Bourne, Mass - Health concerns have prompted a Cape Cod high school to consider banning colognes, perfumes, scented deodorants and body sprays. The proposed ban will affect students as well as faculty.
Superintendent Barry Motta drafted the policy which is under review by the Regional Technical School committee. People with asthma can be affected by strong fragrances, which can also cause headaches, respitory & neurological symptoms.
Motta said "he did not know about the possible effects of perfumes and colognes until one of his staff members said they suffered from chemical sensitivity." If the proposed policy is approved it will become part of the student handbook.
Great! For thousands of years, humans have perfumed and scented the nether-regions so as to not offend others. So good olde Mass decides that all of a sudden, those people who seem to be "sensitive" to fragrances deserve to be taught in a scentfree environment. Got news for you, teens with hormones generate more than enough odor by themselves to counteract anything this might do to help people.
But wait...what does a person do when they feel that they are sensitive to underarm BO from the jock next to you? Just came from football practice??? Here's some non-scented aluminum chalk to stick under your arm.
Seriously folks, does it really come to this? How about you quell those noxious fumes coming from the cafeteria?
For that matter...what about shampoo and soap...those are perfumed as well.
Silly people. I hope this doesn't pass in my school district...I pay school tax...I have a voice, and you can bet your last dollar that I'll be at the school board on that one.
Make the rooms well ventilated. Stop making them closed in tombs. Plus BO is a lot more distracting than 'vanilla'. If i had to work or study and the rom was filled with people who stunk with BO, get stuffed if i would stay there long.
Here is what I found at a site on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). It was an interesting, even if somewhat biased read.
"Here are ten recommendations which would make your facility accessible to most people with MCS/EI:
Adopt and enforce no smoking and no fragrance policies and post signs accordingly, including on paths of travel (to restrooms, the parking lot, common areas, etc)."
Done...ban the perfumes and such.
"Discontinue chemical pest control, such as structural chemicals and flea bombs, and replace them with non-toxic pest controls."
Not done...
"Remove or disarm fragrance emission devices and systems (FEDS). Discontinue using toxic, fragrance-laden cleaning products, and use only non-toxic paints on the walls and ceilings."
Let's repaint the school everyone...we needed to get rid of the lead-based paint anyways.
"Attach carpeting to floors using nails or adhesive strips rather than glue; ventilate the room thoroughly. Prohibit staff and visitors from idling vehicles near the entranceway or windows of the facility."
This one is a no brainer...no school buses out front to pick up kids. Just walk to a designated area nowhere near the school.
"Purchase only metal and real wood furniture (look for used furniture) and avoid synthetic cloth-covered room dividers and curtains which collect dust and contaminants."
Old school desks...I'm cool with that. Less dust is good for everyone. But you can't Pledge the furniture...that has fragrance in it.
"Landscape with ornamental rock and pebbles. Avoid juniper, olive, acacia, and cedar trees. Discontinue use of lawn care chemicals."
Ok...now this would never work down here. I am alergic to Cedar...I live in South Texas. Guess what...I deal with it. For 4 weeks out of the year, when the local cedar is sending pollen out everywhere...I am sick as a dog. Does that mean they should burn down all the cedar trees b/c I am a little sick. NO.
So...my wife told me that there is a bunch of natural deoderants that kids could use. The problem...they are all still scented. Instead of chemicals, they use essential oils. But, alas, this is against the rules.
Read the article if you want...it was a good read.
...let's ban people wearing bright clothing because it offends me, and might possibly make color blind people seem inadequate. Let's institute solid black or grey school uniforms. Seriously, this is retarded.
this isn't a bad idea, and in fact, i heard my school was pondering this.
i know people who have sensitivities to certain colognes. It's true. I know if I had one, I would be mad if I was distracted from my work because of it.
Also, many people over do these things. You see the commercial dousing the whole bottle on themselves, and they do it too. Soon you have a whole room of must and sweat. I can easily say ventalation doesn't solve the problem in some classrooms due to not as many windows (because this wasn't a problem when schools were built)
You ever been in the lockerroom after PE and see some kids who probably didn't do that much douse themselves w/axe body spray? I HAVE MANY TIMES. And yea, sweat and Axe don't mix.
In fact, to me unscented deodorant (arm and hammer kind) trumps any scented kind easily. Makes me smell normal, so I don't have to smell like an old man, a young kid, or a horny guy.
Look, nobody is going to die from this. IT doesn't take away any student rights. I'm sorry, this is not like a dress code. This school is simply saying "you people go crazy w/some usually nasty smelling stuff, and people are getting literally sick over it. we can't be your parents, or the police, so we're asking you to not wear it"
It's really nothing to start a riot over. And as a red/ green yellow/orange color blind person - I would think it would be idiotic to impose a dress code because of the colors. Come on....
Is the principal going to arrest visitors to the school for smelling like a daisy?
What about the noxious emissions from the schoolbusses?
Better that people with known medical problems with chemical sensitivities go to a special school... or start wearing ventilators. This is too much to ask of the general public.
Body sprays - they dont have such a potent smell? so whats with that?
Colognes and Perfumes - yea that you can smell a mile away. So I guess nothing is wrong with that.
BTW I don't wear Colognes - only Body Spray. And Body spray, you can't really smell, even if you cover yourself with it. (Never seen anyone tototally cover themselves with it anyway)
This isn't too much to ask, Where I work there's a similar policy. I doubt they're gonna ban you from school if you put the crap on lightly, (i.e. that you don't stink of false, chemmy flowers 50 feet away) regardless of how they say it.
Use less, and/or use unscented. Take away people liberties? What about my liberty to walk down a hallway without being assaulted by 30 different chemical smells left behind by dousers... Do we get to be labeled heros if we die of it? If you kill me with your chemmy vanilla overdose, will you tell my family that I died to protect your liberty to smell like a pesticide infused dessert?
The only people I don't get irritated with when they overload it are old people, I know they can't smell (the ones that do this) arrg!
*lol* I have a teenager, but as long as he showers regularly, he doesn't stink over-much =op Deoderants, generally, don't really spread several feet away from the body they're applied to.
Don't get me wrong, I find BO almost as offensive as perfume, and sometimes just as reactive, but because so many people just pour the stuff on that rules like this come about. Not long ago, on a windy winter day, I had to cross the street because some lady 20 feet up the road overdosed on the perfume and was leaving a trail of asthma inducing goodness everywhere she went.
The college I attend has a policy about stong smells also, but there's still people here and there that over-do it, but they don't get banned. They're not asking people to stink, they're just asking people not to stink too much ;o)
I don't go to bars and other public places and events where people smell (or just leave if I do when it's bad enough) but this is a school, and most kids don't have other options of where they can go.
Sorry if I have offended you. I know that I chose a really stupid analogy, but nothing else came to mind at the time. All I meant to convey was the ridiculousness of instituting such a policy that affects only a small minority. When I was in school I never heard of any such thing happening. Oh, wait. My school banned trenchcoats after the Columbine incident. Another retarded change...
Yes, for thousands of years people have been wearing perfumes; however, in the late 1970s and early 1980s the perfume industry began making 95% of perfumes are made from several thousand different synthetic chemicals.
Fragrances are not a right! Approximately 20% of the population suffer from asthma and fragrances are a known trigger to asthma. Millions more suffer from a condition known as Environmental Illness. This is a serious condition and nothing to be made fun of. It is not a matter of sneezing. They are known to trigger migraines. Fragrances cause people who have this condition to suffer violent respiratory reactions, severe rashes, extreme fatigue, inability to concentrate, any many other serious reactions that leave them too weak to function or think. The least people can do is to give up their fragrance so their fellow students (or coworkers) who have asthma, environmental illness/chemical sensitivity or migraines can function in the world without becoming ill.
my school tried to ban trenchcoats too...but it was one of those short lived ideas.
just like one year (i think about 4-5 years ago...) the town tried to impose a clear backpack rule throughtout all grades...because of the school shootings and them being scared of crime going up or some kind of bull.
There was 1 huge problem that prevented this - NO PARENT COULD EVEN FIND A CLEAR BACKPACK. And the ones found were like near 30 dollars. Parents on a budget weren't going to dish that out. So many parents were just like "if you got a problem w/my kid having a normal backpack - call me" (thats what my friends mom actually said over the phone)
To say the least - only like 2 people out of a few hundred at my school had one.
Schools do some stupid stuff. I just think this case is a smart one. Now that i'm in college, i haven't even really had one expirence w/someone dousing perfume/that damn body spray on themselves. In high school though - it was something you wanted to punch a kid over (they were usually the type that were severly inactive during PE who saw one sweat bead and thought they were too smelly)
Jesus man, I forgot all about the clear backpack thing. I think maybe one person at my school had one. I said to hell with that policy and continued to bring my regular backpack in anyways. I had to give it up to the office ladies as soon as I entered the building, though. Just my little way of sticking it to "The Man". I guess I'm making a bigger deal out of this fragrance thing than it really deserves. Like generations before me, I can say to hell with them, they're just a bunch of snot-nosed kids.
What the public still doesn't seem to get is that a very long time ago the perfume industry moved away from using natural fragrances moved to cheaper petrochemicals. Most folks including some on this blog, still think of perfume as something innocent -- but in fact many perfumes contain dangerous neurotoxins.
The perfume industry has spent billions promoting synthetic chemical perfumes as being as innocent of harm, sexy, and even necessary -- as if we would all stink like pigs if we didn't use them. Unfortunately, folks are brainwashed by the endless stream of commercials on TV.
The National Academy of Sciences reports that "95% of chemicals used in fragrances are synthetic compounds derived from petroleum..." A a report by the Committee on Science and Technology. U.S. House of Representatives, entitled "Neurotoxins: At Home and the Workplace" states that fragrances contain "benzene derivatives, aldehydes, and many other known toxics and sensitizers - capable of causing cancer, birth defects, central nervous system disorders and allergic reactions."
Both the perfume and cosmetic manufacturers are not required to register their products and ingredients with any government agency. The FDA does not require them to report any adverse reactions reported by the public. "Safety" is decided by the perfume/ cosmetic industries' own Cosmetics Ingredients Review Board. The law states that fragrances, colors and flavorings are considered "trade secrets" and therefore the ingredients are not required on the label.
When people have dangerous reactions such as anaphlactic shock, there is little chance that he/ she will ever find out what triggered it.
Perfumes and cosmetics are the least regulated under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). FFDCA does NOT require any safety testing.
If I am close enough to smell your deodorant, I am TOO DAMN CLOSE!!
The issue is perfumed sprays (the every popular and incredibly toxic AXE springs to mind)
Chemical sensitivity is NOT about preference, its a CRIPPLING DEBILITATING problem for ALOT of people.
If you walk past me, your scented personal care products (deodorant, toothpaste, douche, whatever) wont affect me, but if you walk past me with the wrong chemicals in your body spray, I will have to go home from work, throw up and curl in a ball praying for death for a few hours.
So tough shit for me right?
WRONG!
My employer (and many other employers) values my productivity, and that of OTHERS with the same issue enough to say NO to scents.
You wearing body spray because you like it is NOT as valuable as the health of others.
It would be useful for many people do so some reasearch on what they are actually inhaling when they smell that wonderful body spray smell.
The consumer is not at fault for your problem. Take it higher up, I'd think if it really is as noxious as you say then work to take it off the shelves...
So you have a personal agreement between coworkers great! But if they chose not to comply then I'd say your out of luck and should find a job with an enviroment you can handle.
I don't think it entitles a school to enforce a rule that is close to impossible to set a standard for. Just because one thinks its offensive doesnt mean another does...and who does the final sniffing to decide who gets punished and who doesnt? Hell thats not the real world, in the real world you will have to deal with whatever fragrance people can find on the shelves and choose to wear. Why start turning schools into more of a prison?
In conclusion setting a rule thats based on subjective tastes is ridiculous.
What several people have been trying to say, but apparently some are not listening is that this is NOT about subjective taste. It is about a serious health threat. You can't take a pill or use asthma medication to cure or prevent these effects. And once exposed, like another person indicated, the effects are debilitating. See my previous post. Most people who have been chemically injured by these products, once used them -- just like many of you. Therefore, keep in mind that the perfume, fabric softener, candles, so-called "air fresheners" you are using today could result in someday you becoming chemically sensitive and will be the one who needs to request that persons around you have enough respect for your health not to use products containing toxic chemicals.
It has also been suggested to make an effort to get it off the market. Such an effort has been underway for one single perfume. If nothing else that has been said gets your attention, then I hope the following list of the most common chemicals used in fragrances and the effects of your health does: ACETONE (cologne, dishwashing liquid and detergent, nail enamel remover) -- On EPA, RCRA, CERCLA Hazardous Waste lists. "Inhalation can cause dryness of the mouth and throat; dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, slurred speech, drowsiness, and, in severe exposures, coma." "Acts primarily as a central nervous system (CNS) depressant." [ACETONE (Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health Concentrations (IDLHs)]
BENZALDEHYDE (perfume, cologne, hairspray, laundry bleach, deodorants, detergent, Vaseline lotion, shaving cream, shampoo, bar soap, dishwasher detergent) -- Narcotic. Sensitizer. "Local anesthetic, CNS depressant"; "irritation to the mouth, throat, eyes, skin, lungs, and GI tract causing nausea and abdominal pain." "May cause kidney damage." "Do not use with contact lenses."
BENZYL ACETATE (perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants) -- Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperaemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects." "Do not flush to sewer."
BENZYL ALCOHOL (perfume, cologne, soap, shampoo, nail enamel remover, air freshener, laundry bleach and detergent, Vaseline lotion, deodorants, fabric softener) -- "irritating to the upper respiratory tract" ä "headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drop in blood pressure, CNS depression, and death in severe cases due to respiratory failure."
CAMPHOR (perfume, shaving cream, nail enamel, fabric softener, dishwasher detergent, nail color, stickup air freshener) -- "local irritant and CNS stimulant," "readily absorbed through body tissues," "irritation of eyes, nose and throat," "dizziness, confusion, nausea, twitching muscles and convulsions" "Avoid inhalation of vapors."
ETHANOL (perfume, hairspray, shampoo, fabric softener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, laundry detergent, shaving cream, soap, Vaseline lotion, air fresheners, nail color and remover, paint and varnish remover) -- On EPA Hazardous Waste list; symptoms: "fatigue; irritating to eyes and upper respiratory tract even in low concentrations..." "Inhalation of ethanol vapors can have effects similar to those characteristic of ingestion. These include an initial stimulatory effect followed by drowsiness, impaired vision, ataxia, stupor..." Causes CNS disorder.
ETHYL ACETATE (after shave, cologne, perfume, shampoo, nail color, nail enamel remover, fabric softener, dishwashing liquid) -- Narcotic. On EPA Hazardous Waste list; "irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract"; "may cause headache and narcosis (stupor)" "defatting effect on skin and may cause drying and cracking"; "may cause anemia with leukocytosis and damage to liver and kidneys." "Wash thoroughly after handling." [ETHYL ACETATE (IDLHs)]
LIMONENE (perfume, cologne, disinfectant spray, bar soap, shaving cream, deodorants, nail color and remover, fabric softener, dishwashing liquid, air fresheners, after shave, bleach, paint and varnish remover) -- Carcinogenic. "Prevent its contact with skin or eyes because it is an irritant and sensitizer." "Always wash thoroughly after using this material and before eating, drinking, ...applying cosmetics. Do not inhale limonene vapor."
LINALOOL (perfume, cologne, bar soap, shampoo, hand lotion, nail enamel remover, hairspray, laundry detergent, dishwashing liquid, Vaseline lotion, air fresheners, bleach powder, fabric softener, shaving cream, after shave, solid deodorant) -- Narcotic. "respiratory disturbances"; "Attracts bees." "In animal tests: ataxic gait, reduced spontaneous motor activity and depression ... development of respiratory disturbances leading to death."; "depressed frog-heart activity." Causes CNS disorder.
Here is the rest of the list of 21 most common chemicals used in fragrances:
METHYLENE CHLORIDE (shampoo, cologne, paint and varnish remover) -- Banned by the FDA in 1988! No enforcement possible due to trade secret laws protecting chemical fragrance industry. On EPA, RCRA, CERCLA Hazardous Waste lists. "Carcinogenic"; "Absorbed, stored in body fat, it metabolizes to carbon monoxide, reducing oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood." "Headache, giddiness, stupor, irritability, fatigue, tingling in the limbs." Causes CNS disorder.
a-PINENE (bar and liquid soap, cologne, perfume, shaving cream, deodorants, dishwashing liquid, air freshener) --Sensitizer (damaging to the immune system).
g-TERPINENE (cologne, perfume, soap, shaving cream, deodorant, air freshener) -- "Causes asthma and CNS disorders."
a-TERPINEOL (perfume, cologne, laundry detergent, bleach powder, laundry bleach, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, Vaseline lotion, cologne, soap, hair spray, after shave, roll-on deodorant) -- "highly irritating to mucous membranes"; "Aspiration into the lungs can produce pneumonitis or even fatal edema." Can also cause "excitement, ataxia (loss of muscular coordination), hypothermia, CNS and respiratory depression, and headache." "Prevent repeated or prolonged skin contact."
You may not like having to give up your fragrance for the sake of another persons health. You may not even believe it is as serious as it is. However, once it affects you, you will believe it and you will be forced to deal not only with the debilitating effects of the scents that are everywhere and you will have to deal with people who are acting the way you are today. Therefore, do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you were in their situation.
I was just wondering if you discriminate against other minorites also? or just those with lung disease and chemical sensitivities?
This isn't a small problem, it's a growing one; there's over 15 million people with Asthma in the states right now, and that number has only been increasing. Who knows how many with other severe reactions to the chemmy crap that's on the shelves.
I know BK already said this, but it bears repeating. You could develop this type of sensitivity at anytime, just as easily as anyone else.
The companies that produce toxic chemicals found in fragrances, are the same companies that produce pharmaceuticals, own medical imaging technologies, and own multiple patents on cancer and other chronic illness therapies. When people get asthma and other illnesses caused by neurotoxins -- sick folks need the drugs, tests and treatments. So the same companies that are slowly poisoning us, are profiting from the resulting illnesses. See: http://www.mercola.com/
Until people act to take these chemicals off the shelves it is a matter of taste since anyone can choose to use it. Just having a school act to restrict it is ridiculous when as you said it is a common problem outside of the schools. I dare you to try and restrict everyone from using the products that affect those that are chemically sensitive because the list is extensive. (Would you work in a chem. lab? I don't think so. Equally so you would not be a chemistry major at any major university and expect not to work with a lot of the same chemicals mentioned above.)
The comment on these chemicals that could possibly cause chemical sensitivities is in large portions, and until studies are performed and there is enough proof nothing will be done. I hate to say it but those with chemical sensitivities will just have to deal with it. There are many products that use chemicals that in large quantities will cause harm…but in low quantities can be beneficial and I am sure that is what prevents these products from being removed. Those chemicals you say are in the mixture are probably in low concentrations where they are not proven to cause harm... and thus not justifiable enough to have them removed from the shelves.(Don’t quote me on that, but that would be my assumption)
And lynx…to be so ignorant as to say I’m discriminating anyone… I have absolutely no power over this I’m simply stating as best as I can why nothing has already been done. I do not use these products but have been around those that do and I don’t like it either but that doesn’t change my opinion that this is based on taste, and if I do not like being in the proximity of the person I will move.
You are picking an argument that will inevitably lose. You cannot go anywhere where you will not encounter a smoker, even when they smoke in designated areas …and you know what all of us have to do to avoid them, walk a different direction. So I suggest you do as everyone else does and because we can’t ban smoking altogether, avoid environments you know you cannot handle. How’s that for discrimination?
The best you can do is arrange with those on friendly terms not to wear these chemicals becuase chances are they will not ever be erradicated and forcing people to comply on the highschool level just makes things even more unlike the real world.
I was trying to look at this from a more outside perspective I guess but here’s what I think on a more personal level (Not that it matters)
The kids that come in with a can/bottle of cologne on themselves are out of hand but rather than instate a rule I don't see what the problem is asking them to take it easy because it is disrupting the learning process for other students. I really don't see how this rule is enforceable since it really is a matter of taste when determining who is wearing just enough compared to those that REALLY overdo it. I see the rule as going overboard on something that is basic common courtesy. It will start with eliminating those that are overboard and work down to those that are not as bad but someone thinks is overboard (thus the taste factor). All the rule would introduce is a reason for someone to complain instead of doing their best to cope.
I’m just imagining someone saying they failed a test because Billy-Bob was wearing too much cologne for her/him to think when in reality they didn’t study. Action will be taken on Billy because the rules state anyone with excess fragrance that disrupts the learning process will be punished when in reality he may have had a very small amount on…but not according to the person that failed the test. (Another example of taste and varying degrees of chemical sensitivity/asthma) So I propose someone explain exactly how a standard will be set for enforcement without completely removing any fragrance period. I think I even saw laundry detergent in the list of chemicals…are chemically sensitive people sensitive enough to what clothes are washed with wear clothes will need to be with water and stones?
Until the product is proven to cause the health problems I see no reason why anything sold on the shelves cannot be used in moderation in any public place.
The kids that come in with a can/bottle of cologne on themselves are out of hand but rather than instate a rule I don't see what the problem is asking them to take it easy. I really don't see how this rule is enforcible since it really is a matter of taste when determining who is wearing too much aside from those that REALLY overdo it. I see the rule as going overboard on something that is basic common courtesy. It will start with eliminating those that are overboard and work down to those that are not as bad but someone thinks its overboard. Until the product is proven to cause the health problems I see no reason why anything sold on the shelves cannot be used in moderation.
I apologize for the cheap shot, I don't truly assume you discriminate, but some of your wordings seem to indicate that you're still confusing peronal taste with heath risk.
Fundamentally, this really doesn't have anything to do with courtesy anymore than does serving peanut butter sandwiches does. Schools don't serve peanut butter sandwiches because of peanut allergies, and Heavy scents *are* proven to be a health risk. Check any website about asthma for "triggers".
You've said much about this not being enforcable, but in my experiences, it is. Where I go to college, and places I've worked for the past several years all have policies against heavy scents, and if some place I choose to work in the future doesn't have such a policy in place, all it takes is a trip to the HR department to get one started. It is enforced, I even got them to change the scent they were using in the urinals where I work because they make me wheeze =op
I can understand your point on the *level* of excess. At what point is it too much? How can someone without a sensitivity judge how much is too much other than to guess? Again, in my experiences, most of the time all it takes is the common courtesy you're talking about. Someone points out to the (smelly) person and lets them know they're over-doing it, and this is generally how these policies have been handled, but without the policy posted, people don't seem to think about it and no-one says anything.
I also understand your point as far as the grand scheme of things goes, neither you or I can make these products go away, anymore than make smoking go away. As far as that part goes, it's the dollar that rules.
Anyways, I already do avoid situations that can trigger an asthma attack, I don't go to (or leave if they stink ;o) parties and such that are "too strong", I don't walk down the detergent aisles in supermarkets, etc... that's just the way things are for me.
but I can't avoid work and anyplace I choose to work can and should (within reason, IE, not a gas station, or a chemical plant) do what's possible to make it safe for me to work there as much as they would to make it safe for you to work there (no asbestos dribbling out of the ceiling, or rat infested bathrooms, etc). The same can be said for public schools.
Even chemicals proven to be harmful and carcinogenic are put into fragrances and other chemical products. It's naive to think that these products are monitored for safety, or that small amounts do no harm. Just because the harm is not immediately visible to you does not mean that it is not occurring. There are too many chemically induced chronic illnesses in this world not to realize that -- and most of them were from chronic, low level exposures. And don't forget too that there are plenty of solvent-like chemicals that are proven to be harmful that ARE found in perfumes -- and they are allowed to be there because they are NOT REGULATED. Get that?! Get it. It may save you from harm if you make the right decision... or not. Continue to be a guinea pig if you like. And if and when you and your family members get sick, you can see what kind of sympathy and cooperation you get. If you get sick with asthma or MCS, you will be in continual jeopardy. But lucky you, if it's only cancer, Parkinson's, Myasthenia Gravis, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia -- or other such chronic illness -- heck -- you can at least stay visibly functional while you continue to poison yourself.
Many people are harmed, but not at the level of awareness that those with say asthma or MCS would experience. One doesn't necessarily have the feeling that one is being hit with a blunt object when breathing in neurotoxins that have easy entry into the brain. Bit by bit the damage is done. Neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune disease, cancer -- are just a few. Only a tiny fraction of the 80,000 + man-made chemicals have never been tested for low level, chronic exposures. Most have not been tested period. As the news suggests, even pharmaceuticals have major problems though they ARE supposedly thoroughly tested. Connect the dots. Both toxic chemicals and pharmaceuticals are made by the same companies. The Chem/ Pharm industry does it all. It makes drugs, pesticides, raw chemicals for fragrances, solvents, surfactants -- you name it. The industry has been successful in getting these poisons into every conceivable product so they are constantly off-gassing in your home, office, car -- even from your sheets, mattresses and clothes.
There are many health problems cause by solvent-like petrochemical poisons. We are living in a world of chemical time bombs because we are forced to be exposed them constantly. Then when you get sick you can spend your life's savings trying to get well. And lucky you --- you'll be paying for drugs and treatments that benefit the same companies that poisoned in the first place. First it profits from the toxic chemical products it sells, and again from its drugs, cancer therapies, medical imaging services, and other medical devices you need later. $$$$$ rules!! Your health is just a targeted market babe! They want you to put that poison on your body.... they want you to continually breathe in low levels of neurotoxins -- that olfactory pathway directly to the brain is a terrific asset for chem/ pharm -- it's great for its bottom line!
Get un-brainwashed so you and your family can stay healthy. Chem/ pharm virtual control of the media from its enormous advertising revenues, and its control of the Congress, should be an obvious fact to you by now -- even if you don't read much. As for the so called federal "regulatory" agencies-- chem/ pharm controls them too. And that revolving door where the bigwigs at the fed agencies get high paying jobs in the industries they were supposed to be "regulating" -- is a monstrous scandal, and an under-reported one.
And don't be fooled by what "science" does exist that was created by the industry itself. When serious and independent testing shows that certain chemicals are harmful, the industry spends billions to keep its product market rolling by providing its own "science" to contest the independent results. That's the reason it takes 50+ years to get the scientific community to agree that even one chemical is carcinogenic. Like dioxin. It took almost 60 years!!! The checkbook scientists from industry kept challenging the independent science, so they could keep the $$$coming in for the companies they worked for. Do you want to continue to use untested chemical products on you and your family? Remember too, that not all chemicals are required to be on the label -- especially now when it comes to food. Your Congress just passed a law that throws out all the state safety regulations regarding food that were passed by individual states. Your right-to-know has just been trashed.
Considering that our government is not protecting us -- it's up to us to take extraordinary precautions, and to make decisions based on what we DO know. If our government does not adequately regulate toxic chemicals (it can't because its scientists have too little hard data), and given the widespread reports of harm -- you might think of adopting th
I have to agree in your situations it was enforcible because chances are you work with decent people, where an adjustment was not a big deal(or costly). I can see it being different in a highschool enviroment though where the problem only becomes worse. My school never stopped serving peanut butter sandwiches but I can see where starting small in schools and working up would be a start to eliminating asthma triggers. It is true that this is not a matter of taste when harm is involved, but the very fact so many other things cause the exact harm being cited here makes it difficult for me to feel these rules are justified.
I don't see the answer in creating rules, but in raising awareness and making people choose not to use them on their own. This along with addressing situations on an indivudal basis based on need are what I think will be the most beneficial to accomplish the goal they seek on that desired level.
So I have where your coming from I just enjoy discussing these things.
Am responding to the blogger identified as "uc1dDr3am" who said, "I don't see the answer in creating rules, but in raising awareness and making people choose not to use them on their own."
There is one major flaw in that idea, but normally I would agree that making almost anything voluntary, if possible, would be the best solution. Not so with perfumes, and here's why. How would it be possible to raise awareness fast enough... given that most people don't even care to learn about this? Many folks don't educate easily unless they hear the facts over and over again. Some people are not willing to accept information unless it comes from a series of health authorities, or news agencies reporting health findings for example.
Forget that! The mainstream media would never, ever beat the drum about the dangers of fragrance products -- and most other chemical products for that matter. If they did they would lose their advertisers -- and you can bet that the advertisers do threaten to pull advertising whenever they feel their bottom line being threatened. I know this for a fact. When you do hear something about efforts to limit the use of fragrances, the media most often trivializes this issue and makes no mention of the very serious and sometimes life-threatening problems that can result from exposures. Even worse, they even make stupid jokes about it. It's easy to do -- and so this growing health problem continues to fester and grow.
"Raising awareness" is an extremely difficult, huge job. There is no way in this world that those who are severely sickened by toxicants found in perfumes, can find the resources to educate the public at large. It would take decades. It IS taking decades! It would be impossibly expensive, and pray tell... what media venue would be available to them even if they did have the big bucks?? How are we being educated. It's happening because more and more people are getting sick from this stuff -- the rates of asthma have grown exponentially for example. This is called "learning the hard way".
Volunteering to spare people from being exposed to central nervous system toxicants in school? This seems reasonable if the dangers were obvious to everybody, after all, school is the place where we're supposed to be able to concentrate and learn. Neurotoxins cause many of us to get ditsed out (toxed out) where we can't think straight. Math functioning goes down the toilet. Even if everybody realized that these exposures can cause this to happen, volunteering would only be workable if most everyone REALLY CARED about others' wellbeing. This problem will not be solved by volunteerism. Not only are there too many people who don't care enough about others to do anything to help, but there are also too few who are really willing to try to understand this issue enough to educate themselves. Until they get sick.
*lol* I like discussing things too, even if it's not about some huge political debate. It's the #2 reason why I like SN.
I agree that we shouldn't have to impose rules on things that could be resolved otherwise, society should be "mature" enough to handle it. I've seen it work that way well, even in large groups like the 4-H group I volunteer with. We all (for the most part) get along and can agree to things without having to make tons of rules against things...
but one other argument I have for making them "rules", even if they're enforced lightly/politely (as they usually are for scents where I work for example) is to prevent unneccesary lawsuits. Raising awareness and having people choose themselves works great when people care about how their choices affect others, but in a business, or a even a public school system, CoverYourAsterisk is rule #1 these days ;o)
but now I can also see a very good reason not to have a rule by an example of say, if I didn't like the guy in the cubicle next to mine, I could abuse the rule by lying to a manager saying I tried to ask so-and-so to stop wearing so much Axe, but he won't stop, blah blah blah, and it turns into a write up that could potentially add to his eventually getting fired.
Either way, rule or not, ultimately it comes down to people being people, and the choices they make depending on whether they care or not about how those choices will affect others. Rules, without being abused or held to too strictly, can often be used as guidlines for folks who are uncertain. It's very sad that it can go so wrong in either direction when someone abuses the Lack or Presence of a rule.
If you think the Govt is protecting you, read the Onion's "EPA to drop E and P from name". There are many things sold legally that are very toxic to users and those nearby. Perfume (added scent) is just one.
and cigarette smoke are both toxic to humans and animals. They both make me ill. Besides perfume can get you in trouble with the wife. It ought to be banned for that reason alone. :)
My college and then University had a hygiene policy.
If you stunk of BO or your clothes smelt, then you were dismissed from the class and ordered to go back home / dorm and shower / change your clothes.
This was a godsend, as you would have these idiots who would fall asleep in clothes they wore the previous night, wake up and go to lectures, in those clothes! maddness! they would stink of stale beer and like a bloody soggy ashtray it would make me heave.
Quite rightly they were ordered to leave, shower and change their clothes.
One or two people just kept on doing it, luckily i never sat near them but one lecturer said "one of our students naming no names, John Smith here, has a problem with our hygiene policy, so I am going to take 5 minutes to show him how you wash" and the lecturer produced a shower shammy and proceeded to demonstrate how one should wash in the shower, it was hilarious and funnily enough that stinky guy never came in stinky again!
