The formaldehyde fuss
When it comes to the formaldehyde issue, it’s hard to know what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s hype and what’s fact. On Monday, the RV Industry Association took the proactive step of bringing the issue to the forefront of industry discussion during its annual membership meeting in Las Vegas.
The association brought in a hired gun to bring manufacturers, dealers and suppliers up to speed about the issue which has garnered media attention to the point some consumers wonder whether they’ll be poisoned in their RVs, as some media outlets have contended. The bottom line is that the media hype is groundless and it is up to us to educate consumers about the formaldehyde fuss.
For the most part, the formaldehyde issue is yet the latest hit job by what Rush Limbaugh calls the drive-by media – reporters acting like gang members who spray bullets into a crowd causing mass panic and hysteria only to calmly drive away unscathed and unnoticed as the gangsters look for their next victims.
Dr. Lee Shull is a professional toxicologist who works as the corporate risk services director for Environmental Resources Management in Sacramento, Calif. He was invited by RVIA to expose the fallacy of the formaldehyde issue. Monday morning, he did an excellent job putting the issue in its proper context. Here are a few bullet points you can use to reassure customers that RVs remain safe.
- Formaldehyde is one of the most naturally occurring organic compounds in the universe
- It is not unusual for people to be exposed to formaldehyde daily through clothing, carpeting, building materials and even food
- It is often used as a disinfectant and antimicrobial solution
- It is fed to livestock
- It is found in soap and cosmetics
- It is used in the food industry to process fish, cheese and juice
- It has been used for 70 years to create exceptionally strong glue that securely bonds one material to another
When wood products are manufactured using glue, virtually all the formaldehyde is consumed in the process. In fact 99 percent of the compound used is chemically bonded into the materials. Less than 1 percent is considered “free formaldehyde” which is released over time as a gas. The news media, on the other hand, frequently suggests that 100 percent of the formaldehyde used in the manufacturing process is available as an “off gas” which is harmful to humans, Dr. Shull said.
Air samples were taken daily on 96 FEMA trailers over a 14-day period. Two groups of trailers were sampled. Group A turned on air conditioners and left the bathroom vent open. Group B shut off the air conditioner, opened the windows and left the vents open. The goal was to see whether the concentration of formaldehyde could be altered below 0.3 parts per million (ppm), the point at which exposure may result in discomfort and irritation.
Group A, the users who shut the windows and recirculated air through the air conditioner, experienced irritating levels of formaldehyde gas 12 of the 14 days. But, Group B, which opened the windows as recommended, recorded less than 0.3 ppm after the fourth day. What a surprise.
Dr. Shull said there were other factors in the Gulf Region contributing to higher formaldehyde levels — factors the drive-by media chose to ignore, including:
- The trailers were recently constructed and it takes time for the 1 percent of free formaldehyde to escape from wood products in order to be off gassed
- The trailers were shut tight due to hot humid weather
- Formaldehyde was also released from nearby rotting wood associated with downed trees and broken homes
- People were also smoking indoors and tobacco products release their own formaldehyde
- Gas cookers were often involved and they, too, produce formaldehyde
- People were also exposed to cleaning agents and personal care products, like cosmetics, which release formaldehyde
Dr. Shull noted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Consumer Product Safety Commission and World Health Organization all have different standards as to what is and is not an acceptable level of formaldehyde concentration. As expected, the media picks the lowest level of “acceptable” concentration adopted by one of the agencies and portrays that number as undisputed fact.
A total of 28 different epidemiology studies of factors contributing to illness have failed to show a correlation between formaldehyde and any evidence of nasal cancer. Yet the media is all hyped up about the issue because studies have shown that high levels of formaldehyde did cause cancer in laboratory rats. What the media didn’t mention are these inconvenient facts about the study in which rats were exposed to various levels of concentration for six hours a day, five days a week over two years:
- Of the 159 rats exposed at a concentration of 2 ppm, none of the rats contracted cancer
- Of the 153 rats exposed to a concentration of 5.6 ppm, only two rats contracted cancer
- Of the 140 rats exposed to a concentration of 14.3 ppm, 94 of the rodents developed cancer
Remember, the level of human exposure in the tested FEMA trailers was 0.3 ppm — enough to cause irritation, but nothing else, even among sensitive individuals. It was nowhere near the concentration to which the lab rats were exposed. The heart of the controversy, according to Dr. Shull, is that science has clearly demonstrated there is a point at which a dose of formaldehyde causes no observable problems. But government agencies can’t let facts stand in the way of a good regulation.
You see, because a rat exposed to high levels of formaldehyde can contract cancer, the government assumes there is a one in a million chance that a human could get cancer from the same substance — even at levels 1,800 percent lower than that known to cause cancer. And that assumption forms the basis for regulatory intervention and growing the size of government to protect us all. Whenever we see the government concerned about that special one-in-a-million person, you can bet that scores of attorneys will find thousands of potential victims in our country of 301 million people, of which 8 million use RVs. Just follow the money.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Formaldehyde is a toxic chemical compound that causes discomfort and physical injury to human beings. Those who debunk it are missing the point. The problem is not whether it is dangerous to human health. The question is what to do about the perception that RVs are dangerous to those who use them because of formaldehyde. Dr. B.C. Wolverton who was a senior scientist at NASA and who was inducted into the NASA Hall of Fame designed a planter which digested formaldehyde. He found that around the roots of certain plants microbes congregated and these microbes eat up VOCs including formaldehyde. He designed a portable planter which was sold in Japan. We will be selling it soon in the United States. Installing such a planter in an RV eliminates the problem. Getting into whether formaldehyde is dangerous or not is besides the point. If the public perceives that it is a problem, than it can be a problem to RV sales. Show people a solution and you will have eased their worry. Plus it will increase your market share. For further information Martin Mittelmark, the president of Phytofilter Technologies. I can reached at 518-580-1417
October 4th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I just learned from FEMA’s public affairs department than they will not allow me to spend a week in their trailers because the trailers are designed for a specific reason and are well-regulated as to who can live in them and for what purpose.
I know it is a lame excuse because having an RV magazine editor live in a formaldehyde-invested FEMA trailer for a week would shatter FEMA’s claim that our industry is somehow at fault for the new mess the agency finds itself facing.
Also, I haven’t heard from our “friends” at Sierra Club. Apparently they can’t find a poisonous trailer for me to live in either.
Anyone else have access to a FEMA trailer? Ideally, the model I would like to live in for a week would be extra stinky after having been closed up extra tight for months.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:31 am
If you own an RV and want to know what the formaldehyde levels are…just visit our website (www.indoorairtest.com) for a do-it-yourself (DIY) formaldehyde screen test ($76 + S/H). The sample media can either be worn as a badge to assess your personal exposure or as a stand alone in a room or RV to determine the levels in the test area. The exposure period for the sample media is either 8 hours or 24 hours. When the exposure period is complete, you send in the sample media for analysis at our accredited laboratory.
Read our press release on formaldehyde @ http://www.transworldnews.com/newsstory.aspx?ID=24399
Sampling Medium: Chemically Activated High-Purity Silica Gel
Method Of Analysis: High Performance Liquid Chromatography
Reference Method: NIOSH Method 2016
Collection Rate: 63 ml/minute
Exposure Limits: OSHA 0.75 ppm for 8 hours (PEL)
2.0 ppm for 15 minutes (STEL)
Minimum Level of Quantitation: 0.01 ppm for 8 hours; 0.003 ppm for 24 hours;
0.3 ppm for 15 minutes
Accuracy: Overall System Accuracy: 16% at 0.75 ppm for 8 hours
20% at 2.0 ppm for 15 minutes.
Independent Validation of Accuracy
September 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Becky,
Instead of hiding behind the toxic trailer web site that is linked to you in this blog (www.toxictrailers.com), why didn’t you provide the real information behind your comments? A simple Google searc on Ms. Gillette provides us a glimpse of her background and I suspect she has never purchased or associated herself with RVs, except to bash them in print with inaccurate inforation:
Becky Gillette is conservation chair of the Mississippi Chapter of Sierra Club, and secretary of the GCRCC. She is a free-lance writer based in Ocean Springs, Miss., who has published in about 50 magazines and newspapers nationwide. In 2002 she received the National Conservation Achievement Award for communications from the National Wildlife Federation. She can be reached at: bgillette@XXXXXXXXXX
Most writers and contributers that take a strong dissident point of view will provide this type of information if they really believe in their cause and won’t hide behind a web site that lists two law firms for easy contact by these so-called victims.
The only victims here are the hard-working people in the RV industry that thought they were doing something good for people that couldn’t even comprehend the severity of a storm that everyone knew was going to do devastating damage to the area, and yet did nothing about it and have been living off the government ever since - with our tax dollars.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
To Becky Gillette: It’s really a travesty that you have driven fear and hysteria on this issue to the extreme. You have certainly created more anxiety in the victims of this catastrophe, which will certainly be more a detriment to their health than any environmental issue they are facing. The motives of the Sierra Club with regards to industry are apparent and your symbiotic relationship with class action attorneys is nearly, if not, criminal. You are not a scientist. Let’s hope that true science prevails over the deception that you are disseminating.
gt knapp, an avid rv’er
September 26th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Greg,
Thanks for sharing this nice summary with everyone. The only point that I would add is that not all glues that are used in wood manufacturing contain formaldehyde. Polyurethane adhesives, for example, which are the primary type of adhesive used in manufacturing laminated walls do not contain formaldehyde. Some waterbased emulsion adhesives or “white glues” contain a small amount of formaldehyde that is residue from the manufacturing process of the resin. As you state in your message this material reacts quickly and is not present at very high levels at all. The main type of adhesive that uses formaldehyde as a reactive agent is typically used in the plywood industry (called either urea formaldehyde or melamine formaldehyde depending on the type of adhesive). The plywood used for the walls, as well as the floors would have typically been made with one of these products.
All of the adhesive suppliers are required to disclose the amount of formaldehyde that is present in their products on their MSDS, so that the user (RV manufacturer) can be certain that their workers are working in a safe environment. As you point out, if proper ventilation is used, any residual amount of material will be removed. If this was not true, you would have seen an epidemic in Northern Indiana, the RV manufacturing capital of the world, and I last I checked, everyone was doing fine.
Mark Cole
September 26th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Becky:
Can you give us more information about the people living in Government provided FEMA trailers that “spent literally thousands of dollars at emergency rooms because they didn’t know what was making them sick”?
September 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Yes I too would like to know why the Sierra Club is so interested in this case. Is it because they are so committed to destroying any and all fun we Americans take for granted? These groups must be stopped before we lose the freedom of enjoying the beauty of the national and local parks. I have been involved in the RV Industry for over thirty years, living in, working in and building them, and never have I or anyone in my family gotten sick. Why because we follow common sense and follow the manufactures directions while using products. I am not one of those morons who would take a product and use it incorrectly and then blame everyone except myself. Stop the insanity that America is becoming. We have nothing left and no where to go when these nut jobs are done. Sign me up for the test as I too will volunteer to stay in a Fema unit as long as they like.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
He’s making a lot more sense than we are ever going to see from the Sierra Club or OSHA. With your wallets tied to the fortunes of callous lawyers and lazy citizens it is always easy to find new prey to circle over.
I’m with Greg, set up the trailer and I’ll live in it for a week. I’ve been RVing for thirty years in everything from a pop-up to a large motorhome and haven’t been sick a day in my life. I read the instruction manuals and actually do what the manufacturer recommends.
The people you associate with are the same ones that burn their toast in the morning, and then it lights a fire to burn down their house, and you go running for the yellow pages to find the best ambulance chaser in town.
If the government officials in New Orleans did what they should have done, this issue would never have come up.
At what point in our society do we stop paying for stupidity, ignorance and indifference to those that will not fend for themselves.
As a taxpayer, and a conservative (in case you couldn’t figure that out), I’m sick and tired of my hard earned dollars chasing environmentalist’s dreams, welfare cheats, and government officials that never worked in the dreaded “private sector” as we like to call it.
Worse than that, you all line up behind Al Gore as your role model and hero and the politicians he left behind in Washington that are only interested in feeding at the trough of public stupidity.
Why is it that Al Gore won’t debate anybody that disagrees with his assumptions and declarations?
Why is it that the Sierra Club is so interested in these lawsuits? As for Theo, what is it about our facts that you don’t like? Probably the same things that Al Gore doesn’t like - the real truth, the real consequences, and the real need for people to once again assume some measure of responsbility for their own actions and stop waiting for the next lawyer, or Sierra Club van, to drive down the street.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:25 am
hello greg
I guess you like being contrair,cause you are not making any sense.
you’re off your meds or something?
theo
September 26th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Becky: Greg did not “claim this is all nonsense.” He said that on the whole it’s not near as bad as the complainants are saying it is, that the adverse affects could have been averted had these people used common sense and opened their windows as instructed, and that this situation does not justify tearing down an industry that responded to a national crisis with immediate relief efforts.
Greg: Thanks for taking up this subject. It’s hard to stand up to so many people swarming down upon such an unpopular viewpoint. I’m eager to see you carry out this test-camping challenge; I hope somebody can help make it happen.
To anyone backing up this lawsuit: What is your ideal outcome here? Do you really want all these American employers and employees to suffer, and for some of the businesses to go under? Do you truly believe anyone had malicious intent? Do you honestly think they were saying to themselves, “We know this will probably make somebody sick, but we don’t care because we’re making money”? Surely you cannot think that; it’s absolutely not the case. So why are you trying to pin them to the wall and make them pay? What good can come of it? No good deed goes unpunished, is that the lesson here? Please rethink this “logic.” Let’s instead try and help those who need help, rather than injure those who tried to help in the first place.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Folks, I rest my case. Whenever the Sierra Club is concerned about the RV industry, manufacturers, suppliers and dealers should watch their pocketbooks.
RV Trade Digest will provide more details debunking the Sierra Club’s claims upon completion of the RVDA Show.
In fact, I am willing to take up Sierra Club’s challenge. Someone somewhere provide me with a FEMA unit that is emitting 0.3 ppm formaldehyde and I will be happy to spend an entire night in it — heck I’ll spend an entire week in one – provided Sierra Club allows me to follow manufacturer instructions to open the windows.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Dear Greg,
As a volunteer with Sierra Club working to test FEMA trailers for formaldehyde, I challenge you to spend ONE NIGHT in a trailer that has tested at .3 ppm in formaldehyde and see how you like being poisoned. Many, many people have become sick because of the exposure to formaldehyde, and several people whose trailer tested high subsequently died.
People have spent literally thousands of dollars at emergency rooms because they didn’t know what was making them sick.
The .3 ppm level is more than three times over what OSHA recommends for short workplace exposure. Come spend one night in a trailer before you claim this is all nonsense.
See below how very much lower limits are recommended for long term exposure.
Becky Gillette
FORMALDEHYDE
GENERAL PUBLIC EXPOSURE (RECOMMENDATIONS):
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) [US DHHS, CDC]
Minimal Risk Levels (MRL)
Acute MRL: 0.04 ppm (1-14 days exposure)
Intermediate duration MRL: 0.03 ppm (>14-364 days exposure)
Chronic duration MRL: 0.008 ppm (365 or more days exposure)
Health Canada
Residential Indoor Air Quality Guidelines
One hour exposure limit: 0.1 ppm
Eight hour exposure limit; 0.04 ppm
World Health Organization (WHO)
30-minute average: 0.08 ppm (0.1 mg/m3)
(based on: this is [level] over one order of magnitude lower than a presumed threshold for cytotoxic damage to the nasal mucosa, this guideline value represents an exposure level at which there is a negligible risk of upper respiratory tract cancer in humans.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) [Effects Screening Levels* 2003]
Short-term ESL (1 hour): 0.012 ppm
Long-term ESL (1 year): 0.0012 ppm
*ESLs are chemical-specific air concentrations set to protect human health and welfare. Short-term ESLs are based on data concerning acute health effects, the potential for odors to be a nuisance, and effects on vegetation, while long-term ESLs are based on data concerning chronic health and vegetation effects.
California Department of Health Services [Office of Env. Health Hazard Assessment]
As low as possible assuming you can not achieve levels below background or:
Recommended exposure limits (REL):
Acute REL: 0.076 ppm for one hour
Intermediate REL: 0.027 ppm for eight hours
OFFICE WORKPLACE (RECOMMENDATIONS):
Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) [Texas Voluntary Indoor Air Guidelines for Government Buildings]
Minimal Risk Level (MRL) Guideline
Inhalation 8 hour: 0.04 ppm
INDUSTRIAL WORKPLACE STANDARDS and RECOMMENDATIONS
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) [US Department of Labor (US DOL)]
Permissible Exposure Limit: (WORKPLACE)
Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) levels – legally enforceable by OSHA:
Action level: 0.05 ppm
Time Weighted Average (8-hr TWA): 0.75 ppm
Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) (15 minutes): 2 ppm
National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) [US Department of Health & Human Services (US DHHS), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)]
Recommended Exposure Limits (REL): (recommended levels)
Time Weighted Average (10-hr TWA): 0.016 ppm (=below detection limit)
Ceiling [15-minute]: 0.1 ppm
Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) levels: 20 ppm
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
Threshold Limit Values (TLV) (recommend levels, commonly used by industry):
15 minutes: 0.3 ppm
HUD EMISSION STANDARD (FYI: These are the standards for MANUFACTURED HOUSING which are NOT legally applicable to RVs or travel trailers)
US Department of Housing & Urban Development (US HUD)
24 CFR, Chapter XX, Part 3280.308 (CFR = Code of Federal Regulations)
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards for formaldehyde emission levels of :
Plywood: 0.2 ppm
Particle board: 0.3 ppm
September 26th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Theo, I’d love to know what’s inaccurate about Dr. Shull’s report to the RVIA. Perhaps you can provide just one detail in another reply. I am preparing a news story for RV Trade Digest readers that greatly expands on Dr. Shull’s analysis. Maybe the scientific explanations and formulas Dr. Shull provided will shed some light on your concern that we’re reporting only half the facts.
It also sounds like you’re suggesting that whenever someone is irritated, he should be able to pick up a phone, call a lawyer and seek to destroy an entire industry.
Perhaps we could create a whole new division within our legal system similar to family court or small claims. We could call it the Complainers Court. Then, everyone who is ever irritated by any smell, sound, sight, speech, words, idea, religious belief, scientific fact or perceived offense could call a lawyer, sue the offender and get a few bucks to help pay for counseling.
Remember, the bottom line in this whole nasty case remains the ugly fact that an entire group of people ignored three to five days of hurricane warnings, lost their homes in a killer storm, received a free home courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer and are now suing the companies that provided their emergency shelter because they were irritated by the new home smell.
Whacked out environmentalists who would rather see RVs and humans disappear from the planet, have capitalized on this case and worked with their willing accomplices in the media to paint the RV industry and its products as being harmful and even lethal to consumers.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:19 am
greg ,are you rlated to limbaugh or did you go to his school?you must have emptied a case,not just a magazine in this drive-by!
he,who is without sin,casr the first stone.
It would be a lot nicer if you gave accurate facts and not leave half of them out.
maybe it is about the irritation and not the cancer.
theo
September 25th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Hello Greg,
Thanks for shedding some facts that we can all believe on this subject. Now maybe we can all move ahead with our business without having to make apologies for what some consider a “fault” in the RV Industry.