ToxicTrailers.com is dedicated to providing information about formaldehyde poisoning, and advocating effective government regulations. The government spent more than $2 billion on FEMA trailers with hazardous levels of formaldehyde, and then dumped more than 103,000 former FEMA trailers known to be toxic on the market. The FEMA trailer tragedy exposed what is a widespread problem in RVs, mobile homes, modular buildings and even conventional buildings. If you are having burning eyes, congestion, sore throat, coughing, breathing difficulties, frequent sinus infections or rashes, and difficulties concentrating, you may have a formaldehyde problem. For questions or to share your story, write email@example.com.
Plywood made with Soyad, soy-based alternative too formaldehyde glue, is available at Home Depot at no extra cost.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Breast Cancer Action coined the term pinkwashing as part of their Think Before You Pink® campaign to describe a company or organization that claims to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon product, but also produces, manufactures and/or sells products linked to the disease including formaldehyde. Over 700 chemicals are commonly used in the process of drilling and fracking for oil and gas. At least 25% of these chemicals increase our risk of cancer. - See more at: http://www.bcaction.org/2014/10/08/susan-g-komen-partners-with-global-fracking-corporation-to-launch-benzene-and-formaldehyde-for-the-cure/
Friday, September 12, 2014
Jim Hightower says it really well in this new article, Help wash formaldehyde off babies Posted: Thursday, September 11, 2014 1:00 pm In the U.S. alone, the cosmetics industry pulls in some $70 billion a year in sales of what's commonly called “makeup.” But lipstick, blush, mascara, etc. are not the only kind of makeup the cosmetic giants are peddling. For years, their lobbyists, lawyers and PR agents have been making up facts, stories, half-truths and whole lies to keep lawmakers and regulators from banning various cancer-causing, hormone-disrupting and otherwise destructive ingredients that their products contain. One especially nasty example of this is the continuing campaign by L'Oreal, Revlon and the industry's Personal Care Products Council to keep allowing formaldehyde in everything from baby wipes to hair straighteners. Back in 1981, the National Toxicology Program, an interagency scientific panel, first listed this noxious chemical as a likely human carcinogen. A volcano of outrage erupted from cosmetic makers, which buried the NTP findings in a suffocating ash pile of denials, attacks and false facts. But the toxicologists, pushed by consumer and environmental groups, kept doing even deeper research, and in 2011, NTP listed formaldehyde as “known to be a human carcinogen.” That should have been that, but corporate lobbyists got their congressional puppets to stall, making up more lies to assail NTP for flawed research and for interfering in private business. However, the prestigious National Academy of Science has been reviewing that research and has now unequivocally endorsed NTP's findings – even adding that new research shows that formaldehyde may cause a much wider array of cancers than previously known. So, after 33 years, the health of babies finally wins one over cosmetic profiteers, right? Not quite yet. Incredibly, the products of Revlon and L'Oreal still contain cancer-causing formaldehyde, and both of the greed-headed giants continue to balk at necessary reforms. http://www.stwnewspress.com/opinion/columns/article_7af566fe-3965-11e4-a915-5324a5291cea.html
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Good story below from Center for PUblic Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/08/15224/national-academy-sciences-agrees-epa-formaldehyde-causes-cancer. For years, the chemical industry has been winning a political battle to keep formaldehyde from being declared a known carcinogen. The industry’s chief lobby group, the American Chemistry Council, has persuaded members of Congress that the findings of both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services were wrong and should be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. In 2011, the academy did indeed criticize the EPA’s report on formaldehyde for being unclear. The chemical industry then used that critique to delay dozens of other ongoing evaluations of potentially toxic chemicals. But on Friday, the academy issued a second report, which found in effect that government scientists were right all along when they concluded that formaldehyde can cause three rare forms of cancer. “We are perplexed as to why today’s report differs so greatly from the 2011” report, Cal Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement titled “The Safety of Formaldehyde is Well-Studied and Supported by Robust Science.” Part of the disparity is that in the 2011 report, Congress asked the academy only to critique the EPA’s draft assessment rather than evaluate the dangers of formaldehyde itself. The panel concluded that the EPA’s report was too long, repetitive and lacked explanation. But after reviewing the scientific evidence itself, the academy concluded on Friday that formaldehyde is indeed a known carcinogen. Formaldehyde is widely used in wood products and clothing. In a blog posting, Jennifer Sass, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the American Chemistry Council’s efforts “a vicious attack on government scientific assessments [meant] to distort and discredit any evidence linking toxic chemicals to diseases, disabilities or death.” Using the academy to review any negative findings from the EPA has become common tactic of the chemical industry. The Center for Public Integrity reported in June that Rep. Mike Simpson, a Republican from Idaho, got the EPA to turn its negative assessment of arsenic over to the academy. At the same time, Congress also insisted that the EPA redo all ongoing assessments to address the criticisms of the 2011 formaldehyde review. Forty-seven assessments are affected. The American Chemistry Council said in its statement that the academy “misses an opportunity to advance the science.” Richard Denison, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, countered: “One can only hope that this sorry episode and waste of public resources will help to expose the narrow self-interest of the industry, which for years it has deceptively sought to wrap in the mantle of sound science.” Note: These three cancers are just the tip of the iceberg. In the FEMA trailers we saw many different types of cancer, breathing difficulties, increases in asthma and significant learning disabilities in children.