Cyndi wrote:
>Before Dawnskye, Stuart, and other MCSers joined this list, I talked here
>about how someone with MCS may focus more on the toxicity of their personal
>space and less so on the wider ramifications (I've seen people with MCS
>discuss their "solutions" to, say, weed control dilemnas by saying they've
>hired a healthy person to spray something nasty for them that will not
>linger noticably by scent after a few days of closed windows) and people
>who are very environmentally aware, seeing the big picture, will often not
>focus on issues of toxicity (I've seen people on this very list causally
>discuss painting this or sealing that and I know they are not talking about
>no-VOC products).
>
>I didn't get much of a response. Jeff didn't seem to believe me (or at
>least that was the impression I got from your post, Jeff) that these
>divisions were important and present. I meant to reply to that post, and
>others, but, as happens to me a lot, it got buried in hundreds of more
>recent emails I plan to also answer...
Nope, my point was that the division does not exist for me. We
can see this topic of toxicity as a struggle between short term survival
and long term sustainability or it can be the same issue
with two different viewpoints. I see many different toxic substances
contributing to health problems and impacting our sensitivity.
This is both a daily survival problem and long term environmental problem.
>But we're seeing this division right here right now.
What i'm seeing is a lack of communication.
>As a person striving for both sides (I refuse, as best I can, to use
>products dangerous to the environment, even if I can tolerate them, and I
>keep in mind personal toxicity issues when considering the ecology of my
>choices) I find it very difficult. I can talk about the exact same issues
>both here (or on the Organic Gardening list) and on Immune and other MCS
>lists and I find myself making completely different arguments against
>people who only seem to see one side of it.
If someone on this list took only one side then maybe i missed it.
>The question that kept running through my head when Eric was coming down on
>Dawnskye for suggesting styrofoam was "must people with MCS or other health
>problems be held to higher standards than other "eco" people?"
I thought Eric was trying to find a balance. A non-balanced view would
be that the only option is to use Blueboard. I find this position
very difficult to accept. With all the hundreds of products and
ways to do foundations, it seems that there might be other options.
>Dawnskye's computer example came to my mind too. And what about batteries
>used to hold power generated by solar panels? I think they do overall good
>but they are filled with toxins, and expensive (fuel intensive) to
>transport because they are so heavy. Do any of you have PVC pipes in your
>house or garden (massive toxin dumps into the waterways)? Fiberglass
>insulation (formaldehyde)? Houses with pressboard or most plywood
>(formaldhyde again)?
If the point of the computer example was to say: We use a computer
which contributes to pollution, so blue board is just like a computer
and acceptable to use.
That logic just doesn't work. You can replace the words blueboard
and computers with any product name and go in circles forever. I
could say we use cars which are more polluting than war, so war
is ok.
If the point was that each product has a pollution factor and we
need to look closely, then i agree. We are looking at blueboard
and do not need to bring up computers.
>I agree that styrofoam is a bad choice ecologically but what I would ask is
>"what are the alternatives, out of those choices safe for Stuart
>personally?" (not all people with MCS react to the same substances).
One proposed solution was to keep the soil dry under the house.
>Instead of jumping all over Dawnskye for suggesting something that's not
>ecologically sound, let's look at all the possibilities.
Cyndi, it would help if you would include the paragraph where someone
jumped on Dawnskye so we could look to see if it was just a communication
problem or an attack. I did jump on the idea that blueboard is
the only option and this was before anyone began talking about MCS
or what the exact requirement were.
>Does styrofoam work for the job as stated? What works better? What works
>just as well? What works less well but still within acceptable limits? Of
>all the things that work, what are the ecological impacts and what is the
>toxic load after and during installation? Those are the kinds of questions
>that interest me.
Good questions, where should we look for answers?
Possibly we should avoid the assumption that blueboard is the
only answer, and accept that each individual has slightly
different requirements. They have to find the solution
that fits their needs? Also, if we ask about a safe room on an
eco list then we should expect comments biased towards
sustainability.
----------
Jeff Owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Zone 7
Underground house, solar energy, reduced consumption, no TV
