Another Plea For Sanity (Less POISON)
Click
Here to Add Comment Subject:
Another Plea For Sanity (Less POISON)
Date:
Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:37:35 -0500
From:
Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide
Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
To:
Dr David Kemp
Minister for Environment and Heritage and
Dr Peter Poggioli
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: 02 6277 7640
www.ea.gov.au
Dear Sirs,
I have received the letter relating to community concerns about repeated
aerial spraying of pesticides over our communities and the widespread and
indiscriminate use of 1080 to kill our wildlife.
Certainly most Tasmanians are now aware of the list of platitudes sent to them by Federal and State Ministers with respect to the 'regulatory' environment relating to the use of chemicals.
The legislation states that pesticides must not be used in a way that leads to the contamination of water bodies or the endangerment of people. Yet that is precisely what is happening. I advise you to get informed (as a matter of URGENCY) on this situation.
Details of the ongoing history of drinking water contamination by pesticides in Tasmania can be found at: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/TasCleanWaterNetwork
Please respond to this email and let me know the following:
What is going to be done to ensure that our drinking water will stop being contaminated [The report entitled 'Pesticide Use in Australia' released earlier this year (see reference to it at the TasCleanWaterNetwork site) has advised that there has been a massive increase in the use of pesticides in Australia over recent years AND that of 29 streams tested 20 were found to be contaminated with pesticides in Tasmania. What has your Department done to reign in the blatant abuse?]
DPIWE (Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry, Water and the Environment) state clearly that- whilst they allow a free-for-all aerial spraying program over rural communities each year- they don't have the financial resources to test after every spraying regime (nor even after every 10th application);
The DPIWE have advised, on occasions when aerial spraying is occurring over my community, that they do not know WHO is spraying nor WHAT is being sprayed. How can the use of pesticides be considered as 'regulated' under such conditions?
The DPIWE have an inherent conflict-of-interest in water sampling and testing as do the forest and agricultural corporations because they both promote the application of pesticides and are supposedly regulating their use. Why should the Tasmanian public accept this situation?
The DPIWE also lack the resources to ensure that dead carcasses killed by 1080 are removed offsite. How will the Federal Government address this problem?
The so-called 'acceptable levels' of pesticide contamination in Australia are many times above that found in other countries. Why are these levels considered 'acceptable'? How can the NRA be seen to be ensuring the health of the Australian public when they don't even justify these excessive contaminant levels?
The NRA has failed to do a review of glyphosate (ie not Roundup, and not the surfactants in Roundup) since I requested it in 1997. How can you dare to claim that the NRA reviews are 'current' in any sense of the word?
I look forward to hearing from you soon as these issues are URGENT.
Yours faithfully
Brenda J Rosser
Spokesperson, Waratah Wynyard Residents Against Chemical Trespass
Member of the Tas Clean Water Network
8 Plumer Street
Mowbray Tasmania 7248
Phone: 03 63264089
Email:
shelter@tassie.net.au
OFFICE OF THE MINISTER ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE
24th October 2002
Dear Ms Rosser
Your emailed correspondence of 4 July, addressed to the Treasurer, the Hon
Peter Costello, has been referred to the Minister for Environment and
Heritage, the Hon. Dr David Kemp MP, as the matters you raise fall within his
portfolio. Dr Kemp has asked me to reply on his behalf.
Your correspondence suggests that your concerns relate primarily to the use of chemicals and poison baits in forest plantation establishment and re-planting operations. I understand that Tasmanian Codes of Practice guide the use of all poisons in the State. Specifically in relation to poison baits, I understand they are used where it is necessary to reduce browsing animals in the very early stages of plantation establishment, and that it is done under controlled conditions strictly regulated by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. I am also informed that Tasmania is undertaking research into alternative methods to control browsing.
The Commonwealth is aware of increasing public concerns over accidental poisoning of non-target animals through the use of 1080 in particular. Under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 (Agvet Code) and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992, the National Registration Authority (NRA) conducts comprehensive reviews of registered agricultural and veterinary chemicals to ensure that those chemicals meet current standards of registration and do not pose unacceptable risks to people, the environment or trade. In this context, the NRA announced a review of 1080 in late 2001. Pending completion of the NRA's review, the use of 1080 continues uder strict controls and guidelines.
Thank you for expressing your concern and interest in these important issues.
Yours sincerely
Dr Peter Poggioli
Chief of Staff
www.ea.gov.au
Well Mr. Helliker, It seems to me, that the "regulatory" herd, within which the sacred body of science and knowledge supposedly rests, contains like-minded colleagues who huddle close to and comfort each other with their conception of "truth". Mavericks who wander too far off the beaten track are exiled and branded heretics or environMENTALISTS.........
Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.