Those poor people
 

First wiped out by a hurricane, now being poisoned by your govt. given home. What more will these people have to endure? It seems FEMA has f***ed up again! Someone must have known this could happen in such a small space? Read the article and speak your mind.

http://risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2006...lipflop_o.html


FEMA U-turn on trailer tests
Posted: Thursday, August 3 at 09:26 pm CT by Mike Brunker

Over 100,00 FEMA trailers such as these in Waveland have been distributed throughout the Gulf Coast. (John Brecher / MSNBC.com)

Responding to reports that formaldehyde may be sickening hurricane victims living in government-provided travel trailers along the Gulf Coast, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has reversed course and ordered air quality tests to determine if some of the units are emitting unacceptably high levels of the toxic gas.

The tests for formaldehyde –- listed as a human carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and a suspected human carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency -- will be conducted by the EPA, which is currently working with FEMA to finalize a sampling plan, EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood said Thursday.

“EPA does not normally test indoor air … but there’s an exception in the Stafford Act that allows for cooperation and testing in a special situation,” she said.

FEMA spokesman Aaron Walker said the agency has requested the tests for formaldehyde “out of an abundance of caution” and added that agency officials remain “highly confident and comfortable in the travel trailer program.”

He said the agency has received only 46 complaints of suspected formaldehyde contamination in the more than 113,000 travel trailers deployed in the Gulf Coast since it began logging calls on a special hot line in March.

But another FEMA official said earlier this week that the agency already has determined that there is a problem with elevated formaldehyde levels in “two or three brands” of the at least 10 brands of travel trailers provided to the government under emergency contracts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Mike Andrews, FEMA’s director of mobile home operations in Mississippi, made the comment Tuesday night at a meeting of the Pascagoula, Miss., City Council, in response to a question from City Councilman Bill Jones.

'He acknowledged ... the problem'

“He acknowledged we’re aware of the problem and we’re trying to do something about it,” Jones said.

Andrews did not identify the models or manufacturers of the trailers and referred calls from MSNBC.com to a FEMA “news desk” in Mississippi, which did not respond to phone calls seeking additional information.

Walker, the FEMA spokesman in Washington, said he was not aware of any testing already conducted in Mississippi.

An official with the Sierra Club, which has spearheaded efforts to get FEMA to test the trailers for formaldehyde, said Andrews’ remarks indicated “that FEMA has now acknowledged there is a problem.”

“But what about the people who don’t know why they have been so sick, why they and their kids get sick again and again?” said Becky Gillette, co-chair of the environmental organization’s Mississippi chapter. “FEMA needs to do far more. It needs to do comprehensive testing and should make sure that people are notified of the problem.”

Read previous story: Are FEMA trailers 'toxic tin cans'?

Many trailer residents have reported experiencing health problems ranging from headaches and runny noses to chronic respiratory problems and nosebleeds shortly after moving into the trailers.

Responding to the anecdotal evidence, the Sierra Club tested 44 FEMA trailers and found formaldehyde concentrations as high as 0.34 parts per million -– a level nearly equal to what a professional embalmer would be exposed to on the job, according to one study of the chemical’s workplace effects.

All but four of the trailers it tested registered higher than the 0.1 parts per million that the EPA considers to be an “elevated level” capable of causing watery eyes, burning in the eyes and throat, nausea, and respiratory distress in some people.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development limits the use of formaldehyde-emitting products in manufactured homes -- setting a standard of 0.2 parts per million for plywood and 0.3 parts per million for particleboard materials. But the agency does not regulate travel trailers or motor homes, probably because it was never anticipated that people would spend long periods of time living in them, said the Sierra Club’s Gillette.

Lawsuit seeks class-action status

The reports of respiratory illnesses among trailer dwellers have led to the filing of at least one lawsuit in Louisiana against the federal government and trailer manufacturers alleging that “the temporary housing is unsafe and presents a clear and present danger to the health and well-being of plaintiffs and their families.” The plaintiffs’ attorneys are asking the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana to grant the case class-action status.

Because of the pending legal action, trailer manufacturers have declined to comment on the situation, but the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association, an industry trade group, says there is no health risk associated with living in a travel trailer.

Interviewed for an earlier MSNBC.com article, RVIA spokesman Kevin Broom said trailer manufacturers use “low-emitting materials” to minimize the “outgassing” of formaldehyde from wood products used in the trailers.

He acknowledged that the high heat and humidity in the Gulf Coast could increase the rate at which the formaldehyde was emitted in the trailers but said that residents could solve the problem by opening doors and windows to improve ventilation.


Oh that's the solution open the windows and let the toxic gas out so you don't get poisoned as quickly. What an asshole!

"The Department of Housing and Urban Development limits the use of formaldehyde-emitting products in manufactured homes ... But the agency does not regulate travel trailers or motor homes, probably because it was never anticipated that people would spend long periods of time living in them, said the Sierra Club’s Gillette."


People don't spend long periods of time in a travel trailers or motor homes. WTF!
What should be done about this? Recall them? Where would the people live then?
Am I crazy to be upset by this?

Oh that's the solution open the windows and let the toxic gas out so you don't get poisoned as quickly. What an asshole!

Ummmm, lets see, promoting air circulation in a small space = asshole? What should he have suggested?

I have a head ache and a runny nose right now, I think I'll sue someone.

Well, if they're going to be poisoned, they might as well be poisoned by something that will save the family embalming costs...

Don't be deliberately dense. If the housing doesn't meet standard code for SAFETY and people are getting ill - and I don't know about you, but highly increased cancer risk is a little more serious to me than a runny nose - then they have the right to pursue legal action to correct the issue. It's bad enough that they were allowed to be built in the first place, but that the government itself is now the one putting these out for use is simply unacceptable.

And yes, Brew - they have been through enough already. This is ridiculous.

I understand opening the window is common sense but for someone to throw that out as a solution is insane!

Go a head and sue someone, i'm sure there's lawyers who will take your case.

I know that all office buildings have minimum requirements for "air exchanges" (the number of times per hour that the incoming airflow = the volume of the house), and I believe residences have a legal lower limit as well. I would expect that mobile homes have a requirement as well, but I don't know.

I'm heartless at times - I realize this...

but I gotta ask...

the government didn't control the weather and send in a hurricane

Why is it the government's responsibility to put a roof over their head? beggar's can't be choosers --

""Are there no work houses are the poorhouses still in operation...

If they'd rather die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."

I guess for the same reason that our government sends millions in aid to other countries when catastrophic acts of nature occur. But I didn't answer the question. I don't know why.

I love ya mal but I think you woke up on the worng side of the bed!

That's a reasonable question. I'm not sure it is the government's responsibility to put a roof over their heads now. I think that immediately following a national disaster it is the government's responsibility. The government helps its citizens with all sorts of problems that the government does not control - fire departments, police departments, road maintenance, national defense, etc. What is the purpose of a government?

I don't agree with the "beggars can't be choosers" perspective. If the government takes on the responsibility to house these people, then they also assume the responsibility of providing safe, non-lethal housing.

again I know i'm heartless and i don't begrudge helping out in dire needs... but...

If I lose my house in a fire... I'm hoping that I was smart enough to have insurance... the red cross might put me up for a night or two but after that -- I'm on my own... this has been almost a year later... Don't people have to have some form of personal responsibility after a year to do something to help themselves and not rely on someone else to do it for them?

Nope.

When FEMA fouled things up as badly as they did, then the victims have a right to expect government supported, non-lethal, housing for the remainder of their, and their children's, lives.


Note:
I am being sarcastic here.

I'm just reading the 'symptoms' from the article Jess. Runny nose and headaches. Since NOTHING has been proved here, and these are the kinda people who are still living in a trailer months and months after the event, my guess is these are also the kinda people who will sue hoping to win the litigation lottery. I'm not going to get up in arms if free EMERGENCY housing turns out to not be the best in very hot humid weather.

And while you can call it ridiculous, opening a window would most likely solve the issue. Hell my basement gets a poisonous gas in it in the form of radon, I had to put in a pipe to vent it, problem solved.

Maleficent - You might be a heartless bastard but I still love you, even if you don't like hot weather.

heartless bitch thank you very much - and have the membership card to prove it :D

I dont know about this whole thing... I mean the city is below sea level and they are rebuilding it!!! You all know this is going to happen again. Yes it is kinda ridiculous how the government handled the whole thing but I still agree with Mal and Ustwo on this one. Besides I am sure that households that smoke a few packs a day indoors have just as much formaldehyde in the air/sticking to the walls.

Just a quick note: as to carcinogenic effects, the article mentioned that the sierra club measured levels as high as 0.34 ppm. According the EPA, formaldehyde is statistically linked to an increased incidence of lung and nasopharyngeal cancer, mathematically projected to have a significance of an increased chance of incidence of 1:10,000 at levels of approximately 0.667 ppm (0.8 ug/m^3). So, it potentially could be a little more serious than a headache and a nosebleed.

That said, I have to disagree with the heartless bitch and bastard club on this one. I believe that once you provide the housing, that should imply some manner of legal liability for the safety of the product. Otherwise, nothing the goverment provided would have to be particularly safe. I don't think a moral judgement concerning the lifestyle decisions / welfare state arguments are pertinent to this situation. If you allow the goverment to provide unsafe products, on some occasions, depending on whom the recepients will be, it seems you're setting a pretty dangerous precedent. They also provide your water and take away your shit, make sure you're food doesn't contain diseases, and supposedly regulate pharmaceuticals.

ok but my heartless bitch point is - why should the government provide the housing for these people almost ONE YEAR after it happened?

Because some people think other people are too stupid to care for themselves and think they need to take money from other people so they can feel good about taking care of those people.

mal, assuming that was directed at me, i'd say its a different conversation altogether. in this case, i personally think it comes down to the same reason that you couldn't open up a soupkitchen, serve food laced with botulism, and then say "i was just trying to help the people out. give a mal a break." whether you or i or god knows ustwo likes it, fema is providing housing, and that housing is looking like its emitting formaldehyde at levels approaching potential carcinogenic levels. i'm not an attourney, but i think that's legally a no no.

if your position is that fema shouldn't be providing the housing to the people down in new orleans at this point and time, then your position should be that they should remove the housing and tell the people to hit the streets...or lack thereof. the dirtpaths or hedges or what have you. i think you'll find a whole panacea of different arguments as to why that's not feasible yet, and you may or may not agree with any of them.

as i stated earlier, i don't think you really want to set a standard that government provided or regulated products can be substandard.

^^ What he said. THAT'S my problem. Whether or not they should be providing housing is an entirely separate issue. The fact is, they are providing housing, and thus should be responsible for the harm inflicted by their actions. Formaldehyde is some serious shit.

I am sure we provided these trailers with the best of intentions to try and help the people displaced by the storm and flood.

If there is a safety problem with the trailers we provided then perhaps the manufacturer should be held responsible but not the government (us taxpayers) unless we ordered them to be manufactured with this flaw. If we provided them cars and the manufacturer recalled them for bad brakes or something would we be responsible for the defect?

My theory is because people have been conditioned to expecting Uncle Sam to take care of them and no politician is going to show enough spine to say this is enough.

You've got it exactly right. Many people do not want to believe that this actually happens, so I expect an argument to ensue.

flstf, I agree with you wholeheartedly, in theory. I would think that, if the underlying problem is addressed and the faulty trailers are removed or replaced, the issue should become moot. I've heard that there have been some extenuating circumstances surrounding this, including a gag order on the people living in the trailers that they can't speak to the media about this matter, sans FEMA rep, without repercussions. linky I think that sounds a bit fishy, but probably makes sound legal advice. However, I don't think FEMA should be made aware of such a problem, and then simply say "well, shit. open the windows." It depends on what happens next. for this part, i think that the level of product liability research which could have demonstrated the probability of such an event occuring beforehand would be relevant. was the rate of formaldehyde release, and its dependence on temperature and humidity, ever studied for the materials / products in question, and if so when?

However, that gets into the other topic which seems to be at hand in this thread - which is should FEMA replace the trailers, or say "tough luck. you can't live in this trailer for more than two weeks. after that, its considered a condemned structure and you will be prohibited from returning to it." i honestly don't know enough about the local situation right now to have an intelligent opinion about that aspect.

edit: i didn't mean to imply that i don't think that no one has liability. if the companies who manufactured the trailers misrepresented the product to the government, they are at fault. if the government was sloppy in its contracts, it is at fault. the people living in the trailers are not at fault, in the sense that they did not have any reasonable expectation to be given housing (however temporary or not) that would leach chemicals into the air that would prove to be toxic.

the rest of the discussion, concerning whether or not the residents in the trailers should be in the trailers is different. fact is, they have been allowed to be in the trailers, and the product appears to have some serious health concerns.

Opening up a window is a stupid idea. There is the heat and humidity first of all, but also the security issue. I'm sure these people have neighbors that live right next to them and when you get a ton of people together, crime happens.

As for how to fix it, can't they just buy HEPA air filters for $100? That should catch particles in the air.

I don't feel sorry for the smokers down there though, they are putting so much more chemical carcinogens into their bodies than any home materials would.

Regarding the housing... There's no way this should have ever been intended to be long term housing - anything more than 1 month is long term housing...

problems are going to exist anywhere when something is being used for longer than it's intended...

Personally...I'd go with 6 months. That seems, to me, like a fair period of time to decide what the hell you're going to do with your life.
Certainly no longer than 1 year. After a year, it's no longer temporary shelter. It's...home.

All of that aside...the trailers are emitting toxic gas. That is unacceptable. For long term housing. I do not have the fact. Nor do I have the figues. And even if I did...I wouldn't know how to extrapolate them. I doubt, however, that short term (read 6 months) of exposure is going to cause long term damage. So...
My home has been destroyed.
I've lost everything that I own.
FEMA comes by (sooner or later) with a travel trailer for me to hang out in.
Said trailer emits toxic formaldahyde gas.
But...it still keeps the rain off of my head.
However...the longer that I stay, the sicker that I am likely to get.
If I wasn't motivated to get out and move on before...I am now.

Perhaps...we could look at it as a form of ensurance of promoting self sufficiency.

Normally, I'm very moderate to slightly liberal. The welfare state is one issue, however, where I make Ustwo look like like a Hillary in '08 supporter. I am all for providing help and assitance where and when it is needed. I draw the line at providing a lifestyle.

Formaldehyde is a gas, not a particulate. HEPA won't help in this case.

Redlemon, as an enviromental engineer - i think this is what you kinda do... what is available to get rid of those gasses? (or do we just move in a bunch of frogs for high school biology classes and leaveit at that)

Ex-environmental engineer. My last day was Friday.

In an industrial setting, when formaldehyde is part of the manufacturing process, you can combust the gases (e.g., a catalytic incinerator) or adsorb them into a carbon bed. That would mean a pretty large canister, and constant airflow to pump the air through it. Honestly, opening a window is how you get the formaldehyde out of an airspace like this.

The easiest method is don't use products that off-gas formaldehyde, but apparently someone missed that meeting.

As far as I know, that has not been confirmed, its only the hypothesis.

On a side note, I'm FINALLY done with a 3 week long cold which gave me a runny nose and headaches.