Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 11:28:08 -0700
From: eric + michiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wow! Obviously a touchy subject. I assume that it means that it is
fertile ground for an interesting exchange of ideas and growth - not just a
bunch of "compost."
Eric I think it would help you to understand *why* it is a touchy subject.
I may be wrong, but I see you arguing from an intellectual point of view.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I do it all the time myself.
But the world looks very different when you see things from a personal
point of view.
What people without disabilities often don't see is how those of us with
disabilities sometimes see "suggestions" that we stop doing things we need
to do for our health not only as personal attacks but as threats to our
very life and being.
For example, when Jeff posted that air filters (as stand-alone units in the
home) were a waste of resources and we should use plants instead to clean
the air in our homes, my *emotional* response was "he's trying to kill me."
Of course, intellectually, I know that's totally twisted. Jeff's a nice
guy and he'd never hurt anyone, let alone some woman he's never even met.
But the underlying viseral reaction is "you are threatening my life."
Even when my life is not at stake, the emotional reaction is still there.
When people argue that I drive too much and ought to walk or take public
transportation, the underlying emotional reaction is "you want me to be
homebound and invisible." Again, I know perfectly well this was not the
intention.
I'm using extreme language on purpose. No disabled person who doesn't also
have a mental illness involving paranoia really thinks their life is at
risk because someone on a mailing list argues against using a
product/service that they feel they need to use. None of us think the
intent is genocide or that you think we should be silent and hidden away at
home. My point is only to give you a glimpse into the feelings of being
disabled and therefore unable to do the things you want to do in the manner
in which you want to do them.
I don't speak for all disabled people. I speak for myself. But I've also
been around the disabled community long enough to know that my feelings are
frequently shared.
I should also point out that sometimes our lives really are at risk. I
know people who ask their co-workers to limit their perfume use and the
response is that some of the co-workers repeatedly spray the MCS person's
office with massive amounts of perfume. Or come to their house and spray
their doorways. I have one MCS friend who, whenever she's starting to feel
better, her husband sprays Raid in the house to keep her dependent on him.
I consider these things assault and if they happened to me I'd take legal
action in a criminal court.
>Stuart is suffering from MCS which affects an estimated 15% of the
>population. I do not believe 15% is that small a percentage of the
>population, and unfortunately more and more people are becoming
>sensitized to chemicals every day and developing MCS.
I have not heard that it is so prevalent. I assume you know A LOT more
about it than I, so I will tend to take your word for it. 15% is one in
over seven people. I know hundreds of people and, to my knowledge, none of
them has MCS. So, from my own experience, I thought the number would be
more like 1%.
The percentage of people who have been diagnosed with MCS or EI
(Environmental Illness), etc, is very small. If you ask people "do you
have multiple chemical sensitivity?" they generally say "no" or "huh?" But
if you ask "do you ever get headaches from perfume?" or "do you ever get
all foggy in your head when you're cleaning your house?" you find that the
answer is frequently "yes!" Given the latter definition, 15% would be a
minimum.
>Stuart is suffering from MCS.
>As Stuart stated
>his house is too toxic for him to live in anymore and this "cabin" is to
>be built next to his house so he has someplace to live. That means 365
>days a year.
He never said these things. At least not on this list. Recently, he made
it sound like it was for someone else and only for the summer.
Stuart was a bit vauge at first. I made the same assumption Dawnskye did
until Stuart posted the additional details.
>I also have MCS so I have personal experience in what Stuart is going
>through. I have been spending the last two years exploring methods of
>building a safe house with non-toxic materials.
>We suffer immensely.
I'm trying to empathize here, but the topic is still remote to me. It must
be very difficult. But, it seems like you are reading a lot into Stuart's
situation based on your own, unless you know more about him from another
(MCS?) list.
Well, yes, the 3 of us do know each other. Remember, Stuart posted his
question initially on the Immune list (which I run) and I publically
suggested he join this list.
Also, we all know what it's like to be part of the MCS community. On-line
is a wonderful place to meet since you don't have to worry about any
exposure to things that aren't in your own home. Once you've gotten to
know a bunch of people with MCS, you can start to make generalizations
about what it's like to live with MCS. We're all different, yes, but we
are also very much the same in many ways.
>People with MCS live an ecologically low-impact life because we can not
>tolerate modern society's pollution. Our bodies have been damaged by
>chemicals beyond any repair at this time.
This is a good result for an unfortunate reason. I hope other's do not
have to wait until they are so severely effected before they want to help
ride the planet of synthetic chemicals and other nasties. But I don't get
why you are willing to support the use of styrofoam, when it is just these
kinds of materials that make people (and other things) sick.
This was directed at Dawnskye, not me, but I'll give an answer too.
Personally, I would probably not use styrofoam for underflooring. I do use
it in my home but not on purpose (it comes in the boxes of products I buy,
etc). Given a choice, I would choose not to use it. But I live in a
climate that's dry in the summer and not very humid at other times either.
I was a bit surprised at your reaction to Dawnskye's suggestion. My
approach would have been to say "this product is rather eco-unfriendly in
this, this, and this way. Here are other suggestions I can think of and
this is how well they work for the purpose you outline and their ecological
footprint." Since I don't happen to know of any ways to build a mold-free
space, I didn't respond that way myself. I read your response as saying
"this suggestion is inappropriate and you never should have made it."
Perhaps that was not your intention but that's how I read it.
Jeff wrote:
> 2. Avoid perfection and guilt. There are thousands of small
> battles and we can win the war without winning every
> battle.
>
> 3. It is OK to compromise our actions, but not our objectives
> and model of sustainability. In other words, we can choose
> to use Blueboard in construction, but we need to acknowledge
> it isn't an optimum choice for the ecology.
Jeff's post was very good. I thought it captured a lot of the issues very
clearly.
Underlying these comments is the, possibly correct, assumption that
currently uneffected people would make the same choices, as people with
MCS, if they were similarly effected. If so, then there may be no ethical
conflict here. All may be working on the principle that individual
survival and freedom from pain and suffering has priority over other
factors, and that the health of the earth should be considered when
possible. Is this how you feel, Cyndi?
I choose to rephrase the question.
Do I think it's okay for me to kill off the last of the ____ (fill in name
of endangered plant or animal here) so I can have a lifetime supply of some
substance that will improve my health? (Or insert any other extreme
example here.) No. I don't.
Do I think it's okay for me to shift my overall use of non-renewable,
non-eco-friendly, resources (and every one of us here uses some) into a
somewhat higher usage so that I am more functional and free of pain and
suffering? Yes. I do.
As a person with MCS I already use far fewer environmentally nasty things
than most people. Perhaps even fewer than some of you (when counting
outright toxins). I do, however, use up more energy (electricity, fuel,
etc). I purposely live in a climate that doesn't get very cold in the
winter in part to minimize my fuel usage. I purposely live in a city in
part to minimize my gasoline usage (and because it's important to my SO).
My SO and I chose an electric provider (Green Mountain) that uses wind and
solar and other eco-friendly resources to generate our share of electricity
(but not necessarily the exact electricity we use since it all goes into a
general pot). And we intend to buy solar panels in the next year or so to
reduce the amount of grid electrity we use period.
In other words, I choose my health whenever possible and I use resources I
need (a space heater because I'm cold sensitive, for example) but I go out
of my way to make up for the usage. Some of the stuff I'd do anyway but
some I might not...for example, I might not push so hard for the expensive
solar panels if I didn't use so much electricity (partly because it makes
them more cost effective and partly because I feel I need to ethically).
You are obviously struggling with this balance, and seem to be doing a good
job of it. That is to be congratulated. You also seem to be valuing the
environment to a high degree despite some personal difficulty.
Thank you.
There are a lot of people with MCS who just don't get the eco side of
things. I have heard so many stories of people who got better and now are
bragging that they can wear perfume again. Or spray their gardens. They
just do not get it. I stopped using a lot of chemicals long before I got
sick. But now I know that it was the presense of the chemicals in my
immediate enviroment (and extended enviroment...like my food and water
sources) that made me sick in the first place. Unlike many people with
MCS, I was never chemically injured. I have other health problems that
made my body suseptible. What I am sure of is that if there were no toxic
chemicals around I would never have gotten MCS (by defintion). And now
that I have MCS, even small amounts of toxins make the rest of my body even
sicker. It's a vicious cycle.
Stuart wrote:
>Comfort! Comfort !@#$%...We are talking pain and suffering here
>not discomfort! I know you mean well but...
As I said I regret my remote feelings to the problem. But, my point
stands; I'll just reword it to be more sensitive. To what degree is it
okay to harm the environment to prevent our personal suffering?
See the beginning of my post. It goes way beyond discomfort and suffering.
It's about maintaining enough functionality to consider yourself human.
Not all of my suggestions will be ecological, but I think it is good to
brain storm at first then weed through the posiblilities.
This was my point exactly! Brainstorm first, then criticise.
Cyndi
_______________________________________________________________________________
Oakland, California Zone 9 USDA; Zone 16 Sunset Western Garden Guide
Chemically sensitive/disabled - Organic Gardening only by choice and neccessity
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.consultclarity.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
