Open letter to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on their "Right to Harm"
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:18:20 -0500
From: Linda J. McElver President Canaries Foundation
Organization: Canaries Foundation
January 7, 2002
Dear Coalition members and other activists please contact the SLO county Board of Supervisors and give your opinion.
Dear San Luis County Board of Supervisors for San Luis Obispo County,
The San Luis Obispo County, CA Agriculture Department and the Agriculture community want to add to the Right to Farm Ordinance the RIGHT TO HARM neighbors without risk of nuisance lawsuits. They wish to expose people to chemical odors (which means drift has happened) and is against California Food and Agricultural code 6614, a little known and seldom enforced law. This Right to Harm ordinance allows drift and prevents nuisance lawsuits. (Nuisance lawsuits are less costly than Toxic Tort Cases) Check with a lawyer first, but I believe a person should be reimbursed for being forced to leave home to avoid toxic fumes, illnesses like chronic asthma flare-ups, headaches, flu-like symptoms, and being forced to move by the county that determines that they will be exposed to fumes.
Currently, the county recommends this Right to Harm ordinance for approval, which means that people who get sick, some with life threatening asthma, are disposable human beings to our county and should just move or pay their own medical bills rather than inconvenience the farmer.
Already in our county residents have been for years assaulted by A strawberry farmer using Methyl bromide and have suffered greatly, some with life threatening effects. On January 14, at 6 PM the Department of Public Health is having a hearing regarding the neighborhood surrounding this Strawberry Farmer. Even the SLO County Department of Agriculture told these sick people to leave their homes until after the fumigation was over. The Agriculture Department and the county could be sued for this recommendation, without providing as the State did for the Med fly for hotel costs. This is mandated by law.
These Arroyo Grande/Oceano residents were there first, the farm came later and for the last 16 years some have been living in hell will serious illness. No public agency has ever done an appropriate investigation. Even when 6 people reported injuries, no investigation of exposure levels was conducted as I believe is required by law. The Department of Agriculture's sole purpose is to promote agriculture, not protect public health. No wonder so many are sick near farms and suffer in silence. No one ever truly examines the exposure levels triggering illness. Calling the Pesticide poisoning hot line has proven to be a waste of time. Nothing seems to ever change.
After reading a little about Methyl Bromide in the EPA book Recognition and management of Pesticide Poisonings, I found out that it has cumulative health effects. This is exactly what the Right to Farm ordinance appears to protect. Farmers don't want to be responsible for anything that they do. This ordinance gives them the right to do anything without risk from lawsuit especially from being responsible for creating the nuisance of injuries of a cumulative and new onset injuries after they have established their farm. I'm told that this ordinance came about because a farmer was forced to go out of business because of being sued. A nuisance includes injury, noise, odors, etc. This ordinance seeks to add chemical odors to the nuisance category.
In my opinion, Industry (including the beautiful pastoral romantic wine industry) doesn't deserve protection from harming or annoying it's neighbors. Living next to any farm, is like living next to any industry. You will have noise, odors, possible drift of chemicals. That's why we have industrial zones. We need to have AGRICULTURAL BUFFER ZONES to protect residential areas from all agriculture. For Agriculture that uses toxic chemicals, and for organic farming that uses secret (more toxic) inerts in products I suggest two miles. Anything else opens the County to serious liability considering the amount of people complaining about being sick near farms. A member of my coalition had to relocate due to illness and they were just one mile and down wind of a farm.
Even organic farming can raise toxic dust to trigger asthma, because they use products that have secret inerts. EPA scientists believe the secret inerts cause the life threatening asthma attacks at less than one part per billion. Safer soap caused me to have black outs for days. However, we have to wait until the politicians decide to protect public health and create new laws. If you pass this Right To Harm ordinance you too will be guilty of violating the precautionary principle that you adopted.
Even organic natural farming products are not fully tested. While in Sacramento it was brought to the GWSS Environmental Task Force attention that there are possible links between the natural pesticide Rotenone and Parkinson's Disease. Organic farming is much preferred to the toxic strawberry farmer hanging on to a banned carcinogenic respiratory ozone depleting poison that is destined to go away soon. However, Organic farming and organic gardening are two different things. A gardener doesn't use heavy equipment, spouting diesel and dust everywhere. A gardener isn't spraying acres of anything.
A recent study indicates that living near a California Farm results in a 40-120% increase chance of miscarriage.
As our county grows, we need expert planning by our County Board of Supervisors that allows for a two mile buffer agricultural zone for toxic chemical farmers. We need to correct and eliminate urban agriculture that is a nuisance. We need planning for future development and schools that will protect public health from the INDUSTRY of Agriculture. People living near farms should get a tax break because of being the acceptable risk for industry profits.
We need to stop the arrogance of Agriculture that have their own agency working for them to promote harming the public without risk for Nuisance law suits. Not one public health agency was asked to do an investigation. The Agriculture department that never monitors is taken at word as knowing the exposure levels were safe.
As a member of the task force I observed the government waste first hand. We saw in Glassy Winged Sharp Shooter, that there was no emergency that would meet California Environmental Quality Act standards, there was a bumper crop in Temecula County the season of the so called devastation. Pierce's disease has been around over 100 years, again violates the definition of emergency. The Glassy Winged Sharp Shooter was not the only carrier of the disease that affects the wine industry. Again demonstrating that money was being wasted when the native insects transmit the disease. The greed and misleading statements is typical of government agencies, Department of Agriculture, and the farmers.
In that program we spent 50 million to protect an industry that had no emergency, they had a bumper crop in the most devastated county, using pesticides on citizens yards that have not been fully tested. Cheap inexpensive natural Clay dust was found to deter the GWSS pest, but do we want to be exposed to clay dust if we live next to a farm? Clay dust has silica and can cause a lung condition. The only solution is buffer zones, and warnings for anyone buying a property within two miles of a farm.
SLO County needs to ELIMINATE The ENTIRE Right to Farm Ordinance, because it is the Right to Harm and takes away the civil rights of residents. Please create Buffer Zones for All Agriculture, with the greatest distance for toxic chemical users. Please implement the Precautionary Principle (adopted by the SLO County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 2, 2001) regarding this ordinance and protect the people from all exposures to farm hazards until the farming products AND farming methods are completely tested and reasonably proven to protect public health including the sick people.
Under the Precautionary Principle, If any agency states that they protect public health ask them to prove it. Ask them to produce the scientific studies testing the full product (including those often more toxic secret inerts) that proves it. No government agency can produce any scientific evidence that these pesticides and other farming practices are safe for anyone especially sick people and children with asthma. To put it simply often 95% of the product is not tested. Public Health officials need to come under the line of fire for determining that pesticides are safe and having my Foundation testing their beliefs with real exposure tests and before and after medical tests.
Ask public health what is the safe air exposure level of toxic dust for a child with asthma. They won't have a exposure level. The EPA states they believe less than one part per billion can affect health. Ask them for the study that the full product is safe for baby mice with asthma, or FSL sensitive rats, or rats with cancer, or mice with Parkinson's Disease. They can't produce any studies, the government doesn't require full product testing, nor to they require testing to protect sick people. We are living with Junk Science promoted by politicians and industry scientists, not independent real scientists. The Precautionary Principle demands that people be protected and not required to prove harm. The burden should be on the manufacturer to prove safety. So let's start scrutinizing all the scientific studies used to test a product.
Please continue your vision and protect the people from poisons. Great news! Now the State and the Federal government will provide pesticide free areas for disabled people. What will our county do? Will they still be disposable people forced to move from their homes and subjected to toxic poisons? Canaries coalition supported this effort and was there when it was adopted. I serve as a volunteer for the California Building Standards Commission. If the state recognizes that some disabled people need pesticide free zones (zero exposure), many of these disabled were poisoned from legally used pesticides and now chemically intolerant, (EPA Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning) then what will our county do?
ANSI adopted the Cleaner Air Symbol 12/12/01 CBSC adopted the Cleaner Air Symbol and language 11/28/01 http://users.lmi.net/wilworks/events/clnerair.htm
I will also add other research to hopefully inspire you to protect public environmental health.
Forward From: "David Walling" <dwallinga@iatp.org> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:37:47 -0500 Subject: Chemical Exposure & Parkinson's: Regulation May Have to Change
Dear Colleagues:
Attached is are excerpts from a Chemical & Engineering News article summarizing important recent research and a Neurotoxicology conference linking Parkinson's to chemical exposures, especially pesticides -- particularly early-in-life exposures.
http://pubs.acs.org/email/cen/html/091801045059.html
--David Walling, M.D.
Excerpt: "ESSENTIALLY three lines of evidence have led researchers to believe that chemical exposures, particularly to pesticides, play a role in some cases of Parkinson's. One is that people who live in farming areas, especially those who drink well water, and have a history of exposure to pesticides are more likely to contract Parkinson's. Another is that several studies have shown that those who die of Parkinson's disease have higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their brains than the general population. A third is that in the early 1980s, a group of young people developed Parkinson's symptoms after taking an illegal drug called MPTP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine), whose structure is similar to meperidine, trade named Demerol. The structure of its metabolite MPP+ is also similar to the pesticide paraquat."
-----------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENT September 17, 2001 Volume 79, Number 38 CENEAR 79 38 pp. 35-37 ISSN 0009-2347
THE ENVIRONMENT AND PARKINSON'S If exposure to chemicals causes this dread disease, regulators may have to alter approaches to neurotoxicity testing and risk assessment
BETTE HILEMAN,C&EN WASHINGTON
The number of people with Parkinson's disease in the U.S. will surely rise as the population ages. Already, more than a million people, about 1% of the population over age 60, live with the disease. Despite years of effort, neither definitive causes of the disease nor effective long-term treatments have been found. Research efforts are increasing, however, and work on the combination of inheritance, age, and environmental exposures implicated in Parkinson's is starting to come together for a clearer picture--one that might ultimately alter regulations of some chemicals.
A conference held late last month in Colorado Springs made it clear that such research into causes and treatments for Parkinson's disease has reached an exciting stage of development. "A new optimism that Parkinson's can be defeated is energizing the research community," said meeting organizer Joan M. Cranmer of the department of pediatrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS).
The meeting was sponsored by UAMS with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), the Parkinson's Institute, and several other foundations and corporations. It brought together scientists from a wide variety of disciplines--toxicologists, chemists, neurologists, geneticists, epidemiologists, and clinicians.
PARKINSON'S DISEASE is a progressive, incurable ailment, and the second most common neurodegenerative disorder in the U.S. It begins when a class of brain cells that produce dopamine start to die. Symptoms become apparent only after 60 to 80% of the cells are dead. The disease is characterized by resting tremor, rigidity, slow movement, postural instability, and progressively involuntary writhing movements, paralysis, and an inability to talk or even swallow. Dopamine is a chemical messenger that helps control muscles. Although the medication levodopa--a dopamine precursor--relieves many Parkinson's symptoms, its effectiveness declines as the disease progresses.
Speakers explained that many scientific pieces of the Parkinson's puzzle have been identified. "But assembling the elements into a coherent theory of the cause of Parkinson's disease still remains a major challenge," said J. William Langston, scientific director and founder of the Parkinson's Institute.
NIEHS Director Kenneth Olden announced at the meeting an NIEHS initiative that may accelerate progress in the field--a Consortium Centers Program. It will provide a formal mechanism for interactions between clinicians, basic research scientists, and patient advocates. It will seek to identify and support novel approaches and research ventures that might not otherwise be pursued by scientists working in isolation, he said.
Only about 10% of Parkinson's cases are familial--that is, clearly caused by genes. The remainder result from unknown factors such as insults from the environment or some interaction between genetic susceptibility and the environment. "Parkinson's disease appears to arise from the interaction of three events--the patients' inherited genetic susceptibility, their subsequent environmental exposures, and their age," Olden said at the meeting.
WHATEVER THE CAUSE, Parkinson's is found in every country and very little is known about incidence patterns over time, said Caroline M. Tanner, director of clinical research at the Parkinson's Institute.
In addition to Parkinson's disease, there is a condition called Parkinsonism that resembles Parkinson's. Parkinsonism is sometimes caused by exposure to manganese, carbon monoxide, or other toxicants and, unlike Parkinson's, is often reversible, Tanner said.
Several speakers at the meeting pointed out that regulators may need to alter their approaches to neurotoxicity testing and risk assessment because of evidence that some kinds of chemical exposures in the womb, during early childhood, or later may increase susceptibility to Parkinson's in old age. Under current government guidelines for two-generation assays, lab rodents are sacrificed at 60 days, long before susceptibilities induced in early life could result in the types of illnesses that might show up during the equivalent of a rodent's old age--1.5 to 2 years.
"Relatively little research has focused on adult or aging animals which may be differentially sensitive to toxicants due to a history of prior exposure," said Virginia C. Moser, toxicologist at the EPA National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, N.C. Research on rodents during old age is critical to understanding the potential influences of exposures in early life, she said.
ESSENTIALLY three lines of evidence have led researchers to believe that chemical exposures, particularly to pesticides, play a role in some cases of Parkinson's. One is that people who live in farming areas, especially those who drink well water, and have a history of exposure to pesticides are more likely to contract Parkinson's. Another is that several studies have shown that those who die of Parkinson's disease have higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their brains than the general population. A third is that in the early 1980s, a group of young people developed Parkinson's symptoms after taking an illegal drug called MPTP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine), whose structure is similar to meperidine, trade named Demerol. The structure of its metabolite MPP+ is also similar to the pesticide paraquat........
Article continues.
Hope this helps in your landmark decision of whether to protect the people, or let them be harmed taking away their right to sue for nuisance. Here's more information
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:35 PM To: Paul Helliker Subject: PESTICIDES: California court OKs lawsuits over bug sprays
Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read a Greenwire dated 8/15/01, entitled:
PESTICIDES: California court OKs lawsuits over bug sprays
Pesticide companies can be sued for producing and selling commercial bug sprays approved by the U.S. EPA when they are alleged to sicken children, a California Court of Appeals panel in Los Angeles ruled yesterday.
The court rejected arguments by Dow Chemical and other pesticide manufacturers that EPA's approval of the products for home use precluded damage suits under state law. EPA-approved warning labels could not be challenged, the court said, but a jury should still be allowed to decide whether a product's risks to human health outweigh its benefits. The suit against the pesticide manufacturers was brought by a family that alleges bug sprays caused brain damage to their unborn child and sickened their baby daughter.
"We believe that the burden of the cost of serious injury actually caused by pesticides should ... be borne by the pesticide manufacturers and distributors rather than the innocent consumers," wrote Justice Michael Nott. But he noted that the family had not yet proven that pesticides caused the childrens' illnesses, however.
The plaintiffs said their childrens' health problems were the result of several sprayings of Dursban, Dragnet and Baygon by a pest control company in 1997 to get rid of an infestation of ants around their home. EPA has since withdrawn its approval of Dursban for home and school use (Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15).
Well Mr. Helliker, as we both are well aware you do not "approve" pesticide POISONS, you only "register" them. I read with great interest that pesticide companies can now be sued when your "registered" POISONS are alleged to sicken children. I am not a lawyer but, I believe that if you make it "illegal" for me to use any safe and far more effective alternatives to control pest problems and demand that as a professional applicator I have no choice but to only use your "registered" POISONS to kill bugs - and your policy "allegedly" and/or actually kills and/or sickens some children - you should be personally held responsible. Your policies have made it "illegal" for any pest conrtrol company to use any unregistered alternatives - you have also made it mandatory that these professionals have no other choice than to continue to only use your "registered" POISONS to "control" pest problems. You may wish to seek legal advise.
Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
General Meeting information.
http://www.co.slo.ca.us/Board_of_Supervisors_Inter.nsf/Admin.htm?OpenPage&ch
arset=windows-1252
Administrative Information for the Board of Supervisors
OFFICE HOURS
Monday - Friday
8:00 am - 5:00 pm
LOCATION
Room 370
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
CONTACT NUMBERS and EMAIL ADDRESS
General Information
(805) 781-5450
.
Fax
(805) 781-1350
.
Questions regarding an agenda item
County Administrative Office
(805) 781-5011
.
Questions regarding action taken by the Board
Clerk of the Board
(805) 781-5245
.
Board of Supervisors E-mail Address
tarritt@co.slo.ca.us
USER INFORMATION
The Board of Supervisors meetings are held most Tuesdays beginning at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Board Chambers located at 1050 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo. Specific meeting dates can be found on the Board of Supervisors Calendar page.
Note: I heard that this agenda item was at 9 am. Sandra below reports 2pm, please call and check if you plan to speak publicly at the meeting.
Coalition members, remember that pesticides are not proven safe for anyone, because the full product is not tested. The 100 fold protection is on the active ingredient not on the full product. The life-threatening asthma attacks are believed by the EPA to occur due to chemicals in the inerts at levels of less than one part per billion. Where's the scientific study of the full product that proves it won't affect children with asthma? Did they do studies on baby mice with asthma? No.
The EPA and California have no scientific evidence of >protection for anyone not in perfect health, so State of CA safety margins >are fantasy safety standards where beliefs are quite inflated. It >quite amazes me that the people have to go to the extent of >injunctions to do the job of the Agriculture Commissioner insure >that pesticides are used properly. Again, they have no way of >knowing if this action of an extra 5 days under plastic will really >be protective. Where's the study to prove safety? If the exposure at >the schools is too high, what about the farm worker? How can they be >safe? I believe farmers will find it increasingly difficult to use >pesticide products near homes and schools as the public becomes >armed with pesticide testing equipment and portable medical testing >equipment like spirometers which measure pulmonary function >Children with asthma are just one of the many health conditions >disposable for industry profits. Chemicals are innocent until proven >guilty. The burden of proof of harm is unfairly on the people. > >
Linda J. McElver >Canaries Foundation, Inc. >(805) 547-1568 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Tvedten [mailto:steve@getipm.com] >Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 6:59 PM >To: Paul Helliker >Subject: Growers' use of pesticide limited around schools.................. > >Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read an article >entitled: Growers' use of pesticide limited around schools - >Monterey County judge rules children's health is more important than >strawberry crops By Ken McLaughlin - SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS. > >SANTA CRUZ -- Amid warnings from agricultural officials that his >ruling could drive some strawberry growers out of business, a >Monterey County judge Friday issued an apparently unprecedented >order limiting the amount of spraying of the pesticide methyl >bromide near two schools. > >Judge Robert O'Farrell, the presiding judge of Monterey County >Superior Court, said he issued the temporary restraining order to >protect children at Pajaro Middle School and La Joya School in >Salinas from potentially harmful exposure to the toxic chemical. > >"Effectively you would put strawberry growers out of business," >county Agricultural Commissioner Eric Lauritzen told the judge at a >hearing Thursday. "They would not plant." >The judge conceded his actions could hurt some growers in an >industry that last year grossed $227 million in Monterey County, but >added: "Before we had methyl bromide, we had strawberries." (Before >you had any "registered" POISONS, you had strawberries!) > >He set an Oct. 3 hearing to consider whether to issue a preliminary >injunction in the case. If that injunction is granted, California >Rural Legal Assistance will seek a permanent order restricting the >spraying near schools. > >O'Farrell issued Friday's order in response to an Aug. 23 brief >filed by attorneys for CRLA on behalf of Sergio Carrillo, a man who >lives near the Pajaro school. The suit was filed against the state >Department of Pesticide Regulation and county Agricultural >Commissioner's Office. > >The judge's order requires the department and the commissioner's >office to "take immediate proactive measures to assure that the >atmospheric concentrations" of the fumigant at the schools do not >exceed state guidelines of one part per billion. > >In addition, within 1,000 feet of both schools, the plastic used to >cover the fields after the pesticide application must remain >securely in place for 10 days rather than five days. > >"This is a very positive step to protect the health of young, >developing children," said an elated Mike Meuter, the lead attorney >in the case. Both he and Lauritzen said it was the first case they >knew of in which a judge had placed such strict limits on the use of >methyl bromide around >specific sites. > >Lauritzen said Friday he had major concerns about how the monitoring >will be done, particularly since state regulations call for >measuring methyl bromide levels over an eight-week period, not at >one point in time. "I really don't know what we'll do," said >Lauritzen, expressing concern >that local growers will be put at a competitive disadvantage. > >The lawsuit argued that state and county officials had failed in >their statutory duty to protect people living near the schools after >air quality tests near both schools picked up concentrations of the >fumigant that exceeded state guidelines. > >"A public health train wreck is imminent again this year," attorneys >Meuter and Cynthia Rice wrote in their brief. > >At Thursday's hearing in Monterey, lawyers representing pesticide >companies, growers, Monterey County and the state attorney's >general's office argued that the levels of methyl bromide being used >were safe even though they exceeded state guidelines. (Even though >it is against the federal law to say even the labeled use of any of >your "registered" POISONS is "safe"!) > >Methyl bromide is an odorless gas injected into the soil to >sterilize it and kill weeds, fungus and insects. Used widely in the >strawberry-rich Salinas and Pajaro valleys, the pesticide has been >linked to birth defects and neurological damage. The substance has >caused the deaths of >more than a dozen burglars and transients who entered houses sprayed >with methyl bromide to kill termites. > >Starting in 2006, the federal government will ban the use of the >substance because it has been shown to break down the earth's ozone >layer. Farmers have been scurrying for alternative fumigants and >continue to argue that it could devastate agribusiness. > >During the months of September, October and November of 2000, the >state Department of Pesticide Regulation carried out air quality >tests at six schools in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. They found >the highest concentrations of the chemical -- 7.7 parts per billion >-- near the >Pajaro school. Levels of 3.8 parts per billion were measured near La >Joya School. > >The state's "target" threshold is an average of 1 part per billion >exposure for children over an eight-week period, and 2 parts per >billion for adults. But attorneys for the state argued that the >threshold includes a 100-fold safety margin, so that the levels of >the fumigant measured at the two schools didn't represent an >imminent health threat. > >But O'Farrell said: "Right now school is in session and we have high >readings. ...We're talking about children. > >Well Mr. Helliker, Isn't this job, to protect the children under >your jurisdiction? I believe you will see more and more lawsuits >that will argue that state and county "regulatory" officials have >continually failed in their statutory duty to protect people rather >than POISON "industry" profits! When will it be "legal" (in your >opinion) to use safe and far more effective (unregistered) >alternatives to control pest problems? > >Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
Here is one study that will help convince you that pesticides are not safe. Another study I will try to find demonstrates that indoor pesticide levels can be toxic to children living near a farm from the farm chemicals. It was included in my research when I served as the non governmental public health representative for the GWSS Task Force. This presentation resulted in the tarping of the lawns to avoid kids and pets tracking in the pesticides applied by the Glassy Winged program.
We need this type of study to determine the real risks, and it should not be conducted by the Agriculture Department, that tells people to leave their homes and fails to investigate properly illness complaints.
Herbicide Found in Air and Surfaces in Homes > http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/109p1185-1191nishioka/abstract.html > > > Articles > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109, Number 11, November 2001 > > Distribution of 2,4-D in Air and on Surfaces inside Residences after Lawn > Applications: Comparing Exposure Estimates from Various Media for Young > Children > > Marcia G. Nishioka,1 Robert G. Lewis,2 Marielle C. Brinkman,1 Hazel M. > Burkholder,1 Charles E. Hines,1 and John R. Menkedick1 > > 1Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, USA; 2National Exposure > Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle > Park, North Carolina, USA > > > Abstract > We collected indoor air, surface wipes (floors, table tops, and window > sills), and floor dust samples at multiple locations within 11 occupied and > two unoccupied homes both before and after lawn application of the herbicide > 2,4-D. We measured residues 1 week before and after application. We used > collected samples to determine transport routes of 2,4-D from the lawn into > the homes, its subsequent distribution between the indoor surfaces, and air > concentration as a function of airborne particle size. We used residue > measurements to estimate potential exposures within these homes. After lawn > application, 2,4-D was detected in indoor air and on all surfaces throughout > all homes. Track-in by an active dog and by the homeowner applicator were > the most significant factors for intrusion. Resuspension of floor dust was > the major source of 2,4-D in indoor air, with highest levels of 2,4-D found > in the particle size range of 2.5-10 µm. Resuspended floor dust was also a > major source of 2,4-D on tables and window sills. Estimated postapplication > indoor exposure levels for young children from nondietary ingestion may be > 1-10 µg/day from contact with floors, and 0.2-30 µg/day from contact with > table tops. These are estimated to be about 10 times higher than the > preapplication exposures. By comparison, dietary ingestion of 2,4-D is > approximately 1.3 µg/day. Key words: 2,4-D, indoor air, particle size, > pesticide exposure, pesticide transport, residential exposure. Environ > Health Perspect 109:1185-1191 (2001). [Online 6 November 2001] > > http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/109p1185-1191nishioka/abstract.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Address correspondence to M.G. Nishioka, Battelle Memorial Institute, 505 > King Avenue, Columbus, OH 43201-2693 USA. Telephone: (614) 424-4964. Fax: > (614) 424-3638. E-mail: nishiomg@battelle.org > > We acknowledge the participation of families in the Columbus area and > consultation with R. Burton of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency > (U.S. EPA) on particle size sampling. > > The U.S. EPA, through its Office of Research and Development, funded and > collaborated in the research described here under Cooperative Agreement > CR-822082. It has been subjected to agency review and has been approved for > publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not > constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. > > Received 24 April 2000; accepted 13 April 2001. > > Last Updated: November 6, 2001
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:35 PM To: Paul Helliker Subject: PESTICIDES: California court OKs lawsuits over bug sprays
Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read a Greenwire dated 8/15/01, entitled:
PESTICIDES: California court OKs lawsuits over bug sprays
Pesticide companies can be sued for producing and selling commercial bug sprays approved by the U.S. EPA when they are alleged to sicken children, a California Court of Appeals panel in Los Angeles ruled yesterday.
The court rejected arguments by Dow Chemical and other pesticide manufacturers that EPA's approval of the products for home use precluded damage suits under state law. EPA-approved warning labels could not be challenged, the court said, but a jury should still be allowed to decide whether a product's risks to human health outweigh its benefits. The suit against the pesticide manufacturers was brought by a family that alleges bug sprays caused brain damage to their unborn child and sickened their baby daughter.
"We believe that the burden of the cost of serious injury actually caused by pesticides should ... be borne by the pesticide manufacturers and distributors rather than the innocent consumers," wrote Justice Michael Nott. But he noted that the family had not yet proven that pesticides caused the childrens' illnesses, however.
The plaintiffs said their childrens' health problems were the result of several sprayings of Dursban, Dragnet and Baygon by a pest control company in 1997 to get rid of an infestation of ants around their home. EPA has since withdrawn its approval of Dursban for home and school use (Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 15).
Well Mr. Helliker, as we both are well aware you do not "approve" pesticide POISONS, you only "register" them. I read with great interest that pesticide companies can now be sued when your "registered" POISONS are alleged to sicken children. I am not a lawyer but, I believe that if you make it "illegal" for me to use any safe and far more effective alternatives to control pest problems and demand that as a professional applicator I have no choice but to only use your "registered" POISONS to kill bugs - and your policy "allegedly" and/or actually kills and/or sickens some children - you should be personally held responsible. Your policies have made it "illegal" for any pest conrtrol company to use any unregistered alternatives - you have also made it mandatory that these professionals have no other choice than to continue to only use your "registered" POISONS to "control" pest problems. You may wish to seek legal advise.
Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
An interesting pattern, Pesticides are registered and not fully tested then removed from the market when they make too many people ill. EPA says Dursban (Lorsban commonly used still by farmers who farm right next to schools) can cause the disabling condition chemical intolerances, asthma and other neurological conditions. We'll see tommorrow who you wish to protect, the children and sick adults or the strawberry farmer and burden society with more disabled sick and dying people. It surprises me that you only have the Department of Agriculture involved.
Re: Caddyshack army gophers I will give the county a cd e book about alternatives to toxic pest control for the Army to borrow to solve their pest problesm. Please keep it at the county as a resource for whenever any agency needs to find alternatives. Canaries appreciates the effort to research for alternatives, but solutions are already in print. If anyone wishes to purchase additional copies, my foundation will be given a donation for any order through my office. They are $58.00 including taxes and shipping. I would appreciate being able to earn needed funds back. Gophers are easy, have a BBQ. More at the meeting tommorow. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need more help finding alternatives to anything that is toxic.
Sincerely,
Linda J. McElver President Canaries Foundation PO Box 3253 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Advocating for the needs of the chemically sensitive and acceptable risk populations becauswe people can be as fragile as the canary in the coal mine.
Volunteer of the California Building Standards Commission Non - Governmental Public Health Representative of the Glassy Winged Environmental Task Force
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.