Pesticide exposure kills elderly woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link

Who’s chirping about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?

Not to be outdone by Leslie at The Oko Box Blog and her post on The Crazy Sh!t We Gotta Do where she sealed off a door with foil to keep safe from her roomie’s fumes, Mokihana at Vardo for Two writes about her Denny Foil, golden folds of fabric, and The Kitchenette. “Leslie from The Oko Box Blog posted pictures and story of what it takes to live in ’safe’ fashion with stuff that ‘ordinaries’ or ‘civilians’ have/build with …Least I forget how MUCH WE HAVE living in The Kitchenette I felt compelled to make her our very special pin-up girl. With out her we would be dead meat!”

Keith at Digital Doorway writes about the exclusion of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in the recently released U.S. Census on Americans With Disabilities: 2005. In Keith’s post, “The Census and Americans with Disabilities,” he expresses his profound disappointment that illnesses such as MCS and Gulf War Syndrome are once again left out of the data.

While not addressing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity directly, Julie Mellum, president of Take Back the Air, writes at StarTribune.com about the absurdity of men using fragrances as a secret to business success. In her opinion piece, “Scents do not line the path to success,” she says:

…fragrances contain many of the same toxicants that are in tobacco smoke. These include formaldehyde, benzene, toluene and other hazardous volatile organic compounds that pollute the lungs and airspace of those around them.

Synthetic fragrances are about as romantic as a toxic-waste site, for many of their shared toxicants are on the EPA’s list of most hazardous wastes. They also contain highly addictive class A carcinogens. See www.takebacktheair.com for the facts.

Just as bottled deer musk masks the human scent as a hunting aid, so synthetic fragrances mask natural pheromones in people. Burger King has actually leapt into the fray with a new fragrance that smells like meat. That is downright comical, except for the fact that fragrance chemicals mimic estrogen with hormone-disrupting chemicals that are implicated in early puberty, reproductive birth defects and infertility.

Note: I neglected to add a link on Monday’s story to Leslie’s post on her door project. My apologies for the omission.

Thanks, Linda, for sending the second two stories my way! You find the best stuff on the Interwebs.

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!

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!

President-Elect Obama: Reform chemical policy

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

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

LETTER OF PRINCIPLES FOR TOXIC CHEMICAL REGULATORY REFORM

To the Obama transition government

Dear President-Elect Obama,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Revamp the Chemical Evaluation Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Reform “Stakeholder” Influence in Decision-Making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Sincerely,

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

Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility

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

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

Arlene Blum, Executive Director, Green Science Policy Institute

Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network

Elizabeth Crowe, Director, Kentucky Environmental Foundation

Kathleen Curtis, Policy Director, Clean New York

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

Joe DiGangi, International Pops Elimination Network

Tracey Easthope, Environmental Health Director, Michigan Ecology Center

Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides

Christopher Gavigan, CEO, Healthy Child, Healthy World

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

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

Kathryn Gilje, Executive Director, Pesticide Action Network North America

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

Amanda Hawes, attorney

Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace

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

John Kepner, Project Director, Beyond Pesticides

Bettie D. Kettell, RN Durham, Maine

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

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

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

Peter Montague, PhD, Environmental Research Foundation

Suzanne Murphy, Executive Director, Worksafe

Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy Breast Cancer Fund

Judith Robinson, Director of Programs, Environmental Health Fund

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

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

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Campaigns Coordinator, Clean Water Action

Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director, Washington Toxics Coalition

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

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

Charlotte Wells, Galveston BAYKEEPER®, Texas

Resources

Contaminated without Consent www.contaminatedwithoutconsent.org

Is It In Us? isitinus.org/

The Louisville Charter www.louisvillecharter.org

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

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

Toxic Playroom www.toxicplayroom.org

Link

Thanks, Linda!

Warning: Avoid ozone generating air machines

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

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

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

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

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

Environment News Service reports today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to more of the story at Environment News Service

Photo by M. Stephens

Organic farming at Boggy Creek Farm

Organic farmer Larry Butler of Boggy Creek Farm in Austin, Texas, tells us about organic farming. He explains that an organic farm uses not only organic feritlizers, but also Integrated Pest Management. He points out that farms using chemical pesticides also still experience bug problems.

“Chemicals are not the panacea for farming,” he says. “Instead of chemical fertilizers and chemical herbicides and things like that, sometimes we’ll use vinegar for an herbicide, it’s just like Round-Up.”

Link

Love Canal, 30 years later

“It was like a Hitchcock movie.”

Here’s a report on Love Canal by ERIKA ENGELHAUPT, who explores “the toxic waste dump that became synonymous with environmental disaster 30 years ago.” You are not going to believe this, but they are moving people back into the area. Here’s a slide show (or click on photo at left), and here are the first few paragraphs of the report:

Niagara Falls, N.Y. In the middle of an abandoned suburban neighborhood, a long grassy mound pokes up a few feet higher than the cracked streets surrounding it. A green chain-link fence surrounds the small hill, which is covered with wildflowers in summer lavender chicory and small yellow daisies. The fence has no warning sign not anymore but this is Love Canal, the toxic waste dump that became synonymous with environmental disaster 30 years ago.

Adeline Levine, a sociologist who wrote a book about Love Canal, described to me the scene she had witnessed exactly 30 years earlier, on August 11, 1978. “It was like a Hitchcock movie,” she said, “where everything looks peaceful and pleasant, but something is slumbering under the ground.”

That “something” was more than 21,000 tons of chemical waste. The mixed brew contained more than 200 different chemicals, many of them toxic. They were dumped into the canal, which was really more of a half-mile-long pond, in the 1940s and 1950s by Hooker Electrochemical Co. In 1953, the canal was covered with soil and sold to the local school board, and an elementary school and playground were built on the site. A working-class neighborhood sprang up around them.

“The neighborhood looked very pleasant,” says Levine, who was a sociology professor at the State University of New York Buffalo in 1978. “There were very nice little homes, nicely kept, with gardens and flowers and fences and kids’ toys, and then there were young people who were rushing out of their homes with bundles and packing up their cars and moving vans.”

Link to full report

Link to slideshow

Thanks, Linda!

The Prevention Agenda: What say you?

Come join me in the discussion on The Prevention Agenda, a new social network dedicated to helping President Obama focus on preventing pollution, climate change, toxic exposures and other threats to our health and the environment.

I started off my discussion on the site with my Letter to President-Elect Obama.

The host of the discussion is Diane MacEachern. Diane is a heavyweight in environmental activism. Here’s an excerpt of her bio from The World Women Want:

Diane played an integral role in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Change Action Plan, a nationwide program to educate the public about global warming. In addition, Diane was the technical advisor to Earth Quest, a traveling museum exhibit underwritten in part by the Ford Motor Company to educate children about the environment. She also worked with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance to establish the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument during the Clinton Administration.

She has a best-selling book Save Our Planet: 750 Everyday Ways You Can Help Clean Up the Earth that offers hundreds of tips on using energy more efficiently, saving water, avoiding  toxic chemicals, and making smart “environment friendly” shopping decisions.

Come join me in the discussion at The Prevention Agenda! We canaries have a lot to say on the issue.

High level of toxic pesticide found in homes

Here’s yet another reason to go organic with your pesticides, use HEPA vacuums and air filters (and use them frequently), and remove your shoes before entering your home so as not to track toxic substances in from outside sources.

By the way, as the report below suggests, I use a boric acid and powdered sugar mix (50-50) for cockroaches and ants in the house, and diatomaceous earth for flies and mites in the chicken coops, all with great results.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 3, 2008) A new study, Pyrethroid pesticides and their metabolites in vacuum cleaner dust collected from homes and day-care centers (doi:10.1016/j.envres.2008.07.022), by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory finds concentrations of 13 synthetic pyrethroids and their degradates in indoor dust collected from homes and childcare centers in North Carolina and Ohio. The study results show the extent to which hazardous pesticides are present in indoor environments and threaten the public’s health, especially the health of children. With 85 vacuum cleaner bags analyzed, permethrin was present in all 85 dust samples, at least one pyrethroid pesticide was found in 69 samples and phenothrin was found in 36 samples.

[...]

Children are especially sensitive to the effects of permethrin and other synthetic pyrethroids. A study found that permethrin is almost five times more toxic to eight-day-old rats than to adult rats due to incomplete development of the enzymes that break down pyrethroids in the liver. Additionally, studies on newborn mice have shown that permethrin may inhibit neonatal brain development.

Although synthetic pyrethroids are often seen as safe alternatives to organophosphate insecticides, this study clearly demonstrates that when these chemicals are applied in houses, they do not disappear. Moreover, they are making their way into human bodies at alarming rates. At the same time, there are clear established methods for managing homes and schools that prevent infestation of unwanted insects without the use of synthetic chemicals, including exclusion techniques, sanitation and maintenance practices, as well as mechanical and least toxic controls (which include boric acid and diatomaceous earth). Based on the host of health effects linked to this chemical class, synthetic pyrethroid use in the home is hazardous and unnecessary.

Link to full release from Beyond Pesticides.

Photo by oneparticularwave.

EPA weakens pesticide standard at request of manufacturer

Environmental Protection Agency’s action at behest of manufacturer could double human exposure to food contaminant linked to asthma, infertility

Think the EPA is looking out for your health? Think again. Here’s a press release from the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization. Click on Skin Deep graphic for more info on the chemical benzalkonium chloride.

OAKLAND, CA - At the request of a single manufacturer - Edwards-Councilor Co., Inc. of Virginia Beach, VA - the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has weakened federal safety standards for a toxic chemical that is used in a broad range of cleaners and other consumer products that come in regular contact with food.

The chemical in question - alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, or ADBAC - is a pesticide and antimicrobial agent that is suspected of causing asthma and reproductive system damage. Products containing this chemical are regularly used to sterilize surfaces and utensils used during food preparation. Residues that remain can accumulate in food and be consumed by unwitting diners.

“EPA should not give a free pass to this potent chemical, given its widespread use in commercial and consumer products, and growing concerns about its adverse impacts to human health and the environment,” says Environmental Working Group scientist Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D.

This toxic antimicrobial is a type of benzalkonium chloride, a class of antimicrobial chemicals used in a broad range of cleaning products and at least 207 personal care products, where it is completely unregulated,according to an EWG analysis. EPA’s action, effective Oct. 20, has rolled back a key federal safety standard in place to reduce consumers’ risks.

Reviews of available toxicological and epidemiological research on ADBAC and other quaternary ammonium compounds, or QACs, reveal substantial data gaps and significant cause for concern regarding impacts to human health and the environment. As EPA eased food safety standards for this particular pesticide, it neglected to consider evidence that ADBAC and other QACs may be reproductive and genetic toxicants. In addition, studies on people and lab animals have linked these compounds to increased risk of asthma.

In an interview in the leading scientific journal Nature in June of 2008, Washington State University scientist Dr. Patricia Hunt says she observed a severe decline in the fertility of her lab mouse population after moving her lab from Case Western University in Cleveland, OH to Pullman, WA. The culprit: the disinfectant Virex, that contains ADBAC and other QACs, and which was used to clean the mouse cages in the new animal facility.

Widespread use in hospitals of disinfectants containing ADBAC and QACs is believed to be one of the primary reasons asthma is on the rise among health care workers. A recent survey of 3,650 health care workers in Texas found that the likelihood that these workers developed asthma during their careers doubled if they performed general cleaning of surfaces.

“EPA’s action to remove these safety standards at the behest of a single company goes against the Agency’s own mission ‘to protect human health and the environment’,” Sutton said. “EPA’s acquiescence to Edwards-Councilor will increase human exposures to this toxic chemical, and may lead to more cases of asthma and infertility among Americans.”

Dr. Sutton’s entire letter to EPA can be found here.

###

Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.

Link

Thanks, Ruth!

Erin Brockovich investigates brain tumor cluster

Erin Brockovich, the environmental activist portrayed by Julia Roberts in an Oscar-winning movie, met with people in Cameron Monday night. KMBC-News clip:

Report at MyCameronNews.com:

Brockovich speaks to Cameron residents concerned about brain tumors

Approximately 200 Residents of Cameron, Mo. gathered in the gymnasium of the Cameron High School in the hopes that community activist Erin Brockovich would lead them to answers. After feeling unsatisfied with answers from government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Missouri Department of Health, the Center for Disease Control and the Department of Natural Resources who stated that the number of brain tumors in the area were below statistical rates, Brockovich was welcomed with open arms in hopes of finding a reason for the community’s recent health scare.

Brockovich opened her town hall meeting by stating, “I won’t have all of the answers you are looking for tonight. It will take a long time to find out what is causing the problem here. But I can say that I am very uncomfortable with what I am learning.”

Link to full story at MyCameronNews.

Earthjustice seeks tougher regulations for vinyl manufacturers

Many cancer-causing toxins from vinyl manufacturers remain unregulated.

Dig this: The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set emission standards for each hazardous air pollutant PVC plants emit. But the EPA in 2002 set standards for just one: vinyl chloride. This means emissions of dioxins, chromium, lead, chlorine, and hydrogen chloride – substances associated with a wide variety of serious adverse health effects including cancer – are entirely unregulated.

Worse, monitoring conducted by the EPA shows PVC plants have emitted concentrations of vinyl chloride at more than 120 times higher than the ambient air standard. And still, the EPA does nothing to protect the public. Says Marti Sinclair, Chair of Sierra Club’s National Air Committee, “We’re left with little choice but to bring this matter before a judge.”

Washington, DC — Citizens in communities affected by cancer-causing air pollution from vinyl manufacturers went to court today to ask the federal government to regulate the host of toxins released from these plants.The nonprofit public interest law firm Earthjustice filed the lawsuit today in federal district court in Washington, DC, on behalf of the Sierra Club and two community groups in Louisiana – Mossville Environmental Action Now (MEAN) and Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN).

Each year, PVC plants pump some 500,000 pounds of vinyl chloride – a known human carcinogen – and many other toxins into the atmosphere. In spite of the documented effects of these cancer-causing chemicals, the federal government has bowed to pressure to keep the PVC industry’s air emissions largely unregulated.

Mossville, Louisiana, with its four vinyl production facilities, including two major vinyl chloride manufacturers, is considered the unofficial PVC capitol of America. Mossville residents Edgar Mouton and Dorothy Felix have spent much of the past decade fighting to protect their families from the cancer-causing chemicals raining down upon their community.

“We’re being hit from the north, south, east, and west. Every time the wind changes, we get a lungful of pollution from some other plant.” said Edgar Mouton, a Mossville resident and retired chemical plant employee. “These chemicals end up in our water, our gardens, our children’s bodies. Each day we hear about someone in our community being diagnosed with cancer or another illness. We’re taking legal action so that we might live to see some improvements for ourselves and our community.”

Louisiana is home to six of the nation’s 21 plants manufacturing polyvinyl chloride, commonly known as PVC or vinyl. Six more plants are located in Texas. The remaining plants are found in New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.

“Air pollution from PVC plants is a serious problem in Louisiana. In Baton Rouge alone, we have four of these plants and they’re talking about building a fifth,” said Gary Miller an engineer with Louisiana Environmental Action Network. “This is one of our region’s most toxic industries. It only makes sense that it be subject to correspondingly strong rules.”

Link to full story at Earth Justice

Canary’s Cry for Wednesday, Oct. 15

SFGate reports that “Some bottled water toxicity shown to exceed law.” The Environmental Working Group tested 10 brands of bottled water and found that Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Choice contained chemical levels that exceeded legal limits. The tests discovered an average of eight contaminants in each brand. Four brands besides Wal-Mart’s were contaminated with bacteria. The environmental group filed a notice of intent to sue Wal-Mart Tuesday, alleging that the mega-chain failed to warn the public of illegal concentrations of trihalomethanes, which are cancer-causing chemicals.

And the Environmental Working Group also popped up on German news today about a panel discussion in Boston (!). EWG tested newborn babies at the moment of birth and found 200 manmade chemicals, the result of lax laws that do not properly regulate toxic chemicals. EWG is seeking to pass the Kid-Safe Chemical Act to overhaul the current chemical regulatory laws and make products safer for children. The panel discussion focuses on the impact of those chemicals on children, the importance of consumer product ingredient disclosure, and the long overdue need for improved legislation.

InjuryBoard.com says the “FDA won’t regulate toxic chemicals in baby bottles, so attorneys general take direct action.” Attorneys general from New Jersey, Delaware, and Connecticut sent letters to 11 companies that manufacture baby bottles and formula containers, asking them to voluntarily stop using the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) to produce these products because of the chemical’s potential threat to infant health.

The Center for Public Integrity uncovers the “EPA’s hormonal ups and downs,” noting that it might be a first, but environmental advocates agree with the chemical industry for once, saying that the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is flawed.

Photo by Muffet

Chicago’s toxic air

TRIBUNE WATCHDOG REPORT: Chicago-area residents face some of the highest risk of getting sick from pollution, but the EPA isn’t making it widely known.

What I admire most about this story on the toxic air in Chicago can be found in the video (at bottom of post): Leila Mendez, who had the chance to move away from the problem, chose to stay and fight for clean air for the sake of the area’s kids. Brava!

People living in Chicago and nearby suburbs face some of the highest risks in the nation for cancer, lung disease and other health problems linked to toxic chemicals pouring from industry smokestacks, according to a Tribune analysis of federal data.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency spent millions of dollars to assess the dangers that air pollution poses but has failed to fulfill promises to make the research more accessible to the public. So the Tribune is posting the information on its Web site, where users can easily find nearby polluters and the chemicals going into their air.

Those who look up Cook County will see it ranked worst in the nation for dangerous air pollution, based on 2005 data. The Tribune also found Chicago was among the 10 worst cities in the U.S.

The factory with the highest risk score in Chicago is a steel mill on the edge of upscale Lincoln Park, a neighborhood where it isn’t uncommon to find people buying organic dog food.

In Will and DuPage Counties, six factories rank in the region’s worst 50, though residents of the collar counties generally face much lower risks than people who live in Cook. Nearby Lake County, Ind., has nine of the worst polluters in the region.

So how much danger does a person living near these factories face? The EPA didn’t try to answer that difficult question. Air pollution is just one factor that can affect the chances of developing health problems.

Link to full story.

Video: Click on pic of video below and you’ll be taken to page, scroll down for vid.

EPA fired scientist after chemical lobby pressure

And this is why it’s hard not to get political on The Canary Report. I can’t wait four months until change! Elections now, please?

Sept. 18, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Working Group (EWG) welcomed today’s House Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigation of the chemical lobby’s role in pressuring the Bush administration to manipulate an Environmental Protection Agency panel reviewing the health risks of a toxic fire retardant.

“The Bush administration’s politicization of the EPA is more proof that it simply doesn’t believe the government should protect people from the hidden hazards around them,” says EWG senior scientist Sonya Lunder. “The collusion between EPA’s leadership and lobbyists for the $3 trillion global chemical industry is now obvious. And it is has become an urgent threat to the health of all Americans, especially children whose bodies are still developing.”

Among today’s witnesses is Dr. Deborah Rice, a top toxicologist for the state of Maine, who was fired as chair of an EPA advisory panel evaluating the safety of the neurotoxic fire retardant, known as Deca.

Documents obtained by Environmental Working Group in March 2008 disclosed that EPA removed Rice after Sharon Kneiss, Vice President of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a Washington-based trade association with a $119 million annual budget, complained to George M. Gray, EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, that Rice had testified before the Maine legislature supporting the phase-out Deca.

EPA also removed Rice’s comments from the panel’s final report that said EPA’s standard was not sufficiently protective of health.

Deca has been banned in Europe. Two states, Maine and Washington, have passed legislation to ban its use, and 8 other states are at various stages of phasing out Deca.

A new EWG study released earlier this month, testing the blood of 20 mothers and their toddlers for Deca, found on average that the children had 3 times the levels of exposure of their mothers.

Children’s developing brains and reproductive systems are extraordinarily vulnerable to toxic chemicals. In the case of fire retardants, including Deca, laboratory tests in peer-reviewed studies have found that a dose administered to mice on a single day when the brain is growing rapidly can cause permanent changes to behavior, including hyperactivity.

The EPA and the chemical industry took the position that Rice, one of the country’s preeminent experts on the toxic fire retardant, had no business chairing the advisory panel. Yet scores of individuals with direct financial ties to the chemical industry remain on a number of different EPA advisory panels.

Testimony of Deborah Rice, Ph.D.

###

EWG is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that uses the power of information to protect human health and the environment.

Link

Katrina survivors remain ill; children at highest risk

Survey endorsed by Sierra Club Delta Chapter, The Chemical Sensitivity Foundation, and The National Coalition for the Homeless finds many Katrina survivors still very ill, with children suffering the most. Toxic FEMA trailers are a major cause.

Newly released data from a grassroots Katrina and Rita health survey reveals that over 70% of the 277 survey respondents remain ill from hurricane exposures, regardless of race, gender, or source of exposure.

Respondents reported having had either no change in their conditions or reported that their symptoms have slightly or dramatically worsened. A higher number-over 75% -of children remain ill.

“Children are a higher risk group than adults because their immune systems, brains, and lungs are still developing,” according to Jack Thrasher, PhD, who is an immunotoxicologist assisting with the health survey.

Although the survey responses for children are somewhat low as of yet, the survey team is concerned that the initial findings may reflect a larger scale pattern. Children need to be looked at in greater numbers because if these high percentage rates of children remaining ill are reflected on a larger scale, there is reason to be alarmed.

Dr. Thrasher states “I am deeply concerned about the children and we must find ways to reach out into the community to further assess this situation.”

Initial findings indicate that 48.4% of respondents reported becoming sick from the FEMA trailers, mobile homes or park models in which they lived while 68.4% of respondents attributed their ill health to other exposures such as sewage, sediment, flood waters, mold, etc., regardless of whether or not they lived in FEMA-provided housing.

The Katrina and Rita health survey will remain open for an extended period of time to give schools, parent organizations (such as the PTA), community groups, and special-needs groups ample time to input data into the online health survey, which is available in both English and Spanish at www.partnerspublishing.org.

The survey is a grassroots effort led by Katrina survivors Kurt and Lee Ann Billings with the assistance of Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN). It is endorsed by the following organizations: Sierra Club Delta Chapter, The Chemical Sensitivity Foundation, and The National Coalition for the Homeless.

Link

Link to photo by jpeepz at flickr

Link to more info on The Canary Report: Following hurricane Katrina, 300,000 people under the care of FEMA were housed in toxic trailers purchased on the fly by the overwhelmed federal agency.

Book review: The Body Toxic

Lisa at the Environmental Working Group’s Enviroblog posted a book review today of interest to us with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. What caught my attention is that the list of products the book’s author focuses on– those that contain endocrine disruptors– are some of the products that trigger adverse reactions in people with MCS. What a coincidence, huh?

Like many parents of young children, I don’t read books cover-to-cover much anymore. So it was with great pleasure that I read even the appendices in Nena Baker’s new book, The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our health’s and Well-being.

Baker spent four years researching this book and you can tell. It’s chock full of chemical history and the politics that surround it, including tidbits like Teflon’s beginnings as a coating for the valves and gaskets in the atom bomb. Her emphasis is endocrine disruptors and she digs deep into five problem areas: the common pesticide atrazine, cosmetics, flame retardants, plastics and perfluorinated chemicals. In each case she not only confronts the major issues head-on, she tells a readable story and even throws in some manageable chemistry. No easy task.

She also wraps her arms around the reason we are all afraid to buy most anything:

The vast majority of [the 10,000 widely used chemicals] have not been tested for potential  toxic effects because the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 does not require it. And the news gets shockingly worse: the EPA cannot take any regulatory action regarding a suspected harmful substance until it has evidence that it poses an “unreasonable” risk of injury to human health or the environment.

The barriers to action are so high that, according to a 2005 report by the Government Accounting Office, the EPA has given up trying to regulate chemicals and instead relies on the chemical industry to act voluntarily when concerns arise.

Link to full review

Link to The Canary Report post on the hazards of Teflon

Superfund sites off the radar

Government confirms elevated cancer level in Pa.

It’s a mystery to me why we don’t hear much about Superfund sites anymore. It’s as if the problem was so huge and insurmountable that it dropped off the public and media radar as we turned to the global crisis of climate change. But Superfund sites are a huge problem that’s not going away, even in the areas where the site was cleaned up.

Here’s a report on a Pennsylvania Superfund site that although cleaned, is in an area of other sites along with exisiting dirty industry, and the lethal combo appears to be causing a cancer cluster.

HAZLETON, Pa. - Nearly a year after federal epidemiologists first sounded the alarm over a cluster of rare blood cancers in northeastern Pennsylvania, their research has zeroed in on a hardscrabble region 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia that is home to several Superfund sites as well as a power plant fired by waste coal.

The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry said Monday that it confirmed a cluster of polycythemia (pah-lee-sy-THEE’-mee-ah) vera, or PV, in a 15-mile stretch between Hazleton and Tamaqua.

Residents of these ZIP codes were four times as likely to suffer from PV as residents living in outlying areas, according to the government.

Researchers cautioned, though, that their investigation was not designed to uncover an environmental link to PV, a cancer that results in the overproduction of red blood cells and can lead to heart attack or stroke. PV’s cause is unknown.

“We don’t want to give the message that there are no connections,” said ATSDR researcher Vince Seaman. “We ju