Jangan Sampai Disepelekan, Ini 7 Tanda Anda Terkena Penyakit Diabetes yang Jarang Disadari

Barely a day goes by without the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cropping up in the news, but the press isn’t necessarily positive. Last month, the EPA announced a secret science policy that would damage chemical review. Just this Tuesday, Administrator Scott Pruitt testified before the Senate about the millions of taxpayer dollars he frittered away to 24/7 security, with 12 investigations pending for similar expenses. Meanwhile, the EPA announced updates to an investigation of its own. In between hearings last week, Pruitt met with families whose loved ones died from exposure to methylene chloride, a dangerous compound found in common paint strippers. The EPA now “intends to finalize the methylene chloride rulemaking.” This may sound like better news, but it’s actually unclear. EPA Ban on Paint Stripper Chemical – Is It Finally Possible? The EPA first proposed a ban on methylene chloride in the final days of the Obama administration, saying it posed an “unreasonable risk” to health and the environment. But in late 2017, on par with the Trump administration’s anti-regulatory “reform,” the idea stalled. To be clear, “unreasonable risk” refers to death. At least 56 people have died from exposure to methylene chloride since 1980, according to a 2015 Center for Public Integrity analysis, among them both consumers and workers. Another 4 died last year, and another Pennsylvania man this February, while the EPA squabbled over what to do about it. To this day, Americans are free to buy methylene chloride products right off the shelf. People use methylene chloride paint strippers for everyday DIY. But even using protective gear, an unnecessary number of people have died within minutes of inhaling the chemical, which poses a risk of asphyxia in enclosed spaces. Distraught families (and members of Congress) are now taking a stand. “The families that stood up and said enough is enough here made a difference,” said Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund. “They were able to appeal to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, to demonstrate this was not a partisan fight between environmentalists and industry, it was something that was taking human lives across the country.” The EPA’s announcement suggests significant progress, considering officials hadn’t anticipated taking final action on methylene chloride this year. But we don’t yet know when this will happen, nor whether “finalize” means “ban.” And even if it did, banning methylene chloride would barely scratch the surface. The Outlook: Uncertain for All Dangerous Substances Methylene chloride is only 1 of over 80,000 potentially hazardous substances poisoning the U.S. These include chemicals that many Americans mistakenly believe to be banned, but still pose a deadly risk. Asbestos, for example, was only partially banned in the ‘70s, and still kills as many as 15,000 people every year while manufacturers continue to profit. Why? Partly because the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was left outdated for 40 years, before Obama’s administration finally amended the law in 2016. But more is owed to chemical manufacturers’ success in lobbying to keep their products on the market, especially under the pro-industry Trump administration. In this case, paint stripper manufacturers have fought tooth and nail to continue using methylene chloride in their products, saying it’s more effective than alternatives and blaming consumers for incorrect use. One lobbyist group, the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, called instead for new labeling to warn against use for bathtub refinishing. Asked how they can ensure consumers check the label, a representative said, “We don’t have any research on that.” When the EPA first proposed the methylene chloride ban last year, the agency stressed that labeling wasn’t enough. And a 2016 EPA report sourced by CBS News noted that while “labels and warnings are effective to some degree,” the responsibility to use them lies with the consumer, and safety precautions are too complex for the average person. To guarantee their protection, we must “eliminate (or remove) the risk.” The European Union eliminated methylene chloride paint strippers 7 years ago. What is the EPA waiting for?

One of the first people to sound the alarm on the dangers of asbestos was a female factory inspector from the United Kingdom. In 1898, Lucy Deane Streatfield wrote a report on the adverse health effects of working with asbestos in factories. Her report was the first of its kind in the United Kingdom — and among the first in the world — to uncover the risks of asbestos exposure. Today, we know asbestos causes mesothelioma cancer and other serious illnesses. Streatfield’s work to reveal the dangers of asbestos were the humble beginnings of the workers’ rights revolution. Her bravery paved the way for other inspectors to advocate for safer working conditions. She was one of the first female factory inspectors in the U.K., and the first to raise concerns about the hazards of asbestos exposure. Her report spoke of the “easily demonstrated dangers to the health of the workers.” Streatfield and other factory inspectors noticed “cases of injury to bronchial tubes and lungs medically attributed to employment of the sufferers.” These health effects caused the inspectors to pay closer to attention to the ways asbestos was processed in factories. It also motivated inspectors to view asbestos fibers under a microscope. “The evil effects of asbestos dust have also instigated a microscopic examination of the mineral dust by Her Majesty’s Medical Inspector,” Streatfield said. “Clearly revealed was the sharp, glass-like jagged nature of the particles.” Streatfield’s report was featured in the larger, annual report for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Factories. At the time, her warnings were ignored. Later Reports Confirmed Streatfield’s Findings In reports published between 1906 and 1910, other female factory inspectors discussed concerns over asbestos exposure. In a 1906 report, the inspectors said working with asbestos caused more injury to workers than any other dust-producing work in factories. In 1911, a study conducted on rats proved asbestos causes fibrosis of the lungs, or asbestosis. The study was led by J.M. Beattie, a professor at the University of Sheffield. By 1927, a U.K. doctor confirmed asbestos exposure causes asbestosis in humans. Dr. Ian Grieve conducted a study on asbestos factory workers in Armley, England. He reported asbestosis among workers who manufactured asbestos mattresses for use on trains. Workplace Regulations Implemented These reports painted a bleak picture of the effects of working at an asbestos factory at the turn of the 20th century. The evidence became undeniable. In the early 1930s, the United Kingdom began regulating asbestos in the workplace. New policies were created to reduce dust at work. Factories had to install ventilation systems. They also had to provide protective clothing, face masks and other safety equipment. These efforts drastically reduced asbestos exposure in U.K. factories. Streatfield’s groundbreaking work went largely unnoticed at the time. But, today, we celebrate her efforts and acknowledge the important role she played in changing the course of history.