FEMA'S TRAILERS FOR THE RESERVATIONS
Editorial by Jeanne Svhiyeyi Aga Chadwick, My Two Beads Worth
A week or two ago, a post appeared on one of the Indigenous lists through Yahoo Groups. In that post, the writer was applauding the efforts of two individuals as he did Senator Johnson, for his efforts in getting these homes to people in dire need of decent and affordable housing. Anyone who has ever dealt with the federal government knows that two citizens and a Senator are not going to accomplish such a feat without a lot of support and a great deal of time involved in making it happen.
On April 13, 2007, Senator Johnson's office released a Press Release:
Johnson Contacts Interior on FEMA Trailers
'Give Tribal Housing Priority'
This Press Release can be found at Senator Johnson's website Senator Tim Johnson
There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Johnson means well and especially for the reservations in his own state. Decent, affordable housing is not a reality on the reservation, nor is it a reality in most, low-income areas throughout the United States. Even federal public housing is a disaster, and in too many instances, not fit for human habitation.
Often people rush for accolades, without taking the time to determine with as much certainty as possible that something is a "good" thing for people and not just another bandage on a serious problem, or something to do during election year, as most politicians are known for doing. Poor or not, People of Color or not, everyone deserves a decent, safe place to live and to raise their children. However, this is not the case in the United States and has not been for a long, long time, if ever.
However, it sounds so good! to desperate people who need a roof over their heads that won't blow off with the first winter's hard wind, who only ask to be warm in the winter, not having to worry about their children or elders freezing to death from a lack of a safe and dependable heating source, to actually have windows intact and screens to keep out insects in the summer - these trailers are like an answer to a prayer.
First let us clear one thing up - a 14 x 60 or a 14 x 70 mobile home is not a "trailer." I would like to see someone hook it up to the back of his or her pickup truck and haul it off down the street. They can be and are a safe, comfortable and affordable place to call home for many Americans.
My husband and I lived in a 14 x 70 singlewide mobile home in the Sonora Desert in Tucson, for 4 years. It was a lovely home and we were grateful that we could afford it and the land we purchased in Pima County in the late 1970's. However, for a short period, the scent of formaldehyde, which is used in the construction of these homes and used in a wide variety of other products, was obvious. We were advised to air our home out, we did and the scent became weaker and we never noticed it again. We lived in that house for 4 years. It was the first time I had ever lived in anything but a house, built in the typical fashion and we found it economical to heat, comfortable and pleasant to look at and most of all, very affordable. In spite of the snobbery and deed restrictions in many areas, Tucson was one of the first places I had ever seen as many mobile homes used year-round as a family's permanent residence.
We left Tucson in the early 1980's and returned east to New England. A medical emergency that left my husband permanently disabled for 7 years forced us out and when we returned east, we had no home anywhere, just kind relatives who gave us a place to stay until we were able to find our own residence, which we did about 6 months later - an apartment in a federal public housing development - or more commonly known as the "projects."
The "projects" are not unlike a reservation. There is a lot of crime and no one really cares because it's the projects and like a reservation or the "ghetto" in the inner city, anyone who lives there has to be lazy, on welfare, into drugs and just plain no good. Oh and how could I forget? Mostly non-white of course. Untrue of course, but that is the stereotype and stigma given to the working poor and poor.
I never thought I would end up living in a housing project. However, we were grateful we had it when we needed it. I remember when we first moved in, telling my husband, I am only staying here a year - then we are getting out. Well, it took nearly 5 years to get out. I went back to work and worked hard toward that goal and my husband eventually was able to return to work, which certainly helped us to move on and out of the projects. However, during the time we lived there, we learned more than we may have ever known had life not thrown these challenges at us.
Those who have the least are the first to be willing to share what they have with you. We worked hard to improve conditions for the residents. People were never treated with respect by the Housing Authority - they would walk right into your home, without knocking because they had something to do in the "unit" and no one in their opinion was worthy of the respect to have peace and private enjoyment of the place that was their home.
The living conditions were dreadful. In some units, black mold grew and spread upward on the walls there were open sewers in the cellars and to this day, I have often said, thank God no child ever fell into that sewer and drowned. There were hundreds of housing code violations but it did not matter if you complained, they would never fix it. A private landlord would have been taken to court for even the least of those housing violations, but the projects - nope - no one cared because after all, the people living there were not worth caring about - they were lazy and no good and deserved what they got and by God! They should be happy with what they had!
These properties were built by HUD and overseen by HUD. The one we lived in was built in the early 1950's for returning service members and their families due to a housing shortage back then. In all those years, no major renovations were ever undertaken until the 1990's when they acquired grants to redo the exteriors and replace the old doors and windows. This development is by no means the only one that can be described in such a manner - it is widespread and now HUD is trying very hard to unload these properties. Private development is now eying properties that are in poor condition, but their location is ideal for the up and coming, commuters traveling to their good jobs in Boston and other places south and west of the area.
Poor people should be happy with the crumbs they are given by the government. How dare they complain! People will say. But there are more working poor in those developments than they think; there are many elderly who helped make America what it is today - it's on their backs that this country was able to reach its greatness and now, they are left not only without decent housing, but wondering from day to day, can I afford to buy food this week? Can I afford to get my medications or see the doctor? Close your eyes to those that are not as well off as you are - they are in the eyes of too many, just taking up space and the main cause for all the crime and problems in America today.
My husband and I moved to Northern New England over 15 years ago and again, we purchased a 14 x 70 mobile home. It has a fireplace - and it is a quaint and comfortable home and very affordable to heat and maintain. I refuse to pay a mortgage of $1,000 dollars a month or more - did that once - never ever again. It is ridiculous to expect people who are fighting to earn more than minimum wage or even if a family is making a decent wage, for a family of four, they are scrapping by, living on credit to survive, or just going without more and more necessities in life.
These thousands of mobile homes would be an answer to a prayer to provide the reservations and others with decent and affordable homes - but only if they are safe to live in - and that first, must be ascertained before we ever agree to send these homes to anyone and anywhere. They do have to be winterized - there is no doubt about that. A home meant for Louisiana is not going to provide a warm place to live in North Dakota or Northern New England. They are built different because they have to be to withstand the cold winters.
What about the mold? The trailers have been sitting all this time in a hot, humid climate and that is an excellent atmosphere for mold to grow. If mold could be found in the housing projects of Massachusetts, then we can rest assured that many of these homes must have mold too. I do not think all of them necessarily have it, but I am sure many do.
Therefore, before we rush to quick acceptance - we must be very careful about the conditions of these homes before we permit families anywhere to call it home.
A recent article in the Navajo Times, by Shelley Bluejay Pierce regarding these FEMA homes was very important because it addressed many of these issues and most of all, shows the concern of people regarding the impact homes with mold or an overabundance of fumes, can have on families - especially children and the elderly.
You can read her report here
Shortly after this article appeared in print, the author was contacted by several angry people because she wrote this article and raised some important and serious questions, which they viewed as an attempt to ruin a good thing. The health, safety, and future of the people and their children are the most important thing of all. She was right to raise these questions and right to remind people that we cannot center on the formaldehyde issue alone. I had to reply to this because I could not understand why anyone would be angry about the concerns she had raised and others have risen as well. This is my response to those angry voices.
"I honestly do not understand why anyone should be angry because it is wise to take a cautious approach to these trailers. Granted, they can make decent and affordable homes for so many - but as stated by Pierce, it is not just the formaldehyde that is the only issue of concern.
I live in a mobile home and have lived in a mobile home twice in my life. We lived in one in Arizona's Sonora Desert and now we live in one in the mountains of Maine and New Hampshire. They are decent and affordable homes and I know many families on the reservation desperately need these.
First, they must be winterized for use at places like Pine Ridge, etc. The trailers were not originally built for a colder climate with the winters they have, just like our winters here. Our Arizona home would never keep us warm enough here during the winter. Therefore, that one thing needs to be done.
They have been sitting there 2 years. In that type of climate, where it is warm, moist, and wet, it is a perfect climate for mold. Every single trailer must be checked for mold because it is very dangerous. I know the federal government does not lose sleep at night over homes with mold - take a visit to any older federal housing project and you will find mold. However, I think the feds should carefully and thoroughly inspect these homes before sending them out or selling them. I cannot believe they will be giving them away.
At Otis AFB in Falmouth, MA, good decent homes were left to rot during a period of severe homelessness on Cape Cod in the 1970's and 1980's and no one in government fought to have these homes rented out to people who needed them. The government chose to let them rot, rather than use them to provide much needed decent and affordable housing. It would be a shame to have the same thing happen to all the mobile homes that have been purchased since Hurricane Katrina.
I know it is probably much better than so many homes our people have to live in now. But I also suspect the federal government did not buy top of the line either - not that they would have to do that for an affordable and good home, but they cut costs where it's most needed - and to depend on FEMA after their showing during the crisis in New Orleans, Mississippi, etc, is just plain crazy, I think. FEMA employees and contractors were not able to account for a lot of missing funds and while the press they did report on that, we have not heard about any prosecutions for the money that was illegally used or stolen for personal use.
I think the Senator and all the tribal representatives that worked hard to find out about the availability of these homes are to be commended as well as all the people who wrote letters to the Senator and to their own representatives regarding these homes but first and foremost, before anyone takes a bow, it is imperative that they be checked by experts to make sure they are safe and habitable for families.
Let us not be so quick we are ready to join the cause as I have noted here, with pats on the backs of those who are favored by supporters and friends and let us not forget the past. The feds handed out blankets with small pox; diseases were brought to tribes that wiped them out completely, so why should we as native people be so eager to trust any agency of the federal government? In addition, these days, it is not only native people - but all the regular people too, who won't fall into line like good Americans and believe the propaganda this government is so quick to pass out - and that is all we have seen in this administration.
The government has an obligation to check these out 100% for any potential cause of illness or death to the families that will live in these homes. I want nothing more than to see that happen so that these mobile homes will provide new decent housing for people who so desperately need it.
However, at the same time, we have an obligation as well, to be cautious too. Sometimes a quick fix is not such a good thing."
The following is an article that was published in July 2006:
Are FEMA trailers 'toxic tin cans'?
Private testing finds high levels of formaldehyde; residents report illnesses
Mike Brunker
Projects editor
Updated: 12:57 p.m. ET July 25, 2006
BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. - for nearly a year now, the ubiquitous FEMA trailer has sheltered tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents left homeless by Hurricane Katrina. But there is growing concern that even as it staved off the elements, it was exposing its inhabitants to a toxic gas that could pose both immediate and long-term health risks.
The gas is formaldehyde, the airborne form of a chemical used in a wide variety of products, including composite wood and plywood panels in the thousands of travel trailers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency purchased after Katrina to house hurricane victims. It also is considered a human carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Air quality tests of 44 FEMA trailers conducted by the Sierra Club since April have found formaldehyde concentrations as high as 0.34 parts per million - a level nearly equal to what a professional embalmer would be exposed to on the job, according to one study of the chemical's workplace effects.
And all but four of the trailers have tested higher than the 0.1 parts per million that the EPA considers to be an "elevated level" capable of causing watery eyes, burning in the eyes and throat, nausea, and respiratory distress in some people.
Becky Gillette, co-chair of the Mississippi chapter of the environmental group, said that representatives also have heard from numerous trailer inhabitants who say they began experiencing health problems ranging from headaches and runny noses to chronic respiratory problems and nosebleeds as soon as they moved in.
As a result of its testing and such accounts, the Sierra Club is pushing for a congressional investigation of the potential health hazards posed by the trailers.
"It's simply wrong that the government would spend billions of dollars to poison people in these toxic tin cans," Gillette said.
Pediatrician saw unusual illnesses
Dr. Scott Needle, a pediatrician in Bay St. Louis, said he noticed some unusual and persistent health problems among his patients living in the trailers well before the possible link to formaldehyde exposure surfaced.
"I was seeing kids coming in with respiratory complaints - colds and sinus infections - and they were getting them over and over again," he said. "…Almost invariably, these families were staying in the FEMA trailers."
A class-action lawsuit also has been filed in Louisiana, naming the federal government and trailer manufacturers as defendants and alleging that "the temporary housing is unsafe and presents a clear and present danger to the health and well-being of plaintiffs and their families."
Despite the Sierra Club tests - and air quality testing by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in November that detected formaldehyde levels at FEMA trailer holding stations on the Gulf Coast as high as 5.0 parts per million, or 50 times the EPA's "elevated" level FEMA says the trailers are safe and there is no need for it to conduct its own air-quality testing.
"FEMA stands confident in using travel trailers for emergency sheltering," said agency spokesperson Aaron Walker. "… To put it in perspective, we have almost 115,000 trailers out right now, and FEMA has received just over 20 complaints total."
Better ventilation recommended
Walker said those experiencing any adverse reactions to the trailer environment can likely resolve the issue by increasing ventilation.
"We encourage families living in the trailers, if they're worried, to take steps to air out their trailers," he said. "… If a family is uncomfortable with their trailer, they're welcome to call our trailer hot line (and) we can come out and test their trailer and have a look at it."
Trailer manufacturers contacted by MSNBC.com declined to comment on the issue because of the pending litigation and directed inquiries to the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association.
RVIA spokesperson Kevin Broom echoed Walker in saying that the gas in the trailers poses no health threat.
"The industry uses low-emitting materials, so formaldehyde has not been an issue for 15 or 20 years at least," he said.
Broom acknowledged that the high heat and humidity in the Gulf Coast could increase the rate of formaldehyde "out gassing" from wood products trailers, but added that ventilation should quickly take care of any problem.
"You can get it to dissipate very easily if you just ventilate it," he said. "People may just need to be shown how to open the windows."
Mary DeVany, an industrial hygienist from Vancouver, Wash., who has studied the formaldehyde issue, agrees that the high heat and humidity in the hurricane-ravaged zone exacerbate the problem. However, she believes that the higher-than-usual readings in the FEMA trailers could be the result of the rush to manufacture the trailers in the wake of Katrina.
"Typically with these plywood and particleboard materials … before assembly they're put in ovens that heat them to 130 degrees," she said. "This sets and bakes off the formaldehyde in the glues and resins. ... I'm not sure that happened in this case because the trailers were made so fast."
The RVIA's Broom disputes that notion, saying such "baking" is performed by the manufacturer to reduce the formaldehyde leakage.
"That's not something the RV industry would do," he said of the process. "They would be buying certified low- emission materials."
A patchwork of standards
Any effort to determine whether the formaldehyde levels present in the trailers pose a health threat is exacerbated by the patchwork of standards in place to regulate exposure to the chemical - none of which apply to travel trailers or recreational vehicles. (MY NOTE: HERE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT TRAVEL TRAILERS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES NOT MOBILE HOMES)
The Department of Housing and Urban Development limits the use of formaldehyde-emitting products in manufactured homes -- setting a standard of 0.2 parts per million for plywood and 0.3 parts per million for particleboard materials. However, the agency does not regulate travel trailers or motor homes, probably because it was never anticipated that people would spend long periods living in them, said the Sierra Club's Gillette.
The lack of an exposure standard reflects a bigger issue, said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer American Lung Association.
"The real problem is we haven't done for indoor pollution what we've done four outdoor pollution and set national standards," he said. "There are no indoor air quality air standards and I really think Congress should empower the EPA and NIOSH (the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) to set standards."
Nor is there agreement on the long-term health risks from exposure to formaldehyde.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified it as "carcinogenic to humans" in June 2004 after reviewing 40 human studies, including a National Cancer Institute study linking exposure to an elevated risk of rare nasopharyngeal cancer.
California cracking down
The California Air Resources Board has identified formaldehyde, as a "toxic air contaminant" after state experts concluded that, based on current research, there is "no safe exposure threshold … to preclude cancer." The agency is currently developing regulations aimed at sharply reducing the amount of formaldehyde products used in the state by 2010.
However, no U.S. health or environmental agencies have followed the IARC in declaring the chemical to be a human carcinogen, saying more research is necessary. In addition, the industry groups have sponsored research that they say shows the potential risk associated with exposure has been overblown.
"All of the available and still-emerging human health research data is demonstrating that if formaldehyde exposure is kept below levels that produce chronic irritation and overt target tissue damage, the risk of cancer is essentially zero," according to the Formaldehyde Council, an industry group.
The debate is far from academic for Katrina survivors who are nearing their one-year anniversary living in the trailers.
DeVany, the industrial hygienist, said that children and the elderly are most at risk, the former because they have higher respiration rates than adults and the latter because they are likely to be exposed to the fumes more than those who work and only return to their trailers at night.
"A year from now, the formaldehyde will be gone, but the permanent and lasting effects from these exposures will not," she said.
Fumes forced couple to flee
Sounding a similar warning, though one born from personal experience, are Paul and Melody Stewart of Bay St. Louis, who say formaldehyde forced them out of their FEMA trailer and into their truck.
The couple said that even though they had a friend air out the Cavalier trailer and run the heater before they arrived, the smell when they walked in was overpowering. In addition, Melody said she had a nosebleed the first night they stayed in it.
"(The smell) was really bad, but we went and ahead and went to bed," she said. "Within hours, I woke up to the smell - it was that strong - and I was gasping for fresh air. I ran to the window."
The couple continued to ventilate the trailer and also tried removing composite wood panels from beneath the bed and table bench and replacing them with solid wood, but nothing seemed to help.
Finally, when their pet cockatiel took ill, they decided they had to do something.
"We got up one morning and the cockatiel was lethargic, wouldn't move, was losing its balance," said Paul, a police officer in neighboring Waveland. "… (Later), the vet told us unequivocally, 'Look, you either get the bird out of that environment or he's going to die.'"
The Stewarts complained to FEMA and received two replacement trailers - the first of which also smelled of formaldehyde and a second that had swathes of mold and a stovetop that looked like it had been "used at a Waffle House," Paul said.
Fed up, they called FEMA and told the agency to come take the trailer away, then spent five days living in their truck before using their last $50,000 in savings to buy a "fifth-wheel" trailer devoid of any formaldehyde odor.
"We took what resources we had left, and what we really should have used to rebuild our house, and went out and bought our own camper," Paul said.
Since then, the Stewarts have granted numerous media interviews, intent on spreading word of the possible hazards.
"We're here because there are so many people at risk (and) they're in the shadows," Melody said. "You've got Christians, hard-working people that have lost their jobs and retired people who have paid their dues to society, and we're putting them at risk by letting them stay in these campers."
© 2007 MSNBC Interactive+
URL: MSNBC
MSN Privacy . Legal© 2007 MSNBC.com
The next article is from the Consumer Products Safety Commission, revised in 1997:
Consumer Product Safety Commission
An Update on Formaldehyde: 1997 Revision
CPSC Document #725
What is Formaldehyde?
Formaldehyde is an important industrial chemical used to make other chemicals, building materials, and household products. It is one of the large families of chemical compounds called volatile organic compounds or "VOC's". The term volatile means that the compounds vaporize, that is, become a gas, at normal room temperatures. Formaldehyde serves many purposes in products. It is used as a part of:
" the glue or adhesive in pressed wood products (particleboard, hardwood plywood, and medium density fiberboard (MDF));
" preservatives in some paints, coatings, and cosmetics;
" the coating that provides permanent press quality to fabrics and draperies;
" the finish used to coat paper products; and
" certain insulation materials (urea-formaldehyde foam and fiberglass insulation).
Formaldehyde is released into the air by burning wood, kerosene or natural gas, by automobiles, and by cigarettes. Formaldehyde can off-gas from materials made with it. It is also a naturally occurring substance.
The U.S. Consumer Safety Commission has produced this booklet to tell you about formaldehyde found in the indoor air. This booklet tells you where you may come in contact with formaldehyde, how it may affect your health, and how you might reduce your exposure to it.
Why Should You Be Concerned?
Formaldehyde is a colorless, strong-smelling gas. When present in the air at levels above 0.1 ppm (parts in a million parts of air), it can cause watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat, nausea, coughing, chest tightness, wheezing, skin rashes, and allergic reactions. It also has been observed to cause cancer in scientific studies using laboratory animals and may cause cancer in humans. Typical exposures to humans are much lower; thus any risk of causing cancer is believed to be small at the level at which humans are exposed.
Formaldehyde can affect people differently. Some people are very sensitive to formaldehyde while others may not have any noticeable reaction to the same level.
Persons have developed allergic reactions (allergic skin disease and hives) to formaldehyde through skin contact with solutions of formaldehyde or durable-press clothing containing formaldehyde. Others have developed asthmatic reactions and skin rashes from exposure to formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde is just one of several gases present indoors that may cause illnesses. Many of these gases, as well as colds and flu, cause similar symptoms.
What Levels of Formaldehyde Are Normal?
Formaldehyde is normally present at low levels, usually less than 0.03 ppm, in both outdoor and indoor air. The outdoor air in rural areas has lower concentrations while urban areas have higher concentrations. Residences or offices that contain products that release formaldehyde to the air can have formaldehyde levels of greater than 0.03 ppm. Products that may add formaldehyde to the air include particleboard used as flooring underlayment, shelving, furniture and cabinets; MDF in cabinets and furniture; hardwood plywood wall panels, and urea-formaldehyde foam used as insulation. As formaldehyde levels increase, illness or discomfort is more likely to occur and may be more serious.
Efforts have been made by both the government and industry to reduce exposure to formaldehyde. CPSC voted to ban urea-formaldehyde foam insulation in 1982. That ban was over-turned in the courts, but this action greatly reduced the residential use of the insulation product. CPSC, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal agencies have historically worked with the pressed wood industry to further reduce the release of the chemical from their products. A 1985 HUD regulation covering the use of pressed wood products in manufactured housing was designed to ensure that indoor levels are below 0.4 ppm. However, it would be unrealistic to expect to completely remove formaldehyde from the air. Some persons who are extremely sensitive to formaldehyde may need to reduce or stop using these products.
What Affects Formaldehyde Levels?
Formaldehyde levels in the indoor air depend mainly on what is releasing the formaldehyde (the source), the temperature, the humidity, and the air exchange rate (the amount of outdoor air entering or leaving the indoor area). Increasing the flow of outdoor air to the inside decreases the formaldehyde levels. Decreasing this flow of outdoor air by sealing the residence or office increases the formaldehyde level in the indoor air.
As the temperature rises, more formaldehyde is emitted from the product. The reverse is also true; less formaldehyde is emitted at lower temperature. Humidity also affects the release of formaldehyde from the product. As humidity rises more formaldehyde is released.
The formaldehyde levels in a residence change with the season and from day-to-day and day-to-night. Levels may be high on a hot and humid day and low on a cool, dry day. Understanding these factors is important when you consider measuring the levels of formaldehyde.
Some sources-such as pressed wood products containing urea-formaldehyde glues, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, durable-press fabrics, and draperies-release more formaldehyde when new. As they age, the formaldehyde release decreases.
What are the Major Sources?
1. Urea-formaldehyde foam insulation: During the 1970s, many homeowners installed this insulation to save energy. Many of these homes had high levels of formaldehyde soon afterwards. Sale of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation has largely stopped. Formaldehyde released from this product decreases rapidly after the first few months and reaches background levels in a few years. Therefore, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation installed 5 to 10 years ago is unlikely to still release formaldehyde.
2. Durable-press fabrics, draperies and coated paper products: In the early 1960s, there were several reports of allergic reactions to formaldehyde from durable-press fabrics and coated paper products. Such reports have declined in recent years as industry has taken steps to reduce formaldehyde levels. Draperies made of formaldehyde-treated durable press fabrics may add slightly to indoor formaldehyde levels.
3. Cosmetics, paints, coatings, and some wet-strength paper products: The amount of formaldehyde present in these products is small and is of slight concern. However, persons sensitive to formaldehyde may have allergic reactions.
4. Pressed wood products: Pressed wood products, especially those containing urea-formaldehyde glues, are a source of formaldehyde. These products include particleboard used as flooring underlayment, shelves, cabinets, and furniture; hardwood plywood wall panels; and medium density fiberboard used in drawers, cabinets and furniture. When the surfaces and edges of these products are unlaminated or uncoated they have the potential to release more formaldehyde. Manufacturers have reduced formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products by 80-90% from the levels of the early 1980Ős.
5. Combustion sources: Burning materials such as wood, kerosene, cigarettes and natural gas, and operating internal combustion engines (e.g. automobiles), produce small quantities of formaldehyde. Combustion sources add small amounts of formaldehyde to indoor air.
6. Products such as carpets or gypsum board do not contain significant amounts of formaldehyde when new. They may trap formaldehyde emitted from other sources and later release the formaldehyde into the indoor air when the temperature and humidity change.
Do You Have Formaldehyde-Related Symptoms?
There are several formaldehyde-related symptoms, such as watery eyes, runny nose, burning sensation in the eyes, nose, and throat, headaches and fatigue. These symptoms may also occur because of the common cold, the flu or other pollutants that may be present in the indoor air. If these symptoms lessen when you are away from home or office but reappear upon your return, they may be caused by indoor pollutants, including formaldehyde. Examine your environment. Have you recently moved into a new or different home or office? Have you recently remodeled or installed new cabinets or furniture? Symptoms may be due to formaldehyde exposure. You should contact your physician and/or state or local health department for help. Your physician can help to determine if the cause of your symptoms is formaldehyde or other pollutants.
Should You Measure Formaldehyde?
Only trained professionals should measure formaldehyde because they know how to interpret the results. If you become ill, and the illness persists following the purchase of furniture or remodeling with pressed wood products, you might not need to measure formaldehyde. Since these are possible sources, you can take action. You may become ill after painting, sealing, making repairs, and/or applying pest control treatment in your home or office. In such cases, indoor air pollutants other than formaldehyde may be the cause. If the source is not obvious, you should consult a physician to determine whether or not your symptoms might relate to indoor air quality problems. If your physician believes that you may be sensitive to formaldehyde, you may want to make some measurements. As discussed earlier, many factors can affect the level of formaldehyde on a given day in an office or residence. This is why a professional is best suited to make an accurate measurement of the levels.
Do-it-yourself formaldehyde measuring devices are available, however these devices can only provide a "ball park" estimate for the formaldehyde level in the area. If you use such a device, carefully follow the instructions.
How Do You Reduce Formaldehyde Exposure?
Every day you probably use many products that contain formaldehyde. You may not be able to avoid coming in contact with some formaldehyde in your normal daily routine. If you are sensitive to formaldehyde, you will need to avoid many everyday items to reduce symptoms. For most people, a low-level exposure to formaldehyde (up to 0.1 ppm) does not produce symptoms. People who suspect they are sensitive to formaldehyde should work closely with a knowledgeable physician to make sure that it is formaldehyde causing their symptoms.
You can avoid exposure to higher levels by:
" Purchasing pressed wood products such as particleboard, MDF, or hardwood plywood for construction or remodeling of homes, or for do-it-yourself projects, that are labeled or stamped to be in conformance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) criteria. Particleboard should be in conformance with ANSI A208.1-1993. For particleboard flooring, look for ANSI grades "PBU", "D2", or "D3" actually stamped on the panel. MDF should be in conformance with ANSI A208.2-1994; and hardwood plywood with ANSI/HPVA HP-1-1994. These standards all specify lower formaldehyde emission levels.
" Purchasing furniture or cabinets that contain a high percentage of panel surface and edges that are laminated or coated. Unlaminated or uncoated (raw) panels of pressed wood products will generally emit more formaldehyde than those that are laminated or coated.
" Using alternative products such as wood panel products not made with urea-formaldehyde glues, lumber or metal.
" Avoiding the use of foamed-in-place insulation containing formaldehyde, especially urea-formaldehyde foam insulation.
" Washing durable-press fabrics before use.
How Do You Reduce Existing Formaldehyde Levels?
The choice of methods to reduce formaldehyde is unique to your situation. People who can help you select appropriate methods are your state or local health department, physician, or professional expert in indoor air problems. Here are some of the methods to reduce indoor levels of formaldehyde.
1. Bring large amounts of fresh air into the home. Increase ventilation by opening doors and windows and installing an exhaust fan(s).
2. Seal the surfaces of the formaldehyde-containing products that are not already laminated or coated. You may use a vapor barrier such as some paints, varnishes, or a layer of vinyl or polyurethane-like materials. Be sure to seal completely, with a material that does not itself contain formaldehyde. Many paints and coatings will emit other VOCs when curing, so be sure to ventilate the area well during and after treatment.
3. Remove from your home the product that is releasing formaldehyde in the indoor air. When other materials in the area such as carpets, gypsum boards, etc., have absorbed formaldehyde, these products may also start releasing it into the air. Overall levels of formaldehyde can be lower if you increase the ventilation over an extended period.
One method NOT recommended by CPSC is a chemical treatment with strong ammonia (28-29% ammonia in water) which results in a temporary decrease in formaldehyde levels. We strongly discourage such treatment since ammonia in this strength is extremely dangerous to handle. Ammonia may damage the brass fittings of a natural gas system, adding a fire and explosion danger.
For more information about biological pollutants, combustion pollutants, asbestos, and indoor air quality in your home, write to:
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, DC 20207
CPSC's toll-free hotline: 800-638-2772
CPSC's web site: http://www.cpsc.gov
American Lung Association
1740 Broadway
New York, NY 10019-4374
(local ALA offices also have information)
Local and State Health Departments
For a copy of "The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality", send 50˘ to:
Consumer Information Center
Dept. 434-W
Pueblo, CO 81009
Publications
As we can see, there are a variety of "professional" opinions and the article on formaldehyde that lists a wide variety of products we use every day that contains this substance. We are all different - I may react negatively to one substance; while it does not bother you at all and vice versa. We will have a lot of professional opinions about these FEMA built homes in the months to come. We will have people who want these homes, as long as they are checked completely and given a seal of approval for safety for any family to call home.
I know that in many ways, people are and will say, isn't it better than living in a house without a safe heating source; without insulation or the capacity to provide a warm and safe shelter during cold as well as hot months?
People on Pine Ridge and Rosebud, from what people there have told me, have to use unsafe kerosene stoves or they heat with wood and there is always the danger of fire in this instance or of fires started from the kerosene stoves or from the fumes of having them in an unventilated area.
If the way FEMA responded to the people of New Orleans and other cities and small towns hit hard by the storms is any indication of their "best" work, we are in for a lot of trouble. There is no excuse for it whatsoever - but when we hear the comments such as those made by Barbara Bush regarding the victims who were forced to live inside that hell they called a stadium - how can we ever be expected to rely upon this government to have the best intentions of the people of Pine Ridge or anywhere else for that matter as their top priority?
In the nearly 30 years of working with the homeless and working toward the goal of decent, affordable and equal housing for all people, I have personally seen few victories. Grants are given, but the majority of it goes to high salaries of their political pimps for fancy jobs with important sounding titles to "administer" the funding.
The millions of dollars in Community Development Block Grant Funding that was given out to many cities and towns in the 1970's and 80's and into the early 1990's could have provided decent housing for many people who needed it. That never happened. Federally funded public housing developments that could have given people an opportunity at home ownership never materialized. Oh they talked about it, but no one ever followed through. They are waiting for the time period to end on the mortgages on these properties, so they turn around and sell these properties to private investors, who in turn, will rehabilitate the property and then turn around and make more money from selling them as condos and townhouses to people who can afford to purchase their own home.
There is pride in ownership. If the opportunity had been given to the working poor to purchase these units, it would have strengthened these neighborhoods, the property would be better cared for because it was theirs and they never again had to worry about the Project Manager evicting them on some flimsy charge because they may have been one of the few who was not afraid to keep their mouths shut and just do as they were told. For years, federal housing and subsidized housing in general, has been held over the heads of the poor; the constant threat of losing their housing has kept people imprisoned, so they have been afraid to organize and fight for the rights they are entitled to like everyone else. Control - just like on Pine Ridge or in a federal housing project - there is little difference.
This is an opportunity for the people to stand up strong and tall and not take the "crumbs" from the federal government anymore. Demands must be made to ascertain that this housing is above all, safe for people to live in. Corrupt politicians, tribal councils and those who have held the keys to bondage for far too long, should not be permitted to make all the decisions and call the shots and then return home to their nice homes in the suburbs.
This administration has wasted billions of dollars in a war that should have never happened. Think of all the good that could have been accomplished in this country with those billions of dollars - decent housing, educational opportunities for all, things like better schools, economic development, police and fire services, better medical treatment and medical facilities. We have our own Third World Countries in the USA and yet most Americans do not have a clue as to the real conditions so many people must live with.
I believe the greatest hope of all, is that this housing will be a good thing for those who so desperately need a decent place to call home. Let's all work together to see that happen.
Jeanne Svhiyeyi Aga Chadwick
Publisher/Editor
My Two Beads Worth - July 2007 copyright My Two Beads Worth - copyrights remain with other sources of information provided in this report.
Now this is quite interesting I think. Please read on and read the report dated 2007 and compare it with the report listed above from 2006 - not much difference is it?
CLICK HERE TO READ NEXT REPORT
Contents
July 2007 Reports
Last updated on July 20, 2007