Tag Archives: Indoor Pollution

Scent marketers are manipulating our least-understood sense: smell

Posted on Aug 28, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Guest Bloggers, MCS, Media/Videos

1

The fragrance industry is subjecting people, often without their knowledge, to chemical fragrances that affect emotions and behaviors.

By guestblogger Marti Wolfe.

Scent marketing delivery machine.

Utne Reader‘s current issue (September-October) reports on a distressing trend about which people with MCS and their advocates should be aware. In “The Sweet Smell of Sales,” Utne reports of articles appearing in Business Week, Good’s and Neuromarketing about “ambient scenting,” the new but growing practice of attempting to “elicit unconscious behavior or emotion” by “pumping a carefully chosen smell into a [commercial] space.”

MCSers have enough challenge with the smells of personal care products without having to deal with deliberately “piped in” synthetic organic compounds in public spaces.

Good’s journalist Siobahn O’Connor acknowledges the potential threat on the magazine blog: “The fragrance industry is secretive and trades largely in toxic chemicals that are known allergens and likely hormone disruptors,” she writes on the magazine’s blog (June 21, 2010). And “subjecting people (often without their knowledge) to fragrances that affect their emotions and behaviors strikes me as a slippery slope.”

I agree. If this is an invasive practice for the general public, it is even more so for the chemically sensitive, allergic, or respiratory-challenged cohorts of the population. Regulators and legislators should hear our dismay.

Cheers,
Marti

Marti Wolfe, PhD, is an environmental toxicologist whose research interests include the effects of methymercury on animals exposed via the aquatic food chain, and also the interaction of methylmercury and selenium when animals are exposed to these contaminants together. She’s worked on developing a non-lethal biomarker using molecular biology techniques to help identify birds that have been exposed to petroleum in their habitat. This biomarker also evaluates birds that have been treated following oil spills.

Link.

Photo credit.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , ,

Ask the Canary

Posted on Jul 08, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, MCS, Research, Susie Collins

13

Does Multiple Chemical Sensitivity have anything to do with the sense of smell?

What role does the sense of smell play in MCS?

Q:

What role does our sense of smell and the olfactory system play in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity? Do people with MCS have a heightened sense of smell?

Thank you,
A Nosy Canary

A:

Aloha Nosy!

I am often asked these questions. The first point I always clarify is that MCS does not center on our sense of smell or an olfactory response. To understand this better, let’s review the cause of MCS.

Current research shows that MCS is initiated by a previous toxic chemical exposure from one or more of seven classes of chemicals, notably organic solvents (volatile organic compounds or VOCs), three classes of pesticides, mercury, and/or carbon monoxide. Toxic mold exposure also is reported to initiate MCS, and we find this cause most often in people with MCS who have lived or worked in “sick buildings” that have a toxic mold infestation (Pall, 2009).

So the first thing to understand is that despite many descriptions of MCS that you may find on the Web and elsewhere saying that the olfactory system has a central role in MCS, there is no evidence supporting that claim and in fact, there is considerable evidence against such a role. There are cases of MCS in people with no sense of smell– in fact we have several members of our community who have no sense of smell and also have severe cases of MCS.

Many people with MCS report symptoms of a chemical exposure without any chemical odor. I personally have had this happen: while sitting in my livingroom one day I was overcome with feeling ill, dizzy with loss of cognitive ability, only to discover the neighbor was spraying some sort of herbicide that had no odor.

There are three studies of MCS patients where a nose clip was used to block off access of odors and the MCS patients still reacted to toxic chemicals (Joffres et al, 2005; Millqvist and Lowhagan, 1996; Millqvist et al, 1999).

This is not to say that the olfactory system is never impacted in people with MCS, but rather that it does not play a central role in cause.

To explain this, I’d like to refer to the work of MCS researcher Martin Pall, professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University. Pall’s research on MCS is widely published in books and articles, the most recent of which is a chapter in the authoritative international reference manual for professional toxicologists, General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition, 2009.

Pall’s review of the literature and other research he’s conducted over the past eleven years show the probable cause of MCS is a biochemical mechanism involving nitric oxide (NO) and peroxynitrite (ONOO-), what Pall calls the NO/ONOO- cycle. Pall describes MCS, also known as chemical sensitivity and toxicant-induced loss of tolerance (TILT), as a disease initiated by toxic chemical exposure, leading to brain injury that produces high level sensitivity to the same set of chemicals that cause the disease. To get a little deeper into the science: all seven classes of chemicals mentioned at the top of my answer are thought to act indirectly to increase the activity of NMDA receptors, which are glutamate receptors for controlling synaptic plasticity and memory function. This activity, in turn, leads to rapid increases in intracellular calcium (Ca2+), nitric oxide, and peroxynitrite (ONOO-), acting to greatly stimulate the NO/ONOO- cycle. That cycle is what causes our myriad symptoms.

So how does this impact our olfactory system? Do people with MCS have a heightened sense of smell? Let’s ask Martin Pall.

“MCS is not primarily a defect in the olfactory system,” Pall says. “But when the olfactory system is impacted by the NO/ONOO- cycle it will impact the sense of smell. This is because both the NMDA receptors and nitric oxide have roles in the olfactory mechanism. However what impact the cycle has, varies from person to person, possibly depending on the severity of the cycle in that region of the body. Some people report being much more sensitive to odors but others are anosmic, completely devoid of the sense of smell.”

Aloha,
Susie

Photo credit.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , ,

CNN investigative report Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta to rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow

Posted on Jun 05, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Media/Videos, Products, Susie Collins

2

The two-part CNN investigation “Toxic America” with Dr. Sanjay Gupta will rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow night, Sat & Sun, June 5 & 6, at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Check listings in your area to confirm times. Don’t miss it!

I was hesitant to recommend the CNN special Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta until I saw the first airing. It’s pretty good actually, although if you look at it through the lens of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity you may feel that it falls short in many areas. Still, it’s heartening to see this topic and type of investigative reporting on mainstream media. Dr. Gupta does a good job of presenting the problems of toxic chemicals in our environment and our homes, and he shows genuine concern, repeating over and over the fact that out of the 80,000 chemicals put into consumer goods, only 200 have been tested for safety.

Click here for dates and times of ONLINE replays June 7, 8, & 9.

Also, for those of you so inclined, CNN is inviting you to “Share Your Story” through video or photos:

Put yourself on video and document conditions in your area, or take photos of what’s around you. Tell us what industrial or chemical pollution may be contributing to health problems for you and those you love, and be sure not to put yourself in a dangerous situation.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Setting the record straight about Linda Sepp’s housing situation

Posted on May 09, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, MCS, Susie Collins

65

A recent article in The Toronto Star is full of misinformation and inaccuracies about Linda Sepp’s housing problems. I’d like to clear things up.

Linda Sepp

The Star reports on Linda Sepp’s house hunting and eviction in an article by Theresa Boyle entitled Can Linda Sepp possibly be helped? The article is full of inaccuracies about Linda’s situation that I’d like to clear up.

Before I pick apart the points, I’d like to make clear that I am a friend of Linda’s. No, we have never met, but we have emailed with each other daily for almost two years. We’ve laughed together, cried together, spent New Year’s Eve together, helped many people with MCS together, hunted for informational materials together, and built The Canary Report together into what it is today. She’s been my research assistant, and truth be told, she’s been my mentor as I learned the ropes about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and the problem of toxic chemicals in the marketplace and the environment. Linda is very smart. The information that she shares with others is solid; I never have to worry about checking her sources, she always backs up her claims with data and reports, and she’s thorough with her critical thinking.

But Linda is also very ill and completely disabled by chemical sensitivities, fibromyalgia, and electro hypersensitivity. The old house she was living in prior to eviction on May 5, her home of 19 years, was full of mold, and she also was frequently exposed to toxic fumes wafting in from the outside. She was living in a precarious, unsafe housing situation. And as her eviction date neared, she was becoming more and more ill in my opinion, as her emails became less frequest, less engaged and sometimes merely fragments of thoughts peppered with uncertainty about her future.

The process of house hunting for Linda as her eviction date of April 4 loomed was complicated and fraught with difficulty. She is what is known in the world of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as a universal reactor, meaning she is uber sensitive to toxic chemicals, and the smallest quantity of exposure to VOCs, pesticides, laundry products and modern fragrance (which contains known toxic chemicals), among myriad other chemicals, make her very ill very quickly. Recovery is difficult. This health problem complicates house hunting, complicates finding a safe place to live. Housing opportunities that might seem a godsend to someone who is healthy or has a less serious case of MCS, cannot work for someone as ill as Linda.

So let’s look at the article written in The Star by Ms. Boyle. First up, Ms. Boyle’s description of what Linda was asking for, which the reporter couched in an incredulous tone that says to the reader “Look at what this woman is demanding!”:

The woman, who survives on an Ontario disability cheque, said she would like a “modest” three-bedroom house on three acres of land, surrounded by trees and fresh air. It should include a sauna and a sunroom, porch, patio or gazebo for reading and artwork. There should be a small barn for chicken, goats and an animal rescue. And for guests, a bunkie and detox shower.

Except that is NOT and never was Linda’s criteria for finding safe housing. That was Linda’s dream house list (every person with MCS has a dream house in mind, am I right?), that list was never the working list that her landlord nor her housing team was using as criteria, it never was what Linda was asking for. Basically, Linda was asking for a nontoxic two bedroom with clean water and fresh outside air. Period.

Next:

But skeptics question the existence of MCS. They acknowledge that people can have chemical sensitivities and allergies, but wonder if it is a stretch to say these can be a debilitating syndrome. A June 2008 article in the Journal of Environmental Science notes that there is “considerable doubt” about the condition “from the scientific community, political leadership and many in the general public who claim that it is psychological.” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not recognize it, the article notes. But it goes on to say that it would be irresponsible of public health officials not to explore the possibility of MCS.

Who cares what the “the scientific community,” politicians or the general public think about MCS? What kind of reporting is that? Linda has sent Ms. Boyle copies of the current peer reviewed research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which clearly shows that MCS is a physiological illness of toxicological origin. Linda is not pulling that info out of her hat, this is the peer reviewed research of Martin Pall recently published as Chapter 92 in the prestigious international reference work for professional toxicologists,  General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley & Sons).  Further, and just for the record, here’s a list of research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity compiled by Professor Anne C. Steinemann and Amy L. Davis at University of Washington Seattle; this document lists about 100 citations for peer-reviewed journal articles that support a physiological basis for MCS. And I will note, the Centers for Disease Control just issued a chemical- and fragrance-free policy in all their offices nationwide because of the negative effect of those products on the health of their employees– the very products that make people with MCS ill.

Next:

Before forcing her out, W.J. [Linda's landlord] made the unheard of offer of buying a $200,000 house anywhere in the province and renting it to her for $500 a month. Her wish-list to the landlord was more reasonable than what she had provided to the city. She asked for wood floors, few stairs and access to a source of organic food. A house fitting the bill was found in Lindsay in February 2008, but after visiting it Sepp turned it down. It smelled of baby powder and made her feel sick.

W.J. proposed other homes, one in Huntsville and another in Lanark. The landlord offered to buy a Solo home, a prefabricated building that could be adapted to someone with allergies. All offers were nixed.

Although such an offer can seem above and beyond anything due Linda by her landlord, and although it can seem that Linda was unreasonable in refusing all offers, anyone with MCS knows that this deal is fraught with peril. At the most basic of levels, we all know the perils involved with a house that has been contaminated with products made from toxic chemicals like air fresheners and personal care products. I know dozens of cases of people with MCS renting homes that they thought they could decontaminate, only to be made sick for a year or longer until their lease ran out.

But Linda’s situation is more complicated than even people with MCS seem to understand. Linda was living in Toronto, unable to leave her house, and had people to shop for her. Part of her decision on taking the houses offered by the landlord was that she had to gamble that she would be able to move to the house and recover enough very quickly to be able to drive at least once a week, perhaps an hour away, to do her own shopping at organic markets. If she moved to a rural place in Ontario, not only would she have to be able to shop for herself, but also she would have to be able to handle the winters in Ontario alone in a rural setting. These are both huge responsibilities to take on if you are housebound and have been depending on people doing your errands for you. You can’t just “get it delivered.” The truth is that Linda had to take under consideration whether or not she could manage living alone rurally. That is a legitimate concern. Who knows if there would have been people locally that could help her after the move?

Next:

Friends and staff from the city’s shelter support office pored over real estate listings and thought they found the perfect solution: a $200,000 home in Bobcaygeon that had been built for someone with MCS. But Sepp turned it down because W.J. refused to pay an extra $45,000 to have a couple of extra walls installed. Besides, it had bad feng shui, she said.

This is by far the most egregious of errors in the article because it makes Linda look very bad when in fact Linda did no such thing as stated.  The landlord refused to purchase that house based on it being LISTED at $245,000, which was over the landlord’s cap of $200,000. The extra $45,000 had NOTHING to do with Linda asking for any walls to be built. The comment about the “bad feng shui” had NOTHING to do with Linda refusing an offer; at the most it was an off-handed remark made by Linda way after this house was discussed and rejected BY THE LANDLORD. In fact, had the landlord said okay to buying that house, Linda would have accepted it– I have the emails from her saying that she was ready to accept that house before she heard the landlord’s refusal to buy it.

I have received many negative emails and comments on both my blog and Linda’s blog (for which I am the admin) from people who think Linda is acting unreasonable. All the comments were generated because of this article by Theresa Boyle. I have not released any of them because I can’t see how they add anything valuable to the discussion, given that they were generated by misinformation.

To Ms. Boyle: Please be very careful about how you report on this story. Check your facts. Be open to exploring current research on MCS. Cross reference your information on Linda’s situation from two primary sources, as is your responsibility. This is a drama playing out in public about a woman whose housing problem represents the housing problems of thousands of people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Please do not add to the din of misinformation that hurts our community and adds to our struggle for full recognition, full health care, and full social services.

And to those of you getting mad at Linda for her not accepting so many offers of housing: Please try to use this as an opportunity for practicing love and compassion. Judge not lest you be judged. Linda is a member of our community, a valuable member, and this is a time when we can open our hearts and do nothing but love each other. Anger serves no purpose whatsoever. Our job, as human beings on this blessed Earth, is to be kind and to love. Just do it.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Film: Submission

Posted on Apr 22, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Media/Videos, Susie Collins

2

SUBMISSION: In defence of the unborn. A film by Stefan Jarl.

This documentary film, a rebuke on the chemical industry, will have its premier in Sweden on April 23, and in Denmark on May 5.

A documentary by Stefan Jarl featuring Eva Röse and 23 professors.

Thirty years ago I began shooting a documentary, which came to be called Nature’s Revenge (Naturens hämnd). It was about how humans manipulate nature and how nature strikes back. Since that day I have been continuously collecting material for a new film on the same theme; however, much more than a “Nature’s Revenge, part 2”.

Submission is a documentary about the ‘chemical society’ – the society we have been building since the Second World War. Back then, humans used 1 million tonnes of chemicals per year; the figure today is 500 million tonnes. The chemical industry is the fastest-growing industry in the world. The film is about the 100,000 chemicals we use every day, what they’re used for and what they do to us and our health. And I don’t mean food additives – I’m talking about chemicals we are exposed to in our daily environments: softeners (phthalates), flame retardants (PBDE), surfactants (PFOS, PFOA) and so on.

Professor Åke Bergman at Stockholm University is my guide throughout the film, analysing the chemicals in my blood and explaining what they are. It turns out I’m carrying several hundred foreign chemicals. I can’t hide my shock.

After discovering the huge number of chemicals in my blood, I turn to my friend Eva Röse and ask if she would like to test her blood as well. She’s 35 years younger than me; surely she couldn’t have picked up as many chemicals as I have? Eva is pregnant at the time and has her baby while the film is being made.

Consulting a wide range of scientists from the United States, the UK, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Finland, Denmark and Sweden, I seek answers: What problems can these chemicals cause? These are some of the world’s foremost experts, and they explain what we currently know about effects and risks, the cocktail effect, hormone disruptors and the vulnerability of unborn children.

As I considered the format for my film, I thought of Claude Lanzmann’s documentary Shoah, which is based solely on interviews. I decided to put my faith in the close-up, the candid testimony of the human face. Rather than travelling to developing nations and bringing home terrifying images, I chose a different path.

But why the title, Submission?

Over the years I have grown to realise how willing we humans are to submit to others’ terms. It’s a holdover from our earliest childhood. And commercial interests in society are quick to make use of it. This interests me from a philosophical viewpoint. Just as Nature’s Revenge showed that Mother Nature doesn’t take kindly to manipulation and strikes back at us, I now understand that humankind is prepared to submit to whatever consequences our manipulations of nature throw our way.

The American musician Adam Wiltzie from the band Stars of the Lid made the music. He calls the film “a horror movie for the 21st century”.

I am aware that this popular science essay film asks a lot of the audience, but like most of my other documentaries, Submission is, at the core, about what kind of society we want to live in.

This is the most important film I’ve ever made. Ever.

Stefan Jarl

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues indoor air quality policy for all CDC offices nationwide

Posted on Apr 07, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, MCS, Policy, Susie Collins, Worker's Rights

30

This is arguably the strongest and most important toxic chemical-free and fragrance-free policy in existence for the workplace.

CDC′s Roybal campus in Atlanta, GA.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, recently issued a policy on indoor air quality that will affect all CDC offices (owned, leased and rented) and more than 15,000 employees nationwide. Among a host of indoor air quality standards, the policy includes specific guidelines restricting the use of fragrance in cleaning and personal care products.

Housekeeping Guidelines

CDC will ensure that products used in the workplace, such as soaps, cleaning products, paints, etc. are safe and odor-free or emit low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the fullest extent feasible. Only green cleaning products shall be specified and used within CDC facilities and leased spaces unless otherwise approved by the Office of Health and Safety. [...]

Non-Permissible Products

Scented or fragranced products are prohibited at all times in all interior space owned, rented, or leased by CDC. This includes the use of:
• Incense, candles, or reed diffusers
• Fragrance-emitting devices of any kind
• Wall-mounted devices, similar to fragrance-emitting devices, that operate automatically or by pushing a button to dispense deodorizers or disinfectants
• Potpourri
• Plug-in or spray air fresheners
• Urinal or toilet blocks
• Other fragranced deodorizer/re-odorizer products

Personal care products (e.g. colognes, perfumes, essential oils, scented skin and hair products) should not be applied at or near actual workstations, restrooms, or anywhere in CDC owned or leased buildings.

In addition, CDC encourages employees to be as fragrance-free as possible when they arrive in the workplace. Fragrance is not appropriate for a professional work environment, and the use of some products with fragrance may be detrimental to the health of workers with chemical sensitivities, allergies, asthma, and chronic headaches/migraines.

Employees should avoid using scented detergents and fabric softeners on clothes worn to the office. Many fragrance-free personal care and laundry products are easily available and provide safer alternatives.

Further, the policy extends to enforcement. Within the document itself is clearly stated the process by which an employee may file a report about air quality problems through a questionnaire, and further still, who is responsible for overseeing the investigation:

Building occupants who experience irritation or symptoms that may be related to the quality of indoor air should notify their supervisors, and the OHS or local Safety Officer to initiate a complaint. BFO must also be contacted upon initiation of a complaint, to identify and/or review any potential structural, maintenance, or heating, ventilating or air conditioning (HVAC) issues. Building occupants must also complete the Indoor Air Quality Questionnaire (see Attachment B) in order to properly document the complaint. Each IEQ complaint poses a unique set of circumstances that will determine the investigative procedures used to resolve each IEQ concerns.

Office of Health and Safety/Designated Safety Officer Administers the Indoor Environmental Quality Program and serves as the primary coordinator and investigator for reported incidents involving IEQ hazards or conditions; educates CDC supervisors and workers; develops report findings and recommendations for corrective action; and reviews and updates to meet future needs and regulatory changes.

You’ll also be happy to see that there is a section on pest control. Although it’s not perfect, it’s far safer than the hazards many workers endure with ubiquitous application of hazardous pesticides, usually performed without notice: “Pest management, for both buildings and lawn care, will emphasize non-chemical management strategies whenever practical, and the least-toxic chemical controls when pesticides are needed. Integrated Pest Management practices must be utilized.”

Coming from the CDC, this is arguably the most important toxic chemical- and fragrance-free policy in existence for the workplace. In the words of former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding, the agency is charged with confronting “the challenges of 21st-century health threats.” It looks like the current CDC director, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, believes this responsibility covers not only the general public, but CDC’s own employees and workplaces as well.

Creating nontoxic work environments is not just good for employees’ health, it’s good for the bottom line, too. Workers who are not being slowly poisoned by toxic chemicals on the job can think clearer, work more efficiently and be more productive. Employees who suffer toxic chemical sensitivity, asthma and other respiratory ailments will take less sick days. People who are prone to developing health problems triggered by toxic chemicals will be safer; in fact, everyone who works in CDC buildings will now be safer.

For those of you with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity who are currently battling it out with your employer over hazardous chemicals in your work environment, in addition to discussing your rights to safer accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you might want to print out this new CDC policy and give copies to your boss, your CEO, and your human resources director. Explain to them that the experts at CDC understand that indoor air quality is greatly compromised by a host of toxic chemicals, including those from cleaning products used by maintenance personnel and personal care products used by employees. Tell them that this recent CDC policy is indicative of the way trends are going, and any company getting on board now will be spared future costs caused by condoning an unsafe environment for employees.

This policy is incredibly good news– use the clout and expertise of this CDC policy to strengthen your arguments for a toxic chemical- and fragrance-free work environment.

Here’s the pdf of the policy.

Here’s the pdf of the questionnaire to be used when CDC employees file a complaint about air quality.

Thanks to Harry Clark for obtaining these documents from CDC and for sharing them so freely!

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Open tabs

Posted on Mar 21, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Media/Videos, News, Susie Collins

2

Reports and pages I’ve been exploring this weekend:

ABC reports the Military Admits Fault in Water Contamination: Soldiers at Camp Lejeune in the 1980s were exposed to chemicals in tap water.

For an inside look at the Camp Lejeune horror story, visit this website made by former residents called Camp Lejeune Toxic Water: The Few The Proud, The Forgotten.

I’m annoyed with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Evaluation of Pet Spot-On Products: Analysis and Mitigation Plan, just released. No mention of nontoxic alternatives, but I guess that’s not the topic.

The EPA also urges families to lock up household chemicals and pesticides. No mention about eliminating toxic chemicals from the home in the first place to remove the danger completely. Listen to this: “Leading causes of poisoning include cosmetics such as perfume and nail polish, deodorant and soap, household cleaning products and medications.” Did you know perfume, nail polish, deodorant and soap are LEADING causes of child poisoning? WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Get those toxic chemicals out of your house! Here’s the EPA’s page on Prevent Poisonings in Your Home; again no mention about elimination or alternatives.

I love Paul Tukey‘s blog SafeLawns.Blog. Paul is the founder of SafeLawns.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation. He’s also executive producer of the award-winning documentary, A Chemical Reaction, which can be found at www.pfzmedia.com; the movie chronicles the origin of the anti-pesticide movement sweeping across Canada and into the United States.

Shine reports on the woman who was awarded $100K because her employer did not provide her proper accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act when her co-workers’ perfume and the office air fresheners made her ill. I’m disgusted at the media for the way this story’s been reported: I’ve read at least 50 reports on this story and not one has mentioned that perfume and air fresheners contain toxic chemicals and that it was the toxic chemicals that made the woman ill, not the “stink” or “chemical-smells.” I think this report here at The Ohio Employer’s Law Blog has the most interesting perspective I’ve read yet about the case:

The focus in ADA cases has shifted from the legal argument of whether an employee’s medical condition rises the level of an ADA-protected disability, to the factual issue of whether the employer reasonably accommodated that disability.

Dr. Andrew Weil answers a question about the use of clay treatment for healing fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is in the same group of illnesses as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I was delighted to discover Annie Leonard’s blog The Story of Stuff Project. If you haven’t seen her Story of Stuff videos, you must!

Harrison Medical Center, Washington state, has a scent-free policy.

Nirvana Safe Haven has the most comprehensive list I have ever seen on scent-free organizations and policy. Good resources there for anyone trying to implement scent-free policy in churches, schools, public venues and more.

And the New York Times reports the Department of Agriculture said it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gas well drilling operation impacts health of an entire neighborhood

Posted on Mar 10, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, MCS, Susie Collins

1

Woman with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is the first in  her neighborhood to detect toxic emissions from gas well drilling site; her health deteriorates while she fights for clean air.

Drilling at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Sandra DenBraber

Sandra DenBraber, who has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, sent me an update about the toxic emissions from a natural gas drill site near her home. She wanted me to share with Canary Report readers an update about her health and a report in the Fort Worth Weekly published today.

“I really wanted you to have this story since the reporter did such an excellent job,” she wrote me. “The more people that hear about what happens to chemically sensitive people the more hope for change. I will continue to fight for change in drilling. It is essential since now 25% of children in the drilling area have respiratory problems per a recent news article.”

Here’s an excerpt from the Fort Worth Weekly report:

DenBraber, a former occupational health nurse, moved to her neighborhood more than 24 years ago after developing severe chemical sensitivities that forced her to quit her job. She went to great lengths to make sure her environment was as free of chemicals as possible: Her home has no carpeting, no gas lines, and several heavy-duty air filtration units. She lived there in relative good health, getting by on disability payments supplemented by a small income from making and selling charcoal masks for others who suffer from the same problem.

But in 2008, in the midst of drilling operations near UTA conducted by Houston-based Carrizo Oil and Gas, her health declined rapidly. Both DenBraber and her physician, Dr. Alfred Johnson, began to suspect emissions from the well site might be responsible.

“It got to the point I wasn’t able to leave my home without getting an instant migraine,” DenBraber said. “I have an above-ground pool for exercise [following joint replacement surgeries] that I was unable to use. I couldn’t work in my garden; I couldn’t step out the door.”

The change in her health became so pronounced that both Johnson and Dr. Susan Murphy , a rehabilitation specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, sent letters to Carrizo on her behalf in March and April of 2008, asking that the company work with DenBraber to find a mutually agreeable solution to her situation.

“Sandy tends to react more strongly to chemical exposure than most because of her chemical sensitivity,” Johnson said. “In a sense, she’s kind of like the canary in a mineshaft.”

My guess is that no one from Carrizo Oil and Gas lives anywhere near this operation. It shouldn’t be that the people who have been made ill are the ones at the front lines of the battles for clean air, but that is too often the case. Sandra has my respect and admiration for fighting the good fight not just for herself, but for the health, safety and welfare of her entire neighborhood. Brava, Sandra! I hope this is resolved soon so that you and your neighbors, including the students at UTA, are soon protected from this major polluter.

Photo credit of drilling site, Carrizo Oil and Gas.

Photo of Sandra ©2010 Sandra DenBraber

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The risk of developing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity from exposure to photocopiers and laser printers

Posted on Feb 13, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Guest Bloggers, MCS, Worker's Rights

7

Some persons suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity may have developed their conditions or worsened them due to exposures to the toxic chemicals given off by photocopiers and laser printers in their office jobs.

By guestblogger M.R.E.

The following is information for the readers of The Canary Report concerning potential risks of exposure to photocopiers and laser printers. I have suffered a devastating respiratory condition from exposure to these types of machines, and so I am trying to raise awareness about this health hazard to hopefully receive feedback and get in touch with other persons who suffer the same.

Due to exposure to photocopiers and laser printers, I have suffered a devastating respiratory condition which produces in an extreme degree: difficulty for breathing, chest pain and oppression, fatigue, cough, mucosal dryness, inability to sneeze and plenty of disturbances in the throat, nose, mouth, eyes, skin, stomach and other systems plus an extreme, lasting intolerance to all chemicals in the air. After a lot of troubles it was diagnosed in two university hospitals as non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). The syndrome was caused by the irritant vapors released by a photocopier and a laser printer in my jobs and this appears very obvious from the full details of my story, too long for this page. Although my illness was initiated within 24 hours of intense exposure to these gases, it has not been officially recognized as occupational for any purpose. As many other sufferers with MCS, I have lived a nightmare of sickness and social neglect, but thanks to my family, who financially and psychologically supported me, I did not fall into marginality and eventual tragedy.

From my own experience of nearly three decades with this problem I see that the following points should be carefully taken into account:

[...]

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

CFL bulbs are not a safe choice for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Posted on Feb 09, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Products, Susie Collins

21

Lighting can be a difficult issue for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, but compact fluorescent bulbs are not the answer.

Compact fluorescent lighting (CFL)  is a classic example of something being touted as green but in fact being anything but. While CFL bulbs use less electricity, and therefore are lessening the burning of fossil fuels at power plants, they contain trace levels of mercury, which can be released into the environment if they are accidentally broken, like in your home. In many states, CFL bulbs are regarded as hazardous waste, and in those states it is illegal to just throw out the old bulbs with the regular trash; they must be recycled at hazardous waste recycling centers. Of course the problem with this is that most people are not doing that, they just toss out the bulbs with the trash.

But getting back to the topic of CFLs in regards to people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Here are my thoughts on the topic:

CFL bulbs are toxic, period. If one breaks, trace mercury is released into the environment– that means if the bulb breaks in your bedroom, the mercury is in your bedroom and you are at risk for breathing vapors. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Clean up would be an expensive nightmare. Here’s an article “objectively” arguing that if you break a CFL bulb, there’s really nothing to worry about because only trace amounts of mercury vapor are released and so it probably won’t do any harm– the problem with that argument is that people with MCS can be made seriously ill from trace levels of toxic chemicals, especially neurotoxic.

The very first rule for someone with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is to limit exposure to toxic chemicals, limit risk. I don’t care how much electricity you save with a CFL bulb, it is not worth the risk to have a bulb break inside your home.

Further, many people with MCS also have problems with the flicker of fluorescent bulbs. It’s simply not the best choice for someone whose body is stressed from chemical injury.

Right now, Light Emitting Diode or LED (at left) is the best lighting choice if you can afford it. While some people with light sensitivity may have problems with the brightness of LED, there are things you can do to lesson that brightness like shades, filters, or fixtures that create indirect light in the room. Otherwise, halogen or plain old light bulbs are best for canaries (you can play with full spectrum to see if it works for you or not). Try to stay away from fluorescent and CFL lighting as much as possible; I do not recommended that you bring CFLs into your home at all.

Thanks to Dennis, Connie, Hank, Linda, and Katrina for their contributions to this report!

Photo credit

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Professor of chemical engineering urges students to go fragrance-free

Posted on Feb 03, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, MCS, Susie Collins

16

Chemical engineering professor at the University of New Hampshire encourages students to “be considerate to human canaries and help them to enjoy life to the fullest.”

Ihab Farag, professor of chemical engineering at the University of New Hampshire and member of our Canary Report community, wrote a letter to the editor at his school’s student paper to raise awareness about chemical sensitivity. And they published it! I’m a huge supporter of letters to the editor. Bravo, Ihab!

Many of us are familiar with canaries, the beautiful, colorful birds that tend to sing most of the time. Canaries also saved many human lives in coalmines. This is because canaries are much more sensitive to toxic gases than humans. Miners would take canaries with them in the coalmine. If the canary stopped singing and fell (or died), the miners knew to leave the coal mine quickly to safety.

There are individuals who have developed a very strong sensitivity to many common chemicals. These people can be very negatively affected and irritated by fumes, chemical cleaners, disinfectants, cigarette/cigar smoke, engine exhaust, solvents, etc. These people are often called “Human Canaries” of the modern world, because of the chemical sensitivity similarity to that of Canaries. Human Canaries of the 21st century tend to be very strongly irritated by everyday chemicals like perfumes, hair products, shampoos, shower gels, after shave lotions, antiperspirants, deodorants, hand sanitizers, chap sticks, finger nail polish, etc. Human canaries look the same as other people, and when you see one you probably will not recognize he or she is a human canary until an offensive toxic chemical triggers his or her sensitivity.

Please be considerate to human canaries and help them to enjoy life to the fullest. One way you can help the human canary and at the same time lower your exposure to undesirable chemicals, is to go fragrance-free: avoiding perfumes, and fragranced personal care products.

Ihab Farag
Professor, Chemical Engineering Department

Link to Dr. Farag’s home page at the University of New Hampshire.

Canary photo credit

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Older Entries »