FOR MORE INFORMATION,
GO TO: "HEALTHY & SAFE Home Cleaning Kit" 

EVERYTHING YOU NEED
TO CLEAN AND MAINTAIN YOUR HOME …
NATURALLY AND ORGANICALLY...

7 READY-TO-USE
ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRODUCTS
performing over 32 Cleaning Functions !

for ONLY $ 69.95/ per Kit
( + $ 12.00 ship/hdlg )

STATS & FACTS That You Should Know

The Average Homeowner uses about 25 Gallons of "TOXIC" products per year.

A U.C.L.A. study indicates that "adverse" health effects have been identified
      regarding common chemical ingredients found in 222 cleaning products.

According to a latest medical report , conventional cleaning chemicals are "neurotoxins"
     which may impair an individual's ability to concentrate , and learn.

Cleaning products, regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
      can be among the most hazardous chemicals in your home or office .

FOR MORE INFORMATION,
GO TO : "HEALTHY HOME" Cleaning Kit

---

THE FIRST STATE LEGISLATION
OF ITS KIND IN THE U.S. ...

CONVENTIONAL CLEANERS ... YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED !

Environmental Issues - 7/18/2003 10:44:44 A.M.

HEALTHY CLEANING PRODUCTS Act
Hits MA Legislature

BROOKLINE, MA — At a State House press conference Tuesday, Rep. Frank Smizik introduced the Healthy Cleaning Products Act, the purpose of which is to reduce asthma and other health threats from cleaning products emissions in schools, hospitals and other public buildings, the Brookline Tab reported.

SENATE BILL, NO. 694

---

By Ms. Wilkerson, a petition ( accompanied by Bill, Senate, No.694 )
of Dianne Wilkerson, Bruce E. Tarr and the IUE-CWA,
by Jeff Crosby, president, for legislation to reduce health threats
from chemical cleaning products. Health Care In the Year Two Thousand and Three...

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

SENATE BILL, NO. 694

...TO REDUCE ASTHMA AND OTHER HEALTH THREATS FROM CLEANING PRODUCTS USED IN SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, DAY CARE CENTERS, AND PUBLIC HOUSING .

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 111 of the General Laws is hereby amended following section 5R by inserting the following section:
Section 5S.

(a) Title. This section shall be referred to as "The Healthy Cleaning Products Act"

(b) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to reduce asthma and other health threats from emissions of toxic chemicals from cleaning products used in schools, hospitals and other health care facilities, day care centers, public buildings, and public housing.

(c) Definitions. For the purposes of this section the following words shall have the following meanings:

"Cleaning product", a product intended for use for routine cleaning of schools, hospitals and other health care facilities, day care centers, and public housing, including general purpose cleaners, bathroom cleaners, glass cleaners, carpet cleaners, disinfectants, floor care products, and hand soaps.

"Commissioner", the commissioner of the department of public health.

"Day Care Center", any public or private facility operated on a regular basis whether known as a day nursery, nursery school, kindergarten, child play school, progressive school, child development center or preschool, or known under any other name, which receives children not of common parentage who are not more than six years of age, or who are not more than 21 years of age if such children have special needs, for nonresidential custody and care during part or all of the day separate from their parents. Day care center shall not include: any part of a public school system; any part of a private, organized educational system, unless the services of such system are primarily limited to kindergarten, nursery or related preschool services; periodic religious instruction classes conducted by a religious institution; a facility operated by a religious organization where children are cared for during short periods of time while persons responsible for such children are attending religious services; a family day care home; an informal cooperative arrangement among neighbors or relatives; or the occasional care of children with or without compensation.

"Environmentally preferable purchasing criteria," means products which are not toxic to humans, and that do not contain any ingredients which are carcinogens or which are known to cause reproductive toxicity, is not corrosive to the skin or eyes, is not a sensitizer, is not combustible, does not contribute to the production of photochemical smog, tropospheric ozone, or poor indoor air quality, is not toxic to aquatic life, does not contain more than 0.5% by weight of total phosphorus, and which does exhibit biodegradability.

"Health Care Facility", a health care facility as defined in section nine C of chapter one hundred and twelve.

"Healthy Cleaning Product", a cleaning product which is listed on the Healthy Cleaning Product List established by the Department pursuant to this section.

"Hospital", any hospital licensed under section fifty-one of chapter one hundred and eleven, the teaching hospital of the University of Massachusetts Medical School and any psychiatric facility licensed under section nineteen of chapter nineteen.

"Public building" means any building owned, occupied, or used by any public entity including but not limited to the commonwealth and any county, city, town, or school district.

"Public housing",any federal, state or municipally subsidized housing or housing project.

"School", any educational institution including but not limited to any public or private elementary, middle, high school, junior college, college, university, school of medicine, or law school.

(d) Product Restrictions. No cleaning product may be used in any school, hospital, health care facility, day care center, publicbuilding, or public housing in Massachusetts unless said cleaning product is contained on the list of healthy cleaning products established by the commissioner pursuant to this section.

(e) Healthy Cleaning Products List. No later than January 1 each year the commissioner shall prepare and release to the publicthe healthy cleaning products list. Said list shall include only those cleaning products that: (1) are determined to be an environmentally preferable product by the Massachusetts Operational Services Division pursuant to the environmentally preferable purchasing criteria; and (2) do not contain ingredients that the commissioner has determined as asthma-causing agents (asthmagens); (3) provided however that the commissioner shall establish, in consultation with representatives of hospital administration and staff, a separate list of the safest alternative disinfectants which are applicable only for use in areas of hospitals which require the application of special disinfectants for medical reasons. The commissioner shall annually review the healthy cleaning products list and make changes as necessary to ensure that the safest cleaning products are on the list.

(f) Training and Field Testing.
(1) The commissioner shall establish a program to require the training of all cleaning personnel in the use and disposal of the products on the healthy cleaning products list in the field, at day care centers, schools, hospitals, health care facilities, public buildings, and public housing with the cooperation of the cleaning personnel who actually use and dispose the products in the course of their employment.
(2) For purposes of developing the training program and confirming the safety and effectiveness of products utilized under this program, the Commissioner shall also convene teams of janitorial staff for schools, day care, hospitals, public housing, and all other state buildings, supported by technical experts, property management, representatives of relevant trade unions and other building occupants. Such teams will field test healthy cleaning products and proposed training guidelines and assist the Commissioner in confirming the safety and effectiveness of cleaning products authorized under paragraph (e). Based on the results of these teams, the Commissioner will develop training guidelines for each of the four settings and develop a plan for implementation that ensures training for all janitorial staff.

(g) Grant Program. The commissioner shall establish a grant program to train cleaning personnel in the use of healthy cleaning products and to compensate the participating cleaning personnel for their participation in the testing program.

(h) Notification Requirement. Manufacturers of cleaning products distributed, sold or offered for sale in the commonwealth shall furnish to the commissioner for public record such information regarding such products as the commissioner may require, in such form as prescribed by the commissioner. For each cleaning product, such information shall include but shall not be limited to:
(1) a list naming each ingredient which equals or exceeds five percent of the contents of the product by weight which includes specifying the content by weight of each ingredient to the nearest percent;
(2) a list naming each ingredient which does not equal or exceed five percent of the contents of the product by weight; provided, however, that ingredients which are present in trace quantities need not be included on such list unless the commissioner specifically requires the listing of one or more of such ingredients by weight to the nearest percent; and
(3) the nature and extent of investigations and research performed by or for the manufacturer concerning the effects on human health and the environment of such product or such ingredients. Ingredients shall be listed using the generic chemical name that conforms with generally accepted rules of chemical nomenclature. Such manufacturers shall furnish such information at such times as may be required by the commissioner. Such information shall be available to the public at the offices of the commissioner with the exception of portions which the manufacturer determines, subject to the approval of the commissioner, would be, if disclosed, seriously prejudicial to the manufacturer's legitimate interest in trade secrets and economics of operation.

(i) Accommodation of "Chemically Sensitive Individuals". An individual who attends or works in a building regulated by this section who experiences adverse health effects from allergic or hypersensitivity reaction from exposure to the cleaning products in use pursuant to this section may request, and the facility may utilize, other suitable materials as determined by the individual and provided by the facility. The request shall be placed in writing and a copy shall be sent to the Commissioner.

(j) Reasonable Fee. The commissioner shall require manufacturers of cleaning products to pay a reasonable fee to cover the costs for the department to collect and review the requested information, to develop and maintain the healthy cleaning products list, and to conduct the field testing program.

(k) Penalties. Any facility manager or owner who uses a cleaning product in violation of this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. Any person who sells, or distributes a cleaning product in violation of this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars for each twenty-four hour period during which such violation occurs. The department of public health may seize any cleaning product held for sale or distribution in violation of this section. The seized cleansing agents shall be forfeited.

SECTION 2. Section 1 shall take effect one year from the date of enactment.

---

 "TOXIC & HAZARDOUS"  CLEANING CHEMICALS

(From an Internet Parent ...)

     My oldest, 7 years old son, takes medication to control his Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Depression. Recently, I have also learned about the effects of cleaning chemicals (not the harsh stuff you would normally think of, but everyday things!!) on my son. These sources explained HOW a "normal" child exposed (just a open cleaning product container in the same room)  can cause "false" symptoms or exaggerated symptoms of Dyslexia (where they write and read backwards). When these same chemicals are taken out of the picture, then, the child is able to function "normally" again !!!!! Unfortunately, our children are bombarded by this stuff on a daily basis!!!   In the schools, they clean with VERY harsh chemicals; in your homes, laundry soap stays in the fabric; cleaning chemicals under the sink give off fumes in the air (remember the smell of the cleaning aisle in the store!!). There are chemicals on and in our food and the list goes on and on !!!! As a result of this revelation, I wanted to get "as much 'chemicals' as possible" out of my son's environment. BIG difference !!!!  After we cleared out the existing chemicals and started to clean and launder in 'environmentally safe and preferable' cleaning products, his rash on his face cleared, all of our sinus infections cleared up, my husband now comments on the smell of homemade bread, and best of all my son has calmed down a great deal !!!   If you can, get as many if not all of the chemicals out of your children's (and yours, for that matter) environment, you will feel healthier and happier for it !!! I know we are !!! After your system has had a chance to get used to being "less chemically dependent", I recommend that you pay close attention to how your children (especially, the ones who are normally very active) behave when they get anywhere near a cleaning aisle in a store !!! My son was uncontrollable after just passing by the cleaning aisle(better known as the "sneeze" aisle) at Wal-Mart one day !!
No joke !!"
Best wishes and keep healthy !!!!
Catrina Larsen

---

Making Your Home Environment More Healthy!

FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO :

http://toxicfree.org/Articles/Making%20Your%20Home%20Environment%20More%20Healthy.htm

http://www.nsc.org--National Safety Council--Non-profit public service organization focusing on occupational health and safety, traffic safety, first-aid and home safety, and environmental health

http://www.nsc.org/ehc.htm--Environmental Health Center

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/chldhlth.htm--Children's Environmental Health Program Kids today face a number of potential dangers in the world around them - such as lead poisoning, pesticides, overexposure to the sun, and poor air quality. The National Safety Council’s Environmental Health Center (EHC) conducts a variety of outreach and educational activities on children's environmental health issues.

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/ceh/cehlinks.htm--Children's Environmental Health Links

http://www.chem-tox.com--provides links to research finding health disorders resulting from exposure to common chemicals and pesticides. Illnesses now identified include child cancers, neurological disorders, immune system weakening, asthma, allergies, infertility, miscarriage, and child behavior disorders including learning disabilities, mental retardation, hyperactivity and ADD (attention deficit disorders)

The following are three specific pollutants that we can prevent and eliminate through alternatives and safer solutions.

Biological contaminants are or were living organisms and include bacteria, mold, mildew, animal dander, dust mites, cockroaches, and pollen. Two conditions are required to support biological contaminants — nutrients and moisture.

Pesticides are chemicals used in and around the home to control insects, termites, rodents, fungi, and microbes. They are sold as sprays, powders, crystals, balls, and foggers. Pesticides are produced to be toxic to specific organisms and, consequently, have risks as well as benefits.

Household chemicals are common ingredients in many products, including personal care products, such as hair sprays and spray deodorants; paints; hobby and home improvement supplies; aerosol sprays, such as cleaners and disinfectants; and automotive products.

It is common for people to reach for pesticides to control biological contaminants, such as cockroaches and other insects, in and around the home. People use cleaning supplies to control dust mites, mold, mildew, and bacteria. The cleaning supplies are often household chemicals. Many of us are caught in a pollution cycle — using one pollutant to control another. Using chemicals and pesticides are often quick and convenient solutions.

However, you can reduce indoor air pollution by trying the following alternative and safer solution suggestions.

---

Alternatives and Safer Solutions

For This:	Try This:
Ants	Red chili powder at their entrance point
Chrome polish	Apple cider vinegar
Dish Detergent	1/2 cup baking soda + liquid detergent
Flies	Well-watered bowl of basil
Fleas	Gradually add brewer's yeast to pet’s diet (consult your veterinarian first)
Ink Spot Remover	Cold water + 1 tablespoon cream of tartar + 1 tablespoon lemon juice
Moth Repellent	Cedar chips enclosed in cotton sachets
Pet odor removal	Cedar vinegar
Roach repellent	Chopped bay leaves and cucumber skins
Rug/Carpet Cleaner	Baking soda
Window Cleaner	2 tablespoons vinegar in 1 qt. warm water
Air Freshener	Use herbal bouquets, pure vanilla on a cotton ball, or simmer cinnamon and cloves
Mold and Mildew	Bleach
Drain Cleaner	1/2 cup baking soda + 1/2 cup vinegar, wait a few minutes, then 2 quarts boiling water, repeat process
Stain Remover	Club soda, lemon juice, or salt
Rusty Bolt/Nut Removal	Carbonated beverage

This above table is based on A Consumers Guide to Safer Alternatives to Hazardous Household Products and Take Me Shopping by Alicia Flynn and Rory Kessler and produced by the Santa Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Program, Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program and the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

---

"GO   GREEN   AND   CLEAN" !!

     The Director of Facilities of 17 New York State school districts deserve the kudos for pioneering this NEW era in school facility management. They are the designers and true innovators of these enlightening concepts and have taken bold steps to make change for the better. All of them have acknowledged that healthier and safer alternatives versus their antiquated cleaning systems needed to be explored , especially with children's well-being at risk.

      These 17 School Districts in the New York Metropolitan area have either fully committed themselves; are finishing up or beginning their "testing" phase of this cleaning program. Another half-dozen districts are in their embryonic stage just considering a test. Presently, approximately 30 public districts and private schools have implemented our "HEALTHY & SAFE" Daily Cleaning program with other interested parties inquiring about it every day.

---

HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE
"HEALTHY & SAFE" 
DAILY CLEANING PROGRAMS

Consider These Benefits :

Northern Tioga School District, PA, saved $19,883.25 annually in supply costs by eliminating many aerosols and products such as harsh bowl cleaners.


Syracuse, NY Schools improved attendance by 11.17 percent (district average) and gained $2,513,250 in additional annual state funding the first year after implementing a cleaning for health & safety program. The program includes regular disinfecting of desks and surfaces and the use of multi-stage filtration backpack vacuums.


Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO, saved more than $7,000 annually in projected HEPA filter-replacement costs by switching to a high filtration media disc in their backpack vacuums. The filter media yields an efficiency of 99.79 percent at .3 microns at a fraction (1/25th) of the cost of proposed HEPA filters.CSU also switched to vacuuming hard or resilient floors, eliminating dust mopping. Since starting the program, indoor air quality has improved dramatically while respiratory complaints, and related labor and materials costs have dropped.


The Fond du Lac School District, Fond du Lac, WI improved dust capture, IAQ, and overall productivity by switching to an anti-static disposable sleeve that fits over existing duster heads. The fringed sleeve needs no VOC-laden treatments,and facilitates cleaning around student projects, cluttered desks and worktables.


One of OUR clients here on Long Island, the Baldwin U.F.S.D., New York is one of 10 School Districts throughout the country to receive the prestigious E.P.A.'s INDOOR AIR QUALITY 'TOOLS FOR SCHOOLS' EXCELLENCE AWARD for its efforts to improve indoor air quality; and protect the health and welfare of its students and school staff.


Another of OUR clients, the Pearl River U.F.S.D., New York received the coveted "MALCOLM BALBRIDGE Excellence Award"for over-all educational achievement and cost-effectiveness.

MORE SUCCESS STORIES :

The City of Santa Monica, California
Santa Monica’s green cleaning product purchases have eliminated the purchase of 3,200 pounds of hazardous materials annually. This translates into a saving of approximately five percent of annual spending on cleaning products when compared with the traditional products it was purchasing.

Perrigo
Perrigo, a mid-sized company and the leading manufacturer of generic and "store brand" pharmaceuticals and personal care products, is saving more than $35,000 annually after it switched to "GREEN"  cleaning products. While part of the reported savings can be attributed to the fact that some "GREEN"  cleaning products being less expensive than the traditional ones, most of the reported and anticipated savings appear to result from new bulk purchasing opportunities, fewer workers compensation claims, and rising employee productivity.

The National Park Service
The National Park Service (NPS), used to buy more than 130 different cleaning products but has switched to a family of products it considers environmentally preferable. It now buys only 15 products. Purchasing a smaller number of products allows NPS to buy them in greater volumes and at a bigger discount than purchasing small quantities of a large number of different products.

Department of Interior Headquarters
The Department of the Interior (DOI) initiated a contract for custodial services using environmentally-preferable cleaning products and supplies. DOI identified environmental attributes for the products that had to be met or exceeded in order to be considered.

City of Richmond, California
Janitorial contractors in Richmond, California, are expecting the switch to green cleaning products to reduce worker compensation claims. According to a study conducted by a consultant to the city, a cleaning chemical accident requiring medical treatment costs an average of $615 per incident, excluding long-term disability costs. The study also reveals that 1 out of every 100 janitors have reported work-related injuries attributable to the cleaning products they use. The project team believes the actual number of incidents, however, is 6 injuries per 100 janitors, because many people are reluctant to report injuries fearing disciplinary measures. By switching to less toxic cleaning products, contractors in Richmond expect to reduce the number of incidents, their severity, and the cost per incident. The contractors anticipate that worker compensation insurance costs might decrease because the insurance premiums are based on the number and severity of claims. In addition, if the contractors make all the potential changes available to them, their use of hazardous materials will drop by 3,000 pounds per year. Finally, several purchasers have noted that the lower VOC content and reduced toxicity of green cleaning products help improve overall indoor air quality. This affects all employees, not just the janitorial staff, and could boost employee productivity, cut absenteeism, and promote the general well being of building occupants.

AND MORE...

U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Cleaning products present several human health and environmental concerns. They can contain chemicals associated with eye, skin, or respiratory irritation, and other human health issues. They also can include materials with potentially harmful environmental consequences such as toxicity to aquatic plants and animals and nutrient loading (e.g. phosphates) that can lead to eutrophication, suffocating native aquatic life. Additionally, the concentrated forms of many cleaning products are classified as hazardous waste, creating potential handling, storage, and disposal issues for users. Reducing these human health and environmental effects is an important incentive for implementing an EPP cleaning products program.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH CONCERNS :

-Millions of tons of cleaning products are washed down drains every month. These products often contain toxic chemicals that can find their way into drinking water supplies or streams and lakes.

-General-purpose cleaning products have been shown to contribute approximately eight percent of total nonvehicular volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, which contribute to smog formation, retard plant growth, and can cause respiratory distress in some people.

-Most people spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors, thus exposure to indoor environmental hazards has lead to many health concerns.

For More Information on "ENVIRONMENTALLY-PREFERABLE PURCHASING GUIDES",
go to :  http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/documents/pfs.htm

MAGNITUDE OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE

-Cleaning products are the chemicals most frequently involved in poisonings reported to Poison Control nationally.

-The cleaning industry employs two to three million janitors; but due to very high turnover, even greater numbers of people are affected .



Each year about six out of every hundred professional janitors are injured by the chemicals that they use. Burns to the eyes and skin are the most common injuries, followed closely by breathing toxic fumes.

One third of the cleaning chemicals used today have ingredients that can harm you. These ingredients are in products for cleaning glass, restroom fixtures, metal, kitchens, carpets, and hard floors, to name only a few.

ARE YOUR CLEANERS SAFE ?

Read The Label - Avoid products that have the words "Danger", "Poison", or "Warning". When you must use a strong product to get the job done, protect yourself by wearing gloves & goggles, and be sure that your work area has plenty of fresh air.

Call Customer Service - Most labels have an "800" number to call with questions. Ask the customer service people to tell you if the product you are using has hazardous ingredients that may harm you. If there is no phone number on the container, ask the store or supplier where you bought the product.

Read The Safety Data Sheet - The customer service staff can send you a Material Safety Data Sheet, or "MSDS", for the product. This sheet explains what is in the cleaner, how these ingredients might harm you, and how to protect yourself while using it. Many companies also have MSDSs on their web site.

---

WHERE TO FIND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS ( M.S.D.S.)
on the Internet !

A Material Safety Data Sheet is designed to inform about the "toxic" and "hazardous" ingredients of a chemical product and provide an individual with the proper procedures for handling or working with that substance. Below are websites which will enable you to find invaluable and insightful information about brand name chemical products that you use everyday to protect your health and well-being :

Guide to Understanding Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)

http://www.earthwellness.com/techtalk/msds.htm

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/emci/chemref
http://msds.pdc.cornell.edu/msdssrch.asp
http://www.msdssearch.com
http://www.msdsprovider.com/Site/msdsprovider.nsf/about
http://www.ilpi.com/msds
http://www.chem.utah.edu/MSDS/msds.html

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~jsmith/FinalMSDSPage.htm ( household products )
http://www.herc.org/library/msds.htm ( household products )

---

KNOW THY PRODUCT !

Cleaning Chemicals: Are they affecting your health?

By Michael McCagg, Managing Editor
‘CM Cleaning Management’ Industry Trade Magazine
JULY 2001 ISSUE

How good is your cleaning chemical? Does it remove counter-top germs? What about the bacteria on your throat lining or the skin on your hand? Cleaners strong enough to remove bacteria and those of lesser strength can kill the bacteria in your throat and cause other physical damage if you don’t take precautions when handling and applying them. Even industry veterans are susceptible to illness from not taking precautions. One such consultant, William Griffin, President of of Cleaning Consultant Services Inc, Seattle, Washington says despite his knowledge of the industry and the threats chemicals pose, it took him three bouts with illness to realize that one chemical he was using made him susceptible to germs because it killed the good bacteria in his throat. Training, knowledge of MSDS sheets and personal protective gear are all necessities to avoid short- or long-term problems from handling cleaning chemicals.

Individuals should also never mix chemicals. There are a few individuals out there who want to be amateur chemists and mix their own cleaning brew, and that can be dangerous. Besides the obvious health threat outweighs the chances that the resulting concoction will work.

In handling and using cleaning chemicals, EVERYONE must understand that the skin serves as the doorway to the body. One such chemical which appears in many degreasers, carpet spotters and general purpose cleaners, as well as glass cleaners, and which is dangerously absorbed into the skin unless gloves are worn is butoxyethanol . Unfortunately, it is a very good solvent but it poisons the kidneys, liver and causes pregnancy problems .

HIGH RISK PRODUCTS
There are several "HIGH RISK" products individuals need to know.
Among them are:
· Acid Toilet Bowl Cleaners with hydrochloric acid;
· Metal cleaners with perchloroethylene;
· Carpet Spotter with perchloroethylene;
· General purpose cleaner with butoxyethanol, sodium hydroxide and ethanolamine;
· Floor finish stripper and baseboard stripper with butoxyethanol,
  sodium hydroxide and ethanolamine;
· Glass cleaner with butoxyethanol;
· Sanitizing or Disinfecting Agents, especially those containing Bleach.
  Mixing Bleach with other chemicals may create chlorine gas that can kill you !!

These hazardous chemicals ­ some of which are thought to cause cancer, others of which are poisonous or cause burns ­ can be eliminated from today's custodial closets.

LONG TERM EFFECTS
Besides the immediate injuries chemicals can cause, such as burns or blindness, some also cause long-term affects, including cancer and brain damage over an extended, prolonged period of time. The bottom line, say the experts, is INDIVIDUALS must be aware of the risks associated with the chemicals they use and take the proper precautions ­ whether the chemical is a general purpose cleaner or a heavy-duty acid. Long-term exposures to any chemical are not good. Even extreme exposure to water over a long period of time is not good, it takes the oils out of the skin. The bottom line is that you MUST be cautious and protect yourself.

---

What Cleaners Have The Most Risk?

Product Type	Hazardous Ingredients	How These Can Harm You
Glass Cleaner General Purpose Cleaner Carpet Spot Remover	A solvent called "Butoxyethanol"	Butoxyethanol absorbs through your skin and poisons your blood, liver, & kidneys. Wear gloves when you use cleaners with this ingredient.
Toilet Cleaner	Hydrochloric Acid Phosphoric Acid	These acids are very good for removing hard water rings, but they can also blind you in seconds. Wear your gloves and goggles, or better yet change to a milder product (one with Citric Acid - strong lemon juice).
Oven Cleaner Heavy Duty Degreaser	Sodium Hydroxide	Oven cleaner in a spray can - very convenient, but also very dangerous. Sodium hydroxide can blind you, and the vapors can harm your lungs. Use it with care - wear gloves & goggles, and provide lots of fresh air.

---

EPA  PILOT  PROGRAM  IDENTIFIES
CLEANING CHEMICAL TOXINS

SANTA CLARA, CA--3/22/01-­ A joint project between the EPA, California and local officials has found 41 percent of standard cleaning chemicals are "DANGEROUS" and some are "TOO DANGEROUS TO USE".

The Janitorial Products Pollution Prevention Project found that 6 percent of cleaning products it analyzed were "so dangerous, that they should not be used" and an "additional 35 percent were dangerous, "but can be used successfully with extreme care."

The Janitorial Products Pollution Prevention Project is a joint venture of the U.S. Environmental protection Agency; the California EPA; Santa Clara County; and the city of Richmond, CA.

The project identified some of the most dangerous products as ACID TOILET BOWL CLEANERS; FLOOR FINISH STRIPPERS; HEAVY-DUTY, HIGH STRENGTH DEGREASERS; SEWER DRAIN OPENERS; and OVEN CLEANERS.

( NOTE: For Safer 'Cleaning Product' Alternatives,
we refer you to:   http://www.cleaningpro.com.
WHERE YOU'LL FIND MORE INFORMATION ON
THE FOLLOWING AREAS OF INTEREST : )

Problem : Acid Toilet Bowl Cleaner
SOLUTION : Non-acid Bowl Cleaner
Go to : "ACID FREE".

Problem : Caustic Floor Finish Stripper
SOLUTION: Non-Caustic Floor Stripper
Go to : "SAFE-STRIP".

Problem : High Solvent Heavy-Duty Degreasers
SOLUTION: Environmentally-Responsible Heavy-Duty Degreasers
Go to :
"BEAN-A-DOO".
"CITRUS JEL DEGREASER".
"ORANGE NATURAL FORCE" (Aerosol).
"SUPERSOLVE".
"WONDER BLUE".

Problem : Caustic Sewer Drain Openers
SOLUTION: Environmentally-Responsible Drain Openers
Go to :
"BIO-REMEDIATOR".
"BIO-BOOSTER".
"ORANGE DRAIN CLEANER".

Problem : Caustic Oven Cleaner
SOLUTION: Environmentally-Responsible Oven Cleaner
Go to : "CITRUS FOAMING OVEN CLEANER" (Aerosol).  

As part of the study, an 18-month evaluation of janitors in Santa Clara County was undertaken and found that the 27,000 janitors working in the county sustained approximately 1,200 injuries annually ­ 20 percent of which are mostly chemical burns to the eyes or skin.

A further review of just 25 percent of the county's janitors found that they used 400,000 pounds of hazardous materials annually in cleaning, or approximately 60 pounds a year per janitor.

The pilot EPA project is being undertaken in Southern California in an effort to reduce the use of hazardous cleaning chemicals, the resulting pollution and workplace injuries to janitors and cleaners.

Similar projects are also underway in Massachusetts and Minnesota.

---

EPA TO MANUFACTURERS: Use Less Toxic Ingredients

NEW YORK — Between 1993 and 1995, the widespread use of household disinfectants was behind the poisoning of nearly 7500 children under age 6, researchers say. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers are calling on manufacturers to use less lethal ingredients and improve the safety of packaging for products including bathroom and kitchen cleaning chemicals and insecticides. EPA reports that easily accessible disinfectants-all sold as concentrates-accounted for 93 percent of the poisoning cases. If the products were diluted to ready-to-use solutions for residential use, they would be less likely to cause problems, researchers say. American Journal of Public Health June's issue stated that 1- and 2-year-old children accounted for the largest percentage of poisonings. The researchers note no deaths were reported. As a deterrent, one suggestion was using dyes that stain the skin, mouth, urine or feces of children to alert parents when children have ingested a toxic product. Researchers also suggested adding a label statement such as: "Products kept within four feet of the floor where small children may gain access should be secured".

---

This Article was originally published in
"THE CARBOHYDRATE ECONOMY" 
Volume No. 2, Issue No. 4, Spring 2000

University of Minnesota Cleans House

Not long ago, the storage of hazardous chemicals turned heads at the University of Minnesota. In fall 1998, the University’s Facilities Management Division realized that empty and partly filled cleaning product containers were piling up in over 900 janitors’ closets. A University's Safety Technician   witnessed disturbing signs. With custodians cleaning 11 million square feet every day, the container pile-up represented not just a logistical disposal problem but an ongoing employee health threat and a long-term danger to the environment.

In a groundbreaking review for a major university, the University's Environmental Health Specialist , and his colleagues organized the Material Review Board to do a top-to-bottom evaluation of the division’s cleaning products. By winter, the board heard confounding and alarming findings. It learned that Facilities Management purchases nearly 500 different products, many of which were redundant. Worse, the shopping list included 18 varieties of floor strippers that contain some of the most toxic chemicals found in janitorial products. Many ingredients in these petrochemical-based products are listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxic chemical hit list, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The handling, use and disposal of these petrochemicals requires strict adherence to EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.

The board decided to clean house. It set two goals: consolidate the number of janitorial products purchased and find safer products. Last spring Facilities Management cut from 500 to 135 the number of approved chemicals it purchases. Then, in winter 1999, the board took another landmark step. The board began exploring the advantages of replacing its petroleum-derived products with less toxic cleaners derived from plant matter. The result is a first for a major university—Facilities Management will phase out its present reliance on the old highly toxic products by 2005, the year its janitorial staff will switch entirely to biobased cleaners.

Made from renewable resources, biobased cleaners avoid petrochemicals altogether. They contain chemical extracts and oils derived from citrus fruits, nuts, seeds and vegetable crops, and range from soy methyl esters to lactic acid esters and dimethylsulfoxide. Case studies show that biobased cleaners easily meet or exceed the performance of petrochemical ones.

Several reasons prompted the university’s decision to kick the petrochemical habit. It's Project Coordinator Zone Manager  foresaw the inevitable enactment of stricter regulations requiring the use of less toxic chemicals. Many petroleum-based solvents and cleaners contain chemicals that are on the EPA’s TRI list, and that list is expected to grow. So rather than replace existing toxic petrochemicals with other petrochemicals that have the potential to end up being regulated, the Project's Coordinator's Team wanted a long-term solution. Because of reduced health and environmental dangers, chemicals derived from plant matter are not listed, nor are likely ever to be listed, on the EPA’s TRI list. The Project's Coordinator and his colleagues agree that making the shift to less toxic products protects the health and safety of the university’s employees, students and surrounding environment.

The change also makes economic sense. Petrochemical-based ingredients carry hidden costs, starting with training. Large institutions typically spend more when they have to train their employees in the proper handling and use of products that fall under EPA and OSHA regulations. At the University of Minnesota, this cost was felt acutely. Given the scope of its custodial needs, Facilities Management has organized the school—one of the nation’s largest land grant universities, straddling both banks of the Mississippi River—into six geographical zones. The profusion of some 500 products was complicated enough, but further complicating matters was that different products were in use from zone to zone. Every time employees transferred to a new assignment, they had to be retrained. The Project's Coordinator calculated that by standardizing the use of janitorial products across all zones, the university will save around $20,000 per year in their training program alone.

And the costs continue even when the petrochemical products are used up. Federal and Minnesota state regulations strictly govern the disposal of hazardous petrochemical products, something that does not come cheaply for a large institution. Accounting for the presence of TRI-listed cleaning products, the Project's Coordinator  estimates that the university pays an average disposal cost of $250 for each container with unknown content—a sum much in excess of what many of the products cost before being opened. Containers range from one quart to a 55-gallon drum and volume of disposed content varies, making it difficult to calculate the disposal cost per gallon. By switching to bulk mixing systems and reducing the number of individual container purchases, the university stands to benefit from substantial cost savings.

Embarking on a complete overhaul of outmoded, unsafe product procurement isn’t easy, but the University's Facilities Management Division are optimistic about the benefits. Custodians have already voiced their approval of using safer biobased products.

---

THE  LATEST  FACTS  YOU  SHOULD  KNOW  IN  2002

According to the MAY 2002 issue of the cleaning trade magazine--"CM Cleaning & Maintenance Management magazine"--( National Trade Publications, Latham, New York, 12110 ), an article entitled,  "GREEN  Cleaning Gets A Federal Push", clearly states on page 51 : 
"...the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) is urging federal agencies to adopt so-called "GREEN" cleaning practices and purchase environmentally-safe cleaning products...
Next in line will be state and local governmental agencies across the country, industry experts said...".

---

ENVIRONMENTALLY-PREFERABLE PURCHASING (EPP)...
is a federal-wide program that encourages and assists Executive agencies in the purchasing of environmentally preferable products and services.

What is "environmentally-preferable?"... products or services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products or services that serve the same purpose..."- Executive Order 13101

Why purchase environmentally-preferable products and services?

- Did you know that the United States consumes approximately 25% of the world's resources with only 5% of the world's population?

- Did you know that the U.S. federal government is the single largest consumer of goods and services in the U.S., and probably, in the world? , ... spending more than $200 billion annually on goods and services! The federal government also spends an additional $240 billion a year, indirectly, through grant disbursements. EPA recognizes the influence the United States, and in particular, the U.S. government, has on what products and services are produced due to this tremendous purchasing power. EPP works to leverage that influence to minimize environmental burdens.

The Benefits of Environmentally-Preferable Purchasing

Improved ability to meet existing environmental goals

Improved worker safety and health reduced liabilities

Reduced health and disposal costs

The Requirements of Environmentally-Preferable Purchasing
All federal procurement officials are required by Executive Order 13101 (PDF 96 KB) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (Text file 30 KB) to assess and give preference to those products and services that are environmentally preferable.

On September 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order (EO)13101, entitled "Greening  the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition". Executive Order 13101 (EO 13101) supersedes EO 12873, Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste Prevention, issued on October 20, 1993, but retains a similar requirement for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop guidance to "address environmentally preferable purchasing." (Section 503, EO 13101)

The Final Guidance that follows is based on EPA’s September 1995 Proposed Guidance on the Acquisition of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services (60 FR 50721, September 29, 1995) and comments received on that Proposed Guidance as well as lessons learned from pilot projects conducted to date. The Final Guidance is designed to help Executive agencies meet their obligations under EO 13101 to identify and purchase environmentally preferable products and services. Section 503 (c) of EO 13101 directs Executive agencies to "use the principles and concepts in the EPA Guidance on Acquisition of Environmentally Preferable Products and Services, in addition to the lessons from the pilot and demonstration projects to the maximum extent practicable, in identifying and purchasing environmentally preferable products and services" and "modify their procurement programs as appropriate". Furthermore, Section 23.704 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires agencies to "affirmatively implement" the objective of "obtaining products and services considered to be environmentally preferable (based on EPA-issued guidance)".

"Environmentally preferable" is defined in Section 201 of EO 13101 to mean products or services that "have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products or services that serve the same purpose. This comparison may consider raw materials acquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation, maintenance or disposal of the product or service".

Implementation of the Final Guidance will draw on the procurement experience of the Executive agencies and on the environmental expertise of EPA and other organizations both within and outside of the Federal government. This guidance provides a broad framework of issues to consider in environmentally preferable purchasing and will help Executive agencies systematically integrate environmental preferability principles into their buying decisions.

Executive Order 13148 - Greening  the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management The new Executive Order 13148 - Greening  the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management - was signed on April 21, 2000. The Executive Order requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental management systems into agency day-to-day decision-making and long term planning processes. Pollution Prevention is highlighted as a key aspect to the environmental management system process.

Executive Order 13101 - Greening  the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition On September 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13101, entitled "Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition." Executive Order 13101 supersedes EO 12873, Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste Prevention, issued on October 20,1993. This Executive Order requires executive agencies to incorporate waste prevention and recycling into the agency’s daily operation. It also asks executive agencies to work to increase and expand markets for recovered materials through greater Federal Government preference and demand for such products.

Executive Order 12873 - Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste Prevention This Executive Order directs federal agencies to evaluate the environmental attributes of the products and services they purchase.

EPA/742/Z-93/001 October 1993, Overall Approach for Implementing Executive Order 13101,
Section 503 of EO 13101 has two key components:

(1) development of this guidance; and

(2) implementation of the guidance through pilot and demonstration projects. This guidance sets a broad policy framework for implementing environmentally-preferable purchasing within the context of Federal government. For the second component, Section 503 (b) of the EO states "[A]gencies are encouraged to immediately test and evaluate the principles and concepts contained in the EPA’s Guidance...through pilot projects...". These pilots may be undertaken using the in-house expertise of EPA and other Executive agencies, as well as the technical expertise of nongovernmental entities, including, but not limited to, voluntary consensus standards bodies (see§ 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Pub. L. 104-113, §12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note), environmental standard setting organizations, third party certification programs, environmental labeling or environmental "report card" programs, and other environmental consulting organizations. Section V of this Final Guidance provides more detail about how these pilot projects might work. These pilots are expected to yield more specific and practical information about applying this Final Guidance to purchases of particular products and services.

In addition to promoting environmentally-preferable purchasing, EO 13101 encourages Executive agencies to purchase bio-based products. (Section 504 (b)). Under the EO, "biobased product" means "a commercial or industrial product (other than food or feed) that utilizes biological products or renewable domestic agricultural (plant, animal and marine) or forestry materials." Bio-based products may also be environmentally-preferable. Made from renewable resources by definition, these products have many positive environmental aspects and should be considered by agencies looking to make environmentally preferable purchases. However, Federal purchasers should not assume all bio-based products are automatically environmentally-preferable. As with other products, Executive agencies should consider a range of environmental impacts associated with bio-based products when making purchasing decisions. In some cases, factors such as pesticide use or high water consumption might make a bio-based product less environmentally-preferable. The list of bio-based products which the U.S. Department of Agriculture will issue under Section 504 of EO 13101 will be a good starting point for Executive agencies looking to identify environmentally-preferable purchasing. During the development of pilots under Section 503 (b) of the EO, EPA will look for opportunities involving bio-based products.

"GREEN" Cleaning Product Attributes

Natural Resource Use

-Avoidance of nonrenewable resources, such as petroleum-or hydrocarbon-based materials*
-Use of renewable resources, such as biobased citrus, seed, vegetable, and pine oils.

Manufacturing/Product Content

Some organizations have applied these criteria to substances used in the manufacturing process as well as the final product.

-Company's environmental policy and reputation
-Absence of potentially harmful chemicals, such as:
1. Irritating artificial dyes and/or fragrances
2. Substances classified as known or likely human carcinogens by authorities such as the National Toxicology Program, the US EPA, or the International Agency for Research on Cancer
3. Ozone-depleting compounds
4. Chemicals listed under the State of California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) as causing reproductive toxicity)
5. Regulated hazardous materials (e.g. products classified as hazardous waste; products that trigger OSHA hazard communication requirements)

Product Packaging

-Concentrated formulas*
-Reduced packaging
-Packaging designed to reduce exposure to product
-Recyclable packaging
-Recycled-content packaging
-Refillable bottles
-Pump sprays rather than aerosols*
-Products shipped in bulk

Product Use

-Acute toxicity - usually defined in terms of a single dose or short-term air concentration that can cause lethality (LD 50 /LC 50 )
-Effects on air quality (VOC content)
-Chronic toxicity (includes a wide variety of adverse effects that can result from long-term exposure to a substance)
-Corrosiveness (pH)
-Flashpoint (a higher flashpoint indicates a lower potential for flammability/combustibility; liquids with a flashpoint below 100 degrees F are considered flammable)
-Likelihood of exposure to concentrate
-Skin and eye irritation potential
-Effective with cold water instead of hot, which will help reduce energy use

Product Disposal

-Aquatic toxicity
-Biodegradability
-Hazardous waste classification (is the product considered a RCRA hazardous waste by one or more criteria, e.g. acute toxicity, corrosivity, etc.?)

*More Information...

-The consumption of petroleum, a nonrenewable resource, to be used for energy during manufacture and/or as a product component, can serve as an indicator of acid rain, climate change potential, air pollution, and associated human health risks, as well as risks to endangered species and fragile ecosystems.
-Choose pump spray containers instead of aerosols. Pressurized aerosol products are usually high in VOC content. Aerosol propellants often produce a finer mist, so the product can more easily be inhaled by workers. Aerosol containers may be hazardous to workers if punctured. Also, any hazardous product left in an aerosol container makes the entire container a regulated hazardous waste, which means more expensive disposal.
-In general, concentrated formulas are preferred because they reduce the amount of packaging and reduce the amount of energy used in shipping the product. However, concentrated products can present hazard issues that must be addressed to ensure worker safety and proper disposal.
-Disinfectant products serve an important function in certain areas. However, many of these products can present health or ecological concerns. Disinfectant products should be limited to applications where it is important to control infectious agents. Many types of general purpose cleaning do not require the use of disinfectants.

Guiding Principle(s):

For More Information, go to : http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/guidance/finalguidance.htm#GuidingPrinciple1

Environment + Price + Performance = Environmentally Preferable Purchasing

Environmental considerations should become part of normal purchasing practice, consistent with such traditional factors as product safety, price, performance, and availability. The manufacture, use, and disposal of certain products might have adverse impacts on human health and the environment. These impacts impose costs that the purchasing entity, and ultimately, society as a whole, end up paying for in one way or another. For the Federal government, the hazardous or toxic nature of a product or service can result in significant cleanup or liability costs, as well as in less directly quantifiable, but cumulative and persistent environmental damage. Even non-hazardous waste is associated with ever-increasing disposal costs that can be avoided or reduced. Responsible management, beginning with the initial purchase of products and services that minimize environmental burdens, can diminish the Federal government’s raw material, operating, maintenance, and disposal costs. In addition, a product or service’s environmental preferability can often have positive impacts on its overall performance. For these reasons, the Federal government’s purchasing decisions are no longer confined to considerations of price and functional performance but should include considerations of environmental performance as well. Today agencies can obtain improved environmental attributes not at the expense of, but instead may operate in concert with, other traditional factors like price and functional performance. Those product or service providers who can optimize all these factors will capture and maintain the largest market-share of government customers. Just like price, performance, and health and safety, environmental factors should be a subject of competition among vendors seeking government contracts. In turn, this increased competition among vendors should stimulate continuous environmental improvement and increase the availability of environmentally preferable products and services. The purpose of this guidance is to encourage Executive agencies to award contracts to companies that take environmental concerns into account. This process, consequently, will lead to the development of environmentally preferable products and services that perform better and cost less because they reduce waste and negative environmental impacts. As stated, this principle reflects the spirit of a number of reinvention initiatives at EPA and across the Federal government aimed at testing cleaner, cheaper, and smarter approaches to environmental protection. Agencies have considerable discretion in incorporating environmental preferability into procurement decisions, especially within the context of "best value" contracting. For example, environmental considerations that result in payment of a price premium for goods or services may be reasonably related to an agency’s definition of its "minimum needs" and, therefore, may be permissible. This is not much different than paying a higher price for better performance or quality. Federal personnel may consider paying a reasonable premium for environmentally preferable products on a number of grounds. For example, a reasonable price premium may be justified because the environmental attributes of a product or service provide offsetting reductions in operating and disposal costs.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO : http://www.epa.gov/oppt/epp/pubs/13101. pdf

---

---

TODAY'S   PREVAILING
INDOOR   ENVIRONMENTAL   CONDITIONS

---

ARE YOU,
AND YOUR CHILDREN,
BEING EXPOSED TO UNNECESSARY 
"TOXIC & HAZARDOUS" SUBSTANCES
EVERY DAY
IN YOUR WORKPLACE/SCHOOL/
HOME ENVIRONMENTS?

---

CHEMICALS-N-KIDS

**Why are we concerned about the cleaning chemicals in your workplace, child's  school, or home?? Read on and then MAKE A CHANGE to environmentally "GREEN" responsible cleaning products. It just makes sense to do it! WHY are you waiting? If you feel that present conditions are affecting the health & welfare of you and your family, MAKE A DIFFERENCE! Your Influence COUNTS....USE IT!!

FIVE ( 5 ) BASIC "SHOCKING" FACTS :

• # 1 ) Allergic reactions to "Sick" Indoor Environments account for
  more than 10 million workdays missed by U.S. employees each year.
  
• # 2 ) Allergic reactions to "Sick" Indoor Environments keep
  10, 000 American children out of school each day
  
• # 3 ) A U.C.L.A. study indicates that "adverse health effects have been identified
  regarding common chemical ingredients found in 222 cleaning products."
  
• # 4 ) According to a latest medical report , conventional cleaning chemicals are
  NEUROTOXINS which may impair a child's developmental and learning abilities.
  
• # 5 ) Forty-one ( 41 ) percent of Health-related "housekeeping" complaints are related to
  airborne indoor dust and the by-products of breeding dust mites.

IF YOU THINK THESE "SHOCKERS" WERE REAL  EYE-OPENERS ,
READ ON...

( National Trade Publications,Inc., Latham, N.Y., copyright, 2001) .

( A PERSONAL NOTE: the cleaningpro )

Years ago, when "HEALTHY CLEAN BUILDINGS®"  was preaching its dedication to the replacing of existing,'toxic' and 'hazardous' cleaning chemicals with environmentally-responsible, reduced-toxicity alternatives , we got  "THE LOOK"  from most facility managers. The select few understood the message, most were skeptical and cynical, and the remainder were just plain "Archie Bunkerish" about it.

In the July 2001 editions of diverse publications such as  GOOD HOUSEKEEPING and Cleaning & Maintenance Management (CM), it was reported simultaneously on the possible poisoning of the human body with cleaning chemicals.

It's very gratifying to know that us "alarmists" , "healthnuts", "wackadoos", and "extremists" seem to have been just ahead of our time regarding these common sense cleaning issues !! Mainstream America is finally being educated through the mass media about the health issues regarding cleaning chemicals. Perhaps... WE, "THE CONCERNED" can NOW urge FACILITY MANAGERS to :

PLEASE STOP POISONING OUR INDOOR WORK ENVIRONMENTS !

It seems that Facility Managers, especially in schools ( where children's welfare are at stake ), do not wish to see the larger picture or trends regarding this issue...so please allow us to drive the point home. Presently, the E.P.A.'s Tools for Schools Action Plan is recognized as a voluntary program for implementation at the discretion of the public school district. However, industry experts predict that these guidelines will be mandated by the year 2005-06 after it is shown that most school officials just don't seem to care about its implementation. Additionally, advocacy groups---like the "Healthy School Network", "Beyond Insecticides", and such--- are justifiably educating the general public and politicians of necessary legislation to safeguard children in indoor school environments.

For example, here on Long Island, New York, a large school district recently chose a proven "toxic and hazardous" , nationally branded, proprietary "Cleaning Solution Center" System district-wide over our accredited "HEALTHY & SAFE" Daily School Cleaning Program ALTHOUGH OUR PROGRAM is STILL being introduced in this same district ONLY in school buildings where parents have shown concern regarding the health and safety of their children regarding cleaning chemicals and the over-all school environment. What hypocrisy ! Although our program is used in this district, it serves only as a tool to appease "complaining parents". In those buildings where our program is being instituted, the head custodians are reporting better cleaning results, a sense of a healthier environment, economy of scale, lower chemical consumption, and a reduction in spending. In fact, custodial eyebrows are being raised regarding their supervisors' lack of concern over their own health and safety by choosing a "toxic" system over a proven healthier one. In this instance, old vendor loyalties won over the best alternative to serve the health interests of the district's students, teachers, and staff. Incredulously, these same facility managers can look parents straight in the face and state that the " health and safety" of their children are their department's # 1 priority.

In short, the ammunition is being presented to the general public in widely read magazines and viewed news shows with the facility manager as its target. Unless facility managers are wearing bullet-proof vests, WE, as building occupants and inhabitants of the indoor environments MUST DEMAND cleaning product evaluation program regarding the health and safety of existing cleaning programs, especially since WE "live and work"; and "breathe the air" within these workspaces each and every day.

---

INDOOR AIR QUALITY
I.A.Q.

INDOOR AIR QUALITY (I.A.Q.)  has become a hot topic among health-oriented groups and agencies. Organizations like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Lung Association, the World Health Organization, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute have adopted or are adopting IAQ policies. According to the EPA website, "the EPA and its Science Advisory Board have consistently ranked indoor air pollution among the top five environmental risks to public health." EPA statistics show levels of many airborne pollutants may be two to five — to even 100 times — higher indoors than outdoors, a noteworthy fact since most Americans spend 90 percent of their time inside.

According to the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, 50 percent of all illnesses are caused by or aggravated by polluted indoor air. U.S. Department of Energy studies suggest that improving building environments would reduce health care costs and sick leave while increasing worker performance for a productivity gain of $30 to $150 billion annually.

Additionally, a recent report by the UCLA Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center, "Adverse health effects have been identified for a number of [common chemical ingredients found in 222 cleaning products] ... For example, reproductive toxicity [e.g.,infertility] has been associated with ethylene glycol methyl ether and ethylene glycol ethyl ether, while the most widely used compound, EGBE (ethylene glycol butyl ether), contained in 22 percent of the sample products, is a "suspected carcinogen." The environmental and occupational hazards associated with many of these chemicals are not well understood, but the center’s director, Robert Gottlieb, cites "increasing concern because they are sources of indoor air pollution and multiple occupational exposures, and...may be released... into the ambient environment."

Other studies show improper dust collection leaves behind contaminants like dust mites, dead skin cells, chalk dust, virus-laden particles, pet dander, soil, clothing fiber, carpet fragments, mold, bacteria, and insect parts which may contribute to chronic headaches, sinus congestion and infection, sore throat, asthma and fatigue.

---

CLEANING CHEMICAL PRODUCTS MAY AFFECT BRAIN FUNCTIONS!!

By Caren Benjamin
The Associated Press

Washington,   May 12, 2000 - A pregnant woman who spends a few hours on a home-improvement project may unwittingly be putting her child at risk for problems ranging from hyperactivity to autism, a group of Boston-area doctors said in a report. The reason is chemical ingredients found in common household cleaning chemical products like solvents and pesticides. No one knows how dangerous they are to human brain development because the government doesn't require companies to perform such tests before bringing products to market, the "Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility " said in a report recently released.    Tests on animals show there is cause for concern about products ranging from glue to flea collars to nail polish, said the report by the group, an affiliate of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning national "Physicians for Social Responsibility ". The Boston organization said the federal government should start requiring tests to ensure chemicals do not harm human brain development.

   The EPA currently is considering restricting use or dosage of the pesticides Dursban and Lorsban because of concerns about the products' effects on children. Both are used in a range of products from lawn insecticides to flea collars for pets.

---

Here Are The Facts:

CONCERNS:

MEDICAL REPORT LINKS CLEANING AGENTS TO DISORDERS!

HARRISBURG,PA — Cleaning compounds and pesticides are among the chemicals listed in a report linked to developmental disabilities, including behavioral and learning disabilities.

"The Clean Water Fund" and "Physicians for Social Responsibility" released a study on May 11, 2000, "In Harm’s Way," a study of lead, mercury, cadmium, and manganese; pesticides; dioxins and PCBs; solvents used in gasoline, paints, glues and CLEANING CHEMICALS; nicotine and alcohol.

The report conclusively found that one million children in the United States now exceed the accepted level above which lead affects behavior and cognition. The report also found that over 80 percent of adults and 90 percent of children in the United States have residues of one or more harmful pesticides in their bodies. Experts conclude that it is critical that we understand the impact of these neurotoxic chemicals on developmental and learning disabilities. The urgency of this issue is underscored by the fact that between 5 percent and 10 percent of school children in America have learning disabilities, and at least an equivalent amount have ADHD,” (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). The concerns raised by this report suggest the need for a new precautionary approach that protects the health of future generations by reducing exposure to these neurotoxicants. One obvious place to start this awareness is by passing state legislation that would reduce the use of pesticides in our schools, making sure that the school environment doesn’t put our children in harm’s way.

HEALTHY SCHOOL NETWORK SPEAKS OUT!

ALBANY, NEW YORK, June 2, 2000-Healthy Schools Network routinely deals with sick kids and sick adults in sick schools. The clock is ticking on kids and there are no easy answers.

  Our Info and Referral Services have guides, literature, factsheets to help schools and parents cope. Too many schools are stuck in the dark ages of  BAD-OLD-CHEMISTRY  and haven't done cost-effective "GREEN"  product switches.

  Last month we released a survey report of NYS school nurses, finding that 71% knew children in their buildings whose health and learning were compromised due to indoor pollution. Nurses, like other school employees, are reluctant to share environmental bad news with parents.

Claire Barnett
Executive Director
Healthy Schools Network, Inc.
http://www.healthyschools.org
e-mail : info@healthyschools.org

"NURSES REPORT "SICK BUILDINGS", KIDS AT SCHOOL"

Reprinted from: "CM Cleaning & Maintenance Management Magazine",
National Trade Publications, 13 Century Hill Drive, Latham, New York, 12110; July, 2000 Issue; page 40; Article entitled:


"Seventy-one (71) percent of 200 nurses from across NEW YORK STATE reported that they know of children in their schools whose learning or health was affected by polluting products in the building: including, PESTICIDES, BATHROOM DEODORIZERS, and other "TOXIC" CLEANING PRODUCTS.

---

( The following excerpts were taken from ‘CM NEWS DAILY’-an electronic news service from ‘Cleaning & Maintenance Management’ and ‘Cleanfax’ magazines, published by National Trade Publications,Inc., Latham, N.Y., copyright, 2001) .

Dateline : July 26, 2001

CUSTODIANS:
                    
IS YOUR JOB KILLING YOUR CHILDREN ?

NEW YORK : Custodians may unwittingly be placing their children's health in jeopardy, a new study indicates.

The study released this month in the American Journal of Epidemiology indicates that on-the-job exposure to certain substances, including lacquer thinner, turpentine, diesel fuel and wood dust, may increase the chances his children will develop childhood cancer.

The study reports that a higher prevalence of neuroblastoma (the third most common childhood cancer) in the children of fathers who were exposed to these chemicals and other hydrocarbons repeatedly on the job.

Neuroblastoma occurs in infants, children and, very rarely, adults. It is a quick-growing cancer that arises in nerve tissue. By the time it is diagnosed, the disease has usually spread to the lymph nodes, lungs, liver or bones. Treatment involves a combination of surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant.

The study ­ which looked at 472 fathers of children under the age of 19 who have the disease and 445 fathers of healthy children - found exposure to turpentine increased neuroblastoma risk more than 10-fold, while men exposed to lacquer thinner were 3.5 times as likely to have a child with neuroblastoma.

One possible explanation for the finding may be that the chemical exposure damages a man's sperm, the authors speculate.Researchers are calling for more research on the topic.Earlier research had also indicated an occupational connection. Research has also indicated a link with the termite pesticide chlordane and the cancer.

The cleaning industry's "CM e-News Daily" and its parent magazine--"CM Management"--(both widely read trade news leaders) has repeatedly warned of the potential health dangers certain ingredients in cleaning chemicals pose.

---

STUDY PROBES CANCER WITH CHEMICAL LINK!

NEWTON, MASS. — On May 16th, one day after the release of a study linking cleaning compounds and pesticides to behavioral disorders in children (see above), the non-profit research group, "Silent Spring Institute (SSI)" says it will prepare a study to develop guidelines for testing of chemicals found in household cleaners and furniture finishes that may cause breast cancer in women. The study will compile a list of chemicals already identified as causing mammary tumors in animals and will develop guidelines for how additional chemicals should be tested. About 100 compounds have been identified as priorities for breast cancer research because they cause mammary tumors in animals. Researchers suspect human breast cancer may be related to these compounds, pollutants found in household products, including some cleaners, furniture finishes, and pesticides. With breast cancer affecting one out of eight women, this new study is designed to examining environmental links to cancer and especially breast cancer.

---

( The following excerpts were taken from ‘CM NEWS DAILY’-an electronic news service from ‘Cleaning & Maintenance Management’ and ‘Cleanfax’ magazines, published by National Trade Publications,Inc., Latham, N.Y., copyright, 2001) . )

Dateline : July 10, 2001

SEARCH FOR DISEASE,