♥
Many thanks to the Courageous Canaries of MCS/ES (and mask)
Awareness Month 2016!
♥
Your courage, kindness, and willingness to share your photos and stories in the “What I Wear in Bad Air” series generated a lot of discussion in various support groups, and will benefit so many others who can see some of the options that are available, as worn by their peers, and that it’s more than ok to be visible.
Ultimately, we all need the right to breathe clean air, not the right to pollute it.
Until we all can make that happen, we need to take steps to protect ourselves if and whenever possible. Masks are one thing that can help minimize time spent disabled and recovering from the effects of everyday toxic exposures.
Note to fragrance users: this does not give you the right to keep wearing products that you’ve been told are hurting or disabling people, any more than wearing a helmet is a solution to being subjected to daily assaults with 2 by 4s.
Fragrance-(and toxic chemical)-free products are available!
Clean, safe, non-toxic air is good for everyone, not just the canaries.
P.S.
Thank you also to those of you who submitted something towards the end of the month, and apologies that I was not up to posting them all this time around.
⇔
For more info on masks, please see
When We HAVE to Wear A Mask to Breathe and Function
Note that masks do not work for everyone, and they can be difficult to breathe through, especially in the heat. They are a band-aid. And they can become costly. But if and when they do work, they can be life-savers.
⇔
Please take action in whatever way you can to ensure we ALL have the right to a healthy environment, and so industries are stopped from polluting us for profit.
also, please
Be fragrance-free. It’s good for you, it’s good for me.
⇔
P.S. I have no control over the ads or the RELATED posts shown below.
Seriously "Sensitive" to Pollution 
Thanks Linda and all the Courageous Canaries.
Thanks Linda. The tough thing with wearing a mask is when you take it off — then you get “assaulted” with the chemicals that were picked up on your clothes. So I really like how you pointed out that it does not give permission to others to still expose us to toxic chemicals. Peace.
Thanks for bringing that up here Colleen!
I may have remembered to mention that part in one of the other posts, the drop the clothes into a sealed container at the door and dash into the shower dance we have to do when we return home from doing errands or whatever in the “surreal” toxic world… but there have been cides and/or fertilizers in the air here for a few days, yesterday especially … and I spent too much time outside, craving so much to be out there, a few days ago… so bits of my brain have been getting knocked off-line … Oh, and, when we do laundry, the chemicals from the clothes that absorbed fragrances, etc, can assault us again… Imagine having to put on a full face mask just to do your own laundry?
I wore my old inadequate cotton and carbon pouch mask out for a few minutes today to water the potted plants and put the bird and squirrel food out… Wishing people weren’t so trusting of chemical companies and government regulators…
Speaking of which, yesterday the Auditor General of Canada released a report…
If I can brain it, I’ll do a blog post about it, but just in case I can’t, here’s a couple of articles
Cosmetics and household products need more safety oversight, watchdog says
Health Canada not doing enough to protect Canadians from hazardous chemicals in everyday products, audit finds
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-watchdog-spring-report-2016-1.3608675
The audit showed Health Canada does not regularly test cosmetic products to verify the accuracy of product labels or check to see if they contain heavy metals or contaminants.
It also points out that under the current law, ingredients labelled “parfum,” “aroma,” “fragrance” or “flavour” may include chemicals of concern to human health — but companies aren’t required to tell consumers or Health Canada.
“Those catch-all terms can conceal a range of potentially hazardous chemicals and this information is not readily available to consumers,” Gelfand told reporters Tuesday, adding that these substances can trigger allergies and asthma, and have been linked to cancer.
Her report found that Health Canada does not regularly test for prohibited or restricted ingredients in cosmetics, and “cannot assure consumers that these products comply with the Food and Drugs Act and are safe.”
Nathan Cullen, the NDP’s environment critic, said Health Canada is “short-changing” Canadians on very basic information about the potentially harmful ingredients is cosmetics. “Buyer beware is not a good way to go for Canadian consumers,” he said.
‘Fragrance-free’ can be misleading
The report also points out that products with labels claiming a product is “fragrance-free” or “unscented” may actually contain chemicals to mask the scent, but Health Canada can’t take action unless the label makes a specific claim about health and safety.
Gelfand’s report said the department should do more product testing and inform consumers that terms like “hypoallergenic” or “unscented” don’t necessarily mean the product is healthy or safe.
‘Severe weather is expensive. The federal government has spent more on recovering from large-scale natural disasters over the past six years than the preceding 39 years combined’ – Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand
It also recommends that Canada align its regulations with the European Union, which has made companies label products that contain any of the known 26 fragrance allergens since 2003.
Health Canada said it generally agreed with the commissioner’s recommendations, saying it is reviewing its plan and will include testing of cosmetics to look for banned or restricted substances.
It may also require companies to confidentially disclose a full list of ingredients that are now kept secret for competition reasons.
(the report also discussed the effects of climate change on cities, and more, but didn’t connect the dots between the toxic chemicals in “consumer products”, pollution, and global effects…
another article with a few different points of interest and a video worth watching…
Cosmetics not tested for harmful substances: environment commissioner
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/cosmetics-not-tested-for-harmful-substances-environment-commissioner-1.2924618
Wow that comment itself is a wonderful “post”. Someone in a position to affect major change is finally asking the important questions. Interesting to see where this goes.
Pingback: When We HAVE to Wear A Mask to Breathe and Function | Seriously "Sensitive" to Pollution