EPA Choked by ACC

Glorious fall day. Dots of changing colors here and there.


The poor EPA - under staffed, over worked, under funded, disrespected and very vulnerable.

The EPA, born out of the 1969-1970 concern for the environment and propelled by the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, was formed by the Nixon Administration to address our exploding pollution issues. The unregulated industrial revolution and post war chemical tactics had finally caught up with us and our country was disgustingly polluted. The litter bug mentality needing reigning in.

Like many government agencies, they shovel against the wind but in particular it seems the EPA just can't keep up. With over 80,000 chemicals to keep track of and only 5,500 scientists employed, the ratio means there is so much to do with so little time and staff. The pace of added chemicals and industrial commitment has far exceeded the ability of the EPA to keep us safe.

Now throw in the additional reality of lobbying, bribes, and pressure by outsiders and you can see how things get really mucky. Back in April, a survey revealed that over 800 of the EPA scientists complained of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their research findings, pressure that has been escalating the last 5 years. Hhhmm. The Bush culture has blatantly succumb to the all too powerful oil and chemical companies and has even fired leading researchers after the lobbyists jumped up and down about conflict of interest. (Talk about conflict of interest!)

So as scientists are able to catch up to our polluted state, create instruments for testing and provide good research, not only on animals but also on humans, (most relevant eh?) we still have news reports sabotaged by the ACC. Yesterday's report about maternal phthalate levels and genital alterations in baby boys is of grave concern. Or at least it should be. Until of course you get to the end of the article and there it is, the doubt meister called the ACC, the American Chemistry Council gets quoted once again to set every one's mind at ease, applauding the safety of phthalates and that a messed up penis is no big deal.

How does the ACC get to even be in an article anyway? Was it to "balance" the reporting? Talk about conflict of interest. Shame on those reporters. The ACC is a 119 million dollar/year lobbying trade association, protecting their chemical industry's interests, who gets to be quoted on a regular basis. The ACC is NOT a or the professional organization of chemists, the American Chemists Society holds that honor. And how often do you hear the ACS quoted? I never have. The ACC seems interested in only protecting their profits. The ACC also carries a big stick in Washington and has set up camp inside the EPA. And I am tired of it. The article was well written right up until the "balancing" part. That's like reporting on global warming and then quoting someone who blogs about junk science.

Does this really matter? YES. I can't tell you how many times people have the come back "the levels probably aren't high enough to do any real harm" to the concerns about certain chemicals and recent findings. Define "real" harm anyway. This attitude is a result of the ACC spinning the doubts and unfortunately it is working. We, our children and our future can not afford the ACC damage control tactics. If you have the activist bug in you, hold these reporters accountable for their reporting. Explain to them that quoting the ACC is like asking the fox which chicken looks good. With any luck, that reporter won't take that free dinner any more.

FDA Says BPA Okay - FDA Wimps Out

Pea soup this morning, can't see 50 feet.


The same day the Journal of the American Medical Association releases their largest adult human study regarding BPA, leaving no doubt that there is serious doubt about BPA, our FDA declares BPA safe. What's wrong with this picture?

I was mad yesterday and I am even more mad today. This is deja vu of the tobacco industry's decades of deception all over again, this time being lead by the American Chemistry Counsel. The ACC has continued to cast doubt and is the biggest and most powerful lobbyist for the plastic and oil industry. Without this organization, BPA would probably have been banned years ago. The ACC is the bully on the block and has pulled some pretty scary and unethical behavior.

I strongly urge you to read the links I have provided. They are hot off the press and you can draw your own conclusion. The FDA's and EPA's own scientific advisory program called The National Toxicology Program advised BPA caution after reviewing 261 scientific publications. The FDA drew its conclusion based only on animal studies, a few at that, and studies produced by researchers tied to the chemical industry. (talk about 10 foxes guarding the chicken coop)

With over 83,000 chemicals available for human contact, and many known for their questionable safety issues, it is unbelievable that we are ignoring top scientists and hundreds of research projects. Again, I urge you to review the links provided.

The ACC is the mouthy parent in the stands playing the ref, so the ref (FDA and EPA) can't do their job and succumb to pressure. Pretty wimpy if you ask me.

Triclosan - The New BPA, It's Everywhere

A band of brown haze sits on the horizon, very sad.


Triclosan, it is everywhere and you need to know about it - for two reasons. One is what it is, and the products it is on, and the other is to ponder how on earth something like this gets past the FDA, is every where, and as consumers we have no idea. I will give you lots of resources for more in depth information otherwise I could be writing all day.

Triclosan simply falls under the category of pesticides. Makers of "things" put it on curtains, in soaps, clothing, flooring, fabric, and the list goes on. Under the name brand of Microban, triclosan is pitched as a wonder bug fighter.

No long term affects were done prior to FDA approval but there was and is plenty of discussion about the possible affects, mostly about the real possibility of creating super bugs resistant to the very product used against them.

Google Triclosan and the best articles appear on the first page. The most important one was recently published by the EWG and boy did they do their homework. Thank goodness for them. I strongly urge you to review this document.

So how did all this get started in the first place? How is it the FDA approves something like this for mass consumption and we the consumer, have no idea where it is because it is not required to be labeled? And if there is a label, it might just say antibacterial, so it must be good, right? So who is protecting us? Seems to be no one. How can a maker of a curtain even agree to have triclosan added to their product? What the heck for? (money?) Germs on a curtain? Come on!

So like BPA, Triclosan has been used insidiously for a long time. Long enough to possibly reek havoc with our bodies and mother nature. And we continuously wonder why we have the highest cancer rate in the world despite our civilized status. Maybe if the FDA and EPA actually did their job, which is to protect us, we wouldn't be in this mess. The word precautionary isn't in their vocabulary. This triclosan issue is nothing short of outrageous.

So what can you do now? I guess the usual. Write your politicians, tell others, get mad. Any other suggestions?

Bush's EPA Warns Humans That Warming Is A Major Threat

After a July 4th thunderstorm, the hazy moisture is rising. We're in for one heck of a muggy day.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the current Bush's EPA administration. Talk about fireworks. It appears the EPA is so at odds about what and when they want to say something, that they trip over themselves.

But someone in there must have the guts to persevere because the EPA came out with a very strong warning. Finally the EPA is warning that the weather, as we know it, is going to change, get hotter and cause a lot of problems. The EPA used daring words like "substantial" and "is likely" in the warning. I wonder how much arguing went into the words alone. They didn't go in that dangerous territory of saying why the weather is warming, but they got their message across that it is getting hotter, and perhaps we humans can do something about it.

Dance, dance, dance.

But I'll take it. Even though the EPA said to wait until after Bush's term to get some action done (I wonder why) kudos for them coming out with this warning. And it isn't pretty.

The poor EPA seems to be trying as hard as they can to get heads out of the sand. At least they are making headlines and apparently not giving up. Gosh, I wonder just how bad it really is?

Toxic Ship Sank - Will We Too?

The mountains are brighter today but so is the light brown haze on the horizon. :(

Just like my view, we can't see all the bad stuff, but it's out there.

A ship carrying 80 barrels of very toxic chemicals sank in the Pacific in June. The warning is huge, the call for rescuing the barrels is immediate, there is no current leakage according to water test. So what is this stuff? Here is the quote because I can't say it any better:

The DENR Environmental Management Bureau said DTI is a main ingredient in the production of flexible polyurethane foam and other polyurethane applications including synthetic leather, coated fabrics, paints and adhesives. It said the substance is toxic and should be recovered as soon as possible.

“The chemical has a long term carcinogenic effects on human,” said a report of the DENR EMB dated July 3.

DTI, a clear, pale yellow liquid with a sharp, pungent odor is “extremely toxic from acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposures,” according to the US Environmental Protection Agency Technological Transfer Network Air Toxics Website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/toluene2.html).

Yikes. So this stuff is sitting in the bottom of the ocean with this kind of EPA alarm. But wait. Don't we then use this stuff to make things and put it on more stuff that we humans actually use, sit on, breath, wear, etc? So if it is so toxic sitting in the ocean, why is it okay for later use and consumption? I doubt that it becomes inactive. So where were these toxic barrels headed for anyway? What were they going to be used for? Am I missing something here?

These toxins don't end their life once they come off the ship. They get shipped to us! And we don't even know it. Time to demand more information about chemicals and toxins in the products that surround us. I hope it's not too late.