In war, you know the identity of your enemy. Nicholas Kristoff asks an excellent question in this Op Ed piece for the NY Times, “Do We Really Want the Status Quo on Health Care?“. It identified lack of health care as part of the current status quo. The next question to ask here is just who or what is the enemy, taking out so many non-combatants each year? Is it health care costs? Certainly a single payer system would go far towards cost containment since the private sector is guilty of price fixing in setting values upon products and services – be it a mortgage or an MRI. Health care constitutes more than 17% of our gross domestic product for other reasons.

It’s a bit ridiculous to claim it is ‘overuse’ of services as we hear from the ‘party of No’. The last time I checked, people in the market for entertainment chose Disneyland over a visit to an orthopedist. Services are certainly not ‘overused’ by those without insurance and the many people who are ‘under-insured’. The latter individuals forgo many exams and medications due to co-pays and the need to cover that next health insurance premium which is really retained for catastrophic coverage. Nor are services ‘overused’ in the quest for a proper diagnosis in a culture of health care that is oriented to the control of symptoms instead identification of their source. Drugs may be ineffective for their intended purpose and many lead to serious adverse effects as well. Seeking out multiple physician opinions to obtain health care with a good outcome is not ‘over-use’ but a necessity until medicine matures sufficiently to return to cure-oriented treatments. This is well understood – and feared – by many Americans. I personally know one, very well insured person, who suffered a stroke rather than see a physician for check-ups to learn about having chronically high blood pressure and silent kidney damage.

If it is ‘just’ about sickness, then we need to utilize the renewed Patriot Act in order to force Congress to legislate universal health care. The enemy must find it incredibly comforting to know that Americans require huge amounts of health care because we are an exceedingly ill nation.

• One quarter of children have a chronic health condition.
• Nearly half of all adults have a chronic health condition.
• Our seniors, comprising more than 12% percent of our population will predictably require care and ‘end of life’ services. Medicare exists to provide them with a considerable degree of coverage for their conditions without the attendant blame for needing health insurance which is accorded to younger Americans without the funds to pay for it.

We are a nation of patients. Debating about caring for the sick is entirely based upon a premise that our country is first an economic system rather than a constitutional entity. The health care debate centers around the notion that offering a cost-effective public system of medical coverage to its citizens is unfair to industry because it removes a share of potential consumers from the marketplace. All discussion of competition between insurers (not even providers of care) relegates the science of medicine to an equal rung on the marketplace ladder with, say, that mysterious metal coil we call a ‘Slinky’. Are these really products and services we wish to consider identical to the marketing of toys within the marketplace?

If you can’t afford bread, it will be provided to you. However, you may have to ration those loaves carefully to last you for the requisite period necessary. Can a lesser tier of insurance provide a ‘half-cure’ for a disease? Ask any physician if you should take seven days of antibiotics for an infection which requires fourteen days of medication to achieve a cure. Patients have been known to cut short the length of treatment time for many infections in the hope that rationing their medication for their current illness will save costs for new prescriptions for their next illness. We know now that this approach merely leads to the growth of antibiotic resistant infections and far greater illness (not to mention costs) than had we assisted them with the full price of earlier treatments. Seizures are quite difficult to control in many patients without a minimum level of drug support and often combinations of drugs. The nervous system may not recognize the notion of ‘compromise’ based upon income. Should the acquisition of seizure medications be dependent upon the same economic system that markets that mysterious coil of metal we call a Slinky? Does our national identity become so lost if medical care is provided to all that it is better to consign 45,000 people each year to death for lack of medical insurance? Any war with that level of annual casualties would have the public taking to the streets in protest. Of course, this figure doesn’t even factor in deaths due to being ‘under-insured’. Again, how much compromise can one safely make with costly high blood pressure medications?

As with most issues which appear to be full of contradictions, philosophy dictates that we must check our assumptions. The ‘right’ side of the legislative debate (or the wrong side for purposes of this blog post) relegates the art and science of medicine to a commodity instead of a life preserving or life-saving practice. If medicine is strictly a commodity then it will remain available only to those with sufficient income for a comprehensive tier of medical insurance. The minimum wage only offers sufficient income to deprive earners of federal medical coverage granted to the ‘legally’ poor. The majority of insured Americans will eventually find themselves ‘under-insured’ in a marketplace where every buyer is guaranteed to need their full investment back when they get sick. With the escalating numbers of sick and disabled Americans, no insurance company can be considered a sustainable entity as fewer healthy people purchase their policies.

Since capitalism invites unsustainable businesses to go out of business, should medical care be considered part of that process at all? Medical care for humans isn’t a ‘choice’ as it is with veterinary care for pets. One can put down a sick Doberman or withhold treatment but is that option open to you with Aunt Edith? It would seem that regarding medical care as a commodity is the surest way to create death panels based upon income levels alone. Only the poorest, the elderly and the wealthy will be able to access care unless the insurance risk pool grows to include everyone AND we begin to deal with the excessive rates of illness. Controlling environmentally induced ailments will not just slow the rate of inflation but reverse it.

Let’s move on to another radical assumption about ourselves as Americans. Requiring a basic level of wealth in order to access health care services says that we are first and foremost consumers, rather than citizens. Our last administration was fond of terming us, “consumers” and the presidency as akin to the CEO of America. As consumers, we become subservient to corporations which claim they must not be required to compete with a government capable of offering the same essential medical services to its legal residents at a lower cost, i.e. Medicare. Why can’t they compete? Is there some reason corporations are supposed to be underwritten by the government to ensure the availability of customers or a particular profit margin? If the products and services of a company are out of range of most consumer’s wallets, wouldn’t any company naturally diversify or go out of business? Isn’t it corporate welfare to consign American citizens to the mercies of private insurers with no other options? Does that even guarantee any level of competition will exist?

By the time G.W. Bush left the gubernatorial chair of Texas, medicaid payments were so reduced that doctors could not afford to maintain a practice in poorer areas. United States ‘consumers’ were crossing the Mexican border to obtain services from clinics in Mexico. The government failed to meet even the meanest corporate standard of payment for essential services and certainly health care professionals are entitled to a living wage! A definite end to any government challenge to business.

No economic system should be confused with determinations of basic morals and ethics. Canada and European nations don’t classify medicine in the same category as other commodities. For the average commodity such as housing, food and clothing, one budgets according to one’s income. Those who can’t own, rent. Those who can afford to do so choose lobster over tuna. The cost differences between various brands of clothing is quite broad. Consumers choose accordingly but still remain housed, fed and clothed for the most part. Citizens in dire straits however, do receive food, clothing and housing. Why then is medicine assigned a lower rung on the ladder of necessary products and services? National identity is at the heart of this debate, not capitalism and competition. Further erasing the notion of competition being at the heart of this debate – revealing as such a position may be – true competition no longer appears to be part of our major industries. Price fixing is common today, as I recently found when looking at independent and assisted living facilities. Astonished by the notion that a small room in such a facility was deserving of a monthly, $2,100 price tag, even with a meal plan. I was informed by one manager that it was only fair not to undercut the prices of their competition too greatly. The presence of government options with little or no profit margin restores an absolute value to such products and services once more. All we’ve known in recent decades is relative value – the minimum profits agreed upon by trade associations without regard for demand in relation to production costs (varying according to quality).

Price fixing is the purposeful undermining of capitalism in order to restrict ‘fairness’ to corporate entities instead of the consumer. It restricts efforts to promote increased quality among similarly priced services wherever there appears to be sufficient numbers available to feed at the shared trough. Only when the numbers of ‘consumers’ available to take these small rooms in senior communities decreases, can a fall in charges can be expected. These ‘homes’ have many rooms going empty which is not, apparently, a threat to their continued operation. This is not a function of competition but of tacit agreement between corporate entities that one must take every last penny from a consumer’s wallet before declaring one’s profit to be at an acceptable level. Rooms go empty rather than be accorded an actual value which would be within the means of far more consumers and still be profitable for the vendor.

I had a similar experience with used car dealers. None would disclose what a car was worth until they learned of how much money I had to spend – carefully calculated by them according to my income. The worth of the car appeared to change with each successive journey the salesman made into his boss’s office during negotiations. I believe Saturn became a popular car based upon its sales policy of one price for all customers. Imagine that – a product with a singe value accorded to it regardless of consumer income. Comparing that view to that of the salesman in that assisted living facility is the best illustration of how capitalism has mutated into a form of gangster capitalism. When politicians begin expouding about maintaining a ‘free marketplace’, we must remember that the marketplace is never free when profit margins are pre-determined by official or unofficial trade associations. Instead of increasing quality and advancing new technology, vendors band together to break any newcomer so foolish as to actually exceed their level of service quality for the money in a sustainable manner.

Capitalism was supposed to spur the pursuit of excellence in industry. Progress depends upon it instead of solely relying upon tax incentives for industry to embrace new developments as older – and often hazardous – products and services are banned.

We must further go to the nature of our justice system which promises injuries can be redressed. With so much illness either known or suspected to be the result of pollution – a byproduct of industry which is largely ignored by government regulators – how can we permit it to go untreated? How can we wrest the costs from the victims of pollution? We’ve seen lead removed from paint and the outrage over of imported toys possessing that toxic ingredient. We’ve seen anti-smoking legislation reduce cardiac events by one third in participating municipalities. Pollution emanating from many uncontrolled sources is also causing asthma, heart disease, autoimmune disorders and cancers among other disorders. Why is the individual held responsible for their medical treatments when causation goes undeterred? This is an issue of justice as much as it is one of national identity. Are we citizens or consumers? If the elderly are allowed medical care, it is ageism to declare younger citizens to be dispensable in all matters medical.

Obviously, the real enemy is sickness. We have consistently failed to meet it on the honorable battlefield of medicine because – that’s right – we left the field of battle to lobbyists and their corporate sponsors telling dying people that it is better to be dead than participate in ’socialist’ medicine. What, pray tell, should we do when reaching retirement age? Commit hara-kiri rather than accept evil, government-sponsored Medicare?

We know that voters began demanding universal health care, preferring a single payer option just one year ago, before slogans and tea parties began to frighten the average person into believing they are better off without health care than with an incomplete plan of action – as if any taxes paid towards that effort would ever even approach the charges of the average health care plan in America. That would not be the case if healthy Americans were paying reasonable premiums to, say, Medicare instead of a private insurer where overhead would automatically be greater lest an American CEO be left behind. Paul Krugman gives an excellent synopsis of the insurance game lest anyone remain in denial of how this process works.

Sickness may be the enemy but ignorance and denial leaves us without the weapons to fight it. We are thus far unarmed in a battle which is not about life. It is about ideologies which are counter to both the ideological basis upon which we are governed and to capitalism, our presumed economic system. There isn’t much more you can get wrong in politics.

Once the public realizes that freedom of speech does not ensure accuracy of content, we may begin to take our personal responsibilities more seriously, having fiddled while the District of Columbia burned. But don’t expect treatment at your local ER for your wounds unless you have great insurance. When Massachusetts voters decided that, having attained universal health care for their fellow Bay Staters, the remainder of the country could go without lest any part of that cost devolve upon them, it was clear that Americans no longer wondered about what was to happen the day AFTER tomorrow.

Perhaps the new conservatives they elected will be happy to suspend their health care once their state’s allotments no longer cover their citizens. Pretending you aren’t part of a larger nation is always a mistake. It takes an entire nation, not a village. Villages are razed all around the globe daily by the bullies and their minions- who also don’t think about the day after tomorrow.

Part I: General Remarks

Thank you for permitting me to offer this information in support of HB 1456. We urgently need to improve the indoor air quality (IAQ) of schools through reducing and/or potentially eradicating the use of pesticides with known toxicity effects upon people and other non-targeted life forms.

As a disabled educator poisoned by pesticides used in my own NYC school facility in 1999 and, as a part-time journalist who has published a few articles and commentaries on the subject matter, I hope my informal remarks and lay studies will be of use to this committee. Please forgive any errors committed in the conveyance of this testimony as I am mildly aphasic and have acquired learning disabilities. These disabilities have been attributed to brain injury suffered in a NYC school setting as a result of exposures to the very chemicals we are here to discuss. My exposures occurred while I was a supervisor of a school for developmentally disabled children between 2 and five years of age. My aim today is to discuss the scope of inquiry for a committee dedicated to developing a needs assessment for policy setting in pest control practices. I hope to accomplish this through a review of well known issues in the science of pest control and my own, personal experience of the terrible results of ignoring science in the service of retaining old technologies and business practices.

Pest control services are a vital industry to the health of the population. We know that it is impossible to eradicate insect populations, and other invasive organisms. While these will always be with us, controls are important in preventing tolerable concentrations of these unwanted items from turning into infestations and uncontrolled colonizations of molds or bacteria. Advances in chemistry taught us how quickly we can kill such organisms but gave us little preparation for the collateral damage such chemicals can cause. Fortunately, we now have the knowledge and technology which allows us to avoid sacrificing the safety of building occupants against the desirable goals of pest management A study regarding pesticide use in the schools is not a dismissal of the value of pest control services but rather an investigation into the forms it should take in these environments occupied by the most vulnerable of exposed populations – children and a largely female staff.

Pesticides are toxic by definition and it remains against the law for vendors to claim they are ’safe’, even when used as directed. This alone makes examination of their use in schools a worthwhile endeavor. We know pesticides include ingredients which are irritants as well as well as contributing to asthma – the largest cause of missed school days for children and the fourth largest cause of lost work productivity among adults. While the waste products and remains of dead pests such as roaches also contribute to respiratory problems, those can be resolved with a vacuum cleaner unlike the residues left by pesticides.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the ailment.

Pesticides are a class of chemical which includes not just products which kill insects but also targets other ‘pestiferous’ life forms – hence the suffix, ‘cide’. This extends the range of our concerns here to include herbicides (targeting weeds); mildicides/fungicides (targeting molds/ fungi) and products which kill disease promoting micro-organisms like bacteria. Many products called ‘repellents’ are actually pesticides despite the alteration in labeling. Today, DDT is applied as a repellent to the interior of house walls in some countries. The overuse and abuse of biocides such as triclosan has led to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria which has become a concern to school programs in recent years. Our increased understanding of mycotic diseases stemming from exposures to certain forms of molds and fungi associated with moisture damaged buildings has led to increased use of fungicides and mildicides in the schools. These pesticidal agents are present in products used in cleaning to those used in painting and other construction/renovation materials. Since all of these products are regulated by the same EPA department, I suggest they should be considered by this committee as falling within their scope of inquiry. It would not only serve the NH communities but set precedents for other states to broaden their range of concerns. For a full listing of the various kinds of pesticides, I refer you to this website by the EPA.

A major concern should be the fact that the most commonly used pesticides act by disrupting the ability of nerve cells to cease firing, over and over again until they become damaged or die. They don’t discriminate between the type of cells they disrupt and humans are a non-targeted organism affected by them. Central nervous system functioning is primary to learning. Developmental disabilities are now affecting one in six children according to Dr. Phillip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai Hospital, a leader in developing the field of environmental pediatrics. You may wish to consult with him since you will be reviewing the testimony of experts in the field at some point in this process. Further, exposure to toxic materials is also a candidate for investigation into high rates of illness, particularly autoimmune diseases. Disability among adults working in the schools may also be worth examining in a needs assessment of the type being recommended today.

Pesticides are quite persistent when used indoors without the aid of sunlight to degrade them, contrary to assumptions and recommendations for re-entry to treated rooms on material data and safety sheets. Exposure considerations must take into consideration the re-release of pesticide residues into the air each time a treated surface is exposed to heat (e.g. baseboard heating surfaces), light from direct sun or lamp exposure, or subjected to increased temperatures from seasonal changes. Recurrent applications, something which is very common in school settings, leads to issues of insect resistance calling for the use of more and mixed types of pesticides. The effects of combining chemicals upon bystanders has not been studied but we do know that effects are not just additive but synergistic. Also, the break-down byproducts or metabolites of some pesticides are more toxic than their original forms (as in the case of malathion).

Further, decades of use of chemicals such as chlordane and DDT, prior to their bans, means continued risks to children in older buildings where these chemicals and their metabolites remain. This means that the age of school buildings and their locations should also fall within the parameters of our concern. I have personally measured concentrations of these chemicals in both low and high amounts in residences. School locations are also subject to pesticide drift from nearby sources. Proximity to farms and gardening/nursery enterprises are obvious sources while communities near marshes and bodies of water will be open to drift for chemicals used for mosquito control. Commercial properties near schools may still be allowed to use chemicals currently banned for residential and school use so such chemicals can still become significant presences in our schools.

Drift from aerial applications of pesticides for forestry management and farming purposes travels extensively and communication with the Department of Agriculture in preparing a needs assessment for the testing of buildings is advisable. Aerial spraying is soon to be banned altogether in the European Union for this reason. Exposure by children in agricultural communities has been proven to be unavoidable, regardless of proximity to farmland as measured in metabolites of these chemicals in the urine of children. Therefore, applications in schools add to the overall body burden of children already affected by these chemicals in other settings.

The literature on the effects of pesticides contains a wealth of evidence for both immediate and delayed symptoms, long term damage to multiple organs biochemical processes apart from enzyme inhibition and adversely affecting learning abilities. Pesticides are also delivered in solvents such as xylene and trimethylbenzene, members of a large and hazardous class of regulated substances all on their own. These are known central nervous system depressants and carcinogens. The Ontario College of Family Physicians did an exhaustive review of the literature with specific conclusions about the risks of exposure to children by these chemicals.

This is the basic information I wished to present to this committee. My next submission is about my personal experiences which exemplifies how vital it is that we do not ignore this technical data. The results of doing so are with us daily.

Part II: My Personal Experiences in Pest Control in School Settings:

I first learned of my vulnerability to pesticides when I fainted following the departure of a pest control applicator in a school where I worked in the Bronx, NY in 1990. After learning about Dursban, the chemical in use, I began to work with accommodation plans permitting me to be absent when pesticides were applied each month. However, while a difference of a few days may make it appear as if one escapes hazards, the effects can only be assessed by looking at biochemical changes rather than overt symptoms. A poison is not just a substance that brings direct harm to us but also one that damages by adversely impacting catalysts in the body which are necessary to other functions. These may include hormones (e.g. thyroid, estrogen) or various enzymes (e.g. acetylcholinesterase). Reductions in important enzymes, interference in hormone regulation, inflammation and deferred symptoms of toxicity must be considered.

The information I gained at that time was used again when I lived in NYC in 1999 when West Nile Virus made its appearance in New York City and malathion was unwisely chosen to be applied by helicopter. Testimony by experts before a bi-partisan congressional committee headed by Congressman Gary Ackerman in March of 2000 found it to be most unwise with side effects far more damaging than its presumed benefits. The practice was halted. I have appended a copy of an article I wrote in 2002 for a magazine in which the effects of pesticides in school settings are discussed with respect to a particular child along with general considerations and quotes from interviews with several experts in the field.

We now use pyrethroids in many locations where we used to use the organophosphates listed above since they were banned for the purpose. Pyrethroids are often advertised as synthetic pyrethrins or acting much like the anti-pest effects of the essence of chrysanthemum flowers. However, we also know these chemical effects, while still disabling to the nervous system, are amplified by the addition of synergists to the formulas. This increases the toxicity beyond the levels at which the active ingredient was approved for sale. Attached is a news article describing up to a ten-fold increase in toxicity, rendering these chemicals threats to aquatic life. The particular synergist cited is piperonyl butoxide and quite toxic in its own right.

I had never heard of pyrethroids until June of 1999 when I was enjoying my second year as supervisor for a school program for developmentally disabled preschoolers called the Douglaston Early Childhood Center. This program was run under the aegis of the New York League for Early Learning (a subsidiary of YAI/National Institute for Early Learning). Having learned first hand that environmentally induced illnesses in school programs can be avoided, I had instituted an indoor air quality program in our first year of operation (1998) which proved quite effective in maintaining a productive working and learning environment.

The spraying of pesticides in and around the property ceased and increased maintenance efforts along with the use of baits unlikely to become airborne were substituted. The school building itself was used for multiple purposes and the owners, in conjunction with their pest control company that more toxic pesticides should be applied in spray form during our week long break between spring and summer sessions. Upon our return, the staff and I all were conscious of residual fumes and remained in better ventilated areas of the school until they faded. Unknown to me, further applications were made to the building and I developed serious and chronic health effects. By September of 1999, I was unable to eat during school hours and lost weight; fought constant bronchial constriction requiring me to carry oxygen with me to work since inhalers were not effective for me. I found myself unable to concentrate for prolonged periods of time, to recall names of familiar people and had difficulty with word-finding in conversations and in my writing. Where it used to take me two hours to write a comprehensive clinical report, it now took days to achieve anything resembling a satisfactory effort. [additional description of symptoms/damage submitted here as well]

My career was over.

An EPA complaint was filed regarding lack of notice and the use of those chemicals in poorly ventilated areas and locations where food was prepared, both advised against in the MSDS sheets. The investigator informed me that the EPA did not pursue actions in the use of registered pesticides as it comprised a conflict of interest between the applicators and their agency which approves these chemicals for use. Instead, they encourage private individuals to file law suits in order to encourage the industry to refrain from using these chemicals in school buildings, residences etc. My law suit is still pending. The federal government has yet to pass the School Environment Protection Act or SEPA, providing national guidelines for the use of nontoxic methods and least toxic methods of pest control. Notification for use of such products to interested parties is also included in those provisions. Only a handful of states have such regulations at present and my own home state of NY didn’t pass their version until a year after I was disabled.

[Additional material about my personal situation redacted]

I ask this body to conduct their needs assessment and do whatever it takes to make my tragedy the last of its kind in the Northeastern United States. The material is not only plentiful in identifying the undesirability of using toxic pesticides in school settings but the alternatives are plentiful The pest control industry is slowly evolving into novel practices referred to as Integrated Pest Management or IPM. I thought my school program was following such IPM protocols but was denied my rights to participate in the process because local laws to that effect were lacking. Every person should have the right of choice with regard to exposure to toxic chemicals for themselves and their children, whether that involves being able to substitute other products for the undesirable ones or simply leave the vicinity. Had I known recurrent applications were going to be made, I would have quit my job before becoming so damaged.

We don’t have to choose between pest control and human safety. We can have it all if all parties are required to modernize their knowledge of the effects of these chemicals and make better decisions about selecting among them. It takes work but then that is what adults do to ensure our children grow up to become healthy and capable individuals. The sight of a few ants or roaches shouldn’t be a barrier to any of us losing our health, our futures and becoming burdens upon society instead of assets.

Barbara Rubin, M.A.
Former speech-language pathologist and educator

Corporations have had their rights to endorse candidates and contribute to their campaigns restored so they can be just like regular citizens – you know, the ones with actual beating hearts. Well, you’d have to multiply what we regular citizens might contribute by a gazillion, but yes, paper citizens enjoy the same rights to participate in politics. That must buy a lot of gratitude on the part of a candidate, although a corporation would be hard to take to lunch as a polite ‘thank you’ gesture.

What does IBM eat? Italian? Thai? DW-40? Perhaps a thank-you card would be a better idea.

Here’s my problem with this issue. It duplicates and magnifies the rights of corporate owners and officers to twice engage in electioneering, on their own and then again via the combined use of assets/monies which aren’t necessarily theirs to use for this purpose. Does it say in the prospectus that the corporation is a registered member of a particular party?

Perhaps this is an overly simplistic view but if every person working in or owning a corporation has the individual right to engage in electioneering and fund raising for a campaign, why would they be able to do so again through their business? The initial notion of a corporation having the status as a ‘person’ is attributed to the bizarre phrasing of a judge summing up a Supreme Court decision of 1886 regarding a railroad. Why it is assumed that the right to due process of law for a business belongs to the corporate entity rather than to the corporation’s owner(s) on behalf of that entity, is a form of non-reasoning which escapes me. But then, I’m not a lawyer.

If each individual working in or owning a corporation has the right to engage in electioneering and fund raising for a campaign, why would they be allowed to engage in such activities a second time via their business? If a corporation has status as a ‘person’ shouldn’t the Corporation vote as well? Perhaps the age of the corporation might be important to define, ensuring it has the knowledge and maturity to make such a decision. I supposed any corporation which has been around for 18 years or so might be qualified, assuming it is legally registered within the United States. I’m not sure which corporate representative should have the privilege of casting it’s vote, along with his or her own, but that would be nitpicking.

Of course, this may abridge the rights of shareholders expecting a certain percentage of profits to come to them directly, rather than reducing them through the making of contributions to candidates they may not even personally support. This will certainly limit the hopes of employees for a better tier of medical plan as monies accrued through their labor go to some yutz running for office. And about that 401K… .

Corporations have some really hard decisions to make.

So do we. Corporations needing friends in government obviously no longer have enough friends among consumers. There’s a reason for that – consumers wouldn’t voluntarily buy their ’stuff’ without the assistance of government to hide selected ingredients in labeling, restrict competition as corporate monopolies multiply freely or lowering prices by offering starvation wages to their employees.

Learn about the companies you reward with your purchasing dollars and shop accordingly.

Public perception of today’s societal burdens is largely the product of media presentation. Objective reporting goes out the window when the tactic of appealing to the ‘human interest’ readership portrays abusive viewpoints as legitimate (e.g. blowing poisonous fumes into communal airspace). Would you expect reporters to present a ’side’ by a serial killer about why his victims ‘made him do it’? Does it honestly matter that smokers don’t like leaving a nice warm bar to smoke outside before returning to their fun when non-smoking patrons and bar employees will live to enjoy a new dawn because of such bans? My comment at that site contains links to mainstream research which should help the hapless victims of drifting tobacco smoke to explain the urgency with which the non-smoking public requires protective legislation.

Enforcing it would be nice, too.

117. B.R.
January 2nd, 2010
4:40 pm

The media is contributing to the continuing confusion on the part of the public about the crucial nature of anti-smoking legislation. It wasn’t intended to reduce the number of people who are addicted to smoking but to first protect citizens from bearing the costs of smoking-related illnesses and to prevent the unnecessary disability and death that smoking causes in millions of non-smokers. Stories of this nature require simple citations of why the laws were even put on the books.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/15/health/main5385879.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/09/28/heart_attack_rates_fall_after_smoking_bans/

The data as summarized by the Centers for Disease Control and the Institute of Medicine indicates that over 125 million non-smokers are enjoying unprecedented relief since this legislation was implemented in so many communities without incurring financial losses to businesses. University of California (San Francisco) researchers pooling data found that in just three years, cardiac events were reduced by a third in participating communities. That translates into huge societal benefits. The debate presented in these articles should be about how to accommodate the needs of smokers since the practice is legal and quitting is an impossibility for so many. However, their addictions don’t’ warrant a death sentence – or death tax via medical costs – being assigned to non-participants in the practice.

The data on asthma indicates it is the fourth largest cause of lost work productivity (and largest cause of missed school days in children). With over twenty million asthmatics in the country, how would any employer find it financially rewarding to allow smoking in their facilities?

The dramatics of wealthy bar patrons agonizing about being deprived of nicotine while indoors is simply not news but a sad commentary on a society disinterested in human suffering. The real drama of bar employees having to choose between their jobs and their health is news – not that they are free to complain if they want to retain their jobs.

Lest the smokers continue to feel put upon in this matter, recall the 2001 attempt by Phillip Morris to lobby against legislation of smoking restrictions in the Republic of Czechoslovakia. Government officials were told of the fiscal benefits they might enjoy by permitting smoking to continue. Their statistics showed that the premature deaths of smokers reduced government expenditures in retiree pensions and health care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120774/

NY Times, some stories really don’t have ‘two’ sides.

GETTING THE BUGS OUT: Pesticides and Your Child’s School by Barbara Rubin

Michael Eash went through the first grade in his Pennsylvania school with frequent flu-like illnesses. His pediatrician noted that he missed 30 days out of the school year. His mother, Connie, watched his symptoms worsen during the week, only to improve on weekends and holidays when he wasn’t in school. The cycle began to repeat itself the following fall. Connie and two other mothers noticed an insecticide odor in the classroom. The teacher reported that many in her class were suffering from symptoms similar to MIchael’s.

Michael’s doctor tested him for exposure to organophosphate pesticides, finding him abnormally low in concentrations of the red blood cell cholinesterase, an indication of pesticide poisoning. Connie removed Michael from the classroom and began to teach him at home. In time, his blood levels returned to normal, but he showed a heightened sensitivity to pesticides, fragrances, cleaning products and other household chemicals. It was clear to Connie that Michael required a school environment that was free of toxins in order to remain well.

Doesn’t every parent want a toxin-free school for their child?

THE TRUTH ABOUT PESTICIDES

Pesticides, like the organophosphate product used in Michael’s school, are designed to kill targeted pests by destroying their central nervous systems. Non-targeted organisms, such a beneficial insects,pets and humans , can also be adversely affected. Acute and chronic exposure to pesticides has been associated with many major and minor health problems, eliciting asthmatic and dermatological reactions, as well as symptoms of toxicity affecting gastrointestinal, endocrine, immune, reproductive and/or neurological systems. Exposure to pesticides is also linked to increased rates of cancer.

According to Dr. Sheldon Wagner of the Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology at Oregon Stte University, the organosphosphate class of pesticides is of the highest order of toxicity. Dr. Wagner has served in a variety of advisory capacities to EPA and is now administrator of the National Medical Monitoring Program. “Misapplied organophosphate pesticides can mimic asthma,” says Dr. Wagner, emphasizing that more serious effects are possible under conditions of chronic exposure.

Lower toxicity pesticides, like the natural pyrethrums, are not without their own dangers. “Pyrethrum is a known allergen which can cause asthma and skin reactions,” Wagner said, adding that too little is known about the possible adverse effects of pyrethroids, the synthetic versions of pyrethrums. “Certain groups of children, such as the ‘atopic’ or allergic youngster, are at greater risk for adverse effects from contact with both the active and inert ingredients of these chemicals.” He recommends that parents be informed before these material are used on school sites, so they can make choices regarding undesirable exposures.

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

Recognizing that we are all exposed to pesticides in multiple ways in our day-to-day lives and that this exposure is problematic, particularly for vulnerable groups like children, the chronically ill, pregnant women and the elderly, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996. The Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review and reduce permitted levels of pesticide residues on foods. The Act’s focus is on foods, however; it does not address pesticides use in homes, gardens, offices and schools.

The U.S. Senate has twice passed the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), which contains a policy known as “integrated pest management” or IPM. IPM promotes pest control using a variety of least toxic methods, such as blocking pests’ entry into buildings with caulk and window screens and cleaning up likely sources of food and water. It recommends common sense solutions to pest control problems which do not necessarily involves the use of poisons, such as removing pests with a HEPA vacuum or using gel baits and other materials which do not become airborne. If stronger pest control is warranted, IPM allows targeted applications of more toxic pesticides but requires that special precautions be taken, such as notifying affected people within the vicinity. Opponents argued that the bill is expensive, burdensome and unnecessary, and SEPA died in a House Committee.

According to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, four states- Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania- now have regulations which contain all the SEPA provisions. Other states have one or two of the EPA requirement, but there is no uniformity among them.

Until now, pesticides have been a ubiquitous, if unconscious part of the national landscape. The SEPA debates have helped to increase public awareness of this issue, and concern about pesticide use is growing internationally. Canada has taken a leadership position in adopting a precautionary approach to chemical exposures. Many communities there have passed laws that restrict the cosmetic use of pesticides and herbicides on public lands and privately owned lawns where children and other bystanders can be affected.

SAFE SCHOOLS

The Eash family moved to Connecticut , where they enrolled Micheal in a school district that uses strategies to promote a healthy school environment. Facility managers maintain school grounds and buildings using a careful selection of “least toxic” products. For example, the use of pesticides and herbicides on turf is reduced by sowing multiple seed types in high concentrations to help ensure survival of healthy grasses. Application of certain soil amendments, along with a variety of aeration and mowing techniques, all promote lawn health and reduce pest infestation. in addition, effective water management (e.g. reducing amounts used for irrigation during humid weather) limits the growth of fungi.

The same thoughtful attention is given to indoor maintenance. The entry of pests into buildings is prevented by sealing cracks in foundations and installing screens. The facility managers keep buildings in good shape and promptly repair leaks. They make certain that all food is properly stored and disposed of and that facilities are kept clean. As a result, the school provides necessary maintenance while it reduces the costs normally associated with pest control. A pest control company inspects school buildings every month. If pests are noted in large number, the least toxic measures, such as gel baits or boric acid, are used. In rare cases where a more toxic product is recommended, advance notification goes out to all concerned staff and parents.

Applications are then made outside of school operating hours. When the state of Connecticut adopted laws to reduce pesticide use in its schools, this district already exceeded the provisions of the new statutes.

Advance notification of chemical applications on school property is still not required in most states. Fortunately for Micheal Eash, such notification had become policy in his new school district. However, until such policies become standard, parents are well advised to be aware of school maintenance policies and procedures. only a healthy school environment can foster learning and personal growth.

Unfortunately, the media is just another form of ’show biz’, further separating people from important direct and concise summations of issues. The NY Times demonstrates how little can be learned from participating in the pomp and circumstance of a 24 hour news cycle when journalists reiterate their diametrically opposing points in ‘counterpoint’. You don’t really have a conversation that way but just fill more space with the same signatures.

So, when this weeks NY Times Op Ed columnists, David Brooks and Gail Collins each posted their views of the current health reform nonsense – that bipartisan race to preserve medical care for the healthy and wealthy – it is impossible not to recognize how this country turns a basic philosophical premise about how we view human life into a comedy sketch. I keep expecting Brooks to address Collins as “Gail, you ignorant slut.”, in a parody of the old Saturday Night Live take-offs of similar debates to the ‘Conversations‘ of these two writers.

In her column this week entitled, “The New Perils of Pauline“, Gail Collins demonstrates the classic dilution of feminist theory and rhetoric as she competes for attention with male colleagues in this still mostly-male domain. David Brooks presented us with his ‘views’ in another colunm, “The Hardest Call“. Brooks is the Times’ resident conservative who continues to make abject apologies to the Republican party for breaking faith with them and voting for Obama.

Let’s get down to the basics. Women in this country are far more likely to be uninsured due to underemployment and therefore more likely to fall into unemployment and disability/homelessness than our male compatriots. Women raise children and are essential to the workforce. How is depriving women of health insurance contributing to the economic stability of the United States? As far as looking for equity in medical care for women (e.g. reimbursed for birth control or coverage for abortion as men are covered for Viagra prescriptions), we have to start with a woman’s right to coverage for a simple appendectomy. The rest will come through legislation or litigation by healthy women in active pursuit of that goal.

Don’t ask David Brooks for answers, Ms. Collins. He cited his fears that a vote to allow another thirty million Americans access to health care will lead to overconsumption of services which will then raise health care costs. Should we assume Mr. Brooks is going to forgo health care when he gets sick in order to prevent such a rise in costs? Never mind, that’s another ‘conversation’ which shouldn’t take place.

Health care costs cannot be studied in the same manner as other relationships between goods/services and consumption. This is because consumption of health care services is not dictated by a positive leaning towards a product like that second TV gracing so many households. It is dictated by a problem which likely shouldn’t exist – that of enormous rates of sickness in the population. The mapping of health care provided to the population is a map for understanding the nature of illness itself and the actual key to reducing need, and therefore demand, for medical services.

Legislation to ban smoking in workplaces and public places was based in the high costs of medical services to people with tobacco-related ailments. The controversy surrounding this landmark legislation meandered around the block many times into the land of ‘free choice’, Big Brotherdom and loss of income to bars and restaurants where smokers gather to, well, choke together over coffee or gin and tonics.

Even physicians were among the doubting Thomases despite knowing how harmful smoking is to their patients. To everyone’s astonishment (okay, not mine but I’m an asthmatic who can detect cigarette smoke from a block away), passage of this legislation led to a reduction in heart disease/cardiac events in the population by one third! Non-smokers were dropping like flies because they became secondary consumers of tobacco products without such legal protections. Imagine the savings in health care costs, not to mention human suffering!

Here is my comment to Ms. Collins as she wanders through the labyrinth of corporate America’s road blocks with her fellow journalists.

368. B.R.
West Lebanon, NH
December 19th, 2009
3:04 pm

Ms. Collins,

Perhaps you are having too many ‘conversations’ with David Brooks. Your writings are becoming more ‘centrist’ than objective views of reality. America is owned by corporations. Corporate interests don’t want universal health care in the U.S. for two reasons:

1. Provision of health care is profitable when given to the privileged at high premiums. I call it a privilege since the corporations can revoke the contract seemingly at will.

2. Universal health care means accurate statistics regarding illness and better tracking of causation for those ailments. That has led the EU to implement such remedies as REACH in which new and untested chemicals must be studied for potential harm to consumers before marketing. The requirement for complete product labeling is also a huge aid to consumers there in making healthy choices. Our corporate owners need to retain their veil of secrecy about how the pollution of air and water, and our adulterated foods and other consumer goods taken into our homes has been responsible for driving up the need for health care services. Fears of overconsumption driving up health care costs (Brook’s position) is completely misleading to the public.

A third of adult Americans (16-64) have a chronic illness or disability according to the CDC; one in six children a developmental disability according to pediatrician, Dr. Phillip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai. Three of ten workers can expect to file for disability according to the Social Security Agency.

Overconsumption of services has its base in the need for said services, all courtesy of corporate America. Please address your sharp journalistic eye to the real underpinnings of our failure to pass health care in any form. There is no debate here and passage of a bill authorizing access to health care is the thin end of the wedge which will lead to further refinements/improvements over time.

Right now, too many are flat out of time. Women are disproportionately affected as well, being more prone to autoimmune diseases provoked by environmental causes. Let’s not pander to the predominantly male game players who are confident they will win while pretending ambivalence in the matter.

Thank you,
Barbara Rubin

Chemical induced injuries of war are still with us. Terminal illness is mounting among the rescue workers, as revealed in this news article titled, “9/11’s Delayed Legacy: Cancer for Many of the Rescuers” . Additionally we should recognize the health effects suffered by the crews which spent a year removing the carnage of 911. Their participation can easily be compared with that of military construction crews serving our nation such as the Seabees.

I recall those terrible days following the collapse of the towers and the helpless feeling as those black clouds passed over our city. The particles stained our buildings and became one with our bodies as we inhaled their unspeakable contents. As the shock of the attack upon home soil began to fade, further betrayal was experienced when subsequent hazards in the form of poisonous fumes was not just downplayed but actually suppressed by officials. Our leaders had a duty to ensure New Yorkers and responders were adequately warned and protected. Having been disabled myself by toxic fumes just a couple of years earlier, seeing the live footage of workers wearing flimsy surgical masks -if anything at all – was shocking, to say the least. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the hazards of a basic, average building fire and the events of 9/11 were most definitely not ‘average’ fires contributing some transient particulate pollution problem to a confined area. The magnitude of the destruction here could not have left anyone with a grain of sense in doubt as to the immediate and deferred effects.

In the immediacy of the moment, the responding heroes used what was at hand. That meant filters filled, quickly becoming useless so that responders couldn’t function with them in those early hours of the crisis. However, the situation didn’t appear to change over the successive days and weeks as misinformation was generated and publicized.

Someone recently found copies of letters to the editor of the New York Post which I had written in reply to that misinformation. They are reprinted below and should serve as reminders that contaminants in our air are largely unknown to us; greatly mischaracterized by those with profits at stake and often dismissed outright as folly on the part of fear-mongering hypochondriacs. In reality, we see that they do indeed pack a lethal punch in the form of many diseases our strongest and healthiest should never, ever have contracted in their youth. We are just learning about the impaired health of area residents and one of the letters below deals with school children.

From where I stand, we’ve learned nothing but, perhaps, how to be better at evading the truth. We are all veterans of lies which pit citizens of other nations against us and American against American here at home. Conflicts based in true misunderstanding can be resolved. Wars can bring about an end to tyranny. Unfortunately, when conflicts of interest are all that matters, profits from the immediate resumption of commerce and acts to mitigate future liabilities led us to sacrifice more of our best and brightest. Start digging more trenches over at Arlington. There are uncounted veterans of great LIES.

Letter to New York Post, Re: New York can Breathe Free, 9/21/01

To the Editor:

Your article of 9/18/01 entitled “New York can Breathe Free” is a prime example of inadequate research and concern for the residents of this city. The quotes given from only one medical source gives one the impression that anyone foolish enough to have symptoms of respiratory distress from the continuing rain of particulate matter pollution emanating from the WTC site is an alarmist who needs to see a doctor for “reassurance”.

I refer your journalist to the EPA, CDC and any other agency concerned with the public’s health and safety to see articles (predating this tragedy) about the serious health threats stemming from the normally high
concentrations of particulate matter in our air. Add to this the matter from pulverized concrete and glass, burning jet fuel, melted plastics, smoldering electrical wire etc. which will be rising for weeks and months to come and a real danger to our residents is exposed. Since there is an extremely high rate of asthma in this city, concerns must be expressed for the added burden this pollution presents which will claim more lives.

The treatment for asthma itself increases the assimilation of particulate pollution internally. Broncho-dilating medications open the constricted airways permitting more particles to enter the deeper recesses of the lungs.
Steroids are then given to reduce resulting inflammation. No one addresses the absorption of toxins bound to the dust particles which can have other systemic effects.

It is time to stop the pretense that the public does not continue to be at risk from the WTC tragedy and the proliferation of bad advice coming from official agencies and some media sources.

We should be providing HEPA filters to classrooms and offices in this city and outlying areas. People should be wearing filter masks in areas of the highest concentrations instead of relying upon medications to relieve
symptoms while exposing themselves to further pollutants. Physical exertion should also be minimized in these areas, perhaps cancelling gym classes for our children.

As for our rescue/cleanup workers, they should be wearing the highest quality respirator equipment that can be provided with frequent changes of cartridges as intake valves become clogged with contaminants. Contaminated clothing should NOT be laundered only to contaminate the rest of the family’s clothing. It should be placed in sealed plastic bags and discarded!

I would like to see the Fire Department issue an order that their men all follow these safely precautions just as the Police Department had to take safety matters into their own hands last year in the matter of the pesticide
spraying for West Nile Virus. The police department frequently had escort duties for spray trucks but had no exposure prevention guidelines to follow. A memo was finally issues within the department to tell officers how to minimize their exposure. All we heard from our health department, echoed in the pages of our newspapers, was that the spray did not constitute a health risk. Let us not make the same foolish assumptions here.

We must realize that the city administration and our regulatory agencies are all trying to prevent panic and disorder. However, panic arises when people cannot trust the information they receive, not when the truth about problems along with remedial procedures are presented. We are not children but adults living in the shadow of tragedy who need reliable information so we can take care of ourselves and help our neighbors.

Barbara Rubin

—————————————

Letter to New York Daily News, Re: Stuyvesant Students Sickened (10/18/01)

To the Editor,

Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Whitman continuously repeat their mantras of how safe the air is to breathe in lower Manhattan. Chancellor Levy occupies an office in Stuyvesant High School for a few days to show he is not subjecting children to an environment which he, himself, would not occupy. These words and gestures are meaningless to each student and teacher who is showing symptoms of respiratory distress or toxicity from
the very real fumes and abrasive dust particles emanating from the nearby ruins of the WTC. Measures to keep out such materials through the sealing of the building only generated a different toxin in the form of elevated carbon dioxide levels. Excessive CO2 levels also causes illness and can induce anxiety symptoms.

It is time we realized that we do not need the approval of those in authority to confirm what our bodies and minds are telling us about our environments. It is past time for us to free ourselves of feelings of
self-consciousness or fears of ridicule when we are made ill by environmental contaminants. For those fortunate enough to be symptom free at this time, the stress upon their bodies to stay that way is a waste of
physical resources. For those who are symptomatic, immediate action must be taken to remove them from the vicinity of the WTC. Children and teachers should not be exposed to the immediate and potential dangers for the sake of putting on a show for the tourist industry. “See, it is safe enough for children.” might as well be the caption under this picture, etched against a backdrop of particulate haze occupying the area around Stuyvesant High School.

The persons who suggested the school was ready to be occupied following an extensive clean-up operation must have assumed that the doors and windows of this building, so close to ground zero, would never again be opened. What possessed anyone to believe the rooms and halls would not be re-contaminated
with toxic smoke and abrasive dusts as recovery efforts continue for the next year? Now officials warn (or is it threaten) parents of the gifted young people attending this special high school that if they pull their
children out of school as a health precaution, they will not be allowed to return. The courts need to step in and issue an immediate ruling to prevent academic futures from being held hostage to the pseudo-science being practiced in NYC today.

The administration of this city specializes in denial of physical realities of health risks to the population. They call pesticides “safe”, as if their poisonous characteristics dissipate upon contact with humans versus the
knock out’ value to mosquitoes. They claim roaches are the major culprit in asthma exacerbation while exterminators spray huge amounts of poisons indoors where they remain airborne for many days and leave residues for months due to a lack of sunlight. The labels all state they should not be inhaled yet bus stops are sprayed only minutes before they are occupied by school bound students. Now, tons of rubble spew fiberglass particles into the air and we are told that these fine particulate pollutants are below the “level of concern”. There are no safe levels of exposure postulated for children, the aged or the infirm. Similarly, women appear to have lower tolerance levels for toxicants than do normal, healthy adult males.

Residents should take whatever precautions they feel are appropriate to take at this time, be it the wearing of appropriate NIOSH rated masks in streets or offices, use of gloves and surgical masks when handling office mail or the strategic flight of “at risk” persons from areas contaminated with the by-products of the WTC terror attack. Bowing to the dictates of reality is not a concession to terrorism but a tribute to our intelligence and adaptability. We can and will go on under all circumstances. However, we will do so sensibly with the full realization that the attack upon our persons continues until the last load of rubble is cleared and the last terrorist cell is disarmed. The costs of ignoring such realities can last a lifetime.

Barbara Rubin

To the Editor;

I wish to express my objection to your absence of supervision over your Op-Ed contributors. David Brooks’ latest column, “The Tenacity Question” cites unnamed, but prominent, military sources as approving the President’s manner of policy-setting. However, Brooks then tells us these ‘experts’ (of unstated party affiliation) worry that Obama’s character is such as to preclude his continuing in this apparently praise-worthy manner.

I don’t recall hearing Brooks publishing his concerns regarding the manner in which George Bush’s military decisions were reached via the active counsel of The Lord. It is doubtful that Brooks’ sources were sufficiently lofty to confirm Bush’s claims, but he nonetheless failed to warn us that Bush might not have the resolve to see His work through to the end.

The election is over. Perhaps you should request that your columnist take his non-newsworthy fears to Face-Book or Twitter. This would be preferable to using up valuable space on your pages, at least until the next campaign begins. Republicans can then re-introduce issues of character as their replacement for substantive policy R&D.

Barbara Rubin

First is this column by Charles Blow of the NY Times. Mr. Blow read a blog entry by Tyler Perry, detailing his horrendous childhood experiences at the hands of a drunken father.  Reading the words of this survivor of child abuse made it clear that Perry lost his opportunity to escape his father’s influence because his fleeing mother had been returned to that abusive man, much like the other ‘property’ he’d declared stolen – the family car. Perry was additional baggage, not even separated from his mother during her incarceration while waiting to be ‘claimed’, and a witness to his mother being beaten throughout that endless drive home. 

Being forced to witness abuse is also abuse. Children, by their egocentric natures, feel they are integral parts of the problems surrounding them, requiring tremendous reassurance of their blamelessness. That balm is simply unavailable in the face of overwhelming pathology. This leaves the children of such homes forever marked not just by fear, but the sense of shame and guilt accompanying inaction. That inaction on the part of all who know or suspect abuse extends that helplessness into an all-pervasive characteristic of society.

How convenient for those in authority.
 
Here was my comment (minor corrections added), posted in reply to the column, “No More Suffering”, by Charles Blow (NY Times, 10/10/09):

13. October 10th, 2009

Mr. Blow,

Law enforcement forced Tyler Perry’s mother to return to her violent husband. Violence against women is a way of life, sanctioned in nearly every society, if not actively endorsed. We have only recently seen an end to foot binding in the last century after billions were abused. Female genital mutilation remains a common occurrence in some cultures even where there has been specific legislation against such practices. Here in the US, with our culture of violence, women plead in vain for protective measures against known and unknown parties. Our own rape shield laws are one example of how pervasively society blames violence upon the violated, pursuing them into the court room on the rare occasions sexual assault cases make it to trial. Such assaults are a crime against society, not just the woman (or man) in question.

The CDC notes that a quarter of women endure partner violence, an overt measure of subjugation which makes no mention of the day to day mental cruelty endured prior to physical brutality. Children growing up in the climate of emotional and physical abuse may learn to accept it as normal and repeat the cycle. Those who manage to avoid passing on that legacy of violence are its only true survivors.

One factor is rarely included in the serious issue of violence being ‘under-reported’. Many victims do not initially consider remaining silent. Law enforcement personnel often refuse to record complaints by women of stalking, harassment and assault (never mind investigating or prosecuting them), automatically consigning them to nuisance calls. From there we move on to the insufficient availability of housing options for abused women and children to escape retribution and the need to endure in silence.

Additional benefits stem from ignoring violence. All of societal ills can then be blamed upon histories of self-reported trauma. It conveniently replaces the need for concrete social services with prescriptions of anti-depressants for adults and children (assuming the parties are insured). It continues to ignore a lack of parity in employment between the genders and access to safe, affordable childcare which can go a long way towards preventing and identifying child abuse.

Thank you for keeping this topic in the public eye but it is largely preventable if its roots in misogyny are recognized.

Recommended by 55 Readers

This suit should trigger observational studies by the EPA and the Department of Agriculture where there is an unfounded rumor that drift from the application of pesticides and herbicides is simply not an issue. Having dealt with both agencies, I can personally vouch for their vociferous resistance to that notion, even when documented through clinical testing of both bodies and buildings. I recall being verbally abused upon insisting that ignoring these matters was a politically, rather than scientifically, based matter by persons in both agencies.

Since those Idaho farmers lost their crops to poisoning of the land, the likelihood of some of them being unable to afford health insurance will certainly become a serious issue should the effects of that poison affect any of them in future. Plaintiff’s attorneys will hopefully have considered that even if the media feels that mentioning such a concept is bad for its advertisers. Certainly this is not a normal omission from a story about contamination.

Here was my comment (which never saw the light of day) regarding
S. Idaho Farmers regroup after pesticide mishap by Laurie Welch (The Olympian, 9/19/09) In fact, no comments appear to have been approved for this story when I last visited the site. Why don’t you try?

Welch’s article on damage done by an herbicide to local farmland makes no mention of whether ground water contamination or drift into residences has occurred. Has the community reported any health effects as a result of herbicide persistence?

The database at the Pesticide Action Network notes that adverse effects of chronic exposure to Sulfometuron methyl herbicide can result in metabolic disorders, emphysema and other health problems. There is an uncomfortable lack of data about this and many other such chemicals.

The preservation of farming as an industry, and of farmland as a precious resource, has to become a top priority in this country. Chemical drift from weed management must be assessed for effects upon schools, homes and businesses. Regulation of devices for applying these chemicals in a manner which reduces drift is also a long awaited advance in this science. Impacts upon successive generations of sentinel wildlife forms in the path of drift or due to chemical persistence, is another essential measure of our risk.

Litigation records cannot serve as evidence of pesticide safety because the science of detection for persistent contamination and adverse health effects is extremely limited. Physician education in toxicology is lacking while resources for testing indoor environments and their occupants are largely inaccessible to the public. Given the increase in developmental and acquired disabilities throughout the country, greater scrutiny in the selection and application process for our chemical tools can no longer be delayed. Medical monitoring of individuals exposed to pesticides must be part of the evolution of modern land management techniques.