A study of 500 children in Denver found that in homes where pesticides (POISONS) were used, children were more likely to develop leukemia, brain tumors, lymphoma and other cancers.  In fact, a total of 20 studies from across the country in the peer-reviewed literature document a relationship between exposure to pesticides (POISONS) and increased risk of cancer in children.
 
 

[ What to do if pesticides are being used ]
[ Pesticide Poisoning and Kids ] * [ Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning ]
[ MEMORIAL TO VICTIMS ]

Subject:   Did You Know---------
 Date:       Mon, 06 Dec 1999 11:58:29 -0500
From:     Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>

Lyndon, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) just sent me a little fact sheet that summarizes some of the many reasons why I continually write and ask you -  when it will be "legal'  (in your opinion) to use safe and far more effective alternatives to your dangerous "registered" pesticide POISONS?

Lyndon, Did You Know..................

Children exposed to pesticides risk cancer.  A study of 500 children in Denver found that in homes where pesticides (POISONS) were used, children were more likely to develop leukemia, brain tumors, lymphoma and other cancers.  In fact, a total of 20 studies from across the country in the peer-reviewed literature document a relationship between exposure to pesticides (POISONS) and increased risk of cancer in children.

The food that you and your family eat has cancer-causing pesticide (POISON) residues.  Of the 25 pesticides most widely used on food crops in the U. S., 12 are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as cancer-causing agents.  For infants exposure to such dangerous chemicals (POISONS) is largely through baby food.

The drinking water of 15 million Americans is contaminated with pesticides (POISONS) according to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

Over 50 pesticides (POISONS) in use today are known to disrupt sperm production or male fertility; sperm counts in healthy men around the world have fallen 50% in the last 50 years.

Of the 36 most commonly used lawn pesticides (POISONS), 24 have never been fully tested by EPA.  At least 13 can cause cancer, 14 can cause birth defects, 21 can cause central nervous system damage, and 15 can damage the liver and kidneys.

EPA relies on industry funded tests.  EPA has never inspected three-quarters of the labs doing manufacturer-funded studies even though EPA relies on those data to evaluate pesticide (ACTIVE POISON INGREDIENT) hazards.  Outright fraud has occurred.  In 1994, Craven Laboratories was fined over $15 million and its president sentenced to five years in prison for falsifying pesticide (POISON) residue data.

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, PO Box 1393, Eugene, OR 97440 (541) 344-5044.

Lyndon, thanks to the poison "industry" and many "regulators" most Americans are still almost totally unaware about the real threats we face from continual exposure to your "registered" pesticide poisons -- all 1.2 billion pounds of your active poison ingredients applied and misapplied each and every year to our food, homes, schools, offices, lawns, roadways, trees, water, etc. - until every living thing on earth is now contaminated with your "registered" POISONS!

You will note I only mentioned your active poison ingredients in the previous paragraph.  Nearly every one of the over 21,000 pesticide products (POISONS) you have "registered" contains many ingredients you have callously called "inert".  Your untested/unnamed "inerts" can comprise up to 99.9% of a pesticide product and despite your misleading name for these "additives", they are neither biologically, chemically or toxicologically "inert".  In fact, some of your so-called "inerts" are "banned" active ingredients and many threaten human, animal and environmental health.  You do not even bother to list them, much less consider them in your "risk/benefit" formula.  You totally ignore safe alternatives, synergism, metabolism, contaminants and long term health/environmental effects.  You allow the poison "industry" to keep these "inerts' secret even from the medical profession who desperately need this data to treat their poisoned patients.

According to EPA estimates, pesticide poison sales in the United States during 1995 increased to a staggering $11.3 Billion!  In 1996, the poison "industry" "registered" over 21,000 different pesticide poison formulations in the U.S.  With campaign contributions of $84.7 Million between 1987 and 1996, the poison "industry" has made sure that their pesticide poisons are "innocent" until proven guilty, and that the poison "industry" is largely responsible for establishing their own "guilt".  Isn't "sound science" a wonderful sounding phrase?

The poison producers, obviously, have a strong vested interest in continually maintaining their "registered" POISONS are "safe and effective".  By their very definition, pesticides are toxic substances that KILL -they are called economic POISONS!  I remember printed advertisements that said Chlordane was so safe you/I did not need gloves or respirators - I beLIEved and people like my Son died.  Even back then we knew the pests were quickly becoming resistant to volatile synthetic pesticides.  Today there are other testimonials from other scientists on the company payroll, other glossy brochures and other slick advertising campaigns that have been skillfully designed to lull other Americans into beLIEving that all of their remaining "registered" POISONS are "safe, effective and/or environmentally sound".

Vice-President Al Gore said: "Putting information about local pollution into the hands of the public is the single most common sense tool available for protecting public health and the environment."  Lyndon, when are you going to begin to inform the California public on what dangers/risks they are daily facing?

Better yet, Lyndon, when will it be "legal" (in your opinion) to use safe and far more effective alternatives to actually solve pest problems in California, rather than only allowing the continual use/misuse of your dangerous "registered" POISONS?

Lyndon, if you know something (you are personally advocating) is dangerous and there are safe alternatives, that are more effective and less expensive, how long can you simply choose to ignore the dangers/harm you are causing?

Respectfully,  Stephen L. Tvedten