|
Facts and Protection for Rescue Workers and Residents Thanks to the efforts of Cyndi Norman. -- barb http://www.immuneweb.org/911/
It won't be too long into the future but what we start learning of the chemical injuries suffered by the firefighters, police, the public as a result of being misled by the EPA. And when we start hearing of their chemical poisonings, we will also learn that they cannot stand being around modern fragrance products. Makes perfect sense to the perspicacious among us: Modern scents are concocted using inadequately tested petrochemical derivatives. What is our assurance that these products are "throughly tested" before marketing? The industry's very own sayso! There is no government oversight; there is government OVERL@@K.
See EHN's FDA Petition 99P-1340 . . . Perfume analyses, complementary information and FDA petition contact information are provided for your perusal. Write today, to the FDA.
Remember the adage: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
-- barb |
Safe Solutions, Inc.'s Lice R Gone® - Site Map
Patented Process: U.S. # 6663860
http://www.LiceRGone.com/sitemap.htm
SAFE-HOMES - Environmental Consultants
http://safe-homes.com/who.htm
Safe Schools, Irene Ruth Wilkenfeld
http://www.head-gear.com:88/SafeSchools/
or
http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=personal#skinc
Safer World
(Languages: Danish, Deutsch, English, Espanol, Finnish,
FranÁais, Italiano, nederland, Nihongo, Svenska)
"Judith Sanderson, who has been diagnosed as 'chemically injured,' experiences nausea,
feverishness, and chest pain when exposed to personal fragrance products such as
perfume, hairspray, and scented body lotions. Severe exposure can result in a respiratory
infection.
"The Culver City School District made several accommodations for Sanderson, including
changing internal doors from wood to metal, not fumigating for termites, sealing
vents and other openings between her classroom and adjoining rooms, altering the
cleaning schedule and cleaning supplies used in her classroom, and purchasing an air
purifier for her classroom.
"Although the accommodations have helped Sanderson perform her job more efficiently,
she testified that her exposure to fragrance 'assaults' --conscious actions by students
in spraying cologne or perfume into her classroom, onto her door, or on other
students in her classes--had continued.
"Establishing a fragrance-free campus is not a reasonable remedy, arbitrator Ronald Hoh
decided, noting that neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 would
require such an action. A fragrance-free policy would be 'extremely difficult to enforce'
and could raise potential Fourth Amendment issues regarding unreasonable search
and seizure, he wrote.
"Hoh acknowledged the 'extensive frustration' caused by the 'fragrance assaults,' which
was 'due largely to difficulties in identifying suspects.' However, stationing a security
guard near Sanderson's classroom between class periods and during lunch would
impose an undue hardship on the district, he said, noting that the high school has only
three full-time security guards for the entire campus and its 1,900 students.
"But the installation of oscillating surveillance cameras in and outside Sanderson's
classroom would 'effectively deter students from engaging in the vast majority of such
'assaults,' ' Hoh decided, adding that the cost to the school district would be minimal.
"Sanderson's request for discontinued use of the student lockers surrounding her
classroom is unreasonable, Hoh ruled, given an existing shortage of lockers and high
replacement costs. However, "because the source of [Sanderson's] concern is the students
who occupy the lockers . . . I believe it is reasonable to allow [Sanderson] input on the
subject of which students may occupy those lockers,' Hoh said. He ordered the district
to allow Sanderson to compile a list of 'acceptable students,' who are 'aware of
and concerned about' her condition, to occupy those lockers."
http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/english/pubs/OtherPubs/fragrance.html
OR, via the Wayback Machine
http://web.archive.org/web/19990922081136/http://janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/english/pubs/OtherPubs/fragrance.html
Dr. Saputo
Health Medicine Forum
Len Saputo, M.D. - Director HMF, 1776 Ygnacio Valley Rd, Suite 105
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone (925) 934-7311 - Fax (925) 937-9552
E-mail -- hmf@healthmedicine.org
http://www.healthmedicine.org
INDEPTH: SARS
Robin Rowland, CBC News Online | May 23, 2003
Contains Civet Cat info -- used to be a source of musk. Now they use synthetics. Great for the
animals, but how about for 'fume users? Synthetic musks are found in breasts and mother's milk. -- barb
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sars/civetcat.html
SCAMS!
Also see EHN's links out to info on Hoaxes and Viruses. -- barb
Hoaxes - http://users.lmi.net/~wilworks/ehnlinx/h.htm#Hoaxes
Viruses - http://users.lmi.net/~wilworks/ehnlinx/v.htm#Viruses
Odors
http://users.lmi.net/~wilworks/ehnlinx/o.htm
Musk
http://users.lmi.net/~wilworks/ehnlinx/m.htm#Musk
Phthalates -- they are more than just plasticizers!
http://users.lmi.net/~wilworks/ehnlinx/p.htm#Phthalates
"SCENT CIRCLE"
"Scent Circle" is in quotes, folks, not only because it's the industry's term,
but also because I believe it is preposterous. Sources: Fragrance Tips, USA
http://www.fragrance.org/feature_tip_content.html
and an ad by Canada's version of the Fragrance Foundation at
http://www.cctfa.ca/scented/NewspaperAD1.JPG
By the bye, I first saw this Canadian ad in response to the efforts of Nova Scotia Allergy
and Environmental Health Association (NSAEHA), Environmental Illness Society of
Canada (EISC ), Fragrance Products Information Network, and MCS Referral and
Resources in Halifax Nova Scotia. Our own friend, Betty Bridges, RN, was an invited
speaker. For more on that June 20, 2000 press conference, please turn to EHN's page,
http://users.lmi.net/~wilworks/ehnlinx/aaprbb.htm
Then there is the Scent Reduction Policies and the Workplace -
Important Considerations site, which is part of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and
Fragrance Association at http://www.cctfa.ca/scented/workplacefacts.htm
And you'll have to trust me on this one, but the comments given here are the same ones
the US industry gave when it sent out its troops to fight the idea of a REQUEST for
fragrance-free attendance at civic meetings. The industry has been regurgitating the same
info for years, and yet "body burden" studies are showing phthalates in blood . . . and
phthalates are not found only in plastics or nail polish. Phthalates are a very important
part of fragrance manufacture as its the phthalates that help give scent the lingring,
lasting forever characteristic.
The US states:
Canada states: "Stay Inside Your Scent Circle
"Everyone has a personal "scent circle" about an arm's length away from their body.
Ask that employees modify their use of scent so that no one outside their "scent circle"
is aware of it."
Canadian Cosmetic. Toiletry and Fragrance Association
http://www.cctfa.ca/site/publications/enjyfragrance.html
Nov. 2005 . . . it's been a little while since I've visited this CCTFA site and it has changed.
Health Canada's Cosmetics and Personal Care can be accessed at
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/person/cosmet/index_e.html
Ad : Common Scents About Scents
Of course, it's a prevarication to say "Fragrance formulations do not contain toxic
ingredients such as carcinogens or neurotoxins," which this ad states. But IF you don't inform
yourself, you can sure be convinced that fragrances are safe for everyone. They are not! Fragrances
are not substantiated for safety before marketing. Fragrances can adversely affect many people of
all ages, races and genders. Fragrances effects can be immediate or long-term. -- barb
http://www.cctfa.ca/scented/NewspaperAD1.JPG
Barb's opinion:
What I find a highly amusing (irony) is that this unregulated industry came up with this bit
of advice: "Scent is one of the most personal messages you can send, so no one outside your
circle should be aware of your fragrance," yet they manufacture scents that cannot possibly
remain within one's arm's length. And it's the phthalates that are showing up in blood and it's
the phthalates that help make scent last. Phthalates are connected with fetal male genitalia problems
During the last 30 years or so, synthetic fragrances have been formulated to waft further and last
longer, and they have been added to an ever increasing array of personal care and household
and janitorial cleaning and maintenance products. Through advertising, the industry has
enticed more people to use and wear more scents more places than ever before. Then the industry
has developed a public relations campaign and suggests people should observe their industry-
determined "'scent circle' ... approximately an arm's length from the body." Beautiful!
To point out the OBVIOUS, fragrances are volatile organic compounds and it's the nature of this
beast to NOT observe any "scent circle." Notice when you step into an elevator, and no one is
in sight but you know an odorovector had used that car before you because you are assaulted
by the invisible, noxious vapor trail left lingering. The toxic fragrance chemicals have become
one with the air you must breathe. And, they could be there from deodorant, or hair care
products, etc., the likes of which aren't included in the industry's "scent circle."
Secondly, try to gain an arm's length when you are in your healthcare facility and the scented
nurse is drawing your blood, or your scented doctor is examing you, or at work, in school, in a
crowded elevator, on crowded public transit ... in the theater . . . on a long plane flight . . . in a
restaurant, where it's bad enough to try to dodge other patrons, but too often you must
dodge the host or hostess and servers, too. Restaurants should understand that dining is an
olfactory pleasure and that synthetic scents annihilate the scrumptious aromas from food and
beverage; AND, can cause a patron a death-defying (one hopes it's no more than that!) asthmatic attack.
"Scent circle." Is that a clever ploy to off-load blame from the industry and put it squarely
on the shoulders of the very people to whom they sell their products? How long will the
people hold still for being blamed for wearing too much of a product that won't respect "scent
circle" boundaries? If I were an unvalued customer, I'd switch to fragrance-free products . . .
of course, there can be a problem trying to find truly fragrance-free or unscented products
because the industry can add synthetic scents to products to mask other objectionable odors
and then label these scented products "Fragrance-FREE" or "UNscented." But, there are
ORGANICS.
So, how discouraging is all of this to those now requiring cleaner, safer air for access? Can we
scramble up out of yet another abyss?
Let's give this idea of a "scent circle" a 180 degree flip. If users of scented products have
an industry-declared "scent circle" that they are not supposed to exceed, then by George we
have our own arm's length of distance that their chemical outgassings should not penetrate.
If you react to the toxic chemical scent concoctions used or worn by folks further away than
your arm's length, be sure to claim your legitimate space of cleaner air. Of course,
try to claim your arm's length while being examined by a scented doctor, or while having blood
drawn by a scented nurse, while regestering for health care, attending a conference, at
work, in school, in a crowded elevator, on a public transit conveyance, etc. Ad nauseam.
For my money, having to proclaim our "NO-scent circle" in the workplace, in school, in
healthcare settings, in places of worship, on public transit, in meetings, et al., can't hold a
candle to our space -- our "NO-scent circle," if you please -- being invaded by all of the industry-
installed fragrance and pesticide emitting devices. One comes in contact with these decided
air polluters upon entering hotels, restaurants and who knows what all public venues. I have
even been in a hotel lobby whose staff proudly proclaimed they dispense fragrance throughout
the hotel. I contacted management, rest assured. Lest you think this is just too far fetched, see:
Chemical Market Reporter; Nov 29, 1999
Fragrance Foundation and Analysts Outline Lasting Growth Strategies.
(Statistical Data Included); Author/s: Peter Landau
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0FVP/22_256/57887294/print.jhtml
But some of the worst offenders healthwise are those bathroom dispensers that spritz as one leaves
the cubicle. That way, people get blasted on their person as well as in their lungs. Dangerous!
And, of course, those pollutants are released to the general air so someone just wanting to wash
hands is also subjected to that blast of pollutants released when another person left the cubicle.
In my opinion, these modern scent and pesticide dispensing devices, especially those that
send this poison out through the HVAC (Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning) system
are an assault on public health -- our health --AND an invasion of our rights to breathe safer air,
unpolluted by gratuitously added synthetic scents, which are petrochemical distillates. And,
what pray tell, happens to our "NO-scent circle of an arm's length under such circumstances?
If YOU think the industry has its way with our government, our health, and our "NO-scent
circle," please write to the US agencies such as the FDA, the EPA, and the CPSC. Strange as
it may seem, their mission is to protect public health.
And, if all of this doesn't seem ludicrous enough, the industry has admitted to having
just begun its first study of effects upon fragrance inhalation. See
Scents and sensitivities
What to know before buying a Valentine's Day perfume
By Francesca Lyman; Feb. 6, 2002; MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR
http://www.msnbc.com/news/702445.asp
Now mirrored by permission at
http://www.ehnca.org/FDApetition/flscents.htm
Another article worth your time is Scents are InTOXICating by Sue Williams,
who has written it for The Healthy Planet (http://thehealthyplanet.com/InTOXICating.htm).
You may wonder about the industry prescribed SCENT CIRCLE as you read, "I bank at a
credit union and for over a year we have been at war. Not because of any discrepancy in my
account, but because of the overwhelming, breathtaking fragrance inside. This odor permeates
even the drive-up tubes and this toxic air comes inside the vehicle whenever I open one to
retrieve my deposit slip. ..."
Want more info? Read "Scents & Sensitivity" by Brandy E. Fisher in the Environmental
Health Perspectives; Volume 106, Number 12; December 1998
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1998/106-12/focus.html
You may also wish to ask yourself this question before you next use one of "your" --
manufactured, synthetically derived from petrochemicals -- signature scents or favorite
scented product: Do Environmental Chemicals Harm Humans? by Dr. Mercola
http://mercola.com/2004/mar/6/environmental_chemicals.htm.
By the way, when you read this article, and learn of chemicals in breast milk, think MUSK
. Synthetic musks are commonly used in the manufacture of fragrances. They are not only found
stored in breast tissue and downstream in breast milk, but they are also found in the water
downstream where they are also affecting fish and wildlife. By looking for safer products without
petrochemical derived scents, you may be protecting your health and the health of fellow
creatures on this planet.
Also, a "must read" is an article that was published in the International Flavours and
Fragrance Journal: Fragrance: Emerging Health and Environmental Concerns
by Betty Bridges, RN at http://www.fpinva.org/FragranceReview.htm
And now, it is March 2004 . . . and we learn:
Due To Indoor Sources, Cancer Health Risk Significantly Underestimated by
EPA's Ambient Model Estimates
"The cancer risk from exposure to VOCs is vastly underestimated by current models that
rely solely on ambient emissions. The cancer risk figures based on actual measured exposure
were as much as three-fold greater than estimates given by models."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_Releases/Buckley_exposurerisk.html
By the way, if you think you are buying GREEN products, they are not allowed to contain
"petrochemical-derived scent." Make sure that you do not see "fragrance" on the label.
See US DOI http://www.doi.gov/greening/sustain/trad.html.
We, the already chemically injured have been trying to inform -- for years! -- consumers, the
mainstream medical industry, our government agencies charged with protecting public health
and mainstream media. Our valid information is based upon the work of reputable doctors and
researchers. The information about the toxic effects of fragrances is available . . . one just has to
know where and how to find it. Why are you not getting warnings from government agencies
charged with protecting public health? I don't know. But until such time, take matters into your
own hands. Learn all you can. EHN's site is a place to begin your research.
Remember the counsel you received as a child? STOP, LOOK and LISTEN. Well, I suggest we
revisit that advice in reverse order. It is up to you to LISTEN, LOOK and STOP. Listen to
us, the already chemically injured. Look at the labels of products; if it states "fragrance,"
look for a product that is safer for you and your family, friends, colleagues . . . and for the wildlife
downstream. Stop purchasing scented products on the blind faith that the industry
" thoroughly" tests before marketing. It hasn't been. Let's see proof that the carcinogens, hormone
disrupters, irritants, neurotoxins, sensitizers and teratogens in fragrance products do not harm
developing fetuses, infants,children, elderly, the already ill, and other creatures with whom we share
this planet . . . and you, the wearer, who cannot yet recognize the illnesses to strike your body.
As it is, I'm not convinced that a user of fragrances is safe just because it has been tested on the
skin of primary users. Where are the tests for effects upon inhalation, for effects upon blood
pressure and the heart? Where are the tests for effects upon the digestive system? Where are the
tests for effects upon the brain and nervous systems? Where, praytell are the tests for systemic
effects? Where are the tests for effects upon the nonuser who becomes a user through inhalation
and absorption of these toxins? Where are the tests on products whose formulations changed
from mainly plant and animal essences preceding the 1970s to become about 95 percent
petrochemically derived? Where is government regulation? Where the heck is Congress? Congress
was informed as far back as 1986 about the neurotoxins. One thing for sure, industry is raking
in a lot of money . . . and we the people are a lot poorer for it. in a variety of ways.
We all are stakeholders when it comes to breathing.
-- barb
As you read, consider vested interests . . . you may want a block of salt. Remember as you read
about RIFM (Research Institute for Fragrance Materials), that it was their spokesperson, Glenn Roberts, who said in a Feb. 2002 article by
Francesca Lyman, Scents and sensitivities ..., "that his industry group has begun
the first study to examine fragrance inhalation. 'We¼re spending a lot of money on this,' he
says, 'to understand the systemic effects of fragrances on organs and nervous system, what
happens when fragrances are inhaled.' " The economic whine is not lost on me. He'd be staggered
by the costs to those already chemically injured. See Scents and sensitivities at:
http://www.ehnca.org/FDApetition/flscents.htm
And to see what all our US FDA cannot do regarding fragrance regulation, visit
FDA Authority Over Cosmetics (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-206.html) -- barb
I'd like to see all fragrances analyzed, MSDS checked, an official look at all the chemicals that
are used about which not enough is known; a look at the chemicals used about which it is known
that they are irritants and sensitizers; and a further look at the chemicals that are known or
suspected carcinogens (capable of causing cancer), teratogens (adversely affecting embryo and
fetal development), neurotoxins (affecting your brain and nervous systems) and hormone
disrupters (affecting males and females of all ages and our wildlife downstream). Yes, fragrances
have been used for time out of mind, but not PETROCHEMICALLY derived fragrances. Even
those who used to "LOVE THEIR FRAGRANCES" 30 years ago can no longer tolerate being
around modern synthetic scents. Let's see some REAL science, and let's see some REAL
results of REAL tests. Tests that search beyond what happens to the skin of the primary user.
Let's include data on airborne contact dermatitis, effects upon inhalation, effects upon absorption
via skin and eye, let's have some REAL studies about adverse effect following long-term
exposure, let's learn what systemic effects are, let's explore the neurotoxic effects of fragrances.
Then, let us see a real fragrnce fact sheet. It can only help the industry. -- barb
Canada's Food and Drug Act - Cosmetics
Notice, that just as in the USA, there is absolutely no concern for those who encounter
adverse health effects and events at secondary and tertiary levels of exposure. Nonetheless,
if the industry cannot prove that coumarin, musks, phthaltes, and all the other 3,000 to 5,000
chemicals in their repertorire are safe for users and nonusers, for developing fetuses and our
elderly, for the already chemically injured, aren't the Food and Drug Acts of Canada and the
USA being flaunted at best and violated at worst? -- barb
16. "No person shall sell any cosmetic that
(a) has in or on it any substance that may cause injury to the
health of the user when the cosmetic is used,
(i) according to the directions on the label
or accompanying the cosmetic, or
(ii) for such purposes and by such methods
of use as are customary or usual therefor; ..."
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-27/59884.html#rid-59935
"...A cosmetic is misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading, if it does not bear the
required labeling information, ..."
2. Cosmetic Good Manufacturing Practice Guidelines
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-hdb2.html
"The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits the introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of cosmetics that are adulterated or
misbranded (Sec. 301). "A cosmetic may be deemed adulterated (Sec. 601) for
essentially four reasons, namely:
"1. It may be injurious to users under conditions of customary use
because it contains, or its container is composed of, a potentially harmful substance. . . ."
2006, ad now available through http://www.cctfa.ca/scented/NewspaperAD1.JPG
Their ad also states: "The composition of perfumes hasn't changed much in hundreds
of years. They contain primarily water and alcohol - of the same type and purity
we drink in beverages -- as well as essential fragrance oils."
Exposure Routes: inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
Symptoms: irritation eyes, skin, nose; headache, drowsiness, fatigue, narcosis;
cough; liver damage; anemia; reproductive, teratogenic effects
Target Organs: Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system,
liver, blood, reproductive system"
Also, visit:
Now, you tell me how these toxic chemical products can respect an industry-defined
"scent circle." It puts the onus of polluting on the user, not on the product. NICE! -- barb
Scent Circle for puppies
Scent Strips
Also see EHN's Postal Information
http://users.lmi.net/wilworks/ehnlinx/p.htm#Postal
"Fragrance advertising insert" means a printed piece with
encapsulated fragrance applied to it that is activated by opening a
flap or removing an overlying ply of paper.
Paperstocks employed in the manufacture of fragrance advertising
inserts shall have a maximum porosity of 20 Sheffield units or 172
Gurley-Hill units.
(b) Any person who distributes fragrance advertising inserts in
violation of this section, is guilty of an infraction and shall, if
convicted, be subject to a fine of one hundred dollars ($100) for
each distribution. The fine shall apply to each mass mailing or
distribution, and to each mass publication of a magazine or newspaper
in violation of this section. The fine shall not apply, however, to
each individual letter, magazine, newspaper, or fragrance
advertising insert so distributed. Section 111825 is not applicable
to violations of this section.
(c) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1992.
|
Pub. 52, Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail (Text)
Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Mail MANAGERE. Effective Date. This edition of Publication 52 is effective July 1999. Anita J. Bizzotto492.22 Restricted or Improperly Prepared Items Other types of unsolicited samples may be nonmailable for other reasons, including the following:
b. The sample is improperly prepared for mailing, such as an inadequately packaged razor blade or a household substance that does not comply with the child-resistant packaging required in DMM C024.13.0. c. The sample is a pesticide subject to the restrictions in DMM C024.14.0 or a fragrance advertising sample subject to the restrictions in DMM C024.15.0. [ see below] d. The sample is an odd-shaped item in a letter-size envelope that is prohibited under DMM C024.18.0.
493 Customer Objection to Unsolicited Matter
494 Rulings
If the matter for which the ruling is being requested has the physical characteristics of a toxic substance, flammable liquid, compressed gas, or other hazardous material, a ruling should be requested under the conditions in 215.2.
|
Magazine scent strips getting nosed out
By Mary Gottschalk; KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE
"After 17 years, magazine "stink" might be a thing of the past soon, thanks to new
technology designed to replace those ubiquitous scent strips that now assault our
olfactory senses. ..."
http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/heraldleader/news/051098/f6magazine.shtml
Respiratory and Asthmatic Effects of Perfumes and Fragranced Products; Abstracts
http://members.aol.com/DonationDrive/AbstractsPerfume.html
Scented Products Education and Information Association of Canada (SPEIAC) - Home Page
http://www.scentedproducts.on.ca/
Scents and Sensitivity
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 106,
December 12, November 1998
Susan Polis Schutz and illustrator Stephen Schutz
http://www.sps.com/
Science
Science is one thing . . . but when I hear or read the phrase, "sound science", I smell perfidy. -- barb
Conflicted Science: How Industry Corrupts Research
by Judy Brady
Breast Cancer Action; Newsletter #79‚November/December 2003
"It¼s worse than you thought. Most of us who have been paying attention in recent years
are aware that science is often manipulated to serve the interests of whoever is paying
for it. But a first-of-its-kind conference last summer in Washington, D.C., laid it out. ..."
http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/SearchablePages/2003Newsletters/Newsletter79D.html
Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health (SciPICH)
http://scipich.health.org/
The Science and Environmental Health Network
Science, Action and Ethics in the Public Interest
Dr. Ted Schettler, Science Director
http://www.sehn.org/
'When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or thehttp://www.sehn.org/precaution.html
environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an
activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying
the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must
include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full
range of alternatives, including no action.'- Wingspread Statement on the
Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998
"2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis
often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
"3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict
quantitatively the results of new observations.
"4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent
experimenters and properly performed experiments.
"If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory
or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below).
If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.
What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power
(the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the
hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories
can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new
observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. "
" 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with
what you have observed.
"3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
"4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the
hypothesis in the light of your results.
"5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and
experiment and/or observation.
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
To proponents of "Sound Science" and "Risk Assessment" I point out the obvious: Step #4,
states "modify the hypothesis in the light of your results." That does not mean, modify
the results in the light of your hypothesis! Or, industry pressure. See "Sound Science" below. -- barb
Sea/Ocean
Search Engines -- a few of barb's favorites
Experiencing an Adverse Immune Response
Chemicals and Adverse Immune Response
Theresa L. Pedersen, UCD EXTOXNET FAQ Team. August 1997.
http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/faqs/senspop/immune.htm
Septic Tanks
EHN does not recommend products . . . and I am not on a septic tank system. -- barb
and
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/ShakenBaby2.html
Shaken-Baby Syndrome & Vaccines
http://www.dstc.edu.au/ListArchives/oi/archive/2001/03/msg00002.html
The reason we don't know is that our commonly used consumer products -- including those we put on our bodies -- are released to market without substantiation of safety. Furthermore, their ingredients are trade-secret-protected. That's fine for industry, but I believe that protection has led to the tanking of public health. And to those who claim that line to be hysteria, please start giving answers to all of the UNEXPLAINED skyrocketing rates of various chronic illnesses that can be and are caused by the chemicals used to make our consumer products. -- barb
Printer friendly: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=97&u=/hsn/20041207/hl_hsn/shampooingredientkillsratsbraincells&printer=1
Aubrey Organics®
Enter a keyword in their search engine, such as SHAMPOO, to bring up a product, then select. -- barb
http://www.aubrey-organics.com/
Long before "natural" became a marketing buzz word, Aubrey Organics®
was a natural company. Our labels have always carried the message loud and
clear. No chemical additives. No mineral oils. No artificial ingredients of
any kind. Our hair, skin and bodycare products are made with herbals from
around the world, natural vitamins and minerals. We use liquid coconut oil in
our soaps and shampoos and coconut fatty acids and essential fatty acids in
our creams and lotions, and Aubrey's own natural preservative of citrus
seed extract and vitamins A, C and E.
More than 30 years later, natural is still the practical philosophy behind our company,
with more than 150 hair, skin and bodycare products that carry the Aubrey
Organics® guarantee -- 100% synthetic-free and never tested on animals.
http://www.organicanews.com/news/aubrey.html
What I have learned is that St. Louis had a severe "flu" outbreak at about that time. But I ask,
was that a true, viral flu, or a major flu-like reaction to the toxins that flowed down the
Mississippi River Valley to butt up against the Ozarks, which start to rise just south of St. Louis.
Until I learn more about the refinery in 1943, I'll put my buck on it having been a chemical-
induced flu, not viral.
In any case, I remember my mother, infant brother and I being very sick with a severe bronchial
cough -- I don't remember my father being affected, but then, he had a smoker's hack and so
he always had a strong cough. I do know he was not as ill as my mother. And for me, that
marked the beginning of what later -- around my forties -- was finally diagnosed: Chemical-
induced asthma. One can just imagine, with that as a background, how my body then reacted to perfumes that went from being made largely with plants and animal parts to being derived from petrochemicals . . . think HYDROCARBONS! -- barb