ARTICLE:
SCIENCE SUPPORTS PESTICIDE USE and RESPONSE BY STEVE TVEDTEN
Click Here to Add Comment
SCIENCE SUPPORTS PESTICIDE USE
June 7, 2001
The Ottawa Citizen B4
by Fred Ford, Point of View
Ottawa council has banned the use of insecticides for cosmetic purposes on all public land. On the surface, this seems fair enough. However, the complete story on pesticide use is not as cut and dried as activists and council would have us believe.
The anti-pesticide lobby has done a formidable job. It presented an appealing yet simplistic argument: We shouldn't use pesticides for cosmetic purposes. That seems harmless enough. But then, cleverly concealed, comes the essence: [Environmentalists say that] pesticides are dangerous. (Well, drinking them sure is.) Followed by, pesticide use should also be banned on private property.
But the argument evades the facts -- pesticides, when used properly, are not harmful to humans.
In Toxic Terror: The Truth about the Cancer Scare, epidemiologist and author Elizabeth Whelan provides substantial scientific evidence about the beneficial nature of pesticides and other man-made chemicals. Michael Fumento presents considerable evidence to support pesticide use in his book, Science Under Siege, and his Web site, Mythbusters `R' Us (www.fumento.com).
Did Ottawa council answer all the incisive and pertinent questions? They include: What are the benefits of pesticides? Are the banned pesticides also used to eliminate harmful bugs and vermin? Do these pesticides kill harmful bacteria including bacteria caused by the considerable wild goose and gull excrement in the parks? Are these pesticides really any more harmful than ordinary household products?
And most importantly, what is the human toll for not using them?
No, it didn't. Why not? Well, it's true that the anti-pesticide activists can be quite intimidating and can shout down pesticide experts (don't confuse us with facts).
It's not easy arguing against popular beliefs, even when you have the facts. And it can be political suicide. So when popular activism confronts science, politicians sometimes prefer the ostrich stance.
While it's true that some people are allergic to pesticides, people are also allergic to cats and dogs. Other allegations include anecdotal symptoms in humans like headaches and rashes, nervous system damage, and cardiovascular problems, and anecdotes about birds, bees, and frogs eggs. Anecdotal information is not scientific evidence: It is an indication that perhaps a study should be conducted. They have. Pesticides have been vindicated - by science.
In a June 4 opinion article in the Citizen ("We've tolerated toxic pesticides for too long"), Kate Heartfield invoked the icon of the environmental movement, Rachel Carson, and her 1962 environmental bible, Silent Spring, in her argument, against DDT and pesticides.
Rachel Carson wrote extensively against what she called the "elixirs of death" (man made chemicals). She condemned these "arrogant manipulations (of molecules)," prophesied a made-made cancer epidemic, and popularized the zero-based approach to regulating synthetic chemicals like DDT.
In 1972, Edmund Sweeney, the hearing examiner studying DDT for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, reviewed 9,300 pages of testimony and 300 technical documents by 150 "expert scientists," and then recommended to the EPA that "no more extensive ban of DDT was necessary or desirable." (More recent evidence confirms that DDT is not harmful to humans.)
Environmentalists convinced EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus - who did not attend the hearings nor consult the transcripts - to ban DDT.
DDT almost eradicated malaria (a disease carried by mosquitoes) worldwide. The World Health Organization estimates between one million and five million people die of malaria each year. This incontestable destruction of human life caused by the absence of DDT still generates only indifference.
Science is under attack in many other areas. Whether they be in the courtroom (breast implants), activism (second-hand smoke, chemicals), or political edict (DDT and countless other chemicals), activists transform scientifically counterfeit information into incontrovertible evidence.
One can hope that the upcoming Supreme Court decision on whether it is legal for municipalities to ban pesticide use on private property -- will be based on sound science and the protection of individual rights, not popular activism.
In future, Ottawa council should represent its constituents by protecting their property rights and by making sound decisions based on scientific evidence, rather than pseudo-scientific doublespeak and popular activism.
Fred Ford, a Kanata writer
RESPONSE FROM STEVE TVEDTEN:
Letters to the Editor,
The Ottawa Citizen.
Dear Editor,
Re: Science Supports Pesticide Use
Mr. Fred Ford's use of the phrase "Science Supports Pesticide Use"' is extremely troubling to me. It is against the federal law (in the USA) to say that even the labeled use of any registered pesticide is "safe". It is an amazing "science" where only the active ingredient is (partially) "tested" and then only this active ingredient is considered to determine the "risk". The bulk (up to 99%) of the POISON formula is simply called "inert" and then totally ignored. Some of these so-called "inerts", the contaminants, metabolites and/or synergistic effects are far more deadly and contaminate far longer than the active ingredient. For just one example, DDT has been used as an "inert" in Dicofol.
I almost died using "registered" pesticides. My son and uncle and a great number of my friends did die. I have seen a great many people who have become ill. We were told in writing that chlordane was so "safe" that we did not need gloves or respirators to handle even the concentrate. DDT was also sold as being "harmless to children" - even Disney wallpaper was impregnated with this toxin. Check out my web site at: http://www.getipm.com .
The sad thing about Mr. Ford's comment "science that supports pesticide use" is that these POISONS clearly do not even "control" pest problems. DDT was first introduced in the 1940's and by 1959, resistance was already reported in cockroaches. By 1971 the National Institute of Health found DDT or its breakdown products in 100% of all human tissue samples it tested. Even today DDT is still showing up in higher rates in women's breast milk than the government permits in cow's milk! In spite of all this world-wide "mosquito-killing" CONTAMINATION, DDT is still being sprayed in Third World countries to "control" mosquitoes but we obviously STILL have the mosquitoes and now we also have world-wide DDT CONTAMINATION!
We now apply and/or misapply 4.5 Billion pounds of just the active POISON ingredient annually in the USA and the only thing that continues to be threatened is our environment and the public health. Even though we have used/misued these very dangerous "economic" POISONS for over 50 years and these toxins now contaminate the entire earth - we have never "controlled" much less eliminated even one pest problem. Someone should point these facts out to Mr. Ford. If this is "science" in Mr. Ford's mind, what would he call safe and far more effective pest control?.
I have safely and far more effectively solved all pest problems inside and outside in over 350 schools without ever using any volatile pesticide POISON. No "science" and/or "registered" pesticide applicator can say the same. Hopefully, I have not confused anyone with the fact that even if pesticide POISONS were "harmless" they are useless - we now have more insect damage than we did before the advent of synthetic pesticide POISONS after World War II - where the organophosphates were first used to kill people as nerve gases.
I have learned that you should not try to teach a pig to sing. It aggravates the pig and wastes your time.
Stephen L. Tvedten,
2530 Hayes Street
Marne, Michigan 49435-9751
1-616-677-1261
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.