ISSUES THAT RELATE TO MCS

Australia apparent reluctance to meet World Health Organization Standards.

Minimum requirements for the use of Chemicals in Australia, generally, are set lower than most Western Countries.

So low in fact that we are facing a rapidly increasing level in the incidence of MCS and similar conditions.

Available evidence suggests Australia has yet to initiate action of any consequence to date.

Until major research work is undertaken to collate information on MCS, use of chemicals, etc. into a National Database, it is feared little will be done by governments.

A Matter of Urgency

MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) is a serious problem requiring urgent attention for  government, policy developers at all levels of government.

It is also a problem for industry; commerce; agriculture; service industries and public sector as we will face a decreasing pool of experienced; knowledgeable workforce, due to them suffering from MCS related injuries.

Many members of the workforce are now victims of this 21st. Century phenomena and it has become a serious cost to public and private sectors of the community.

We need sound policies along with an appropriate infrastructure urgently. 

There is little time left to waste on Party or power politics or State versus Federal delegations. 

It must be a joint and coalition effort between Federal, State and industry.

Once set up it will enable the provision of competent control, management, monitoring and support in the use of chemicals in australia and also provide support for those who have become Victims of chemical injury trauma.

Understanding the flow-on effects of Chemical Use

Chemicals are a fact of life in this 21st.Century, so we can expect to see their continued use.

However, having said that, it is our responsibility to ensure they are used safely, at minimum levels and also ensuring correct research in the design and manufacturing of chemicals,  eliminates or reduces the most dangerous components to levels where they will not effect others or the environment.

It is also our responsibility to look at alternatives to using chemicals, even should there be a cost difference.   In many instances there are safe alternatives available that are less costly than these advocated by vested interests.

Chemicals are used in business, commerce, manufacturing, construction and building, agriculture, even our homes.

Many of us are unaware of the full implications in their use.  How they effect our waterways; our river systems; creeks; pondages.  It also flows into our water storages used for stock and domestic use.  Hence it also flows into the food chain.

Effect on future generations and the environment

What we do with chemicals today will effect future generations and badly damage the environment, perhaps forever.

What we need to understand is that we are but the husbandmen of the planet.   It is our responsibility to others that we hold it in safe custody to ensure it is left to them in the same condition or better than when it was handed down to us.

Spray Drift and Leaching in to the system.

Spray drift can travel a long way on our air low system.

Research has shown that Spray drift has been monitored as far as 100 miles from where it was used.

Valleys, wind tunnels, created by trees growing alongside roadways can also carry spray drift a considerable distance from the point of use.

While it cannot be seen by the eye we can graphically show it, when we consider that dust and smoke from dust storms or bush fires have been carried and felt as far as New Zealand.

Sprays can enter our waterways through run off from irrigation; drainage or rain.

It can leach down into the soil to our sub soil water storages.

Alleged Harmless Use!  ????

Many chemicals, while relatively harmless when sprayed as the amounts are supposed to be minimal, yet can build up in the soil with continued use.

We are assured that chemicals such as chlorine and fluorides as being safe.  

Yet there is increasing evidence shows this not to be correct.

Vested interests claim that you would need to drink the doses, used to purify water, for many years to suffer any ill effects.

In isolation that sounds fine but we encounter chlorine use in many other areas and this must be calculated into the decision as to whether it is safe to use.

People using public swimming pools complain of illness after swimming in the pools; complain of rashes and sore eyes. 

Surely this means that chlorine is not as safe as we are assured.  

No one seems to be able to give an adequate explanation for the sore ears,  rashes, redness or illnesses.  Add that to the other uses and we have a problem.

Fluoridation is recommended to be added to the water supplies to protect teeth. 

Again we need to consider that it is also added to tooth paste and even fluoridation tablets are given.  

We need to also consider that many soils have more than enough fluoride in it.   A lot of our food  includes fluoride naturally.     Total???????

Countries are now banning their use.    Australia?  Well in Australia there are many places where vested interests are lobbying for its inclusion!

Vested interests are lobbying government to include it in town water supplies, despite community concern and resistance.

In Victoria the State government proposed to make it mandatory for its use in the city of Geelong's water supply.

However, strong public resistance resulted in the idea being withdrawn.

One NSW municipality proposed fluoridation of the town's water supply.

However, members of the Dental Association went on a scare-mongering campaign, lobbying the have the public's wishes over ruled.

A clear cut reply to all of the lobbying is yet to be made.  We will advise on the results when they are available.

Greater Clarification of Minimum Standards

What needs to be clarified is what are minimum standards.

We need to have research undertaken into the cumulative effects of using chemicals at "minimum standards".

 Too often information answers a direct question but overlooks the broader issues.

What is the minimum standard and how is it arrived at?

Does it include long term studies into the cumulative results.

Is the chemical bio-degradable in full or part.  i.e. is only the base bio-degradable or is the chemical itself bio-degradable?

If the chemical is not bio-degradable then what effect will its accumulation in the soil or waterways have.

Will it get into the food chain?

If so, by what process, e.g. through insect, animal or plant life?

What is the effect of the chemical entering the body a binding with other chemicals in the body, oxygen.

This needs to be understood fully, as altering the makeup means a different outcome, which while outside of the body may be considered relatively harmless, yet combined with e.g. oxygen can become a cacogenic or a poison material.

Has the use of this chemical been under regular review and as further results come to hand the decision modified in accordance to it s suitability after further research?

If a chemical has been banned for home use yet approved for agriculture or commercial use, Why?

Chemicals are still poisons regardless of whether they are used in the home, agriculture, industry or otherwise.

We have seen the damage done to the environment by e.g. Dieldrin; organic-phosphates; encapsulated poisons, etc in our farming industry.

They have contaminated our meat and grain exports.

There are many documented instances where their use in public places has resulted in an adverse reaction to people with a chemical sensitivity (MCS).   So much so that they have been unable to enter such buildings..

Cases where MCS child victims have been unable to attend schools because chemicals are used to clean the building; as Weedicide and pesticides, and also because of the use of deodorants, cosmetics, hair-spray, etc. are used by other students.

Although not yet proven, there seems to be enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that chemical pollution may be a cause of some behavioral problems within our schools.

These comments do not come from just one school but from over wide areas close to manufacturing and chemical production areas.

It suggests there is a need for research into this aspect to confirm or deny that chemicals are an instigator.

Anecdotal evidence seems to question that what has been put down to seasonal pollen problems may not be quite correct. 

Especially when observations seem to indicate that some of the problems appear to be worse when prevailing winds come from industrial areas.