  |
|
|
|
 Eliminate Toxic Materials from Your Life |
|
February 2014 Editorial
Eliminate Toxic Materials from Your Life by Richard Jehn I wrote an editorial1 in May 2013 expressing my concerns about the toxic chemistry that has become so ubiquitous in our lives. In that editorial, I had one fundamental conclusion: What we desperately need after decades of detrimental or deadly exposure to this chemical stew is a policy of caution. In the absence of clear evidence of the safety of a newly developed [chemical] substance, it should be banned for use by humans completely. We should make every effort to ensure that no living organisms are needlessly exposed to non-natural chemistry unless it is demonstrably necessary for survival. Set the bar extremely high for the approval of new chemicals. I take my conclusion from last May one more step at the end of this editorial, so please read on. A recent article in Mother Jones2 discusses the real possibility that the use of lead in gasoline and in interior paint across North America in the 20th century was responsible for the crime wave that struck us from the early 1960s to the end of the ‘80s. This is not a trivial assertion. What it could mean is that the focus that so many have given to the wars on drugs and crime has been deeply misguided. It also means that literally billions of dollars were spent on law enforcement and prisons when the real fix was in immediate action to clean the environment. Lead in the environment is a real problem that still exists across North America, residual effects from the use of lead-based paints in the middle of the last century. Many housing developments, particularly in poor neighborhoods, have never been cleaned properly to remove the dangerous lead residues. The result is that infants and young children are exposed to lead in sufficient quantities to impair learning ability, to develop symptoms of ADD, and to be “at risk of developing life-changing neurological and behavioral problems from the slightest exposure to this devastating metal.”3 These kinds of industry actions, preventing the proper treatment of a problem, are commonplace. I just learned of doctors in northern Alberta who are, in some cases, refusing to treat people who identify exposure to toxins from oil sands as a possible cause of health issues, because they are afraid of repercussions by industry.4 What’s even more remarkable is that the Alberta Energy Regulator is just now requesting a probe into the health effects of tar sands activity on the workers in that industry and on others living in the region, this after more than 30 years of operations in the oil sands in northern Alberta: “ … the energy regulator called a special ten-day public hearing, starting in Peace River Tuesday [January 21], to examine whether emissions from wells or from bitumen heated in storage tanks could be causing health problems, including dizziness, headaches, cognitive impairment and sleeping problems among residents who left their homes.”5 And what of the recent incident where 300,000 people were without water for more than a week after 7,500 gallons of toxic 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM) spilled into the Elk River in West Virginia? And residents are still complaining of health issues likely related to the spill. Joe Stanley, a former miner, suggests that the water in that region has been toxic for quite some time. He says: I watched the coal industry poison our water for years. Now they’re telling us not to drink the water? We’ve been dumping this stuff into unlined ponds and into old mines for years. This MCHM was just one of the chemicals we were told was highly toxic but that we dumped into old mine shafts and slurry ponds, and it’s been seeping into the groundwater for years.6 And the news on this incident is becoming more confusing. “This week saw the sudden disclosure7 that the spill into the Elk River public drinking water supply included yet another chemical, though health officials say information about its potential impact is ‘very limited,’ partly because company8 clowns won’t divulge information that might kill people but that is nonetheless ‘proprietary’ and in any case nobody’s tested the water, which is why state officials have told 300,000 angry residents the water may be sorta kinda safe to use and drink though then again it might not be.”9 But that’s enough, since this litany of mistakes in our behavior could go on for thousands of pages. My first question might involve trying to dissect how we could have come to this place. How could we have blithely accepted assurances from the chemical industries, from government officials, and from the media that these substances were not harmful? The more I learn about the answer to that question, the more disturbing it becomes. But again, that is enough. Instead, let’s commit to doing something concrete about our predicament. I would ask that everyone who is committed to improving this world review the household products in your home. If you have the slightest doubt about the safety of any product (a hint is the warning label on the side of the container), pack it into a box and when you have reviewed every single thing in your house, take all of them out to the toxic waste facility on Airport Drive in northwest Bellingham. The next part of this process is ensuring you do not purchase any of these toxic substances ever again. Numerous online resources are now available to make homemade substitutes for household cleaning products that typically contain very toxic chemistry. I have even recently learned it is possible to buy non-toxic house paint. Put in the effort to change your personal environment for the better. When enough of us are refusing to purchase these poisonous products, it will no longer be economical to produce them and they will go away. We have no excuses for not making the effort to improve the world. Let’s all just do it. Endnotes 1 “Bellingham’s Dioxin Mountain: What Is ‘Public Protection,’ Anyway?” Whatcom Watch, May 2013, p. 2. http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=1554 |