Dear Mr. Crop-Duster:
I
stopped using "registered", volatile pesticide POISONS
only after my Uncle died, my son died and I almost died.
Today I still have MCS, or what you want to call my "own
psycosomatic symptoms". It took all of that
personal loss for God to get my attention! Today I have achieved
far better and safer pest control than I ever did using any/all of
your "registered" POISONS!
This great country of ours, fed
people long before we had you or any of your
"registered" POISONS to "protect" us, and this
great country of ours will continue to feed people when you and all
these POISONS are gone, banned and/or "volutarily"
withdrawn. If you will try to impartially look
around you, you will find that virtually all of the one time
"registered" pesticide POISONS e.g. cyclodiene
chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates and carbamates are all
basically gone. All that is basically left are the
pyrethroids. (See below.)
Cockroach Resistance - Dr. Gary Bennett and Mike
Scharf from Purdue’s Department of Entomology produced a table
of cockroach resistance to major classes of insecticide poisons
which appeared in the July 1995 issue of Pest Control
magazine:
INSECTICIDE CLASS
|
DECADE OF INTRODUCTION
|
YEAR OF FIRST
REPORTED RESISTANCE
|
|
|
|
chlorinated cyclodienes
|
1940’s
|
1953
|
DDT
|
1940’s
|
1959
|
natural pyrethrins
|
1940’s
|
1956
|
organophosphate
|
1950’s
|
1965
|
carbamate
|
1960’s
|
1976
|
pyrethroid
|
1970’s |
1988
|
bait active ingredients: abermectin,
hydramethylon and sulfuramid
|
1980’s
|
1992-95
|
They then clearly noted "only after you have implemented
non-chemical control strategies should you move ahead with the
chemical control portion of a resistance IPM program. As we (Dr.
Bennett and Mr. Scharf) stated earlier, a potential exists for
resistance to any product (poison) on the market today.." In
the 1990's, the newspapers reported that the U. S. House of
Representatives has a strain of cockroaches resistant to most
forms of chemical attack. (Over half of the other pest
species are already pesticide resistant.)
I wholeheartedly agree with this article; volatile, synthetic
pesticide poisons quickly create resistant roach (or pest) species
that are virtually not controlled by any amount of more and more
synthetic poisons. People and pets obviously, live longer than the
average 3-month life cycle of a German cockroach and do not
quickly develop a similar resistance to these same volatile
poisons and therefore (whether you want to admit it or not) are
still poisoned/harmed by the application of even "minute
amounts" of these pesticide POISONS! Volatile, synthetic
chemical poisons do not know the difference between a cockroach
and a cocker spaniel and many volatile poisons actually repel
cockroaches so the roaches do not contact these "protective
products" (POISONS) and die. I have consistently
proven non-toxic, food-grade and/or GRAS alternatives control even
resisant pest species far more effectively. Use
common sense and not dangerous, volatile, synthetic pesticide
poisons.
Chemical or Poison Resistance - There can be
physiological and/or behavioral resistance developments noted in
pest populations. There are 3 methods commonly used for the
detection synthetic insecticide poison resistance in the German
cockroach. They are lethal dose, lethal concentration and lethal
time methods. The detection results can greatly vary depending on
the methodology chosen. Usually the lethal time or tarsal-contact
method or jar test results in the lowest resistance ratios and the
lethal dose method usually gives the highest ratios, e.g.,
chlorpyrifos (Milo etal. 1987.)
The lethal time (jar test) probably can not adequately detect
resistance in the field because the (trapped) insect can not leave
or avoid the bait (behavioral resistance) or show that it is
repelled by the poison. In addition it is possible to overwhelm
the resistance mechanism with excessive or high doses used to
overcome the physiological mechanisms or immunities to the
synthetic insecticide poison in the jar. It is well known that
repeated testing of the same strain of insects with the same
insecticide will also produce results that can vary considerably.
The Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella, Linneaus, has
evolved resistance to virtually all commercial insecticides,
including Bacillus thuringiensis. Field strains of German
cockroaches are capable of developing resistance to pyrethrins and
pyrethroids relatively quickly. Obviously, other insects
will also quickly develop resistance to all your volatile,
synthetic poisons (faster than people or pets) and by their very
nature, "registered" poisons are dangerous (read the
MSDS) to other species, so why use any "registered"
poisons, especially when there are so many safer
alternatives?
I am a patriot and I pray daily that God truly Blesses
America! One of us is certainly "refusing to see
reality and has no idea how to cope with reality".
I am not a reporter, I am a pest control professional. When
I was applying pesticide POISONS for a living, I was in denial
too! Obviously, if you are in the bu$INess of selling
"registered" pesticides, there is no way you can be very
objective. If you are seeking to find the safest, most
economical and most effective pest control, you will find many
safe and far more effective alternatives - if you will simply
look. If you do not look - nothing will change. If you
want to learn, we can talk. If you want to pretend that your
ongoing application of pesticide POISONS is your patriotic duty, and
your mind is already made up, why try to "confuse you
with any facts"? If you are so self-righteous that
you will not even try to look at safe pest control with an
impartial eye, you obviously will not listen to any of the
facts that I can clearly present. What I have come up with
that is new, is how to safely and far more effectively control
pest problems. Using about 2,300 non-toxic, food-grade
and/or GRAS alternatives, I have consistently gotten better pest
control than I ever was able to do using any/all of your volatile
"registered" POISONS. What is your point? Do
you want to justify what you do, or control pest problems the
safest way possible? You have a brain that is 200,000 times
larger than the pest - use it and you will win. Use
"registered" POISONS and you will lose! You do not
even know who I am, why I write and/or teach for free or anything
else about me; yet you have judged me before you had any facts -
talk about a kangaroo court! One of us is truly blind - I
know your "side" - but, you obviously do not know mine!
Sincerely, Stephen L. Tvedten
The response from the
crop-duster is not published here because of privacy issues.
The response contains
330 words. The
response suggested that good reporters do their homework, to get
the facts straight about organic farming and that Mr. Tvedten is
part of the growing conspiracy to neutralize our great nation by
keeping us from feeding ourselves.
To the Crop-Dusters:
Dear "Aerial Applicators of Crop Protection Products" I thought you all might like to read the
following two articles, the first is from The Miami Herald dated
October 10, 2001 by Donna E. Shalala and is entitled:
Healthy nation, strong nation
Prepare for crises and respond to daily public- health needs.
As Americans become increasingly concerned with our ability to
contend with an attack involving chemical or biological agents, as
the recent cases of anthrax show, we should consider the
implications of this scenario:
In a community, doctors notice an influx of patients complaining
of headaches, nausea and dizziness. First it's diagnosed as a flu
outbreak, but as patients deteriorate, doctors suspect something
else.
Patient symptoms are linked to exposure to a nerve-gas-type agent.
Alarmed officials consider evacuating thousands of residents.
Soon, public-health professionals enter the scene. They determine
who is most at risk, clearing the way for a targeted, rational
response that prioritizes treatment, calms fears, avoids broad
panic, saves millions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures and,
most important, saves lives.
This is a true story. It happened in Jackson County, Miss., in
1996. There, more than 1,000 people were exposed to a chemical
that had been illegally sprayed by pest exterminators.
What does this event tell us about America's ability to deal with
a chemical or biological assault? That our public-health and
medical professionals are in critical need of the training,
resources and communications networks that will allow them to
quickly detect and respond to chemical or biological threats to
public health.
The bad news from Jackson County is that doctors were slow to
recognize what was wrong with their patients while the initial
response from authorities leaned heavily toward a massive
evacuation that was not warranted. The good news is that no one
died. In addition, public-health advocates have been learning
lessons from this episode long before the Sept. 11 attacks and the
ensuing debate about our preparedness for chemical or biological
terror.
This analysis also has been a broader probing of the gaps in our
public-health infrastructure that impede our ability to respond to
perilous health events. These include exposures to hazardous
toxins, whether introduced by terrorists or by a sloppy
exterminator, and the sudden spread of a potentially lethal
infectious disease, be it through the malicious release of
genetically modified smallpox by a rogue state, or a spontaneous
eruption of dengue fever.
Once loosed upon the population, any exposure or outbreak becomes
a public-health event. Even if the specter of chemical and
biological terrorism did not loom large, our growing knowledge
about the relationship between environmental exposures and human
health justifies the action that the federal government is
contemplating in the name of national security.
In a report released last year, the Pew Environmental Health
Commission said that the situation in Jackson County demonstrates
the need for a much-improved national public-health network. It
notes that communication and information flow among medical and
public-health professionals at local, state and national levels
need to become matters of routine, rather than ad hoc interactions
that occur only in a crisis.
National health experts have long agreed that America needs to
strengthen its public-health defenses. Rising to the challenges of
our time requires smart investments in an infrastructure that
enables hospitals, public-health laboratories, medical
professionals and public-health experts to constantly monitor our
exposures to toxins and infections and that trains them how to
respond in concert when threats emerge.
Investing in this infrastructure would help us prepare for a
crisis and respond to public-health needs that have been neglected
for far too long. We possess the know-how and plans to bolster our
defenses. The only thing lacking has been the political will to
act.
That appears to have changed. The renewed focus on public health
since Sept. 11 has all the makings of a sentinel event for our
public-health system. The important thing now is to take the
necessary actions to protect public health. Health security is as
basic a right of Americans as police and fire protection. And in
times of crisis such as this, it is clear to all that health
security is synonymous with national security.
Donna E. Shalala, president of the University of Miami, was
secretary for Health and Hu- man Services from
1993 to 2001.
© 2001 The Miami Herald and
wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miami.com/herald
I thought you might like to read a second article from The
Clarion-Ledger, dated June 25, 2001, entitled:
Aviation board faces criticism, turbulence
Accusations of bias, ineffectiveness threaten future
By James V. Walker, Clarion-Ledger Staff Writer.
The Agricultural Aviation Board of Mississippi consists of four
owners of agricultural aviation, or crop dusting companies, and
the head of the Mississippi Bureau of Plant Industry. Among other
things, it is empowered to issue penalties to pilots who dump
pesticides on people and houses.
The board has come under fire this month from both the federal
Environmental Protection Agency and the investigative arm of the
state Legislature for what has been described as ineffective and
inconsistent regulation.
In recent years, the board has slashed penalties by half or more
in some cases without giving a reason, and in at least one case,
allowed a board member to recommend a penalty for his own company
when his son was the pilot in the complaint.
JoAnna Johnson was an eighth-grader in 1997, practicing
cheerleading moves in her front yard when a plane spraying for
boll weevils passed over her house, dousing her with pesticide.
She and a friend who was nearby spent the next 24 hours in the
local hospital pale, sweating and with stomach cramps, she said.
Since the incident, JoAnna, now 17, has had severe migraines,
although doctors can't say for certain the two are connected.
When the Agricultural Aviation Board reviewed the case in April
1997, it issued a fine of $125. The same day, the board issued
three fines totaling $7,000 to another pilot who contaminated a
catfish pond.
"Does that mean these kids are
worth (about) $60 each?" said Sandra Johnson, JoAnna's mother.
The pilot who sprayed JoAnna and her friend worked for Boyle Flying
Service, owned by Bern Prewitt. Prewitt, then a member of the
Agricultural Aviation Board, has since become its chairman.
Prewitt said he did not cast a vote in the case.
"That's like the fox guarding the henhouse," Sandra
Johnson said. "There has to be a better way to regulate what's
going on with these folks."
But Prewitt argues that no one understands the technical details of
the industry better than the operators of the planes.
"We understand how our equipment operates and how to determine
when somebody is at fault," Prewitt said.
Inconsistent fines
The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly chastised the
board for handing down wildly inconsistent penalties that are too
low to discourage future carelessness.
"AAB correspondence to the respondent typically uses the term
'...after careful consideration...' In some of the drift cases
reviewed by EPA this statement would not apply," regulators
told the board in 1998.
In January 2000, EPA noted some of the problems with the board's
fines were caused by "simple arithmetic errors." In a
letter to then-Bureau of Plant Industry head Robert McCarty, federal
regulators said that problem had been solved because "a
calculator is now being used to double check the math."
EPA is threatening to take away the board's authority to enforce
federal laws and a recent report to the Legislature recommends
disbanding the board when its charter comes up for renewal in 2004.
"I don't think they're going to stop until they have our head
on a post," said board member Rudy Holcomb. "We've done
everything EPA has asked us to do, and it seems like the harder we
try, the worse we get."
The board's penalties are not abnormally low compared to neighboring
states. The Louisiana Agriculture Department handed out two fines
last year for pesticide drift, both for $500. The fines levied in
Tennessee last year ranged from notices of warning to $750.
Last year, the Agricultural Aviation Board of Mississippi levied six
fines with an average fine of $947. The board also dismissed four
cases and issued one warning notice.
But critics say the fines are based more on politics and
self-interest than the best interests of the public.
The majority of states give authority over pesticide regulations to
their agriculture departments, an option the state Legislative
Committee for Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review
recommended to the Legislature.
"I disagree with that," Holcomb said. "I think we do
an adequate job of policing ourselves."
When a case arose last year involving Holcomb Aerial Service, owned
by board member Rudy Holcomb, he participated in the discussion and
voted on the penalty, even though the pilot was his own son.
In that case, 18 residents complained that Holcomb's son, Karl,
harmed their flower beds by dumping pesticide on them. Holcomb's
vote was averaged in with those of other board members, for a total
fine of $875, which Holcomb paid.
It is not known what penalty Holcomb recommended, since only the
final average penalty is kept on record, not the individual penalty
sheets filled out by each board member.
Holcomb said his casting a vote in the case was "an honest
mistake." He said he did not want to bias other board members
by recusing himself, which would make it obvious that the case
involved his company.
Complaints are generally investigated by the Bureau of Plant
Industry and then presented to the board for action with no names or
identifying information attached to eliminate the possibility of
bias.
Holcomb said he had arranged with the board's secretary to turn in
his penalty sheet but have it left out when she computed the final
average, but somehow it got averaged in anyway.
"When somebody dug around and found out about it, it became a
big deal," he said. "I screwed up, and I feel bad about
it."
Betty Petty, a community activist in Indianola, has said the board's
conflicts of interest have left them out of touch with the damage
being caused in many poor, black communities near the fields.
"A lot of the rules are being violated, and if everyone was
held accountable, we would not be having the problems we are
having," Petty said.
She has called for a complete halt to the spraying near residential
areas, which often lie only yards away from row crops in the Delta.
But almost any change would be an improvement, she said.
"I think there could be some positive change if EPA or whoever
steps in is accountable to the best interests of the
community," Petty said.
Fines slashed
Cases that come before the Agricultural Aviation Board of
Mississippi are rated on a penalty matrix, with five categories
being scored from one to four. The categories include human harm,
environmental harm and culpability. The total score on the matrix
determines a range for the penalty, a system designed to make
penalties more consistent.
But though the ratings go up to 20 and fines can range up to
$25,000, The highest fine issued in the past five years is $2,200.
Any case that scores a nine or higher out of 20 on the matrix has a
minimum penalty of $2,500.
In 1997, three cases against Leist Air Service with a total penalty
of $7,000 were reduced after the fact by almost 54 percent. A $650
fine for pesticide drift that led to a fish kill that same year was
later reduced to $300, with the following explanation given:
"it could not be determined if the fish were killed by the
material applied...or whether it was an act of God."
Another operator was fined $1,540, with the fine later reduced to
$500.
"EPA finds a reduction of this magnitude baseless and
arbitrary," a 1998 review stated.
Since then, the board has reduced or dismissed several other
penalties in what are called informal settlement conferences.
Prewitt said the ability to mitigate fines is important because,
since the cases are presented without knowledge of the parties
involved, the defendants must be allowed to present additional
evidence after the initial determination.
He added the amount of the fine issued is not the most important
part of the penalty. For operators who are continually cited,
insurance rates go up and eventually insurance carriers will drop
the companies, he said.
In another case, the EPA noted that gravity matrix values of 0, 2,
3, 0 and 1 were added by a board member for a total of 4, instead of
the correct total of 6.
Edwin Dyess, the head of the state Bureau of Plant Industry, is the
only member of the board who does not own a crop dusting company.
While he would not criticize the board's performance, he said he
often disagrees with the other members on fines for drifting
pesticide.
"My assessments are usually higher than theirs," Dyess
said.
When Gov. Ronnie Musgrove got a letter from EPA last week about the
agency's intent to remove the board's authority over federal
pesticide rules, he responded by asking DEQ Pollution Control
Director Phil Bass to look into the situation and report back.
"I hope the state will stand by us," Prewitt said.
Bass, in turn, says that whether or not the board continues to exist
in its current form, one goal of negotiations with EPA will be to
keep federal regulators from intervening in Mississippi the way they
did earlier in the decade to enforce the Clean Water Act.
One possibility would be to hand the board's duties over to the
Bureau of Plant Industry, he said. The bureau already regulates
hormone-included pesticides and those applied by land, and nearly
every other state delegates pesticide enforcement to their
agriculture department.
The report by the Legislature's Performance Evaluation and
Expenditure Review Committee issued June 11 offered similar advice.
Dyess said his agency could do the job by hiring one additional
person who would handle testing and licensing the pilots.
While Dyess said he wasn't interested in muscling into the board's
turf, he noted it wouldn't be much of a change since the bureau
already takes and investigates the complaints.
"We do all the work relative to that now, except issuing the
fines," he said.
The state has 90 days from May 31 to respond to EPA's ultimatum.
Musgrove can request a hearing or plan to meet with federal
regulators and devise a mutually agreeable solution. Bass said
officials will be using the 90-day window to work on a plan that
will keep enforcement on the state level.
The final settlement that is reached may be affected by whom
President Bush nominates to head EPA Region IV, which includes
Mississippi. The office is currently headed by Stan Meiburg, a
Clinton-era official. One of the candidates for the post is Jimmy
Palmer, former head of the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality.
Neither EPA officials nor members of the Agriculture Aviation Board
would speculate about how such an appointment might affect
negotiations.
"What needs to happen is a plan that will let EPA stay in
Atlanta and allow Mississippians to regulate Mississippi," Bass
said.
Source url: http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0106/25/m01.html
Well "Aerial Applicators of Crop Protection Products",
throughout my entire 35 year career as a pest control operator, I
have watched the "good old boys regulate" themselves.
No one from my own State ever inspected the many hundreds of
thousands of POISON applications my own company made.
Plumbers, electricians and carpenters have ALL of their work
inspected before people are allowed to come in contact with their
work - yet the the POISON applicator's work occasionally may be
"inspected" (long after) someone sickens and/or dies. I
would like to state that with attitudes like yours, we do not have
to worry about "terrorists" spraying us with dangerous
POISONS, you boys seem to have that area "covered", at
least in your area!
Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
|