MY LETTER - LEGISLATURE APPROVES CONTINUED GASSING OF SUFFOLK RESIDENTS

[Guest guest]

Dear Senator Marcellino and Suffolk County Legislators,

This article in Suffolk Life March 27, 2002, pg. 6, " Smoking ban extended,

Mosquito plan, others approved " should have been entitled " LEGISLATURE

APPROVES GASSING AND SENSITIZATION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CITIZENS " by Leonard

Greco

" The Legislature also approved a measure to continue spraying for mosquito

control, as well as to continue the draining of ditches in wetlands. Under

the resolution, spraying of pesticides to control the mosquito population

will be at least 100 feet from any body of water and at least 40,000 feet of

drainage ditches in wetlands and marshes will be maintained. Under a county

law passed last year, Vector Control must notify homeowners when spraying in

their neighborhoods would be taking place. "

Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and many other regularly used commercial

products, MINIMALLY reviewed for human health risk and permanent damage, ARE

MADE TO KILL ON CONTACT. These are devised by highly skilled chemical

scientists well versed in the science of CHEMICAL MAYHEM with NO CHANCE of a

balanced physical return. These highly paid scientists, many of whom own

stock in the companies they work for, are part of the same corporations who

also produce the minimally regulated pharmaceutical medications as the cure

alls for all that ails society. E.g. Many of the FDA executives and

scientists now work for Monsanto and many of Monsanto's now work for the FDA.

In 1999, we had NO monitoring by regulatory agencies. EPA did not test drums

prior to testing when Suffolk County Improperly stored formulations and

poisoned residents with isomalathion and malaoxon and DEC was non existent.

Inexperienced applicators violated application and emptied excessive

quantities in my area poisoning me significantly.

We need a county with full non toxic alternative status. Non Toxic

alternatives have been presented to the county and I want to know why this is

being disregarded? I expect an expedient answer.

These " CIDES " (meaning to KILL) are formulated to unhook our main regulatory

signaling system, the central nervous system, at chemically specified

junctions, to damage the main computer til death do us part. These

formulations are devised with other toxin enhancing agents to block the

detoxification pathways so the organism is unable to eliminate the agent

creating a MAXIMUM " chemical lock down " KILL EFFECT.

We have a protective coating covering our deeper brain called the blood brain

barrier (BBB). In children it is not fully developed until the age of around

15 years. This can be confirmed by calling any neurosurgeons office. Two in

particular are Dr. Blaylock and Dr. Kaye Kilburn, who have done

thousands of studies on the effects of chemicals on the developing brains of

children and adults. What happens when a child who's BBB has not developed

fully to protect the deeper brain tissue, is as simple as ABC's. Chemicals

absorb and without the protective mechanisms penetrate the deeper recesses of

the brain and reek chemical havoc. MIND POINT EXPERIMENT: wrap a sponge in

saran wrap and pour a chemical liquid over it, then take the saran wrap off

and pour the chemical liquid

This is what is happening to the children who's environment is being over run

with multiple chemical formulations minimally regulated by the governing

agencies. I do not want to hear that their is not enough money or resources

to pull in the reigns on these companies and governing agencies. The children

and adults are being poisoned everywhere they turn. Improperly monitored

applications, lack of use of nontoxic alternatives, governing agencies with

inadequate staffing and minimal regulation to promote profit of the chemical

corporations while we and especially the children are SUFFOCATING and being

poisoned daily by low level multiple chemical exposures with absolutely NO

MULTIPLE FORMULATION IMPACT DATA.

We can no longer wait in the beaurocratic quicksand of these agencies who

propagate that we are being optimally protected. LIES, LIES and more LIES.

YOU ARE NOT PROTECTING ME!!!!!!

I also suggest that if the legislators are going to approve spraying, that

they should be the ones handing the formulations and doing the applications

so they are chemically exposed, if they are going to continue to make

decisions to apply multiple formulations of neurotoxic gas and immune

compromise the children and residents of this county. How about it? Any

volunteers?

I have also included an article below entitled " Kids First "

Sincerely,

Donna M. REILLY

Suffolk Resident at Risk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------

Monday, March 25, 2002 - The Halifax Herald - Kids first

IF ANY ONE of us had to choose between a healthy lawn and healthy

children, there is little doubt what we would do.

For governments, simple ethical decisions such as these often get

infinitely more complicated in the tug of war of competing interests.

Yet it is encouraging to see the federal government finally begin to

do the right thing by putting children first.

Health Minister Anne McLellan has proposed the first overhaul of the

Pest Control Products Act in more than 30 years, putting greater

emphasis on human, and particularly kids', safety.

Under the new bill, federal scientists will have to take into account

children's heightened vulnerability to pesticides when they calculate

exposure. (Children are more at risk because they are more likely to

roll around on pesticide-sprayed lawns or to eat large quantities of

fruit that have been treated to kill insects and fungi.)

Among other things, the bill also mandates the automatic review of

pesticides at least every 15 years and provides for tougher

inspections and higher fines for violators.

Where the bill falls short is on the front lawn. Nowhere in Ms.

McLellan's proposed legislation is there a plan to phase out cosmetic

pesticides, the kind sprayed on our home turf or on golf courses to

turn them into emerald isles. Ottawa claims such bans fall solely

under provincial and municipal jurisdiction, although that is

disputable.

The good news is that many cities - most notably the Halifax Regional

Municipality - are showing leadership in areas where Ottawa is not.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada has validated their

initiative.

Halifax is in the midst of its three-year phase-in of a pesticide

ban, one of the strictest in the country. The bylaw currently covers

outdoor use of pesticides on all municipal and some residential

properties. Pesticide application is prohibited within a 50-metre

radius of schools, licensed day-care centres, parks, playgrounds,

licensed seniors residences, churches, universities and hospitals. By

April 1, 2003, the ban will extend to all residential properties.

In the absence of federal leadership, municipalities throughout this

country should follow Halifax's lead. Better yet, consumers should

take matters into their own hands and break their dependency on

chemicals for lawn care. There are safer alternatives. Granted, these

may not be as quick, easy or perfect, but surely health standards

should not be lowered to satisfy esthetic ones.

So what if the grass is greener on the other side? The environment is

cleaner on this side.

http://www.halifaxherald.com/stories/2002/03/25/fEditorial.html#102.raw

Copyright © 2002 The Halifax Herald Limited