Your tragedy is so commonplace these days in workers and residents in buildings where structural ‘eye candy’ – those unnecessary cosmetic finishes to our living and working structures- means certain damage to many occupants. Actually, the public doesn’t have the right to know about impending chemical applications, only those in the past in the majority of situations/places. This means individuals can’t be pro-active in their efforts to remain healthy or inform physicians of concurrent environmental conditions when reporting unusual symptoms. That guarantees treatment is not going to be effective (as exposure is ongoing) and benefits industry who can continue to demand that consumers prove harm instead of vendors proving safety.

How many studies will be needed to prove that formaldehyde and benzene are harmful to humans? Considering those appear in most products today, apparently there is no adequate number. Consumers must take responsibility for buying only those items offering full disclosure of ingredients.

The problem with OSHA is that it only responds to existing employee concerns and not those of customers (e.g. parents of students in schools) or former employees who were harmed and forced to leave their employment. That leaves us without a mechanism other than litigation, for demanding change. Yet the public has been trained to believe litigation is the province of greedy people who are too lazy to earn a living.

I guess they should walk a mile in our shoes. Thanks for stopping in –

Barbara

Thank you for pointing out the presence of MSDS binders in most businesses. That permits workers to at least see what is in use for routine purposes although selection of products for use in unplanned projects or repairs remains unpredictable. All parents should insist upon seeing one for their child’s school.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Environmentalists%20urge%20pesticide%20study&articleId=9d54df7d-6621-446f-bb7b-78af5ede009c

My comments posted to the website were:

I also testified – that information is on record. FYI:

1. It is against federal law to make claims that pesticides/herbicides are safe when used as directed. That is because they are not. Before Madison avenue was hired to market them, they were called ‘Economic Poisons’ within the EPA.

2. The EPA publishes a free book on a common but frequently undiagnosed medical problems: pesticide poisoning. You can order it online (Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning). To those who wish to use these products, fully inform your neighbors of what you are doing so they can report any unusual illnesses to their doctors for proper evaluation. Schools don’t offer advance warning to parents and employees of applications in most states – if all is ‘safe’, then provide such notice and people will be able to make their own choices regarding exposures and we will have a better understanding of adverse effects.

3. Consumers should not buy any product or service that doesn’t offer full disclosure of all ingredients. The EPA approves products on the basis of the active ingredients and not the entire product which many be augmented in strength/toxicity with hidden chemicals.

Truth in commerce will allow consumers to regulate the marketplace with their dollars. Hiding essential information from consumers means bringing in expensive regulation since choice is denied us. Since money is key in all decision making, the public should understand that DDT was banned because it was going to be taken out of use anyway- the mosquitoes were already resistant to it. Studies are now plentiful showing the damage DDT does to the nervous system but no one did anything simply because a woman wrote a book about it. Let’s pay attention to facts – the basis for all sound choices.

Barbara Rubin