October 2011-- During the next six months, The Canary Report will be dedicated solely to me sharing my experiences while on the Gupta Amygdala Retraining program for MCS. If you'd like to be notified by email when blog entries are made, please subscribe in the right hand column below. During the entire six months, this blog will remain online but Our Canary Report network and forum will be offline and inaccessible to our members. Thank you for all your support! Aloha, Susie
 

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.

 

Realtors who encourage sellers to do cheap renovations are contributing to a multitude of illnesses and unhealthy living conditions inside a “home.”

Letter to the Editor by Molly Brown.

As someone who suffers from chemical sensitivities, I am enraged at what is happening here in Vancouver, BC, Canada, in the overpriced housing market. It’s what I call “the cheap plastic condo.” This is the only affordable housing here as house prices start at $700,000 in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. (Otherwise you are looking at a 2-hour plus commute in traffic).

Unfortunately, before condos even go on the market, realtors advise sellers to put in cheap flooring, cheap bathrooms, and cheap kitchens. Then, they douse the condo in cheap air freshener prior to any open house.

The asking price per typical condo? $350,000 plus. And not even real wood floors. Vinyl siding, laminate flooring, pressboard kitchens, cheap smelly appliances, vinyl tiles, open gas fireplace. I think that if I were to test some of these new apartments, the formaldehyde content would probably be as high as FEMA trailers! Sadly, I think that realtors are especially responsible, since they are the ones telling sellers to do these cheap renovations.

The Canadian Real Estate Association has yet to respond to my emails sent to them regarding this. Realtors need to be aware that what they are doing is contributing to what causes a multitude of illnesses and unhealthy living conditions inside a “home.”

Please, realtors, stop the “cheap plastic condo” – I just need a place to live!

Molly Brown
Vancouver, BC, Canada

 

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 partiessending 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

 

At a recent visit to one of our favorite hang-outs in Santa Fe, we were poisoned by Febreze in the bathroom. Letters to the owner and manager about the incident brought a pleasant surprise.

By contributor Keith Carlson, RN.

Keith Carlson, RN

Keith Carlson, RN

We currently live in Santa Fe, a small city where there is wide acceptance of chemical sensitivity, a general openness to and awareness of issues related to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and a sense that one can discuss such issues in public without being hung out to dry.

That said, we recently visited one of our favorite hang-outs and were unfortunately poisoned by Febreze in the bathroom. I immediately sent an email message to the manager (followed by a snail mail copy of the same missive to the owner of the establishment), and received a very positive and supportive email in response. I want to share my email with the Canary Report community so that others can use it as an encouraging example of positive MCS advocacy.

Dear Tea House Manager and Staff,

We have lived in Santa Fe for 10 months, and the Tea House has been one of our most treasured discoveries. We love to come to the Tea House in any season: to rest with a hot cup of tea by the fire in winter, or to soak up the sun in your lovely garden in the summer. Your veggie burgers are certainly the best in Santa Fe—if not in northern New Mexico—and there’s no comparison when it comes to your tea selection. As far as your staff is concerned, they are efficient, friendly, and consistently patient, kind and knowledgeable. We love to spend our money and time at the Tea House, and we always bring out of town guests to relax and drink tea at this Canyon Road destination beloved by locals and tourists alike.

Just today, we were at the Tea House for lunch, and each of our party of three needed to use the rest room. Two of us have chemical and fragrance sensitivity (and the third is recovering from a long battle with ovarian cancer), and unfortunately whoever had used the bathroom prior to our visit to your cute little W.C. had liberally sprayed Febreze after using the services. My wife left the Tea House with a migraine, and we then had to wash all of our clothes to remove the awful veneer of toxic “fragrance” from our clothes.

You may not be aware that Febreze (and many other commercial fragranced household products) is filled with chemicals, many of which may be neurotoxins and hormone disruptors. The manufacturers of these sorts of products are not required by the FDA or EPA to disclose what chemicals their products contain (in the interest of “trade secrets”), and thus the concerned consumer can only guess what’s actually in these vile products. You may also want to consider that Febreze is owned and manufactured by Proctor and Gamble, one of the most corrupt companies in America today.

That said, since the Tea House makes such healthy and wonderful food and drink, perhaps it would be more in line with your menu and apparent concern for good food and healthy eating to also consider the chemicals with which your bathroom is “refreshed.” Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods both offer healthy alternatives to Febreze that contain no toxic chemicals and do not leave a layer of toxicity on clothing and fabric. Using these products would, I imagine, be more consistent with the quality and thoughtfulness that the Tea House personifies, and would also make the use of your facilities (so artfully decorated with that lovely mural, I should add) more accessible to those of us sensitive to the many toxins that have sadly invaded our world over the last several decades.

Thank you so much for your time, for your wonderful food and tea, and for the favor of your reply.

Sincerely,

Keith Carlson

And the owner’s reply:

Thank you Keith!

I will look for this product and make the change a.s.a.p. Hope to see you all again very soon.

Best regards.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, this has been an empowering experience for me, and I will use this experience as a benchmark of how these sorts of interactions “should” proceed. With any luck, subsequent “MCS interventions” will meet with equal levels of success!

 

The result of a two-year journey by an experienced journalist and nonfiction author, What’s Gotten into Us?, is a deep, remarkable, and empowering investigation into the threats—biological and environmental—that chemicals now present in our daily lives.

McKay Jenkins

McKay Jenkins

The University of Delaware reports Our toxic world: UD professor examines everyday exposure to harmful materials.

An experienced journalist and nonfiction author, McKay Jenkins based his new book on his examination of numerous scientific studies and on interviews with experts, including some colleagues at UD, on a variety of subjects. As part of his research, Jenkins visited a woman with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Yes! You heard right. Someone with MCS was included as part of a journalist’s investigation of toxic chemicals in consumer goods.

The Cornelius A. Tilghman Professor of English and director of the journalism program at the University of Delaware details his “field trip” to the discount store in his new book, What’s Gotten Into Us: Staying Healthy in a Toxic World. It’s just one chapter in a book that explores the prevalence of chemicals in common consumer products and the extent to which those substances make their way into our bodies. [...]

He focused the book on personal narratives of some of the many people he interviewed. He spent time, for example, meeting with organic farmers, visiting a woman suffering from multiple chemical sensitivity, touring a water treatment plant and turning a toxicologist loose in his own home to point out hazardous materials.

 

Each day, officials in the town of Dish estimate, about 1 billion cubic feet of gas travels through three metering stations, more than 20 major gas gathering pipelines and 11 compression plants that have been shoehorned into the town’s two square miles by energy companies. Nearby residents suffer a host of ailments including irritated skin, eyes, nose throat and lungs, headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, skin rashes, weakness, irregular heartbeats and multiple chemical sensitivity, attributed to toxic emissions from the facilities.

In the above video, Sharon Wilson makes a joint statement, on behalf of the Texas Oil and Gas Accountability project and Fort Worth Citizens Against Neighborhood Drilling Operations, about the air standards needed in Texas to prevent natural gas extraction from continuing to foul the air and harm the health of nearby residents.

“In Texas, the permit by rule process is abused allowing all these emissions to go unchecked,” Wilson says. “Eleven compression stations and four metering stations operate side-by-side in Dish, Texas, each considered a separate source. Residents suffer a host of ailments including irritated skin, eyes, nose throat and lungs, headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, skin rashes, weakness and irregular heartbeats.”

Read Wilson’s entire testimony here.

This week, DentonRC.com reports on Rebekah Sheffield and her husband, who moved to Dish, Texas, in 1996, with dreams of restoring a 100-year-old farmhouse. Today, their home is surrounded by the town’s many natural gas production facilities with their toxic emissions, which Rebekah says initiated her Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

Rebekah and Warren Sheffield moved to Dish in 1996 after buying a century-old farmhouse. The couple says they dreamed of restoring it by hand and raising their children. It was a place where she could breathe in the fresh air — until the gas wells were drilled across the street.

Rebekah Sheffield first noticed changes in her body the following year when she reacted to fragrances, particularly perfumes and detergents, she says. A whiff of someone’s perfume sent her stumbling to the floor. She fainted at ballgames, in the grocery store, even while sitting in the pew at church.

Her physician, Dr. Tod Heldridge, prescribed a battery of allergy medications, though they did little to lessen her symptoms. When her condition worsened in 2003, she consulted a neurologist, but tests found no brain lesions or tumors. In 2004, she sought out an allergist, but no combination of pills or nasal sprays substantially quelled her symptoms. The next year, she saw another specialist to treat her constant state of vertigo, but tests were inconclusive. Rebekah Sheffield’s instability was very real to her husband, who grew frustrated that he could not catch his wife when she fell. Finally, in her early 30s, she purchased a wheelchair.

Rebekah Sheffield learned the hard way that soaps and detergents will give her chemical burns up to her elbows. In place of shampoo, conditioner, shaving cream and deodorant, she must create her own toiletries using a combination of natural products including cornstarch, baking soda, lemon juice and sugar.

Unable to determine either the specific cause or an effective treatment for her condition, Heldridge diagnosed her with multiple chemical sensitivity.

Town officials in Dish spent a big chunk of change for air quality tests that found benzene, xylene, naphthalene, carbon disulfide and other chemicals at elevated levels. The Oil and Gas Accountability Project, a national, nonprofit watchdog group, surveyed Dish residents to discover any adverse health effects from the toxic chemicals– that’s the discovery mentioned by Sharon Wilson in the above video. Thirty one people participated in the survey, including Rebekah Sheffield. The group reported 165 different medical conditions such as frequent sinus infections, nosebleeds, headaches, persistent coughs and irritated eyes, all of which could be associated with the toxic compounds found in the air.

Read more about the Oil and Gas Accountability Project and about Megan Collins, another resident of Dish, who also suffers health problems.

You also might like to read a previous post I wrote here at The Canary Report about Sandra DenBraber, who has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity initiated by the toxic emissions from a natural gas drill site near her home, also in Texas.

 

Most new clothing and fabrics are permeated with toxic chemicals during manufacturing, which can be a real problem for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Ellen from Toronto, Canada, shares her decontamination protocol.

Laundry on line
Reprinted with permission.

Editor’s note: Linda Sepp posted Ellen’s Laundry Decontamination Protocol on our private network in 2009; I’m reprinting here on The Canary Report public blog for easy access to everyone. Many thanks to Ellen for permission to reprint. ~Susie

ELLEN’S LAUNDRY DECONTAMINATION PROTOCOL

Some warnings before you start:

  1. Do not use this protocol on silk. Please note that I have only tested this protocol on cotton, cotton/bamboo blends, cotton/polyester blends, and a very few totally synthetic fabrics. It is not safe to use on silk. Silk should be washed only with mild low pH liquids, such as hair shampoo or diluted natural vinegar. Alkaline agents can destroy silk, so don’t use baking soda or washing soda on silk.
  2. Clothing may stretch or shrink as a result of this protocol. As far as I can tell, the milk soaking, to remove formaldehyde, is the stage at which fabrics can change shape. As a result, I now use no more than 1/4 cup skim milk powder in a full bin of water, instead of the 1/2 cup (or more) skim milk powder that I used to include in that step.
  3. Wear safe gloves to protect your hands while handling the solutions. Wear a mask or respirator if you are sensitive to the chemicals in the clothes or to the soaking media.
  4. Unfortunately, I have had poor results when attempting to decontaminate clothes that had been dried hundreds of times with dryer sheets, such as Bounce or Snuggles. I am not sure there are any safe chemical solutions capable of dissolving the toxic chemical residues from those products. The protocol doesn’t damage the clothes, but it also doesn’t remove enough of the Bounce residue to make them safe for me to be around.

The Protocol

I use large or small plastic (polyethylene or polystyrene) bins for this, depending on the volume of fabric I am detoxing, and mix whatever amount seems right into the bin of filtered water. Other people have recommended using enameled metal pots, but I don’t have any in the size I would need, so I use some plastic bins I originally bought for storing clothes. These bins fit well into a pair of kitchen sinks conveniently located several metres from my washer and dryer. For very large items, I use large bins that fit into the pair of laundry sinks located very close to my washer.

One thing I didn’t clue into right away is the importance of rinsing well, sometimes rinsing several times, after each soaking, to remove everything that the detoxing liquid has pulled out. When I am detoxing heavy items, such as towels or sheets, I do the rinsing in my washing machine, with a bit of vinegar in the fabric softener compartment to minimize the amount of chlorine that ends up on the machine-rinsed fabrics. Because of worse shoulder and hand pain, I have recently also been tending to rinse clothes in the washer after each soaking. My strategy is to soak one or more garments of identical or similar colour in each of the 2 bins that fit into my basement divided kitchen sink. Decontaminating by colour, I can rinse all the items in the washer at the same time without worrying about dye exchanges. As always,I add vinegar to the fabric softener compartment of the washer, to knock out the chlorine in the rinse water. For smaller items, I used to be able to rinse out the soaking item fairly well by using clear filtered water, squeezing the items gently, pouring the rinse water down the drain, adding more filtered water to the container, squeezing gently, repeating as many times as necessary for the rinse water to turn clear.

The measurements I list are for soaking items in small bins about 3 gallons in capacity. For soaking in washing machines (not practical for me), the correct quantities are probably double what I list.

My usual order of soakings, inspired by several postings on the MCS-CanadianSources support group, but adapted by me, is:

  1. Sea salt (or table salt) in filtered water, about 1/4 cup salt to many cups of filtered water, as many as it takes to dissolve all the salt, to help lock the dye into the fabric. TSP soaking, which used to be my first soaking step, is especially good at removing dye from fabrics, not always a good thing. I have recently started using a salt soaking as the first step for all fabrics, even those not dyed. It seems to help with decontamination as well, although I have no idea why. But white clothes I decontaminated without a salt soaking retained more odours by the time I had finished all the steps, so I started soaking them in salt as well. Salt is sold in boxes or in bulk at many supermarkets, grocery stores, and health food stores, so it’s an easy ingredient to obtain.
  2. TSP (tri-sodium phosphate, real, not substitute). If you can use hot water for this, all the better, since TSP seems to work best in hot water. But choose a water temperature suitable for your clothes. I mix about 1/4 cup TSP into very hot water, then add sufficient cold filtered tap water to bring the mixture to the required temperature for soaking the fabric. With towels and sheets, I use hot water, as I do all my machine washing of towels and sheets in hot water anyway, because of my dust mite allergies. So I don’t bother to use cold water when detoxing them in TSP. However, most of my clothes have labels warning that the water temperature should be either cool or cold. So I add lots of cold water to the hot water and TSP for those items. TSP is often sold in powder form in paint sections of hardware stores because it is a good de-greaser for preparing walls for painting. TSP is able to dissolve out oily chemicals in fabrics. If you can’t tolerate this product, then please skip this step.
  3. Milk (apparently this helps get out formaldehyde). I mix about 1/4 cup skim milk powder into a plastic bin full of cold water. Other people dilute whatever form of milk they normally drink, e.g., 2 % fat content, in water. I prefer to use powdered skim milk, rather than liquid milk, for the simple reason that I can store the powder where I do the laundry decontamination, in my basement, rather than having to go upstairs each time I need more milk. Also, the milk we currently buy, organic whole milk (3.8% milk fat) for making wonderful lactose-free homemade yogurt [for the Specific Carbohydrate diet], is very expensive compared to the skim-milk powder. Some people use more than 1/2 cup milk for this step, but I have found 1/4 cup to be a reasonable amount that doesn’t reshape my clothes. I usually do the milk soak for less than 24 hours, to prevent the milk from spoiling. And I always make sure the lid of the container is on tightly, to keep out curious, milk-loving felines who could be poisoned by the formaldehyde and other chemicals absorbed by the milk. I buy the powdered skim milk at a supermarket.
  4. Grain vinegar (I use President’s Choice brand. I think that Heinz vinegar in the USA is similar). 1/2 cup in a bin of cold water. I think that the vinegar reacts with alkaline contaminants in the fabric, to neutralize them, but I’m not positive of the chemistry. President’s Choice vinegar is sold at “National Grocery” stores in Canada, such as Loblaw’s, Zehr’s, and Fortinos supermarkets. Heinz vinegar is available at all supermarkets I have checked. Try not to use a vinegar that is made from petroleum products.
  5. Borax and washing soda, or if I can’t find scent-free washing soda (fragrance either deliberately added by manufacturer or contamination in store), borax and baking soda, plus a bit of powder oxygen bleach. This combination was devised by LaVerne, a genius who is a moderator of this list, and from whom I have learned a lot about clothing decontamination. LaVerne came up with the recipe to mimic the action of an AFM product that is scarce and very expensive in Canada. If you can’t tolerate baking soda, you might want to use the AFM product, whatever it is. Mix 1/4 cup borax with hot water to dissolve, then add 1/4 cup washing soda or 1/4 cup baking soda plus 1-2 teaspoons powdered oxygen bleach, and enough cold filtered tap water to dissolve all of these ingredients. Borax and washing soda are sold in the (contaminated) laundry detergent aisles of supermarkets. But some non-toxic stores also sell these products in bulk. Baking soda is usually found in the baking products section or the bulk foods aisles of supermarkets and other food stores.
  6. If the fabrics still smell, I soak them in a very weak solution of rubbing alcohol (99% isopropyl alcohol, 1/4 cup-1/2 cup in bin of water). LaVerne is the genius who thought of this as well. Some chemicals are soluble in alcohol. I usually buy the 99% isopropyl alcohol in 500-ml bottles at pharmacies, but I wish I could find larger bottles, as I go through them fairly quickly.
  7. Machine wash with non-toxic laundry detergent, using vinegar in the fabric softener compartment to neutralize chlorine and to soften. Typically I will wash checking the smell after each washing, until I am satisfied that I will be able to wear or use the item safely. At that point, I dry the items in our electric dryer, or else dry them on a rack or clothesline, depending on the manufacturer’s recommendations. Examples of the laundry detergent I use are Simply Clean (a Canadian company) and Seventh Generation Free & Clear. I tend to do the first washing with Simply Clean, because of its alcohol content. So far, I have not reacted to Seventh Generation Free & Clear 2X liquid, and I hope I never do.

Repeat all steps if required. So, I allow at least a week to detox every new item of clothing or fabric I buy.

Hope this helps.

Ellen
Toronto, Canada

Photo credit

 

Yo! MSNBC Web editor: this AP story about disability accommodation for people with chemical sensitivity belongs in the HEALTH section, not the WEIRD NEWS section.

MSNBC thinks toxic chemical- and fragrance-free legislation is weird news.

 

MSNBC.com reports Nevada legislation raises stink over air fresheners, a story from the Associated Press.  The AP report says Las Vegas Democratic Assemblyman Paul Aizley on Monday proposed legislation that would set restrictions on pesticides, fragrances and candles to accommodate people with chemical sensitivities (here’s a link to the bill). With a cutsie-pie play on words in the title, and placing the report in the “Weird news” section, the AP and MSNBC, each feeding off the lousy reporting of the other, manage to trivialize chemical sensitivity and insult those suffering from it in one fell swoop.

Neon sign reading "Welcome to Las Vegas."

Welcome to Las Vegas, where a cocktail waitress who experiences respiratory distress when exposed to scent marketing products is "weird news," according to MSNBC.

Proponents said air fresheners give them migraines or asthma attacks and prevent them from going to the movies or to restaurants. A cocktail waitress at a casino said inhaling the fragrances piped through the ventilation system felt like a concrete slab on her chest.

In other words, according to MSNBC, migraines and asthma attacks brought on by exposure to toxic chemicals are just WEIRD. And it is SO weird when a worker experiences respiratory distress from a scent marketing machine. People with chemical sensitivities? WEIRDOS.

It’s unconscionable the way the media continuously seeks to discredit people with chemical sensitivities through trivializing and marginalizing the illness. On top of that, these types of reports continuously describe toxic chemical-free and fragrance-free policy as related to smell, odors, and “stink.” The truth is, chemical sensitivities have nothing to do with odors or our sense of smell, it is an illness initiated by toxic chemicals found in everyday consumer goods (such as pesticides, fragrances and candles listed in Aizley’s proposed legislation). I guess it’s impossible for reporters to get this simple point correct.

Shoddy reporting like this does a disservice to everyone, not just people with chemical sensitivity. Clean indoor air is everyone’s business; everyone has a right to breathe fresh, unpolluted indoor air. Bravo to Assemblyman Aizley and others working to end sources of indoor pollution.

Las Vegas sign photo credit.

Thanks to Sal for link to bill!

 

“What is the worst part of sitting in 29E? Is it the stench of the sanitation fluid that’s blown all over my body every 60 seconds when the lavatory door opens? Or is it the passengers’ asses that seem to fit into my personal space like a pornographic jig-saw puzzle?”

Hands down the funniest airline complaint letter: Seat 29E.




Via Canary Report contributor Amy Ludwigson.

Amy Ludwigson blogs at Pure Habitat: Live Consciously where she writes about the things that bring joy, that inspire, that make us laugh, and make our lives better for knowing. She also runs the online store Pure Citizen that sells everything that you need to live consciously – celebrating fair trade, healthy living and environmental responsibility.

 

We are as sheep calmly led to slaughter, as we poison ourselves and our own.

Letter to the Editor by Susie Flores.

Sheep

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. Isaiah 53:7

 

all my life i have been the odd one out, the sick one, the crazy one, the freak. many years ago when the internet became available to me i did research but only found that my disease still actually did not exist and of course there is no cure. and things only got worse in a big hurry. i remember a time when my world wasn’t poisoned by such a massive amount of chemical fragrances and colors that’s how old i am. finally i looked again and found y’all thanks.

my opinion is, as i live behind the glass, that my right to breathe is being constantly violated by those who claim the right to cover themselves in as much chemical fragrance as they can possibly afford. and i object. shouldn’t my right to breathe take precedence over their vanity? i think so.

my opinion on some gum: i saw a certain commercial and almost involuntarily formed this opinion, because this is tragic to me, my opinion on some gums, mostly the impossibly neon collared multiflavored, able to turn your kid into a rock star ones, if all the chemical ingredients it takes to make that gum were laid out on your kitchen table, would you feed it to your child? my opinion is no, but the tragedy is, yes.

random opinion: i feel some foods are so highly processed that we feed not our hunger when we consume it, but rather our chemical dependency.

random thought: a chemical society is what we are, we ingest chemicals flavored like food, we spray, rub, and bathe chemicals onto our skin, we plug in chemicals to inundate our homes, we are as sheep calmly led to slaughter, as we poison ourselves and our own.

~~~

Have a letter you’d like to have published? Submit a Letter to the Editor.

Photo credit

©2008-2012 The Canary Report Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha