Tag Archives: Law

EPA to take action on chemicals used in dyes, flame retardants, and industrial detergents

Posted on Aug 19, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, Law, Susie Collins

1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released action plans to address the potential health risks of benzidine dyes, hexabromocyclododecane and nonylphenol/nonylphenol ethoxylates. The efforts are to limit exposure and reduce harm to people.

8/18/10 WASHINGTON – As part of Administrator Lisa P. Jackson’s commitment to strengthen and reform chemical management, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released action plans today to address the potential health risks of benzidine dyes, hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and nonylphenol (NP)/nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). The chemicals are widely used in both consumer and industrial applications, including dyes, flame retardants, and industrial laundry detergents. The plans identify a range of actions the agency is considering under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

“The action plans announced today are examples of EPA’s renewed dedication to improve chemical safety to protect the health of the American people and the environment.” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “These action plans lay out concrete steps EPA intends to take to address the risks associated with chemicals commonly used in this country.”

Benzidine dyes are used in the production of consumer textiles, paints, printing inks, paper, and pharmaceuticals and may pose health problems, including cancer. HBCD is used as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam in the building and construction industry, as well as in some consumer products. HBCD has been shown to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment and may pose potential reproductive, developmental, and neurological effects in people. NP/NPEs are used in many industrial applications and consumer products such as detergents, cleaners, agricultural and indoor pesticides, as well as food packaging. These chemicals have been detected in people.

The range of actions on these chemicals include adding HBCD and NP/NPE to EPA’s new Chemicals of Concern list, issuing significant new use rules for all three chemicals, and, for HBCD and benzidine dyes, imposing new reporting requirements on EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory and potentially banning or limiting the manufacture or use of the chemicals.

In addition to EPA’s efforts, the Textile Rental Services Association, which represents 98 percent of the industrial laundry facilities in the U.S., has committed to voluntarily phase out the use of NPEs in industrial liquid detergents by Dec. 31, 2013 and industrial powder detergents by the end of 2014.

“While EPA intends to address the potential risks associated with these chemicals,” Owens stated, “we are pleased that the industrial laundry industry has decided to not wait for regulatory action to be completed by the agency and is voluntarily taking steps now to phase out the use of NPEs.”

EPA first announced that it planned to develop the Chemicals of Concern list last December, which indicates that the chemicals may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. This previously unused TSCA authority signals the agency’s commitment to fully use the tools currently available, while supporting legislative reform of TSCA.

Additional information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , ,

This is why justice is rare in court cases involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Posted on Aug 13, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Law, MCS, Susie Collins

15

In the 2008 case of O’Brien v Citizens Insurance Company of America, the court managed to silence Ms. Delora O’Brien’s argument about her Multiple Chemical Sensitivity before she even started, by prohibiting her from providing expert testimony at trial in support of her claims.

Justice is all too rare in court cases involving Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

In Oct. 2008, the Supreme Court in Suffolk County, NY., rendered a decision in a case where a woman sued her homeowner’s insurance company because of toxic remediation treatments to her home following a clothes dryer fire. The plaintiff claimed that the treatments, which included degreasers, furniture polish and window cleaners followed by an ozone treatment*, initiated her Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

In O’Brien v Citizens Insurance Company of America, the court managed to silence Ms. Delora O’Brien’s argument before she even started, by prohibiting her from providing expert testimony at trial in support of her claims of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. After listening to the Defendant’s argument discrediting MCS as an illness initiated by toxic chemical exposure, the court said, “There is nothing in the record that identifies a diagnostic test for MCS (IEI), nor are there any studies submitted which identify a mechanism or cause for MCS.” This conclusion was reached after the defendant, who refers to MCS as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance or IEI, argued that there was no proof that MCS is a recognized illness due to the absence of “proof in the form of controlled studies, clinical data, medical literature, or peer review indicating the expert’s conclusions are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.”

(By the way, always red flag any statement you see with Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance or IEI given as the name of MCS because it is designed to discredit MCS as a physiological illness.)

The court took a look at the Defendant’s argument and decided, “There is no evidence submitted to establish a causal relationship between any of the chemicals that are known to have been utilized during the remediation process at the O’Brien home and MCS (IEI). The Court concludes therefore that there is insufficient evidence to show general causation.” The final decision: Any opinions/conclusions on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as an illness initiated by toxic chemicals must be omitted from the case.

Ms. O’Brien’s credibility was further compromised by the fact that the first doctor she visited after becoming ill with “headaches, fatigue and nausea,” diagnosed her as depressed and prescribed xanax and zoloft. Can you see where this is going?

Those of us with MCS know differently than the argument presented by the Defendant and the decision reached by the court. We know that current research, peer reviewed and published, clearly shows a causal relationship between exposure to a minimum of seven classes of toxic chemicals and the initiation of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

MCS researcher Martin Pall is at the forefront of this current research. His peer reviewed research is now published as chapter 92, “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Toxicological Questions and Mechanisms,” in the international reference manual General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley and Sons). “While the majority of this paper comes from my earlier publications on MCS,” says Pall, “it also contains several very important sections that are largely novel.” Here are three of his main points germane to our discussion about this court case:

1. There are seven classes of chemicals implicated in MCS and all seven of these can indirectly produce a common response in the body, increased NMDA activity. Furthermore, animal studies have shown that members of all seven of these classes of chemicals can have their toxic responses lowered by using an NMDA antagonist. This clearly demonstrates not only that they produce such increased NMDA activity but those increases play an important role in producing the toxic responses to these chemicals. Given that we previously had six types of evidence implicating excessive NMDA activity in MCS, we now have compelling evidence that this common response plays a key role in MCS.

2. The role of these chemicals acting as toxicants in MCS has been confirmed by four genetic studies, showing that genes that determine the rate of metabolism of these chemicals, influence susceptibility to MCS (only three were available when the review was written). These studies implicate six genes as determining such susceptibility, all of which have roles in the metabolism of chemicals otherwise implicated in initiating cases of MCS. It follows that the roles of chemicals in initiating cases of MCS is undeniable.

3. There have been a series of published studies reporting objectively measurable responses to low level chemical exposure among MCS cases that are distinct from any responses in normals. At least three of these should be practical specific biomarker tests that can be applied in clinical settings. All of these studies are consistent with the NO/ONOO- cycle mechanism as it is thought to play out in MCS and all provide, therefore, evidence supporting this mechanism. We have been in great need for such specific biomarker tests for MCS and these and other approaches to developing such tests must be further studied and may provide recognized specific biomarker tests in the near future, in my judgment.

I have heard argued on other MCS forums that the problem is the name of our illness, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Use that name in the courts, people argue, and you are immediately discredited. I disagree. I think no matter the name, we would still run up against this problem in the courts. Although I think a Plaintiff may have more success if he or she has other more easily measurable co-morbid illnesses along with the MCS; a physician and attorney may be able to build stronger medical evidence through those measurable illnesses than the MCS. But what about the people who only suffer the currently difficult to measure symptoms like “brain fog”? I say keep the name as it is found in most of the scientific literature, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and back up the arguments with the peer reviewed research. When asthma was once though of as a psychological illness, did you hear people clamoring to change the name? No, you saw the research and the body of literature grow to the point that the illness could no longer be seen as psychosomatic.

Read the court’s decision and weep for Ms. O’Brien. But know that one day– I hope soon– Multiple Chemical Sensitivity will be added to the long list of illnesses that were once thought to be “idiopathic” such as asthma, autism, Parkinson’s disease, ulcers, multiple sclerosis, lupus, interstitial cystitis, migraine and ulcerative colitis, all of which have been claimed at one time to be generated by a psychological mechanism. How long it will take for the courts to catch up with the current body of literature clearly showing a causal relationship between toxic chemical exposure and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is anyone’s guess. But I think we may see more of this debate in the news as the recent BP oil well blow out in the Gulf and the subsequent health issues play out in the courts.

*Read more more about the dangers of ozone treatments here.

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: , , , , , , , , ,

Linda Sepp is evicted from her home this morning, spending nite in car

Posted on May 04, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, Linda Sepp, MCS, Susie Collins

19

The day Linda Sepp had dreaded arrived with a knock at the door this morning.

Linda Sepp

The Star reports on Canary Report contributor Linda Sepp‘s eviction, which took place at 10:00 a.m this morning. I believe it’s a fairly accurate report on the events that transpired.

Toxic dilemma: Landlord, non-profit centre attempt to find replacement home for woman with chemical sensitivity, but without success.

The 50-year-old woman with chemical sensitivities was roused from her sleep by enforcement officers from the sheriff’s office. After a four-year eviction battle, they had come to throw her out of her High Park apartment.

Four enforcement officers dressed in white haz-mat coveralls and face masks — meant to keep Sepp safe from them should they have worn cologne or washed their hair with strong shampoo — hauled the woman’s possessions onto the front porch. From there, her 82-year-old father lugged bags and boxes down a flight of steps to her car.

“I’m beyond panicked. I’m blank. I’m numb,” said Sepp, who has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), a condition that causes rashes, headaches and burning sensations when she is exposed to chemicals in the environment.

[..]

She considered spending the night under the trees in High Park but changed her mind when it started to rain.

Instead, she has opted to camp out in her car in the dusty parking lot of a Buddhist temple in the west end.

Even though it’s beside a mound of garbage bags and a construction site, she says it’s the lesser of many evils.

“I don’t have anywhere to go. I’m just at a loss.”

Click here for full report at The Star.

Click here for other stories on Linda’s housing situation.

Click here for Linda’s blog.

5/5 UPDATE: Last night, it was decided that staying in her car was not safe, so Linda slept on the balcony of her father’s condo.

5/6 UPDATE: Reported in Health Zone: Woman with chemical sensitivities camps out on condo balcony.

5/7 UPDATE, FROM LINDA: Mini update – I’ve just talked with MP Gerard Kennedy and he is genuinely looking for more help and ways to resolve this mess. I love you all!

Continue Reading

Tags: , , ,

Sen. Lautenberg introduces “Safe Chemicals Act” to protect Americans from toxic chemicals

Posted on Apr 19, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Government Regulation, Policy, Susie Collins

5

Measure will require safety testing for chemicals.

U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)

This is VERY good news! The moment we’ve been waiting for. A press release from Sen. Lautenberg’s office:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today announced legislation to overhaul the “Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976” (TSCA), an antiquated law that in its current state, leaves Americans at risk of exposure to toxic chemicals. Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health, introduced the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” to protect the health of families and the environment.

“America’s system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken,” said Senator Lautenberg. “Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children’s bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe. My ‘Safe Chemicals Act’ will breathe new life into a long-dead statute by empowering EPA to get tough on toxic chemicals. Chemical safety reform is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it is a common-sense issue and I look forward to building bipartisan support for this measure.”

The “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” requires safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order stay on the market. Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances. The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals and require manufacturers to submit information proving the safety of every chemical in production and any new chemical seeking to enter the market.

Over the last several months, Sen. Lautenberg has chaired a series of hearings to help craft the “Safe Chemicals Act” with dozens of witnesses including business leaders, public officials, scientists, doctors, academics, and non-profit organizations [read about one of the hearings on a post here at The Canary Report]. Through the hearings, public health groups, environmentalists, industry representatives and the EPA have expressed support for reforms to our nation’s toxic substance laws. The “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” comports with the reform principles laid out by the Obama Administration, the American Chemistry Council and the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition.

The text of the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010″ can be found here and a full summary of the bill can be found here.

Highlights of the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010”

Provides EPA with sufficient information to judge a chemical’s safety. Requires manufacturers to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they produce, while also preventing duplicative or unnecessary testing. EPA will have full authority to request additional information needed to determine the safety of a chemical.

Prioritizes chemicals based on risk. Calls on the EPA to categorize chemicals based on risk, and focus resources on evaluating those most likely to cause harm.

Ensures safety threshold is met for all chemicals on the market. Places the burden of proof on chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their chemicals. All uses must be identified and determined safe for the chemical to enter the market or continue to be used.

Takes fast action to address highest risk chemicals. Requires EPA to take fast action to reduce risk from chemicals that have already been proven dangerous. In addition, the EPA Administrator is given authority to act quickly if any chemical poses an imminent hazard.

Creates open access to reliable chemical information. Establishes a public database to catalog the information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the EPA’s safety determinations. The EPA will impose requirements to ensure the information collected is reliable.

Promotes innovation and development of green chemistry. Establishes grant programs and research centers to foster the development of safe chemical alternatives, and brings some new chemicals onto the market using an expedited review process.

###

Although this is terrifically good news, there still remains much work to be done to ensure the reform is done right. Read more from Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and the Environmental Working Group.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , ,

Linda Sepp faces eviction any day now with no safe place to go

Posted on Apr 13, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, Linda Sepp, MCS, Susie Collins

70

How does a disabled person with acute chemical sensitivity, who’s dependent on government assistance, prepare to move?

This photo is one of Linda's submissions for The Canary Report's 2010 calendar, expressing her despair at her unsafe housing, the toxic air, and lack of safe, nontoxic clothing. ©2009 The Canary Report, may not be republished without permission.

Those of you who follow The Canary Report know how important Linda Sepp is to our Canary Community. She’s a wealth of information about chemical and environmental sensitivities, and shares her knowledge freely through blogging, comments, posts on our forum, email, facebook, and her blog.

Linda carries the title of research assistant here at TCR, but in reality, she’s been my mentor for the past two years. TCR would not be half the blog and community it is without her. Linda is relentless in holding us all to the highest standard when it comes to dealing with toxic chemicals; she will not let anyone get away with skimming by an important issue or settling for a product that might be “okay” but in reality isn’t nontoxic. She makes us all better in our cause for toxic chemical policy reform, better in our cause for human rights as disabled people, and she helps us live safer, more productive lives.

But she does all this while being completely disabled by chemical sensitivities, fibromyalgia, and electro hypersensitivity, and living in a precarious, unsafe housing situation herself.

For years, she’s been the last resident in an Ontario neighborhood slated for demolition by a landlord wanting to raze the area to build new. The place is decaying, crumbling and frequently vandalized. Linda’s house has a leaky roof and basement, problems with mold, a contaminated water pipeline, and a leaky gas stove (now disconnected). She doesn’t want to be there, but where is she to go?

The problem is, how does a disabled person with acute chemical sensitivity, who’s dependent on government assistance, prepare to move? How does a disabled person with acute chemical sensitivity secure and install a whole house water filtration system so she can bathe and wash clothes properly (not just for everyday health but also in preparation for a move); secure safe clothing and a washing machine in the first place (there is a reason why she’s naked in the photo, she only has about five articles of safe, uncontaminated clothing to her name); conduct a housing search and then properly prepare that house for an uber sensitive person? How does she do that? And if she can’t do it herself, how does she find a knowledgeable advocate to help navigate the entire process?

On Linda’s blog, she writes eloquently about her dependence on government aid from a social service system that refuses to understand the complexity of chemical sensitivity. She describes the evidence she has from an environmental physician who declared her medical needs to include a nontoxic home with clean air and water (a simple, basic need you’d think, no?), and yet neither the medical nor government systems seem equipped to assist Linda in accessing the solutions to those needs. Once again, someone with chemical sensitivity is slipping through the cracks.

So here’s the kicker: Linda’s eviction date was April 4. Aside from a couple of valiant last minute efforts (which have failed to yield anything feasible), all the agencies and people you’d think should be there to assist—social workers, physicians, elected officials, the landlord—have all receded like water before the coming of a tidal wave.

Given that the April 4 eviction date was set by the court, the landlord has the power to put in motion the sheriff’s removal of Linda from her home. And should that happen, then what? The injustice of this situation is staggering.

###

04/24/10 UPDATE:

Last week, Linda’s Member of Parliament contacted her current landlord to see if a new deal could be reached on securing Linda a safe home, but the landlord declined, saying the April 4 eviction deadline was past so all offers were off the table. (As background, Linda’s landlord had offered to buy and renovate a rental home for Linda at a total cap of $200K, including the consultation of an eco-builder, but none of the homes found on the market met Linda’s criteria.)

Linda’s physician is in phone contact with her and has asked for more tests, which Linda has scheduled for next week.

Toronto Community Housing, which provides housing for low and moderate income households, prepared an apartment for Linda this past week. Linda says it won’t work because it does not meet her criteria; she has declined the offer.

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , ,

Health care reform at last?

Posted on Mar 25, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Keith Carlson, Policy, Social Justice

10

While reports state that the legislation is indeed imperfect and will make as many enemies as friends, some semblance of reform is now on its way to the American people.

By Keith Carlson, RN.

President Obama signs health reform into law. White House Photo, Pete Souza, 3/23/10

It appears that health care reform in all it’s tattered and tainted glory has finally passed through both the House and the Senate. While reports state that the legislation is indeed imperfect and will make as many enemies as friends, some semblance of reform is now on its way to the American people. Some behind-the-scenes tweaking will still certainly take place, but it seems that the reform train has now left the station and will eventually arrive at a health plan near (most of) you, with the majority of changes beginning in 2014.

From my personal point of view, this train has been delayed for decades, especially taking into consideration that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not offer universal health coverage to most of its citizens, or at least guarantee access to such coverage.

According to the information gleaned from articles and online sources, I understand that some of the salient points are thus:

  • Parents will be able to keep dependent adult children on their health plans through age 26, and this benefit (which will necessitate an extra fee) will be enacted almost immediately.
  • Beginning in 2014, Americans with employer-based health plans who lose their jobs will be able to buy their own (hopefully affordable) insurance without being denied or charged extra due to pre-existing conditions.
  • Apparently, chronically ill children will be covered almost immediately, and chronically ill adults may have access to certain pools of coverage quite soon.
  • An expansion of Medicaid coverage for the poor now seems to be a certainty after 2014.
  • Some tax credits for small businesses will make it easier for coverage to be offered to be employees, and this reform may also be enacted rather soon.
  • Medicaid will be expanded to cover an additional 16 million poor Americans.
  • Price gouging by insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions will no longer be allowed by the new regulations.
  • Insurance companies will no longer be able to cancel the policies of consumers who become ill, a practice that has become all too common.
  • Insurance companies will also no longer be able to place a spending cap on the amount of money they are willing to spend on a consumer in any given year (or perhaps over a lifetime).
  • In six months, all new health plans will have to cover the full cost of all preventive care.
  • Beginning July 1st of this year, low-income seniors on Medicare will enjoy a 50% discount on brand-name drugs.
  • By 2019, it seems that more than 90% of Americans will have health care coverage of some kind.
  • Most importantly, it seems that reforms of Medicare and Medicaid are in the works, and a complicated array of regulatory reforms may indeed change the face of health care in this country by cutting costs, streamlining the delivery and payment system, and reining in health care inflation.

There is no doubt that conservative pundits will do their best to cast doubt on these reforms in an attempt to turn the American people against what will most likely be billed as “socialism” and a government take-over of health care and medicine. Many will complain that the government has no place in regulating health care, even as those same complainers enjoy the vast benefits of their (government regulated) Medicare coverage. It is ironic that so many Americans forget that Medicare, a government benefit that changed the face of health care for older and disabled Americans many decades ago, is a hugely successful program of government-based health care reform.

It is disgraceful that so many millions of Americans still live without health insurance. Due to the cost of medical care, homes are foreclosed, jobs are lost, lives are destroyed, and the most basic and important health maintenance screenings (like PAP smears, prostate exams and annual physicals) are missed due to lack of insurance coverage.

With both houses of Congress passing this historic legislation, the health care reform train has indeed left the station. There’s no doubt that there will be many arguments and problems along the way, but there now exists the true probability that, within our lifetimes, all Americans will enjoy what the citizens of other industrialized nations have enjoyed for decades.

~~~

To read 10 things that every American should know about health care reform according to MoveOn.org, please click here.

~~~

This post was originally published on my blog Digital Doorway, a digital venue for creative expression, nursing adventures, reflections, thoughtful reverie, thoughtless repose, and other flotsam and jetsam.

You can also visit me at Mary and Keith’s Excellent Adventure, where my wife and I blog about living full-time in our new RV, traveling the highways and byways of America, visiting intentional communities, and bringing Laughter Yoga and the benefits of health and wellness coaching to new and old friends along the way!

Photo credit

Continue Reading

Tags: ,

$100K awarded to woman with chemical sensitivity denied proper accommodations at work

Posted on Mar 10, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, MCS, Susie Collins, Worker's Rights

19

Woman with chemical sensitivity awarded $100K for being denied proper accommodations at work; her coworker’s perfume made it difficult for her to breathe.

Modern perfume contains known toxic chemicals that can cause serious cognitive and respiratory problems in people with chemical sensitivity.

On Point reports a Detroit city planner with an allergy to perfume is savoring the sweet smell of legal success after the city agreed to pay her $100,000 and be more sensitive to the chemically sensitive.

The agreement -– obtained by On Point through a public records act request — settled Susan McBride’s lawsuit under the Americans With Disabilities Act which alleged the City of Detroit failed to reasonably accommodate her allergy after she complained that a co-worker’s perfume made it difficult for her to breathe.

Some critics attacked McBride for being overly sensitive and abusing the court system. But many workplaces are now perfume-free and a judge in November 2008 denied the city’s motion to dismiss, ruling McBride could proceed with a disability claim “based on the major life activity of breathing.”

As part of the settlement, which the parties signed last month, the city will post a notice on bulletin boards in its offices announcing that “Our goal is to be sensitive to employees with perfume and chemical sensitivities”

Let’s hope it sets precedent for future cases. If you have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and are having trouble with your employer giving you proper accommodations, you might like to share the agreement with them. This is an access issue, the same as any other disability protected under the ADA.

Photo credit

Continue Reading

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

Please sign Italian petition for recognition of Multiple Chemcial Sensitivity

Posted on Mar 07, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, MCS, Social Justice, Susie Collins

6

Our fellow canaries in Italy are asking for our support: Please take a minute to sign this petition for the recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Italy.

Italian flag

There are just a couple more days left to sign in support of the Italian petition to recognize Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. In the middle of March, the Association for Chronic and/or Environmental Diseases by Intoxication (AMICA) will meet with Senators to present the petition. Please sign; last day to sign is March 10.

Click here to sign– it’s all in Italian, so once you get to that page, click on “Firma,” then fill in the fields for First Name, Last Name, Email, Telephone (not necessary), and postal code (CAP). Direct link here to sign the petition.

THE PETITION TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH:

Petition promoted by the Association for Chronic and/or Environmental Diseases by Intoxication (AMICA) www.sensibilitachimica.it

To the Presidency of the Senate of the Italian Republic

To the President of the Chamber of Deputies

To the XII Committee of the Social Affairs at the Chamber of Deputies

To the XII Commission of the Senate Health and Hygiene

Since the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is a chronic disabling condition that involves multiorgan reactions to exposure to various chemicals in quantities normally tolerated by the general population and that the diagnostic criteria were established by international consensus in 1999;

Seen that from 2 to 10% of the population is hyper-sensitive to environmental chemicals and products in common use and an increasing proportion is affected by multiple substances – that is suffering multiple chemical sensitivity, or MCS – with impaired capacity for work, social life and autonomy that varies from mild to very severe depending on the stages of the disease;

Since the MCS is recognized in the United States by federal law for the Disabled American with Disabilities Act, federal agencies – such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Housing and Urban Development, the Social Security Administration – and many local governments;

Since the MCS is recognized by Canada federal and Provincial government agencies;

Since the MCS is classified by Germany since 1998 in the International Code of Diseases by the T 78.4 in Chapter 19 (Injury, poisoning and other consequences resulting from external causes) and Section T66-T78 (Other and unspecified damage from external factors);

As the Ministry of Welfare and Labor of Germany, who had classified the MCS in the of list of motor disability (as compared to those for the inability of patients to move), has removed the description of illness as psychosomatic (of psychological origin / Psychiatry), putting an end to discrimination of this disease environment;

As the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan), which for years have recognized the sick building syndrome – similar to the MCS, said insert MCS October 2009 in the list of diseases covered by the insurance of the National Health Service;

Since in Italy there is no law that equalize the rights of the environmental patients (not only MCS, but also of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, to Elettrosensibilità of Fibromyalgia, Sick Building Syndrome, etc..) Than those of any other form of disability in terms of job protection, the right to treatment, the right to a home “safe”, etc..;

The petitioners demand that are challenged with the highest priority of the six bills initiative of the House of Representatives (No. 1621 August 5, 2008, No. 1654 of September 18, 2008, No. 1667 of 18 September 2008, N . 2287 March 12, 2009) and Senate (NS1019 of 17 September 2008, No. 1165 of 28 October 2008) for the recognition of MCS as a social disease, using the international consensus in 1999 as a benchmark for the diagnosis, as in the world.

Thanks Rose and Francesca! Keep up the good work!

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , ,

Anatomy of a toxic chemical spill

Posted on Feb 25, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Guest Bloggers

5

On February 17, 2010, in Alameda, CA, a garbage or recycle truck owned by Alameda County Industries blew its hydraulic line at the corner of Oak Street and San Jose Avenue, spewing hydraulic fluid all over the street. I had to walk through it to get to my house.

By guestblogger Steph.

~~~

02-17-10

February 17, 2010 - Alameda, CA. That's not snow - it's 57F outside. Alameda County Industries garbage or recycle truck blew its hydraulic hose earlier in the day, and their crew came out with an absorbent material to pick up the spill. That material was like fine grain sand and immediately went airborne. Now it's on the cars and everything, and likely in my house since I had to open the front door to go inside.

~~~

02/18/10

On February 17, 2010 in Alameda, CA, a garbage or recycle truck owned by Alameda County Industries (ACI) blew its hydraulic line at the corner of Oak Street and San Jose Avenue, spewing hydraulic fluid all over the street.

Cars continued driving, as San Jose Ave is a thoroughfare, and the oil spread all up and down both streets. ACI sent a cleaning crew, who applied a thin sandy ‘absorbent’ material all over the road, which got picked up by passing cars and went airborne immediately, with the oil particles on the sand.

The scene above is what I had to walk through to get to my house.

Please google hydraulic fluid toxicity to learn more, and also check out a news story about a woman who died after a similar accident.

I have also uploaded photos here. My lips were stinging when I got back into the house last night after taking pictures. I should have worn a mask of course. Of course. I shed all my clothes in the kitchen and put them in a garbage bag. I took a shower immediately.

Last night I filed complaint with the Alameda Department of Public Works and the City Clerk’s office for Boards and Commissions. This morning, following Susie Collins’ advice, I phoned up the police department to make sure they’d been notified. They said they had, and seemed indifferent to me. They routed me over to the fire department, where I was told I’d get a call back. I got a voicemail saying they’d send someone over to check out the street, but I didn’t see anyone come by in a Fire Department uniform or vehicle.

At 3pm today, I received the following email:

Good afternoon Steph,

I am responding back to your e-mail that was sent to ACI this morning, at approximately 2:30pm on February 17,2010 one of our fully automated trucks had a hydraulic hose rupture and leaked fluid onto the street, our driver immediately contacted our dispatch center and a field supervisor.

Upon notification of the spill we immediately contacted the City of Alameda, Public works department. Both the City of Alameda Fire and Police department were called and responded to the scene to assist us with the cleaning of the street and traffic control.

After meeting with the fire department and the urban run-off group they released the scene back to us for our cleanup process. We responded with 7 ACI employees to put dry sweep on the on the fluid and swept up all the areas effected. The hydraulic fluid can become slippery and that’s why we reacted to get it cleaned up immediately. The fluid that was on the ground is a premium hydraulic oil that is commonly used in hydraulic systems. The absorbent that was used is called select sorb professional multi purpose spill aid (MSDS_SelectSorbProfessional.pdf).

We are keeping in contact with the city of Alameda and the urban run-off Manager, today we had street sweepergo thru the areas that were effected and he will be returning again tonight after cars have left the street. As far as the City of Alameda and ACI is concerned there are no direct health hazards as a result of the spill.

I apologize for any inconvenience this matter may have caused you, please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or concerns.

Best Regards,

Guy Martinez

Safety Manger

I sent an email back to Mr. Martinez, asking for specifics on the hydraulic fluid; “Thank you for your response. Can you tell me what type of hydraulic fluid had spilled, aside from it being ‘premium’? Was it mineral oil, organophosphate ester, or polyalphaolefin?”

And now I wait.

[...]

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity associations in Spain meet with Ministry of Health officials

Posted on Feb 05, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, Eva Caballé, Government Regulation, Guest Bloggers, MCS, Social Justice

2

Eva Caballé reports on the meeting between Multiple Chemical Sensitivity associations and Ministry of Health officals in Spain, Feb. 4, 2010

Translated from Spanish by Eva Caballé

On February 4th 2010 at 12:00h has been held the meeting with Ministry of Health to state the situation of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity sufferers in Spain.

Mr José Martínez Olmos, Secretary General of the Ministry of Health, Mr Alberto Infante Campos, General Director of Professional Planning, Cohesion of SNS and High Inspection and Mr Francisco Valero Bonilla have attended to the meeting representing the Ministry of Health. One person by almost each MCS association has attended to the meeting and also Jaume Cortés, lawyer of Colectivo Ronda, and Dr. Pablo Arnold, immunologist specialized in MCS.

• ACAF: Cristina Montané
• AFCISQUIM: María Roldán
• Alas de Mariposa- SQM: Tránsito Rodríguez
• ALTEA – SQM: Cristobalina Bejarano
• APQUIRA: Mª Carmen Gómez de Bonilla
• AQUA: Mario Arias
• ASQUIFYDE: Francisca Gutiérrez
• AVASFASEM-AVASQ: Francisca García
• ENA: Laura Domínguez
• MERCURIADOS: Mª Carmen Miravete
• Plataforma Estatal Contra la Contaminación Ambiental: Minerva Palomar
• PLATAFORMA PARA LA FM ,SFC, SQM, reivindicación de derechos, Asociación Nacional: Elena Navarro

A petitions document done by MCS associations under David Palma coordination has been submitted. This document has been signed by:

• ABAF: Margarita Pascual
• ACAF: Maite Ribera
• AFCISQUIM: María Roldán
• Alas de Mariposa- SQM: Irene Escudero
• ALTEA – SQM: Cristobalina Bejarano
• APQUIRA: Mª Carmen Gómez de Bonilla
• AQUA: Mario Arias
• ASQUIFYDE: Francisca Gutiérrez
• AVASFASEM-AVASQ: Francisca García
• ENA: Rosa de Gabriel
• MERCURIADOS: Servando Pérez
• Plataforma Estatal Contra la Contaminación Ambiental: Minerva Palomar
• PLATAFORMA PARA LA FM ,SFC, SQM, reivindicación de derechos, Asociación Nacional: Elena Navarro
• Eva Caballé

Also a copy of Desaparecida: Una vida rota por la Sensibilidad Química Múltiple (Missing: A life broken by Multiple Chemical Sensitivities) has been hand delivered on behalf of Eva Caballé, who couldn’t attend to the meeting, as an example of what MCS sufferers have to go through in Spain.

The meeting with Ministry of Health has meant an agreement on minimum standards by the Ministry, but a big hope for all MCS sufferers.

Representatives of Ministry of Health have committed to contact MCS associations within 2 weeks to jointly agree on experts to form a Scientific Committee to create a document of consensus on the MCS. They have stated that this is the first step to make possible the inclusion of the MCS in ICD-10, i.e. its official recognition as disease in Spain. They have demonstrated that later there would be necessary to start creating the protocols.

All people who have been part of this process are thrilled by the result of the meeting, because doors have opened us to obtain the recognition of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Spain and to achieve that MCS sufferers have the same rights as the other chronically ill people.

Link

Continue Reading

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Older Entries »