California
PCO Responds to Article and provides text of California Law
RE: Pest Control Operators of California
challenge a neighbor notification ordinance passed in Fairfax
*
Your letter and information seems a little biased. I am
not taking any positions here, just asking a question? Any reason why you left out the laws & regulations which
have been on the books since 1983 regarding pesticide notification?
I have enclosed them below in hopes that you post them to your website
so your readers can get the full picture and understanding of the issue.
Eric Paulson - grizzlycabin@yahoo.com
- Read Statutes and Regulations promulgated by
the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Structural Pest
Control Board regarding the Notification of Pesticide Applications: CLICK
HERE
Safe2Use Response:
Eric,
We have never hidden where we stand on the issue of pesticides. However, I appreciate you taking the time to provide your "unbiased"
point of view with the regulations. I have posted your email at:
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/01-04-11a-pco-law.htm... We're biased but fair.
Linda
Safe2Use
Eric's Response:
Linda:
My use of the word "bias" was perhaps
inappropriate. Of course every person has a bias. A better description would
be "deliberately misleading".
Specifically these two statements:
1) "Do citizens have the right to
know if they are being poisoned? California
Law says "NO"
RESPONSE: This
is purposely misleading statement. You deny the existence of California's
extensive pesticide notification laws on the books.
2) "Well Mr. Helliker,
Seeing you have the last word on pesticide regulations, what do you
say? Do the people have a right
to protect themselves or will you protect the PCOC?"
RESPONSE: Again you make at least one deliberate
misleading statement, and then make at least two very negative and false
inferences. First you deny the
extensive laws on the books to notify and protect consumers where pesticide
applications are concerned, and secondly you make inferences that DPR would be
taking some nefarious steps to "protect" PCOC. This also infers that
PCOC needs to be "protected" from something. Both inferences are
deliberate untruths.
I respect your right to your opinion, and your cause, my
issue is just with your use of yellow journalism.
Have a nice day!
Steve Tvedten's Responds:
Dear Mr. Paulson,
Obviously, the people in Fairfax (as well as I) do not
believe California's "extensive" pesticide notification laws (that
are already on the books) are really adequate and/or really protect them, or
they would not have proposed this ordinance.
The very fact that it is now considered "normal" for there to
be 500 to a 1,000 different toxins contained in the average person that were
not in their grandparents, also proves at least to me that your current
"notification laws" are not "adequate" nor do they
"protect"!
If you really believed that you should properly notify
and protect Fairfax consumers wherever pesticide applications are made there,
this ordinance would not bother you. Obviously,
you think that if you had to correctly notify these customers and/or their
neighbors of an upcoming"registered" pesticide application - you
would lose bu$INess.
I would suggest to you that you personally do not have
any idea of how dangerous your
"registered" POISONS really are; if you did, I do not believe that
you would personally continue to use them.
No one can honestly know how dangerous all of these
"registered" toxins really are, because the entire POISON formula is
never adequately tested. Often we
may hear of a few of the inherent dangers of a particular active POISON
ingredient, only AFTER the
particular "registered" active POISON ingredient is banned or "volutarily
withdrawn". I personally
remember when the Velsicol advertisements said chlordane/heptachlor was so
"safe" that the applicators did not need to use gloves or a
respirator. The POISON "industry" decided to sell (DDT and)
chlordane as totally safe for people. Therefore, there was no need to notify anyone of any
"registered" POISON application.
Finally, ONLY after there was a large public outcry and there was
indisputable proof that chlordane caused cancer in mice, did the NPCA come out
with a legal opinion that we (pest control operators) had a "Duty To
Warn". For the record,
everytime anyone in any of my companies made any pesticide application (after
that old legal opinion) they always had the owners sign a release that they
were not only properly notified but wanted said application. We have not made a volatile pesticide application for many
years and we have obtained far better pest control results.
In my over 35-year career as a pest control operator I
have watched the demise of cyclodiene chlorinated hydrocarbons,
organophosphates and carbamates - all of which were "registered"
pesticides and supposedly "safe".
Everything that ends in 'cide' means death, whether a pesticide, a
suicide or a homicde. It is
against the federal law to say that even the labeled use of any
"registered" pesticide is "safe" or "approved".
I have also watched the demise of many friends, my Son, my Uncle and
others who, in my opinion, were killed by chlordane and/or by exposure to
other "registered" POISONS. I
and many of my surviving friends who were/are POISONED, obviously now live far
less productive lives. It is too
bad we and they were not properly notified!
If the people (of Fairfax) do not want to continue to be
unknowingly exposed to your "registered" POISONS, the Fairfax
Ordinance and I want to clearly say they have at least the right to know -
obviously, you and/or the PCOC do/does not think so. If you really thought the public had any right to be
adequately notified and protected when your "registered" POISONS
were being applied - you would not be threatening them or arguing with me.
Thank G-d, this is STILL a Nation Of the People, By the People and For
the People!
We the people, have the Right To Know and you have the
Duty To Warn! I would suggest that you do so!
Stephen L. Tvedten
P. S. Hopefully
at some point Mr. Helliker (and not you) will respond to my questions.
In the meantime, if you require any more data that proves the
California pesticide notification laws are not "adequate nor do they
protect"; I (and/or several
others) will be happy to provide this information for you.
If you would like to debate the "safety" of your
"registered" poisons, I would be glad to refer your letter to
numerous toxicologists and physicians. We
will in the interest of fairness, continue to post your critiques of my
"use of yellow journalism". Obviously
the public will decide which of us has made any purposely and/or deliberately
misleading statements. As you can
see by my web site, I am only trying to protect and notify the people on the
dangers they unknowingly face every day, not to $ELL and/or apply "regi$tered"
POI$ON$ without proper notification! I
believe that is the real issue!