I recently noticed fumes coming into my car which hadn’t previously been detectable. The effects were similiar to symptoms experienced in residences which had required adjustments be made to stoves or furnaces causing measurable elevations in CO levels. These days, CO meters run on batteries and don’t have to be welded to a household surface, so I bought a Kidder (model) and checked it occasionally as I drove around the region. It has the advantage of being able to report current and peak levels at the touch of a button.

Checking the peak level reading, it indicated levels of carbon monoxide had reached 54 parts per million during this particular trip. This is in excess of levels at which harm can occur for the typical adult. While it ought to be expected that drivers will be exposed to higher CO levels than you’d expect to see in your home, such awareness is crucial in determining whether or not your exhaust system requires repairs, how long a drive you should take before those repairs are done and whether or not you drive with a toddler in the back seat.

Looking up expected levels under traffic-laden conditions, I came across this study in which levels of CO were measured in the Ted Williams Tunnel located in the Boston area. To my surprise, the levels were well within the boundaries of safe exposure as per the resources cited above. Other references demonstrated that levels in cars during operation were quite variable depending upon traffic conditions. Unfortunately, sampling data was rather small for any degree of certainty. The levels I experienced still exceeded those noted.

At home, don’t expect your average meter to tell you when harmful levels are present. The typical alarm feature requires up to an hour of exposure at two to three times the harmful level before it rings. Having a meter that allows you to read measurements anytime you wish to check is an essential feature of such appliances and well worth the cost of purchase.

Thursday was better. This post was written to inform you of the order of events required to find out if you are the ‘eighth’ woman on your block. A routine physical resulted in my physician reporting a palpable mass. She was able to ‘feel’ the lump in my right breast. Mammography was recommended to view the extent of the growth and see if any others, not yet large enough to feel, might be present. Despite the fact that several months passed before I had the opportunity to obtain the necessary imaging, there is no question that such evaluations are critical in dealing with this all-too-common disease. If you lack health care insurance, you can find low or no-cost exams through the following sources at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Cancer Institute. Your local hospital may have a women’s health service offering such exams as well.

Knowing that the majority of masses are benign kept me calm about the findings. A relative and my own gynecologist both recommended a breast cancer surgeon. The world-wide web is a goldmine of information about professionals in every area and a search of this expert’s profile was reassuring about the competency you hope to find for a serious medical event. Mammography (breast x-ray) showed two masses in the left breast and some small, calcified material in the right breast. A sonogram, the simple use of sound waves to outline bodily structures, confirmed these masses and the need for biopsies to be performed.

Don’t freak out about the biopsy process. A sample of the mass is removed via hypodermic with or without a local anesthetic. It was minimally uncomfortable and informed me that the largest of the masses was a stage 0 cancer, treatable by surgical removal. The surgery, which took place earlier this week, was preceded by further imaging and marking procedures (also under local anesthetic) so the surgeon would have no problem locating the affected portions. All of the masses were removed.

Women everywhere have felt relief about the move towards lumpectomies versus complete mastectomies in which the entire breast is removed. I felt momentary alarm when the consent forms told me I was giving permission for a partial mastectomy. They are the same thing but additional material is removed around the mass to obtain ‘clean edges’ or cancer-free tissue. An IV put me to sleep and I woke up some 90 minutes later with bandages across my chest, able to return home the same day. Hence, my cancellation of Wednesday due to exhaustion and some discomfort that was easily manageble with Tylenol and chocolate. You DID know about the narcotic effects of chocolate, didn’t you?

Today is Friday and the pathology reports came in, informing me that there was more affected tissue than expected although it is unlikely anything is beyond a very treatable stage ‘one’ condition. Unfortunately, that requires a double mastectomy and I will have to consider the ultimate form of treatment I select after my next physician appointment next week.

In the meantime, every woman needs to keep up with preventive health care given the frequency of such events among our gender.

See you later.

1/7/12 Post-script: My surgery had to be postponed due to housing problems. I’ll let you know when I next plan to alter the calendar in order to have a smoother recovery from treatment

This act doesn’t help the average citizen who is very likely to witness harmful activities in daily life at some point or other. Where is our protection against retaliation should we choose to report such observations or even simply be identified as potential witnesses to crime? Retaliation can lead to the loss of jobs, homes, friends and family members, and even lives when beleaguered individuals are bullied into committing suicide. We’ve seen such things happen to teens in recent months and lack the protections that employees can obtain if we contact law enforcement officials to intervene in such matters.

Without such protections, lax though they may be, we are never going to be a society in which neighbors can count upon one another for aid and intervention when threatened or harmed by known or unknown persons. My request to Representative Waxman asked that senior legislator to sponsor a bill offering such protections to you and I.

If you support such a concept, please add your voice to mine and write to him at his district office here. Someday, your life may depend upon it.

Anyway, this phone magically ‘synchs’ with email accounts and had so many applications that they seemed to multiply in the dark between phone uses. The numbers of applications, (and I’m still not sure what an ‘app’ is), demonstrated a growth rate which the stock market would envy. I couldn’t seem to turn the phone off and the battery would run down because some of these ‘apps’ never ceased their operations. This was especially puzzling since the internet connection had stopped working, barring me from viewing my beloved email and favorite websites.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like to think I operate my appliances instead of their operating independently or controlling my actions. Other than making occasional phone calls and erasing them as I went, I found few uses for this item which didn’t seem to go awry. Understanding that some assistance was going to be needed by this ‘techno-idiot’, I called the company for phone assistance. Unfortunately, my security password didn’t match the records. Unsurprised by this, given my poor retention of numerical data, I stopped using the phone and set off on a return journey across country to my place of origin, New York City.

Once I’d returned to New York, a new number with a local area code seemed to be in order and I went to a corporate store for help with this process. Their assistance was useful in obtaining my security password and a new phone number. Unfortunately, their manipulations were not successful in helping me regain access to the internet. Returning to the store a few days later to address this important problem, life suddenly became ‘surreal’.

In the corporate store, I enjoyed watching music videos while awaiting my turn at the service desk. Eventually, I was called up and the ensuing encounter was Kafka-esque in the extreme. The specialist had to once again conjure up the security code since the one I recalled from the prior visit appeared incorrect. He then expressed some confusion about the phone’s operation and disappeared into the backroom with it. Emerging a few minutes later, he conferred with other staff, expressing his amazement that not only was there no memory card, but no contacts at all remained in the phone’s memory.

I apologetically explained that the ‘apps’ on the phone were spontaneously generating so I had removed any opportunity for them to amass via expanded memory by removing the card. As it was, the remaining apps still seemed to increase in number and were a constant drain on the battery. Furthermore, I had reset the phone for privacy given the fact that these things were appearing despite the fact that I hadn’t personally conjured them up. Could the same thing happen with a call record? I had no idea!

There was also exasperation expressed by the staff that I had turned off the ‘synch’ feature so my email wasn’t automatically displayed when the darn thing was fired up. Yes, terribly old-fashioned of me but I prefer to call up personal documents myself using my own, favorite search engines. It troubled me that my phone had a more exciting life than I did, being independently active and secretly communing with unknown powers in the universe.

The staff conferred about these apparent eccentricities and consoled one another. The absence of any data in the phone appeared to be a terrible disappointment to them. I vowed to become a more knowledgeable phone user in the future. We then returned to my primary concern about not being able to connect to the internet. Interestingly, no one seemed to know how to restore the internet connection. At that juncture, I decided that having a phone so much smarter than I, was just not an intelligent choice. I requested my account be cancelled, since it was only a month to month contract anyway.

The representative reluctantly agreed to my request and spent a considerable amount of time punching instructions into the little steel rectangle. Standing there, I began to feel a painful ringing in my ears and developed a migraine. Telling the rep that I needed to leave, my intention was to cancel the contract by phone directly with the company.

Unfortunately, that call made later in the evening, didn’t produce the desired results. My security code again failed to unlock the magic of access to my account and I was directed to return to a corporate location. I decided to return to the store without the phone itself, just in case further information managed to enter it without my knowledge or consent. Interestingly, the phone met with an untimely end prior to that trip. My car ran over it after it fell to the ground in a parking lot.

Twice.

Bearing my identification card and the now-defunct phone with me, my next visit to the corporate store went much more quickly. They made a call and informed me that my account was officially canceled. I thanked the staff and left, only to realize it might be a good idea to confirm that the death certificate had actually been recorded with the company itself.

The company disavowed any knowledge of the account changes. However, this time I had the correct security password and the company canceled the account once and for all. Services were held in a tasteful, private ceremony with just myself and a dumpster in attendance.

I like my simple, “pay-as-you-go” cell phone now. It gets strong hissing sounds when I make calls but connects me with others and even lets me surf the web without incurring any degree of angst. If it does have a private life of its own, it doesn’t tell me about it.

And I now have a New York phone number.

Symptomatic of our troubles is the loss of plainly worded information amongst trusted sources of products from foods to drugs. A recent article in the New York Times, “What’s Inside the Bun?” by William Neuman informs us that the government has no requirement for actual disclosure by industry of a products’ contents. In this article, we learn that the nitrates and nitrites many attempt to avoid by purchasing ‘natural’ lunch meats or hot dogs are actually consuming those same, unhealthy preservatives. Because they come from ‘natural’ sources, rather than synthetic, such labels can be highly misleading.

The president of one company cited in the article (I happen to enjoy their natural/organic products), is quoted as saying the U.S. Department of Agriculture has rejected their suggestions as to appropriate labels for use instead of “No nitrates or nitrites added”. These products apparently contain similar concentrations of these chemicals found in more conventional brands. This is particularly disturbing to me as I chose that brand in order to avoid eating nitrates.

My question to company executive is this: Why don’t you put this information on the label yourself and inform your customers of the information they specifically need in making informed choices?

Consumer advocacy groups should consider going right to the industries themselves if labeling is insufficiently informative. We can vote with our purchasing dollars and buy products which offer full disclosure of their ingredients and inform us of any derivative chemicals we are ingesting along with the ‘natural’ ingredients we seek as health-conscious Americans. Just as the Environmental Working Group has published lists of ingredients present in personal care and household products according to their safety, consumer groups can do the same with ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’ foods for ease of decision making.

Cost is often the largest factor in making purchasing decisions when it comes to food. However, knowing the premium paid by those of us weighing future medical costs against the higher prices of natural and organic food products, we must be informed of whether or not these purchases are actually going to yield the expected benefits.

It ought to be up to us.

If you are a ‘blood’ relative of a service veteran, you may be eligible for a variety of insurance services through the federal government at attractive rates. From health to auto insurance, veterans and their families reap an important benefit for their sacrifices on behalf of the country. Please check your own eligibility through USAA.COM and compare it to policies offered by private companies.

In previous posts on this blog, care has been taken to distinguish between products and services which are primary to survival versus those which ought to be considered ‘commodities’ within a competitive, private marketplace. Health insurance is among those services that voters determined should be available to all legal residents in our last presidential election.

Check out the USAA website. There are many in need of these services who may not be aware of these offerings.

A case will win or lose not just on its merits but also upon the manner in which lawyers choose to navigate the legal systems operating at each stage of the litigation. That makes any case, however justified, a gamble for all parties as time marches on. Eleven years have passed since my injuries from pesticide exposures and the case hasn’t yet reached the stage of trial ‘readiness’. The world is full of contradictions and complexities affecting decisions made by legal professionals in such matters and I lacked any clear understanding of these matters as they pertained to my own case.

I felt a consumer complaint to the Attorney General’s office was indicated since a Bar Association inquiry offered no real interpretation of the actions taken (and not taken) by my lawyer. The Bar explained that it is concerned only with ‘ethics’ and not the actual contract between litigants and their lawyers. Investigations of appropriate practice issues is mainly devoted to reviews of trials which may not have reached their expected outcomes. The process is far less invested in looking at legal cases which haven’t reached the trial stage.

The AG’s office said I should find another attorney for assistance.

In my series called “The Morality of Litigation“, the mass acceptance of legal cases without intent to actually try them appears endemic in the system. This institutionalization of sealed settlements versus actual court access is the reason we really can’t expect to alter systems currently in place. Science is disregarded until its bytes of wisdom are accepted by a court of law (e.g. climate change). Being ‘right’ about the need for advance notice of pesticide applications isn’t enough until Congress passes a law making it a necessary procedure. That is unlikely to happen until a lawsuit sets such a precedent.

Mine is unlikely to be among them. My attorney has informed me that he wishes to transfer my case to new counsel for a variety of reasons. Lacking a replacement, it is unlikely I can move forward. However, the loss of this action will not have happened based upon the merits of the case, but upon procedural issues peculiar to the legal industry. They are the gatekeepers we require to gain access to the justice system. My conclusion is that we all look at the legal industry as another form of corporate entity. Ongoing evaluation of any case in the system would appear to be the best guarantee of a positive outcome, whether that means continuing the litigation or ending it before the procedure itself becomes an albatross around the necks of both lawyers and their clients.

The penalties we pay for addressing certain issues are often kept quiet in expectation of such typical responses as:

- Then don’t be an activist. Interesting, but you don’t hear those people complain about activists who died so we wouldn’t have to work in sweat shops. However, the pressures can be enormous so if you must ‘retire’ from the lists, do so with our thanks for the attempt!

-Call the police. Unfortunately, officers of the law generally review each event as a single incident and will not look at the patterns emerging from serial events. They also lack the equipment and budgets to investigate such incidents. In my own case, I have pointed out the problems inherent in using farm chemicals as ‘indoor’ or residential pesticides. I have discussed another posts how I view this as an essential form of diversification on the part of that industry.
If you find yourself frequently ill, consider this as a potential source of injury and test for the presence of such chemicals. It is important to report each event, ultimately reducing the number of incidents.

-You’re just crazy and imagining things. Several automobile body shops differ with that opinion and one of my docs got very tired of having my blood tests show positive indicators of pesticide poisonings even in winter months when none should have been in use. If you’ve read back a few posts, you will have learned that newer-use pesticides can go undetected because few labs have the capacity to handle medical patients as yet, nor are they willing to invest in the equipment. In the USA, safety of chemicals is presumed based upon manufacturer-supplied data. Only when consumers or other exposed individuals become ill, is any presumption of safety challenged. As we are the experimental animals, it is essential that we be able to identify environmental contributions to the ever-rising rates of illness. We can and should be able to demonstrate those materials which are both efficacious and least harmful. We can also modify the ways in which more toxic products are used. This information is crucial if industry is to diversify its product lines in the direction most beneficial to consumers.

The ‘crazy’ line is very useful in keeping complaints at bay but it is important to realize that line is uttered by people wishing to silence complainers. You are the one who bears the burden of such a label for your statements. If you have any concerns about possible harassment or vandalism, band with others to purchase security cameras for your residences and carry a digital camera with you. Such precautions may be an adequate deterrent.

Of course, we know that the level of sales for certain products like pesticides is far too great to be influenced by public opinion. Sales in 2007 reached 12.5 billion dollars in the US market share alone. Mere signatures are highly unlikely to sway such a lucrative business. Researchers, physicians and consumer have long recognized that the science of pesticides is divorced from the technology when it comes to non-agricultural applications. Science is the guiding wisdom for technological breakthroughs. After all, you don’t need an atom bomb to kill an ant, just because you happen to have one handy!

We desperately need an industry devoted to indoor pest control which doesn’t merely transplant farm chemicals to our urban spaces because they already exist. It is up to us to request/pressure industry to diversify in such a direction. The costs of treating illnesses connected with older technologies intended for farming is a heavy and unnecessary burden upon us.

It won’t happen for the asking. Just ask Representative Suzanne Smith of the New Hampshire legislature that has twice been unable to get a bill through their state legislature to reconsider their current policies for pest control in the schools. This mirrors the national barriers which permitted a federal bill to pass in the senate; all fully understood it would not be released for a floor vote in the house. Such bills are intended to both limit the use of the most toxic pesticides in school buildings and permit advance notice to be granted interested parties. The EPA is unable to intervene in such matters unless the pesticide in use is illegal or applied by unlicensed parties. Communities need to plan on how to be better consumers rather than assuming industry regulations can or would be passed by this or any other congress. It isn’t about jobs because the sick don’t work. It’s about quality employment producing products which are used wisely, with full knowledge of our needs and risks.

The EPA expects consumers to intervene on their own behalves, as per their advice to me when I became disabled in 1999. The problem is that I have been unable to do so, a process detailed elsewhere on this blog. One needs a lawyer to take it entirely through the process instead of counting upon a quick settlement. One needs to take the risks attendant upon pointing out defects of industries. I have been advised not to write about these subjects or speak of poisoning, in favor of terms like ‘chemical sensitivity’. This isn’t about regulating agriculture or denying industry their successes. It is about returning capitalism to the ‘trickle-up’ nature of its essence. Buyers are supposed to make the decisions about which products succeed or fail in the market place.

Now the authority of the EPA to regulate pollution may be discarded as part of the price of achieving a budget resolution to avoid a governmental shutdown. We have to ask ourselves if industry actually fails to benefit from reducing pollution over the long haul. Worker productivity is much reduced through increasing rates of illness and disability. Learning abilities are declining with the high numbers of children being identified as having such disabilities and adult onset ADD is being increasingly documented. Of course, such concerns compete with absolute figures and represent an investment in the global community. Industry may or may not be willing to make that investment.

We can refuse to purchase commodities that don’t reflect such intentions. It remains in our hands.

Here is the petition being sent around the internet from the Sierra Club regarding this subject. It notes that EPA powers have nothing to do with the budget resolution issue and therefore should not be a category of governmental efforts which should be held hostage to the need to pass a budget.

My comments were as follows and do include some of the suggested text of that website:

I am extremely grateful to the EPA for investigating a complaint I made in 2000 regarding pesticide use at my school, an event described in my blog called Armchair Activist. However, I have since been disappointed in many of the areas in which they lack the authority (never mind funding) to effect change.

Barbara Rubin

Not so in Rubin V Marathon and Pro-Tech Pest Control. No end date was set and there was no further tangible work product forthcoming despite my best efforts to ensure completion of this preliminary phase of prosecution. It is now 2011 and I still have yet to obtain any new information not already in my possession since 2005. As this state of affairs violates rules which say litigants are entitled to a zealous and timely prosecution of their complaints, I have filed a complaint with the NYS Bar Association regarding my representation. There, I hope to learn whether or not my expectations for legal services are realistic and representative of what the legal system is supposed to offer the public.

I have also filed a complaint with the New York State Office of Attorney General because the proceedings in my case have been most unusual. That office has kindly agreed to investigate apparent irregularities in this process and related matters. At present, I hope to obtain the services of an activist-minded attorney to take over the case and, if possible, complete it. My attorney informed me at the outset that few pesticide cases ever make it to trial and I now understand the reasons for it. I don’t expect to find anyone willing to complete my case.

In actuality, I don’t object to corporate interests. Business makes the world ‘turn’, so to speak and many who read my blog are often disappointed that I am not a fan of socialism. However, current corporate structures do not represent capitalism either. Corporate funded opposition to ‘Big Government’ is actually an opposition to a ‘corporation’ run by the public. The use of tax funds make any government a business which must be open to some degree of scrutiny and participation, even by those without monied influence. Every voter is a share holder. Such checks and balances alter the course of leadership from one of harsh rule to benevolent rule. Leaders of any entity must regard the public ‘good’ as a sustainable concept. A government devoid of social policy (e.g. medical care, poverty supports, senior care, congressional oversight of the military and corporate activity, FOIA rules etc.) can have no hope of striking a balance for its citizens and will be ripe for take-over by those without conscience or benign intent.

Governments can’t operate successfully without corporate-run societal infrastructures offering jobs, products and services. However, corporate short-sightedness also depletes society of highly productive individuals who can build sustainable social structures to reach into the next century. We are rapidly depleting our physical, intellectual and yes, moral, resources among the general populace. It takes government oversight by government shareholders (the taxpayers and voters) to monitor the corporations. Greenpeace is currently prosecuting a RICO case based upon the surveillance and harassment of its activist membership by corporate entities that didn’t need to go to such lengths in operating their businesses. Altering a business plan to ensure that corporate interests are not diametrically opposed to consumer safety or the interests of their own labor pool is not an impossible task. I’ve challenged agribusiness to form a new branch devoted to indoor pest control, replacing the use of farming chemicals in our homes, schools and offices. No one appears to have taken that seriously as yet despite the huge profits to be made. Perhaps some environmental group might convince them eventually without court actions.

The courts are ‘the great levelers’ as Harper Lee’s famed character Atticus Finch said in his closing arguments to a jury in a small southern courtroom in the novel, “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Another disabled teacher, Nancy Swan has also worked hard to keep the courts free to act as ‘great levelers’ in society. I urge you all to review her blog and work. She too, was disabled by toxic chemicals applied in her school many years ago. Her court case took a record fifteen years to complete and had the unexpected side effect of exposing corruption in the judicial system. The sentences of convicted parties are currently under re-consideration making this a very timely post. Civil injustices are as important as criminal cases to every citizen.

This isn’t a discussion about theory. What happens in one state (e.g. Wisconsin) is happening in your own state. What happens in any courtroom in this land, is happening in your backyard. Harper Lee told a story about societal views of (in)justice being institutionalized in our courts. A black man was wrongly convicted of a rape in court because it momentarily served the convenience of that small town’ suffering under depression era conflicts. Discrimination against African Americans remains institutionalized in the justice system despite constitutional guarantees of equality. Nancy Swan proved that commercial interests are institutionalized in our courts and is still seeing to it that governmental checks and balances apply to our court proceedings.

In my case, the ‘jury’ is still ‘out’. And will likely never be convened, at least in my lifetime.