Exxon wins

As someone who is very emotionally invested in the outcome of the 20-year Exxon Valdez spill ordeal and the city of Cordova, Alaska, I was devastated to learn a few moments ago that the Supreme Court has decided on the case and has chosen to slash the punitive damages to $500 million.

What's the big deal, one might ask, even acknowledging Exxon as the richest company in the world. Five hundred million dollars is more than enough to make the fishers and canners of Cordova and the surrounding communities whole. Perhaps, if this had been taken care of within two years of the spill. Instead, Exxon spent fifteen years using the legal system to avoid paying damages. The actual award was used to clean up the sound. Exxon thinks it did enough. What Exxon refused to take into account was that because of the spill, the herring fishery is basically gone, and the catches of the other fisheries of the Sound are not what they used to be, to the point that the majority of fishers in Cordova can't even fish anymore. These guys and gals, who could bring in 80K a year, have gone nearly twenty years without a proper salary. When I went up there in 2004, they were in foreclosure, they had no health insurance, they couldn't pay for their groceries, some of them, they were former high-liners who were totally humiliated that their wives had to get jobs just for the health insurance. They kept thinking "the checks will come." These checks weren't supposed to be much; just enough to keep them afloat, to compensate in some small way for the years of 80K fishing seasons they had lost, and continue to lose becuase of the continiuing presence of oil in Prince William Sound.

Exxon, for its part, has tried to buy science that says the Sound is healthy, free of oil, perhaps even healthier than it was before the spill (yes, they actually said this with a straight face). In this way, they tried to diminish the impact the spill of '89 had on the biosystem of the sound and the fishers' livelihoods.

So for 15 years, this thing has been in legal limbo, and today, it reached the highest court of the land. By a 5-3 decision, the court ruled that the $2.5 billion award (which had been slashed already from $5 billion) would be lowered to $500 million. With tens of thousands of claimants (many of whom have died while waiting for their check), this equals out to maybe fifteen thousand a piece (consider the lawyers get a third). That's not even a thousand dollars for each year of lost work and wages. It's nauseating. Even at the $2.5 billion award level, they would've only gotten 75K each. This isn't lottery money, an unexpected windfall: this is meant to compensate them for fifteen years of lost work, and in that case, $75K is nothing. It is, for some of these guys, not even a year's salary. To cut it to $15K makes my stomach turn. So I have to stop writing now.

For anyone with interest in the legal history of the Exxon case, check out my article for the Nation, Whatever it Takes. It's not opening right now; I fantasize it's because people are trying to access it in the wake of this news (ha ha). There is another version of the article available on Alternet: The True Price of Oil.

Here is the article on the Supreme Court's decision today on the Exxon Valdez case: Justices Cut Damages Award in Exxon Valdez spill.

Finally, please do what I've been doing since I visited Cordova in 2004: do not buy ExxonMobil gas. Sure, it probably won't make a dent, but boy, is it the right thing to do.

The FDA on BPA: drink up

The FDA, like the EPA, has all the trappings of authority, but none of the qualities one expects from an authority: trustworthiness, deep knowledge of its subject, unbiased judgment, immunity to politics. While I have become innured to the FDA's many failings, and have learned long ago not to depend on the agency to protect me or my children from harmful products, I was a bit surprised at today's news that Norris Alderson, Associate Commissioner for Science for the FDA, publicly stated that BPA bottles are safe, despite the fact that the FDA is in the middle of a study to determine the chemical's safety. This is highly unusual, misleading, and, to get straight to the heart of it, idiotic. Even an eighth grade science student knows not to draw conclusions about a specific research project before research is complete. When such an error in judgment is made about an issue as important as BPA, and made by a top official of the FDA, one could argue that it is also reckless.

Norris Alderson is a strange pick to head up the FDA, which vets drugs and food-related items that are sold or potentially sold on the open market. He's a strange pick because his entire career up until this point has been focused on veterinary science. A veteran expert in animal husbandry, Alderson spent most of his career with the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. With this kind of background, perhaps Alderson's claim that BPA is safe (made before the research ahs come in), is less than comforting.

Earlier this year, Canada announced it would ban the use of BPA in baby bottles because its own research showed that the amount of the chemical leached into formula and breastmilk when used in bottles was troubling, and at a level that could affect behavior and the brain in children, as well as reduce survival and birthweight in fetuses (when ingested by the mother). In the U.S. The National Toxicology Program annoucned that there was "some concern" that BPA could affect the physiological and neurological changes cited by Canada. In federal science-speak, "some concern" is a meaningful statement. And yet, as the FDA works on its own research about this, it allows a top official of its agency to say that BPA is not harmful. This is stupid at best, reckless at worst and demonstrates, in the words of one FDA critic, the agency's "tone-deafness."

Tub Time

Most of us know that PVC isn't exactly the Grape-Nuts of the chemical world. It's nasty stuff. Some of us also know that the vast majority of shower curtains are vinyl and have that unsettling smell when they are ripped from their packaging and first hung up on the rod. I've stopped using PVC shower curtains myself--PVC-free shower curtains can be purchased at Target, for example, which claims 90% of its shower curtain stock is made from materials other than PVC. But now a new study is getting some press that claims to put some science behind the smell. The Los Angeles Times is reporting on an already-controversial study on the toxicity of PVC shower curtains. Researchers commissioned by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice found that several PVC shower curtains emmitted several noxious chemicals and contained high concentrations of phthalates. Now, granted, the study is quite small. Apparently the researchers tested the chemical composition of only five unopened PVC shower curtains from Kmart, Sears, Target, Wal-Mart, and Bed, Bath and Beyond. Anyone who has purchased a PVC shower curtain for their home--and who, at some point, hasn't--knows that the stuff stinks. What the researchers were hoping to find was why it stinks. From the L.A. Times article:

The study found that PVC shower curtains contained high concentrations of phthalates, which have been linked to reproductive effects, and varying concentrations of organotins, which are compounds based on tin and hydrocarbons. One of the curtains tested released measurable quantities of as many as 108 volatile organic compounds into the air, some of which persisted for nearly a month.

Seven of these chemicals -- toluene, ethylbenzene, phenol, methyl isobutyl ketone, xylene, acetophenone and cumene -- have been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous air pollutants, said Stephen Lester, the center's science director and a coauthor of the report...Phtlahates are often added to soften or otherwise enhance the curtain. These additives evaporate or cling to household dust more easily than the chemicals in the curtains themselves.

Again, the study's flaw is its size. Its critics also claim other flaws in the methodology. I will hold off on any judgment on this study until these issues are addressed. However, what is not up for debate is the toxicity of PVC, or polyvinyl chloride. It is classified as a known human carcinogen. Alternatives are easy to find and equal to or superior in quality. Look for shower curtains made of fabric (we own one and contrary to my mother's concerns, it has worked beautifully for many months) or vinyl acetate, which is less toxic than PVC.

As an aside, the article also contained a quote from a spokeswoman for the EPA that just underscored my feelings about the EPA and my anger at those so-called "green" companies who cite EPA standards when discussing the "merits" of their products. Here is another reason to take "meets EPA standards" with a grain of salt:

"The EPA does not regulate indoor air, period," said Barbara Spark, the indoor air program coordinator for the EPA's Pacific Southwest region. "We have not been given that authority by the Congress."

Click here for the L.A. Times article. Click here for a piece from ABC News on critics' concerns about the study's methodology.



http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-me-showercurtain13-2008jun13,0,2784885.story

Formaldehyde Files: A Much-Needed Reminder

Those of you who follow my blog, even occasionally, probably know that I am passionate--some might suggest "obsessed with"--getting formaldehyde out of as many products as possible. This fixation seems odd to some; annoying to others (my contractor, probably); and useless to others who see formaldehyde as such an integral component of building material that it is pointless to try to find alternatives.

Sometimes a news story comes along that energizes me in this struggle, because, frankly, it is damn hard, totally inconvenient, and often demoralizing to find formaldehyde-free offerings. The list of products I've had to forego because of particleboard is long. I still mourn the non-purchase of the Pottery Barn Rhys Media Lift. I am still waiting, after months, to put a door on my newly-remodeled (and unfinished) bathroom because it's next to impossible to find a door that doesn't have a particleboard core. And the hole in our bathroom where our vanity was supposed to have gone is still there since the Dura Supreme "custom hardwood cabinets" we ordered were particleboard pieces of crap that emit formaldehyde. With no refund--and not even a response to my letter--from Dura Supreme, we are left with no sink or cabinets, and have to try to save up again to buy non-toxic cabinets.

Ugh.

Anyway, when all of this coalesces into a moment of "why bother", I need a reminder of why I should bother. That reminder came today in a story out of the FEMA villages in New Orleans and Mississippi. As many of you know, the FEMA trailers--and trailer homes in general--are loaded with formaldehyde fumes because of the building material used in those dwellings (lots of particleboard and plywood and huge amounts of formaldehye-containing interior glue). The story starts with a 15 month old girl whose mother lived in FEMA trailers while pregnant with her, and soon after giving birth. The toddler suffers from severe asthma and must inhale her medicine from a machine. She is not the only Katrina child who is suffering from serious respiratory illness, the typical result of exposure to high levels of formaldehyde. The story also features one of my personal heroes, Christopher De Rosa, who risked his career to come before Congress and talk about the dangers of the formaldehyde in the FEMA trailers even after his bosses told him not to do so. He says that with all the foot-dragging done by FEMA and the CDC in terms of trying to gather research papers instead of getting people out of these poisonous trailers, the agencies are possibly condemning a large number of children to a lifetime of respiratory problems. And with formaldehyde a probable carcinogen, long-term health effects will not be seen for a while.

In fact, one pediatrician says that she used to prescribe nebulizers (the machine that turns medicine into mist for children with respiratory ailments) twice a week. She now prescribes them 12 times a week. From the article:

Dr. Shama Shakir, a Bay St. Louis pediatrician who treats Lexi and Kacey at the Coastal Family Health Center, said..."You give them the most potent steroids, the most potent antibiotics, and still they have the symptoms," Shakir said. "I worry about what will become of these children long-term."

Below is the full-text of the story.

Kids in Katrina trailers may face lifelong ailments
By JOHN MORENO GONZALES – May 27, 2008

BAY ST. LOUIS, MISS. (AP) — The anguish of Hurricane Katrina should have ended for Gina Bouffanie and her daughter when they left their FEMA trailer. But with each hospital visit and each labored breath her child takes, the young mother fears it has just begun.

"It's just the sickness. I can't get rid of it. It just keeps coming back," said Bouffanie, 27, who was pregnant with her now 15-month-old daughter, Lexi, while living in the trailer. "I'm just like, `Oh God, I wish like this would stop.' If I had known it would get her sick, I wouldn't have stayed in the trailer for so long."

The girl, diagnosed with severe asthma, must inhale medicine from a breathing device.

Doctors cannot conclusively link her asthma to the trailer. But they fear she is among tens of thousands of youngsters who may face lifelong health problems because the temporary housing supplied by the Federal Emergency Management Agency contained formaldehyde fumes up to five times the safe level.

The chemical, used in interior glue, was detected in many of the 143,000 trailers sent to the Gulf Coast in 2006. But a push to get residents out of them, spearheaded by FEMA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did not begin until this past February.

Members of Congress and CDC insiders say the agencies' delay in recognizing the danger is being compounded by studies that will be virtually useless and the lack of a plan to treat children as they grow.

"It's tragic that when people most need the protection, they are actually going from one disaster to a health disaster that might be considered worse," said Christopher De Rosa, assistant director for toxicology and risk assessment at the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the CDC. "Given the longer-term implications of exposure that went on for a significant period of time, people should be followed through time for possible effects."

Formaldehyde is classified as a probable carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance, by the Environmental Protection Agency. There is no way to measure formaldelhyde in the bloodstream. Respiratory problems are an early sign of exposure.

Young children are at particular risk. Thousands who lived in trailers will be in the prime of life in the 10 to 15 years doctors believe it takes cancer to develop.

FEMA and CDC reports so far have drawn criticism.

A CDC study released May 8 examined records of 144 Mississippi children, some of whom lived in trailers and others who did not. But the study was confined to children who had at least one doctor's visit for respiratory illness before Katrina. It was largely inconclusive, finding children who went to doctors before the August 2005 storm were still visiting them two years after.

A bigger, five-year CDC study will include up to 5,000 children in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas, and CDC officials said it should begin next year. But members of Congress point to the decade or longer it could take for cancer to develop and say a five-year look is inadequate.

"Monitoring the health of a few thousand children over the course of a few years is a step in the right direction, but we need commitment," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.

Thompson has introduced legislation to force FEMA and CDC to provide health exams for trailer residents who believe formaldehyde made them ill. The bill is similar to $108 million legislation for workers who labored at the World Trade Center site.

Arch Carson, professor of occupational medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, said preliminary exams alone for trailer residents could cost more than the trade center bill. But he said class-action lawsuits over the formaldehyde — at least one has been filed — could be even more expensive, costing many billions of dollars.

"It would be best for the government to get its act together now," Carson said.

More than 22,000 FEMA trailers and mobile homes are still being used in Mississippi and Louisiana.

FEMA and the CDC say they will create a registry of those who stayed in trailers for possible future study. But they admit that the task of keeping track of everyone is made difficult by the rush to get families into other housing.

The parents of McKenzie Whitney, a 1-year-old girl with wavy auburn hair, are running low on money and options for caring for the sick girl.

Born into a FEMA trailer, McKenzie was out of the dwelling in August 2007 after a 10-month stay. Her mother, Kacey Whitney, 22, a housekeeper, and her father, Kevin Whitney, 30, a maintenance man, juggle the pressures of post-hurricane life with tending to the child.

"Sunday night when I was going to work, as I was walking up to the front door, she just threw up. She had a fever. We went to the hospital and they wound up keeping her overnight," the girl's mother said. "She's always had a cold, always."

Like Lexi, McKenzie is treated with a nebulizer, a boxy breathing machine that turns medication into mist. It is prescribed to patients with moderate to severe symptoms, and requires children to inhale for 20 minutes.

Dr. Shama Shakir, a Bay St. Louis pediatrician who treats Lexi and Kacey at the Coastal Family Health Center, said that before the storm she prescribed nebulizers about twice weekly. Lately, she is doing so up to 12 times a week.

"You give them the most potent steroids, the most potent antibiotics, and still they have the symptoms," Shakir said. "I worry about what will become of these children long-term."

Deven Galloway, 27, lived in a FEMA trailer in Bay St. Louis for seven months with 4-year-old son DeReion. The boy uses a nebulizer for asthma.

"One day he was like, `I'm going to take more so I can go ahead and be finished for a long time,'" said his mother. "I had to tell him it didn't work that way."