... was the reason for the introduction of the Safe Chemicals Act.
IRRESPONSIBILITY SQUARED AND CUBED:
GETTING WEALTHY WHILE HARMING OTHERS.
To start, what point is there being the richest of the rich, if your home is on an earth
which has been flooded with noxious chemicals which even go as far as disrupting
the natural equilibrium of hormones?What point is there being wealthy in a world
of chromosome breakers, liver cell killers, neurotoxins, etc?What point is there in
being rich in a chemically induced freak show caused by the greed of a minority?
HUNDREDS OF CHEMICALS FOUND IN UMBILICAL CORD BLOOD SAMPLES
The Safe Chemicals Act was first introduced in the U.S. Senate in 2011, by the late
Frank Lautenberg.The 2013 edition has 29 co-sponsors.The motive for the bill was
the quantitative fact that laboratory testing detected hundred of chemicals in umbilical
cord blood samples.
In case you are unfamiliar with United States Law, chemicals in household products do
not have to be proven harmless, in order to appear in the products that Americans take
home from the store.This includes hormone disruptors, sensitizers, and irritants, as
well as chemicals listed amongst the Carcinogenic class, the Genotoxic/Mutagenic
class, the Hepatotoxic Class (liver cell killers,)Cell-mediated allergens, Respiratory
Irritants, Neurotoxins, Bronchoconstrictors, and oxidative chemicals which produce
allergenic compounds whenever exposed to air.
Out of 80,000+ chemicals listed in the United States EPA's Toxic Substance Control
Act list, a grand total of FIVE chemicals were banned.Yet, asthma and cancer rates
have been rising as a matter of course, and hermaphrodite aquatic life has been dis-
covered.Keep in mind that household chemicals end up in land fills, eventually to
leak into ground water via cracks in the landfills and even via rain water.They also
end up in drinking water supplies.In as much, no water treatment plant extracts the
estrogen from the eight primary sources of it, the "pill" being one of the eight.
Concerning the Trade Secret law by which fragrance product ingredients
do not have to be made known to the public:
1] It was an abuse of power, on behalf of those who arranged said law.
2] It's a pointless law, being that scientists can analyze fragrance pro-
ducts and discern their ingredients.
HORMONE DISRUPTORS PERMITTED IN AMERICAN WATER SUPPLIES AND
THE EVER SO COINCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF HERMAPHRODITE AQUATIC LIFE
Enter April 10, 2013.This was the date when the 2013 Safe Chemicals Act was in-
troduced into the U.S. Congress by the late senator, Frank Lautenberg and New York
senator Kirsten Gillibrand.The bill has 27 other co-sponsors.The bill's number is
Now, between the Years 2011 and 2013, due to the obstructionist nature of the Repub-
lican Party, and their glut of filibusters, a grand total of 2% of the laws introduced in
the Senate were enacted.The Safe Chemicals Act has an8% chance of becoming
law.Yet, S.696 has an 84% chance of getting past committee.In this instance, it's
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.Incidentally, between 2011 and
2013, only 12% of the bills introducedin the Senate made their ways past any com-
1] We live in an era where it has been 100% proven that chemical allergies exist, as
does Occupational Asthma due to Low-weight Molecular Agents and irritant-induced
diseases such as Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, Reactive Airways Dys-
function Syndrome, and Irritant-induced Asthma.Such patients have every right to
avoid the chemicals which trigger their fight to breath.Such chemicals go unchecked,
unregulated, unbridled, to circulate around them at a whim.
2] Present U.S. law on chemicals is so unjust that, in the past 37 years, only five chem-
icals have been banned.Yet, numerous ones were proven to trigger asthma, kill liver
cells, break chromosome chains, disrupt hormonal balance, be neurotoxins, and quali-
fy as threats to health.None the less, there are 84,000 chemicals in the EPA inventory.
3] The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found 212 chemicals in the modern
human body.The Republican Party, in its pathological greed, and the chemical industry,
in its predatory greed, turned the human body into a toxic waste dump.
4] The Safe Chemicals Act would:
* Allow the EPA to have a health and safety information data base that can be applied to the assessment of new chemicals, thereby bypassing redundant testing.
* Screen chemicals for safety by means of a priority scale, gauged according to risk, so that EPA can focus allotted dollars on evaluating chemicals most likely to cause harm,while simultaneously attending to a backlog of untested chemicals.
* Automatically assigns risk management requirements for any chemical which cannot be proven safe.This can include restricting the use of the chemical, placing a warning label on the chemical, mandating disposal protocol upon the chemical, and even banning the chemical.
* To provide a public catalog of chemicals, comprising the health and safety information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the findings of the EPA, while protecting trade secrets.
* Provide incentives and means for the invention of safe chemical alternatives.
Since 1976, numerous chemicals were identified as sensitizers.A sensitizer is a chem-
ical which become allergens, after a period of repeated exposure to it.Thus, it was not
fair for the government to let society be exposed to sensitizing agents.
In like fashion, we were also shown the statistical nexus between chemical exposure and
the rise of the rate of autism.Simultaneously, hermaphrodite aquatic life, apparently due
to the heavily estrogenated water supplies, was located.This shows that the Toxic Sub-
stance Control Act 1976 has near zero effectiveness.
In a 2012 poll ...done by a Republican firm ... showed that American voters
"OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT REFORM OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT, WITH
HALF SAYING THAT THEY WOULD STRONGLY SUPPORT REFORM FO THE REGULATION OF
CHEMICALS PRODUCED AND USED IN THE UNITED STATES." ... "SUPPORT FOR RE-
FORMING THE LAW IS WIDESPREAD AND BROAD-BASED."
In fact, three-quarters of small business owners polled by the American Sustainable
Business Council believe that there should be stricter regulation on chemicals used
in everyday life.Furthermore, 87% of the small business owners polled support gov-
ernment regulation of chemicals used in growing food.In similar fashion,73% of
those polled support government regulation to ensure that the products which com-
panies buy and sell are non-toxic.
In as much, all indication is that the American people are behind this bill.The only
antagonists to it are the Republican leeches in the House of Representatives who kow-
tow to any corporation or industry that funds unconscionable politicians' re-election
The late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the original bill in 2011.
It was re-introduced shortly before his death.It's time to end the bully tactics of the
worthless Republican Party.
Drawing people's attention to the millions of respiratory patients who are sensitive
to modern chemicals would be a start.This could be followed by pointing out the
liver cell killing capacity of other ones, as well as the neurotoxic effect of yet other
ones, along with the endocrine disrupting capacity of another class of chemicals.
Add to this those chemicals which break chromosome chains.
The Safe Chemicals Act (S.696) is found here:
(Note:The number 113 refers to the 113th Congress.)
The American Academy of Pediatrics speaks of the necessity
to enact a Safe Chemicals Act, whatever be it's name.
A review of State laws which banned chemicals is here: