Veterinarians asked to report pesticide poisoning incidents

A new website is launched for veterinarians to help track pesticide poisoning incidents.

The data is supposed to be evaluated by the EPA. What they will do with it is yet to be seen since, as evidenced in yesterday’s post, they don’t seem to be doing much to protect people let alone pets. But I suppose it will start a database that may some day be useful if anyone wishes to change pesticide policy for the health of pets.

(”Beyond Pesticides” January 2, 2009)– Household pets and other animals are commonly exposed to toxic pesticides in lawns and parks, from homeowner use of bug sprays, in contaminated air or water, or from flea and tick control products, potentially poisoning the animal and causing acute and chronic health effects. A new website has been designed for veterinarians to help track these pesticide poisoning incidents.

The incident reporting website is part of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) webpages. It was developed by the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) with input from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Pesticide Program, AVMA’s Clinical Practitioners Advisory Committee and Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents “to capture the optimal amount of relevant information using a form that is quick for busy practitioners to fill out.” The data is to be evaluated by EPA.

According to EPA, “Most of the reports of more severe pesticide-related incidents EPA receives are neurological or dermatologic in nature. The reports from veterinarians will help improve the quality of all animal incident data.”

Numerous studies have documented the risk of pesticides to pets over the years. A 1991 National Cancer Institute study, finds that dogs whose owners’ lawns were treated with 2,4-D, four or more times per year, are twice as likely to contract canine malignant lymphoma than dogs whose owners do not use the herbicide. Exposure to herbicide-treated lawns and gardens increases the risk of bladder cancer by four to seven times in Scottish Terriers, according to a study by Purdue University veterinary researchers published in the April 15, 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Research published in the December 1988 issue of Preventive Veterinary Medicine links hyperthyroidism in cats to flea powders and sprays, lawn pesticides and canned cat food. Allethrin, a common ingredient in home mosquito products (coils, mats, oils and sprays) and other bug sprays, has been linked to liver problems in dogs, according to a 1989 study by the World Health Organization. The 1989 edition W.C. Campbell Toxicology textbook reports that chronic exposure to abamectin, an insecticide often used by homeowners on fire ants can affect the nervous system of dogs and cause symptoms such as pupil dilation, lethargy, and tremors.

According to 2004 statistics compiled by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ Animal Poison Control Center, 22% of approximately 880 cases of pet birds being exposed to common household items involved pesticides (including rat bait and insecticides).

“I can think of numerous cases over the years of abnormal neurologic signs in dogs after exposure to ‘benign’ herbicides and a pretty severe contact dermatitis in a cat after exposure to a pesticide,” states an ER vet in California. “I will try to encourage my colleagues to report any questionable adverse event in the future.”

If you suspect your pet has been poisoned, contact the Animal Poison Control Center at 888-426-4435. Encourage your veterinarian to document the pesticide poisoning through the new AVMA website. To be sure the incident does not go undocumented, complete Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Incident Report.

For more information on how your pet may be poisoned, what pesticides do to pets, and alterative pest management strategies for your home and pet pest problems, see Beyond Pesticides factsheet Pesticides and Pets: What you should know to keep your pets safe.

Gee, I can think of numerous times over the years of abnormal neurologic signs in me after exposure to “benign” herbicides. Anyone care to send a report in on that?

Link

Photo of dog on safe lawn by Anita Thomhave

Thanks, Linda!

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.

The World According to Monsanto

Filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin on the troubling past of one of the world’s biggest agricultural companies.

Don’t miss the very last line by Poppy Bush.

Link

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.

Canary’s Cry for Wednesday, Dec. 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Leslie and Linda!

Who’s chirping about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?

The Pilot reports on a ruling favoring former county employees who claim they suffer myriad environmental illnesses caused by a sick building :

Seven former Moore County employees can continue pursuing their worker compensation claims that a county building made them sick in the early 1990s, the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. The seven employees filed worker compensation claims against Moore County and its insurance company, Sedgwick of the Carolinas, in 1995 and 1996. The county and the insurance carrier have disputed the claims, arguing that there was no proof that the building made them sick. [...]

The appeals court also said that since the workers first filed their claims, medical science may have made advancements to understand the situation better, so the commission could consider reopening the case.

“We also note that expert testimony in this case reflects the uncertainty about fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivity that existed when the depositions were taken,” the ruling said. “However, plaintiffs originally filed their workers’ compensation claims more than 10 years ago, and in the intervening years the medical community may have gained a greater understanding of these conditions. Accordingly, the commission may, in its discretion, reopen the case for new evidence.”

Philstar.com reports that firecrackers are harmful to people, animals, the environment and create toxic waste :

[Ecowaste President Manny] Calonzo said firecrackers contain harmful substances that could trigger chemical sensitivities, asthma and other respirator ailments.

“The bursting of firecrackers (violates) the fundamental right of the people to breathe clean air and goes against the effort of the health and environmental authorities and the citizenry to improve air quality,” he added.

Exploding firecrackers, according to Calonzo, also results in “toxic litter” that adds to the heaps of holiday trash.

And the “loud bangs” of exploding firecrackers also torture and traumatize animals that are “most sensitive” to sound than humans, “hurting their ears, terrifying them and making them flee to safety.”

Ecowaste is promoting the use of “emission-free, zero waste” noisemakers from recycled materials such as tambourines made from bottle caps, maracas from tin cans, cymbals using pot lids, and shakers from plastic bottles, among others.

Germany strikes psychosomatic cause from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity guidelines

Germany’s Ministerium für Arbeit und Soziales removes the statement from the government’s disability guidelines that said Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is a somatoform (psychological) disorder.

This is great news for people with MCS throughout the world! The German government has struck out the statement from its MCS guidelines stating the illness is psychosomatic. This is inspiring for everyone throughout the world with MCS as a very important step toward universal recognition of MCS as a physical illness caused by chemical injury.

Here is a translation of the news received through email via Canada’s branch of the Global Recognition Campaign:

Merry Christmas for MCS patients

Silvia Mueller writes on Christmas Eve:

Here is the best message. The German Government Department for Social is the main department for disability, The Ministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. There are guidelines which are used by doctors, courts, authorities,… when it comes to a disability. In our disability guidelines MCS is a physical disease. It is registered in the part for movement disorders, because we can’t go everywhere, etc. There was one sentence in this guideline which was disturbing and used by opposition to refuse our cases and say we are psychosomatic cases. It said MCS is a somatoform disorder.

One of my people at CSN wrote to the department and asked that this nasty sentence is removed from the guidelines. Now MCS is a physical disease nothing else.  We have also the ICD-10 which says MCS is a physical disease. With these two tools nobody can discriminate us anymore.

It’s a victory - It’s Christmas for chemically sensitive people over here. We gave this information and the government letter as a present to the CS people today. After we started an online party. The motto of the party is that we think also about those who have nobody and we write poems, place links to you tube videos, write fun, greetings,… If you like to send something I can place it in for you, the people will love it.

Link to CSN Blog.

Dr. Rea and nobody else should worry. They can’t stop chemical sensitivity or declare us nuts anymore. We call it “the train is gone”.

It happened too much, and the bonds between people all over the world are too strong. Doctors find out more and more. And we all will not stop talking about it.  They can’t quiet us anymore.

Bonita Poulin

Canadian Coordinator
GLOBAL RECOGNITION CAMPAIGN
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
and other Chemically Induced Illnesses, Diseases and Injury affecting civilians and military personnel

MCS Global

Feel free to leave some comment love on the CSN Blog based in Germany. What a beautiful and supportive community they have! I feel so very happy for them. Let’s achieve this same good news in America and throughout the world!

Thanks, Linda!

Australia developing policy on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Australia’s Office of Health asks for public input on draft report on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

For all you readers in Oz, and an FYI for everyone else:

The Australian Office of Health and Office of Chemical Safety has released for public comment a working draft of a report entitled,  “A Scientific Review of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Identifying Key Research Needs.”

The report’s authors are asking for input to ensure all available scientific literature and technical information is included in the document to better identify the priority areas for research on MCS.

Here’s the Australian MCS Network’s thoughts on the Draft Report:

We feel it is important for the final document to be well informed and reflective of the current state of scientific research and thinking.

We are concerned that, despite current research evidence strongly supporting a physiological basis for MCS, the draft report appears to place emphasis on a psychogenic aetiology.

The final report will have a significant impact on the way Australians with MCS are treated and whether they get adequate access to health care and other services.

The report may be used as a key document by Government, hospitals and non government agencies, within Australia and internationally, to develop policies and services relating to MCS.

We would be grateful if you could find the time to make a submission to NICNAS on this report as it will affect the funding and direction of research into MCS.

Submissions can be emailed to:
MCS[at]nicnas.gov.au

or posted to:
MCS Report
NICNAS
GPO Box 58,
Sydney NSW 2001

The closing date is 30 January 2009.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Members of the Australian MCS Network

ASEHA Qld Inc
PO Box 96
Margate QLD 4019

Dr Geoff Pain
Scientific Advisor
Environmental Chemical Hypersensitivity Organisation
PO Box 529
Harvey WA 6220

Peter Evans, RN (formerly), Grad Dip Health Counseling Convenor
South Australian Task Force on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
PO Box 3308
Port Adelaide SA 5015

Tanya Lockett
General Manger/Community Leader
PocketWomen
PO Box 26
Rosewater SA 5013

Alexa McLaughlin
President
AIRA Inc (Allergies & Intolerant Reactions Association)
C/- 6A Gymea Street
Narrabundah ACT 2604

Julian Robinson
62/44 Jerrabomberra Ave
Narrabundah ACT 2604

Kerryn Ryan
Fragrance And Chemical Sensitivity Support Group
PO Box 162
Strathdale VIC 3550

Ann Want
Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance
309 East Bonville Road
Bonville NSW 2441

Link to information sheet on the Draft Report process

Link to full Draft Report

Thanks, Linda!

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!

More on Gulf War Illness

Boston.com has a story today on Gulf War Illness.

I think the findings of the study recently released showing exposure to pesticides and other toxic chemicals as the cause of Gulf War Illness are going to help our cause in having Multiple Chemical Sensitivity fully recognized by the government. Note that the Gulf War vet here in the excerpt says that the smell of perfume or a new car causes her serious physical distress. Yes, people with severe chemical injury can then develop adverse health problems from exposure to low level toxic chemicals like fragrance and off-gassing plastics. We know that, and vets with Gulf War Illness know that. The more studies that are done, the closer we are to having MCS fully recognized by government, which will affect policy in health care, housing, employment and other basic rights.

Now if they’d just start to connect the dots between the vets and the rest of us. I wish they’d hurry up for ALL of us. We’ve all waited long enough.

Tara Batista says she cannot ever recall her phone number. But she can remember clearly what she was like before she drove an ambulance through the deserts and combat zones of Saudi Arabia in the winter of 1991.

“I was 19; I was healthy,” she said in a recent phone interview. As a combat medic during the Gulf War, Batista, who now lives in Fitchburg, stood in clouds of pesticides and, under orders, took a little white pill twice a day as a precaution against a chemical attack.

Today, she says, the smell of perfume or a new car makes her lose the ability to speak, and triggers dry heaves, weakness, and pain that rises through her body like a shiver. She has recurring sinus infections and night sweats.

Last year, she contemplated killing herself.

[...]

The drug, pyridostigmine bromide, and certain pesticides used during the war to keep fleas and sand flies at bay affect the central nervous system, the report found, and are associated with memory and focus problems, persistent headaches, respiratory and digestion problems, and “widespread pain.” The report concludes that there are no effective treatments, and that the conditions of afflicted veterans have remained static or worsened in the nearly 18 years since the Gulf War ended.

“The physical symptoms are real and not in people’s heads,” said Roberta White, the scientific director for the committee, which began its evaluation of Gulf War research and programs in 2002.

Read the full story at Boston.com.

Read the full report on Gulf War Illness here.

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.

Vandana Shiva on Earth Democracy

Vandana Shiva, a physicist, environmental activist and author, argues for a return to traditional farming practices as a way to reclaim the health of the planet. In this video she talks about the importance of saving non-GMO seeds and her concept of Earth Democracy.

The herbicide resistant crops she mentions are food crops that are genetically engineered (GMO is the acronym for Genetically Modified Organism) to withstand pesticides such as Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, allowing farmers to spray crops all they want to kill weeds without harming the crop.

Link

Thanks, Mokihana, for the inspiration for this post!

President-Elect Obama: Reform chemical policy

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

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

LETTER OF PRINCIPLES FOR TOXIC CHEMICAL REGULATORY REFORM

To the Obama transition government

Dear President-Elect Obama,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Revamp the Chemical Evaluation Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Reform “Stakeholder” Influence in Decision-Making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Sincerely,

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

Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility

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

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

Arlene Blum, Executive Director, Green Science Policy Institute

Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network

Elizabeth Crowe, Director, Kentucky Environmental Foundation

Kathleen Curtis, Policy Director, Clean New York

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

Joe DiGangi, International Pops Elimination Network

Tracey Easthope, Environmental Health Director, Michigan Ecology Center

Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides

Christopher Gavigan, CEO, Healthy Child, Healthy World

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

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

Kathryn Gilje, Executive Director, Pesticide Action Network North America

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

Amanda Hawes, attorney

Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace

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

John Kepner, Project Director, Beyond Pesticides

Bettie D. Kettell, RN Durham, Maine

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

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

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

Peter Montague, PhD, Environmental Research Foundation

Suzanne Murphy, Executive Director, Worksafe

Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy Breast Cancer Fund

Judith Robinson, Director of Programs, Environmental Health Fund

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

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

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Campaigns Coordinator, Clean Water Action

Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director, Washington Toxics Coalition

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

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

Charlotte Wells, Galveston BAYKEEPER®, Texas

Resources

Contaminated without Consent www.contaminatedwithoutconsent.org

Is It In Us? isitinus.org/

The Louisville Charter www.louisvillecharter.org

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

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

Toxic Playroom www.toxicplayroom.org

Link

Thanks, Linda!

Warning: Avoid ozone generating air machines

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

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

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

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

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

Environment News Service reports today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to more of the story at Environment News Service

Photo by M. Stephens