Government will collude in this process through the expenditure of tax revenues to treat the sick. More will be spent conducting the tests that industry should have conducted during their R&D process, merely to certify the trauma that fracking creates under the earth and in our homes. By the time it is no longer profitable to collect fuel in this manner (through depletion or health costs), the EPA will threaten to end the practice. Ultimately, industry will voluntarily ‘drop’ it, ostensibly to avoid litigation and without admitting fault. In the meantime, politicians will build reputations by endlessly debating the matter threatening job losses while the opposition touts environmental degradation.

Maybe, someone will mention the children at various medical conferences and many petitions will be signed. It isn’t cynical to point out that billions of dollars in profits can never be countered through petitions, demonstrations or dialogue with politicians whose campaign funds are richly supplemented by these companies. It is also the reality of our history in marketing poisons with unanticipated health effects and the marketing of others with highly predictable effects. It simply isn’t possible not to expect horrendous adverse effects when marketing chemicals originally invented for purposes of chemical warfare like pesticides.

Just as our economy collapsed through the ‘trickle-down’ model of economics, so has the health of our citizens by expectations that essential research and development for safe products and services will come from industry. The demand for relegating large numbers of the population to illness, disability and death is not a trade-off for jobs but a defense of overly inflated profits. The ‘cult of never-enough’ is a tangible reality and its members are quick to designate those suffering illness as either being ‘too sensitive’ to chemicals or genetically defective. Given the national cancer rate is over 40%, the march towards complete insolvency through bending to such propaganda is close at hand.

The facts relating to the various diagnoses of those suffering from the intrusion of industrial chemicals into our personal environments offers an entirely new take upon this problem. Discussing the amounts of benzene in water will always be derailed by discussions of the extensive investment being made in water treatment. People are still sick. Why not test our own personal air and water quality? It is far cheaper to do so as a check upon industrial activity than to wait for decades to pass in which a few sites will ultimately be targeted for clean-up. The time for trusting we will be told what is necessary is over.

This blog is full of stories pertaining to the toxicity of pesticides, substances I have measured in offices and residences through certified laboratories in order to determine health risks. Yet, this is a rarely performed service apart from agricultural soil samples. It took the deaths of two children in Utah before outdoor applications of pesticides were openly acknowledged as resulting in indoor contamination and confirmed through such indoor testing. Chemicals travel through doors, walls and windows. Typically, we are concerned about radon entering through foundations and indoor fuels releasing carbon monoxide into our air. The Tooney family of Layton, Utah had their lawn treated with a pesticide. Most of the family suffered illness following this application and carbon monoxide detectors sounded their alarms. However, no measurable concentrations of CO were found by firefighters called to the scene. After the tragic deaths of two little girls, readings for the active ingredient of the chemical used were finally taken and found to be elevated. The surviving family members returned to the home when readings were no longer in evidence.

The reader is urged to note that the fines for contaminating property are cited at a much higher amount than those for endangering human health. The ability to detect such causation of human health problems is due to our lack of testing facilities and protocols. Residues of chemicals can be assessed through air testing and by their absorption by furnishings, carpet or sheet rock. Porous materials capture toxicants and re-release them into the air as temperatures rise or cleaning is attempted, like baseboard heaters which are often the target of exterminator wands as an entry port for insects. Is there any reason to believe that chemicals released through ‘fracking’ would leave less of a signature than pesticides? We have only to conduct tests of the homes of the more obvious sufferers to find out.

Chemicals behave differently in enclosed spaces. We lack an industry truly devoted to indoor pest control. Such chemicals have never been subjected to a re-approval process to determine the degree to which they behave differently indoors. Toxic chemicals emitted by many products we purchase such as insulation, paint, furniture, carpets and air fresheners are of equal concern. We can make wiser choices as consumers if we know the hazardous ingredients used in many of these and, should symptoms develop, could test for them and ensure physicians have a fully accurate exposure history for their patients.

The public is responsible for citing dangers to our own health. Corporations have the rights of citizenship in the US, no matter where they are based. We must therefore accept that our elected leaders have a duty to guard corporate interests, however much in conflict this stands with our own rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

My comment on this article:

148.

Barbara Rubin
Ca.
February 27th, 2011
9:45 am

Key quotes from the article:

.
“Like most of the sewage treatment plant operators interviewed, Mr. McCurdy said his plant was not equipped to remove radioactive material and was not required to test for it.” and ““If we’re too hard on them,” the inspector added, “the companies might just stop reporting their mistakes.”

******************************
Once again, the pollution plaguing our nation is reduced to the concept that chemicals, known to be incompatible with human biochemistry, are worth any risk as long as jobs are offered by the offending industry. No one appears to recognize that workers are immediately divorced from their jobs by occupationally related illness and succumb to bankruptcy as illnesses strike family members living in such environs. However, there is no gain to be had in arguing environmental hazards away from those environments. Does anyone expect a board of directors to admit potential liability?

Our health statistics speak for themselves. It is time to problem-solve issues of pollution ‘inductively’, extrapolating from the specific to the general. Testing the individual homes of the sick for levels of suspected toxicants will reveal both the degree of chemical trespass long denied by polluters. It will also offer physicians and researchers the data needed to make the associations between symptoms and contaminants. Why pose questions outside of the specific settings of concern—our homes, schools and offices? It is no accident that in 2008, the New York City Council proposed a ban on private testing for contaminants without a police permit. The findings of citizens engaged in uncovering their own dangers is greatly feared by industries and governmental agencies.

Let’s make it a routine occurrence through the development of an industry devoted to indoor air quality assessment. Questions about actual environmental impacts upon individual can then be answered, leading to responsible policies and regulations. Perhaps we can then reduce the health care costs currently crippling our economy.

Barbara Rubin

As the most recent legislator to introduce a bill on “Toxics”, I have sent your office copies of the following correspondence because you and your colleagues in Washington need to know that we, the people, are unable to safe-guard our own health from one of the most common hazards around today—modern pesticides. While these chemicals may be effective in increasing crop yields, they have still found their way into our homes, offices, hospitals, schools and every location where people gather. Current laws to assess the success or failure of moving farm chemicals into non-agricultural locations do not allow citizens and their physicians to find out if this experiment has succeeded or failed. We have no means of learning this because of restrictions keeping laboratories from developing testing panels to learn about how pesticides affect human biochemistry and influence health.

In 2002, the CDC had researchers test the bodily fluids of 3000 Americans, confirming that 70% of them had been exposed to sufficient amounts of a class of pesticides called ‘pyrethroids’, to have those by-products (metabolites) identified in their urine. How much is too much? We don’t know because physicians are unable to order the same tests performed for CDC research. No labs exist for the medical monitoring of patients. When an individual demonstrates exposure related illness, it cannot be directly confirmed despite the existence of protocols to measure it as per the cited studies above. Veterinary laboratories can do this but not human laboratories. In humans, harm must be inferred through the temporal association of exposure, assuming one knows of it, with meeting descriptions of adverse effects cited directly on the pesticide labels. The EPA confirms the need for medical monitoring in their own publication, “The Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning.” Beginning as ‘flu-like’ symptoms, with respiratory symptoms, nausea, cramping, headache and so forth, intensifying into more frank signs of central nervous system effects. These can include the inability to sleep, nervousness, attention deficits, tremor and convulsions. Irreversible damage can result if sufficient numbers of nerve cells are damaged.

These chemicals target nerve cells (of insects and people) to stop working by hyper-activating them. Nerve cells fire excessively due to alterations of the sodium ion channels on the nerve axons. The resulting over-stimulation of the nervous system leads to paralysis and death in insects. Applied to the skins of animals for flea and tick control, pyrethroids and pyrethrins are known to kill small animals. Veterinary toxicologists don’t actually know the lethal dosages for these products on animals and therefore don’t recommend their use on cats. If the animals suffer sub-clinical signs of damage, it doesn’t appear to be monitored in terms of behavior and learning ability. Do we really want to measure safety only in terms of lethal effects?

What about people? When pyrethroids and pyrethrins are applied indoors, these products not only contain the active ingredients designed to disrupt nerve cell functions but also ‘other’ chemicals called synergists, which keep targeted and untargeted life forms from swiftly eliminating the poisons from the body. One such ingredient, piperonyl butoxide targets the liver to accomplish this goal. It is also known that these products also affect the endocrine system which regulates hormonal activity. They can contain ingredients which are suspected or confirmed carcinogens. The nature of pesticides, from their active ingredients to the petrochemicals solvents used to deliver them in liquid sprays, guarantees an array of problems will be brought indoors which were of less concern when their use was limited to large, open areas, away from concentrations of residential properties. Bio-monitoring in research has been an invaluable tool for observing unexpected effects such as the affect of farm chemicals on entire communities. Bio-monitoring has permitted conclusions to be reached about the effects of dietary exposures in children. Unless we are aware of these levels, we cannot identify the points at which we need to be clinically concerned and corrective action taken for the health of patients.

I was at my doctor’s office yesterday and we had an interesting discussion about this because he was helpless to find a resource to determine if I was being exposed to these chemicals. Someone has been spraying substances on my car which make me feel sick and are sometimes visible to the eye. A couple of highway patrol officers have been kind enough to even photograph the visible residues and one police officer took a sample of it last summer. Unfortunately, the police laboratory did nothing with it because they don’t have the forensic capacities to do such analysis according to detectives. The CHP was most apologetic that the best they could do was take those photographs and note the incidents. Interestingly, one of these increasingly common incidents took place last month as I was returning to a friend’s home after meeting with Congressman Waxman’s staff (about toxic chemicals) in Los Angeles. Nothing more could be done in the absence of lab testing and it isn’t possible to have that done, contrary to movie and television scripts leading us to believe that the use of forensic science is common in law enforcement.

And that is simply wrong in this day and age of information which enables us to monitor our intriguing technologies. Where is the guiding wisdom of science when it comes to ensuring our tools are safe for us to use in each new application found for those products? Whether it’s smart-meters for calculating our electricity usage or a can of pesticides someone buys at a local store, we have the ability to find out if it is working to our advantage or to our disadvantage. Since our government is minimally ‘invasive’ in regulating commerce unlike Europe where chemicals are supposed to be tested now for safety before they are marketed, it is up to consumers to develop the body of evidence via experience and sometimes through the courts. That takes access to all information about the circumstances surrounding their use. Unless, for some reason, it is deemed by industry more desirable not to tell us.

Over the past five years, I have been attempting to obtain missing ‘paper discovery’, i.e. my records of employment by YAI/National Institute for People With Disabilities and their sub-division, the New York League for Early Learning based in New York City. I was employed there between 1995 and 2000, at which point I retired on disability with a diagnosis of “Toxic Effects of Chemicals”. The EPA actually suggested I file this suit because they have little or no authority to regulate where various registered pesticides are used and depend upon citizens to exercise our own legal rights in these matters. Civil procedure requires all parties in a suit to exchange information. All of it.

Those attempts have been unsuccessful to this day and my attorney has been reluctant to dispense with the polite formalities and file a motion to compel. I have written about this litigation as an example of how law suits aren’t an evil instrument for profit, but a means for evolving legal safeguards about our use of technology as experience teaches us more about it.

The School Environment Protection Act was introduced (and twice passed in the Senate) which not only endorsed our right to know and consent to the use of pesticides in and around schools, but limited or prohibited the use of the particular types that damage the central nervous system. It cannot be written into law simply because the House of Representatives has never had the opportunity to consider voting on it. The Committee on Agriculture has been ‘studying’ it for a decade although it has no connection with agriculture. That is a lot of study and very little action, requiring us to ask the question of why the Senate was convinced this was a sound measure while our representatives in congress aren’t allowed to reach their own conclusions about it. Had they done so in 1999, I might not be writing this now and there certainly would not have been a need to file this law suit.

My lawsuit asserts that I was poisoned by the use of chemicals actually invented for outdoor use but which are likely to be found in the majority of schools in American today for lack of information about their use (advance notification) and selection of more benign (least toxic) forms of pest control. To the best of my knowledge, my employers were not responsible for the use of these chemicals as they didn’t own the building rented to house our school program, nor did they hire the pest control company which applied the chemicals. The missing records should corroborate the testimony I provided many years ago as they became aware of the changes in my health and ultimate need to retire. Indeed, they supported my application for disability based upon chemical exposures. When I filed suit, the defendants were the ones to sue my employers and assert they might hold some degree of responsibility.

I still have not been privileged to obtain those records and my suit is currently marked ‘disposed’ in the courts pending completion of discovery. Those documents are key yet remain unavailable to me after many years of waiting through the legal process which remains largely incomprehensible to me. In the absence of my ability to advance the legal questions surrounding product safety for certain current-use pesticides, we must return to the ability of citizens to assess health concerns which arise from their use.

Mr. Lautenberg, below is my latest correspondence with the EPA. That correspondence began with this blog post about pesticide regulation. I hope this letter will be the last needed to direct legislative efforts at the most basic level of safety monitoring. Just this morning, my reply from the EPA informs me that that agency has no interest or authority in ensuring their approved chemicals are actually safe for use by the public. Frankly, I can’t find a single agency which does so I imagine this is the type of situation our forefathers envisioned when they put a clause in the Constitution which allows Congress to legislate matters affecting commerce where they deem it necessary.

It is necessary. Just ask the American Association of Environmental Medicine about their frustration with regard to the limitations they face on assessing patient exposures. Review the testimony of an esteemed pediatric expert who testified before Congress on these matters, Dr. Phillip Landrigan. Let us have the ability to medically assess our exposures and correlate findings with symptoms. Forensic testing in the matter of ‘suspicious’ appearances of chemicals should not be limited to fiction seen on television shows, but a working reality. We are citizens first, and consumers second. Medical insurance isn’t useful to us if medical procedures to confirm the sources of our illnesses aren’t available to us.

Thank you for your attention.

Barbara Rubin

My recent correspondence with the EPA about laboratory testing for their approved chemicals received a reply recommending I contact other agencies:

Dear Ms. Rubin,

I contacted our EPA pesticide lab for assistance. They suggested that there are at least a few commercial laboratories that can test for pesticides in blood, urine and tissues. A quick Google search turned up
ABC Laboratories and Columbia Analytical Services as sources for those tests. However, the analytical testing would likely be expensive. In addition, your email said you were concerned about pyrethroid exposure.
They also pointed me to a listing of pesticides that have been found to be able to be tested for by clinical labs:

http://npic.orst.edu/mcapro/PesticidesTestingForExposure.pdf.

You might want to contact the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) if you have not spoken to them previously. They have a medical toxicologist available who might be able to advise your doctors. You
can reach them at 800-858-7378.

I hope this helps.

Claire Gesalman
Chief, Communication Services Branch
Office of Pesticide Programs
www.epa.gov/pesticides
Ask a question: http://pesticides.supportportal.com/

=========================

My reply to that detailed my prior contacts with those laboratories and pesticide information facilities:

Dear Ms. Gesalman,

Thank you for your note but I have spoken with the NPIC extensively and their list of labs is simply that – a list of labs who all tell me they are not equipped to do this kind of testing because there is no profit to be found in it. The listing in the file you provided doesn’t even name the current-use pesticides in the class I mention. I have spoken with the CDC and EPA criminal divisions and all I hear is that there are no known labs which do medical assessments outside of research. Even law enforcement can’t test for such chemicals in a tremendous breach of concern for homeland security. Indeed, conversations with FEMA and the office of Homeland Security indicated that they hadn’t even considered this question.

In the article posted at my blog addressing Administrator Jackson, I described the lack of facilities for bio-monitoring in the US and Canada for these ubiquitous chemicals. I called the researcher whose name appeared in a CDC study from 2002 in which 70% of Americans (sample size of 3,000) showed metabolites of these chemicals in urine. She confirmed the fact that she cannot carry out medical testing nor are there other facilities known to her. Without physician access to testing, there is no possible way for Americans to find out if these chemicals, known neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors, are present in large enough concentrations to be responsible for particular symptom constellations or rising rates in known diseases like Diabetes etc. Right now, the presumption is ‘no harm’ because there is no monitoring to indicate otherwise. An absence of data is not proof of safety and is a direct violation of the FIFRA laws, requiring some means of assessment.

Dursban was only banned because physicians were able to look at the enzyme suppression it caused in all exposed victims, many of whom suffered egregious and permanent damage. In fact, many labs have expressed an interest in running the necessary tests as these chemicals are widely used to fog entire neighborhoods in vector control operations. I’ve been told by at least one lab that their state demanded such exorbitant fees for the permit required to conduct such testing, that the lab would never be able to recoup their investment in that market. Such a fee structure would indicate that it is no accident that labs have never acquired the equipment needed for these panels.

If labs are competent, why are they paying any fees to be able to monitor chemicals approved for use by the EPA? Some exposures are by consumer choice but, like second hand smoke, even more individuals are affected merely being in the vicinity of treated locations. These are farm chemicals displaced for sale and use within indoor settings. Obviously, they behave differently outdoors, and humans have longer exposure times indoors with the slower rates of degradation and absorption by permeable materials.

This isn’t merely a disregard for the health of citizens but it is a detriment to the marketplace itself. Failure to monitor the performance of farm chemicals in this manner is inhibiting product R&D designed for indoor locations. People are not crops and the EPA, which is doing it’s best to tell consumers not to use these products (indirectly of course), are allowing ignorance to govern the marketplace for pesticides even as statistics record ever-increasing rates of illness in Americans.

At this time, I am in need of assessment for exposures to these chemicals and have wasted months in searching for facilities that even the government can’t locate. Can a research lab be given permission to do this testing? As for expense, my exposures to organophosphates were assessed under my Medicare plan. If I am forced to live in a society which uses pyrethroids without any restraint or notice to me, my insurance ought to cover such things. Medical costs actually drive reform in product safety. We legislated against the use of tobacco indoors because of the costs to society in medical care and discovered Avandia was a hazardous drug by looking at Medicare and Medicaid expenses for cardiac problems among Avandia users.

Let the system work for pesticides as well. And we shouldn’t be naïve about these chemicals harming our armed forces and numerous injuries to civilians in their homes and on the job. We know about the potential for damage. Only through medical monitoring can we learn about the parameters guiding safe use of these products. Can you help me get tested when I am next exposed?

Barbara Rubin

cc: Congressman Waxman
Senator Lautenberg
Senator Boxer
Senator Feinstein
Administrator Jackson

===============================

And my final response from EPA was received this morning, entirely dispensing with their role in safety monitoring of approved pesticides:

RE: Your email to EPA
Sent: Thu 12/09/10 9:16 AM

Dear Ms. Rubin,

Have you contacted commercial labs such as the ones listed in the email I sent you yesterday? Our lab thought labs such as those should be able to test for pyrethroids. We don’t have anything to do with fees for testing. That is not something EPA requires or would be involved with. You would have to contact the state that sets such fees to find out why they charge fees for labs to conduct testing. In terms of whether
medical testing is available, again, that is not in EPA’s purview. The agencies that set standards for medical monitoring, etc. would be part of Health and Human Services, I would think. You mention research
laboratories. EPA cannot “give permission” to labs related to doing studies, due to strict rules about research on human subjects. Other agencies also have to abide by similar rules. But again, there are no
restrictions on commercial labs, if you can find one that has the capability to do the testing you desire.

Perhaps your best bet the next time you believe you have been exposed to a pesticide would be to call the Poison Control Center at 800-222-1222 and ask their advice.

Sincerely,

Claire Gesalman
Chief, Communication Services Branch
Office of Pesticide Programs
www.epa.gov/pesticides
Ask a question: http://pesticides.supportportal.com/

============================
Final Note:

Legislators and Administrator Jackson – Bio-monitoring is not about using humans for research purposes. It is straightforward medical practice. Poison control has no recommendation to make other than to see your physician. We already know how that approach turns out.

Congress has the power to intervene in matters of commerce when the commercial sector fails to meet the need citizens believe meets our basic right to know or need for assurances of safety. This is a matter pertaining to the medical, as well as the chemical, industries When knowledgeable individuals like myself can’t obtain basic information regarding our health and safety or pursue legal recourse in a timely manner, what is the average citizen to do who is largely unaware of exposures, along with their physicians?

Will this take an executive order? Must I go to the President of the United States with this conundrum?

Yes, that is a recurring theme on this blog because, as even the CDC has remarked, pesticides are ubiquitous in our environment. There is no escaping exposures to these toxic chemicals despite the body of laws contained in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), supposedly governing their use. No one can take that act seriously, if you look at the history of our modern veterans, terribly damaged from pesticides and herbicides.

The full truth of that damage continues to be denied while we supposedly ‘honor’ our heroes of wars past and present, all exposed to intensive amounts and combinations of these dangerous poisons. Who doesn’t know of ‘Agent Orange’? That era prompted decades of denial by the US government regarding the extent to which herbicides destroyed the health of so many Vietnam soldiers and the Vietnamese themselves. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs has only just gotten around to recognizing several more diseases stemming from such exposures, in addition to those recognized earlier. The term “earlier” is relative. It wasn’t until the 1990s that claims of injury from decades of use for this defoliant, in jungles and on crops, began to be compensated.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) chided the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2004 for its inadequate review of the science pertaining to the enormous number of veterans sickened during this brief (1990 -1991) action in the Persian Gulf. With around 175,000 of those soldiers reporting illnesses related to their service, Veterans Affairs head Eric Shineski recently released new guidelines for ‘presumptive’ approval of requests for assistance with the resulting disabilities. Finally recognizing the need to acknowledge many impressive studies from diverse sources, the Institute of Medicine reviewed those which had been published since 2005. Interestingly, their summary specifically cited adverse effects of cholinesterase suppressing chemicals (as in a now-banned group of pesticides) as being implicated in the ‘multi-system’ illness typical of many veterans. The report leaves the door to future findings wide open, as scientists continue to scrutinize the many systemic changes chemicals can induce. Of course, pyrethroid pesticides were heavily used in the Gulf War. Uniforms were soaked in those pesticides and central nervous system damage has been documented when these are combined with exposures to chemicals inducing other biochemical changes. We have yet to see any governmental policies demonstrating that we’ve learned from studies of human exposures being used by governmental institutions in granting veterans benefits. Indeed, the EPA is out of compliance with FIFRA laws pertaining to the bio-monitoring of our use for these chemicals throughout the United States. Nearly every American is exposed, with pyrethroids now a staple of the pesticide industry.

If only pesticides were scrutinized before marketing and vendors were forbidden to tout the safety of their products to users.

Of course, service related disabilities have provided a new crop of clients for lawyers to reap since a 2006 ruling allowed those denied benefits to obtain counsel for appeals. A 2007 article in the ABA Journal (Law News) notes that there were lawyers who’d taken up to a thousand clients in pursuit of veterans benefits were ‘well-intentioned’ but inadequate to such a task.

No kidding.

The blind eye turned towards the misuse of pesticides is a war on our population. Only the multi-national corporations bent upon expanding the sale of farm chemicals to urban populations can benefit. There should be an entirely new industry devoted to the science of safe indoor pest control which has nothing to do with protecting crops and weed control. A new study just demonstrated how populations of malaria-carrying mosquitoes can be safely reduced without harmful insecticides. We should certainly be capable of managing our households from lesser hazards. The Department of Agriculture has responsibility for the investigation and enforcement of pesticide regulations outside of agricultural settings where regulations don’t respect the difference between indoor and outdoor settings in the degradation of chemicals or the degree to which airborne residues linger inside closed spaces. The incredible toll taken on our health care system alone in acute and chronic illnesses resulting from these differences is something we should learn from our Veterans. They have so much to teach us about common sense and prioritizing the importance of people over the tragic consequences of going to war for financial gain as in ‘oil’ or for reconstruction contracts for industries.

We can at least honor their sacrifices by progressing in our use of these wartime technologies. Let’s not forget that pesticides were invented for use as chemical warfare agents. That fact alone, should make it all the more apparent that we need to reconsider their use in our lives. Technology is merely a tool and therefore requires scientific wisdom to utilize it in all its forms.

My recent blog posts have all referred to issues of pesticide poisoning in my own, personal experience and from reports of other incidents in the schools. I have posted about the adverse effects of these chemicals in the community at large when used lawfully and unlawfully. Most recently, I noted the absence of measures to detect and investigate it have become institutionalized in our country. Adverse effects of older use pesticides could be seen in lowered blood concentrations of particular enzymes and environmental sampling would reveal the particular agent responsible, if there was no documented application on record. Many in that class of chemicals (organophosphates) are currently banned for use in homes and schools although residues may persist and drift from legal applications in nearby farms or commercial properties can still lead to contamination. However, very few laboratories are set up to analyze samples collected from homes or schools in order to detect the newer pyrethroid pesticides, so widely used today. One lab tech informed me that there were no mandates as yet for running such tests and therefore few labs were re-tooling to conduct such analyses. Even more disturbing is the absence of medical laboratories to assess bodily tissues and fluids for absorbed pesticides because the CDC already detected them in the majority of Americans in their 2002 study of three thousand individuals.

In this age of terrorism which uses chemical nerve agents, it is ridiculous that we can’t even measure the presence/effects of nerve agents which are legally applied. That has led industry to make specious claims that the high frequency of usage of those products is, by itself, evidence that these products are ‘safe’. Claims of safety are illegal under FIFRA laws governing the use of pesticides. All that is demonstrated is that adverse effects are going undocumented. These inadequately researched chemicals on the market today are going to harm an entire generation before exposure data is finally mandated as per laws currently on the books.

As you will see from my own litigation experience, we can’t rely upon legal actions to protect society in general. Cases like my own which survive dismissal motions can languish for years in the dockets. There are no regulations which ensure timely prosecutions of cases and, as discussed in prior posts, trial is rarely on the horizon for any action. Discovery remains incomplete even in my own, eight year old case before the NYS Civil Supreme Court. For those of you who have asked to read the actual complaint as filed, you will see it in its entirety, under the cut below. This is the legalese which placed my injuries before the courts, although it may never see actual trial. While publicity surrounding the case reduces my chances of obtaining a settlement, I have made it clear that sealed settlements which hide the nature of injuries leading to court actions, are immoral because they don’t allow for precedents to be set that will protect others from similar hazards. If we can’t learn from these events, they are just another ‘day at the office’ for US citizens instead of a tool to assist in the evolution of society and in refining our use of dangerous technologies.

My injury in a school setting should never have happened. Repeated attempts have been made since 1990 to set legal guidelines for the kinds of toxic chemicals which can be used in schools, as well as the procedures for their safe application. Two decades later, these protections continue to be denied to staff and children despite widespread knowledge of acute and chronic illnesses which pesticides cause. The Senate has passed such measures twice in different versions of the School Environment Protection Act. However, this measure remains the hostage of the Committee on Agriculture in the House of Representatives where it has been refused a floor vote for over a decade.

I’ve always believed that reasonable adults can reach a consensus regarding any issue because we all have common interests. Bosses and workers need each other and so must work towards mutually advantageous business structures. Landlords, tenants and neighbors want peaceful living arrangements. Mature people recognize one another as independent agents working cooperatively towards mutually beneficial goals.

Partnerships are formed and agreements are made because goals are rarely reached in isolation. Success happens to be sweeter when attained by the maximum number of individuals within any group. That is what it takes to produce a product, develop a novel scientific discovery, or operate institutions such as those devoted to the education of children. Constitutional and legal provisions are a codification of common sense ways in which individuals intersect for the benefit of all. The courts are there when irrational impulses rule and benefit is sought at the expense of another.

I did my best to avoid conflicts in that school program by making advance arrangements to avoid the use of toxic substances in a setting which was mainly occupied by the most vulnerable of populations – very young children with disabilities. The courts will have the final say. In the absence of any rulings, let my example be sufficient warning to create new ways to keep our children and teachers safe in their schools.

Complaint:

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT QUEENS COUNTY

BARBARA RUBIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. VERIFIED COMPLAINT

MARATHON JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER Index No. 14425/02

and PRO-TECH PEST CONTROL COMPANY INC.

Defendants

———————————————————-

Plaintiff by her attorneys, Allen & Lippes, as and for her complaint against

Defendants alleged the following on information and belief:

PARTIES

1.

Plaintiff Barbara Rubin, resides 529 East Chester Avenue, Long Beach, New York 11561.
2.

Defendant, Marathon Jewish Community Center (hereinafter, “MARATHON”) is a business existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and is located at 245-37 60th Avenue, Douglaston, New York 11362.
3.

Defendant Pro-Tech Pest Control Company, Inc, (hereinafter “PRO-TECH”) is a domestic corporation existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York with its principle offices located at One Village Plaza, Kings Park, New York 11754.

BACKGROUND FACTS

4.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Barbara Rubin suffers from, what the American Medical Association describes as “toxic effects of chemicals, non-medicinal,” which greatly affects her daily activities and has led to a substantial decrease in her quality of life.
5.

Plaintiff first began her relationship with the National Institute for People with Disabilities/New York League for Early Learning (hereinafter, “YAI/NYL”) when she interviewed for a pediatric speech and language supervisory position in the summer of 1995.
6.

At said interview, Plaintiff informed the panel interviewing her that she experienced significant reactions to a number of chemicals and fragrances and that if hired she would need some type of accommodation plan in order to effectively carry out the duties of her employment.
7.

Plaintiff was subsequently employed in October 1995 with an understanding that she had secured a verbal accommodation with her employers to alleviate any unnecessary exposure to chemicals substances to which she had negative reactions.
8.

One such accommodation that was provided to Plaintiff was that the pest exterminator hired by YAI/HYL would be contacted, and the spraying of pesticides would be arranged each Friday afternoon after 3:00 p.m. Thereby allowing Plaintiff to avoid unnecessary exposure to sensitive chemicals.
9.

Although there was the occasional unavoidable accident regarding Plaintiff’s contact with substances to which she was sensitive, the Plaintiff was able to work efficiently for about a year before any major incidents took place, receiving accolades from her employer regarding her work.
10.

On or about a year after Plaintiff’s hire, the exterminators arrived on a Thursday evening and sprayed for pests, contrary to her accommodation plan. When the Plaintiff reported to work the following morning, she immediately fell ill, experienced labored breathing and was on the verge of fainting. It was later determined that the exterminator had arrived the night before and sprayed a substance, Dursban, which is a chemical known by the Plaintiff to cause her significant negative medical reactions.
11.

After the aforementioned incident occurred, accommodations were again made with the exterminating company to provide prior notice of any spraying and to allow for adequate ventilation after any spraying incident.
12.

During her second year of employment, Plaintiff began to develop asthma to do unknown exposure to chemicals which Plaintiff believes was the result of residual extermination chemicals and/or continued use of said chemicals.
13.

In the beginning of 1998, a water-main break occurred outside the Gramercy School, where the Plaintiff was currently employed. Said water-main break resulted in numerous floods to area buildings including the Gramercy School. The boilers and furnace of said school were flooded as a result of the water-main break and numerous individuals, including the Plaintiff, experienced pronounced odors of petroleum throughout the building as a result of the flooded boiler and furnace.
14.

Upon her exposure to the petroleum odors, Plaintiff, as well as other individual in the building, became ill on site. However, due to the Plaintiff’s heightened sensitivity to chemicals, her illness was much more severe than the other employees. As a result, Plaintiff was temporarily transferred to another set of offices across town. During said period of relocation, Plaintiff felt much better when she was away from the Gramercy School than when she was at that site.
15.

Numerous complaints were made by several employees to the director of the preschool program requesting that testing be performed in the building to determine the adequacy of the indoor air quality.
16.

A month after the aforementioned water-main break, Plaintiff was contacted by the director of YAI/NYL and was told that the Gramercy School had undergone indoor air testing and that it, the school, had a major ventilation problem. The director further represented that as a result of the deficient indoor air quality, anyone with respiratory problems would be negatively affected, including the Plaintiff and the director himself.
17.

Plaintiff persevered despite the incident and continued to efficiently attend to her duties at the Gramercy School, albeit at a significantly reduced rate, ie two hours per day. In addition to the performance of her duties at the Gramercy School, Plaintiff continued to work out of the YAI/NYL Manhattan office.
18.

Soon, however, the Plaintiff began to again become ill as soon as she would enter the Gramercy School due to the school coordinator’s decision to use perfume deodorizers in all of the bathrooms and perfume cleaners on every floor. Although Plaintiff attempted to inform the coordinator that said perfumes and odors were making her extremely ill, these substances were continued in use in violation of the accommodation plan.
19.

After one particularly bad day in April of 1998, wherein Plaintiff collapsed at the Gramercy School, Plaintiff refused to ever enter the building again. This decision was made despite the numerous attempts by the Plaintiff to work with her employer to provide her a toxin free environment.
20.

After Plaintiff expressed her concerns to the YAI/NYL executive director, she was later transferred to the Douglaston School in Queens, New York in or about July of 1998. Said school was leased by YAI/NYL from the building’s owner, Defendant Marathon.
21.

Plaintiff was informed by her employer that with her new supervisory position at said school, she would be able to substantially control the environmental conditions which surrounded her and thus reduce her chances to be exposed to chemicals which made her extremely ill.
22.

Plaintiff was told to contact Defendant Marathon directly to secure a suitable environment not only for the Plaintiff’ but also for the individual students who attended the school and who also suffered from various respiratory conditions.
23.

In accordance with her employer’s recommendations, Plaintiff contacted Josephine Fabre, the office manager at Defendant Marathon Jewish Community Center. Plaintiff informed Ms. Fabre of her sensitivity to certain chemicals and perfumes and requested that reasonable measures be taken to reduce the chances of exposure to said chemicals which caused extreme negative reactions in the Plaintiff. Ms. Fabre, as a representative of the Defendant Marathon, agreed to assist Plaintiff in anyway possible. Plaintiff was told by the Defendant Marathon’s representative, that the Defendant Pro-Tech would be informed of the accommodation given to the Plaintiff. Moreover, Rhonda Kontner, a member of the board of the directors fo the Defendant was made aware of the accommodation needed by the Plaintiff.
24.

Plaintiff and Mrs. Fabre, the representative of Defendant Marathon, also spoke directly to a representative of Defendant Pro-Tech regarding necessary accommodations needed for spraying. Plaintiff informed Defendant Pro-Tech that the need for advance warning of any spraying was due to Plaintiff’s extreme reaction to the types of chemicals commonly used by exterminating companies.
25.

Although Plaintiff received these guarantees, she still watned to have her previous verbal accommodations with YAI/NYL reduced to writing to ensure any mishaps such as those which occurred at Gramercy School, were avoided at the Douglaston School.
26.

Plaintiff finally received her written accommodation plan ten months after her hire at the Douglaston School.
27.

Plaintiff Barbara Rubin, during her first year at Douglaston School effectuated her own environmental control over the areas to which she was supervisor by removing perfume and other chemicals which cause adverse reactions not only hin her, but also in dindivudal students who suffered from various respiratory problems.
28.

In or about June of 1999, Plaintiff was informed by Ms. Fabre that the Defendant Mrathon wanted the entire building sprayed for pests. This advance notice demonstrated to Plaintiff that the Defendant Marathon was aware of her sensitivities and was willing to accommodate the Plaintiff by providing her advance notice of any exterminations.
29.

When Plaintiff returned to work in the beginning of July 1999, she began to react to undetermined conditions present at the Defendant Marathon’s building. Plaintiff began to experience periods of dizziness, headaches, nausea, cramps, chest tightening, weakness, fatigue, tremors, occasional numbness on her right side and the onset of neurological problems. Beginning from this time forth, Plaintiff was never again well at the Douglaston building. These symptoms increased in their severity over the next several months.
30.

In or about August of 1999, Plaintiff saw an environmental allergist who informed her that her reactions were now becoming neurological in nature. Due to these increased reactions, Plaintiff was prescribed oxygen to reduce the severity of the reactions.
31.

Although the prescribed oxygen was helpful for the Plaintiff to continue her duties at the Defendant Marathon’s building, Plaintiff was experiencing the continued chronic discomfort mentioned above in severity which would was and wane from week to week.
32.

Plaintiff began to suspect that her reactions were either a result of neurological disease or that certain pesticides might be in use at the Defendant Marathon’s building in violation of the written accommodation plan she had with her employer and despite the knowledge of the Defendant Marathon of Plaintiff’s medical reactions and agreement to accommodate her.
33.

Plaintiff experienced symptoms everyday, including but not limited to poor concentration, fatigue, clumsiness, loss of appetite, headaches, nausea, and fiber myalgia (chronic pain generalized). Plaintiff’s short term memory was less reliable than before and Plaintiff’s short term memory loss appeared to be escalating in severity.
34.

Plaintiff’s supervisor, B. Kestenbaum, YAI/NYL, instructed her to do research to determine a landlord’s obligations to disclose applications of chemicals to tenants, and permitted her to interview companies who performed pest control utilizing non-toxic means. When Plaintiff interviewed said companies, the supervisor of the Douglaston School, B. Kestenbaum, was present during a few of these interviews of the companies.
35.

In or about December of 1999, Plaintiff requested the labels of any pesticides used in the building from the Defendant Marathon in order to ascertain whether there was any current use of pesticides.
36.

Plaintiff learned that the spraying of pesticides at the Defendant Marathon School was occurring twice monthly using chemicals such as Demon and Demand (Cypermethrin and Lamda-Cyhalothrin).
37.

Plaintiff received along with the pesticide labels, a letter setting forth the schedule of the spraying. She forwarded the same onto Ms. Fabre, a representative of the Defendant Marathon, and placed a call to the party in-charge of establishing building maintenance policies.
38.

The party in-charge of establishing building maintenance policies, a representative of the Defendant Marathon, informed the Plaintiff that despite the Defendant’s knowledge that the Plaintiff suffered from extreme negative reactions to the pesticides in use, the Defendant would continue to use the products of their choice.
39.

Plaintiff pleased with said representative to, at a very minimum, notify her in advance of said spraying in accordance with the guarantees provided by Ms. Fabre back in 1998. However, Plaintiff received no assurances from the Defendant’s representative they they would, in the future, provide her any notice of any spraying by any company hired by the Defendant.
40.

Upon returning to the Defendant Marathon’s facility after Christmas vacation in 1999, Plaintiff again became very ill. On the basis of the odors present, Plaintiff arrived at the conclusion that pesticides were again sprayed at the Defendant Marathon’s facility.
41.

Plaintiff asked her employer at YAI/NYL to intervene on her behalf. Plaintiff stated that she would not return to work at the Defendant’s facility until the spraying stopped or the Plaintiff was given advance notice as per her accommodation plan guarantees.
42.

Plaintiff was assured by YAI/NUYL that the spraying would cease and that she would get advance warnings prior to any future spraying.
43.

The Plaintiff then contacted Neil Gershwin of Defendant Marathon, and was advised to speak with the pest control company owner, Stuart Bogard, to again ensure that Plaintiff would at least receive advance notice of any use of pesticide at the facility.
44.

Plaintiff contacted Defendant Pro-Tech and spoke to Mr. Bogard. He informed Plaintiff that no spraying go any type had ever occurred at the Defendant Marathon’s premises and that only gel baits were used. These representations were made by the Defendant Pro-Tech despite the Plaintiff being provided the previously referenced information sheets regarding pesticide use at the facility.
45.

Subsequently , despite Defendant Pro-Tech’s denials, Defendant Marathon told the Plaintiff that they, the Defendant Marathon, discharged the Defendant Pro-Tech. Moreover, the Defendant Marathon represented that it would not hire a new pesticide control company even if said company would use non-toxic pest control means.
46.

In or about March of 2000, because Plaintiff’s health symptoms remained, Plaintiff contacted a toxicologist who sent the Plaintiff a sampling kit with precise instructions for taking four swipes from areas that Plaintiff thought were treated by pesticides. Plaintiff took said samples and sent them off to the toxicologist lab in Virginia for analysis. The tests came back positive for both pesticides Demon and Demand, in various quantities.
47.

In or about May, 2000 due to the continuous symptoms suffered by the Plaintiff and based on the assumption that pesticides were continuing to be used, she was evaluated by her physician and it was determined that she was suffering from loss of brain cells. Further testing was recommended.
48.

In or about June 2000, YAI/NYL determined that the Douglaston School was no longer profitable and the decision was made to close said school.
49.

Plaintiff was thereafter transferred to another of her employer’s facilities but Plaintiff had already suffered, to her detriment, debilitating reactions to numerous chemicals known to Plaintiff and to chemicals which the Plaintiff had not previously reacted to.
50.

In or about August, 2000, Plaintiff underwent extensive psychological/neurological testing to quantify the extent of the deficiency suffered.
51.

In or about February of 2001, Plaintiff received a diagnosis from her doctor, regarding the August, 2000 visit, to wit said the doctor determined that she was now suffering from a debilitating organic brain dysfunction consistent with neurotoxicity of recent origin.
52.

Plaintiff has now had to terminate her employment and can no longer engage in activities which are enjoyed by the average individual. For instance, Plaintiff has stopped going to most places outside of work and home such as museums, restaurants and the like.

AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT MARATHON

NEGLIGENCE

53.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 though 52 of this complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length.
54.

Upon Plaintiff’s assignment to its facility, Defendant Marathon knew or should have known that the Plaintiff suffered from a disorder which causes her to be extremely sensitive to various chemical substances.
55.

Defendant Marathon by and through its representative, agreed that every reasonable step would be taken to reduce the possibility of exposure by the Plaintiff to chemical substances resulting in extreme medical reactions. Defendant therefore owed a duty to the Plaintiff to inform her when certain pesticides, which are known to be toxic in nature, were sprayed at the Defendant Marathon’s facility, thereby allowing Plaintiff ample opportunity to take the necessary steps to avoid exposure and safeguard her health.
56.

Despite the knowledge of the Plaintiff’s sensitivities, Defendant Marathon refused to accommodate Plaintiff disability and allowed the Defendant Pro-Tech, over whom it had control, to spray the Defendant’s facility. Defendant Marathon allowed such spraying with the careless disregard for the effects that would have on the Plaintiff, as well as possible effects it may have had on individual students who suffered from respiratory dysfunctions.
57.

By allowing the Defendant Pro-Tech to spray its facility without due notice given to Plaintiff, Defendant has caused Plaintiff to suffer numerous injuries, including but not limited to, neuropsychological disorders, exacerbation of respiratory dysfunction, cognitive deficiency (speech/language impairment), sensory/motor dysfunction, organic brain dysfunction, general physical debilitation, and the like.
58.

Due to the Defendant Marathon’s actions, Plaintiff is unable to enjoy the simply pleasures of life and is now experiencing an increased sensitivity to additional chemicals which she had not previously experienced. The Defendant Marathon’s acts were done with carelessness, recklessness and wantonness to the known condition of the Plaintiff.
59.

Due to the careless, reckless and wanton nature of the Defendant’s activities, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
60.

Plaintiff in no way contribute to her injuries.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as more fully set for in the ad damnum clause of this complaint.

AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PRO-TECH

NEGLIGENCE

61.

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 though 60 of this complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length.
62.

Plaintiff informed Defendant Pro-Tech through its agents and through the Defendant Marathon, that the Plaintiff experienced a heightened sensitivity to the pesticides generally used by the Defendant Pro-Tech to exterminate a facility of pests.
63.

The Defendant Pro-Tech knew or should have known that utilizing such pesticides would in fact cause Plaintiff to fall ill and suffer immense discomfort in her daily life. Based on this knowledge, the Defendant Pro-Tech owed a duty to ensure that its activities were not harmful to the Plaintiff and other individuals, and that Plaintiff would be advised prior to any spraying taking place at the Defendant Marathon’s facility.
64.

Despite the duty owed to the Plaintiff to warn her prior to the use of toxic chemicals such as Demon and Demand, Defendant Pro-Tech negligently sprayed the Defendant Marathon’s facility in contradiction of the rights and well-being of the Plaintiff. As a proximate and direct result of the Defendant’s negligent conduct, the Plaintiff suffers numerous injures, including but not limited to, neuropsychological disorders, exacerbation of respiratory dysfunction, cognitive deficiency (speech /language impairment), sensory/motor dysfunction, organic brain dysfunction, general physical debilitation, and the like.
65.

The Defendant actions of spraying toxic chemicals knowing the harmful affect that it would have on the Plaintiff was careless, reckless and wanton.
66.

Based on the careless, reckless and wanton activities of the Defendant Pro-Tech, the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
67.

The Plaintiff in no way contributed to her known damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as more fully set forth in the ad damnum clause of this complaint.

AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT MARATHON

FAILURE TO WARN

68.

Plaintiff repeated and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 67 of this complaint as if more fully set forth herein at lengthy.
69.

Defendant Marathon has a duty to use reasonable care to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities such as the Plaintiff and thus provide safe working environment. Allowing Defendant Pro-Tech to spray pesticides, despite Plaintiff’s known propensity to negative reactions of these chemicals, Defendant Marathon has created an unreasonably unsafe condition for the Plaintiff in her employment.
70.

Due to the knowledge of the Defendant Marathon of Plaintiff’s sensitivities, Defendant Marathon had a duty to warn Plaintiff when said chemicals, to which she suffered negative reactions, were being utilized on the premises.
71.

The Defendant Marathon’s breach of its duty to warn Plaintiff of the use of substances who which negative reactions would result, was the proximate and direct result of the Plaintiff’s injuries.
72.

The defendant Marathon’s Failure to warn the Plaintiff resulted in Plaintiff suffering from numerous injuries including but not limited to, neuropsychological disorders, ecexacerbationf respiratory dysfunction, cognitive deficiency (speech /language impairment), sensory/motor dysfunction, organic brain dysfunction, general physical debilitation, and the like.
73.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant Marathon and requests relief as more fuly set forth in the ad damnum clause of this complaint.

AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION DEFENDANT PRO-TECH

FAILURE TO WARN

74.

Plaintiff repeated and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 73 of this complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length.
75.

Defendant Pro-Tech has a duty to use reasonable care to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities such as the Plaintiff and thus provide a safe working environment when it has knowledge of the negative affects of their activities.
76.

Defendant Pro-Tech’s activities of spraying pesticides despite Plaintifff’s known propensity twards negative reactions to these chemicals, has created an unreasonably unsafe condition for the Plaintiff in her employment.
77.

Due to the knowledge of the Defendant Pro-Tech of Plaintiff’s sensitivities, Defendant Pro-Tech had a duty to warn Plaintiff when chemicals to which she suffered negative reactions were being utilized on the premises.
78.

The Defendant Pro-Tech’s breach of its duty to warn Plaintiff of the use of substances to which negative reactions would result, was the proximate and direct result of the Plaintiff’s injuries.
79.

As a result, Plaintiff suffers from numerous injuries including but not limited to, neuropsychological disorders, exacerbation of respiratory dysfunction, cognitive deficiency (speech /language impairment), sensory/motor dysfunction, organic brain dysfunction, general physical debilitation, and the like.
80.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant Pro-Tech and requests relief as more fully set forth in the ad damnum clause of this complaint.

AS AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT PRO-TECH

BATTERY

81.

Plaintiff repeated and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 80 of this complaint as if more fully set forth herein at length.
82.

Defendant Pro-Tech sprayed pesticides in the Defendant Marathon’s building with utter disregard to the harmful and offensive bodily contact it would cause the Plaintiff and said contact was done without the Plaintiff’s consent.

83.

Defendant Pro-Tech sprayed the pesticides in a manner which was voluntary and with the knowledge that its acts, under the circumstances known to it or should have been known to it, made it substantially likely that the result of which Plaintiff would suffer from adverse medical reactions.
84.

As a result of the Defendant Pro-Tech’s activities, Plaintiff suffers from numerous injuries including but not limited to, neuropsychological disorders, exacerbation of respiratory dysfunction, cognitive deficiency (speech /language impairment), sensory/motor dysfunction, organic brain dysfunction, general physical debilitation, and the like.
85.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant Pro-Tech and requests relief as more fully set forth in the ad damnum clause of this complaint.

AD DAMNUM CLAUSE

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Barbara Rubin demands judgment against each Defendant for each cause of action in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($500,000.00) DOLLARS,

FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff demands punitive damages from each Defendant in the amount of ONE MILLION ($1,000,000.00) DOLLARS each, and

FURTHERMORE, Plaintiff demands interests plus the costs and disbursement of this action together with such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper

DATED: Buffalo, New York

May 16, 2002

CHRISTOPHER M. DUGGAN, ESQ, Of Counsel

Allen & Lippes

1260 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, New York 14209-2498

Telephone: (716) 884-4800

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Verification was made and notarized by the Plaintiff on May 9, 2002

==================================

Update on case here in part IV

Part I: General Remarks

Thank you for permitting me to offer this information in support of HB 1456. We urgently need to improve the indoor air quality (IAQ) of schools through reducing and/or potentially eradicating the use of pesticides with known toxicity effects upon people and other non-targeted life forms.

As a disabled educator poisoned by pesticides used in my own NYC school facility in 1999 and, as a part-time journalist who has published a few articles and commentaries on the subject matter, I hope my informal remarks and lay studies will be of use to this committee. Please forgive any errors committed in the conveyance of this testimony as I am mildly aphasic and have acquired learning disabilities. These disabilities have been attributed to brain injury suffered in a NYC school setting as a result of exposures to the very chemicals we are here to discuss. My exposures occurred while I was a supervisor of a school for developmentally disabled children between 2 and five years of age. My aim today is to discuss the scope of inquiry for a committee dedicated to developing a needs assessment for policy setting in pest control practices. I hope to accomplish this through a review of well known issues in the science of pest control and my own, personal experience of the terrible results of ignoring science in the service of retaining old technologies and business practices.

Pest control services are a vital industry to the health of the population. We know that it is impossible to eradicate insect populations, and other invasive organisms. While these will always be with us, controls are important in preventing intolerable concentrations of these unwanted items from turning into infestations and uncontrolled colonizations of molds or bacteria. Advances in chemistry taught us how quickly we can kill such organisms but gave us little preparation for the collateral damage such chemicals can cause. Fortunately, we now have the knowledge and technology which allows us to avoid sacrificing the safety of building occupants against the desirable goals of pest management A study regarding pesticide use in the schools is not a dismissal of the value of pest control services but rather an investigation into the forms it should take in these environments occupied by the most vulnerable of exposed populations – children and a largely female staff.

Pesticides are toxic by definition and it remains against the law for vendors to claim they are ‘safe’, even when used as directed. This alone makes examination of their use in schools a worthwhile endeavor. We know pesticides include ingredients which are irritants as well as well as contributing to asthma – the largest cause of missed school days for children and the fourth largest cause of lost work productivity among adults. While the waste products and remains of dead pests such as roaches also contribute to respiratory problems, those can be resolved with a vacuum cleaner unlike the residues left by pesticides.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the ailment.

Pesticides are a class of chemicals which include not just products that kill insects but also target other life forms – hence the suffix, ‘cide’. This extends the range of our concerns here to include herbicides (targeting weeds); mildicides/fungicides (targeting molds/ fungi) and products which kill disease promoting micro-organisms like bacteria. Many products called ‘repellents’ are actually pesticides despite the alteration in labeling. Today, DDT is applied as a repellent to the interior of house walls in some countries. The overuse and abuse of biocides such as triclosan has led to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria which has become a concern to school programs in recent years. Our increased understanding of mycotic diseases stemming from exposures to certain forms of molds and fungi associated with moisture damaged buildings has led to increased use of fungicides and mildicides in the schools. These pesticidal agents are present in products used in cleaning to those used in painting and other construction/renovation materials. Since all of these products are regulated by the same EPA department, I suggest they should be considered by this committee as falling within their scope of inquiry. It would not only serve the NH communities but set precedents for other states to broaden their range of concerns. For a full listing of the various kinds of pesticides, I refer you to this website by the EPA.

A major concern should be the fact that the most commonly used pesticides act by disrupting the ability of nerve cells to cease firing, over and over again until they become damaged or die. They don’t discriminate between the type of cells they disrupt and humans are a non-targeted organism affected by them. Central nervous system functioning is primary to learning. Developmental disabilities are now affecting one in six children according to Dr. Phillip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai Hospital, a leader in developing the field of environmental pediatrics. You may wish to consult with him since you will be reviewing the testimony of experts in the field at some point in this process. Further, exposure to toxic materials is also a candidate for investigation into high rates of illness, particularly autoimmune diseases. Disability among adults working in the schools may also be worth examining in a needs assessment of the type being recommended today.

Pesticides are quite persistent when used indoors without the aid of sunlight to degrade them, contrary to assumptions and recommendations for re-entry to treated rooms on material data and safety sheets. Exposure considerations must take into consideration the re-release of pesticide residues into the air each time a treated surface is exposed to heat (e.g. baseboard heating surfaces), light from direct sun or lamp exposure, or subjected to increased temperatures from seasonal changes. Recurrent applications, something which is very common in school settings, leads to issues of insect resistance calling for the use of more and mixed types of pesticides. The effects of combining chemicals upon bystanders has not been studied but we do know that effects are not just additive but synergistic. Also, the break-down byproducts or metabolites of some pesticides are more toxic than their original forms (as in the case of malathion).

Further, decades of use of chemicals such as chlordane and DDT, prior to their bans, means continued risks to children in older buildings where these chemicals and their metabolites remain. This means that the age of school buildings and their locations should also fall within the parameters of our concern. I have personally measured concentrations of these chemicals in both low and high amounts in residences. School locations are also subject to pesticide drift from nearby sources. Proximity to farms and gardening/nursery enterprises are obvious sources while communities near marshes and bodies of water will be open to drift for chemicals used for mosquito control. Commercial properties near schools may still be allowed to use chemicals currently banned for residential and school use so such chemicals can still become significant presences in our schools.

Drift from aerial applications of pesticides for forestry management and farming purposes travels extensively and communication with the Department of Agriculture in preparing a needs assessment for the testing of buildings is advisable. Aerial spraying is soon to be banned altogether in the European Union for this reason. Exposure by children in agricultural communities has been proven to be unavoidable, regardless of proximity to farmland as measured in metabolites of these chemicals in the urine of children. Therefore, applications in schools add to the overall body burden of children already affected by these chemicals in other settings.

The literature on the effects of pesticides contains a wealth of evidence for both immediate and delayed symptoms, long term damage to multiple organs biochemical processes apart from enzyme inhibition and adversely affecting learning abilities. Pesticides are also delivered in solvents such as xylene and trimethylbenzene, members of a large and hazardous class of regulated substances all on their own. These are known central nervous system depressants and carcinogens. The Ontario College of Family Physicians did an exhaustive review of the literature with specific conclusions about the risks of exposure to children by these chemicals.

This is the basic information I wished to present to this committee. My next submission is about my personal experiences which exemplifies how vital it is that we do not ignore this technical data. The results of doing so are with us daily.

Part II: My Personal Experiences in Pest Control in School Settings:

I first learned of my vulnerability to pesticides when I fainted following the departure of a pest control applicator in a school where I worked in the Bronx, NY in 1990. After learning about Dursban, the chemical in use, I began to work with accommodation plans permitting me to be absent when pesticides were applied each month. However, while a difference of a few days may make it appear as if one escapes hazards, the effects can only be assessed by looking at biochemical changes rather than overt symptoms. A poison is not just a substance that brings direct harm to us but also one that damages by adversely impacting catalysts in the body which are necessary to other functions. These may include hormones (e.g. thyroid, estrogen) or various enzymes (e.g. acetylcholinesterase). Reductions in important enzymes, interference in hormone regulation, inflammation and deferred symptoms of toxicity must be considered.

The information I gained at that time was used again when I lived in NYC in 1999 when West Nile Virus made its appearance in New York City and malathion was unwisely chosen to be applied by helicopter. Testimony by experts before a bi-partisan congressional committee headed by Congressman Gary Ackerman in March of 2000 found it to be most unwise with side effects far more damaging than its presumed benefits. The practice was halted. I have appended a copy of an article I wrote in 2002 for a magazine in which the effects of pesticides in school settings are discussed with respect to a particular child along with general considerations and quotes from interviews with several experts in the field.

We now use pyrethroids in many locations where we used to use the organophosphates listed above since they were banned for the purpose. Pyrethroids are often advertised as synthetic pyrethrins or acting much like the anti-pest effects of the essence of chrysanthemum flowers. However, we also know these chemical effects, while still disabling to the nervous system, are amplified by the addition of synergists to the formulas. This increases the toxicity beyond the levels at which the active ingredient was approved for sale. Attached is a news article describing up to a ten-fold increase in toxicity, rendering these chemicals threats to aquatic life. The particular synergist cited is piperonyl butoxide and quite toxic in its own right.

I had never heard of pyrethroids until June of 1999 when I was enjoying my second year as supervisor for a school program for developmentally disabled preschoolers called the Douglaston Early Childhood Center. This program was run under the aegis of the New York League for Early Learning (a subsidiary of YAI/National Institute for Early Learning). Having learned first hand that environmentally induced illnesses in school programs can be avoided, I had instituted an indoor air quality program in our first year of operation (1998) which proved quite effective in maintaining a productive working and learning environment.

The spraying of pesticides in and around the property ceased and increased maintenance efforts along with the use of baits unlikely to become airborne were substituted. The school building itself was used for multiple purposes and the owners, in conjunction with their pest control company that more toxic pesticides should be applied in spray form during our week long break between spring and summer sessions. Upon our return, the staff and I all were conscious of residual fumes and remained in better ventilated areas of the school until they faded. Unknown to me, further applications were made to the building and I developed serious and chronic health effects. By September of 1999, I was unable to eat during school hours and lost weight; fought constant bronchial constriction requiring me to carry oxygen with me to work since inhalers were not effective for me. I found myself unable to concentrate for prolonged periods of time, to recall names of familiar people and had difficulty with word-finding in conversations and in my writing. Where it used to take me two hours to write a comprehensive clinical report, it now took days to achieve anything resembling a satisfactory effort. [additional description of symptoms/damage submitted here as well]

My career was over.

An EPA complaint was filed regarding lack of notice and the use of those chemicals in poorly ventilated areas and locations where food was prepared, both advised against in the MSDS sheets. The investigator informed me that the EPA did not pursue actions in the use of registered pesticides as it comprised a conflict of interest between the applicators and their agency which approves these chemicals for use. Instead, they encourage private individuals to file law suits in order to encourage the industry to refrain from using these chemicals in school buildings, residences etc. My law suit is still pending. The federal government has yet to pass the School Environment Protection Act or SEPA, providing national guidelines for the use of nontoxic methods and least toxic methods of pest control. Notification for use of such products to interested parties is also included in those provisions. Only a handful of states have such regulations at present and my own home state of NY didn’t pass their version until a year after I was disabled.

I ask this body to conduct their needs assessment and do whatever it takes to make my tragedy the last of its kind in the Northeastern United States. The material is not only plentiful in identifying the undesirability of using toxic pesticides in school settings but the alternatives are plentiful The pest control industry is slowly evolving into novel practices referred to as Integrated Pest Management or IPM. I thought my school program was following such IPM protocols but was denied my rights to participate in the process because local laws to that effect were lacking. Every person should have the right of choice with regard to exposure to toxic chemicals for themselves and their children, whether that involves being able to substitute other products for the undesirable ones or simply leave the vicinity. Had I known recurrent applications were going to be made, I would have quit my job before becoming so damaged.

We don’t have to choose between pest control and human safety. We can have it all if all parties are required to modernize their knowledge of the effects of these chemicals and make better decisions about selecting among them. It takes work but then that is what adults do to ensure our children grow up to become healthy and capable individuals. The sight of a few ants or roaches shouldn’t be a barrier to any of us losing our health, our futures and becoming burdens upon society instead of assets.

Barbara Rubin, M.A.
Former speech-language pathologist and educator