... was the reason for the introduction of the Safe Chemicals Act. If the
Republicans truly cared about curtailing medical costs, they would have
championed the original Safe Chemicals Act. In that way, a multitude
of people would have been spared of the ill effects of untested synthetic
chemicals, ranging from asthma attacks to endocrine disruption to head-
aches to dermatitis to sinusitis to inflamed nerve endings to cancer.
The 2015-2016 (114th Congress) version of the proposed bill is found at:
Chemical Anarchy and Modern Society
Estrogenized chemicals have been allowed to be dispersed throughout water,
air, land without the rule of law protecting life on earth. We can begin with
the effect of the hormone disrupting herbicide atrazine upon hermaphrodite
frogs and proceed to the phenomenon of the feminizing of the younger males
of America. We can then review how estrogenized chemicals are a fuel for
cancer and a catalyst for widespread obesity in the United States & Mexico,
accompanied by 80,000 chemicals on the U.S. market.
The Chemical Age in General is discussed at the following link:
Hormone Disruptor chemical pollution even European coastal waters
Update: It appears that the 2013 version of the proposed Safe Chemicals 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 Prevention of Nu-
clear War.
Plus, in sweatshop China, cancer rates among children have been on the rise.
A child is defined as anyone under the age of 14.
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, neurotoxins, etc? What point is there
in being rich in a chemically induced freak show caused by the greed of a few?
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 laboratory testing detect-
ed hundred of chemicals in umbilical cord blood samples.
In case you are unfamiliar with United States Law, chemicals in household pro-
ducts do not have to be proven harmless, in order to appear in the products that
Americans take home from the store. This includes previously the mentioned
hormone disruptors, sensitizers, and irritants, as well as those chemicals listed
amongst the Genotoxic/Mutagenic class, the Hepatotoxic Class
(liver cell kill-
ers,) the Cell-mediated allergens, Reproductive Toxins, Bronchoconstrictors,
Neurotoxins, Respiratory Irritants, and those oxidative chemicals which pro-
duce allergenic compounds whenever exposed to air.
Out of 80,000+ chemicals listed in the United States EPA's Toxic Substance
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.
Concerning the Trade Secret law by which fragrance product ingredients
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 Chemicals 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 Re-
publican Party, and their glut of filibusters, a grand total of 2% of the laws in-
troduced in the Senate were enacted. The Safe Chemicals Act was assessed
at having 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, between 2011 and 2013, only 12% of the bills
introduced in the Senate made their ways past any committee.
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 Dysfunction 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 proven 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 chemicals in the
modern human body. The Republican Party, in its pathological greed, and the
chemical industry, in its predatory greed, turned the human body into a toxic
waste dump.
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.
Since 1976, numerous chemicals have been identified as sensitizers. A sensitiz-
er is that which becomes an allergen, after a period of repeated 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 chemical ex-
posure and the rise of the rate of autism. Simultaneously, hermaphrodite aquat-
ic life, apparently due to the heavily estrogenated water supplies, was located.
This shows that the Toxic Substance Control Act 1976 has near zero effective-
ness.
In a 2012 poll ... done by a Republican firm ... showed that American voters
"overwhelmingly support reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, with
half saying that they would strongly support reform for the regulation of
chemicals produced and used in the United States." ... "Support for reform-
ing the law is widespread and broad-based."
Three-quarters of small business owners polled by the American 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.
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.
Drawing people's attention to the millions of respiratory patients who are sen-
sitive to modern chemicals would be a start. Pointing out the liver cell killing
capacity of other ones, as well as the neurotoxic effect 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:
(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.
A review of State laws which banned chemicals is here:
.jpg)
