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

Growing trends in healthy house construction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to full article

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

Paint the town green

The good folks at Common Ground give high marks to LoVo paint, a nontoxic, low-VOC alternative with a beautiful color selection. LoVo might not get a pass from every canary, but it’s always good to see people making smarter choices about office and household products.

When our building manager informed us it was time to freshen up the lobby of the Common Ground office, we lobbied him for the chance to put our principles into practice. We headed down to G&R Paint Company on Sutter Street in San Francisco, to talk to owner/colorist Philip Reno about eco-friendly paint options (philipsperfectcolors.com) and left with four gallons of C2 LoVo paint (c2color.com). Our building manager loved the nontoxic, low-VOC paint’s rich color and smooth and even finish, and we all loved that the paint was virtually odorless (sparing us all the cloud of stinky, toxic fumes, thank you very much). Now we’ve got a dazzlingly white lobby and a new favorite paint! Oh how we love happy endings.

Link

Link to LoVo Paints

Canary’s Cry for Saturday, January 3

A patron at Sheraton’s Four Point hotel in San Francisco discovers a disturbing environmental hazard inside the building.

Who’s chirping about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?

Green Living has a article in the Winter 2008 issue called “Wake Up and Smell the Chemicals,” with a section on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. The link will take you to the online version of the issue, go to pages 46-47 for the story, it’s chock full of good information.

Articles like this validate claims made by those of us with MCS, who say chemicals found in many everyday personal care products are toxic not only to us but to everyone. Further, as the article explores, scientists are starting to understand the ways in which low levels of toxic chemicals, such as those found in perfumes and other fragrance, adversely affect the body. Take heart, Canaries, because eventually, science will catch up with us and our claims of exquisite sensitivity.

Glenda at Writing Life Stories tells a story about getting assaulted by fragrance from fellow patrons at a fast food restaurant. She writes:

As soon as I sat down, the smell hit me again. I looked up and saw the guy who had been standing in line near me. He had plopped down fifteen feet away from my table. The odor emanating from him smelled worse to me than a skunk’s spray, the chemicals in that fragrance he wore poisoned me. By the time I got out of there, hoarse and coughing, I gasped, sucked in the fresh outside air like it was my final breath.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. More and more of my friends are experiencing the same symptoms — spending tons of money on doctors who run tests and tell them they have asthma and to stay away from chemicals. Duh!! The asthma is caused by the chemicals we breathe every day, the chemicals all around us, the chemicals we can’t escape.

Thanks, Linda!

Officials watching Hawaii’s air quality tonight

Hilo Medical Center’s emergency department gearing up for holiday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by kolix

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.

Low levels of cigarette smoke residue highly toxic

“Similar to low-level lead exposure, low levels of tobacco particulates have been associated with cognitive deficits among children, and the higher the exposure level, the lower the reading score.”

So basically, once again, people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are way ahead of the curve on knowing that even extremely low levels of toxic chemicals can be neurotoxic.

Need another reason to add “Quit Smoking” to your New Year’s resolutions list? How about the fact that even if you choose to smoke outside of your home or only smoke in your home when your children are not there – thinking that you’re keeping them away from second-hand smoke – you’re still exposing them to toxins? In the January issue of Pediatrics, researchers at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (MGHfC) and colleagues across the country describe how tobacco smoke contamination lingers even after a cigarette is extinguished – a phenomenon they define as “third-hand” smoke. Their study is the first to examine adult attitudes about the health risks to children of third-hand smoke and how those beliefs may relate to rules about smoking in their homes.

“When you smoke – anyplace – toxic particulate matter from tobacco smoke gets into your hair and clothing,” says lead study author, Jonathan Winickoff, MD, MPH, assistant director of the MGHfC Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy. “When you come into contact with your baby, even if you’re not smoking at the time, she comes in contact with those toxins. And if you breastfeed, the toxins will transfer to your baby in your breastmilk.” Winickoff notes that nursing a baby if you’re a smoker is still preferable to bottle-feeding, however.

Particulate matter from tobacco smoke has been proven toxic. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, butane, ammonia, toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic, lead, chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), and polonium-210 (highly radioactive carcinogen). Eleven of the compounds are classified as Group 1 carcinogens, the most dangerous.

Small children are especially susceptible to third-hand smoke exposure because they can inhale near, crawl and play on, or touch and mouth contaminated surfaces. Third-hand smoke can remain indoors even long after the smoking has stopped. Similar to low-level lead exposure, low levels of tobacco particulates have been associated with cognitive deficits among children, and the higher the exposure level, the lower the reading score. These findings underscore the possibility that even extremely low levels of these compounds may be neurotoxic and, according to the researchers, justify restricting all smoking in indoor areas inhabited by children.

Link

Photo by lanier67

Thanks, Linda!

Green hospitals are better for everyone

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in a Hospital Setting, here’s a report in Time on Making Hospitals Greener and Patients Healthier. It would be so smart if all hospitals adopted these practices, not just so those of us with MCS don’t have to weigh out the consequences of exposure before seeking medical treatment for any ailment, but for everyone especially hospital staff.

In the typical hospital, “while we are trying to treat or cure illness and disease…we expose our staff and patients to irritants and carcinogens, and our treatments often contribute to the development of other diseases,” says Dr. Kristin Bradford, a family physician in Willits, Calif.

Enter “green medicine” — the effort to detoxify the healing environment and enhance patients’ and employees’ health, while reducing costs all around. The international advocacy group Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) — whose 2006 study of 1,200 nurses suggested a link between the hospital environmental and health problems among the staff — has been a pioneer in the movement, recently initiating collaborative research among major U.S. health systems to document how removing toxins from the environment impacts worker safety and lost time due to employee illness.

[Link to full article here]

We have a hospital here on our island, the North Hawaii Community Hospital, that integrates native Hawaiian cultural practices and other healing traditions such as Feng Shui into the environment. Note the difference in the corridor at left to a more common hospital corridor above. North Hawaii Community Hospital uses HEPA air filters, water filters, low VOC paints, and other nontoxic measures. Here’s a description of The Healing Environment in Blended Medicine at North Hawaii Community Hospital. And here’s a description of the Holistic Care they offer in addition to the traditional allopathic medical care and surgery.

I haven’t been to North Hawaii hospital for awhile for care, but when I was there some years ago for some tests, I did not have a bad reaction to the air quality. Unlike the hospital in California I visited this past summer when I was with my dad for his nutrition consultation– whoa, that was bad from the first breath I took once inside the front doors. But I’d have no hesitation going to North Hawaii hospital again for care if I needed it.

Photo at top by Julie

Thanks, Linda, for sending the Time article my way!

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in a hospital setting

Photo: Rodger Norris, who has multiple chemical sensitivity lives in a remote home in Timberon, New Mexico. The nearest neighbor lives about a mile away, and the nearest small town (where he lived for seven years until an increase in traffic caused his symptoms to worsen) is 35 miles over winding mountain roads. In the photo, Norris, 56, displays the sign he posts at the doors of his house and his driveway, describing his condition and warning away visitors who are smokers or who are wearing products that contain artificial fragrances. Courtesy of Rodger Norris.

A registered nurse, Carolyn Cooper, MPH, RN, wrote an article in 2007 about how to care for patients in hospital who have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. (Roger Norris pictured above was a subject of Cooper’s report.)

Given that the article was written two years ago, it gives us some perspective about how far we’ve come with the current literature on toxic chemicals in our environment. You will see better what I mean if you read Cooper’s full article. For example, all the male reproductive studies have come out since this article was published, as have most of the BPA and melamine and FEMA formaldehyde reports - so the public and the medical profession knows a lot more now than it did then.

Here’s an excerpt:

Overview: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a condition in which people experience a broad array of symptoms in reaction to exposure to trace amounts of common chemicals. Symptoms are most often triggered by odors, typically affect many systems, and can range from a runny nose to difficulty breathing and heart palpitations. The cause of this condition is unclear and there is no universal consensus on how to diagnose or treat it. MCS afflicts millions of Americans, although its prevalence is difficult to establish reliably. Theories of causation include both the physical and the psychogenic. This article begins with a case study, describes the current research on MCS, and offers recommendations to guide nurses when treating these patients in the hospital.

[...]

The definition of MCS has also changed over time and may continue to evolve. Its essential feature remains, however, the patient’s assertion of a link between a variety of symptoms and low-level chemical exposures that act as triggers.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recognize a diagnosis of MCS, it does acknowledge the existence of “chronic multisystem illnesses,” including chronic fatigue syndrome, the symptoms of which often resemble those of MCS.

A 1999 consensus statement published in the Archives of Environmental Health offered the following six criteria for a diagnosis of MCS:

* Very low levels of exposure to chemicals and other irritants, well below toxicity thresholds, produce symptoms.

* Symptoms are reproducible with repeated exposure to the chemical or irritant.

* The condition is chronic.

* Symptoms lessen or resolve when the chemical triggers are removed.

* Similar symptoms may be caused by several chemically unrelated substances.

* Symptoms occur in multiple organ systems.

But clinicians may find these open-ended criteria difficult to apply, especially without laboratory analysis and other physical findings to link specific exposures to specific symptoms.

There’s also no accepted definition of what constitutes a “mild” or “severe” case of MCS, nor is there a consensus on whether the condition is always caused by a precipitating environmental exposure (as may be the case for certain industrial workers or for those exposed during an accident to a single high dose of a toxic chemical). And while research is ongoing, diagnosis is further complicated by the fact that many of the most common symptoms, such as fatigue, heart palpitations, sweating, and difficulty concentrating, are the same as those necessary for the diagnosis of various psychosomatic and psychiatric disorders, including depression, somatoform disorders, panic disorder, and agoraphobia.

All staff members should at the very least take the following precautions when working with people who have MCS.

* Don’t use perfume, aftershave, or scented lotion.

* Keep free of the odor of cigarette smoke.

* Wear a long-sleeved cotton surgical gown (and cap if necessary) to mask odors if you know you smell of a potential irritant and no other caregiver is available.

* Knock first and wait to be admitted to the patient’s room.

Surgery. When a patient with MCS is scheduled for surgery, notify perioperative areas well in advance. It is particularly important that the anesthesiologist confer with the patient before a surgical procedure so that medication sensitivities can be considered. Perioperative clinicians must be prepared to carefully reassure patients that safety measures will be taken on their behalf. Other recommendations for surgery include the following:

* Schedule the procedure as the first case of the day to minimize exposure to environmental irritants that will be stirred up during the day.

* A ceramic or porcelain oxygen mask may be indicated to deliver anesthesia.

* Povidone iodine is generally a safe antiseptic solution, but isopropyl alcohol should be used sparingly.

* Use paper tape for surgical dressings (or assess the patient’s reactions to other adhesives 24 to 48 hours in advance by using patch tests).

* Use only latex-free gloves.

Link to full article

PDF of full article: mcs-in-a-clinical-setting

Carolyn Cooper’s blog

Thanks, Linda, for link and added insight!

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!

Dryer sheet alternatives

We discussed the issue of dryer sheets awhile back when Missy suggested dryer balls as an alternative to dryer sheets.

Here’s an advice column at The Olympian today that suggests using Static Eliminator sheets, something that also might work for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

Just thought I’d bring up this topic once in awhile because scented dryer sheets are THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD to peeps with MCS. Am I right?

EarthTalk question: Which is better for our environment: dryer sheets in the dryer or liquid fabric softener in the wash? It seems they both have properties that aren’t green.

Answer: If you’re concerned about health and safety, you might want to stay away from conventional dryer sheets and liquid fabric softeners. While it might be nice to have clothes that feel soft, smell fresh and are free of static cling, both items contain chemicals toxic to people after sustained exposure.

According to the health and wellness Web site Sixwise.com, some of the most harmful ingredients in dryer sheets and liquid fabric softener include benzyl acetate (linked to pancreatic cancer), benzyl alcohol (an upper respiratory tract irritant), ethanol (linked to central nervous system disorders), limonene (a known carcinogen) and chloroform (a neurotoxin and carcinogen).

Because fabric softeners are designed to stay in your clothes for extended periods of time, the chemicals can seep out gradually and be inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

Liquid fabric softeners are slightly preferable to dryer sheets. The chemicals in dryer sheets get released into the air when they are heated up in the dryer and can pose a respiratory health risk inside and outside of the home.

For those who don’t want to give up soft and static-free clothes, National Geographic’s Green Guide recommends adding either a quarter cup of baking soda or a quarter cup of white vinegar to the wash cycle. Either one will soften clothes; the latter also addresses static cling. (Don’t mix either with bleach because chemical reactions could cause noxious fumes.)

If eliminating static cling is your top priority, dry natural-fiber clothes separately from synthetic materials. The combination of cotton and polyester often is the culprit behind static cling.

A few companies have heeded the ever-increasing call for greener, safer ways to soften clothes and reduce static cling. Seventh Generation’s Natural Lavender Scent Fabric Softener and Ecover’s Natural Fabric Soft ener are good choices that rely on vegetable products and natural essential oils instead of harsh chemicals to get the job done.

Maddocks’ Static Eliminator is a nontoxic, hypoallergenic reusable dryer sheet made out of a pro prietary, chemical-free polynylon. The Canadian company originally developed the material to rid mechanical systems of explosion-i nducing static electricity, but soon realized it could benefit consumers as well. One sheet is good for about 500 wash loads.

Don’t want to use the dryer at all? Leslie at The Oko Box Blog made a cute DIY clothes dryer rack out of bamboo yesterday, check it out!

Photo by Queen Roly

Sixth grader proposes Earth-friendly homes

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

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

Green Homes are Good for our Community

To the editor:

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

Increasing green homes will have remarkably positive effects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for reading my letter.

Gianna DeMasi

Greenwich

Link

Photo of a LEED house by Sarah Leeab

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

Canary manners: Wedding invitations

Kerry from Lemon-Aide, who has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and a host of other chronic health issues, wrote me and asked if The Canary Report flock has any ideas to help solve this problem:

My son’s getting married this summer and I’m starting to think about how we communicate via the invitations for guests to refrain from perfumes, clothes with dryer sheets etc. Would it be possible to put a question out there on your blog to get your MCS readers input?

Kerry is a wonderfully sweet woman with a blog to match. I know she wants to make this a very special day for her son and new daughter-in-law, but also wants to stay safe so she can enjoy the day, too. Any ideas for her?

Photo by Cherry

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

Where to find an organic Christmas tree

Having a holiday tree may be a problem for anyone with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity whether or not the tree is organic, especially if the person’s sensitivity is so exquisite as to include natural aromatics in addition to synthetic chemicals.

But if you can tolerate pines and really want a tree for the holidays, then an organic tree is surely the way to go. If you are wondering where you can find one, Green Promise has put together an extensive resource list for Organic Christmas Trees.

Green Promise scoured the Web to bring you this list of organic Christmas tree farms including low-spray and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Christmas trees. Farms that are certified organic or practice organic methods but are not yet certified appear in bold. All farms listed have been contacted by Green Promise and have provided information on their farming methods. Farms are sorted by state, then by city, then farm name. Call before heading out to check pricing and availability of organic Christmas tree stock. Most Christmas tree farms are open weekends starting the day after Thanksgiving and during the week by appointment. After the holidays, be sure your tree is properly recycled.

Full resource list at Green Promise.

Photo by Sierra Romeo.

Canary’s Cry for Monday, Dec. 8

USA Today has put out an in-depth Special Report on Toxic Air and America’s Schools.

USA Today used an EPA model to track the path of industrial pollution and mapped the locations of almost 128,000 schools to determine the level of toxic chemicals outside. The potential problems that emerged were widespread, insidious and largely unaddressed.

Click here for USA Today Video by Garrett Hubbard, Steve Elfers, Denny Gainer, and Rhyne Piggott: USA TODAY examines the impact of industrial pollution outside the nation’s schools and explores how toxic chemicals shuttered one elementary school in Addyston, Ohio, three years ago. This video is Part One. Part Two is due out shortly. Click here for USA Today full report and supporting stories.

In other news, The New York Times reports that “A Problem Rises to the Surface in Greenpoint.” Residents of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, have toxic gases “rising into their homes from below, the legacy of dry-cleaning plants, foundries and other manufacturers that once operated in this hub, which has long been home to immigrants and, more recently, artists and young professionals. Such vapor intrusion — chemicals from contaminated soil and groundwater that become airborne, entering buildings through pores and cracks — has become a growing public health concern around the country in recent years. Contaminants that spread from industrial activity, or that were mistakenly believed to have been contained or eliminated in environmental cleanups, have been discovered wafting into basements.”

Chemical dangers under the sink

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

The Surprising News About Everyday Household Cleaning Products

WHY YOU MUST SWITCH TO GREEN NOW!

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

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

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

Link

Chemical-free, skin-friendly clothing

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

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

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

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

From a Cottonique press release:

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

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

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

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

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

Link to Cottonique website.

Judge says woman can sue over co-worker’s perfume

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Mike Adams at Natural News has an excellent critique of a recent court case where an employee is suing the City of Detroit over a perfume drenched co-worker whom the employee says caused her serious respiratory problems.

Adams has a theory that the chemicals in perfume do much more than damage lungs. He says synthetic perfume “literally affects brain function, causing the brain to recede from sensory reality by decoupling neurons, thus making those people cognitively impaired.” Sound familiar?

I’m not sure if I go along with his assertion that the “dumbest people” wear perfume; I guess you have to define your terms. But his feeling about “dumbed-down” consumers getting poisoned in their homes makes a lot of sense to me.

A Judge has ruled that a lawsuit over workplace perfume filed by a Detroit city planner can proceed. The lawsuit alleges that perfume from a co-worker made Susan McBride unable to properly breathe, creating a hazardous work environment and making it difficult for her to complete her work.

The city of Detroit sought to have the lawsuit dismissed in court, but the Judge agreed with McBride that her difficulty in breathing with the excessive perfume did, indeed, qualify for protection under federal laws that protect the disabled from workplace discrimination.

That may seem like an odd law to invoke in this case (is McBride really “disabled” due to her difficulty in breathing?) but at least it is recognizing the reality of perfume toxicity.

Let’s get straight to the real story here, folks: Perfume-wearing people are toxic to the world, and they create a toxic workplace filled with poisonous, cancer-promoting chemicals that cause healthy people to gasp for breath.

[...]

Synthetic perfume chemicals cause cancer

These people also remain oblivious to the fact that perfumes contain cancer-causing chemicals that are absorbed right through the skin. These chemicals enter the blood where they poison the liver and other organs, causing cancer and cellular toxicity throughout the body.

I also have a theory that this onslaught of chemicals literally affects brain function, causing the brain to recede from sensory reality by decoupling neurons, thus making those people cognitively impaired. You can observe this in the real world, too: Have you ever noticed it’s the dumbest people who wear the most perfume or cologne? I do not believe that is by chance: It could very well be a cause-effect relationship between perfume chemicals and brain function.

Keep in mind, too, that dumbed-down mainstream consumers use a lot of perfume-laced products throughout their homes: Laundry detergent, dryer sheets, air fresheners, carpet cleaners, shampoo, shower soap and other products laced with the same toxic fragrance chemicals found in perfumes. This creates a toxic environment in which cancer is accelerated and brain development is retarded.

NaturalNews supports a nationwide ban on perfumes in the workplace.

Link

Next Page »