The following post was written ten years ago. So, you look and see
if anything has changed in the mainstream media's dereliction of duty,
in its duty to warn the American People of the constant infringements
upon their health. And remember, those chemicals are in the products
that were or still are advertised on mainstream media TV newscasts.
In as much, if the Republicans really cared about reducing
medical costs, they would have passed this congressional
act and spared America of chemicals which trigger asthma,
disrupt the endocrine system, break chromosome chains,
cause cancer to develop, trigger dermatitis, and other ills.
Act is a compromised product, an very ineffective watered-down version
thereof. This is the assessment of the Physicians for Social Responsibility,
an affiliate of the Nobel Prize winning International Physicians for the Pre-
vention of Nuclear War.
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/federal-chemical-policy-reform.html
http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/confronting-toxics/cancer-and-toxic-chemicals.html
Plus, in sweatshop China, cancer rates among children have been on the rise.
A child is defined as anyone under the age of 14.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-01/14/content_11850124.htm
Irresponsibility Squared and Cubed:
Getting wealthy while harming others.
To start, what point is there being the richest of the rich, if your home is
on an earth which has been flooded with noxious chemicals which even
disrupt the natural equilibrium of hormones? What point is there being
wealthy in a world of chromosome breakers, liver cell killers, neurotox-
ins, etc? What point is there in being rich in a chemically induced freak
show caused by the greed of a minority?
Hundreds of chemicals found in umbilical cord blood samples
The Safe Chemicals Act was first introduced in the US Senate in 2011,
by the late Frank Lautenberg. The 2013 revised edition thus for has 29
co-sponsors. The motive for the bill was the quantitative fact that lab-
oratory testing detected hundred of chemicals in umbilical cord blood
samples.
In case you are unfamiliar with United States Law, chemicals in house-
hold products do not have to be proven harmless, in order to appear in
the products that Americans take home from the store. This includes
previously mentioned hormone disruptors, sensitizers, and irritants, as
well as those chemicals listed amongst the Genotoxic/Mutagenic class,
the Hepatotoxic Class (liver cell killers,) the Cell-mediated allergens,
Reproductive Toxins, Neurotoxins, Bronchoconstrictors , Respiratory
Irritants, and those oxidative chemicals which produce allergenic com-
pounds whenever exposed to air.
Out of 80,000+ chemicals listed in the United States EPA's Toxic Sub-
stance Control Act list, a grand total of FIVE chemicals were banned.
Yet, asthma and cancer rates have been rising as a matter of course,
and hermaphrodite aquatic life has been discovered. Keep in mind
that household chemicals end up in land fills, eventually to leak into
ground water via cracks in the landfills and even via rain water.
The endocrine disruptors also end up in drinking water supplies. In
as much, no water treatment plant extracts the estrogen from the eight
primary sources of it, the "pill" being one of the eight.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2013/04/gearing-tsca-reform
http://www.ewg.org/research/pollution-5-extraordinary-women
Concerning the Trade Secret law by which fragrance product ingre-
dients do not have to be made known to the public:
1] It was an abuse of power, on behalf of those who arranged the law.
2] It's a pointless law, being that scientists can analyze fragrance pro-
ducts and discern their ingredients.
Hormone disruptors permitted in American water supplies and
the ever so coincidental discovery of hermaphrodite aquatic life
Enter April 10, 2013. This was the date when the 2013 Safe Chemi-
cals Act was introduced into the U.S. Congress by the late senator,
Frank Lautenberg and New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The
bill has 27 other co-sponsors. The bill's number is S.696.
Between the Years 2011 and 2013, due to the obstructionist nature
of the Republican Party, and their glut of filibusters, a grand total
of 2% of the laws introduced in the Senate were enacted. The Safe
Chemicals Act has an 8% chance of becoming law. Yet, S.696 has
an 84% chance of getting past committee. In this instance, it's the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Incidentally, be-
tween 2011 and 2013, only 12% of the bills introduced in the
Senate made their ways past any committee.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s696
1] We live in an era where it has been 100% proven that chemical
allergies exist, as does Occupational Asthma due to Low-weight
Molecular Agents and irritant-induced diseases such as Irritant-
associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, Reactive Airways Dysfunc-
tion Syndrome, and Irritant-induced Asthma. Such patients have
the right to avoid the chemicals which trigger their fight to breath.
Such chemicals go unchecked, unregulated, and unbridled.
2] Present U.S. law on chemicals is so unjust that, in the past 37 years,
only five chemicals have been banned. Yet, numerous ones were prov-
en to trigger asthma, kill liver cells, break chromosome chains, disrupt
hormonal balance, have a neurotoxin effect, and qualify as threats to
health. There exists 84,000 chemicals in the EPA inventory.
3] The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found 212 chemi-
cals in the modern human body. The Republican Party, in its patho-
logical greed, and the chemical industry, in its predatory greed, turned
the human body into a toxic waste dump.
http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/SafeChemicals2013-Summary.pdf
4] The Safe Chemicals Act would:
- Allow the EPA to have a health and safety information data base that can be applied to the assessment of new chemicals, thereby bypassing redundant testing.
- Screen chemicals for safety by means of a priority scale, gauged according to risk, so that EPA can focus allotted dollars on evaluating chemicals most likely to cause harm, while simultaneously attending to a backlog of untested chemicals.
- Automatically assigns risk management requirements for any chemical which cannot be proven safe. This can include restricting the use of the chemical, placing a warning label on the chemical, mandating disposal protocol upon the chemical, and even banning the chemical.
- To provide a public catalog of chemicals, comprising the health and safety information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the findings of the EPA, while protecting trade secrets.
- Provide incentives and means for the invention of safe chemical alternatives.
A sensitizer is that which becomes an allergen, after a period of re-
peated exposure to it. Thus, it was not fair for the government to let
society be exposed to sensitizing agents.
In like fashion, we were also shown the statistical nexus between chem-
ical exposure and the rise of the rate of autism. Simultaneously, herma-
phrodite aquatic life, apparently due to the heavily estrogenated water
supplies, was located. This shows that the Toxic Substance Control
Act 1976 has near zero effectiveness.
In a 2012 poll ... done by a Republican firm ... showed that American
voters "overwhelmingly support reform of the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act, with half saying that they would strongly support reform for
the regulation of chemicals produced and used in the United States."
... "Support for reforming the law is widespread and broad-based."
http://pos.org/documents/12368_national_key_findings_final.pdf
In fact, three-quarters of small business owners polled by the Ameri-
can Sustainable Business Council believe that there should be stricter
regulation on chemicals used in everyday life. Furthermore, 87% of
the small business owners polled support government regulation of
chemicals used in growing food. In similar fashion, 73% of those
polled support government regulation to ensure that the products
which companies buy and sell are non-toxic.
http://asbcouncil.org/sites/default/files/files/tscaslides.pdf
In as much, all indication is that the American people are behind this
bill. The only antagonists to it are the Republicans in the House of
Representatives who kowtow to any corporation or industry which
funds the politicians' re-election campaigns.
The late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the original
bill in 2011. It was re-introduced shortly before his death.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/us/politics/lautenbergs-chemical-safety-bill-gains-momentum.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.saferchemicals.org/safe-chemicals-act/
Drawing people's attention to the millions of respiratory patients who
are sensitive to modern chemicals would be a start. Pointing out the
liver cell killing capacity of other ones, as well as the neurotoxic ef-
fect of yet more, along with the endocrine disrupting capacity of yet
other ones would be a good follow-up. Add to this those chemicals
which break chromosome chains.
The Safe Chemicals Act (S.696) is found here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s696/text
(Note: The number 113 refers to the 113th Congress.)
The American Academy of Pediatrics speaks of the necessity
to enact a Safe Chemicals Act, whatever be it's name.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/5/983.full
A review of State laws which banned chemicals is here:
http://www.saferstates.com/2011/08/2011-state-victories-for-environmental-health.html
