Formadehyde and the FEMA Fiasco

[Guest guest]

Formaldehyde and t he FEMA Fiasco

By Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D. Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Toxicologist

Immunotoxicologist

Fetal Toxicologist

The recent publicity regarding the formaldehyde in the FEMA

trailers is not old news. It seems to me that communications between

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and FEMA are absent. This is not

surprising. Most federal agencies have their head in the ground like

ostriches. I also saw a memo from FEMA attorneys that clearly

indicated they wanted to keep this situation quiet, lest someone find

out about it and files a law suit.

In 1985 HUD stepped in and set emission standards for

formaldehyde release from hardwood plywood and particleboard. I have

some questions to ask FEMA. Are you aware of these emission

standards and regulations surrounding them? Or have you simply made

a decision that travel trailers and trailers in general do not fall

under these regulations? You are playing with the health of people

in the Katrina aftermath and basically have ignored the health

implications of your actions.

Law suits regarding the adverse health effects of exposure to

formaldehyde are not old hat. I was involved in cases in the mid

1980s regarding the elderly, mobile homes and adverse health

effects. While participating as a consultant as well as an expert I

was involved in some basic research involving the health of the

elderly as well as younger individuals. I will get more into the

health problems that we observed and published in peer reviewed

journals. At this time I would like to briefly describe some history

of the problem.

I was consulting to a law firm in Pasadena California in

1985. The firm had several plaintiff actions against various mobile

home manufacturers. The cases were not going well for two reasons.

First, we needed to demonstrate that formaldehyde at low

concentrations was deleterious to the health of the occupants (see

below). The other was we needed a smoking gun. The smoking gun was

found indirectly and at the ignorance of the mobile home

manufacturing industry.

The law firm issued interrogatories against one of the

defendant mobile home manufacturers. The headquarters was located in

Chicago area. The defendant told us that they did not have time to

answer the interrogatories and invited us to Chicago to search

through their archives. The attorney, Gardner, flew to Chicago

and returned as one of the most excited individuals I have ever met.

What he found were memos between the National Particle Board

Association and the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association. All of

the major producers of mobile homes were cc'd on the memos. The

memos dated from 1956 through 1959. The memos clearly stated that

they (both associations) new that they had a formaldehyde problem

causing ill effects in occupants. However, they stated that they

will take the legal cases on a one at a time basis. Does this sound

similar to the FEMA situation? These memos are in the safe custody

of another attorney who will remain anonymous at this time.

The other issue regarding adverse health effects was also

solved shortly after the discovery of the memos. I was researching

the literature on formaldehyde and its adverse health effects when I

came upon a paper published by R. , et al titled " Canine

Antibodies against formaldehyde-dog serum albumin conjugates:

Induction, measurement and specificity. " J Lab Clin Med 206:93-100,

1985. The paper demonstrated that antibodies to formaldehyde-albumin

(F-albumin) conjugates were present in the serum of dogs exposed to

the chemical. My thought was that if it can happen in dogs it can

happen in humans. I took the idea to Ari Vojdani, Ph.D. and he

developed an assay for F-albumin. We tested eight individuals known

to be exposed to formaldehyde in mobile homes and compared the to 8

laboratory technicians as controls.

The following significant observations were found: 1) IgG

antibodies to F-albumin were detected in the sera of the 8 subjects

vs none in the controls; 2) T lymphocytes were significantly

decreased in the 8 subjects; 3) B cells were significantly decreased

in the subjects and 4) The ability of T and B cells to divide was

greatly reduced. The formaldehyde concentrations inside of these

mobile homes ranged from 0.07 to 0.55 ppm. This paper is published in

the Archives of Environmental Health 1987, 42:347-50.

Additional studies were then carried out in conjunction with

Alan Broughton, M.D., Ph.D. and a A. Madison, Dr.P.H. We

tested residents of mobile homes, sick building syndrome patients,

arc welders and a community of individuals in the Kenai Peninsula in

Alaska. These studies were published from approximately 1988 through

2001 in the following journals: Clinical Gerontology, Archives of

Environmental Health, Environmental Health Perspectives, American

Journal of Industrial Medicine and Comments in Toxicology. In brief,

the subjects had multiple organ symptoms suggestive of MCS, they had

evidence of an activated immune system (elevated CD 26 T cells),

increased levels of F-albumin antibodies and increased odds ratios

for various autoantibodies (antismooth muscle, ANA,

antimitochondrial, antibrushboarder, and antiparietal cell). Based

upon current knowledge of the immune system, it now seems appropriate

to state that these individuals were suffering from the ill effects

of a pro-inflammatory condition. The increased autoantibodies and

CD26 cells support this conclusion.

Since 2001 ample evidence has been published by others in the peer

reviewed literature. These publications show several adverse effects

resulting form formaldehyde exposure, including increased rate of DNA

mutation in peripheral blood cells. Currently, it is recognized that

formaldehyde is a carcinogen. It has embryo/fetal toxicity,

neurotoxicity and is injurious to other organs (lungs, eyes, immune

system).

The question now is then why has FEMA allowed the current situation

to happen? We have known since approximately 1956 that particle

board, dense fiber board, luan paneling and interior grade plywood

emit formaldehyde. This occurs because the resin (ureaformaldehyde)

that is the glue binding the wood particles is unstable. U-F

(ureaformaldehyde) undergoes hydrolysis at room temperature and

humidity. Raise one or both and the decomposition of the resin is

accelerated. Also, during the manufacturing process excess

formaldehyde is added to polymerize the U-F. Thus the decay curve is

two fold. There is an initial release for formaldehyde because of

the excess used along with hydrolysis. Occurring over a time of

several years is the hydrolysis of U-F. This process varies from one

part of the U.S to another, depending upon ambient temperatures and

humidity. New Orleans, as a recall is both hot and very humid.

Finally, the question must be asked, is there a threshold limit to

the adverse effects of formaldehyde? This question has not been

fully answered. It is my professional opinion that the threshold

limit is well below 0.1 ppm, which is the OSHA workplace standard for

healthy adult males. If this is the workplace recommendation where

men spend approximately 40 hours per week, then what should the home

environment be? Women and children spend a greater amount of time in

the home than men do at work. Secondly, it is well recognized that

children are far more sensitive to toxic effects of chemicals than

are adults. What is the recommended standard for women as well as

children? This question is still open. There is one thing for

sure, occupational concentrations cannot be applied to women and

children, particularly new born and infants. FEMA, are you really

going to give these trailers and homes to American Indians?