise of philanthropy, “turn their formidable promotion machines on the curing of the disease while dwarfing public health prevention efforts and stifling the calls for investigation into why and how breast cancer affects such a vast number of people.” I couldn’t agree more.

I fully support Breast Cancer Action, an organization based in San Francisco helping to transform breast cancer from a private medical crisis to a public health emergency. And I love their Think Before You Pink campaign that “calls for more transparency and accountability by companies that take part in breast cancer fundraising, and encourages consumers to ask critical questions about pink ribbon promotions.” Think Before You Pink also highlights “pinkwashers”—companies that “purport to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon campaign, but manufacture products that are linked to the disease.”

In the spirit of focusing on CAUSE not CURE, Rita Arditti at CommonDreams.org writes about “Why Cancer’s Gaining on Us,” making the case about the rise in breast cancer coinciding with the flood of synthetic chemicals in our environment since the 1950s, calling for research into any possible links.

“Is there definitive evidence that these substances cause breast cancer?” she asks. “Have they been sufficiently studied? Well, no. We need to know more about the timing, duration, and patterns of exposure, which may be as important as dosage.”

Don’t miss that the chemicals she lists as examples are some of the very same chemicals to which those of us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity react negatively.

Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources cause breast cancer in animals.

Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in paint strippers and glues.

That’s where we should be focusing, not on the pretty ribbon in a feel-good color that pops up on the calendar once a year and is sponsored by the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries.

This post was originally published in Oct 2008, and republished in Oct 2009.

Photo credit.

Guest Blog: October is Breast Cancer Corruption Month

Posted by Guest Blogger

Sep 172010

As most everyone knows by now October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. What most people don’t know is the corporate corruption behind it.

By guest blogger Bobby McClintock, Respiratory & Environmental Disabilities Association of Hawaii.

A cluster of breast cancer cells showing visual evidence of programmed cell death (apoptosis). Scanning electron micrograph.

The first time I had breast cancer was 1985. When I recovered I wanted so badly to help others with it. I contacted the organization who helped at our hospital. I was told I hadn’t had cancer long enough to help out! I’m still reeling from that one!

As the years went by groups started springing up. I remember when the Susan G. Koman project started I was appalled when I saw Revlon as one of their sponsors. Anyone who really wanted to prevent cancer knew most chemical companies and ALL cosmetic companies, at the time, were contributing to breast cancer from the very products they had. Of course, big mouth that I am, I wrote to them to voice my concern.

Each year when a new group started out to find a cure for cancer, I couldn’t understand why it made me so angry. Everyone wants to cure cancer so why am I annoyed? Because curing cancer presupposes someone must GET cancer, then someone must find a chemical CURE for it and the big pharma/chemical corps/cosmetic/insurance/etc companies all profit from it. I began writing to people thanking them for being so concerned about all of us having cancer. BUT, I’d add, wouldn’t they really want to PREVENT it instead of curing it?

Breast cancer is one of THE most preventable cancers along with others found in fatty tissue (prostate for men, brain for children– not a lot of fatty tissue– the only place for it to go). We KNOW pesticides are one culprit. We KNOW most household chemicals are also building in everyone’s blood and tissue. Until we stop allowing these corporations from manufacturing doubt whenever new research is presented against their products, we will all be fighting cancer in some form.

Right now the statistics here in the US are one in every three people will get cancer in their lifetime. A far cry from our grandparents’ generation when hardly anyone had cancer, or, better yet, used any of the toxic chemicals that are now in our environment.

MAKE THE CONNECTION! Pass information like this along to family and friends. STOP passing around the usual breast cancer BULL that circulates the internet. GET EDUCATED!

If you are truly interested in stopping breast cancer, please visit Think Before You Pink, a project of Breast Cancer Action. In my humble (OK!) opinion, their take on the whole breast cancer problems is the closest to the truth we can get.

So get out there and fight for PREVENTION!!

~~~

Bobby McClintock is founder of the Respiratory and Environmental Disabilities Association of Hawaii, an active clearinghouse for information, which Bobby disseminates through an email list serve. She started the association in the late 1990s when giving testimony at the Hawaii State Legislature against water fluoridation and genetically engineered foods. Bobby first became ill with chemical sensitivities in 1985 after she underwent a breast implant following mastectomy for breast cancer. After a series of misdiagnoses due to the ignorance of her doctors about the problems of implants and the symptoms of chemical sensitivity, Bobby started combing the Internet for answers and discovered her symptoms were consistent with Environmental Illness. In 1989, she found a knowledgeable doctor who properly diagnosed her as having Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. By then disabled, she went through the grievance process with her employer United Airlines, only to have the company abandon her case in 1995. Bobby lives on Oahu with her husband and is a vocal activist for clean, safe air, water and food. “I swam every day, biked everywhere and was a ballet dancer all my life,” she says. “This illness took it all away and it was completely avoidable. So, watch out world, as long as I have a mouth, and boy is it a big one, you won’t shut me up!”

Photo credit.

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

Posted by Admin

Aug 192010

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.