There is an online troll and cyber-bully insisting that what I do is not being done in a manner that shows toxicity levels in consumer goods using federal guidelines and federally implemented / approved testing methodologies for these types of products (the types of products I test) — and that therefore my results are somehow negated.
–
In my posts and on my website I am always the first to state that “there is no federal regulation nor guideline for total lead content [or cadmium or arsenic or mercury content] as detectable with an XRF” for many of the items I test — mostly because these are items sold for adults and not manufactured and sold explicitly “to be used by children” (and therefore not regulated in this way) or because they are vintage items or antique items – that were not regulated at all at the time of manufacture.
–
Specifically, this cyber-bully is “concerned” that current regulations don’t consider XRF testing of consumer goods (including dishware) a “correct” way to determine the presence of toxicants in consumer goods (nor a “sanctioned” method to determine the potential risks inherent in these items or concern for the (mere) presence of lead, cadmium, mercury & arsenic in these items.) Note: XRF testing IS a recognized standard (recognized by the feds) for determining toxicant levels (especially lead) in most items manufactured “for use by *children*”!
–
In making these statements, it is clear that the cyber bully does not understand my advocacy work.
–
I do this testing in this way BECAUSE it quickly, easily and accurately detects the *presence of (and levels of)* toxicants in consumer goods and BECAUSE it is not used as federal standard (yet!) for testing consumer items – other than those explicitly “intended for use by children” – and my hopes are that, with consumer pressure and demand for non-toxic products, the standards will change!
–
There should be no toxic heavy metals allowed in consumer goods at all! Period. (Especially kitchenware/dishware).
–
Fundamentally, the issue is this: to protect our “planet” (our environment -our habitat) and the inhabitants of our planet (especially our youngest and most vulnerable citizens), companies should not make products that require the mining and refining and distribution of the neurotoxic elements in these products (especially if they are only being required for coatings & decorative surface art – elements that often have the highest concentrations of these heavy metals.)
–
You wouldn’t buy a necklace with a hunk of *plutonium* in it and you shouldn’t be able to buy a necklace (or fidget spinner or BABY BOTTLE) with any detectable lead in it. Just because it is not yet regulated in this way does not mean it *shouldn’t* be!
–
The good news is that the companies are listening.
–
Since I started doing this consumer goods testing work nearly a decade ago, MANY companies who used to have (XRF-detectable) lead in their products now make – at least some, and sometimes all – completely lead free (or lead-safe — below 90 ppm) products instead! It’s slow change but it’s good change! (Crate & Barrel, Hevea, Hydroflask, Sur La Table, Pyrex, Corelle, Ikea are all now making truly lead-free products!!!)
–
To call out a whistleblower for finding toxicants using scientific methods and technology that are accurate in the context in which they are being used, because they are using them in cases that are not yet recognized by our Federal agencies as standards, is like asking anti-coal activists to stop protesting coal power plants and the dumping of their waste into our waterways because “the federal standards and recognized testing methodologies in place are sufficient to protect us.”
–
Tamara
#LeadSafeMama
–
Antique cloisonné necklace: positive for more than 500,000 ppm lead when tested with an XRF instrument.
That is outrageous. Here is the link to consumer product safety CPG Sec. 545.450 Pottery (Ceramics); Import and Domestic – Lead Contamination See https://www.fda.gov/iceci/compliancemanuals/compliancepolicyguidancemanual/ucm074516.htm
See also Docket No. CPSC–2017–0010 16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1250
Safety Standard Mandating ASTM F963
for Toys Federal Register /Vol. 82, No. 21 /Thursday, February 2, 2017 /Rules and Regulations 8989
Keep up the great work.
Thank you so much, Dr. Hall! This means a lot coming from someone with your credentials!
Tamara, this is an excellent, reasoned response to an obvious saboteur. The argument that things are safe because they meet regulatory standards, or that there are no standards so we shouldn’t go investigating, is spurious.
Yet we hear it again and again from the chemistry industry and manufacturers who want to maintain the status quo. It is the height of ignorance and insanity to say that we shouldn’t pursue better measures just because “we’ve always done it this way.” Stuff and nonsense. If you believe that, then you should go get yourself a lead tankard, throw your trash out the window for the vermin, and do whatever other medieval cultural practices make you happy. But don’t expect to make progress, or be healthier.
THANK YOU TAMARA FOR YOUR ADVOCACY!!!
I don’t think anyone who follows Tamara ignores that throlls usually have dark agendas. They are too abvious, aggressive, and often ridiculous. There may be the occasional person who has been brainwashed, but it is a fact that there are people who care more about profits than humanity, and are not happy to be exposed. They use loopholes to their advantage, what’s new there? Nothing, but SHAME ON THEM!!!.
Some of those unscrupulous people, take pride in how good they are at repeating their miningles jargon to answer consumer questions without actually answering them, while misleading people into buying their products under false promises, just by declaring that they meet Prop 65 or any other easy to meet regulations. We as consumers, are paying a premium for these shady practices, but we want our families to be safe snd healthy, so we appreciate the work that Tamara does, and for which she is being harrassed in such a cowardly way. SHAME ON THOSE PEOPLE!!!