Growing trends in healthy house construction

Paula Baker-LaPorte at Healthy House Institute writes about Building Biology and the Healthy House.

“Building related illness, 20th (21st) century disease, multiple chemical sensitivities, sick building syndrome, environmental illness: these terms are recent additions to our vocabulary,” she writes. “Until about 25 years ago, indoor air pollution was a very limited phenomenon.”

But, she says, three basic things have changed in the evolution of building technology resulting in the current widespread concern about the environmental quality inside our homes: the very fabric of our homes, products that have a negative and costly impact on our health, and performance demands on our buildings such as dealing with trapped moisture from sealed bathrooms.

In response to these problems, she sees two different models emerging for a healthy home. One– the most common– is to seal the home very tightly on the inside, so nothing toxic from the building materials can leak into the living space. (This is akin to what people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity try to achieve with foil barriers.) And the other, more in line with what chemically sensitive people would like to see, is to build with nontoxic materials in the first place.

But the natural building materials solution is difficult to implement, most notably because of current building codes backed by corporate interests. Still, Baker-LaPorte sees building trends moving in the right direction.

…building systems that use natural materials as their base, once the norm for us and still the norm for the majority of humankind, are viewed with great suspicion and skepticism in the current mainstream building culture. If one chooses to build with natural materials one quickly learns that natural building systems have become the orphans of the modern building industry. Whereas huge corporate resources back industrialized building products, funding for code required testing of natural non-proprietary materials has, to date, been a grass roots pass-the-hat affair. Even though people have surrounded themselves with natural permeable materials throughout human history, and even though enduring models of these buildings are found throughout the world, mainstream building practices and codes are dominated by manufactured building commodities that are laboratory tested, standardized, stamped, packaged and shipped. When one applies for a building permit for a home to be made with natural building materials, the applicant may be rejected, or if permitted, the building may bear a dubious “experimental” status.

The natural building movement championed by the theories of Building Biology and a small but growing sector of environmentally concerned builders, designers and homeowners is however gaining momentum. And I believe there is a synthesis at hand between the two seemingly opposite approaches to healthy building. A natural home equipped with all the amenities of modern life faces many of the same indoor environmental qualities as does a sealed construction, and ventilation systems are becoming more common in natural buildings. On the other hand manufactured, code pre-approved permeable wall systems such as aerated autoclaved concrete are being introduced in to the mainstream market place. Straw bale construction has now been tested and codified in many locations. More and more construction products now advertise being “environmentally friendly” and “non-toxic”. Green building rating systems that reward healthier building practices are springing up all over the country. Regardless of the starting point we are moving towards healthier homes that are freer of toxic chemicals, more energy efficient and kinder on the environment.

Link to full article

Photo of straw bale house in Taos by mari-posa. The straw bales are covered over by adobe, and it’s solar powered, with a cistern to recycle rainwater.

Officials watching Hawaii’s air quality tonight

Hilo Medical Center’s emergency department gearing up for holiday

I think this report on extra air testing and a prepared hospital is supposed to make people like me with respiratory problems feel safer, but it doesn’t! It just gets me more worried about what the night will bring.

Right now my neighbors are erecting tents for a big party. So my health over the next 12 hours depends solely on the weather: if it rains as forecasted, the firecracker maniacs will be deterred, and if the wind is blowing the smoke away from my house, then I might be okay no matter if it rains or not. Last year was very difficult. It’s not just problems with my breathing and how the toxic smoke makes me feel (sick), but my eyes become so horribly irritated that I can’t read or watch TV or do anything but sit here and endure it.

And no matter what the officials say, staying indoors with air filters does nothing to keep the toxic smoke from entering our homes. In Hawaii our homes are like sieves, they are not sealed in any way, shape or form. What is outside is inside, and inside our bodies.

No one wants to ring in the New Year with a trip to the emergency room.

But Hilo Medical Center’s emergency department staff is taking extra steps to prepare for a possible influx of people with respiratory conditions from smoke caused by fireworks, said Reggie Agliam, nursing supervisor for Hilo Medical Center.

The hospital is also ready for any burns or fireworks-related injuries that might occur, he added.

As far as increased emergency department activity on New Year’s, Agliam said, “last year wasn’t too bad,” but added the hospital would rather be safe than sorry.

The state Department of Health will be monitoring Hawaii’s clean air quality throughout the state during New Year’s Eve and comparing it with national ambient air quality standards. The heavy use of fireworks during the annual holiday celebration can significantly increase the amount of particulates in the air, especially on Oahu, according to the department.

“We are going to be measuring particles in the air. Smoke is made out of particles,” said Lisa Young, environmental health specialist for the Department of Health. The smoke caused by fireworks can aggravate conditions such as asthma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

Young said the same monitoring stations that test for vog on the Big Island are being used to record fireworks-related smoke levels. The department will be monitoring particles from smoke in Hilo, Kona, Pahala and Mountain View, Young said.

The department is encouraging the public, especially people with respiratory conditions, as well as young children and the elderly, to be properly informed and prepared for the upcoming New Year’s firework celebration.

According to the department, people who suffer from respiratory conditions may want to take certain precautionary measures during fireworks celebrations, including: staying indoors and closing windows and doors, avoiding people with colds and other lung infections, making sure air conditioners or air purifiers are working properly and filters are changed, avoiding smoking or second-hand smoke and washing hands often and thoroughly.

The department also recommends people make sure they have an adequate supply of medication on hand, as directed by a physician, and that people contact a physician if they need more medication or want to get clear instructions of what to do if health conditions suddenly worsen.

While the suggestions are intended for those with existing conditions, they are also useful for healthy people during high air pollution episodes, including times of high particulates dust, fireworks smoke and volcanic haze, according to the department.

Take care, dear canaries, wherever you are: Stay safe out there!

Link to story by Terri Henderson at The Hawaii Tribune-Herald

Photo by kolix

Canary’s Cry for Wednesday, Dec. 31

Bloomberg.com reports that a “Coal Ash Spill Leads to Arsenic Warnings for Tennessee Wells” :

Water samples near a billion-gallon spill of coal ash in eastern Tennessee have found levels of arsenic and other heavy metals higher than drinking-water standards, prompting a warning against using private wells in the area.

Samples taken at the site of the spill in Harriman, 35 miles southwest of Knoxville, “slightly exceed” the standards for some metals, according to a statement from the Tennessee Valley Authority, owner of the coal power plant where the Dec. 22 accident occurred. Results from well-water and air tests won’t be known until later this week, the utility said.

The spill at the utility’s Harriman Fossil Plant deluged more than 300 acres of rural Roane County, destroying three homes and damaging 42 other properties. In nearby Kingston, that raised fears of fouled water and air, while 13 families wait to see if their homes can be salvaged, said Carolyn Brewer, finance director for the city of 5,300.

“Some of them are staying with families; some are working with real estate agents, leasing homes, buying homes,” Brewer said in a telephone interview today. “There’s two or three that will just never be able to get back in their homes. They’re just destroyed.”

The sludge-like spill, a mixture of water and residue from burned coal, escaped from a 40-acre holding pond after a retaining wall burst last week. After repeatedly saying the spilled material isn’t toxic, the TVA cautioned residents in its latest statement against touching or stirring up the material.

Leslie at The Oko Box Blog says the same coal ash spill, which happened “just around the bend” from where she lives, is polluting the air in her neighborhood to the point of making her “nauseous, lethargic, and seizure prone.” Take care, Leslie!

On the same topic, the New York Times reports “At Plant in Coal Ash Spill, Toxic Deposits by the Ton.” NYT says, “The spill has reignited a debate over whether coal ash should be regulated as a hazardous waste. In 2000, the E.P.A. backed away from its recommendation to do so in the face of industry opposition, promising instead to issue national guidelines for proper ash disposal, though it never did.”

In other disturbing news, Utne Reader reports about the consequences from marketing chemical-laden cosmetics to younger and younger consumers. In “Not So Pretty in Pink: Marketing Toxic Makeup to Young Girls,” Utne notes, “This rush to cosmetic beauty also represents increased exposure to toxic chemicals. Scientists now suspect that chemicals found in many of the cosmetics for which young girls clamor contribute to a disturbing trend. Girls in the United States, especially African American girls, are entering puberty earlier than their grandmothers did. Half of all American girls now show signs of breast development by age 10—one to two years earlier than 40 years ago—and a significant number show signs as early as 8 or 9.” Take a look at the article to find out why.

Thanks, Leslie and Linda!

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

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!

Sixth grader proposes Earth-friendly homes

“Eco-friendly homes are designed for creating a healthy indoor air environment and adequate ventilation in a natural way.”

Take a look at this letter to the editor in The Greenwich Time (Connecticut), written by a sixth grader. If these are the thoughts of sixth graders these days, there’s great hope for a brighter, less toxic future. Imagine what will happen if this young scholar decides to be an engineer or architect or community organizer, or maybe even a lawmaker. To understand, as this bright student does, that the building of eco-friendly, nontoxic homes strengthens communities and the economy is the type of progressive thinking that will get us out of this toxic mess, the mess that impacts those of us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity so seriously.

Green Homes are Good for our Community

To the editor:

As a sixth-grader at Eastern Middle School, I am concerned about the energy being carelessly wasted and the growing pollution around the town. To improve this, I support the modus operandi of “green building” and modifying homes to be more Earth friendly.

Increasing green homes will have remarkably positive effects.

The town’s picturesque parks and landscapes are extremely valuable. The streets are lined with scenic houses and even some historical sites. If we don’t put a stop to the constant release of fumes and greenhouse gases, the exquisite reputation of this community may collapse dramatically. Installing more energy-efficient and solar-powered homes will secure a prosperous and efficient status. Also, green homes are becoming quite luxurious, and such additions would be a notable avowal for Greenwich.

Standard houses have negative effects on the environment. Air pollution, water pollution, indoor pollution and stormwater runoff are all harmful to the Earth. Eco-friendly homes are designed for creating a healthy indoor air environment and adequate ventilation in a natural way, and use heavy insulation to reduce rising energy usage within the house.

These houses have very efficient appliances and construction. For instance, there are triple-pane windows, low-energy lighting, ground-source heat pumps, solar panels and de-chlorinating shower filters. These elements together guarantee a healthy lifestyle for the average Greenwich household.

An ecological house would be well adapted to the community and very beneficial to the economy. Those houses specialize in carefully making the best of all resources and avoiding waste. By switching to this type of houses, you’re helping all parts of the world.

I’ve lived in Greenwich long enough to appreciate its outstanding reputation. I am certain that expanding the quantity of energy-efficient homes would be extremely advantageous to the economy, households and the dazzling image of Greenwich.

Eco-friendly homes are the way of a cleaner, greener future. So I urge the people of this town to use green building technology when building or renovating their homes.

Thank you for reading my letter.

Gianna DeMasi

Greenwich

Link

Photo of a LEED house by Sarah Leeab

FYI: LEED for Homes is a rating system that promotes the design and construction of high-performance green homes. A green home uses less energy, water and natural resources; creates less waste; and is healthier and more comfortable for the occupants. Benefits of a LEED home include lower energy and water bills; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; and less exposure to mold, mildew and other indoor toxins. The net cost of owning a LEED home is comparable to that of owning a conventional home.

The save the planet song

This song is so beautiful. And I love the images in the vid. The lyrics ask, “What better ways can we come up with?” The first image he gives us as “a better way” is an awesome chicken coop! It looks like half of the structure is for the chickens and the other half for growing food. It’s really a wonderful montage of images. And the video was made by the musician himself, Douglas Stambler. His YouTube channel is here.

Download this song at:
http://www.tradebit.com/visit.php/436…

Drawings from: www.solviva.com
Domes from: www.monolithic.com

Link

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!

Spare the air

The Sacramento Air Quality Management District created this informational television ad to educate the public about air quality issues.

SpareTheAir.com

Link to vid

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

Chemical dangers under the sink

Here’s an excellent video, about the dangers of toxic chemicals in the home, made by artist and architectural designer Ken Shuey.

The Surprising News About Everyday Household Cleaning Products

WHY YOU MUST SWITCH TO GREEN NOW!

• CNN reports that every 7 minutes a child is taken to an emergency room for poisoning.
• Swallowing Cascade burns out the esophagus
• Women who stay at home all day have a 54% higher rate of cancer than women who work outside their homes

I’m angry!  We used to trust these companies and they are POISONING OUR CHILDREN!

My name is Ken Shuey, I’m an artist and architectural designer. I’ve been involved in the movement toward a green home environment both indoors and outdoors for over 30 years.

Link

Chemical-free, skin-friendly clothing

A new apparel company claims its “allergy-free, skin-friendly clothing” is perfect for people with sensitive skin. Cottonique offers a range of products made from 100% natural cotton “suitable for use by even the most sensitive of skin and allergy sufferers.”

I asked Leslie from The Oko Box to review the line. Leslie is one of The Canary Report’s regulars and pretty much an expert on natural, green fabrics. “Looks pretty awesome,” she says, “except I would like to ask why they don’t start their process with organic cotton, since a world without pesticides would be less allergic.”

I also asked Linda, another of our regular commenters, what she thought of the line. “I’m willing to try these because of the lack of other processes on top of the original cotton,” she says. “None of my older safe things were organic, so I don’t think the cotton itself was the problem, just processing factors.”

So in our search for safe fabrics, this company might be a possible win.

From a Cottonique press release:

People suffering with a skin allergy or chemical sensitivity have very limited clothing options. They are always on the hunt for hypoallergenic products that do not aggravate symptoms, which for some could even be life-threatening.

Cottonique set out to find a solution. Combining new technologies with scientific research, the manufacturers of Cottonique’s unique line of cotton garments have mastered production techniques which now enable them to produce quality, chemical-free apparel, without the use of irritants that are commonly found in most clothing brands. Cottonique now boasts a fine collection of finished products which are perfect for men, women, children and toddlers with sensitive skin.

“Comfortable allergy-free clothing is an essential design component for our products”, says Vice President of Marketing, Vinesh Genomal. “Ensuring the health and safety of our customers is our number one goal and driving force.”

Cottonique has taken the trouble to ensure that their products are in line with dermatology requirements and dermatologist recommended, thus giving any mother peace of mind when she is buying apparel for her toddler’s soft and sensitive skin. Their minimalist designs do not use any dyes in any products; their product line is dermatologist recommended for all people and is specifically targeted to be a clothing solution for people with mild to severe skin allergies. Included in the Cottonique line is apparel that is latex-free, spandex-free, lycra-free, and nylon-free.

Cottonique uses a unique fabric-knitting and finishing process that allows the cloth to retain the stretch and fit of commonly found apparel, without the danger of latex allergy, spandex allergy, or chemical sensitivity. All fabrics undergo a hydro-pressure purification process to produce pure cotton that is resin-free, formaldehyde-free, hypoallergenic, and chemical-free. Cottonique does not use any dye stuff in the manufacturing of their clothing and underwear. In the end, all products remain pH balanced, highly breathable, comfortable, functional, and safe for people with skin allergy and sensitive skin.

Link to Cottonique website.

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!

Canary’s Cry for Sunday, Nov. 16

In light of the recent fires in California, The New York Times says “In Fighting Wildfires, People Concerned About Chemicals.” The concern is about the fire retardant dropped from planes. “Yet while many residents praise — and even demand — the use of retardant to protect their homes and neighborhoods, the potent mix of chemicals in the most common type can leave scars of its own, hurting watersheds and the fish and other animals that live in them. Increasing concerns over retardant are prompting opposition to its use in certain situations and further stirring the debate in the West over how much is too much when it comes to fighting wildfires.”

DelawareOnline reports on “Study: Steel mill dust may be toxic.” A preliminary report measuring specific air pollutants near the Claymont Steel mill confirms what some residents have long suspected: Metallic soot that settles every day on cars, windows and porches might be hazardous to their health.

The Canton Rep says “Outdoor wood burners raise a stink.” Legislation that would severely restrict, essentially banning, outdoor wood-burning appliances is expected to get a vote at Monday night’s City Council meeting. Councilman James Griffin, D-3, introduced the legislation in an effort to help deal with what he considers a neighborhood nuisance — smoke coming from an outdoor wood-burning appliance at 336 Arlington Ave. NW. Griffin said he also wants to prevent more of the outdoor furnaces from cropping up throughout the city.

The New York Times has a report on “Exxon, making the case for oil.” Exxon has moved away from its extreme position debunking CO2 emissions as the cause of climate change and has stopped financing climate skeptics this year. One of Exxon’s ads says the company aims to provide energy “with dramatically lower CO2 emissions.” Yet even though the company acknowledges that climate change is a risk to the world, it dismisses most green alternatives and continues with hydrocarbons. The report says, “Ultimately, the biggest test for Exxon’s long-term business model is the fact that rising energy use — whether in the United States or in China — will eventually have to be reconciled with reducing carbon emissions and finding low-carbon energy sources.”

JS Online says “BPA leaches from ’safe’ products.”

Products marketed for infants or billed as “microwave safe” release toxic doses of the chemical bisphenol A when heated, an analysis by the Journal Sentinel has found.

The newspaper had the containers of 10 items tested in a lab - products that were heated in a microwave or conventional oven. Bisphenol A, or BPA [link added], was found to be leaching from all of them.

The amounts detected were at levels that scientists have found cause neurological and developmental damage in laboratory animals. The problems include genital defects, behavioral changes and abnormal development of mammary glands. The changes to the mammary glands were identical to those observed in women at higher risk for breast cancer.

The newspaper’s test results raise new questions about the chemical and the safety of an entire inventory of plastic products labeled as “microwave safe.” BPA is a key ingredient in common household plastics, including baby bottles and storage containers. It has been found in 93% of Americans tested.

For the Exxon and BPA stories: Thanks, Linda!

Photo by Kevitivity.

Aerial spraying in California put public at risk

In the Open Forum at SF Gate, Mike Lynberg writes that “Aerial pesticide spraying put people at