Tag Archives: asbestos

Mesothelioma Awareness – September 26th

On August 27, 2012 I wrote a post titled Mold Spores, Mycotoxins and Cross Contamination.  In this post a related a commercial here that has run on the television about how family members can be ill from coming in contact with asbestos on the clothes of family members who worked with asbestos.  My post was trying to say that they “get it” in terms of cross contamination with asbestos but the public just doesn’t get the cross contamination of mycotoxins and mold spores just yet.

About a week ago I received an email through the contact portion of my website.  The email was a heartfelt message from a man whose wife is a “rare” Mesothelioma survivor.  He asked not for donations, time, or money but if I would be willing to share his wife story.  September 26th is National Mesothelioma Awareness Day.  I am not able to make changes to my website but offered to share her story here on my blog.  I am aware of the prognosis of someone being diagnosed with Mesothelioma and it is not good.   I am also amazed at those that continue to survive long past the normal diagnosed lifespan.   We have a tenant that has outlived his diagnosis with Methoselioma.

Please watch the video clip of Heather Von St. James.  In the clip she talks about preferring to live with hope.  I talk a lot about survival, courage, and hope.  Heather’s story is definitely one of survival, courage, and hope.


Think those chemicals have been tested?

On Saturday, April 13, 2013, the NY Times posted an article with this exact title.  The article was forwarded to me by my dear friend Jennie Sherwin.  Jennie will also have a blog post up sometime today on this article as well.

You will want to read the entire article here.  I am, however, going to give you a snippet of what the article is about.

Industrial chemicals, unlike its counterparts pharmaceuticals and pesticides, do not have to be tested before being put on the market.  Rarely are producers required to provide the government with information to assess safety.

These companies are not required to provide safety data when notifying the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) about new chemicals.  If the EPA does not block the chemical within 90 days, the chemical is by default given the go ahead.  According to the NY Times article, the EPA has only succeeded in banning or restricting polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, hexavalent chromium (probably due to Erin Brockovich and all the complainants in Hinkley, CA), asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons.

Federal officials could not say if the chemicals used in the clean up in the BP oil spill were safe either.

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2013 has been introduced which would require the chemical industry to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before they could be sold.  Of course the chemical industry is against this bill.  Another bill is expected to be introduced which would likely win support by the chemical companies because it might demand less data or testing.

Hazardous chemicals are suspected to show up in the blood of new-born babies as I mentioned in a previous post.  Knowing how I react to chemicals makes me deeply concerned of the idea that babies are born with these chemicals in their blood streams.

Pesticide and pharmaceuticals may require safety data but how many drugs and pesticides have been pulled off the shelves or banned long after they were deemed safe?  So just imagine the 85,000 industrial chemicals used today that have not been even required to show they are safe.

If you haven’t read enough, check out this video that a friend posted on her Facebook page recently.

Does this make you angry?  It does me!