Re: methyl iodide on strawberries, take action today

[Guest guest]

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is a good

resource from the CDC with an updated web portal making navigation

easier. When protesting the use of toxics, it is always a plus to cite

data from government sources instead of the same data coming from 'tree

huggers' :-)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/>

<%20http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/> >

Barbara Rubin

www.armchairactivist.us

>

> ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------

> Subject: Spam[9] 2 minutes to set the record straight on methyl

iodide.

> Date Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 10:05 AM

> From: Pesticide Action Network North America getactive@...

> sue@...

>

> Because PR can't trump science, if you speak up.

>

>

> Dear ,

>

> As you've likely heard by now, California's Department of Pesticide

> Regulation (DPR) approved the carcinogenic new pesticide, methyl

iodide,

> for use in the state's strawberry fields. The decision flies in the

face

> of unprecedented public and scientific opposition, and is a clear

> instance of corporate influence overriding science and the public

interest.

>

[Guest guest]

You have to be careful when citing any Government (Federal or State) documents.

They are often not up to date nor do they review all of the research published

on a given subject. All you have to do is look at the history of the CDC, EPA,

ACGIH, etc. regarding indoor air quality and water intrusion to realize this

issue. I only use such documents for some history, not what is current. The

current controversy regarding the toxicology of methyl iodide and the California

EPA allowing it to be used on strawberries is a classic example.

Spam[9] 2 minutes to set the record straight on methyl

iodide.

> Date Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 10:05 AM

> From: Pesticide Action Network North America getactive@...

> sue@...

>

> Because PR can't trump science, if you speak up.

>

>

> Dear ,

>

> As you've likely heard by now, California's Department of Pesticide

> Regulation (DPR) approved the carcinogenic new pesticide, methyl

iodide,

> for use in the state's strawberry fields. The decision flies in the

face

> of unprecedented public and scientific opposition, and is a clear

> instance of corporate influence overriding science and the public

interest.

>

[Guest guest]

Jack,

I was not referring to specialists in the field submitting scientific

comments based upon their research. I was referring to all the demands

that lay persons such as myself make comments to the EPA, FDA and other

government agencies urging action on toxics issues. When we go to

government sources like ATSDR and obtain Tox profiles about a chemical

which cites significant hazards, it makes for both a quick and

convincing reference point to utilize. As most activists know, merely

signing a quick petition is rarely helpful. Most agencies count such

letters as one submission unless signers alter the text.

I also assume that most activists will want to research the point being

made in any petition sent out to them to verify the concern before

signing their name. I've received some ridiculous petitions in the past

with unsubstantiated points on regulatory issues.

Re: Methyl Iodide, the ATSDR has Tox Profiles on it which make excellent

points †" obviously well known if included since they do minimize

hazards for many highly toxic chemicals so always read first. These are

mostly PDF files so there is a search engine for each document where you

can enter the key word of interest †" such as these after I wrote

in Methyl Iodide:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.pdf

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.pdf> which cites that

iodine is hazardous when it enters the environment through inhalation of

methyl iodide vapors in a manner similar to ingestion toxicity (page

37). They clearly state that iodine is toxic and disrupts the endocrine

system. This gem was on page 151 (just another hit on the search area),

showing how readily absorbed it is:

“Methyl iodide is also inhaled when humans are exposed to methyl

iodide vapor. In volunteers who

inhaled tracer concentrations of [132I]methyl iodide, approximately 70%

of the inhaled iodine was retained

with a half-time in the respiratory tract of approximately 5 seconds,

suggesting extremely rapid

absorption at the alveolar-blood interface ( and 1967;

et al. 1967a, 1967b).â€

Health effects are further delineated on pages 161, page 170 where we

learn that ingestion and dermal exposures have similar effects, page 175

where is is described as a volatile compound with varying effects based

upon the individual which cannot be predicted accurately, page 177 where

it states that 70% of inhaled material is retained by the body, page

183 mentions that it is absorbed INSTANTANEOUSLY as a type V gas (useful

to know for other chemicals), and page 130 noting it is also a

methylation agent meaning it can have greater implications for our detox

systems (based on sulfation/methylation processes).

It took me five minutes to find those references and now I'm prepared to

give a link to substantive reasons for concern by a US government

agency. Had it failed to offer such input, I could ignore it assuming I

had better sources available which were convincing. Hard for the

opposition to object to such references because of the degree of

acceptance for CDC info.

Jack, most activists are people who have been harmed by the very issues

under discussion. Most of us have NO access to professionals for help or

information because we can't afford it or find it (usually a combination

of both problems). If you want activists to do a better job of

advocating, list the sources we can go to for convincing arguments which

are easily accessed by sick people with little time to spend on these

things. Get together with some other professionals and start a blog for

this purpose †" we can't get the support of family, friends,

professionals and government without adequate reference materials as if

we were experts in all of these areas.

When the government admits such problems with chemicals, it shows the

conflict of interest between what is known and what they fail to act

upon or even endorse.

We need this kind of information at the personal level and to promote an

activist agenda. Help make it easier for us to do that on a wider

basis, perhaps a blog at one of the Sierra Club activist sites and the

EDF or NRDC etc. If professionals do that, you'll find a much larger

ground swell of voices to support these agendas and also get a larger

audience for your messages as well as clients for your services.

Barbara Rubin

www.armchairactivist.us <http://www.armchairactivist.us/>

========================================================================\

============

<http://www.armchairactivist.us/>

>

> You have to be careful when citing any Government (Federal or State)

documents. They are often not up to date nor do they review all of the

research published on a given subject. All you have to do is look at

the history of the CDC, EPA, ACGIH, etc. regarding indoor air quality

and water intrusion to realize this issue. I only use such documents

for some history, not what is current. The current controversy

regarding the toxicology of methyl iodide and the California EPA

allowing it to be used on strawberries is a classic example.

>

[Guest guest]

I understand. Methyl iodide should be banned, period. The chemical is bound to

cause serious injury in field workers and perhaps consumers. Methylbromide was

replaced by this chemical because of the toxicity of methyl bromide. It is only

a matter of time.

Jack Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist, Immunotoxicologist, Fetal toxicologist

Cell - 575-937-1150 Cell-Thrasher

Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

Cell -775-309-3994

www.drthrasher.org

From: agasaya@...

Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:51:44 +0000

Subject: [] Re: methyl iodide on strawberries, take action today

Jack,

I was not referring to specialists in the field submitting scientific

comments based upon their research. I was referring to all the demands

that lay persons such as myself make comments to the EPA, FDA and other

government agencies urging action on toxics issues. When we go to

government sources like ATSDR and obtain Tox profiles about a chemical

which cites significant hazards, it makes for both a quick and

convincing reference point to utilize. As most activists know, merely

signing a quick petition is rarely helpful. Most agencies count such

letters as one submission unless signers alter the text.

I also assume that most activists will want to research the point being

made in any petition sent out to them to verify the concern before

signing their name. I've received some ridiculous petitions in the past

with unsubstantiated points on regulatory issues.

Re: Methyl Iodide, the ATSDR has Tox Profiles on it which make excellent

points †" obviously well known if included since they do minimize

hazards for many highly toxic chemicals so always read first. These are

mostly PDF files so there is a search engine for each document where you

can enter the key word of interest †" such as these after I wrote

in Methyl Iodide:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.pdf

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp158.pdf> which cites that

iodine is hazardous when it enters the environment through inhalation of

methyl iodide vapors in a manner similar to ingestion toxicity (page

37). They clearly state that iodine is toxic and disrupts the endocrine

system. This gem was on page 151 (just another hit on the search area),

showing how readily absorbed it is:

“Methyl iodide is also inhaled when humans are exposed to methyl

iodide vapor. In volunteers who

inhaled tracer concentrations of [132I]methyl iodide, approximately 70%

of the inhaled iodine was retained

with a half-time in the respiratory tract of approximately 5 seconds,

suggesting extremely rapid

absorption at the alveolar-blood interface ( and 1967;

et al. 1967a, 1967b).â€

Health effects are further delineated on pages 161, page 170 where we

learn that ingestion and dermal exposures have similar effects, page 175

where is is described as a volatile compound with varying effects based

upon the individual which cannot be predicted accurately, page 177 where

it states that 70% of inhaled material is retained by the body, page

183 mentions that it is absorbed INSTANTANEOUSLY as a type V gas (useful

to know for other chemicals), and page 130 noting it is also a

methylation agent meaning it can have greater implications for our detox

systems (based on sulfation/methylation processes).

It took me five minutes to find those references and now I'm prepared to

give a link to substantive reasons for concern by a US government

agency. Had it failed to offer such input, I could ignore it assuming I

had better sources available which were convincing. Hard for the

opposition to object to such references because of the degree of

acceptance for CDC info.

Jack, most activists are people who have been harmed by the very issues

under discussion. Most of us have NO access to professionals for help or

information because we can't afford it or find it (usually a combination

of both problems). If you want activists to do a better job of

advocating, list the sources we can go to for convincing arguments which

are easily accessed by sick people with little time to spend on these

things. Get together with some other professionals and start a blog for

this purpose †" we can't get the support of family, friends,

professionals and government without adequate reference materials as if

we were experts in all of these areas.

When the government admits such problems with chemicals, it shows the

conflict of interest between what is known and what they fail to act

upon or even endorse.

We need this kind of information at the personal level and to promote an

activist agenda. Help make it easier for us to do that on a wider

basis, perhaps a blog at one of the Sierra Club activist sites and the

EDF or NRDC etc. If professionals do that, you'll find a much larger

ground swell of voices to support these agendas and also get a larger

audience for your messages as well as clients for your services.

Barbara Rubin

www.armchairactivist.us <http://www.armchairactivist.us/>