Re: EPA Reviewing Tests Of Human Pesticide Effects

[Guest guest]

Hey Sharon,I have a question about Mold-help.org. Under Approved Products it lists Air Purification where various ionizers are listed for sale. Aren't ionizers written up by the EPA as being bad for health?Blessings,Starr ConnellySocial Worker 3Home and Community Services, DSHSLynnwood, WashingtonStarr.connelly@...

Hi Starr,

I have no idea. I really am not well versed on Air Purifiers and Mold-Help is not my website. You should go on the site, contact the web person and ask that question.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Hey Sharon,

I have a question about Mold-help.org. Under Approved Products it

lists Air Purification where various ionizers are listed for sale.

Aren't ionizers written up by the EPA as being bad for health?

Blessings,

Starr Connelly

Social Worker 3

Home and Community Services, DSHS

Lynnwood, Washington

Starr.connelly@...

>

> Hey,

>

> Are you all aware of how much money these medical professionals are

being

> paid when they provide " expert " denials of the serious cognitive

and

> immunological symptoms after one has been exposed to mold? Dr.

Saxon has billed as much

> as $70K for just one case with a single plaintiff. Dr. Gots of

the

> International Center for Toxicology Medicine has billed well over

$100K for a case

> with just two plaintiffs. Gots is a very prolific professional

naysayer. And

> these are just two of the defensors that are out there. Much of

Saxon's money

> for his expert witness testimony goes directly to UCLA.

>

> Hmmmmm? Now tell me again why people are not able to find viable

medical

> treatment for the serious cognitive, neurological and immune

dysfunctions they

> are experiencing after an excessive exposure to mold?

>

> Sharon

>

>

> Gotta love that University of California Medical System.(UCSD)

This is the

> same system that I just posted about yesterday, where they were

saying all

> the problems over mold is caused by hysteria of the internet.

(UC). And

> one of the doctors that is an author of the ACOEM " Evidence Based "

Statement on

> mold illness is Saxon, (UCLA). Also does a good bit of

expert

> witness testimony denying mold illnesses for the defense. Mold-

help.org has some

> info on this. Look for the word " GlobalTox " .

>

> Sharon

>

>

> From the above it would appear that the only test subjects that

should be

> used are senior US government officials and the researchers who

are carrying

> out the studies.

>

> Wow!

> Jim H. White SSAL

>

> From: _Stacey Champion_ (mailto:schampion@c...)

> To: _iequality _ (mailto:iequality )

> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:43 PM

> Subject: EPA Reviewing Tests Of Human Pesticide Effects

>

>

>

> Wow †" this is just plain wrong. And marijuana’s illegal…

Amazing.

> S.C.

> EPA Reviewing Tests Of Human Pesticide Effects

>

_http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_co

ntent/21

> 35.htm_

>

(http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_co

ntent/2135.htm)

> WASHINGTON (AP) - In deciding whether to approve specific

pesticides, the

> Environmental Protection Agency is using data from two dozen

industry tests

> that intentionally exposed people to poisons, including one

involving a World

> War I-era chemical warfare agent.

> Companies seeking pesticide permits submitted the data to EPA from

24 human

> pesticide experiments. The data is being reviewed under a policy

the Bush

> administration adopted last November to have political appointees

referee on a

> case-by-case basis any ethical disputes over human testing.

> It was made available to congressional aides to two California

Democrats,

> Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Henry Waxman, who compiled and

reviewed the EPA

> data on 22 of the cases.

> " Nearly one-third of the studies reviewed were specifically

designed to

> cause harm to the human test subjects or to put them at risk of

harm, " the aides

> concluded in a 38-page report and accompanying documents provided

to The

> Associated Press.

> Scientists conducting the experiments " failed to obtain informed

consent

> (and) dismissed adverse outcomes, " adding that the tests " lacked

scientific

> validity, " the report said.

> In one study, conducted in 2002-2004 by University of California-

San Diego

> researchers, a soil insecticide called chloropicrin was

administered to 127

> young adults. The chemical also was produced during World War I as

a chemical

> warfare agent. Trade-name products for it and mixtures of it -

such as

> Timberfume, Tri-Con, Preplant Soil Fumigant and Pic-Chor - must

carry a " danger "

> warning label.

> Most of those involved in the testing were college students and

minorities

> who were paid $15 an hour to be put in a chamber or have the vapor

shot into

> their nose and eyes after signing consent forms warning they

should anticipate

> " some irritation in the nose, throat and eyes that could be sharp

enough to

> cause blinking and tearing. "

> " Because you will be participating in an experiment, we must

apprise you

> that there may be some risks that are currently unforeseeable, "

the consent form

> read.

> Doses 120 times the hourly limit established by the Occupational

Safety and

> Health Administration were ingested by the test subjects,

according to the

> congressional aides' report.

> Another study dosed eight people with the pesticide azinphos-

methyl for 28

> days, and everyone reported headaches, abdominal pain, nausea,

coughing and

> rashes, the report said.

> Boxer said the report " proves the Bush administration is

encouraging

> dangerous pesticide testing on humans with no standards, " despite

the EPA's new

> policy.

> EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said that the agency " values the

importance of

> the scientific and ethical issues surrounding human studies and is

expediting

> a public rulemaking process to comply with a federal court

decision. "

> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in

2003 in a

> suit brought by the pesticide industry that the EPA cannot refuse

to consider

> data from manufacturer-sponsored human exposure tests until it

develops

> regulations on it.

> Agency officials said last November that a new rule on human

testing data

> would be issued by 2006, and until then each study would be looked

at and

> accepted unless it is fundamentally unethical or has significant

deficiencies.

> Human tests, in the view of pesticide makers, provide more

accurate results

> than those using animals. The companies that use them say they

follow safety

> guidelines set by Congress, EPA, courts and scientific groups.

> The EPA for decades used industry studies gathered from human

tests to help

> set pesticide exposure levels. Officials say they still accept the

data but

> don't rely on it for their decision-making.

[Guest guest]

Some info from EPA.

 

Ozone-Generating Air Cleaners and Indoor Air Chemistry - http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/iemb/ozone.htm

" Indoor Air Pollution: An Introduction for Health Professionals "

 - http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/hpguide.html

EPA Reviewing Tests

Of Human Pesticide Effects

>

>

>

> Wow †" this is just plain wrong.

And marijuana’s illegal…

Amazing.

> S.C.

> EPA Reviewing Tests Of Human Pesticide

Effects

>

_http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_co

ntent/21

> 35.htm_

>

(http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_co

ntent/2135.htm)

> WASHINGTON (AP) - In deciding whether

to approve specific

pesticides, the

> Environmental Protection Agency is using

data from two dozen

industry tests

> that intentionally exposed people to

poisons, including one

involving a World

> War I-era chemical warfare agent.

> Companies seeking pesticide permits

submitted the data to EPA from

24 human

> pesticide experiments. The data is

being reviewed under a policy

the Bush

> administration adopted last November to

have political appointees

referee on a

> case-by-case basis any ethical disputes

over human testing.

> It was made available to congressional

aides to two California

Democrats,

> Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Henry Waxman,

who compiled and

reviewed the EPA

> data on 22 of the cases.

> " Nearly one-third of the studies

reviewed were specifically

designed to

> cause harm to the human test subjects or to

put them at risk of

harm, " the aides

> concluded in a 38-page report and

accompanying documents provided

to The

> Associated Press.

> Scientists conducting the experiments

" failed to obtain informed

consent

> (and) dismissed adverse outcomes, "

adding that the tests " lacked

scientific

> validity, " the report said.

> In one study, conducted in 2002-2004 by

University of California-

San

Diego

> researchers, a soil insecticide called

chloropicrin was

administered to 127

> young adults. The chemical also was

produced during World War I as

a chemical

> warfare agent. Trade-name products for

it and mixtures of it -

such as

> Timberfume, Tri-Con, Preplant Soil Fumigant

and Pic-Chor - must

carry a " danger "

> warning label.

> Most of those involved in the testing

were college students and

minorities

> who were paid $15 an hour to be put in

a chamber or have the vapor

shot into

> their nose and eyes after signing

consent forms warning they

should anticipate

> " some irritation in the nose, throat

and eyes that could be sharp

enough to

> cause blinking and tearing. "

> " Because you will be participating in

an experiment, we must

apprise you

> that there may be some risks that are

currently unforeseeable, "

the consent form

> read.

> Doses 120 times the hourly limit

established by the Occupational

Safety and

> Health Administration were ingested by

the test subjects,

according to the

> congressional aides' report.

> Another study dosed eight people with

the pesticide azinphos-

methyl for 28

> days, and everyone reported headaches, abdominal

pain, nausea,

coughing and

> rashes, the report said.

> Boxer said the report " proves the

Bush administration is

encouraging

> dangerous pesticide testing on humans with

no standards, " despite

the EPA's new

> policy.

> EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said that

the agency " values the

importance of

> the scientific and ethical issues

surrounding human studies and is

expediting

> a public rulemaking process to comply

with a federal court

decision. "

> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia ruled in

2003 in a

> suit brought by the pesticide industry

that the EPA cannot refuse

to consider

> data from manufacturer-sponsored human

exposure tests until it

develops

> regulations on it.

> Agency officials said last November

that a new rule on human

testing data

> would be issued by 2006, and until then

each study would be looked

at and

> accepted unless it is fundamentally unethical

or has significant

deficiencies.

> Human tests, in the view of pesticide makers,

provide more

accurate results

> than those using animals. The companies

that use them say they

follow safety

> guidelines set by Congress, EPA, courts

and scientific groups.

> The EPA for decades used industry

studies gathered from human

tests to help

> set pesticide exposure levels. Officials

say they still accept the

data but

> don't rely on it for their decision-making.

[Guest guest]

I came across this quote today and thought it appropriate for this thread.

md

It does not require a majority to prevail,

but rather an irate, tireless minority

keen to set brush fires in people's minds

--

That's a GREAT quote! I've got a match. Does anybody have some kindling?

Sharon Kramer

snk1955@...

[Guest guest]

I came across this quote today and thought it

appropriate for this thread.

md

It

does not require a majority to prevail,

but

rather an irate, tireless minority

keen to

set brush fires in people's minds

--

Re: EPA

Reviewing Tests Of Human Pesticide Effects

Gotta

love that University of California

Medical System.(UCSD) This is the same system that I just posted about

yesterday, where they were saying all the problems over mold is caused by

hysteria of the internet.(UC). And one of the doctors that is an

author of the ACOEM " Evidence Based " Statement on mold

illness is Saxon, (UCLA). Also does a good bit of expert

witness testimony denying mold illnesses for the defense. Mold-help.org

has some info on this. Look for the word " GlobalTox " .

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Mark,

How true this is!!!!!!!!!! Very

appropriate for some on this site ;-)

Emma

Re: EPA

Reviewing Tests Of Human Pesticide Effects

Gotta

love that University of California Medical

System.(UCSD) This is the

same system that I just posted about yesterday, where they were saying all

the problems over mold is caused by hysteria of the internet.(UC). And

one of the doctors that is an author of the ACOEM " Evidence Based "

Statement on mold illness is Saxon, (UCLA). Also does a good

bit of expert witness testimony denying mold illnesses for the

defense. Mold-help.org has some info on this. Look for the word

" GlobalTox " .

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Mail to the website is not accepted. Not sure that supporting a site that promotes and sells ionizers is a good idea.

Starr Connelly

snk1955@... wrote:

Hey Sharon,I have a question about Mold-help.org. Under Approved Products it lists Air Purification where various ionizers are listed for sale. Aren't ionizers written up by the EPA as being bad for health?Blessings,Starr ConnellySocial Worker 3Home and Community Services, DSHSLynnwood, WashingtonStarr.connelly@...

Hi Starr,

I have no idea. I really am not well versed on Air Purifiers and Mold-Help is not my website. You should go on the site, contact the web person and ask that question.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Sharon__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Mail to the website is not accepted. Not sure that supporting a site that promotes and sells ionizers is a good idea.

Starr Connelly

Hmmm? Wonder why it won't accept it. Also, you have to understand, this is a multi, mulit faceted issue. There is not one person involved with this issue who agrees 100% on every single aspects of this issue with one other person. So just because a site sells ionizers should not discount all the vast information that is site has to offer.

Try emaling toxic@... to contact this site. Again, I am not well versed in air purifiers and am not certain this is the best place for you to go for that information. It's a great site though, for up to date info on the lastest medical research and news of the mold issue from around the country.

Good Luck with Your Journey!

Sharon Kramer

[Guest guest]

Starr

I am well versed in the "greenwash" of air filtration and air purifiers. Which site is this and what are you looking for. I missed the connection e-mails.

gina

Makris, DC, MSEL

Chiropractic Physician

Environmental Health and Law Consultations

Sustainable Indoor Environments and Indoor Air Quality Consultations

"Nothing Splendid has ever been achieved except by those who dared

believe that something inside them was superior to circumstance".

(Bruce Barton)

Re: Re: EPA Reviewing Tests Of Human Pesticide Effects

Mail to the website is not accepted. Not sure that supporting a site that promotes and sells ionizers is a good idea.

Starr Connelly

Hmmm? Wonder why it won't accept it. Also, you have to understand, this is a multi, mulit faceted issue. There is not one person involved with this issue who agrees 100% on every single aspects of this issue with one other person. So just because a site sells ionizers should not discount all the vast information that is site has to offer.

Try emaling toxic@... to contact this site. Again, I am not well versed in air purifiers and am not certain this is the best place for you to go for that information. It's a great site though, for up to date info on the lastest medical research and news of the mold issue from around the country.

Good Luck with Your Journey!

Sharon Kramer

[Guest guest]

I am very well versed in air purifiers, is there something I can

help with?

>

> In a message dated 8/5/2005 10:20:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> gsconnelly@y... writes:

>

> Mail to the website is not accepted. Not sure that supporting a

site that

> promotes and sells ionizers is a good idea.

>

> Starr Connelly

>

>

>

> Hmmm? Wonder why it won't accept it. Also, you have to

understand, this is

> a multi, mulit faceted issue. There is not one person involved

with this

> issue who agrees 100% on every single aspects of this issue with

one other

> person. So just because a site sells ionizers should not

discount all the vast

> information that is site has to offer.

>

> Try emaling _toxic@m..._ (mailto:toxic@m...) to contact

> this site. Again, I am not well versed in air purifiers and am

not certain

> this is the best place for you to go for that information. It's

a great site

> though, for up to date info on the lastest medical research and

news of the

> mold issue from around the country.

>

> Good Luck with Your Journey!

> Sharon Kramer