Brian,
you are right in all aspects and you are not ranting, rather branding. Read
this EVERYONE and adress following recite from the article into a place in
your brain, a file marked URGENT: *Just five chemicals out of 82,000 known
to be hazardous to human health, for instance, have been banned by the EPA
since 1976*
Thanks
Inge
Maine Wages Fight Against Toxic Chemicals
by Mercedes Grandin
AUGUSTA, Maine - Hannah Pingree was so alarmed when she learned she had
dangerously high levels of mercury, arsenic and other toxic chemicals in
her body that she took her case to the Maine state legislature and
challenged chemical
makers.<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0725_09_1.jpg>
As the majority leader of Maine's House of Representatives, she sponsored
legislation that gave the state the authority to broadly identify and
investigate "chemicals of high concern" in consumer products, particularly
those that may reach children.
The bill, signed into law in April, makes Maine the first U.S. state with
such authority and could serve as a model for other U.S. states trying to
fill a regulatory void left by the federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Just five chemicals out of 82,000 known to be hazardous to human health,
for instance, have been banned by the EPA since 1976, the most recent being
asbestos in 1989.
Maine's law coincides with mounting concerns in the United States over
chemicals found in everyday products, from cars to clothes, and follows
similar European Union laws.
The EU in 1999 banned phthalates -- chemicals used to make plastic more
flexible -- and last year implemented a law known as REACH (Registration,
Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) that requires businesses to
prove substances in everyday products are safe and submit data about them.
Maine's bill echoes the EU approach. It requires makers of toxic chemicals
to notify state authorities of the quantity and purpose of the chemicals
and work to develop safer alternatives.
Experts are watching to see if Maine's law will lead to tougher measures
nationwide, while an organization representing chemical manufacturers
expressed concern that layers of new state-by-state regulations could hurt
the industry.
Under the law, Maine will test chemicals and issue a "certificate of
non-compliance" to manufacturers stating their chemicals do not meet state
laws. The state can notify retailers the product contains toxic chemicals
and legislation can be approved to ban its sale.
Pingree, 31, was one of 13 people tested in a study sponsored by an
environmental group. All 13 had potentially toxic chemicals in their bodies.
"I just got married last summer and am interested in having kids in the
next few years, and those chemicals could have a dangerous impact on me and
my ability to bear children," she said.
Although it's unclear how the chemicals entered the bodies of the people
tested, mercury, arsenic and phthalates are common in many consumer
products.
"Maine is sending a clear message to the federal government that where they
have failed, states will act," said Pingree, a Democrat.
CHEMICALS FOUND IN BIRDS
Environmentalists in Maine say there is growing evidence that harmful toxic
chemicals are working their way into the state's ecosystem. A study,
conducted by biologist Wing Goodale at the BioDiversity Research Institute
in Gorham, Maine, revealed the presence of more than 100 man-made chemicals
in 23 species of bird eggs from across the state.
Goodale's research provided further ammunition for supporters of the Maine
legislation, revealing that birds were ingesting toxic chemicals through
their food chain and passing them on to their eggs.
Although some chemicals banned in the 1960s and 1970s were shown to have
decreased in birds, new substances are taking their place -- from
flame-retardants to water repellents, pesticides and mercury, the study
said.
Goodale said the chemicals could damage neurological, reproductive and
immune systems of birds, harm their livers and affect their hormone
functions.
Both the human and bird studies showed elevated levels of chemicals such as
the plastic softener phthalates that are used in cosmetics, lubricants, and
wood finishers, and bisphenol A, found in some plastic packaging, including
baby bottles.
Flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, turned
up in humans as well as birds, the Maine studies showed. PBDE's are used to
make televisions, carpeting, furniture and mattresses.
The studies also turned up a family of perfluorochemicals known as PFC's
used in making upholstery resistant to stains.
A U.S. government study released in April showed that bisphenol A may be
tied to early puberty as well as prostate and breast cancer. Based on draft
findings by the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. National
Institutes of Health, senior congressional Democrats asked the Food and
Drug Administration to reconsider its view that bisphenol A is safe in
products for use by infants and children.
Critics say Maine's law could hurt manufacturers.
"It's a high price for Maine to bear to attempt to replicate federal
agencies who are better equipped to deal with these issues," said Roger
Bernstein, managing director of state and government affairs at the
American Chemistry Council, an industry body representing chemical
manufacturers. "It makes more sense to have one federal system."
Other U.S. states have also begun to act on chemicals in consumer products.
Washington state signed into law on April 1 legislation that places
restrictions on the manufacture of children's products containing lead,
cadmium and phthalates.
In February, the Massachusetts Senate approved a bill to identify dangerous
chemicals in household goods, but the legislation has yet to be passed into
law.
In 2007, Washington became the first state to ban toxic flame retardants,
and California banned toys containing phthalates. Lawmakers in Maryland,
Nebraska and Hawaii have been considering bills similar to Maine's
legislation.
*Editing by Jason Szep and Philip Barbara*
On 6 January 2013 10:30, Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 1-Bromopropane (aka n-propyl bromide or nPB for short) is a popular
> solvent which came on the industrial market in 1996. Its main uses are
> metal cleaning, diluent for adhesives and dry cleaning garments, as well as
> for what concerns us most, defluxing electronics assemblies.
>
> When it was first marketed, there was no data on toxicity,
> carcinogenicity, mutagenicity etc. The makers initially proposed that the
> limit of the substance in the air breathed by the workers was 500 ppm, but
> this dropped rapidly to 200 ppm. This was the Operator Exposure Limit (OEL)
> and it was only a recommendation. One small French producer recommended 10
> ppm. The US National Toxicity Program started work on it in the early 2000s
> but this is still ongoing. OSHA cannot issue a legal limit until the NTP
> have pronounced. In the early 2000s, anecdotal reports started coming out
> of neurological problems in workers exposed to the substance. The makers
> funded some animal tests and most of them dropped their recommendations to
> 100 ppm on early results in the mid 2000s after it was found that mice
> suffered longer nerve reactions in the CNS and lower sperm motility. Later
> results indicated that both the neurotoxicity and the reproductive toxicity
> were worse than thought and most makers reduced their recommended OEL to 25
> ppm, but one recommended the old 100 ppm. This is still valid today
> http://www.cleanersolutions.**org/downloads/msds/592/Ensolv%**20MSDS.pdf<http://www.cleanersolutions.org/downloads/msds/592/Ensolv%20MSDS.pdf>
>
> From the practical point of view, 100 ppm is fairly easy to control. 25
> ppm is at the limit of possible for defluxing in our industry, using
> ordinary state-of-the-art machines. There are so-called "zero-emission"
> machines available but they cost 3-5 times more than the ordinary ones and
> generally they can keep average exposure down to lower single digits if
> used correctly.
>
> In Europe, nPB was classed as a VOC (exempt in the USA) and regulations
> for this limited its use to negligible amounts. However, the REACH
> programme has proposed labelling it as a reproductive toxin, but this has
> not yet been studied. I don't know for sure the situation in Japan, but I
> believe it is similar to the USA. In China, where vast amounts are made and
> used, the limit is pending.
>
> About two years ago, the NTP issued an interim warning that animal tests
> on both rats and mice indicated a strong probability of carcinogenicity and
> mutagenicity. The American Conference of Government and Industrial
> Hygienists (ACGIH) issued a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) = OEL of 10 ppm.
> The ACGIH is a highly respected NGO but their values have no force of law
> and are only recommendations based on known science. However, many
> companies using chemicals do try to take notice of their recommendations.
> The ACGIH have recently put a cat among the pigeons in that they have given
> an advanced notice of a change in the TLV for nPB and the proposed draft
> value is 0.1 ppm, an unprecedented two whole orders of magnitude lower than
> the current TLV http://www.acgih.org/store/**ProductDetail.cfm?id=2151<http://www.acgih.org/store/ProductDetail.cfm?id=2151>. I'm not yet aware of the reason behind this, but it must be serious.
> Needless to say that 0.1 ppm is impossible to respect under industrial
> conditions so, if this value became a legal limit, nPB would be condemned
> to death as an industrial solvent for defluxing etc. (it is also used in
> small quantities as feedstock for the pharma industry in the manufacture of
> psychotropic drugs such as diazepam).
>
> Why this rant?
>
> Simply because I suggest we have it wrong, all wrong. Workers were
> initially exposed to what has been deemed potentially dangerous levels of
> nPB, up to 5,000 times higher than the proposed new "safe limit". Even
> today, one maker is recommending an OEL of 1,000 times the proposed OEL.
> This is far from the first time that workers have been told that
> such-and-such a chemical is safe, only to die prematurely from the effects
> of exposure 10, 20 or 30 years later -- I personally have known cases of
> people, including a close friend, who have died in their 50s and 60s from
> organ failures resulting from chemical exposure as young adults.
>
> Yes, we say that chemicals are innocent until proved guilty. This is wrong
> and I suggest that they should be considered guilty unless proven innocent.
> An arbitrary tight limit should be placed on new chemicals, based on
> computer modelling and analogical comparison with similar known substances.
> This limit may be slackened if tests and experience show it is safe to do
> so.
>
> Brian has spake!
>
> ______________________________**______________________________**__________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> **______________________________**__________
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
