Tag Archives: toxic

Did ‘Don’t Shut It Down’ Mentality Cause Chevron Refinery Disaster?

More than two hours passed at Chevron’s Richmond, CA, refinery between the discovery of a leak and the ignition of a blaze that threatened the health of thousands of nearby residents and sent hundreds to hospital emergency rooms Monday night. At any point during those hours, shutting down the big crude-oil processing unit in which a pipe was leaking could have prevented or greatly limited the disaster.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported details of that excruciating delay Wednesday morning, along with very different accounts of why it happened. The plant’s emergency response managers vaguely said they saw the leak as too minor–just “20 drops a minute” at first, to trigger an emergency or notify anyone. Until, of course, it suddenly got bigger and exploded into a blaze. But workers on the ground saw it differently and told their story to their union’s safety experts:

Photobucket

“From the time they did see the leak, they debated what to do,” said Kim Nibarger, who has investigated refinery accidents nationwide. “It was not so much whether to fix the leak, it was about what could they do to keep the line running and get it fixed.”

Nibarger based his opinion on Monday’s incident after discussions with union representatives at the refinery. The choice, he said, should have been clear.

“When you have hydrocarbons outside the pipe, you are no longer running at a normal condition. It’s time to shut the thing off and fix it, not to try to figure out a way around it.”

The last big fire at the Chevron Richmond refinery, in 2007, started the same way: a leak in the same refining unit, No. 4. Two employees were injured and the refinery was shut for months.

What one local resident said in 2007 sounds like it was today:

“Once those [emergency] sirens sound, you are supposed to shelter in place,” [the resident] said. “That means nobody goes to work, nobody comes to work in the west end of Richmond and no schools open. The cost of that is incredible.”

The costs of shutting down a refining unit to be on the safe side are nothing compared to the costs of shutting down a community, of treating respiratory crises at the emergency room, of higher child asthma rates.

Motorists will also pay. San Francisco and Los Angeles wholesale gasoline prices jumped 30 cents a gallon overnight following Monday’s fire. If recent history is any guide, other West Coast refiners will just grab the extra profit rather than raising production to keep supplies up and prices down. That’s exactly what happened after a major refinery accident in Washington State last year, according to a study commissioned by Sen. Maria Cantwell.

So all Californians will pay something for Chevron’s attempt to keep Unit 4 running even though its own emergency response team knew about the leak.

Safety procedures are also at issue in Chevron’s offhore drilling near Brazil, where 155,000 gallons of oil leaked from undersea cracks. Brazil last month accused Chevron of failing to follow its own procedural manual and dismissing troubling test results when it started production from the well. Chevron is also continuing to pay its lawyers millions of dollars to avoid paying damages to Ecuadoran peasants whose land was ruined by Texaco, which is now part of Chevron.

Chevron is not alone in this mindset.

BP ignored safety and quality questions about sealing cement used to cap a deep offshore well in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago, when it could have ordered the cement contractor, Halliburton, to start over (meaning at least a few days of delay). We all know how well that went. BP also skimped on maintenance and ignored corrosion of its Alaska pipeline near Prudhoe Bay in a 2006 spill of 200,000 gallons that shut down the pipeline. Exxon let a known drunk pilot its giant oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez.

It’s a long list. But the common thread is that safety is not a profit center for the oil industry and every penny spent on safety dings the bottom line. Until, of course, cleaning up the mess costs millions or billions.

Posted by Judy Dugan, research director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.

Speaking as a Doctor, and a Mom

Cold hard facts can only get you so far in making your case before policy-makers.

Fortunately, with a proposed ban on a toxic chemical in baby products, California health and environmental advocates have both facts and emotion on their side.

Testifying in her role as a doctor and a mom, Dr. Sarah Janssen of the Natural Resources Defense Council captured my attention as she spoke yesterday before the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee about AB 1319, the California bill that would ban the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) in baby bottles and sippy cups.

As folks who've been following CLCV's Groundswell blog know, I'm pregnant (I'm talking REALLY pregnant, as in I can now only wear flip-flops because my feet apparently think they are also pregnant). And as I've been researching and shopping for products for my baby, I'm blown away that anyone with access to the latest information about the dangers of BPA would defend its presence in products for infants and children. Similarly, I pay attention when someone identifies herself as “a doctor and a mom” and says we should ban a toxic chemical from baby feeding containers.

Along with bill author Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, Janssen and fellow BPA ban supporter Renée Sharp, senior scientist with Environmental Working Group, testified about the alarming number of studies (more than 220) that link BPA exposure with cancer, obesity, ADHD, and disrupted development of hormones, the brain, and the immune system.

They testified, as they had in similar Assembly policy hearings, that while safer BPA-free alternatives are widely available in many California communities, low-income families don't always have access to BPA-free products. Without a ban, products containing BPA (some of them from other countries like China, the EU, Canada, and the ten American states that have already passed or implemented bans on BPA) could easily be dumped in stores in poor California neighborhoods.

They also noted that, for the very first time this year, the burden of evidence of BPA's danger to human health is enough for several respected professional medical societies to join in supporting the ban. Just recently, the American Medical Association joined the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics of California, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in officially supporting a ban of BPA in feeding products for infants.

So, we've got facts and emotion on our side. But the opposition, in particular the chemical industry, has money. Lots of money. They've spent a lot of that money and time trying to, er, confuse (a nicer word than “buy off”) California legislators with “data” from other studies (many of them funded by their industry) that say there are no straight-forward conclusions about the effects of BPA on human health. Laughably, in yesterday's hearing, one of the representatives from the American Chemistry Council actually tried to convince legislators that he was genuinely concerned about the health impacts of alternatives to BPA. What utter nonsense.

Bill co-author Senator Fran Pavley spoke up, comparing the chemical industry's tactics to those used by the tobacco industry, which for years lied about the dangers of using their products and conducted their own studies to confuse the public and policy-makers alike.

As mom/doctor Sarah Janssen states in a recent post on NRDC's Switchboard: “my medical knowledge and experience aren’t enough to protect my daughter from exposure to toxic chemicals.” But a ban on BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups would go a long way to protecting our daughters and sons, when they are most vulnerable, from this dangerous chemical.

I'll end with good news: the bill passed out of the Environmental Quality Committee yesterday and now goes to the full Senate floor for a vote. Make your voice heard, and sign the petition asking legislators and Governor Jerry Brown to stand up for California kids — not the chemical industry — by passing the Toxin-Free Infants & Toddlers Act (AB 1319).

Bill to ban toxic BPA from baby products moves forward

It may not be as comprehensive as it once was, but the bill to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) in children’s feeding containers in California, AB 1319, passed the Senate Health Committee today in yet another narrow vote.

In order to secure state Senator Michael Rubio’s vote (the final vote needed for passage), bill author and Assemblymember Betsy Butler agreed to accept amendments that included eliminating language in the bill that would have banned the chemical from baby food and infant formula. The ban would still apply to baby bottles and sippy cups, making it similar to more limited bans that have passed elsewhere including in Canada.

The fact that the bill passed through this committee at all is a testament both to Butler’s dedication, and to the work of environmental and children’s health groups to spread the word to their members. Nearly 2,000 CLCV members and others have signed our petition in support of the bill, which was delivered to Senator Rubio’s staff. (Click here to view the petition: http://salsa.wiredforchange.co…

It shouldn’t have been a close vote. Watching several Senators (including Committee Vice-Chair Tony Strickland) protest that because they aren’t scientists, they’re not fit to make a decision about BPA (oh and by the way, they’re parents of small children, so it’s not that they don’t care about kids!), made me feel physically ill. And not just because they make decisions about other issues all the time without having earned a PhD in the subject. It’s called being an elected official.

As a (very) pregnant woman who’s recently done my share of shopping for baby items, I know there are plenty of retailers (online and otherwise) that have BPA-free products available. They include major retailers like Target and Wal-Mart. But many (especially those with actual storefronts) continue to sell products loaded with the chemical. I happen to have both the awareness about BPA and the ability to shop for products that make “BPA-free!” part of their prominent sales pitch. So does each and every member of the Senate Health Committee, whether or not they admit it.

(Seriously, does anyone think any given member of the state legislature would knowingly give their child a bottle that contained BPA?)

But not every mom or dad in California has the information or the access to buy BPA-free. Many families must shop at the local dollar store for feeding containers like bottles and sippy cups. It’s their children who will bear the burden of BPA exposure if the bill does not succeed.

State Senator Kevin DeLeon remarked on this fact in his comments to the committee today, saying: “Every child deserves to grow up in a healthy environment; it’s an equity issue. We have to do everything we can to protect young babies.” He reiterated his support for the bill (with or without the amendments) and thanked author Butler for her courage in championing the issue.

AB 1319 now moves to the Senate Environmental Quality committee before heading to the full California state Senate floor for a vote, and then to Governor Brown’s desk.

The battle is far from over. Chemical companies want to see this bill go down. While they may have lost some of the players involved in the opposition (for example, infant formula manufacturers may no long put as much self-interested energy into opposing it), they’ll almost certainly intensify their campaign over the next several weeks to continue to try to mislead Senators about the science on this toxic chemical.

If you haven’t yet done so, please sign the CLCV petition in support of AB 1319: http://salsa.wiredforchange.co…

Meanwhile, the evidence continues to mount that BPA is dangerous. A new study from the University of Missouri says that human exposure to BPA has actually been underestimated, because prior lab tests have looked at single exposures rather than daily diets.

The study is the “first to examine BPA concentrations in any animal after exposure through a steady diet, which mirrors the chronic exposure that humans receive through food packaging.” It further says more than 8 billion pounds of BPA are produced every year, and more than 90 percent of U.S. residents have measurable amounts of BPA in their bodies. Published in Environmental Health Perspectives, the study’s funding came from the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences.

You don’t have to be a scientist to look at the mountain of evidence and understand this is a chemical we should be very, very worried about, and to know it doesn’t belong in infant and children’s products. You don’t need a PhD, you don’t even have to be a parent. You just have to use common sense… and it also helps if you’re not accepting donations from the American Chemistry Council.

I’m just sayin’.

Jenesse Miller

Communications Director, CLCV

Urge EPA to rethink toxic chemical after scientists say it can’t be managed

“Adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible.”

-CA Scientific Review Committee

This is the time of year many talk about United Farm Workers’ founder Cesar Chavez. Cesar was many things, among them he was a strong voice on pesticides.  

PhotobucketCesar Chavez said, “In the old days, miners would carry birds with them to warn against poison gas. Hopefully, the birds would die before the miners. Farm workers are society’s canaries. Farm workers-and their children-demonstrate the effects of pesticide poisoning before anyone else…There is no acceptable level of exposure to any chemical that causes cancer. There can be no toleration of any toxic that causes miscarriages, still births, and deformed babies.”

As you celebrate his legacy, add your voice to continue Cesar’s fight.

Cesar’s UFW is currently working on a campaign that is critical for farm workers health and safety. We are working together with a coalition of environmental and farm worker groups to try to get the EPA to re-review the toxic pesticide methyl Iodide.  

Science has proven that methyl iodide is a water contaminant, nervous system poison, thyroid toxicant and carcinogen. In other words, it’s a toxic poison that should not be used near where people live.

Despite this, the Bush Administration’s EPA registered methyl iodide nationally in 2007–automatically permitting this toxin for use in a number of states. Other states like California have their own state regulations and are still deciding whether to allow it to be used.

However, there is finally hope to pull this toxic poison off the market. On September 25, 2009, U.S. EPA publicly agreed to reopen its decision on methyl iodide, pending results of the California Department of Pesticide’s Scientific Review Committee, comprised of scientists from across the country.

The Panel’s data is in.

Their report: this pesticide is toxic and harmful. “Adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible.”

In addition their report raised serious questions about the scientific accuracy of the federal review that was done under the Bush Administration.

Difficult if not impossible to control–yet this carcinogenic chemical is being used in North Carolina, Florida and fields across the country right now.

This has to stop. Help us hold EPA to their promise to follow the science on methyl iodide. Sign the petition today!

Help Protect Children From Toxic Pesticides

Luis Medellin and his three little sisters, aged 5, 9 and 12, live in the middle of an orange grove in Lindsay, CA–a small farming town in the Central Valley. pesticide driftDuring the growing season, Luis and his sisters are awakened several times a week by the sickly smell of nighttime pesticide spraying. What follows is worse: searing headaches, nausea, vomiting.

The Medellin family’s story is not unique. From apple orchards in Washington to potato fields in Florida, drifting poisonous pesticides plague the people who live nearby–posing a particular risk to the young children of the nation’s farm workers, many of whom live in industry housing at the field’s edge.

This situation also often exists in schools in agricultural areas where it’s not uncommon to have a school next to a field.


Nov. 7, 2009 – Salinas Californian:

Salinas Valley schools perched near pesticide-sprayed farmland
,

“When schools use pesticides on campus, they post a warning a day before. But when acres of farmland next to classrooms are sprayed with industrial-grade chemicals, often no sign goes up.”

Gonzales resident Aurora Valdez said she’s fearful pesticides sprayed near Gonzales High School, where her kids attend classes, will harm her teenage sons. She said she often prays to the Virgin of Guadalupe to keep her sons from experiencing what she said her husband, Francisco, went through 12 years ago after being exposed to pesticides. “I worry constantly about pesticides,” Valdez said.

That’s why the UFW, Earth Justice, Farm Worker Justice and a coalition of environmental groups petitioned the government to set safety standards protecting children who grow up near farms from the harmful effects of pesticide drift–the toxic spray or vapor that travels from treated fields. We’re also asking officials to immediately adopt no-spray buffer zones around homes, schools, parks and daycare centers for the most dangerous and drift-prone pesticides.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has taken the first step in addressing this problem–opening up the petition for public comment. It’s a promising sign.

Environmental News Service:

EPA Proposes Labeling to Control Pesticide Drift, Evaluates Petition

November 4, 2009 (ENS) – Pesticide labeling to reduce off-target spray and dust drift was proposed today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The new instructions are aimed at improving the clarity and consistency of pesticide labels and help prevent harm from spray drift, the toxic spray or vapor that travels from treated agricultural fields and into neighboring communities.

The agency is also requesting comment on a citizens’ petition to evaluate children’s exposure to pesticide drift.

The agency’s leadership needs to hear that you think they’re on the right track. Because they’ll surely be getting an earful from the pesticide industry telling them to keep the status quo. In fact, industry interests like Monsanto and CropLife have already started weighing in.

If we want EPA to do the right thing and put immediate pesticide buffers in place around homes, schools, daycare centers and playgrounds, we need to push back. Please help.

In the past, the EPA has not made this issue a priority–ignoring a law Congress passed that requires the agency to protect children from all exposures to pesticide, including pesticide drift. The agency is already three years overdue in setting safety standards that protect children from drift. But there is new hope with the Obama administration. Will you please send your e-mail today and add your voice to those calling for a change?

Thank you!    

CA Assembly Fails to Pass BPA Bill

As you all know, I and other members on the MomsRising.org team have been fervently working to pass a bill in California that would help eliminate the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic baby and toddler products like bottles and sippy cups. I thought I would let you know how the vote went on Friday.

It had already passed the Senate and was favored by the Assembly 35-32. Unfortunately, it did not garner the 41 votes necessary to clear the Assembly. Here is how individual Assemblymembers voted.

Here is a statement by Sen. Fran Pavley, who sponsored and fought her heart out for this important bill:

“California was poised to join Canada, Minnesota, Connecticut and several other cities and counties in the United States that, with significant bi-partisan support, have enacted bans on BPA in baby bottles and other feeding products for children. ‘The science on BPA clearly shows cause for alarm,’ said Senator Pavley. ‘Every child from every community in our state deserves access to safe, affordable products. I don’t understand how some lawmakers are willing to ignore science and risk the health of California children.’

“Bisphenol A (BPA) is an artificial hormone that is widely used in shatter-proof plastic baby bottles, sippy cups and the lining of formula cans. It leaches out of containers and into food and drink consumed by babies and young children.

“More than 220 peer-reviewed studies have linked BPA to a host of health problems, including breast and prostrate cancer, infertility, obesity, and neurological and behavioral changes, including autism and hyperactivity.

“Senator Pavley’s SB 797 was co-authored by Senator Carol Liu, D – Pasadena, and was sponsored by Breast Cancer Fund, Environmental Working Group and Physicians for Social Responsibility. The bill received widespread support from health care professionals, business owners and a long and diverse list of organizations including; Black Women for Wellness, Latinas for Reproductive Justice, The Help Group for Autism Spectrum Disorders, California Teachers Association, California Nurses Association, Asian Health Services, and California Women Infants and Children (WIC), SEIU, California Labor Federation, and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice to name a few. The opponents include BPA manufacturers Dow and SABIC Innovative Plastics, as well as infant formula makers Abbott, Mead Johnson, and Nestle.”

I won’t lie. I am disappointed in the legislators who voted against the bill and abstained from voting. But I am also extra determined to fight for the bill when it comes up for reconsideration next year, and to convince these legislators that California families with science on our side are more powerful than corporate lobbyists. Will you join me?

Thank you, by the way, to those of you who called your Assemblymembers in support of SB 797!

Pregnant farm workers exposed to pesticide drift while harvesting organic onions

1

“I am very afraid because I do not know what tomorrow will bring because I am four months pregnant and I worry for my unborn baby. Three days later [after being exposed to pesticide drift], I am still vomiting and have a major headache. My pregnancy doctor could not see me as he was going to charge me and I did not have any money to pay him.”

   — Julia Rojas Sabino, Organic Onion Worker

Pesticide drift poisonings should be a thing of the past. Agribusiness knows pesticides are dangerous. Pesticide applicators know pesticides drift. Proper precautions should be taken by applicators. Every farm should make sure supervisors know what to do in a drift emergency. It’s simple. Right?



TAKE ACTION!

Tell that to Julia Rojads Sabino and the other farm workers who were exposed to pesticide drift on Friday, July 10, while harvesting onions in Tehachapi. Julia and another farm worker were pregnant (four and five months respectively).

The workers thought they were safe. After all, they were harvestingorganic onions. They weren’t dealing with pesticides, right?

However, the orchard next door wasn’t organic.

Julia and her crew arrived at the field. Julia noticed that to the side of her crew–approximately 60 meters away–there was a man ready to spray pesticides in the apple orchard in the next field.

Julia and the crew she was part of began working at 6am, at the same time they began spraying. They began to smell a very strong odor. Julia told us, “The smell became stronger and we spoke to the crew boss. He told us it was lime [sulfur] and after a while gave us masks for our mouths.” She said these masks did nothing to protect workers against the smell or the chemical.

Workers started sneezing and vomiting and their eyes began stinging. The crew boss called the supervisor and when he arrived ten minutes later they moved the workers to another location and told them to have lunch.

Julia told us, “My coworkers were vomiting and their eyes burning. I felt very dizzy and was vomiting and I tried drinking lots of water to see if it would go away.” It didn’t.

The fire department and ambulance arrived and the sickest workers–including Julia–were put in an enclosed area, stripped down and given a high pressure bath and taken to the county hospital. Julia told us all “they did an ultrasound and gave us a glass of cold water.”

Julia is worried about the effects these pesticides, Assail 70 WP (acemidiprid) and Fujimite 5EC (fenpryoximate), might have on her unborn baby or herself. Luckily she was past her 1st trimester, so the chance of birth defects is much lower.

The laws and regulations out there say an applicator should not spray pesticides in a way that creates a danger of contaminating other people.  The laws say the employer should have moved the workers out of harm’s way and ensured they were taken to the doctor immediately.

However, a lot of this is a matter of judgment. There are no set buffer zones or required communication between separate farms about planned spraying. (If it was the same farm, there is required notification for other workers expected to come within 1/4 mile of the sprayed area.)



This is wrong.
Tell the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to make sure the county issues stiff fines. But even more importantly these rules have to stop being just a matter of judgment. Established minimum buffer zones need to be set. Communication between farms needs to be a must, not a maybe.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION!

TAKE ACTION: Chemical industry urges CA gov to ignore science & approve toxic pesticide methyl iodi

http://bit.ly/jfrEt

The highly toxic, mutagenic, new pesticide methyl iodide is currently being given a comprehensive review by the Department of Pesticide Regulations and the agency’s registration decision is pending advice from a panel of scientists convened specifically to review this chemical.

However, according to inside sources, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is being pressured by corporate interests to fast-track registration of this toxic pesticide–despite serious concerns from the state’s own scientists at the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).



Take action:
http://bit.ly/jfrEt

“Methyl iodide is so toxic that scientists working with it in the laboratory take extreme precautions when handling it, using a ventilation hood, gloves, and special equipment for transferring it so it does not escape to the air,” notes Dr. Susan Kegley. “This degree of protection is not possible in an agricultural setting where the pesticide would be applied at rates of 175 pounds per acre in the open air. Buffer zones of 400 feet for a 40-acre fumigation would still result in a dose of methyl iodide to neighbors that is 375 times higher than DPR believes is acceptable. For workers, the numbers are much worse, with exposures estimated at 3,000 times higher than DPR’s acceptable dose for some tasks.”

Methyl iodide’s manufacturer, Arysta, withdrew its New York application for registration after state officials raised concerns about groundwater contamination and potential exposure for workers, bystanders and nearby residents–especially children, pregnant women and the elderly.

Now the industry is asking California’s governor to order DPR to fast track the registration of this deadly fumigant. This is not acceptable. Please take action and tell the Governor to keep methyl iodide of California’s fields.



Take action:
http://bit.ly/jfrEt

Keeping Big Business happy at our children’s expense

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson of Speak Out california

I remember as a youngster believing that the President and the government would protect us from harmful things—like gas fumes at the pump and toys that broke off and could hurt babies and little children. Of course, I was quite young at the time, not yet at double digits, the country was much more naive and Dwight Eisenhower was president. This was obviously a long time ago!

But I took the notion seriously that government had a moral and constitutional responsibility to protect the public and keep us from harms way—whether it be from enemies to our shores, criminals threatening our personal peace and safety or just known bad things being cast upon us by those who didn’t care about our well-being.

It turns out I was very naive, and had a misplaced sense of what government, at least in times of Ike,considered to be its responsibilities. But as time has moved on, the role of government to protect us as consumers and as individuals has evolved. Particularly in the 1970’s, and somewhat ironically, under both Republican and Democratic presidents, the role of the EPA, the Consumer Protection Agency and other publicly concerned entities took a front-and-center position in helping protect our nation and our natural resources. After all, it was Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Water Act (although it was pushed heavily by the democratically controlled congress). To his credit, he also oversaw the first Environmental Protection Agency, committed to protecting our environmental health.

Fast-forward to today and we see a stark contrast between a national commitment to protect the public and an adminstration which has blatantly and shamelessly pronounced that the public health is of no concern to it. That seems to be the message of this week’s extraordinary conduct of one Nancy A. Nord, the acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The CPSC is the agency tasked with the responsibility to oversee the safety of more than 15,000 types of consumer products. It is this agency which has been under scrutiny as more and more of the thousands of products we import from China, as toys with which our children play, turn out to be laced with poison. Primarily in the form of lead materials, our youngest children are being exposed to toxic materials known to cause brain damage and other serious health and safety consequences for children in particular.

The public outcry has been predictably severe, after all, these are our children who are being knowingly exposed to dangerous substances. The question has been raised, “Where is the government in all this? Where is the agency that is supposed to protect against unsafe consumer products? Who is minding the store?”

The answer with this administration, in particular, has been that no one is minding the store. After all, the market can regulate itself and we don’t want to impose any regulation or restrictions that will interfere with a free and unregulated market. And therein lies the rub: The market has not and does not regulate itself. It only responds when it is finally CAUGHT. So millions of our children have been exposed to these dangerous materials. How many of them will suffer as a result? How many parents and loved ones will feel responsible for the consequences because the government has failed to protect them? And finally, how can this administration, that professes to want to protect America justify such neglect of its responsibilities?

The answer, sadly, is best summarized by the extraordinary response by the person who is in charge of protecting us from unsafe products. Appointed by George W. Bush  to head an agency whose work and mandate she opposes, Ms. Nord publicly opposed legislation that will strengthen her agency’s ability to do its job.

On October 30th, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill which would raise the CPSC budget, increase its staff and grant it “broad new powers to police the marketplace” on behalf of consumer safety.
The New York Times reported that Nord opposed the measure because it would “increase the maximum penalties for safety violations , make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products and protect industry whistleblowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate the law.” In other words, she opposed a bill that would help her agency do its job in holding these companies accountable and deterring these dangerous abuses in the future– this from the person responsible for making sure we are protected from these very practices. Just imagine a District Attorney opposing legislation making his/her job easier to catch and prosecute the bad guy!

This legislation was precipitated by yet another recall in October of over half a million toys imported from China. Earlier we saw millions of other toys recalled for containing dangerous levels of lead and other safety problems. As if that weren’t enough to jump on the bandwagon and call for greater oversight and accountability, Ms. Nord completely missed the point, arguing instead that the latest recall came not for safety reasons, but simply because the contents violate the law. Huh?

Have the Bush free-marketeers gone so over the top that they don’t see that the public wants protection and deserves to be protected from dangerous products, especially those that harm their CHILDREN? Apparently not. Apparently the free-marketeers are so inflexible, so intractible, so unconcerned with the well-being of the people they are poisoning that they are even willing to so publicly condemn efforts to assure greater safety and protection of our people, and our children in particular.

If there are any Americans left who think this administration cares about them more than about big business and corporate profit, this should be the final nail in that coffin. This move toward even greater deregulation, greater unaccountability and responsibility to the public is straight out of the failed conservative ideology that the people are reacting to today. Bush’s dangerous and irresponsible commitment to ignore the public’s safety, heavens, our children’s safety, for the sake of corporate free- market is yet another example of his failed priorities and the failure of this administration to act in the best interests of the public he and his appointees are supposed to serve.

For the sake of our children and our planet we must change the dialogue and bring safety and responsibility back to the process. Our children deserve it and we must demand it. When an administration is reduced to such arrogance and misguided values so as to blatantly and publicly reject the safety of its people and its children, in particular, it is time to send them packing.

It isn’t the 1950’s anymore. We aren’t naive about what is going on in the world and in the world of mulit-national commerce. And even our youngsters today know the government isn’t necessarily there to protect them. It is now our job to insist that it do so.

Take Action: Stop toxic methyl iodide from being used in California

(Nice action diary from the United Farm Workers. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

E-mail CA officials today!

A little over a week ago, the EPA approved the use of methyl iodide–a dangerous toxic, mutagenic pesticide. The EPA is refusing to listen to us and the dozens of prominent scientists who have repeatedly pointed out the dangers associated with this pesticide.

California is one of the largest users of fumigant pesticides. The state must give a separate approval to methyl iodide before this toxic chemical can be used. We asking for your immediate help to encourage California authorities to do the right thing and refuse approval of this deadly compound.

http://www.ufwaction…

By sending an e-mail today, you can help protect the tens of thousands of farmworkers who work and live in California along with consumers who eat the California-grown produce.

There is still time to pressure the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). The California’s state review of methyl iodide isn’t scheduled to be completed until late 2008. Up until this point, DPR has been cautious about use of this pesticide. A February 2006 letter that the California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) submitted to the EPA expressed serious reservations about the chemical’s high toxicity and the potential harm it posed to “workers and bystanders, as well as residents living near treated fields.” However, it’s very important that you give DPR immediate feedback, in order to let officials know you are watching their actions in light of the EPA’s disastrous decision. 

http://www.ufwaction…

As an October 11, Sacramento Bee editorial, entitled “New danger in the fields – State should keep methyl iodide out” points out, “While [methyl iodide] does not damage the ozone, methyl iodide is more acutely toxic than methyl bromide. It is so dangerous that chemists who handle tiny amounts of it in laboratory settings must first don protective hoods and double gloves and use specially sealed bottles and syringes to ensure none of the chemical escapes…The EPA ignored objections raised by 52 eminent scientists, including five Nobel Laureates for chemistry, who signed a letter last month advising the EPA not to register methyl iodide. ‘As scientists and physicians familiar with this chemical,’ they wrote, ‘we are concerned that pregnant women and the fetus, children, the elderly, farmworkers and other people living near application sites would be at serious risk if methyl iodide is permitted in agriculture.'” (For background information, click here to see last weeks’ UFW alert to the EPA)

Please E-mail Mary-Ann Warmerdam, Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation TODAY and tell the DPR to protect the public and the environment by not allowing this pesticide to be used.

http://www.ufwaction…

Sacramento Bee editorial

Letter to EPA by scientists