Guest guest Posted February 17, 1999 Report Share Posted February 17, 1999 >the teacher told us to wash veggies and such >in water with a capful of bleach!! Gets rid of >the pesticides etc. ? I can't see this happening, because pesticides are " chemicals " - bleach kills " bacteria " on the produce (like ecoli) but I can't see it negating another chemical like pesticides. I don't even think something like radiation can " kill " a man made chemical. Does this make sense? ~~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 1999 Report Share Posted February 18, 1999 It DOES make sense ! I wasn't sure what it does (the bleach), if it helped OR hurt for that matter!! Love Sue DeMaio wrote: > > > >the teacher told us to wash veggies and such >in water with a capful of > bleach!! Gets rid of >the pesticides etc. ? > > I can't see this happening, because pesticides are " chemicals " - bleach > kills " bacteria " on the produce (like ecoli) but I can't see it negating > another chemical like pesticides. I don't even think something like > radiation can " kill " a man made chemical. Does this make sense? > > ~~ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ~~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 1999 Report Share Posted February 27, 1999 At 10:19 27.02.99 -0500, you wrote: > I found this interesting site on pesticides: > > http://www.foodnews.org/ Check this site out, it is an excelent info ! Go to this " supermarket " : http://www.foodnews.org/supermarket.html choose your foods you are usually bying , and you will get the list of pesticides that you are eating, and what kind of health problems are those pesticides connected to. Great site. I realy love this site. Dusan Stojkovic Norway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 1999 Report Share Posted February 27, 1999 At 10:19 27.02.99 -0500, you wrote: > I found this interesting site on pesticides: > > http://www.foodnews.org/ Check this site out, it is an excelent info ! Go to this " supermarket " : http://www.foodnews.org/supermarket.html choose your foods you are usually bying , and you will get the list of pesticides that you are eating, and what kind of health problems are those pesticides connected to. Great site. I realy love this site. Dusan Stojkovic Norway ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 1999 Report Share Posted August 11, 1999 >Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 17:01:24 -0500 >djimbe17@... >From: " G. McFadden " <nmcfadden@...> >Subject: Re: pesticides >In-Reply-<92af4406.24e34619@...> > >At 05:33 PM 08/11/1999 EDT, you wrote: From: DJIMBE17@... >> >>sorry about your misinformation about pesticides in cuba, >nancy, but it hasn't been used in over forty years. >====== >i must be older than you, because 40 years ago WAS during my >childhood. i am 47 years old.... nancy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 1999 Report Share Posted August 11, 1999 I really hope I do not sound too snotty asking this, but... Where do you think the pesticides went? Away? These things have scary long half lives and remain in the wild populations for decades. There is still DDT in wild populations at sufficient concentrations to do gestational damage. Before the revolution, cane was grown on plantations run by international corporations that did not care what sort of poison they dumped on the land. Also, if you think 50s cars polluted less than the current models, you are incorrect. They universally use leaded gasoline and cannot use anything else. They were never designed to minimize either gasoline evaporation or reduced lead and benzene and other polycarbon emissions. Even if they were, the likelihood of one's carburator, block, exhaust system, etc. being remotely intact and operating as designed after 50 yrs use of an engine designed to last at most 10 yrs is nil. In Florida, recently, they found dust identifiable as having come from Africa. There is no way to miss out on exposure. And I am sorry if it sounds wrong, but there is not the government infrastructure to test for or clean up the resulting mess from the 50 yrs before. The metal waste left in the soil from the revolution will get into the food chain and the water supply. Lead, mercury, etc. Very few poor nations, however noble or of good intent, have the science or the free cash to do everything in the cleanest way possible. Given the damage to the infrastructure, how will the factories scrub emissions? How will they isolate and store heavy metal wastes? No area on earth is immune to the systemic insult. My husband is the PWC. He was working 70-80 hr weeks as a school teacher when he fell ill and fretting he was not doing enough. Since his illness, I not only am the sole income, but also pick up about as much household work as your normal male 9-7er. He also ate and drank chemically altered stuff -- fast food and sodas, etc. Lots of sugar. He also visited the Reno/Tahoe area in 87. and 88. and 89. (His mom lives in Reno.) So. We don't know yet. The problem with (appropriately) complex explanations is that there is always someone ready to simplify the content away. So -- we are poisoning ourselves with chemicals and stress becomes you will get will if you think you will. Aren't you thinking you will yet? Why don't you let yourself get better. Doris Life is too complex to expect simple answers. --- " G. McFadden " <nmcfadden@...> wrote: > From: " G. McFadden " <nmcfadden@...> > > >Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 17:01:24 -0500 > >djimbe17@... > >From: " G. McFadden " > <nmcfadden@...> > >Subject: Re: pesticides > >In-Reply-<92af4406.24e34619@...> > > > >At 05:33 PM 08/11/1999 EDT, you wrote: From: > DJIMBE17@... > >> > >>sorry about your misinformation about pesticides > in cuba, > >nancy, but it hasn't been used in over forty years. > >====== > >i must be older than you, because 40 years ago WAS > during my > >childhood. i am 47 years old.... > > nancy > > --------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2000 Report Share Posted July 28, 2000 In a message dated 7/28/00 2:16:29 AM Central Daylight Time, egroups writes: << Anyway, the research I read suggested treating patients with a combination of serine and vitamin C, given orally, on a daily basis. They had remarkable results in these patients. Has anyone tried this remedy, methodically, >> I recently posted about CFS misdx'd as pesticide poisoning. The treatment was Vit C and choline. What is serine or choline? Are they OTC? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2001 Report Share Posted November 29, 2001 Pesticides The Debate Over Food Biotechnology: Is a Societal Consensus Achievable? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 3. Pesticides. The revolution in pesticide chemistry following World War II is probably the closest analogy to the biotechnology revolution. Pesticides transformed agriculture in a very short time, boosting yields and shoring up farm incomes.(60) The pesticide industry grew rapidly in the post-war era, as hundreds of new active ingredients and thousands of formulated products were invented and introduced to farmers.(61) Most pesticides were designed on a reductionist model: (1 chemical) x (1 pest species) = (1 problem solved). Which products succeeded and became economically indispensable to farmers and other pest managers was determined largely by the market-primarily by chemical company innovation and marketing, users' perceived needs, and prices. Pesticides are poisons, of course, and from the start their use has raised health and safety concerns, especially for farm workers and others who apply pesticides. Federal and state regulation of pesticide use began early in the industry's development.(62) From the start, regulation sought primarily to register uses of pesticides. That is, it was a system for authorizing beneficial applications of the technology.(63) Regulation also sought to make sure pesticides were used safely. But there was a strong belief, held by most pesticide industry scientists and built into early regulatory schemes, that pesticides, when used as intended, posed no significant risks to health or the environment. Residues in foods were judged to be too low to be health concerns. Gradually, evidence began to accrue that pesticides might pose greater risks than first assumed. Studies of the first generation of synthetic pesticides, organochlorines like DDT and dieldrin, showed that residues persisted in soils for decades. Some of these residues were volatile, and were dispersed globally. DDT was found to accumulate in wildlife food chains and to " biomagnify, " so that organisms high in food chains, such as raptorial birds, were exposed to dietary concentrations several orders of magnitude greater than residues in soil and water.(64) Research showed that DDT accumulation was associated with reproductive failure in fish-eating birds.(65) The public began to worry that what was happening to pelicans and eagles could be happening to humans as well. Carson's landmark book Silent Spring, published in 1962, pulled together the growing scientific evidence that pesticide use was causing unacceptable environmental damage, and ignited broad public opposition to pesticide use, or at least, misuse.(66) The pesticide industry went on the offensive, attacking Carson as an extremist and a bad scientist.(67) The debate quickly became polarized. But the early controversy affected the course of regulation and brought about changes in the industry. Regulatory laws were strengthened, and many organochlorine pesticides were banned by the EPA during the 1970s.(68) They were replaced by new generations of chemicals, first the carbamates and organophosphates, then the synthetic pyrethroids (among insecticides).(69) Chemists sought to avoid environmental persistence and toxicity to non-target organisms in developing new active ingredients. Some trade-offs were necessary; for example, the carbamates and organophosphates are less persistent, but also more acutely toxic to mammals than the old organochlorines generally were.(70) Research scientists inside and outside the pesticide industry continued to document new problems associated with pesticide use. As understanding of the complexities of crop/ pest ecology grew, the limitations of reductionist chemical control methods became more apparent. Pest populations gradually develop resistance to specific pesticides, making those chemicals less effective. Some pests (such as mosquito populations in California's Central Valley) have been found to be resistant to more than 20 different insecticides, and hundreds of pest species are resistant to at least one major pesticide.(71) Many insecticides also create secondary pest problems, by killing off the natural predators and parasites that ordinarily hold potential pest populations in check. Today, most economically important pest problems faced by farmers are secondary pests-i.e., problems created primarily by pesticide use.(72) Because of destabilizing effects on crop ecosystems, the enormous growth in pesticide use since World War II has not reduced losses to pests. In the 1940s, about 7 percent of the total harvest was lost to insect pests. Today, despite a 10-fold increase in pounds of pesticides used per acre, on average, insect losses have roughly doubled, to 13 percent. (73) Evidence has also mounted that residues in foods are not always below levels that should be public health concerns. Toxicology has grown more sophisticated over the years and today is concerned with effects on developmental, endocrine and immune processes far subtler than the kinds of effects typically studied a generation ago.(74,75) Most pesticides now in use have not been adequately tested for effects research scientists now consider to be part of the necessary safety screening. A landmark report from the National Research Council in 1993 concluded that the historical way legal limits were set for pesticides in foods did not adequately protect infants and children.(76) Based on concerns like these, a variety of public-health, environmental and consumer advocates had been lobbying for tighter regulation of pesticide use for many years.(77) In 1996, largely in response to the NAS/NRC study, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act, which greatly strengthens the EPA's mandate in regulating pesticide uses. The FQPA shifts the emphasis of pesticide regulation to public health protection, and explicitly requires EPA to make sure pesticide exposures are safe for infants and young children.(78) Under the new law, EPA has begun reviewing the safety of major pesticides, and has already banned some of the higher-risk uses of a few of the more toxic active ingredients.(79) However, chemicals that have become economically entrenched have been hard to regulate, historically. It has taken a long time to get them off the market, and the EPA has essentially had to build an ironclad case, chemical by chemical, that the risks are unacceptable, in order to force change. It's not clear yet whether or how much the FQPA has actually changed that historical pattern.(80) It also remains to be seen how far implementation of the FQPA will be taken by the Bush Administration. But the law has given new momentum to innovations in the industry, seeking specific, effective, lower-risk pesticides. Interest in Integrated Pest Management (IPM), in organic agriculture, and in strategies for transition away from the prevailing model of chemical-intensive pest management, has also been accelerating in the last few years.(81) What lessons can the biotechnology revolution draw from this history of pesticide use? Like my other two examples-fluoridation and nuclear power-the pesticide industry blossomed in the years just after World War II, but unlike the other two, the technology is thriving today. The industry has introduced generation after generation of new chemicals and lately, biologically-based products, gradually phasing out older and more hazardous chemicals. Innovation has been driven largely by need, both by pesticide resistance and by public and customer demand for reduced risks of unacceptable side effects. Whether pesticide regulation has been a success is more debatable. Both the industry and environmental advocates have been frustrated by the difficulty of reaching decisions on pesticide risk/benefit questions. Many controversies over specific chemicals have lasted for a decade or more, typically with use continuing while the science was debated. The number of specific uses banned has been relatively small; the number of problematic uses that need review and action is large, and the effort required to gather data and reach final defensible decisions in all those cases will be enormous.(82) Whatever else it is, pesticide regulation has been quite costly, and not very efficient.(83) And it has not persuaded the public, let alone environmental activists and many scientists who study adverse effects of pesticide use, that current pesticide uses are safe enough. Risk issues are still debated heatedly, although the debate is often more rational than it once was. A loose consensus may exist that pesticide risks today are far less than they once were, but still greater than they should be, and that all involved in pest management and pesticide regulation have yet to find the optimum balance between benefits and risks. There are some pitfalls in the history of pesticides that the biotechnology industry, if it is wise, will probably wish to avoid. The process with pesticides was essentially to let the market-driven by chemical companies' inventiveness and pesticide users perceptions of needs-determine what products would be developed, and which would be economically important (and thus potentially significant sources of external risk). Pre-market testing often did not adequately predict actual risks, and regulation was neither designed to nor able to keep off the market chemicals that would later be shown to have substantial risks to either health, agro-ecosystems, or both. For the most part, we have learned about the risks of pesticide use empirically-releasing chemicals in the environment and observing their adverse effects (if researchers happen to be looking for them). Once adverse effects have been documented, it has typically required years of intense disputes over scientific and economic issues to remove problem chemicals from the market. The difficulty of managing the documented risks of pesticides has bred widespread public dissatisfaction with the regulatory system, and subtler distrust of the technology in general. Some implications for biotechnology, it seems to me, are, first, that we probably don't want to follow the same path, letting market forces determine which new genetically modified organisms are released into the environment, and learning about the adverse effects empirically. Banning a chemical is a lot simpler than recalling an organism that can reproduce itself. Society may sensibly choose to take a more precautionary approach to decisions about introducing genetically modified food crops. While we have had a 50-year period of " trial and error " with incremental reduction of pesticide risks, society may well have less tolerance for the risks of crop biotechnology. Second, the history of pesticides shows the limitations of the reductionist, " one pest, one chemical, " approach. Pest (and crop) ecology is very complex, and today's effective pest management solutions more and more are built on understanding and working with that complexity. To the extent that food biotechnology applications have been built on a " one problem, one gene " model, the industry may want to rethink its approach. Third, regulation has not adequately prevented problems with pesticides, nor has it had the desired effect of persuading critics that government-approved pesticide uses are safe enough. Regulation cannot do that-the science is not definitive enough, the regulatory process is too inefficient and too subject to political and economic influences, and there is no societal consensus yet on what is " safe enough. " Furthermore, much of the dispute about food biotechnology, as it is for pesticides, is about broader issues than safety. The dispute is often about how to resolve conflicting visions of what is in the best overall interests of society. Regulatory agencies cannot resolve those debates. Their legal authority is not that broad, and they don't have the expertise. Regulators generally must decide whether something is safe, and allowed on the market, or unsafe, and prohibited. That narrow decision can't answer the more basic question of whether the overall benefits outweigh overall risks, or whether society should pursue particular applications. It would therefore be a mistake for the industry to put too much faith in government regulation of food biotechnology. While strong Federal oversight and health and environmental safety reviews of new genetically engineered foods are essential, they are not sufficient to earn public confidence in the overall value of these crops to society. Notes: ______ 60. Osteen, C. (1993), Pesticide Use Trends and Issues in the United States. Pp. 309-336 in, D. Pimentel and H. Lehman, Eds. (1993), The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics and Ethics. New York: Chapman and Hall. 61. Wargo, J. (1996), Our Children's Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us From Pesticides. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wargo reports that by 1970, the USDA had registered more than 600 pesticide active ingredients and more than 60,000 formulated pesticide products. 62. Benbrook, C.M., E. Groth, J.M. Halloran, M.K. Hansen and S. Marquardt (1996), Pest Management at the Crossroads. Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. 63. Ibid.; also Wargo, op. cit. (Note 61), pp. 67-71. 64. Ehrlich et al., op. cit. (Note 55), pp. 630-634. 65. Cooke, A.S. (1973), Shell-Thinning in Avian Eggs by Environmental Pollutants. Environmental Pollution 4:85-157. 66. Carson, R. (1962), Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 67. Graham, F., Jr. (1970) Since Silent Spring. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Crest. 68. See Benbrook et al., op. cit. (Note 62), pp. 91-94, and Wargo, op. cit. (Note 61), pp. 88-103. 69. See Benbrook et al., op. cit. (Note 62), pp. 49-51, and Wargo, op. cit. (Note 61), pp. 148-149. 70. Ehrlich et al., op cit. (Note 55), Appendix 3, pp. 979-987. For detailed data on the comparative toxicity of different pesticides, see http://www.ecologic-ipm.com, a Consumers Union web site with extensive information on current pesticide policy issues. 71. National Research Council (1986), Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 72. Pimentel, D., et al. (1993), Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Pesticide Use. Pp. 47-84 in, D. Pimentel and H. Lehman, Eds. (1993), The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics and Ethics. New York: Chapman and Hall. 73. Ibid., p. 77. 74. Colborn, T., D. Dumanoski and J.P. Myers (1996), Our Stolen Future: How We Are Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival-A Scientific Detective Story. New York: Dutton. 75. National Research Council (1999), Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 76. National Research Council (1993), Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 77. Benbrook et al., op. cit. (Note 62), pp. 108-110. 78. Ibid. Also see, J. Kenney, C.M. Benbrook and E. Groth (1998), Worst First: High-Risk Insecticide Uses, Children's Foods, and Safer Alternatives. Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. Go to http://www.ecologic-ipm.com/findings.html. 79. Groth, E., C.M. Benbrook and A. Goldberg (2001), A Report Card for the EPA: Successes and Failures in Implementing the Food Quality Protection Act. Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. Also available at web address in Note 78. 80. Ibid. 81. Benbrook et al., op. cit (Note 62). 82. See Groth et al., op. cit. (Note 79). The FQPA requires the EPA to reassess all of the nearly 10,000 individual food/chemical tolerances (maximum legal residue limits) on the books as of 1996, and to adjust any that do not meet the law's strict new safety standard. The law gives EPA 10 years to carry out this work. 83. Benbrook et al., op. cit. (Note 62), pp. 112-122. Next Section --> [ Health ] [ Finance ] [ Food ] [ Product ] [ Telecom ] [ Other ] [ About CU ] [ News ] [ Resources ] [ Tips ] [ Search ] [ Home ] Please contact us at: http://www.consumersunion.org/contact.htm All information ©2001 Consumers Union Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2003 Report Share Posted May 3, 2003 With Bioport's past record, it would be no surprise to find pesticides in their vaccine. They will never be able to explain away the nondeployed vaccinated ill cover it up as they may! Pesticides > List: > > I am sure pesticides are not really good for one's health. In 1985, I > intended to spray my yard for fleas in Texas. I got a concentrate of diazinon, > attached the hose to this container. The hose was supposed to carry > a diluted portion of it all over the yard. I somehow improperly connected > it all. When I hit the sprayer, it all came back in my face an completely > soaked me in diazinon CONCENTRATE, I was wearing a thin sundress. I had > diazinon in my mouth, eyes, ears nose, hair! I unhooked the container, which > was on crooked, and used the hose to rinse myself as well as I could. The > smell/taste was horrible. I'll bet you could line up three people, (1) one who only > got multiple vaccines (especially Anthrax), (2) One who only got soaked in > inon, (3) One who got soaked in inon and got multiple vaccines, > (especially Anthrax) In the end, number (1) and (3) would be the ones who > would stand the best chance of having immune system problems. One of these > days, they will look for the common denominator in these illnesses. And that > would actually include NONDEPLOYED VACCINATED VETS! No, I am wrong, they won't. > It may ultimately prove easier to admit to a stupid mistake than an out and out > deliberate experiment. > > Gretchen > List owner > > > > > > > > > Our Anthrax information web site: http://www.dallasnw.quik.com/cyberella/ > /files/VAERS.pdf > DESTROY QUARANTINED VACCINE: > http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?robi2662 & amp;amp;amp;amp;1 > PETITION TO OVERTURN/REPEAL FERES DOCTRINE > http://www.petitiononline.com/fd1950/petition.html > To visit Dr. Meryl Nass's web site, go to: http://www.anthraxvaccine.org > Tom Colosimo's website: http://www.tomcolosimo.com > Also visit: Anthrax Vaccine Benefit vs Risk: http://www.avip2001.net AND http://www.MajorBates.com/ > Anthrax Vaccine Network http://www.ngwrc.org/anthrax/default.asp > Sgt. Larson's story: http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.10.03/rugo.htm > http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.10.03/accountability.doc > Tom Heemstra's new book - http://www.anthraxadeadlyshotinthedark.com/index.html > Contact list owner: Gretchen at: anna_nim@... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2003 Report Share Posted May 3, 2003 Bill, Gretchen, and My Other Friends -- Rest assured that those of us of the nondeployed ill (I am one) will be quietly swept under the rug and ignored because our illnesses can't be " blamed " on anything Saddam or the unfriendly environment " over there " could have exposed us to. The only possible explanation for us then is that the government f**ked up big time and deliberately made us sick. So the government can and will hide behind Scalier Scalia's 1987 Stanley decision and never have to justify or even explain anything to anyone. Angry? Me? P.S. -- My apologies to all the real members of Class Reptilia. I cast no aspersions on you by describing Scalia by a literary allusion to your skin texture commonly and negatively associated with serpents. Maybe " Slimy " would be better, but the Outlook spell checker suggests " Scalier " . Besides, I'd then have to apologize to Class Amphibia. ======================================================================== ======== I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. ... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. -- Jefferson ======================================================================== ======== ..> Re: Pesticides ..> ..> ..> With Bioport's past record, it would be no surprise to find ..> pesticides in their vaccine. They will never be able to ..> explain away the nondeployed vaccinated ill cover it up as they may! ..> Pesticides ..> ..> ..> > List: ..> > ..> > I am sure pesticides are not really good for one's health. ..> In 1985, I ..> > intended to spray my yard for fleas in Texas. I got a ..> concentrate of ..> diazinon, ..> > attached the hose to this container. The hose was ..> supposed to carry a ..> > diluted portion of it all over the yard. I somehow improperly ..> > connected it all. When I hit the sprayer, it all came ..> back in my face ..> > an completely soaked me in diazinon CONCENTRATE, I was ..> wearing a thin ..> > sundress. I had diazinon in my mouth, eyes, ears nose, hair! I ..> > unhooked the container, ..> which ..> > was on crooked, and used the hose to rinse myself as well ..> as I could. ..> > The smell/taste was horrible. I'll bet you could line up three ..> > people, (1) ..> one who only ..> > got multiple vaccines (especially Anthrax), (2) One who only got ..> > soaked in inon, (3) One who got soaked in inon and got ..> > multiple vaccines, (especially Anthrax) In the end, ..> number (1) and ..> > (3) would be the ones who would stand the best chance of ..> having immune ..> > system problems. One of ..> these ..> > days, they will look for the common denominator in these ..> illnesses. ..> > And ..> that ..> > would actually include NONDEPLOYED VACCINATED VETS! No, I ..> am wrong, ..> > they ..> won't. ..> > It may ultimately prove easier to admit to a stupid ..> mistake than an ..> > out ..> and out ..> > deliberate experiment. ..> > ..> > Gretchen ..> > List owner ..> > ..> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 There is an article in the Daily Mail newspaper today by their science reporter that even gardeners are at significant risk of developing Parkinsons from using pesticides and should limit their use. other factors of course also increase your risk. The research did not identify which pesticides of course. We probably know this already. The condition is caused by degeneration of nerve cells in the brain that send chemical messages to neurons controlling muscles. i have so many similar symptoms. What about people like me who lived on the edge of farmland and got sprayed regularly wether we liked it or not,in huge quantities, over thousands of acres, not just a small patch in the garden, and had no idea that these sprays were poison until we became ill and started looking into it. 10 years ago they were even less bothered what they sprayed. We will never be allowed to know what was sprayed and its health implications and certainly never be able to prove that is what caused my illness in case we want compensation. This makes me so so angry. The ministry of agriculture can ruin mine and many other lives, call us all mental and refuse to give any money for research into our illness and walk away free of all blame. Sorry for the rant, but I am angry, angry, angry. n > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 There is an article about pesticides and Parkinsons on the home page of New Scientist this morning. I know a man who developed Parkinsons in his forties who was absolutely fanatic about spraying every ant and bug he saw on his property. Helen > There is an article in the Daily Mail newspaper today by their science > reporter that even gardeners are at significant risk of developing > Parkinsons from using pesticides and should limit their use. other factors > of course also increase your risk. The research did not identify which > pesticides of course. We probably know this already. The condition is caused > by degeneration of nerve cells in the brain that send chemical messages to > neurons controlling muscles. i have so many similar symptoms. > > What about people like me who lived on the edge of farmland and got sprayed > regularly wether we liked it or not,in huge quantities, over thousands of > acres, not just a small patch in the garden, and had no idea that these > sprays were poison until we became ill and started looking into it. 10 years > ago they were even less bothered what they sprayed. We will never be allowed > to know what was sprayed and its health implications and certainly never be > able to prove that is what caused my illness in case we want compensation. > This makes me so so angry. The ministry of agriculture can ruin mine and > many other lives, call us all mental and refuse to give any money for > research into our illness and walk away free of all blame. > > Sorry for the rant, but I am angry, angry, angry. > > n > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 I would think with naturopathic detox approaches and saunas you could get much of this out of your system which is probably stored in the fat. I remember when we had an invasion of cicadas when I was growing up. THey sprayed everything for a few summers. You could smell those sprays when you went outside. And I remember we had weevils twice in our house, and my mother had everything fumigated. Oh well... > > There is an article in the Daily Mail newspaper today by their > science > > reporter that even gardeners are at significant risk of developing > > Parkinsons from using pesticides and should limit their use. other > factors > > of course also increase your risk. The research did not identify > which > > pesticides of course. We probably know this already. The condition > is caused > > by degeneration of nerve cells in the brain that send chemical > messages to > > neurons controlling muscles. i have so many similar symptoms. > > > > What about people like me who lived on the edge of farmland and got > sprayed > > regularly wether we liked it or not,in huge quantities, over > thousands of > > acres, not just a small patch in the garden, and had no idea that > these > > sprays were poison until we became ill and started looking into it. > 10 years > > ago they were even less bothered what they sprayed. We will never > be allowed > > to know what was sprayed and its health implications and certainly > never be > > able to prove that is what caused my illness in case we want > compensation. > > This makes me so so angry. The ministry of agriculture can ruin > mine and > > many other lives, call us all mental and refuse to give any money > for > > research into our illness and walk away free of all blame. > > > > Sorry for the rant, but I am angry, angry, angry. > > > > n > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 I met a woman at a CFS clinic once whose son had become ill with CFS directly after tipping ant powder all over himself Re: Pesticides > There is an article about pesticides and Parkinsons on the home page > of New Scientist this morning. > > I know a man who developed Parkinsons in his forties who was > absolutely fanatic about spraying every ant and bug he saw on his > property. > > Helen > > > >> There is an article in the Daily Mail newspaper today by their > science >> reporter that even gardeners are at significant risk of developing >> Parkinsons from using pesticides and should limit their use. other > factors >> of course also increase your risk. The research did not identify > which >> pesticides of course. We probably know this already. The condition > is caused >> by degeneration of nerve cells in the brain that send chemical > messages to >> neurons controlling muscles. i have so many similar symptoms. >> >> What about people like me who lived on the edge of farmland and got > sprayed >> regularly wether we liked it or not,in huge quantities, over > thousands of >> acres, not just a small patch in the garden, and had no idea that > these >> sprays were poison until we became ill and started looking into it. > 10 years >> ago they were even less bothered what they sprayed. We will never > be allowed >> to know what was sprayed and its health implications and certainly > never be >> able to prove that is what caused my illness in case we want > compensation. >> This makes me so so angry. The ministry of agriculture can ruin > mine and >> many other lives, call us all mental and refuse to give any money > for >> research into our illness and walk away free of all blame. >> >> Sorry for the rant, but I am angry, angry, angry. >> >> n >> > >> > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 Dear n, Like you, I grew up in an area that was predominately agricultural. I would highly, highly recommend that you read the book Living Downstream by Steingraber for a comprehensive view of the health risks of pesticides. All of the most common agricultural pesticides were developed from nerve gas research in the early half of the 20th century. So, you're right -- your safety, and the safety of others around you -- wasn't considered, and you should be angry. When inspectors were looking for WMD in Iraq, their detectors kept going off, and it always turned out to be pesticides. The irony/obviousness of this seemed to escape the general public -- these chemicals ARE neurotoxic agents, and they were developed to cause bodily harm, period. Peggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2005 Report Share Posted May 26, 2005 I agree. I was the one who sprayed our house for pests, not my wife, and I have CFS and she is fine. BTW, the pesticide I was using 15 years ago was banned from the market. Definitely some- thing to consider. Mike C > Dear n, > > Like you, I grew up in an area that was predominately agricultural. I would > highly, highly recommend that you read the book Living Downstream by > Steingraber for a comprehensive view of the health risks of pesticides. All of > the most common agricultural pesticides were developed from nerve gas research > in the early half of the 20th century. So, you're right -- your safety, and > the safety of others around you -- wasn't considered, and you should be angry. > > > When inspectors were looking for WMD in Iraq, their detectors kept going off, > and it always turned out to be pesticides. The irony/obviousness of this > seemed to escape the general public -- these chemicals ARE neurotoxic agents, and > they were developed to cause bodily harm, period. > > Peggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Hi, Please find summary of a link on pescticides. Pesticides you could find in your food (and water) The twin controversies in 2003 regarding pesticide content in bottled drinking water and aerated beverages in India hardly came as a surprise to many working with the environment and in farming. The pesticide problem is compounded in India because many pesticides banned abroad are manufactured / dumped and sold freely here. Pesticides are not bio-degradable, are highly toxic and find their way into ground water and water bodies, contaminating them and rendering them unfit for drinking purposes. Remember that even if you blame (though rightly-so) a beverage manufacturer for allowing pesticide residues in their products and treating human life so cheaply, the fact remains that pesticides entered the water supply in the first place only because of the agriculture system which used them. The link is: http://www.satavic.org/pesticides_in_your_food.htm Dear Dr Bharat, I seek your pardon, if I have violated rules by giving a link. -Anupama Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Daer Anupma Greeting Yest thsi si the big problem with our country as well . There are very few study made by us as well as soem otehr organisation, where we have found the contamibation in Soil, vegetabel items adn heavely loaded the spinatch un healhthy for the consumption. The trend of pesticide use is still rising in Nepal Ram Charitra sah Nepal From: anupama sukhlecha <anupama_acad@...>Subject: pesticidesnetrum Date: Thursday, May 15, 2008, 5:11 AM Hi, Please find summary of a link on pescticides. Pesticides you could find in your food (and water) The twin controversies in 2003 regarding pesticide content in bottled drinking water and aerated beverages in India hardly came as a surprise to many working with the environment and in farming. The pesticide problem is compounded in India because many pesticides banned abroad are manufactured / dumped and sold freely here. Pesticides are not bio-degradable, are highly toxic and find their way into ground water and water bodies, contaminating them and rendering them unfit for drinking purposes. Remember that even if you blame (though rightly-so) a beverage manufacturer for allowing pesticide residues in their products and treating human life so cheaply, the fact remains that pesticides entered the water supply in the first place only because of the agriculture system which used them. The link is: http://www.satavic. org/pesticides_ in_your_food. htm Dear Dr Bharat, I seek your pardon, if I have violated rules by giving a link. -Anupama Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2008 Report Share Posted May 15, 2008 Dear Dr. Anupama Sukhlecha: I think you have given a very nice direction to the present topic by referring to presence of pesticides in food and water. Bad news is that studies have shown the presence of pesticides in food and water with high risk of causing carcinogenicity. As per estimates approximately 50,000 pesticides are used that are composed of over 600 ingredients. To prevent pesticide contamination of water supplies several measures have been suggested like protection of groundwater recharge, careful management of pesticides on the farm, government screening and regulation of pesticides, and use of farming methods that minimize damage to the environment. Here is an article that deals with types of pesticides in groundwater, health effects of pesticides and steps used to evaluate the potential of a well towards pesticide contamination. Hope you find it useful. Pesticides: Health Effects in Drinking Water M. Trautmann and S. Porter Center for Environmental Research and J. Wagenet Dept. of Agronomy Cornell University Traditionally, groundwater has been assumed to be a relatively pristine source of water, cleaner and better protected than surface water supplies. Although nitrate and bacterial contamination were known to occur in some locations, groundwater was thought to be immune from more serious forms of pollution such as industrial discharges, hazardous waste dumps, or leaching of pesticides from agricultural operations. Within the past decade, however, a variety of synthetic organic compounds have been discovered in the nation's groundwater, often at concentrations far exceeding those in surface water supplies. Synthetic organic compounds are chemicals synthesized from carbon and other elements such as hydrogen, nitrogen, or chlorine. They do not occur naturally, but are manufactured to meet hundreds of needs in our daily lives, ranging from moth balls to hair sprays, from solvents to pesticides. Why have they only recently been discovered in groundwater? One reason is that use of synthetic organic compounds has greatly increased within the past 40 years, and some of these gradually have made their way into groundwater. Another reason for the recent discoveries of organic contaminants in groundwater is that the laboratory capability to detect these chemicals has greatly improved within the past decade. A classic example of this occurred in Bedford, Massachusetts, where severe organic chemical contamination of the town groundwater supply was discovered in 1978 only because a resident engineer took a sample of his home tap water with him to work where he was developing and testing a new laboratory instrument for analyzing organic chemicals. A total of nine toxic organic compounds were discovered in this drinking water sample, resulting in permanent closure of the town's water supply wells. The Bedford contamination eventually was traced to several local industries that were improperly disposing of their chemical wastes. Now that people are aware of organic contaminants in drinking water, sampling for such chemicals has increased, and more than 700 synthetic organic compounds have been identified in various U.S. drinking water supplies. This contamination originates from a variety of sources, including household products and leakage or improper disposal of chemical wastes from commercial and industrial establishments. By-products of industrial manufacturing or cleaning operations have been disposed of in unrecorded dump sites across the nation, and some of these chemicals have leached to groundwater. Pesticides constitute another, smaller category of synthetic organic compounds, some of which have been found in groundwater. Between 1950 and 1980 production of synthetic organic pesticides more than tripled in the United States, from about 400 million pounds in 1950 to over 1.4 billion pounds in 1980. Although most of these compounds have not been detected in groundwater, a few have become significant contaminants. Twenty- two pesticides have been detected in U.S. wells, and up to 80 are estimated to have the potential for movement to groundwater under favorable conditions. One area with conditions highly conducive to leaching is Long Island, New York, where soils are sandy, the water table is shallow, and agriculture is intensive. A total of 13 pesticides have been detected at least once in Long Island groundwater, and 8 of these have been found multiple times through continued monitoring. In upstate New York, sampling for pesticides has been limited to measurement of aldicarb in wells near treated fields. Low concentrations of aldicarb have been detected in 30 percent of the 76 wells sampled. Twenty-two other states, including Maine, land, and New Jersey, also have reported some pesticide contamination of groundwater. This bulletin focuses on the health effects of pesticides in drinking water, although the same concepts also apply to the much wider range of synthetic organic compounds contaminating groundwater supplies. Types of Pesticides in Groundwater The health effects of pesticides depend upon their chemical characteristics.. Before the 1940s most pesticides were compounds of arsenic, mercury, copper, or lead. Although these compounds may have made their way into drinking water, they were not highly soluble, and the residues ingested in foods were of far greater concern. Synthetic organic pesticides were introduced during World War II and were thought to be far safer and more effective. These included chlorinated hydrocarbons such as DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, lindane, endrin, and toxaphene. Because of their low solubility in water and their strong tendency to chemically attach to soil particles, these compounds have rarely contaminated groundwater. They originally were thought to be safe to humans and the environment, but later were discovered to accumulate in the environment and build up to toxic concentrations in food chains. Use of most of the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, consequently, has been restricted, suspended, or canceled. One group replacing them has been the organophosphorous compounds such as malathion and diazinon. Although some organophosphorous compounds are highly toxic to humans, they generally break down rapidly in the environment and rarely have been found in groundwater. Another group replacing the chlorinated hydrocarbons are carbamate pesticides including aldicarb, carbofuran, and oxamyl. These compounds tend to be soluble in water and weakly adsorbed to soil. Consequently, if not degraded in the upper soil layers, they have a tendency to migrate to groundwater. The most significant occurrences of groundwater contamination have been with the carbamate pesticides. Aldicarb has been detected in over 2,000 wells on Long Island as well as in 12 other states including Maine and New Jersey. As awareness has grown of the potential for pesticides to leach to groundwater, attention has focused on ways of changing registration and monitoring requirements to prevent such contamination from occurring in the future. Intensive studies have also been carried out in an attempt to determine what levels of pesticides are acceptable in water supplies. Health Effects of Pesticides Studies of the health effects of pesticides on humans focus on two aspects, the acute toxicity, or immediate effects resulting from short-term exposure, and the chronic toxicity, or effects resulting from more-prolonged exposures. Acute toxicity typically is expressed as the concentration required to kill 50 percent of a population of test animals such as laboratory rats, either through ingestion or through contact with the skin. These lethal concentrations can vary greatly from one pesticide to another. Aldicarb, for example, is considered to be highly toxic because the oral lethal dose is less than 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight, compared with 500 mg/kg for carbaryl, or 5,000 mg/kg for methoxychlor. When pesticides are found in water supplies, they normally are not present in high enough concentrations to cause acute health effects such as chemical burns, nausea, or convulsions. Instead, they typically occur in trace levels, and the concern is primarily for their potential for causing chronic health problems. To estimate chronic toxicity, laboratory animals are exposed to lower than lethal concentrations for extended periods of time. Measurements are made of the incidence of cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations, or other problems such as damage to the liver or central nervous system . Although we may encounter many toxic substances in our daily lives, in low enough concentrations they do not impair our health. Caffeine, for example, is regularly consumed in coffee, tea, chocolate, and soft drinks. Although the amount of caffeine consumed in a normal diet does not cause illness, just 50 times this amount is sufficient to kill a human. Similarly, the oxalic acid found in rhubarb and spinach is harmless at low concentrations found in these foods, but will lead to kidney damage or death at higher doses. Laboratory measurements of a pesticide's toxicity must be interpreted in the context of its potential hazard under actual field conditions. Pesticides by definition are toxic to at least some forms of life, but whether or not a particular pesticide in groundwater is hazardous to human health depends on its concentration, how much is absorbed from water or other sources. The duration of exposure to the chemical, and how quickly the compound is metabolized and excreted from the body. Drinking water guidelines are aimed at keeping pesticides at levels below those that are considered to cause any health effects in humans. They are derived from laboratory data using one of two methods, depending on whether or not the compound causes cancer. Noncarcinogenic Compounds For chemicals that do not cause cancer, a variety of tests are conducted on laboratory animals, bacteria, and tissue cultures to determine what daily dose produces no indications of toxicity. The lowest level from all these tests is defined to be the NOEL (no observed effect level) and is used as the starting point from which drinking water standards are derived. The NOEL for aldicarb is 7 mg/person/day, based on measurement of inhibition of an enzyme called cholinesterase in rats fed various doses for 6 months. Although aldicarb is the most acutely toxic pesticide registered by the Environmental Protection Agency, its hazard at levels typically found in groundwater is relatively low because it is rapidly metabolized and excreted. It does not accumulate in body tissues and has not been found to cause cancer, birth defects, genetic changes, or other chronic health problems in laboratory animals. In setting drinking water guidelines, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for a pesticide is calculated by dividing the NOEL by a "safety factor" determined by the level of uncertainty in the experimental data. If valid experimental results are available from studies on prolonged ingestion by humans, for example, a minimum safety factor of 10 might be chosen. This could increase to as much as several thousand if human data were lacking and laboratory data inconclusive. Most commonly, long-term animal feeding data are available, and a safety factor of 100 is used. This is based on the assumption that humans are roughly 10 times more sensitive to toxic substances than laboratory animals and that the susceptibility between different individuals can vary by another lO-fold. The resulting ADI represents an estimate of the amount of a pesticide that a typical person can consume daily for a lifetime with no adverse health effects. For aldicarb, the currently accepted NOEL is 0.1 mg/kg/day, and a safety factor of 100 is used, resulting in an ADI of 0.001 mg/kg/day. Although this appears to be a precise calculation, there actually is quite a bit of estimation and human judgment involved. Estimates must be made, for example, of the average weight of a person and the amount of water consumed per day. The percentage of the daily intake of pesticide that would be consumed in drinking water must also be estimated, based on factors such as how much is contained in foods and whether the compound can also be absorbed through the skin while bathing. Although aldicarb has a high dermal toxicity, probably only negligible amounts would be absorbed through skin unless the pesticide is dissolved in oil or an organic solvent rather than water. The resulting guideline is not intended to indicate a toxicity threshold, above which an imminent threat to human health exists. Instead, it is a health advisory that simply indicates a conservative estimate of the concentration that can be consumed in drinking water with no adverse health effects. Other sources of exposure, such as pesticides consumed in food, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin, are not included. The Environmental Protection Agency currently is attempting to revise this system to provide a more realistic assessment of total exposure from all sources. Carcinogenic Compounds Drinking water standards are set in a different manner for carcinogenic pesticides.. For compounds shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals, no NOEL or ADI is set. Current regulatory policy is that there is no specific threshold below which these chemicals do not cause an effect, although this is a matter of considerable scientific controversy. Instead of setting a threshold value, analysis focuses on the relationship between concentration and the risk of causing a specified number of cancer cases in a population of a specified size. Experiments with laboratory animals are used to correlate dose with expected frequency of cancer occurrence. These data are then extrapolated to humans, and regulatory decisions are made about the level of risk considered acceptable to human populations. Whether this level of risk is acceptable to an individual is a highly subjective and complex issue. Studies have shown, for example, that the public is willing to accept a risk as high as 1 in 10,000 from eating peanut butter, which may be contaminated with aflatoxin, a natural mold and one of the most potent carcinogens known to man, but would reject using a synthetic chemical with a cancer risk factor 100 times lower. Federal regulatory agencies commonly define acceptable risk in drinking water to be one that causes no more than one additional case of cancer in a population of a million people who drink the water over the course of a lifetime. This risk is roughly the same as that of dying from diptheria, polio, or German measles, or of being in a fatal plane accident. For pesticides that are carcinogenic, the concentrations causing no more than one cancer per million people typically are in the range of a few parts per trillion. In some cases these concentrations are so low that they exceed our capability for accurate laboratory measurement. For most pesticides, drinking water standards have yet to be set. The Environmental Protection Agency has authority to develop nationwide standards, and some of the states are setting local standards as well. The New York State Department of Health has set advisory guidelines for aldicarb and carbofuran. Other organic pesticides are covered by a guideline limiting the concentration of any single organic chemical to no more than 50 parts per million and the combined concentration of all organics found to no higher than 100 parts per million. One of the complicating factors in setting standards for the individual chemicals is that it generally is not known how a given compound might interact with other chemicals to affect human health. Often when one organic compound is found in groundwater, others are there also, and their effects together may be either greater or less than that observed when any one is ingested individually. The number of possible interactions makes thorough analysis of them all an impossible task. Health studies have been conducted of people drinking contaminated water supplies, but these studies are limited by the fact that many health problems are difficult to trace to a specific cause, especially since some cancers can remain latent for up to 40 years. Conclusions Approximately 50,000 different pesticide products are used in this country, composed of over 600 active ingredients. Although the acute health effects of ingesting large amounts of a pesticide can readily be measured, the chronic effects of long-term exposure to low levels are much harder to define. Extensive laboratory experiments are required, and in many cases these experiments are incomplete or inconclusive. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently working on reevaluation of all pesticides registered before 1972 to bring them up to modern health standards and is requiring extensive testing of new products before they come on the market. Many questions remain, however, about the chronic health effects of pesticides and other synthetic organic contaminants in drinking water. Establishment of drinking water standards is an inexact science, with many assumptions and value judgments needed in the conversion from laboratory animal data to an estimate of health effects in humans. The resulting standards represent the best judgment of regulatory authorities about the acceptable level of risk to people exposed to chemicals in drinking water. Many pesticides and other synthetic organic compounds are potent chemicals with potential health effects in humans even at very low concentrations. The drinking water standard for aldicarb, for example, is 7 parts per billion, meaning that a single pound of this compound could contaminate the entire amount of water needed to supply the yearly needs of over 2,000 people. Clearly, it is of primary importance to keep such chemicals out of our water supplies. Following articles in this series will address issues important in preventing pesticide contamination of water supplies: protection of groundwater recharge, careful management of pesticides on the farm, government screening and regulation of pesticides, and use of farming methods that minimize damage to the environment. Your Well: Evaluating the Potential for Pesticide Contamination Adapted from an article by , University of Wisconsin. You can evaluate the potential for pesticide contamination of your well using the following steps: Step 1. Evaluate the proximity of your well to areas of pesticide use. Determine if wells in your area have been sampled and if pesticide contamination was detected. Determine location of areas where pesticides of concern have been used. Determine general direction of groundwater movement from these areas. (Groundwater flow generally follows surface contours, moving from higher areas toward lower discharge areas such as rivers, lakes, marshes, etc.) The potential for pesticide contamination in your well probably is higher if pesticides have been detected in other nearby wells or if your well is located within 1 mile down gradient from areas where pesticides are used on coarse, permeable soils. Step 2. Evaluate the construction of your well. Check with your local health department about having your well and well casing inspected for sanitary construction. Determine the depth of the well into the water table. (This is approximately equal to the depth of standing water in the well.) Shallow wells, such as those with less than 30 feet of casing or less than 10 feet of standing water in the well pipe, have a greater potential for contamination. However, even properly constructed deep wells may become contaminated under certain conditions. Step 3. Test for contamination. Measure nitrate concentration. High nitrate levels often are found in wells with pesticide contamination, although low nitrate levels do not assure absence of pesticides. Your local health department or ative Extension office can provide information on how to get your water tested. Dr. Geer M. Ishaq Sr. Lecturer Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Kashmir Srinagar-190006 (J & K) Ph: 9419970971, 9906673100 E-mail: ishaq@... Website: http://ishaqgeer.googlepages.com pesticides Hi, Please find summary of a link on pescticides. Pesticides you could find in your food (and water) The twin controversies in 2003 regarding pesticide content in bottled drinking water and aerated beverages in India hardly came as a surprise to many working with the environment and in farming. The pesticide problem is compounded in India because many pesticides banned abroad are manufactured / dumped and sold freely here. Pesticides are not bio-degradable, are highly toxic and find their way into ground water and water bodies, contaminating them and rendering them unfit for drinking purposes. Remember that even if you blame (though rightly-so) a beverage manufacturer for allowing pesticide residues in their products and treating human life so cheaply, the fact remains that pesticides entered the water supply in the first place only because of the agriculture system which used them. The link is: http://www.satavic. org/pesticides_ in_your_food. htm Dear Dr Bharat, I seek your pardon, if I have violated rules by giving a link. -Anupama Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it. Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2008 Report Share Posted May 17, 2008 Dear Dr Geer, The article you have given is really interesting. Thanks -Anupama"Geer M. Ishaq" <ishaqgeer@...> wrote: Dear Dr. Anupama Sukhlecha: I think you have given a very nice direction to the present topic by referring to presence of pesticides in food and water. Bad news is that studies have shown the presence of pesticides in food and water with high risk of causing carcinogenicity. As per estimates approximately 50,000 pesticides are used that are composed of over 600 ingredients. To prevent pesticide contamination of water supplies several measures have been suggested like protection of groundwater recharge, careful management of pesticides on the farm, government screening and regulation of pesticides, and use of farming methods that minimize damage to the environment. Here is an article that deals with types of pesticides in groundwater, health effects of pesticides and steps used to evaluate the potential of a well towards pesticide contamination. Hope you find it useful. Pesticides: Health Effects in Drinking Water M. Trautmann and S. Porter Center for Environmental Research and J. Wagenet Dept. of Agronomy Cornell University Traditionally, groundwater has been assumed to be a relatively pristine source of water, cleaner and better protected than surface water supplies. Although nitrate and bacterial contamination were known to occur in some locations, groundwater was thought to be immune from more serious forms of pollution such as industrial discharges, hazardous waste dumps, or leaching of pesticides from agricultural operations. Within the past decade, however, a variety of synthetic organic compounds have been discovered in the nation's groundwater, often at concentrations far exceeding those in surface water supplies. Synthetic organic compounds are chemicals synthesized from carbon and other elements such as hydrogen, nitrogen, or chlorine. They do not occur naturally, but are manufactured to meet hundreds of needs in our daily lives, ranging from moth balls to hair sprays, from solvents to pesticides. Why have they only recently been discovered in groundwater? One reason is that use of synthetic organic compounds has greatly increased within the past 40 years, and some of these gradually have made their way into groundwater. Another reason for the recent discoveries of organic contaminants in groundwater is that the laboratory capability to detect these chemicals has greatly improved within the past decade. A classic example of this occurred in Bedford, Massachusetts, where severe organic chemical contamination of the town groundwater supply was discovered in 1978 only because a resident engineer took a sample of his home tap water with him to work where he was developing and testing a new laboratory instrument for analyzing organic chemicals. A total of nine toxic organic compounds were discovered in this drinking water sample, resulting in permanent closure of the town's water supply wells. The Bedford contamination eventually was traced to several local industries that were improperly disposing of their chemical wastes. Now that people are aware of organic contaminants in drinking water, sampling for such chemicals has increased, and more than 700 synthetic organic compounds have been identified in various U.S. drinking water supplies. This contamination originates from a variety of sources, including household products and leakage or improper disposal of chemical wastes from commercial and industrial establishments. By-products of industrial manufacturing or cleaning operations have been disposed of in unrecorded dump sites across the nation, and some of these chemicals have leached to groundwater. Pesticides constitute another, smaller category of synthetic organic compounds, some of which have been found in groundwater. Between 1950 and 1980 production of synthetic organic pesticides more than tripled in the United States, from about 400 million pounds in 1950 to over 1.4 billion pounds in 1980. Although most of these compounds have not been detected in groundwater, a few have become significant contaminants. Twenty- two pesticides have been detected in U.S. wells, and up to 80 are estimated to have the potential for movement to groundwater under favorable conditions. One area with conditions highly conducive to leaching is Long Island, New York, where soils are sandy, the water table is shallow, and agriculture is intensive. A total of 13 pesticides have been detected at least once in Long Island groundwater, and 8 of these have been found multiple times through continued monitoring. In upstate New York, sampling for pesticides has been limited to measurement of aldicarb in wells near treated fields. Low concentrations of aldicarb have been detected in 30 percent of the 76 wells sampled. Twenty-two other states, including Maine, land, and New Jersey, also have reported some pesticide contamination of groundwater. This bulletin focuses on the health effects of pesticides in drinking water, although the same concepts also apply to the much wider range of synthetic organic compounds contaminating groundwater supplies. Types of Pesticides in Groundwater The health effects of pesticides depend upon their chemical characteristics.. Before the 1940s most pesticides were compounds of arsenic, mercury, copper, or lead. Although these compounds may have made their way into drinking water, they were not highly soluble, and the residues ingested in foods were of far greater concern. Synthetic organic pesticides were introduced during World War II and were thought to be far safer and more effective. These included chlorinated hydrocarbons such as DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, lindane, endrin, and toxaphene. Because of their low solubility in water and their strong tendency to chemically attach to soil particles, these compounds have rarely contaminated groundwater. They originally were thought to be safe to humans and the environment, but later were discovered to accumulate in the environment and build up to toxic concentrations in food chains. Use of most of the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, consequently, has been restricted, suspended, or canceled. One group replacing them has been the organophosphorous compounds such as malathion and diazinon. Although some organophosphorous compounds are highly toxic to humans, they generally break down rapidly in the environment and rarely have been found in groundwater. Another group replacing the chlorinated hydrocarbons are carbamate pesticides including aldicarb, carbofuran, and oxamyl. These compounds tend to be soluble in water and weakly adsorbed to soil. Consequently, if not degraded in the upper soil layers, they have a tendency to migrate to groundwater. The most significant occurrences of groundwater contamination have been with the carbamate pesticides. Aldicarb has been detected in over 2,000 wells on Long Island as well as in 12 other states including Maine and New Jersey. As awareness has grown of the potential for pesticides to leach to groundwater, attention has focused on ways of changing registration and monitoring requirements to prevent such contamination from occurring in the future. Intensive studies have also been carried out in an attempt to determine what levels of pesticides are acceptable in water supplies. Health Effects of Pesticides Studies of the health effects of pesticides on humans focus on two aspects, the acute toxicity, or immediate effects resulting from short-term exposure, and the chronic toxicity, or effects resulting from more-prolonged exposures. Acute toxicity typically is expressed as the concentration required to kill 50 percent of a population of test animals such as laboratory rats, either through ingestion or through contact with the skin. These lethal concentrations can vary greatly from one pesticide to another. Aldicarb, for example, is considered to be highly toxic because the oral lethal dose is less than 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight, compared with 500 mg/kg for carbaryl, or 5,000 mg/kg for methoxychlor. When pesticides are found in water supplies, they normally are not present in high enough concentrations to cause acute health effects such as chemical burns, nausea, or convulsions. Instead, they typically occur in trace levels, and the concern is primarily for their potential for causing chronic health problems. To estimate chronic toxicity, laboratory animals are exposed to lower than lethal concentrations for extended periods of time. Measurements are made of the incidence of cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations, or other problems such as damage to the liver or central nervous system . Although we may encounter many toxic substances in our daily lives, in low enough concentrations they do not impair our health. Caffeine, for example, is regularly consumed in coffee, tea, chocolate, and soft drinks. Although the amount of caffeine consumed in a normal diet does not cause illness, just 50 times this amount is sufficient to kill a human. Similarly, the oxalic acid found in rhubarb and spinach is harmless at low concentrations found in these foods, but will lead to kidney damage or death at higher doses. Laboratory measurements of a pesticide's toxicity must be interpreted in the context of its potential hazard under actual field conditions. Pesticides by definition are toxic to at least some forms of life, but whether or not a particular pesticide in groundwater is hazardous to human health depends on its concentration, how much is absorbed from water or other sources. The duration of exposure to the chemical, and how quickly the compound is metabolized and excreted from the body. Drinking water guidelines are aimed at keeping pesticides at levels below those that are considered to cause any health effects in humans. They are derived from laboratory data using one of two methods, depending on whether or not the compound causes cancer. Noncarcinogenic Compounds For chemicals that do not cause cancer, a variety of tests are conducted on laboratory animals, bacteria, and tissue cultures to determine what daily dose produces no indications of toxicity. The lowest level from all these tests is defined to be the NOEL (no observed effect level) and is used as the starting point from which drinking water standards are derived. The NOEL for aldicarb is 7 mg/person/day, based on measurement of inhibition of an enzyme called cholinesterase in rats fed various doses for 6 months. Although aldicarb is the most acutely toxic pesticide registered by the Environmental Protection Agency, its hazard at levels typically found in groundwater is relatively low because it is rapidly metabolized and excreted. It does not accumulate in body tissues and has not been found to cause cancer, birth defects, genetic changes, or other chronic health problems in laboratory animals. In setting drinking water guidelines, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for a pesticide is calculated by dividing the NOEL by a "safety factor" determined by the level of uncertainty in the experimental data. If valid experimental results are available from studies on prolonged ingestion by humans, for example, a minimum safety factor of 10 might be chosen. This could increase to as much as several thousand if human data were lacking and laboratory data inconclusive. Most commonly, long-term animal feeding data are available, and a safety factor of 100 is used. This is based on the assumption that humans are roughly 10 times more sensitive to toxic substances than laboratory animals and that the susceptibility between different individuals can vary by another lO-fold. The resulting ADI represents an estimate of the amount of a pesticide that a typical person can consume daily for a lifetime with no adverse health effects. For aldicarb, the currently accepted NOEL is 0.1 mg/kg/day, and a safety factor of 100 is used, resulting in an ADI of 0.001 mg/kg/day. Although this appears to be a precise calculation, there actually is quite a bit of estimation and human judgment involved. Estimates must be made, for example, of the average weight of a person and the amount of water consumed per day. The percentage of the daily intake of pesticide that would be consumed in drinking water must also be estimated, based on factors such as how much is contained in foods and whether the compound can also be absorbed through the skin while bathing. Although aldicarb has a high dermal toxicity, probably only negligible amounts would be absorbed through skin unless the pesticide is dissolved in oil or an organic solvent rather than water. The resulting guideline is not intended to indicate a toxicity threshold, above which an imminent threat to human health exists. Instead, it is a health advisory that simply indicates a conservative estimate of the concentration that can be consumed in drinking water with no adverse health effects. Other sources of exposure, such as pesticides consumed in food, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin, are not included. The Environmental Protection Agency currently is attempting to revise this system to provide a more realistic assessment of total exposure from all sources. Carcinogenic Compounds Drinking water standards are set in a different manner for carcinogenic pesticides.. For compounds shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals, no NOEL or ADI is set. Current regulatory policy is that there is no specific threshold below which these chemicals do not cause an effect, although this is a matter of considerable scientific controversy. Instead of setting a threshold value, analysis focuses on the relationship between concentration and the risk of causing a specified number of cancer cases in a population of a specified size. Experiments with laboratory animals are used to correlate dose with expected frequency of cancer occurrence. These data are then extrapolated to humans, and regulatory decisions are made about the level of risk considered acceptable to human populations. Whether this level of risk is acceptable to an individual is a highly subjective and complex issue. Studies have shown, for example, that the public is willing to accept a risk as high as 1 in 10,000 from eating peanut butter, which may be contaminated with aflatoxin, a natural mold and one of the most potent carcinogens known to man, but would reject using a synthetic chemical with a cancer risk factor 100 times lower. Federal regulatory agencies commonly define acceptable risk in drinking water to be one that causes no more than one additional case of cancer in a population of a million people who drink the water over the course of a lifetime. This risk is roughly the same as that of dying from diptheria, polio, or German measles, or of being in a fatal plane accident. For pesticides that are carcinogenic, the concentrations causing no more than one cancer per million people typically are in the range of a few parts per trillion. In some cases these concentrations are so low that they exceed our capability for accurate laboratory measurement. For most pesticides, drinking water standards have yet to be set. The Environmental Protection Agency has authority to develop nationwide standards, and some of the states are setting local standards as well. The New York State Department of Health has set advisory guidelines for aldicarb and carbofuran. Other organic pesticides are covered by a guideline limiting the concentration of any single organic chemical to no more than 50 parts per million and the combined concentration of all organics found to no higher than 100 parts per million. One of the complicating factors in setting standards for the individual chemicals is that it generally is not known how a given compound might interact with other chemicals to affect human health. Often when one organic compound is found in groundwater, others are there also, and their effects together may be either greater or less than that observed when any one is ingested individually. The number of possible interactions makes thorough analysis of them all an impossible task. Health studies have been conducted of people drinking contaminated water supplies, but these studies are limited by the fact that many health problems are difficult to trace to a specific cause, especially since some cancers can remain latent for up to 40 years. Conclusions Approximately 50,000 different pesticide products are used in this country, composed of over 600 active ingredients. Although the acute health effects of ingesting large amounts of a pesticide can readily be measured, the chronic effects of long-term exposure to low levels are much harder to define. Extensive laboratory experiments are required, and in many cases these experiments are incomplete or inconclusive. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently working on reevaluation of all pesticides registered before 1972 to bring them up to modern health standards and is requiring extensive testing of new products before they come on the market. Many questions remain, however, about the chronic health effects of pesticides and other synthetic organic contaminants in drinking water. Establishment of drinking water standards is an inexact science, with many assumptions and value judgments needed in the conversion from laboratory animal data to an estimate of health effects in humans. The resulting standards represent the best judgment of regulatory authorities about the acceptable level of risk to people exposed to chemicals in drinking water. Many pesticides and other synthetic organic compounds are potent chemicals with potential health effects in humans even at very low concentrations. The drinking water standard for aldicarb, for example, is 7 parts per billion, meaning that a single pound of this compound could contaminate the entire amount of water needed to supply the yearly needs of over 2,000 people. Clearly, it is of primary importance to keep such chemicals out of our water supplies. Following articles in this series will address issues important in preventing pesticide contamination of water supplies: protection of groundwater recharge, careful management of pesticides on the farm, government screening and regulation of pesticides, and use of farming methods that minimize damage to the environment. Your Well: Evaluating the Potential for Pesticide Contamination Adapted from an article by , University of Wisconsin. You can evaluate the potential for pesticide contamination of your well using the following steps: Step 1. Evaluate the proximity of your well to areas of pesticide use. Determine if wells in your area have been sampled and if pesticide contamination was detected. Determine location of areas where pesticides of concern have been used. Determine general direction of groundwater movement from these areas. (Groundwater flow generally follows surface contours, moving from higher areas toward lower discharge areas such as rivers, lakes, marshes, etc.) The potential for pesticide contamination in your well probably is higher if pesticides have been detected in other nearby wells or if your well is located within 1 mile down gradient from areas where pesticides are used on coarse, permeable soils. Step 2. Evaluate the construction of your well. Check with your local health department about having your well and well casing inspected for sanitary construction. Determine the depth of the well into the water table. (This is approximately equal to the depth of standing water in the well.) Shallow wells, such as those with less than 30 feet of casing or less than 10 feet of standing water in the well pipe, have a greater potential for contamination. However, even properly constructed deep wells may become contaminated under certain conditions. Step 3. Test for contamination. Measure nitrate concentration. High nitrate levels often are found in wells with pesticide contamination, although low nitrate levels do not assure absence of pesticides. Your local health department or ative Extension office can provide information on how to get your water tested. Dr. Geer M. Ishaq Sr. Lecturer Dept. of Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Kashmir Srinagar-190006 (J & K) Ph: 9419970971, 9906673100 E-mail: ishaqkashmiruniversity (DOT) ac.in Website: http://ishaqgeer.googlepages.com pesticides Hi, Please find summary of a link on pescticides. Pesticides you could find in your food (and water) The twin controversies in 2003 regarding pesticide content in bottled drinking water and aerated beverages in India hardly came as a surprise to many working with the environment and in farming. The pesticide problem is compounded in India because many pesticides banned abroad are manufactured / dumped and sold freely here. Pesticides are not bio-degradable, are highly toxic and find their way into ground water and water bodies, contaminating them and rendering them unfit for drinking purposes. Remember that even if you blame (though rightly-so) a beverage manufacturer for allowing pesticide residues in their products and treating human life so cheaply, the fact remains that pesticides entered the water supply in the first place only because of the agriculture system which used them. The link is: http://www.satavic. org/pesticides_ in_your_food. htm Dear Dr Bharat, I seek your pardon, if I have violated rules by giving a link. -Anupama Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it. Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.