———————-
Terror NEVER ENDS
And NORAHG DID Something
… in 2011 !
Against the SCREECHING
Anti-Pesticide Lunatic-Monkeys
NORAHG EXPRESSED OUTRAGE
NORAHG SENT LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
NORAHG COMPLAINED, COMPLAINED, COMPLAINED
———————
( Pesticide ) free at last ! Rossland bypasses the bylaw but takes a stand against cosmetic 'cides nonetheless [ ?!?! ]
November 30th, 2011
Diana Daghofer, Ilona Hale, and Kathy Moore
The Nelson Daily
Rossland, British Columbia
Letters to the Editor by Daghofer-Hale-Moore ( link )
Send Letters to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Rossland News
The Nelson Daily
Send Letters to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Rossland News
http://www.rosslandnews.com/contact_us/?curSection=%2F&c=y&returnPath=%2F&bc09=true
Response to Daghofer-Hale-Moore by NORAHG ( text )
ANTI-PESTICIDE LOBBYISTS ARE NOT CREDIBLE
Diana Daghofer, Ilona Hale, Kathy Moore, and their buddies, have NO recognized expertise, training or background in matters concerning pest control products.
They are mere HIRED-GUN lobbyists PAID, directly or indirectly, by Canadian Cancer Society.
Anti-Pesticide Activists, like Daghofer-Hale-Moore, are NOT CREDIBLE experts on pest control products.
This PROBLEM WITH LACK-OF-ACTIVIST-CREDIBILITY reflects the overall larger problem with ALL Anti-Pesticide Activists.
There are NO Anti-Pesticide Activists who are scientists or researchers with credentials in the field of pest control products.
NONE !
NONE are COMPETENT to talk about pest control products.
Anti-Pesticide Activists, like Daghofer-Hale-Moore, are PARTISAN, ARROGANT, and NARCISSISTIC ENOUGH to DEMAND that other people do things their way.
They have CREATED the HORROR of Anti-Pesticide CARNAGE.
SUBVERSIVE ANTI-PESTICIDE CONSPIRACY
Daghofer-Hale-Moore, and their buddies, CONSPIRE to PROHIBIT pest control products that are, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
They CONSPIRE to IMPOSE ideas that are INTELLECTUALLY DECREPIT, DEPRAVED, DESPICABLE, and DEVOID OF ANY SOUND SCIENCE.
Their DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE is DESPICABLY converting our communities into UNHAPPY, UGLY, UNEMPLOYED, UNENLIGHTENED, and UNHEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS.
Daghofer-Hale-Moore, and their buddies, have DESTROYED the Professional Lawn Care Industry in Eastern Canada.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear …
… these Anti-Pesticide Activists have a HUGE VESTED INTEREST IN PERPETUATING IMAGINARY DANGERS about pest control products BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID TO DO SO.
Do Professional Lawn Care Companies have a VESTED INTEREST in STOPPING PROHIBITION ?!?!
ABSOLUTELY !
HORRENDOUS ANTI-PESTICIDE CARNAGE
Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION has INFLICTED HORRENDOUS CARNAGE across Canada.
In ALL jurisdictions across Canada, Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION led to IMMENSE LOSSES OF REVENUES, BUSINESS FAILURES, BANKRUPTCY, and UNEMPLOYMENT.
As a sad consequence of Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION in the Province of Quebec, OVER 60 PER CENT of the Professional Lawn Care Industry WAS ANNIHILATED.
Because of PROHIBITION in Ontario, the Professional Lawn Care Industry LOST OVER 500,000,000 DOLLARS, with UP TO 12,500 UNEMPLOYED.
Because of PROHIBITION in Ontario, ONE-COMPANY-PER-WEEK DISAPPEARS INTO TOTAL OBLIVION.
The SAME fate awaits British Columbia.
Daghofer-Hale-Moore, and their buddies, should Get Off Our grASS !
———————
Time City Council Caught Chemical Drift [ ?!?! ]
November 12th, 2011
Elisabeth Beaubien
The Edmonton Journal
Edmonton, Alberta
Letter to the Editor by Beaubien ( link )
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/story_print.html?id=5703196&sponsor=
Send Letters to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Beaubien by NORAHG ( link )
Response to Beaubien by NORAHG ( text )
WHO IS ELISABETH BEAUBIEN ?
Let’s clearly identify that Elisabeth Beaubien is a Non-Expert Anti-Pesticide Activist who is PAID-FOR-PROFIT by Pesticide Free Edmonton, an organization that has NOT even updated its web-site since February 8th, 2010.
Furthermore, Beaubien is a middle-aged forestry student at the University of Alberta, and possesses NO RECOGNIZED EXPERTISE WHATSOEVER in matters concerning pest control products ― her opinions are TOTALLY and UTTERLY WORTHLESS.
Nonetheless, Beaubien cycles and walks around town LOOKING FOR TROUBLE ― in the form of HAPLESS Professional Lawn Care employees who are PROTECTING LANDSCAPES from damaging pests.
Employees are strongly urged NOT to RESPOND to her VERBAL HARASSSMENTS, and NOT to answer ANY of her questions.
Beaubien must be politely told to contact the employer or Health Canada.
There is NOTHING to be gained by responding to an Anti-Pesticide Activist.
Beaubien has also attempted to SCAM and DECEIVE Edmonton Government Officials into believing that it is necessary to PROHIBIT conventional pest control products that are, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, ALBERTA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY and PROVINCIALLY LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON–OXIC.
In fact, PROHIBITION will NEEDLESSLY DESTROY the livelihood of employees who are PROFESSIONALLY-TRAINED, LAW-ABIDING, and TAX-PAYING.
THE MYTH OF CANCER
Beaubien ALLEGES, with NO SCIENCE-BASED EVIDENCE, that some of the products used by Professional Lawn Care companies are somehow « associated with the incidence of many cancers as well as nerve problems such as Parkinson's disease and attention deficit disorder. »
Beaubien is WRONG !
It is a MYTH to believe that pest control products such as 2,4-D somehow cause cancer.
2,4-D has been used for the control of broad-leaved weeds in the Urban Landscape SINCE 1946.
2,4-D has a 65-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD regarding long-term risk to health.
In 2007, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued a ruling that 2,4-D IS NOT CANCER-CAUSING IN HUMANS.
The World Health Organization lists 2,4-D in the SAME CANCER-RISK CATEGORY AS PICKLED VEGETABLES AND CELL-PHONES.
Pest control products CAUSE NO HARM, including chronic effects such as CANCER.
In fact, NO cause-and-effect relationship between pest control products and cancer has been established scientifically.
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
While watching a Professional Lawn Care applicator perform his tasks, Beaubien observed that « this man was just wearing pants and a T-shirt; no long sleeves, hat, nor a respirator or mask ».
Beaubien was IMPLYING that the applicator was improperly protected, and needed to wear a mask or a respirator.
Beaubien is INCORRECT !
In fact, the applicator was NOT required to wear a mask or a respirator because IT WAS NOT NECESSARY.
All pest control products applied by Professional Lawn Care companies DO NOT require RESPIRATORY PROTECTION such as masks or respirators.
The instructions for using these products, including the requirements for personal protection, are clearly indicated on the label.
All pest control products applied by Professional Lawn Care companies DO NOT require RESPIRATORY PROTECTION such as masks or respirators.
To ensure applicator safety, the label states what personal protective equipment needs to be worn when applying the product.
However, ALL pest control products used by Professional Lawn Care companies are considered as EYE and SKIN IRRITANTS, and personal protective equipment, such as pants and rubber boots, may be required for the applicator.
Nonetheless, NO pest control products used by Professional Lawn Care companies require the use of respiratory protection for the applicator.
NO PROHIBITION IN ALBERTA
Elisabeth Beaubien must surely be aware that the Government of Alberta has NO INTENTION to PROHIBIT, on a province-wide basis, pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
The Government of Alberta stated on August 9th, 2011, that it intends to continue to STRONGLY SUPPORT USING SCIENCE-BASED EVIDENCE, and WILL NOT CREATE RESTRICTIONS OR LAWS that conflict with Health Canada, the federal agency relied upon for health and safety assessments.
According the Government of Alberta, restricting access to products that are designed and approved to be used safely CONFLICTS with its assessment of the public’s need for access to all tools available for controlling a variety of pests.
PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS PROTECT OUR LANDSCAPES
Pest control products are used very selectively, and only when necessary to PROTECT THE HEALTH of turfgrasses and ornamental plants in our Urban Landscapes.
They are applied to help PROTECT OUR LANDSCAPES from the damage caused by insects, weeds, and disease.
First and foremost, pest control products are NOT USED PRIMARILY FOR AESTHETIC REASONS.
They are tools that help to ENSURE A HEALTHY LANDSCAPE.
The use of these products PROTECTS OUR LANDSCAPES as VALUABLE ECOLOGICALLY-IMPORTANT Green Spaces.
PROHIBITION IS NOT NECESSARY
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED in Edmonton because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
In fact, pest control products are …
● Health-Canada-Approved
● Federally-Legal
● Safe For Children *
● Scientifically-Safe
● Practically-Non-Toxic
● Good for the Environment
* Except when stored improperly in the home.
In other jurisdictions PROHIBITION has led to CARNAGE.
In jurisdictions like Ontario, PROHIBITION led to the DEATH of an elderly man who was forced to hand-pull TOXIC NOXIOUS WEEDS.
In jurisdictions where PROHIBITION has been IMPLEMENTED, the Professional Lawn Care Industry has SUFFERED IMMENSE LOSSES, in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Moreover, because of PROHIBITION, green spaces are OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS, INFESTED WITH INSECTS, and DISMALLY DESTROYED ― they look like GARBAGE DUMPS.
PROHIBITION is NOT necessary because, overall, when pest control products are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
———————
Coquitlam Pesticide By-Law Stalls [ AGAIN ! ]
Pesticide Plans Put Off [ AGAIN ! ]
October 26th, 2011
Selina Robinson
Coquitlam Now
Coquitlam, British Columbia
The Tri-City News
Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody, British Columbia
Vancouver Sun
Vancouver, British Columbia
Letters to the Editor by Robinson ( links )
Coquitlam Now
Coquitlam, British Columbia
http://www.thenownews.com/life/Coquitlam+pesticide+bylaw+stalls/5606968/story.html
The Tri-City News
Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody, British Columbia
http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/tricitynews/news/132555098.html
Vancouver Sun
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Coquitlam+pesticide+bylaw+stalls/5610511/story.html
Send Letters to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Coquitlam Now
Coquitlam, British Columbia
The Tri-City News
Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody, British Columbia
Vancouver Sun
Vancouver, British Columbia
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-sites )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Coquitlam Now
Coquitlam, British Columbia
http://www.thenownews.com/send-us-your-news/index.html
The Tri-City News
Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody, British Columbia
Response to Robinson by NORAHG ( text )
On October 24th, 2011, the Council of the City of Coquitlam voted on the first draft of PROHIBITION against pest control products in the Urban Landscape.
The issues of exceptions and by-law fines proved to be sticking points that prevented the draft by-law from moving even faster towards implementation.
This is a CLEAR REVERSAL of the Council’s decision in 2009.
NO PROHIBITION IN 2009
In a tie vote held on May 31st, 2009, the PROHIBITION proposed by Councillor Selina Robinson was DEFEATED in the City of Coquitlam.
Mayor Richard Stewart told the media he believed the PROVINCIAL LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT must engage the issue.
Councillor Brent Asmundson added that, either way, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES to properly investigate the issue.
Additionally, Asmundson commented ―
« They are bans that cannot be enforced ― the cities can’t go out and write tickets for people that buy pesticides they can purchase legally. »
In the end, the Mayor and Council simply wanted to put an end of the INTERMINABLE SHRIEKS and RANTS from the Anti-Pesticide Robinson.
ANTI-PESTICIDE COUNCILLOR
In 2009, Anti-Pesticide Councillor Selina Robinson expressed MOCK-DISMAY concerning the DEFEAT of her proposed PROHIBITION By-Law ―
« It got defeated ― I was completely shocked. »
Robinson operated with several Anti-Pesticide Organizations, including ― Canadian-Cancer-Society, Toxic-Free-Canada, West-Coast-Environmental-Law, and a little club called Coquitlam Pesticide Awareness Coalition.
She was HANDSOMELY REMUNERATED by these organizations for her Anti-Pesticide Activities.
Robinson tried to INACCURATELY and INAPPROPRIATELY DRAW PARALLELS between the use of pest control products in the Urban Landscape, versus issues surrounding DDT Insecticide and Thalidomide.
Robinson also USED CHILDREN AS WEAPONS OF COERCION and ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL-TERROR against pest control products ―
« Why would we even consider putting our CHILDREN AT RISK when there are safer alternatives. ».
In fact, pest control products are applied at VERY LOW DOSES, and DO NOT PRESENT A CONCERN to people … even to CHILDREN.
Moreover, Robinson DISTORTED THE TRUTH by claiming …
« We're not going to let our gardens go to hell in a hand-basket. There are LOTS OF ALTERNATIVES. »
In fact, there are NO alternatives ― Green Alternatives are NOT viable, NOT efficacious, NOT economical … and most are NOT even legal.
Furthermore, Robinson is trained as a THERAPIST with NO recognized background or expertise in matters concerning pest control products.
Robinson’s opinions are TOTALLY VALUELESS and UTTERLY WORTHLESS.
PROHIBITION NOT NECESSARY
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED in Coquitlam because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
Clearly, PROHIBITION in Coquitlam is 100 per cent Politically-Based and 0 per cent Science-Based.
The MAJOR SOURCE of exposure to pest control products is from FOOD SUPPLY, and NOT the Urban Landscape.
Jurisdictions like the City of Coquitlam are ARBITRARILY planning to PROHIBIT pest control products.
In fact, pest control products are …
● Health-Canada-Approved
● Federally-Legal
● Safe For Children *
● Scientifically-Safe
● Practically-Non-Toxic
● Good for the Environment
* Except when stored improperly in the home.
Furthermore, pest control products …
● Cause No Harm
● Do Not Cause Cancer
● Do Not Run-Off Into Lakes and Streams
● Enhance the Urban Landscape
In other jurisdictions PROHIBITION has led to CARNAGE.
In jurisdictions like Ontario, PROHIBITION led to the DEATH of an elderly man who was forced to hand-pull TOXIC NOXIOUS WEEDS.
In jurisdictions where PROHIBITION has been IMLEMENTED, the Professional Lawn Care Industry has SUFFERED IMMENSES LOSSES, in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Moreover, because of PROHIBITION, green spaces are OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS, INFESTED WITH INSECTS, and DISMALLY DESTROYED ― they look like GARBAGE DUMPS.
PROHIBITION is NOT necessary because, overall, when pest control products are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
QUEBEC COULD NOT VALIDATE PROHIBITION
In 2004, Quebec became the first province to ARBITRARILY IMPOSE the PROHIBITION of pest control products like 2,4-D.
Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and prohibitions are now IRREFUTABLY INVALIDATED.
On May 25th, 2011, Dow AgroSciences, the manufacturer of the pest control product 2,4-D, SETTLED THE NAFTA CHALLENGE CASE with the Canadian government.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a tri-lateral trade block in North America.
2,4-D has been used for the control of broad-leaved weeds in the Urban Landscape SINCE 1946.
2,4-D has a 65-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD regarding long-term risk to health.
As part of the agreement, a VICTORY for the company, the GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC was HUMILIATED into making a STATEMENT saying that …
« 2,4-D DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK to human health or the environment. »
Quebec was the first province to declare weed control products containing 2,4-D as POSSIBLY carcinogenic, which has now been DEEMED AS FALSE.
On that basis, municipalities in Quebec instituted NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITIONS of 2,4-D use as a lawn pest control product.
Other jurisdictions outside of Quebec also CONSPIRED to IMPOSE the Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITIONS of 2,4-D under the PRETEXT that it was a so-called carcinogen.
In fact, ABSOLUTELY NO regulatory body in the world classifies 2,4-D as a human carcinogen ― 2,4-D is probably the MOST STUDIED and BEST UNDERSTOOD of ANY chemical ― not just pesticide ― in existence.
2,4-D DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK to human health or the environment.
CIVIL ACTION IN ONTARIO
If the City of Coquitlam proceeds with PROHIBITION, it may eventually have to face the CONSQUENCES of its actions.
Anti-Pesticide Government Officials and Activists are now facing these CONSEQUENCES in jurisdictions like the Province of Ontario.
In January 2010, the Professional Lawn Care Industry outlined the LIST OF CHARGES against the Government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment.
Additionally, individual Anti-Pesticide Activists also faced FRAUD CHARGES under the Canadian Criminal Code.
The LEGAL CHALLENGE was organized by Jeffrey P. Lowes and M-REP Communications.
Summary of alleged offences ―
● 133 charges and 29 culprits
● Conspiring to prevent the supply of approved pest control products
● Defrauding access to products
● Impeding access to approved pest control products
● Misleading with peer-reviewed assessments, reports, and studies
● Presenting false and misleading information
● Undermining the people and companies in Professional Lawn Care Industry.
By August 2010, M-REP Communications commenced CIVIL ACTION to recover the HORRENDOUS LOSSES caused by the PROHIBITION CONSPIRACY.
Now that the Ontario General Election concluded in October 2011, M-REP Communications resumed the CIVIL ACTION.
JEFFREY LOWES ― AUGUST 21ST, 2011
On August 21st, 2011, Jeffrey P. Lowes, of M-REP Communications, in the Toronto Sun newspaper, said politics, not science, is driving the Ontario PROHIBITION of pest control products in the Urban Landscape.
The Government of Ontario was more interested in appeasing lobbyists and environmental groups than developing policy based on facts, he said.
Lowes said he was preparing LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE ONTARIO PROHIBITION on behalf of Professional Lawn Care companies struggling to do their jobs with Green Alternatives that are largely INEFFECTIVE.
According to Lowes, when customers can’t get the results they want from Professional Lawn Care companies, they cancel their contracts and buy the banned products themselves.
Lowes estimated that PROHIBITION cost Professional Lawn Care companies 350 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
One firm was TERRORIZED WITH FINES WORTH TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for using up a banned product left in its inventory, he said.
According to Lowes, referring to the CONTROVERSIAL Golf Industry EXCEPTION to PROHIBITION ―
« That’s why the lawn care companies are scared because they’ve not only made a law based on FALSE MEDICAL REPORTS, the ministry of the environment has an enforcement branch that is basically walking around in JACK-BOOTS, you know, prosecuting anyone that has a nice lawn. Unless, of course, you own a GOLF COURSE. »
THE FRASER INSTITUTE
The City of Coquitlam should listen to The Fraser Institute, an independent non-profit research and educational organization ( THINK-TANK ) based in Canada that espouses free market principles.
In 2010, The Fraser Institute was ranked No. 1 among 97 THINK-TANKS in Canada, for the third year in a row, in the University of Pennsylvania’s Global Go-To THINK-TANK Index, a global survey of close to 1,500 scholars, policy makers, and journalists.
The Fraser Institute was also rated as the only Canadian organization in the Top 25 leading THINK-TANKS in the world in 2010, out of a global group of 6,480 THINK-TANKS.
According to a 2011 media release from The Fraser Institute …
● British Columbia is considering adopting ILL-CONCEIVED laws restricting pest control product use that DO NOT accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge
● A HASTY BAN of pest control products SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED until the underlying science is conclusive and a comprehensive analysis of the potential side-effects resulting from the BAN has been undertaken
● By BANNING pest control products for cosmetic uses, British Columbia would be following the QUESTIONABLE PRECEDENT several other provinces have set
● NO cause-and-effect relationship between pest control products and cancer has been established scientifically
● 2,4-D, a herbicide used by Professional Lawn Care companies, is in the same cancer-risk category as pickled vegetables and cell-phones
● The Environmental Impact Quotient ( EIQ ) for SOAP is HIGHER THAN the EIQ for 2,4-D Herbicide.
● A blanket PROHIBITION lacks the careful contrasting of costs and benefits.
● Politicians should avoid enacting POORLY-DESIGNED regulations to control pest control product use that may ultimately prove MORE DAMAGING than the pest control products themselves.
VAST MAJORITY ARE OPPOSED TO PROHIBITION
The City of Coquitlam should also listen to Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association ( CCSPA ).
In 2011, CCSPA conducted a POLL in British Columbia that provided the following conclusions ―
● The VAST MAJORITY of residents are OPPOSED to the PROHIBITION of conventional pest control products
● The VAST MAJORITY of residents FAVOUR the continued use of pest control products around their homes and in public green spaces
● The VAST MAJORITY of residents said « yes » to conventional pest control products
● Residents are CONFIDENT they can SAFELY USE pest control products
● Residents see the BENEFITS of pest control products
● There is a MISPERCEPTION that most residents want the PROHIBITION of pest control products in the Urban Landscape
● 84 PER CENT of residents WANT INSECT CONTROL on their lawns if products are applied by a Professional Lawn Care company
● 70 PER CENT of residents WANT WEED CONTROL on their lawns if products are applied by a Professional Lawn Care company
● Only an INFINITELY SMALL number of residents say « no » to the use of pest control products
● 25 PER CENT of residents WANT PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS NO MATTER WHAT
● Residents want to continue to have the option to use pest control products
● Residents SUPPORT THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS in the Urban Landscape
———————
Pesticide claims are ‘untrue’ [ Yes ! ]
October 21st, 2011
Selina Robinson
The Tri-City News
Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody, British Columbia
Article concerning Proposed Anti-Pesticide Prohibition ( link )
http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/tricitynews/news/132269678.html
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Robinson by NORAHG ( link )
http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/guest-bloggers/4252-bc-pesticide-ban-for-health-a-business.html
Response to Robinson by NORAHG ( text )
KEEPING THE LIES BIG AND SIMPLE
Anti-Pesticide Activists deserve NO LESS than ARRESTS, FINES, and IMPRISONMENT.
Anti-Pesticide Activists are basically Lying Sacks of Cwap !
They LIE … and LIE … and LIE … and LIE !
Anti-Pesticide Activists NEVER Stop !
Anti-Pesticide Activists are congenitally UNABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH about environmental issues, and that is why what they say is MERE FICTION.
Their actions are based upon the strategies of another lunatic, a German dictator with a tooth-brush moustache.
« Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. » ― Adolf Hitler.
Similarly, Anti-Pesticide Activists MAKE THE LIE BIG, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually the public believe them.
These activists should also be wearing tooth-brush moustaches
Anti-Pesticide Activists use emotion for the many, and reserve reason for the few.
« How fortunate for leaders that men do not think. » ― Adolf Hitler.
How fortunate for these activists that the people they deceive also DO NOT THINK.
They represent their own interests ONLY, seek to IMPOSE life-style choices on an unsuspecting public.
They do so by the CONCOCTION of MYTHS, DECEPTIONS, MISCONCEPTIONS, FEAR-MONGERING, FRAUDULENT LIES, COERCION, THREATS, TERROR, and PARANOID CONSPIRACIES to SCAM and DECEIVE the public into believing there is some IMAGINARY DANGER with conventional pest control products.
These Culprits CONSPIRE AGAINST the use of pest control products, or any other product they arbitrarily deem as unwanted.
Anti-Pesticide Activists also SCAM Government Officials into the NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITION of conventional pest control products that are, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
CULPRITS WILL FEEL THE TERROR OF THE COURTS
Anti-Pesticide Activists are advised that all names, statements, activities, and affiliations have been ARCHIVED for eventual CRIMINAL CHARGES.
These liars will be CHARGED with FRAUD and CONSPIRACY under the CRIMINAL CODE.
When criminal charges for FRAUD and CONSPIRACY are laid, Anti-Pesticide Activists should be advised that they have ALL have been identified on the basis of their statements, activities, affiliations, and whereabouts.
When criminal charges for FRAUD and CONSPIRACY are laid, legal experts say that there is sufficient information to lead to a SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION !
Many Anti-Pesticide Activists may be ARRESTED and JAILED for FRAUD !
In court, Anti-Pesticide Activist-Defendants will realize that NOT A SINGLE PERSON within their organizations has ANY recognized expertise, training or background in matters concerning pest control products !
In court, Anti-Pesticide Activist-Defendants will be unable to provide ANY SCIENTIFIC BASIS for their NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS CONSPIRACY to PROHIBIT pest control products !
In court, Anti-Pesticide Activist-Defendants will be « left out to dry » by their former co-conspirators !
Other activists will « rat out » their former co-conspirators.
These CULPRITS will be LIABLE FOR DAMAGES worth MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Anti-Pesticide Activists, and their Tax-Exempt Prohibition-Terrorist-Organizations, deserve NO LESS than …
● ARRESTS
● CHARGES OF MANSLAUGHTER
● CHARGES OF FRAUD
● CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY
● FINES
● IMPRISONMENT
● RESCINDING OF TAX-EXEMPT CHARITY STATUS
NORAHG manages the Library Computer Access and Retrieval System for all Anti Pesticide Terrorist Acts of Subversion.
The NORAHG Library Computer Access and Retrieval System is a VAST ARCHIVE of DOCUMENTS, AUDIO CLIPS, and VIDEOS on ALL Anti-Pesticide Activities has been made AVAILABLE through NORAHG to anyone interested in litigation.
These ARCHIVES contain names, statements, activities, and affiliations of ALL Anti-Pesticide Vermin, including Government Officials, as well as Charitable Prohibition-Terrorist-Organizations that DO NOT DESERVE ANY Tax Exempt Status.
Interested parties need only to send NORAHG their REQUESTS for ANY INFORMATION needed in the War Against Lunatic-Terrorist-PROHIBITION.
CIVIL ACTION IN ONTARIO
In January 2010, the Professional Lawn Care Industry outlined the LIST OF CHARGES against the Government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment.
Additionally, individual Anti-Pesticide Activists also faced FRAUD CHARGES under the Canadian Criminal Code.
The LEGAL CHALLENGE was organized by Jeffrey P. Lowes and M-REP Communications.
Summary of alleged offences ―
● 133 charges and 29 culprits
● Conspiring to prevent the supply of approved pest control products
● Defrauding access to products
● Impeding access to approved pest control products
● Misleading with peer-reviewed assessments, reports, and studies
● Presenting false and misleading information
● Undermining the people and companies in Professional Lawn Care Industry.
By August 2010, M-REP Communications commenced CIVIL ACTION to recover the HORRENDOUS LOSSES caused by the PROHIBITION CONSPIRACY.
Now that the Ontario General Election is concluded, M-REP Communications is resuming the CIVIL ACTION.
JEFFREY LOWES ― AUGUST 21ST, 2011
On August 21st, 2011, Jeffrey Lowes, of M-REP Communications, in the Toronto Sun newspaper, said politics, not science, is driving the Ontario PROHIBITION of pest control products in the Urban Landscape.
The Government of Ontario was more interested in appeasing lobbyists and environmental groups than developing policy based on facts, he said.
Lowes said he is currently preparing LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE BAN on behalf of lawn care companies struggling to do their jobs with alternatives that are largely ineffective.
According to Lowes, when customers can’t get the results they want from the companies, they cancel their contracts and buy the banned products themselves.
He estimated that PROHIBITION costs Professional Lawn Care companies 350 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
One firm was fined tens of thousands of dollars for using up the banned product left in its inventory, he said.
« That’s why the lawn care companies are scared because they’ve not only made a law based on false medical reports, the ministry of the environment has an enforcement branch that is basically walking around in jackboots, you know, prosecuting anyone that has a nice lawn. Unless, of course, you own a golf course, » Lowes said, referring to a controversial exemption to PROHIBITION.
QUEBEC COULD NOT VALIDATE PROHIBITION
Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and prohibitions are now IRREFUTABLY INVALIDATED.
On May 25th, 2011, Dow AgroSciences, the manufacturer of the pest control product 2,4-D, SETTLED THE NAFTA CHALLENGE CASE with the Canadian government.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a tri-lateral trade block in North America.
As part of the agreement, a VICTORY for the company, the GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC was HUMILIATED into making a STATEMENT saying that …
« 2,4-D DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK to human health or the environment. »
Quebec was the first province to declare weed control products containing 2,4-D as POSSIBLY carcinogenic, which has now been DEEMED AS FALSE.
On that basis, municipalities in Quebec instituted NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITIONS of 2,4-D use as a lawn pest control product.
Other jurisdictions outside of Quebec also CONSPIRED to IMPOSE the Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITIONS of 2,4-D under the PRETEXT that it was a so-called carcinogen.
In fact, ABSOLUTELY NO regulatory body in the world classifies 2,4-D as a human carcinogen ― 2,4-D is probably the MOST STUDIED and BEST UNDERSTOOD of ANY chemical ― not just pesticide ― in existence.
2,4-D DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK to human health or the environment.
PROHIBITION NOT NECESSARY
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
ALL PROHIBITIONS are 100 per cent Politically-Based and 0 per cent Science-Based.
The MAJOR SOURCE of exposure to pest control products is from FOOD SUPPLY, and NOT the Urban Landscape.
Incredibly, some jurisdictions ARBITRARILY PROHIBIT pest control products that are, in fact, …
● Health-Canada-Approved
● Federally-Legal
● Safe For Children *
● Scientifically-Safe
● Practically-Non-Toxic
● Cause No Harm
● Do Not Cause Cancer
● Do Not Run-Off Into Lakes and Streams
● Enhance the Urban Landscape
● Good for the Environment
* Except when stored improperly in the home.
In jurisdictions like Ontario, PROHIBITION led to the DEATH of an elderly man who was forced to hand-pull TOXIC NOXIOUS WEEDS.
PROHIBITION INFLICTED IMMENSE LOSSES to the Professional Lawn Care Industry, in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
Because of PROHIBITION, green spaces are OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS, INFESTED WITH INSECTS, and DISMALLY DESTROYED ― they look like GARBAGE DUMPS.
Overall, when pest control products are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
———————
Awards For BEST Anti-Pesticide Terrorists of the Year
You must express your OUTRAGE about the AWARDS provided by Canadian Cancer Society for Screeching-Lunatics who CONSPIRE BEST to PROHIBIT pest control products.
NORAHG has compiled all of the information that you need in order to easily send Letters to the Editor.
There are now FIVE regional newspapers that are carrying news of these AWARDS.
For the most part, these newspapers are operated by Anti-Pesticide Lunatics who SUPPORT Canadian Cancer Society UNCONDITIONALLY.
If you live nearby, you should visit the newspapers personally to EXPRESS YOUR OUTRAGE, and DEMAND that your Letter to the Editor be published immediately.
National Award for BEST Anti-Pesticide Terrorists [ ?!?! ]
October 10-16, 2011
Written About Patti Moore and Marion Stotts
Kootenay News Advertiser
Cranbrook, British Columbia
The Boundary Sentinel
Grand Forks, British Columbia
The Bulletin / Cranbrook Daily Townsman
Cranbrook, British Columbia
The Castlegar Source
Castlegar, British Columbia
The Free Press
Fernie, British Columbia
Articles concerning Canadian Cancer Society ( links )
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/131418333.html
http://boundarysentinel.com/news/kootenay-region-team-receives-national-cancer-society-award-14229
http://castlegarsource.com/news/kootenay-region-team-receives-national-cancer-society-award-14229
http://www.bclocalnews.com/kootenay_rockies/ferniefreepress/news/131805288.html
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
( The Castlegar Source )
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-sites )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
http://castlegarsource.com/cs-contact
http://boundarysentinel.com/bs-contact
Response to Moore-Stotts by NORAHG ( link )
http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/guest-bloggers/4252-bc-pesticide-ban-for-health-a-business.html
Response to Moore-Stotts by NORAHG ( text )
Anti-Pesticide HIRED-GUNS employed by Canadian Cancer Society continue to benefit from SAFE, SECURE, WELL-PAYING JOBS, with AWARDS, INCENTIVES, BONUSES, and BOUNTIES.
AWARDS FOR BEST ANTI-PESTICIDE TERRORISTS
In October 2011, two PAID-FOR-PROFIT HIRED-GUNS in the Kootenay Region of British Columbia received AWARDS called Circle of Distinction.
The AWARDS were given to them by their employer, Canadian Cancer Society, for their contributions towards the GOALS and MISSION of this Anti-Pesticide Organization.
Patti Moore and Marion Stotts were honoured for CONSPIRING to PROHIBIT pest control products in their region, which will INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION of the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Observers have nick-named these honours as « Awards For BEST Anti-Pesticide Terrorists of the Year ».
Why ? Because the actions of these two Anti-Pesticide HIRED-GUNS, and that of their organization, is seen as a form of TERROR against the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
ANTI-PESTICIDE TERROR AND CARNAGE
Canadian Cancer Society has MERCILESSLY TERRORIZED, BASELESSLY SMEARED, FALSELY ACCUSED, GROTESQUELY PUNISHED, INNOCENTLY CONVICTED, SHAMELESSLY PERSECUTED, and WRONGFULLY DEPRIVED those people working in the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Anti-Pesticide CONSPIRACIES by Canadian Cancer Society have led to NEEDLESS and SENSELESS PROHIBITION of pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
Because of these CONSPIRACIES, DAMAGES to the Professional Lawn Care Industry have been EXTENSIVE because there were NO valid economical alternatives to replace the prohibited products.
Consequently, Professional Lawn Care Companies were UNABLE to provide adequate weed and insect control, and were UNABLE to keep their customers satisfied.
Because of these CONSPIRACIES, EXTENSIVE DAMAGES in the Province of Ontario alone reached 500,000,000 DOLLARS, with up to almost 800 BUSINESS FAILURES and BANKRUPTCIES, and UP TO 12,500 UNEMPLOYED.
40 to 70 per cent of Ontario Professional Lawn Care customers have been ANNIHILATED.
Because of these CONSPIRACIES, Professional Lawn Care businesses have been forced to TERMINATE many or most of their employees.
It is IRONICAL that Anti-Pesticide HIRED-GUNS, like Moore and Stotts, obtain SAFE, SECURE, WELL-PAYING JOBS, with AWARDS, INCENTIVES, BONUSES, and BOUNTIES …
… These PAY-OFFS are AT THE EXPENSE OF the jobs they will ultimately destroy in the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
PAY-OFFS FOR ANTI-PESTICIDE HIRED-GUNS
In the Kootenay Region, the Anti-Pesticide CONSPIRACIES by Moore and Stotts have resulted in FIVE municipalities that adopted by-laws PROHIBITING the use of pest control products.
Anti-Pesticide HIRED-GUNS, like Moore and Stotts, RECEIVE AWARDS for CONSPIRING to PROHIBIT pest control products.
In addition to these AWARDS, they are paid an INCENTIVE OF 2,000 DOLLARS by Canadian Cancer Society the ORGANIZATION of EVERY Anti-Pesticide Forum.
Anti-Pesticide HIRED-GUNS, like Moore and Stotts, are also paid a BONUS OF 1,000 DOLLARS by Canadian Cancer Society FOR EVERY PRESENTATION MADE TO EACH MUNICIPAL TOWN COUNCIL.
Additionally, for making presentations to Government Officials, they are given a BOUNTY OF 5,000 DOLLARS by Canadian Cancer Society upon SUCCESSFUL PROHIBITION LEGISLATION.
And overall, Anti-Pesticide HIRED-GUNS are PAID a BASE SALARY of OVER 40,000 DOLLARS PER YEAR, plus expenses, by Canadian Cancer Society, to COERCE, INTIMIDATE, and ALARM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
With the FIVE municipalities that Moore and Stotts CONVINCED to adopt PROHIBITION, their PAY-OFF was at least 100,000 DOLLARS.
Since 2005, OVER 30 HIRED-GUNS have been paid by Canadian Cancer Society to CONSPIRE TO PROHIBIT pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
Observers estimate that these PAYMENTS for Anti-Pesticide HIRED-GUNS have cost OVER 1,500,000 DOLLARS.
REACTION TO MOORE-STOTTS AWARDS AND PAY-OFFS
The fact that Canadian Cancer Society actually doles out AWARDS for « BEST Environmental Terrorists of the Year » has led to a DEAFENING OUTRAGE within the Green Space Industry.
Several observers are also AGHAST about the Golf Industry raising millions for these NARCISSISTIC Anti-Pesticide HIRED-GUNS.
But the GREATEST OUTRAGE is fueled by the fact that Canadian Cancer Society SQUANDERS and MISAPPROPRIATES MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in an effort to PROHIBIT products that are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED and SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
NO MORE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS
Canadian Cancer Society MISAPPROPRIATES the DONATIONS and GRANTS it collects for cancer research, and DOES NOT PUT HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FIRST.
In fact, THE MAJORITY OF ITS FUNDS DO NOT GO INTO RESEARCH.
The MAJORITY OF DONATIONS goes to paying for Activists / Lobbyists / HIRED-GUNS, and clerical employees.
Canadian Cancer Society also SQUANDERS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON SUBVERSIVE Anti-Pesticide CONSPIRACIES.
Observers estimate that these CONSPIRACIES have cost OVER 2,500,000 DOLLARS.
Consequently, demands have been made to have this Anti-Pesticide Organization INVESTIGATED by Government Agencies.
DEMANDS have also been made to REVOKE the TAX-EXEMPT STATUS of Canadian Cancer Society.
———————
Three Wins for Local and Sustainable Food [ ?!?! ]
October 3rd, 2011
Farah Khan
Sustain Ontario Blog
Province of Ontario
Article by Khan ( link )
http://sustainontario.com/2011/10/03/6793/blog/news/three-wins-for-local-and-sustainable-food
Send a Letter to the Staff ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Khan by NORAHG ( text )
According to Farrah Khan ― « Local, sustainable food policies will boost our economy, improve our health and save our planet. »
We are well aware of her organization’s policy of REPEATING THE SAME NON-EXPERT DRIVEL OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
So far, Khan and her buddies have LEFT QUITE A LEGACY in Ontario ―
● LOST JOBS and HARDSHIP for people
● DESTROYED economies
● WEAKENED communities
● DANGEROUS playgrounds maintained like GARBAGE DUMPS
● ANXIOUS children FEARING modern technology
● WASTED MONEY on PROHIBITION CONSPIRACIES
Activists, like Khan, who are employed at Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, are DESPERATE for a McGuinty VICTORY, otherwise, their GREEN JOBS WILL NOT BE SAFE AND SECURE.
In the event of a McGuinty DEFEAT ― NO MORE FREE MONEY FROM GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
The McGuinty regime is the POLITICAL SHIELD for Anti-Pesticide and Enviro-Lunatic Terror-Activists like Farrah Khan.
Through the Ontario Trillium Foundation, the McGuinty Regime SQUANDERED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE SUBVERSIVE ANTI-PESTICIDE CONSPIRACY leading to PROHIBITION.
In fact, McGuinty MISAPPROPRIATED OVER 2,000,000 DOLLARS !
McGuinty gave, TAX-FREE to Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, 255,000 DOLLARS from 2002 to 2007.
This FREE TAX-EXEMPT MONEY helped pay for a LARGE CHUNK of Khan’s salary as a NON-EXPERT secretary who worked for an organization that TERRORIZED and DESTROYED the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment CONSPIRED to ANNIHILATE the entire Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry by PROMOTING the NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITION of pest control products.
In fact, pest control products are …
● Health-Canada-Approved
● Federally-Legal
● Safe For Children *
● Scientifically-Safe
● Practically-Non-Toxic
● Cause No Harm
● Do Not Cause Cancer
● Enhance the Urban Landscape
● Good for the Environment
* Except when stored improperly in the home.
Ontario Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION led to LOSS OF REVENUES, BUSINESS FAILURES, BANKRUPTCY, and UNEMPLOYMENT, inflicting TERROR, DESPAIR, and DESTITUTION on THOUSANDS of hapless victims throughout the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment is a VAST FUND-RAISING MILLIONAIRE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PROFIT-MAKING MACHINE operated by a handful of Enviro-Lunatic-Activists, like Khan, who are PAID-FOR-PROFIT as SUBVERSIVE LOBBYISTS.
Even now, within the City of Toronto, the recently-elected Mayor Ford is CLEANING HIS MUNICIPAL HOUSE, and organizations like Toronto Environmental Alliance are LOSING THEIR FREE GOVERNMENT MONEY.
Activists at Toronto Environmental Alliance are being TERMINATED FROM EMPLOYMENT at a rate of ONE-PER-WEEEK.
A DEFEAT of the McGuinty Regime will mean that secretaries like Farrah Khan will also be TOSSED OUT of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
Khan will hopefully feel the SAME TERROR, DESPAIR, and DESTITUTION that she and her buddies INFLICTED on THOUSANDS OF HAPLESS VICTIMS throughout the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Get OFF Our grASS, and Roast In The Unemployment Line ( and In Hell ).
———————
The Thinking Man's Approach to Weed Control [ ?!?! ]
October 3rd, 2011
Paul Tukey
Enews Park Forest
Park Forest, Illinois, U.S.A.
Article by Tukey ( link )
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
http://www.enewspf.com/contact-us/88888964-contact/1-gary-kopycinski.html
You should respond to this Letter to the Editor, even though it is posted on a U.S. location, for the simple reason that it still can be viewed by EVERYONE on the Internet.
Response to Tukey by NORAHG ( text )
When Paul Tukey speaks, readers need to maintain some perspective, and understand the TRUTH about so-called Pesticide-Free Organic Maintenance and Green Alternatives.
Green Alternatives and Organic Maintenance Are BOGUS
Green Alternatives are products that are supposed to REPLACE conventional pest control products.
Unfortunately, there are NO valid economical alternatives to replace the PROHIBITED products, and there will likely be NONE within our collective lifetime.
So-called Green Alternatives, such as Corn Gluten Meal, Fiesta, Nematodes, and Sarritor, are DISMAL FAILURES.
Virtually all Green Alternatives are BOGUS ― they DO NOT WORK and they are NOT INNOVATIVE products.
Organic Lawn Maintenance companies are also a DISMAL FAILURE.
These companies are now going into BUSINESS FAILURE and BANKRUPTCY.
Tukey can BLAH BLAH BLAH all he wants.
It is difficult to take DISCREDITED ENVIRO-LUNATICS like Tukey seriously, since demands have been made to have him BANNED from entering Canada for his role in the SUBVERSION of the Justice and Legislative Systems, and the AVOIDANCE of the payment of taxes.
Additionally, Tukey persists in using CHILDREN as WEAPONS OF COERCION and ULTIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL-TERROR in order to increase his PROFITS and TAX-FREE DONATIONS for SafeLawns, an Anti-Pesticide Organization that DOES NOT DESERVE A CHARITABLE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.
Tukey has also been BANNED from making public presentations by high-profile trade shows like Canada Blooms.
He is, or was, a so-called MOTIVATIONAL LEADER of the Environmental-Terrorist-Movement.
But not anymore.
The DISMAL FAILURE of Paul Tukey
Tukey is now a DISMAL FAILURE as a guest speaker.
Requests for Tukey as a speaker are CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN LAST YEAR.
Tukey’s IMPORTANCE HAS DWINDLED, to such an extent that he spent EARTH WEEK 2011 in the company of a BUNCH OF BACK-WOODS LOSERS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE IN THE BRITISH COLUMBIA INTERIOR.
EARTH WEEK is the HOLY WEEK for Enviro-Lunatics ― it is the MOST IMPORTANT ENVIRO-LUNATIC WEEK OF THE YEAR.
During EARTH WEEK 2011, NOBODY wanted to hear Tukey’s LIES concerning pest control products, nor did they want to hear HIS SHILLING about HIS array of BOGUS For-Profit Green Alternatives.
Tukey is NO LONGER the Flavour-of-the-Month, and is now a DISMAL FAILURE as a guest speaker.
Rumours are now circulating that Tukey can only find work as a SEX-WORKER-MANAGER since FEMALE-ENVIRO-LUNATICS think he is somehow attractive. 🙂
Please go to the following link for more information …
Additionally, some of us at NORAHG actually knew and worked with Dr. Troll.
It is LAUGHABLE to believe that Tukey even attempts to INVOKE his name.
Troll would have found Tukey to be a DISGRACE.
Let’s keep things in perspective, and understand who and what Tukey is really all about.
———————
Freedom Party of Ontario
September 29th, 2011
Ghost-Writer under the name Cottam
The London Free Press
London, Ontario
Letter to the Editor by Cottam Ghost-Writer ( link )
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
http://pbdba.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/comments.cgi?c=letters_editor
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer by NORAHG ( text )
The group of anonymous writers at K. Jean Cottam are WRONG !
And the FREEDOM PARTY OF ONTARIO is CORRECT !
Any PROHIBITION of conventional pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
Ontario PROHIBITION was 100 per cent Politically-Based and 0 per cent Science-Based.
Incredibly, the Government of Ontario ARBITRARILY PROHIBITED pest control products that are, in fact, …
● Health-Canada-Approved,
● Federally-Legal,
● Safe For Children *
● Scientifically-Safe, and
● Practically-Non-Toxic.
* Except when stored improperly in the home.
Because of PROHIBITION, Ontario green spaces are now OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS, INFESTED WITH INSECTS, and DISMALLY DESTROYED ― they look like GARBAGE DUMPS.
Here are some examples of the DISMAL and DEADLY CONSEQUENCES of PROHIBITION in Ontario ―
The City of GUELPH has public green spaces that LOOK LIKE GARBAGE DUMPS, and, consequently, it has hired a contractor to apply AT LEAST THREE APPLICATIONS of PROHIBITED herbicides to eliminate weeds and grasses.
The City of KINGSTON has sports fields that LOOK LIKE GARBAGE DUMPS ― they are OVER-RUN WITH WEED PESTS because there are NO valid economical alternatives to replace PROHIBITED herbicides, and Kingston does NOT have the budget for sodding or slit-seeding in order to repair all of the DAMAGE caused by PROHIBITION.
The City of KINGSTON was also the SCENE OF A DEATH RESULTING FROM PROHIBITION ― on June 28th, 2011, an Ontario home-owner did not realize that HAND-WEEDING A TOXIC NOXIOUS WEED on his property would CONTRIBUTE TO HIS DEATH ― this home-owner was ULTIMATELY DOOMED by PROHIBITION that prevented him from using the SAFEST and MOST EFFECTIVE products for controlling weeds, and he was FORCED TO PULL THE TOXIC NOXIOUS WEEDS BY HAND, an action that ultimately led to his DEATH.
The City of LONDON, once known as « The Forest City », has been UNABLE TO SAVE ITS DYING STREET TREES without the use of pest control products.
The City of SMITHS FALLS was the SCENE OF THE DEATH OF A DOG RESULTING FROM PROHIBITION ― on December 10th, 2010, a woman watched her dog choke to death in a KILL-TRAP at Smiths Falls Golf and Country Club ― PROHIBITION forced the club into using the DEADLY TRAPS since it was unable to SAFELY and EFFECTIVELY remove the rodents’ food sources without the use of conventional insecticides.
The City of WINDSOR has LOST ITS STATUS as « The City of Roses » ― Windsor is REMOVING MOST OF ITS ORNAMENTAL ROSE PLANTINGS because it is unable to take care of them without conventional pest control products.
The Township of GUELPH-ERAMOSA has road-sides that LOOK LIKE GARBAGE DUMPS ― consequently, it has RE-INSTATED HERBICIDE APPLICATIONS where ROAD-SIDES ARE OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS, especially with European Buckthorn.
The ENTIRE Province of ONTARIO is INFESTED with BED-BUGS since many of the most effective insecticides against this indoor insect are PROHIBITED.
The Province of ONTARIO is known as « The Dandelion Province » because it is OVER-RUN with Dandelions ― the SAFEST and MOST EFFECTIVE herbicides for controlling this broad-leaved weed were ARBITRARILY PROHIBITED.
The ENTIRE Province of ONTARIO is COVERED with ENVIRONMENTAL ALLERGENS, originating from grasses, ragweed and goldenrod that were once controlled by now PROHIBITED products ― seasonal allergy sufferers are now, MORE THAN EVER, sniffling, sneezing, and coughing.
PROHIBITION has done nothing more than taken SAFE and EFFECTIVE products out of the hands of Ontarians and created NEGATIVE and DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.
Overall, when conventional pest control products are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
Ontario needs FREEDOM in order to RESCIND the NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITION of pest control products.
With FREEDOM, Ontario will have beautiful green spaces again.
———————
Why Herbicides Shouldn't Be Used in Our Parks [ ?!?! ]
September 18th, 2011
Michelle Kramer
Highland Park Patch Newspaper
Highland Park ( Chicago ), Illinois, U.S.A.
Letter to the Editor by Kramer ( link )
http://highlandpark.patch.com/articles/why-herbicides-shouldnt-be-used-in-our-parks
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Contribute • Send us news tips
http://highlandpark.patch.com/
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mail )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Kramer by NORAHG
PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS CAUSE NO HARM
According to Anti-Pesticide Activist and Realtor Kramer ―
« Scientific studies have already linked lawn chemicals with childhood cancer … »
Kramer is WRONG, and it is apparent that NON-EXPERT Anti-Pesticide Activists, like Kramer, who use TERROR-TALK about cancer, have NO recognized expertise, training or background in matters concerning pest control products.
NO HARM WILL OCCUR when pest control products are used according to label directions.
Overall, when they are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
Anti-Pesticide Activists, like Kramer, use the public's FEAR OF CANCER in order to CONCOCT ALLEGATIONS about the IMAGINARY DANGER of pest control products.
It is a MYTH to believe that pest control products somehow cause cancer.
Pest control products DO NOT CAUSE CANCER.
Moreover, overall DEATHS DUE TO CANCER continue to DECLINE.
GARBAGE DUMPS AND DANGEROUS SURFACES
According to Anti-Pesticide Activist Kramer ―
« Weeds do not cause injuries. »
Again, Kramer is WRONG !
Pesticide-Free Maintenance creates GARBAGE DUMPS and DANGEROUS PLAYING SURFACES ― ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN !
PROHIBITING pest control products under the PRETEXT of somehow protecting children’s health is actually HARMFUL TO CHILDREN.
Furthermore, Anti-Pesticide Activists like Kramer are willing to COMPROMISE ON THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN who need a CUSHION OF HIGH-QUALITY TURFGRASS when playing and running and falling.
Without conventional pest control products, playing surfaces become thin, and yellow, and OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS, INFESTED WITH INSECTS, and DISMALLY DESTROYED.
Without pest control products, playing surfaces become GARBAGE DUMPS, and are a DANGER for children to play on.
WELL-MAINTAINED, THICKER, GREENER, PEST-FREE outdoor playing surfaces, like home lawns, public green spaces, and sports fields, have MANY PRACTICAL BENEFITS.
Turfgrass playing surfaces act as a NATURAL CUSHION.
Turfgrass is an EFFECTIVE SPONGE for rain water.
A playing surface OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS and INFESTED WITH INSECTS provides NONE of these benefits.
Pesticide-Free Maintenance represents a HAZARD TO ANYONE USING PLAYING SURFACES, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.
When it rains, pest-infested playing surfaces become SLIPPERY MUD BOGS.
When dry, pest-infested playing surfaces become AS HARD AS CONCRETE.
Pesticide-Free Maintenance actually HURTS kids.
Falling on SLIPPERY MUD or BAKED SOIL is the direct cause of BROKEN BONES, TWISTED ANKLES, and SKINNED KNEES.
Any trend favouring Pesticide-Free Maintenance will lead to GARBAGE DUMPS, DANGEROUS PLAYING SURFACES, and HURT CHILDREN.
CHILDREN ARE NOT AT RISK
According to Anti-Pesticide Activist Kramer ―
« The decision to apply herbicides precisely where children play is one of great magnitude and may negatively impact the children’s health for decades to come. »
Kramer is UTTERLY WRONG !
Pest control products are applied at VERY LOW DOSES, and DO NOT PRESENT A CONCERN to humans, even to CHILDREN.
Pest control products used in the Urban Landscape DO NOT HARM CHILDREN !
HOLLOW AND DESPICABLY ALARMIST EXPRESSIONS
According to Anti-Pesticide Activist Kramer ―
« Are we going to forget how Thalidomide, DES (diethylstilbestrol), asbestos, DDT, and cigarettes were once thought to be safe, but were later found to cause cancer, birth defects, or death ? »
Again, Kramer is SCAMMING and DECEIVING the public by blurting out HOLLOW and DESPICABLY-ALARMIST expressions like « birth defects » and « cancer » and « death » !
These expressions are TOTALLY VALUELESS and UTTERLY WORTHLESS TERROR-TALK.
These expressions have NOTHING IN COMMON with conventional pest control products.
It is apparent that NON-EXPERT Anti-Pesticide Activists, like Kramer, who BLURT OUT these TERROR-TALK EXPRESSIONS, have NO recognized expertise, training or background in matters concerning pest control products.
It is also apparent that Anti-Pesticide Activists, like Kramer, know NOTHING about pest control products, but know lots about MINDLESS, SENSELESS, and FRAUDULENT FEAR-MONGERING .
USING CIGARETTES IS RIDICULOUS AND STUPID
Kramer’s comparison of CIGARETTES to pest control products is PITIFULLY RIDICULOUS, as well as LAUGHABLY STUPID !
Cigarettes have NOTHING IN COMMON with conventional pest control products.
Anti-Pesticide Activists use this NONSENSICAL COMPARISON purely as a means of COERCING and INFLUENCING the public into believing that it is necessary to PROHIBIT pest control products, despite the fact that they are GOVERNMENT-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-REGULATED, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
There is NO FEDERAL REGISTRATION of tobacco products.
By comparison, there IS a FEDERAL REGISTRATION of pest control products.
There is NO agency that regulates tobacco, except perhaps for restricting access to young people.
By comparison, there ARE agencies that REGULATE pest control products ― Environmental Protection Agency in America and Health Canada.
Moreover, cigarettes are ABOVE THE LAW because our governments have chosen to shield them from the regulatory process.
This is NOT the case with pest control products.
Our governments have chosen to HEAVILY REGULATE pest control products.
In both America and Canada, pest control products are STRINGENTLY TESTED and REGULATED in order to ensure that they are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and CAUSE NO HARM.
USING THALIDOMIDE IS CHEAP FEAR-MONGERING
Kramer’s comparison of Thalidomide to pest control products is a CHEAP form of FEAR-MONGERING.
Thalidomide has NOTHING IN COMMON with pest control products.
Anti-Pesticide Activists like Kramer use the Thalidomide tragedy in order to CONCOCT ALLEGATIONS about the IMAGINARY DANGER of pest control products.
Comparing Thalidomide to pest control products leads to TOTALLY FALSE and UNTRUE MIS-REPRESENTATIONS designed to alarm and enrage the public into PROHIBITING pest control products.
Thalidomide was a sedative used by pregnant women to combat many of the effects of morning sickness.
Thalidomide was WITHDRAWN in 1961, but continues to be used as an immune-modulatory agent used primarily in combination with dexamethasone to treat multiple myeloma.
Thalidomide was supposed to be a harmless sedative for expectant mothers, but instead it caused BIRTH DEFECTS in thousands of babies around the world.
The Thalidomide tragedy led to STRICTER ASSESSMENTS of drugs and even pest control products before they can be registered.
Today, pest control products are among the MOST STRINGENTLY REGULATED PRODUCTS.
Virtually no other consumer product has been subject to the same level of scientific scrutiny and regulatory oversight as pest control products.
PROHIBITION NOT NECESSARY
NON-EXPERT Anti-Pesticide Activists like Michelle Kramer are THE LEAST QUALIFIED to provide ANY advice concerning pest control products.
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
Incredibly, some jurisdictions ARBITRARILY PROHIBIT pest control products that are, in fact, …
● Government-Approved,
● Federally-Legal,
● Safe For Children *
● Scientifically-Safe, and
● Practically-Non-Toxic.
* Except when stored improperly in the home.
Because of NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITION, green spaces are now OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS, INFESTED WITH INSECTS, and DISMALLY DESTROYED ― they look like GARBAGE DUMPS.
Overall, when pest control products are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
———————
Inconvenient Truths Withheld on Pesticides [ ?!?! ]
September 19th, 2011
Ghost-Writer under the name Cottam
The Daily Gleaner
Fredericton, New Brunswick
Letter to the Editor by Cottam Ghost-Writer ( link )
http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/1441026
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/onsite.php?page=contact#B
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer by NORAHG
ORGANIC FOOD IS BOGUS
Once upon a time …
… Anti-Pesticide Activists, like the Ghost-Writers at K. Jean Cottam, CONCOCTED THE THEORY that eventually it should be possible to PROHIBIT THE USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS in the Agriculture Industry.
… these Non-Expert Activists have also ALLEGED that organic pesticide-free food was somehow a safer alternative to conventional food.
On July 29th, 2009, a review from Food Standards Agency confirmed that this ALLEGATION about Organic Food is BOGUS.
The focus of the review was the NUTRITIONAL CONTENT OF FOOD-STUFFS.
This review was PEER-REVIEWED and PUBLISHED by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
The review CONFIRMED that there were NO IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES IN THE NUTRITION CONTENT, or ANY ADDITIONAL HEALTH BENEFITS, OF ORGANIC FOOD WHEN COMPARED WITH CONVENTIONALLY-PRODUCED FOOD.
The review, which took the form of a « systematic review of literature », was carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ( LSHTM ), and was commissioned by the Food Standards Agency.
LSHTM’s team of researchers, led by Dr. Alan Dangour, reviewed ALL PAPERS PUBLISHED OVER THE PAST FIFTY YEARS that related to the NUTRIENT CONTENT and HEALTH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL FOOD.
This systematic review was THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE STUDY in this area that has been carried out to date.
Food Standards Agency commissioned this research as part of its commitment to giving consumers accurate information about their food, based on the most up-to-date science.
This research was split into two separate parts, one of which looked at differences in nutrient levels and their significance, while the other looked at the health benefits of eating organic food.
According to Dr. Alan Dangour, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s Nutrition and Public Health Intervention Research Unit, and the principal author of the review ―
« A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock, but these are UNLIKELY TO BE OF ANY PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE.
Our review indicates that there is currently NO EVIDENCE to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority. »
According to Gill Fine, Director of Consumer Choice and Dietary Health at Food Standards Agency ―
« Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make INFORMED CHOICES about the food we eat.
This study does not mean that people should not eat organic food.
What it shows is that THERE IS LITTLE, IF ANY, NUTRITIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONALLY PRODUCED FOOD, and THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ADDITIONAL HEALTH BENEFITS FROM EATING ORGANIC FOOD.
The Agency supports consumer choice and is neither pro nor anti organic food.
We recognise that there are many reasons why people choose to eat organic, such as animal welfare or environmental concerns.
The Agency will continue to give consumers accurate information about their food based on the best available scientific evidence. »
ALLEGATIONS by Anti-Pesticide Activists that organic food will someday replace conventional food are LUDICROUS.
Even MORE LUDICROUS is the expectation that pest control products will someday and somehow no longer be necessary for agriculture.
Unfortunately, once Anti-Pesticide Activists have COMPLETED their DESTRUCTION of the Professional Lawn Care Industry, they will TERRORIZE and DESTROY the Agriculture Industry NEXT !
The DESTRUCTION of these industries is, or will be, the result of the CARNAGE caused by the PROHIBITION of conventional pest control products.
PROHIBITION NOT JUSTIFIED
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
Incredibly, some jurisdictions ARBITRARILY PROHIBIT pest control products that are, in fact, …
● Health-Canada-Approved,
● Federally-Legal,
● Scientifically-Safe, and
● Practically-Non-Toxic.
SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE ACCORDING TO LEADING AUTHORITIES
There are LEADING AUTHORITIES that SUPPORT or VALIDATE the concept that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
These authorities are educational, regulatory, research, scientific, and trade agencies that are considered as many or all or the following …
● Experts
● Highly-Rated
● Independent
● Leaders
● Non-Profit
● Respected
● World-Renowned
They have publicly stated that, or have validated the concept that, in one form or another, pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
These agencies are NOT unduly influenced by any stake-holder in those industries manufacturing and using pest control products.
The following educational, regulatory, research, scientific, and trade agencies have SUPPORTED or VALIDATED the concept that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ―
● American Chemical Society
● American Council for Science and Health
● American Cancer Society
● CropLife Canada
● Health Canada
● International Agency for Research on Cancer
● The Fraser Institute
● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
● World Health Organization
———————
Inconvenient Truths Withheld on Pesticides [ ?!?! ]
September 13th, 2011
Ghost-Writer under the name Cottam
The Daily News
Kamloops, British Columbia
Letter to the Editor by Cottam Ghost-Writer ( link )
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mail )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer by Enviro Ed ( text )
I would agree Mr. Boultbee is likely not a medical doctor but keep in mind medical doctors are not really qualified to determine whether pesticides are, or are not, a significant factor in cancer morbidity either. That is what scientists are for. There are 350 of them at Health Canada. I have a hard time believing they are all involved in a huge conspiracy to keep pesticides available for lawns and gardens all the while knowing they are killing us? Sorry, just not buying it.
Dr. Ames is a Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Scientist at Children's Hospital Oakland Research. I would consider him a far more knowledgeable source that a medical doctor. In a 2006 interview Dr. Bruce Ames address this very subject.
"Question: So would you say that, rather than focus on very small amounts of toxic chemicals, we should look at the fact that we are malnourished?
AMES: Right.
Question: And that is probably what is really causing cancer?
AMES: That’s my guess, yes. If you scare people about a thousand hypothetical minor risks, nobody knows what is important anymore. A lot of the degenerative diseases of aging are being tied to mitochondrial decay. I think better diet and supplementation would result in less neurodegenerative disease, less cancer, less Alzheimer’s, less Parkinson’s, less diabetes."Regarding the Saskatchewan farmers study, Health Canada published results in 1990 of a study of cancer incidence among Saskatchewan farmers, a population known to use phenoxy herbicides extensively. In this study, regarded by many to be one of the largest and most comprehensive studies of its kind ever undertaken, the authors reported that overall cancer incidence, including NHL, among Saskatchewan farmers was no greater than for the non-farming population (Wigle et al. 1990).
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer by NORAHG ( text )
VESTED INTEREST
Cottam ALLEGES that anyone claiming that pest control product are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE must have a « vested interest in the status quo », hence their CREDIBILITY is somehow LIMITED.
In fact, it is the CREDIBILITY of Anti-Pesticide Activists like Cottam that is in SEVERE JEOPARDY since they DO NOT PUT HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FIRST !
THE PRIMARY CONCERNS of a VAST MAJORITY of Anti-Pesticide Activists are BUSINESS, CASH-FLOW, PROFIT, and CELEBRITY.
This includes the Cottam Ghost-Writers.
Moreover, Anti-Pesticide Activists like Cottam are NOT CREDIBLE experts on pest control products.
This PROBLEM WITH LACK-OF-ACTIVIST-CREDIBILITY reflects the overall larger problem with ALL Anti-Pesticide Activists.
There are NO Anti-Pesticide Activists who are scientists or researchers with credentials in the field of pest control products.
NONE !
Anti-Pesticide Activists have a HUGE VESTED INTEREST IN PERPETUATING IMAGINARY DANGERS about pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
Doing this attracts HUGE PROFIT AND BENEFITS, in the form of DONATIONS, GOVERNMENT GRANTS, and CELEBRITY.
Even Cottam has received BENEFITS.
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES
Anti-Pesticide Activists like Cottam ALLEGE that Health Canada is « weak » in examining EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES when ASSESSING the safety of pest control products.
This is NOT TRUE.
EPIDEMIOLOGY is the study of the causes, distribution, and control of health problems in populations.
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES cannot be relied upon ALONE, and must be backed-up with ANIMAL TOXICITY STUDIES.
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES that identify possible associations MUST BE EXAMINED WITH WELL-CONDUCTED TOXICITY STUDIES that are specifically designed to elicit toxic effects over a series of dose levels.
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
On the matter of LOWER DEATHS DUE TO CANCER, Cottam CLAIMS that « I have not seen a confirmation of this strange phenomenon anywhere ».
Cottam is conveniently TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE FACTS.
Cottam knows full-well about the 2010 report from American Cancer Society.
According to the Cancer Statistics 2010 report issued by the American Cancer Society ( ACS ) …
… Cancer incidence rates and the number of DEATHS DUE TO CANCER continue to DECLINE in the United States.
The incidence of cancer has …
● decreased by 1.3 per cent per year from 2000 to 2006 in men
● decreased by 0.5 per cent per year from 1998 to 2006 in women
Cancer death rates have …
● dropped 21 per cent since 1991 among men
● dropped 12 per cent since 1992 among women
THE MYTH OF CANCER
It is a MYTH to believe that pest control products somehow cause cancer.
Pest control products DO NOT CAUSE CANCER.
Pest control products cause NO HARM, including chronic effects such as CANCER.
Only pest control products that DO NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF CANCER in humans are registered for use in Canada.
In fact, NO cause-and-effect relationship between pest control products and cancer has been established scientifically.
IRONICALLY … both Daffodil Production for Canadian-Cancer-Society and the Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
IRONICALLY … both the Agriculture Industry and the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
INDUSTRY INFLUENCE
Additionally, Cottam FABRICATES the story that Health Canada « registers pesticides on the basis of industry-provided … data » and « our federal government does not conduct such studies and virtually rubber stamps studies submitted to them by the pesticide industry ».
Cottam also expresses MOCK-DISMAY about the fact that Health Canada does NOT have its own laboratories.
Just because regulatory agencies like Health Canada do not conduct any studies themselves DOES NOT MEAN that they are merely « rubber stamping » studies submitted to them by the manufacturing industry.
In order to ensure the ACCURACY of STUDIES on pest control products, Health Canada DOES NOT NEED ITS OWN LABORATORIES, and neither does any other regulatory agency in the world.
Instead, Health Canada follows the INTERNATIONALLY-ACCREDITED « GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE » for ASSESSING pest control products.
For the ASSESSMENT of pest control products, the ACCURACY OF STUDIES IS ENSURED since Health Canada follows a set of guidelines and principles developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ).
The 30 OECD member countries include Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Japan.
The STUDY of ALL pest control products must be conducted under these guidelines which adhere to principles of GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE.
ALL STUDIES used in support the registration of pest control products must be completed by laboratories sanctioned by GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE ( GLP ), and using ONLY GLP practices.
WHERE ARE THE BODIES ?!?!
Cottam further ALLEGES that regulatory agencies are « unduly influenced by the industry » and « inconvenient studies are routinely with-held from the PMRA by the pesticide industry ».
Anti-Pesticide Activists like Cottam ALLEGE that so-called « inconvenient studies » or « secret evidence » are somehow with-held by manufacturers from ALL the regulatory agencies in the world.
However, Anti-Pesticide Activists like Cottam are UNABLE TO PROVIDE BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.
Where are the bodies ?!?!
Bodies of REAL evidence.
Bodies of REAL evidence, and NOT JUNK SCIENCE REPORTS intended to DISCREDIT the work of REAL experts, such as Health Canada.
Bodies of REAL evidence, and NOT « secret evidence » or DEBUNKED REPORTS.
Bodies of REAL evidence, and NOT « secret evidence » from disgruntled former government officials who were terminated from employment and suddenly became anonymous « whistle-blowers » with UNVERIFIABLE stories.
More specifically, PROOF that studies are being somehow with-held from the ENTIRE WORLD.
Where are the so-called « inconvenient studies » ?!?!
Make them available for public review.
Anti-Pesticide Activists like Cottam MUST STOP using TOTALLY FALSE and UNTRUE MIS-REPRESENTATIONS designed to alarm and enrage the public and enhance their BUSINESS, CASH-FLOW, PROFIT, or CELEBRITY.
Unfortunately, Anti-Pesticide Activists are UNABLE TO PROVIDE BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.
SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE
Leading independent world-renowned non-profit scientific, regulatory, and trade agencies have publicly stated that, or have validated the concept that, in one form or another, pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
These agencies are NOT unduly influenced by any stake-holder in those industries manufacturing and using pest control products.
The following scientific, regulatory, and trade agencies have SUPPORTED or VALIDATED the concept that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ―
● American Chemical Society
● American Council for Science and Health
● American Cancer Society
● CropLife Canada
● Health Canada
● International Agency for Research on Cancer
● The Fraser Institute
● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
● World Health Organization
P.S.
COTTAM is actually a designation for a group of Anti-Pesticide Ghost-Writers.
The Cottam name is also used in order to give an unsuspecting public the FALSE and FRAUDULENT impression that the Anti-Pesticide Movement has considerable size and power, when in fact, it does not.
Cottam Ghost-Writers remain ANONYMOUS, fearing IMMINENT LEGAL REPRISALS FOR FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY against the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
———————
Nematode Applications Can Be Done Now [ ?!?! ]
September 10th, 2011
Denise Hodgins
The London Free Press
London, Ontario
Article by Hodgins ( link )
http://www.lfpress.com/homes/gardening/2011/09/08/18658656.html
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Hodgins by NORAHG ( text )
According to Denise Hodgins, there are « fall tricks » like Entomo-Pathogenic Nematode Insecticides to bring about great looking lawns next spring.
Recommending these nematode species for this purpose is MIS-GUIDED and WRONG !
Hodgins also ALLEGES that Entomo-Pathogenic Nematode Insecticides are a « safe and sensible way to reduce White Grubs infestations ».
This COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH !
Entomo-Pathogenic Nematode Insecticides are NOT viable, efficacious, or economical GREEN ALTERNATIVES to replace conventional insect control products.
Overall, Entomo-Pathogenic Nematode Insecticides are DISMAL FAILURES since they merely SUPPRESS or INHIBIT insect pests of turf.
Entomo-Pathogenic Nematode Insecticides CANNOT be consistently considered as true alternatives to conventional insecticides, since the insect pests are often only SUPPRESSED, and NOT CONTROLLED.
Laboratory and field tests tend to indicate that the best nematode species are only MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE in controlling insect infestations.
On the other hand, conventional pest control products fully and effectively control insect pests.
BETTER TO DO NOTHING
Government Officials and Anti-Pesticide Activists had somehow assured the public that safe, effective, and affordable Green Alternatives, like Entomo-Pathogenic Nematode Insecticides, were already available to replace conventional pest control products.
They were WRONG !
The Green Alternatives were BOGUS, LESS EFFECTIVE, and STUNNINGLY EXPENSIVE !
In those jurisdictions where PROHIBITION has been IMPOSED, it would be preferable for the home-owner or Professional Lawn Care company to DO NOTHING rather than use Entomo-Pathogenic Nematode Insecticides.
Sadly, any PROHIBITION of conventional pest control products was NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
UNACCEPTABLE CONTROL
Entomo-Pathogenic Nematodes will kill NO MORE THAN FIFTY TO SIXTY-FIVE PER CENT of the damaging insect population, which is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Some Nematode species have even provided INEFFECTIVE CONTROL, with SUPPRESSION levels AS LOW AS TWENTY-FIVE TO FORTY PER CENT.
Some reports have indicated that, under ideal conditions, some Entomo-Pathogenic Nematode Insecticides can be AS EFFECTIVE as some conventional insecticides.
However, this comparison was made with conventional insecticides like chlorpyrifos that also provided UNACCEPTABLE control of certain insects like White Grubs.
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
Research conducted at the Guelph Turfgrass Institute has shown NEMATODES TO BE MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE IN CONTROLLING INFESTATIONS
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE
According to Pamela Charbonneau, Turfgrass Specialist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, in a Factsheet on Lawn Maintenance ―
« Apply beneficial nematodes for the MARGINAL CONTROL of European Chafer and Japanese Beetle larva. »
ART DRYSDALE
Art Drysdale is the nation’s best-known celebrity horticulturist, plant expert, writer, speaker, radio and television broadcaster.
According to Drysdale ―
« NEMATODES DO NOT WORK, and I DO NOT RECOMMEND THEM.
Currently, nematodes have NOT BEEN WIDELY-ADOPTED for use by the turf industry because of their HIGH COST and because the environmental conditions necessary to guarantee the success of the nematode treatments RARELY EXIST.
In addition to all of this, nematode insecticides are NOT REGISTERED as pest control products in Canada.
Neither the federal nor the provincial governments have officially scheduled or classified nematode insecticides as a pest control product.
Consequently, there is NO OBLIGATION on the part of the manufacturer to divulge a full range of safety information such as human toxicity and environmental impact, which is the case with conventional pest control products.
This information will eventually be required, not just concerning the nematodes themselves, but also for the SYMBIOTIC BACTERIA that they carry.
It is inevitable that the failure to regulate nematode products will eventually create a public relations problem.
It will not be taken for granted for very long that an organism that is defined as INFECTIVE will require the need for more safety information in order to justify its status as reduced-risk.
Additionally, the failure to regulate nematode products appears to be in direct contravention of the federal definition of a pest control product ( or pesticide ), as interpreted by the federal Pest Control Products Act. »
OTHER QUESTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS
Hodgins recommends PERENNIAL RYEGRASS as « the best grass for northern gardeners ».
This is a BAD IDEA for Ontario since this species is a SHORT-LIVED PERENNIAL and is SUSCEPTIBLE to WINTER INJURY.
Hodgins also recommends the application of CORN GLUTEN MEAL « to stop crabgrass ».
In fact, COMPETENT and LEGITIMATE university research has proven that CORN GLUTEN MEAL DOES NOT CONTROL ANY WEEDS, in ANY trials, under ANY circumstances.
———————-
Canadian Cancer Society Supports Pesticide Ban
September 8th, 2011
Evie Eshpeter ( Rodway )
Beaumont News
Beaumont, Alberta
Letter to the Editor by Eshpeter ( link )
http://www.thebeaumontnews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3290568
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
http://www.thebeaumontnews.ca/feedback1/LetterToEditor.aspx
Response to Espheter by NORAHG ( text, version 2 )
PROHIBITION NOT JUSTIFIED
Eshpeter DEMANDS the PROHIBITION of pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
The products are, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
LEADING AUTHORITIES ?!?!
Eshpeter ALLEGES that so-called LEADING HEALTH AUTHORITIES are asking municipalities throughout the Province of Alberta to adopt policies PROHIBITING the use of pest control products in the Urban Landscape.
Which authorities ?!?!
Which EXPERTS are DEMANDING PROHIBITION ?!?!
THERE ARE NO ANTI-PESTICIDE EXPERTS
There are NO so-called LEADING AUTHORITIES who are AGAINST pest control products.
This is a problem with ALL Anti-Pesticide Activists.
There are NO Anti-Pesticide Activists who are scientists or researchers with credentials in the field of pest control products.
NONE !
This is especially true for people like Eshpeter, who are PAID by Canadian-Cancer-Society for FUND-RAISING, and NOT for scientific research.
These people may NOT be considered as AUTHORITIES on pest control products.
THE TRUE LEADING AUTHORITIES
However, there are LEADING AUTHORITIES that SUPPORT or VALIDATE the concept that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
These authorities are educational, regulatory, research, scientific, and trade agencies that are considered as many or all or the following …
● Experts
● Highly-Rated
● Independent
● Leaders
● Non-Profit
● Respected
● World-Renowned
They have publicly stated that, or have validated the concept that, in one form or another, pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
These agencies are NOT unduly influenced by any stake-holder in those industries manufacturing and using pest control products.
The following educational, regulatory, research, scientific, and trade agencies have SUPPORTED or VALIDATED the concept that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ―
● American Chemical Society
● American Council for Science and Health
● American Cancer Society
● CropLife Canada
● Health Canada
● International Agency for Research on Cancer
● The Fraser Institute
● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
● World Health Organization
THE FRASER INSTITUTE
The Fraser Institute is the HIGHLY-RATED independent non-profit research and educational organization ( THINK-TANK ) based in Canada that espouses free market principles.
According to a 2011 report from The Fraser Institute …
● PROHIBITIONS on the use of pest control product are ILL-CONCEIVED and DO NOT accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.
● Also according to The Fraser Institute, HASTY PROHIBITIONS of pest control products SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED until the underlying science is conclusive and until a comprehensive analysis of the potential side-effects resulting from the PROHIBITION has been undertaken.
ENVIRO-POLL
It is not surprising that Eshpeter reports that her organization’s POLL indicates that many residents support measures to PROHIBIT pest control products.
This MAY NOT BE TRUE !
A MORE LEGITIMATE POLL, conducted by Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association in British Columbia in 2011, indicated that …
● The VAST MAJORITY of residents FAVOUR THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS around their homes and in public green spaces
● Residents are CONFIDENT they can SAFELY USE pest control products, and SUPPORT THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS in the Urban Landscape
THERE IS NO GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE
Eshpeter further ALLEGES that there is a so-called GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE supporting a link between pest control products and certain types of cancers.
Eshpeter is TOTALLY WRONG !
Pest control products cause NO HARM, including chronic effects such as CANCER.
Pest control products DO NOT CAUSE CANCER.
Only pest control products that DO NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF CANCER in humans are registered for use in Canada.
IRONICALLY … both Daffodil Production for Canadian-Cancer-Society and the Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
IRONICALLY … both the Agriculture Industry and the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
In fact, NO cause-and-effect relationship between pest control products and cancer has been established scientifically.
Because of this fact, Eshpeter invokes the so-called PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IS DISCREDITED
Eshpeter’s version of the Precautionary Principle has been DISCREDITED by TRUE EXPERTS like Dr. Keith Solomon.
Solomon is Professor at the Centre for Toxicology and Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, and Director, Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres.
According to Solomon ―
« Landscape and garden use of pest control products DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR CONSIDERATION under the precautionary principle.
They are not serious, they are selective to pests, have low toxicity to non-target organisms, and are well understood.
The effects of these pest control products are NOT IRREVERSIBLE.
There is rapid recovery through reinvasion and weed seeds and most need to be used at least once per year. »
Response to Espheter by NORAHG ( text, version 1 )
ARBITRARY DEMAND
Evie Eshpeter operates as a PAID ANTI-PESTICIDE LOBBYIST with Canadian-Cancer-Society.
Eshpeter ALLEGES that there are so-called DANGERS with the use of pest control products that she ARBITRARILY deems as « non-essential » and « potentially lethal ».
Incredibly, Eshpeter is ARBITRARILY DEMANDING PROHIBITION of pest control products that are, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
Eshpeter also ALLEGES that leading health authorities are asking municipalities throughout the Province of Alberta to adopt policies PROHIBITING the use of pest control products in the Urban Landscape.
Which authorities ?!?!
Which EXPERTS are DEMANDING PROHIBITION ?!?!
NO EXPERTS
Eshpeter is NO CREDIBLE expert on pest control products, and neither are any of her so-called health authorities.
The problem with Eshpeter reflects the overall larger problem with ALL Anti-Pesticide Activists.
There are NO Anti-Pesticide Activists who are scientists or researchers with credentials in the field of pest control products.
NONE ! ― They are NOT COMPETENT to talk about pest control products.
Moreover, Canadian-Cancer-Society is a FUND-RAISING organization and NOT a scientific or research organization.
THE TRUE LEADING AUTHORITIES
The leading scientific and regulatory agencies have publicly stated, in one form or another, that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ―
● American Chemical Society
● American Council for Science and Health
● American Cancer Society
● CropLife Canada
● Health Canada
● The Fraser Institute
● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
● World Health Organization
THE FRASER INSTITUTE
The Fraser Institute is the HIGHLY-RATED independent non-profit research and educational organization ( THINK-TANK ) based in Canada that espouses free market principles.
According to a 2011 report from The Fraser Institute …
● PROHIBITIONS on the use of pest control product are ILL-CONCEIVED and DO NOT accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.
● Also according to The Fraser Institute, HASTY PROHIBITIONS of pest control products SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED until the underlying science is conclusive and until a comprehensive analysis of the potential side-effects resulting from the PROHIBITION has been undertaken.
ENVIRO-POLL
It is not surprising that Eshpeter reports that her organization’s ENVIRO-POLL indicates that many residents support measures to PROHIBIT pest control products.
A poll BOUGHT and PAID FOR by Canadian-Cancer-Society CANNOT possibly be considered as legitimate since this organization has INCESSANTLY CONSPIRED to PROHIBIT pest control products.
A MORE LEGITIMATE POLL, conducted by Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association in British Columbia, indicated that …
● The VAST MAJORITY of residents FAVOUR THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS around their homes and in public green spaces
● Residents are CONFIDENT they can SAFELY USE pest control products, and SUPPORT THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS in the Urban Landscape
THERE IS NO GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE
Eshpeter further ALLEGES that there is a so-called GROWING BODY OF EVIDENCE supporting a link between pest control products and certain types of cancers.
Eshpeter is TOTALLY WRONG !
Pest control products cause NO HARM, including chronic effects such as CANCER.
Pest control products DO NOT CAUSE CANCER.
Only pest control products that DO NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF CANCER in humans are registered for use in Canada.
IRONICALLY … both Daffodil Production for Canadian-Cancer-Society and the Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
IRONICALLY … both the Agriculture Industry and the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
In fact, NO cause-and-effect relationship between pest control products and cancer has been established scientifically.
Consequently, Eshpeter invokes the so-called PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IS DISCREDITED
Eshpeter’s version of the Precautionary Principle has been DISCREDITED by TRUE EXPERTS like Dr. Keith Solomon.
Solomon is Professor at the Centre for Toxicology and Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, and Director, Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres.
According to Solomon ―
« Landscape and garden use of pest control products DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR CONSIDERATION under the precautionary principle.
They are not serious, they are selective to pests, have low toxicity to non-target organisms, and are well understood.
The effects of these pest control products are NOT IRREVERSIBLE.
There is rapid recovery through reinvasion and weed seeds and most need to be used at least once per year. »
PROHIBITION NOT JUSTIFIED
Non-Expert Anti-Pesticide Activists like Eshpeter are THE LEAST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE ANY ADVICE concerning pest control products.
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
———————-
The Season To Be Stupid
September 7th, 2011
Larry Barnett
Sonoma Valley Sun
Sonoma, California
Letter to the Editor by Barnett ( link )
http://publiccitizen.sonomaportal.com/2011/09/07/the-season-to-be-stupid/comment-page-1/#comment-583
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mail )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
http://news.sonomaportal.com/contact-us/
Response to Barnett by NORAHG ( text )
MYTH-BUSTING DDT AND BIRDS
Barnett is INCORRECT about a multitude of issues, but we decided to focus principally upon his ALLEGATION that « pesticide DDT was killing bird populations ».
This is NOT TRUE !
QUOTATIONS
According to author and scientist Michael Crichton in 2003 ―
« I can tell you that DDT [ … ] did not cause birds to die, and should never have been banned. [ … ] Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the Twentieth Century history of America. »
According to a statement from Administrative Judge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 ―
« DDT [ … ] does NOT have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. »
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING DDT
The public must be reminded that birds WERE NOT routinely killed by the use of DDT.
This is a MYTH !
Allegedly, DDT harmed bird reproduction by thinning their egg-shells.
This seemingly led to the decline of the Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon.
No doubt, the placement of these birds on endangered lists was a strong factor leading to the U.S. removal of DDT in 1972, despite the statement from an Administrative Judge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
THE ALLEGED EFFECT OF DDT ON BIRDS
Beginning in the 1950s, DDT was used on a massive scale to control the insect vectors of the Dutch Elm Disease, as well as the larvae of the Gypsy Moth and the Spruce Budworm.
Wherever DDT was used, some consequences were observed ― this usually involved a noticeable reduction in bird activity, or a change in their habits.
Some people have commented that a reduction in bird activity after an application of DDT could mean several things.
Using DDT would remove a food source from the birds.
This would lead to the birds flying elsewhere for food.
It would not necessarily mean that DDT was killing birds.
THE DISGRACEFUL AND MISLEADING WURSTER ARTICLE
In 1965, an article was repeated in each of the magazines « Ecology » and « Science » regarding the alleged death of certain bird species following DDT applications for Dutch Elm Disease in Hanover, New Hampshire.
The author was Charles Frederick Wurster Junior.
Wurster ALLEGED that ―
« Severe mortality of both resident and migrant birds occurred in Hanover during spring 1963, and the evidence IMPLICATES DDT as its cause. » ( Emphasis our own. )
This was not necessarily an exhaustive study ― it was merely a visual comparison between Hanover, Vermont, as well as Norwich, Vermont, which itself was never sprayed with DDT.
A mere 151 dead birds were found in Hanover, 10 in Norwich, and the feeding habits of some birds APPEARED changed.
Incredibly, the dead birds were not always analyzed for traces of DDT.
Not surprisingly, DDT was held accountable !
WHO WAS CHARLES FREDERICK WURSTER JUNIOR ?
The DISGRACEFUL AND MISLEADING ARTICLE discussed in the preceding segment was co-written by Anti-Pesticide Activist Charles Frederick Wurster Junior.
Wurster eventually became a co-founder and « volunteer scientist » for the « Environmental Defense Fund » ( E.D.F. ) beginning in 1967.
E.D.F. was the Anti-Pesticide Organization that instigated a major campaign against DDT.
However, the intentions of this organization may not have been pure-at-heart.
DAMNING STATEMENT FROM WURSTER
On October 5th, 1969, Anti-Pesticide Activist Charles Frederick Wurster Junior made the following damning statement in the « Seattle Times » ―
« If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve, and probably retain in other environmental issues, a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, then, much more is at stake than DDT. »
Clearly, Anti-Pesticide Organizations used DDT as a means to increase their power.
There may never have been a bird issue !
WHERE WERE THE DEAD BIRDS ?
In fact, there appear to be NO valid scientific reports of « bird carcasses littering the countryside » following the application of DDT.
Let’s not forget that during the « DDT years » ( 1941-1972 ), approximately 1,350,000,000 pounds of DDT was used domestically in the United States.
If the Anti-Pesticide Movement was correct about DDT and its effect on birds, where were the thousands of dead bodies ?
Where were the bodies ?!?!
We are not the only people that have noticed this !
So did Michael Crichton.
THE WISDOM OF MICHAEL CRICHTON
Michael Crichton was the famous author who wrote books like « State of Fear » and « Jurassic Park ».
Crichton was also a scientist and researcher.
In 2003, Crichton made following remarks ―
« I can tell you that DDT [ … ] did not cause birds to die, and should never have been banned. [ … ] Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the Twentieth Century history of America. »
THE ALLEGED EFFECT OF DDT ON BALD EAGLES
And what about the effect of DDT on Bald Eagles ?
During the sixteen-year period ( 1961-1977 ) representing much of the end of the « DDT years », a mere TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIX Bald Eagles were found dead by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The biologists who analyzed the dead eagles reported NO adverse effects caused by DDT or its metabolites.
The Anti-Pesticide Movement has often given the public the FALSE AND FRAUDULENT IMPRESSION that thousands of Bald Eagles died while DDT was in use.
This is NOT TRUE !
DDT killing Bald Eagles is a MYTH !
As a matter of fact, early in the Twentieth Century, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of these birds were destroyed, but not because of DDT.
A WHOPPING ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN THOUSAND were calculatedly slaughtered by the State of Alaska between 1917 and 1942.
Government-sponsored exterminations seem to have killed more Bald Eagles than DDT allegedly did.
Everyone should maintain some perspective on this matter.
The allegations concerning DDT are NOT TRUE !
———————-
Pesticides Not Best Option [ ?!?! ]
September 3rd, 2011
Tracy Panchuk
The Windsor Star
Windsor, Ontario
Letter to the Editor by Panchuk ( link )
http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/editorial/story.html?id=b02a6382-f1c9-47f9-bfbc-264be7db8891
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mail )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Panchuk by Henry van der Molen ( text )
Tracy Panchuk writes a great .. story, but somewhat ludicrous when you think of it for a few moments.
First, why do applicators wear masks ?
Could it be that doing so makes sense ?
Poison is dose specific, let me give you an example.
We are hearing how we need sodium in our diet, but that too much can cause us harm.
Applicators wear masks because they are exposed DAILY, and it makes sense that limiting that exposure will be beneficial to their health, just as limiting sodium intake is beneficial.
Second, why have the signs to « Keep Off The Grass » ?
Well, you see, many years ago someone thought that exposure to poison might be harmful and requested that companies put up WARNING signs to warn people to stay off the grass.
The WARNING was dropped because no warning was necessary, the signs were a courtesy to passers-by that it might be prudent to « Stay Off The Grass ».
Now, it seems that those who requested the « WARNING » posting are trying to terrify people by giving the appearance that something terrible is happening with out their knowledge.
All these years, these placards have been posted and everyone in their ignorance has blithely walked past them.
Now they are awakening, what they must see as the ignorant masses, to the dire dangers of what has been going on around them.
WAKE UP YOU SILLY PEOPLE !!!!
Third, « It has been proven … ».
Unavailable is the proof.
Why ?
Because you can't find it anywhere, or maybe the masses are perceived as being too illiterate/savvy/uninformed ( and best kept that way ) to understand it, if it were real ?
Fourth, 99 percent of the bugs they want to kill are not harmful and are considered « good » bugs.
Perhaps when you've lived with cockroaches, bed bugs , flour beetles, fleas, flies, chinch bugs, etc … for a long time, you may be forced to consider them good.
Or go mad trying to eradicate them with soup water and vinegar.
Think of the statement for a moment, 99 percent are « good » bugs.
If that were a truthful statement, they would be eating 1 percent of the insects which are « bad ».
Either there would be very few « bad » bugs, or very few bugs at all with the « good » annihilating the « bad ».
Fifth, would the « native » garden Tracy speaks of have any invasive weeds in it ?
Or insects imported from a foreign land which has no predators ?
Oh wait, allow me to put on the rose coloured glasses.
Ahhhhh yes, this is Nirvana.
Well close, but with them on it seems I'm on the same page.
Too bad I can't wear them while working in the real world.
Henry
Response to Panchuk by NORAHG ( text )
Why should anyone be ASHAMED by demanding to do away with PROHIBITION ?
On April 22nd, 2009, the Government of Ontario ARBITRARILY PROHIBITED pest control products that are, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, and SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
This NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITION led to the DESTRUCTION of the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry.
THE CARNAGE OF PROHIBITION
Those who DESPERATELY want to have PROHIBITION RESCINDED in Ontario are the employees and owners of Professional Lawn Care companies.
Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION led to LOSS OF REVENUES, BUSINESS FAILURES, BANKRUPTCY, and UNEMPLOYMENT.
Because of Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION, the owners, employees, and families dependent on Professional Lawn Care businesses faced TERROR, DESPAIR, and DESTITUTION.
In Ontario, ONE-COMPANY-PER-WEEK DISAPPEARS INTO TOTAL OBLIVION.
SIGN-POSTING
Ever wonder why signs must be posted to « keep off the grass » after an application by a Professional Lawn Care company ?
SIGN-POSTING was adopted almost 25 years ago, NOT as a health and safety issue, but as an APPEASEMENT issue.
In 1987 and 1988, the Professional Lawn Care Industry in both the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario VOLUNTARILY ADOPTED SIGN-POSTING POLICIES.
For years, Anti-Pesticide Activists had DEMANDED SIGN-POSTING with NO scientific justification !
Moreover, Anti-Pesticide Activists had also DEMANDED signs which prominently displayed the IMAGE OF A SKULL, again, with NO scientific justification !
As an alternative to the IMAGE OF A SKULL, a sign with the internationally recognizable symbol of DO NOT WALK was proposed, and finally accepted by Government Officials.
Sign-posting policies were originally adopted by the Professional Lawn Care Industry in the MISTAKEN BELIEF that it would somehow APPEASE the Anti-Pesticide Activists.
As we all know, Anti-Pesticide Activists were / are NEVER EVER APPEASED.
Mr. William H. Gathercole, now retired, is personally credited for the creation of these signs, although he was personally opposed to their use, since the pest control product solutions applied by Professional Lawn Care companies had long been rated as PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC and SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
The Professional Lawn Care Industry soon realized that ADOPTING SIGN-POSTING POLICIES was a STRATEGIC ERROR, since Anti-Pesticide Activists soon realized the scale of Professional Lawn Care operations.
Moreover, shortly after SIGN-POSTING was adopted, Anti-Pesticide Activists publicly declared Professional Lawn Care as « dangerous » because of the hundreds-of-thousands of signs that were clearly visible on residential lawns throughout the community.
Cute trick ! …
First, Anti-Pesticide Activists DEMANDED SIGN-POSTING.
Then, Anti-Pesticide Activist ARBITRARILY CONCOCTED THE IDEA THAT LAWNS WITH SIGNS ARE SOMEHOW DANGEROUS.
MITIGATING EXPOSURE
Ever wonder why the people applying pest control products must wear face masks ?
In fact, they are NOT required to do so because IT IS NOT NECESSARY.
All pest control products applied by Professional Lawn Care companies DO NOT require RESPIRATORY PROTECTION such as masks or respirators.
The instructions for using these products are clearly indicated on the label.
To ensure applicator safety, the label states what personal protective equipment needs to be worn when applying the product.
However, ALL pest control products used by Professional Lawn Care companies are considered as EYE and SKIN IRRITANTS, and personal protective equipment, such as pants and rubber boots, may be required for the applicator.
However, NO pest control products used by Professional Lawn Care companies require the use of respiratory protection for the applicator.
THE MYTH OF CANCER
It is a MYTH to believe that pest control products somehow cause cancer.
Pest control products DO NOT CAUSE CANCER, and there is NO growing body of evidence connecting pest control products and cancer.
Pest control products cause NO HARM, including chronic effects such as CANCER, and, in fact, NO cause-and-effect relationship between pest control products and cancer has been established scientifically.
Pest control products are applied at VERY LOW DOSES, and DO NOT PRESENT A CONCERN to humans, even children.
IRONICALLY … both Daffodil Production for Canadian-Cancer-Society and the Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
IRONICALLY … both the Agriculture Industry and the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED in Canada because their STRICT REGULATION is BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
PLANET'S GREAT CONSERVATIONISTS
The Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry can be described as the PLANET’S GREAT CONSERVATIONIST that supplies the public with what it wants ― THICKER, GREENER, PEST-FREE LAWNS and LANDSCAPES.
Lawns consist of turfgrass. We walk on it, play games on it, picnic on it, receive our diplomas on it, sometimes get married on it, bury our loved ones under it, and some of us let our dogs poop on it.
And, they can be maintained with products that are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
For generations, the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry has been maintaining and conserving the world’s largest ground cover vegetation, and has CONTRIBUTED EXTENSIVELY TO THE BEAUTIFICATION OF OUR URBAN LANDSCAPES, and THE PRESERVATION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.
———————-
Maple Ridge Backs B.C. Pesticide Ban [ ?!?! ]
September 2nd, 2011
Editor
Maple Ridge News
Maple Ridge, British Columbia
News / Editorial by Maple Ridge News ( link )
http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/mapleridgenews/news/128934278.html
Comments for this page are closed, but you can still send a letter directly to the editor.
Send a Letter to the Editor ( web-site )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Panchuk by Henry van der Molen ( text )
I read that Maple Ridge is lending its support to the CCS pesticide ban campaign.
Is that support alongside of the support to ban cigarettes, a known carcinogen ?
Ahhhhh, probably not so much.
I might be ecstatic about this support if I knew on which basis the support was being lent.
Is it the science showing this to be true ?
Is it the drastic reduction of cancer cases in hospitals in locales where the pesticide ban has been in existence for enough years to document this as truth ?
What powerful evidence swayed the good council ?
« Dr.» Gideon Foreman, head of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment ?
An organization of Doctors ( with many who are not Doctor s) led by someone who gives himself a title that is not real and has not been earned ?
Maple Ridge passed its own bylaw which, if you pay $60.00, you can be exempt from ?
Looks less like they are concerned about a constituent's welfare, then their own receivables.
The ministry had a 60 day consultation period in which they received 8000 replies, most favouring a ban.
Might that be because most are OK with the status quo ?
Look at the HST Referendum, it wasn't too difficult to have it reversed, many people appeared to prefer the status quo of two taxes.
I also wonder how many citizens were aware of this « consultation ».
I also wonder how many replies were from outside of BC, or in some way attributed to BC citizens.
The word most is accurate perhaps, but was it 4001 vs. 3999 ?
It's easy to play with numbers and words, CCS, Politicians, Snake Oil salesmen, and myself ( so I'm told ) do it frequently.
I would love to see some scientific data backing any claim that is being made.
After all some cities have banned pesticides for in excess of 20 years, surely there must be some evidence of a link of some sort in the reduction in cancer rates ?
Problematic might be which pesticides of course, or which health initiative, but twenty years should be giving some numbers for someone to play with. Is that screaming I hear ?
« If it saves even one life, then it's justified ! »
Where's the proof of what has caused the reduction, maybe it was the effort to ban cigarettes?
There is a Regulatory body in place that approves and disapproves the use of pesticides ( and medications and radioactive dosages ), they work diligently on your behalf to ensure that your health is being safeguarded.
Their science says the materials being used in an appropriate fashion, is safe.
Somehow I prefer to defer to the knowledge of a moderately paid scientist who has nothing to gain ( of course there's a conspiracy theory ), as opposed to a handsomely ( correct me if I'm wrong ) remunerated group of non scientists who garner their information from sources unwilling to reveal themselves or their data, it seems ( of course I could be wrong again ).
Henry
Response to Maple Ridge News by NORAHG ( text )
VAST MAJORITY AGAINST PROHIBITION
Polls showing resident-support for PROHIBITION have been DEBUNKED.
Anti-Pesticide organizations often use these Enviro-Polls to SUBVERT AND POLLUTE the course of events leading to the NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITION of conventional pest control products.
According to the MORE LEGITIMATE 2011 POLL conducted by Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association in British Columbia …
● The VAST MAJORITY of residents are OPPOSED to the PROHIBITION of conventional pest control products
● The VAST MAJORITY of residents FAVOUR THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS around their homes and in public green spaces
● Only an INFINITELY SMALL number of residents say « no » to the use of pest control products
● Residents want to continue to have the option to use pest control products
● Residents SUPPORT THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS in the Urban Landscape
THE FRASER INSTITUTE
According to The Fraser Institute, the highly-rated Think-Tank of TRUE EXPERTS, PROHIBITIONS on the use of pest control product are ILL-CONCEIVED and DO NOT accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge
Also according to The Fraser Institute, HASTY PROHIBITIONS of pest control products SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED until the underlying science is conclusive, and until a comprehensive analysis of the potential side-effects resulting from the PROHIBITION has been undertaken
Incredibly, some municipalities and provinces ARBITRARILY PROHIBIT pest control products that are, in fact, …
● Health-Canada-Approved,
● Federally-Legal,
● Scientifically-Safe, and
● Practically-Non-Toxic.
Moreover, any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
———————
Pesticide Promoter Hardly Unbiased [ ?!?! ]
August 26th, 2011
Ghost-Writer under the name Cottam
The Daily News
Kamloops, British Columbia
Article by Cottam Ghost-Writer ( link )
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mail )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer by Weedless ( text )
Ahhhh Jean, Jean, Jean
We cross pencils again, although this time your writing seems soooo different from the last time.
How shall I put it, less intelligent ?
Coherent?
Perhaps it's age, perhaps you are writing as a different persona, it's still great to see you are able to push a computer key.
I'd like to go through your letter briefly, and await your response.
It is ironic that a pesticide promoter is telling us to put environment and health first.
How does he know that « informed members of the scientific and medical community » are not consulted ?
So do you ???
And who might they be ???
I mean, how unfair to imply that someone is lying, yet not back it up with some facts.
Oh wait, you never do.
Moreover, if the American version of the Canadian Cancer Society is not supporting the B.C. bans, then this is an obvious sign that they are at least partially funded by the chemical industry.
If you can't answer honestly, you make something up ?
Conspiracy theory, of course, works for you. 🙂
No proof ?
Oh wait, you never need it.
Mr. Boultbee's promotion of pesticides knows no limits.
Disregarding the meaning of « cides » in pesticides ( « cides » means kill ), he maintains that pesticides are « benign » to children.
His credibility on this issue is obviously nil.
You have credibility ?
Your PhD is in which field ?
The medical field ?
Linguistics ?
I missed the fact you where going to present showing your expertise.
Oh wait, you have none.
He says that « pesticides are one of the primary tools that has made the 20th and 21st century the era of health and prosperity ».
Never mind that they are an instrument of disease or even death.
So are other tools that make these centuries the era of health and prosperity.
Ladders, airplanes, abortificants, concentrated acetic acid, antibiotics, and so much more.
Oh wait, get rid of everything, but one at a time.
Pesticides are linked not only to child and adult cancer, but also to the endocrine system disruption, neurological and immune systems damage, Parkinson's, diabetes, asthma, and behavioural and learning disabilities in children.
Insert corroborating evidence here.
Oh wait, there is none.
Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) has no labs of its own and registers pesticides on the basis of the industry-provided rodent data.
Inconvenient studies may be withheld from the PMRA.
The PMRA is notoriously weak in evaluating epidemiological ( human ) studies.
Would that be true for medications and dosages of such too ??
Can I trust the doctor who wants to give me chemo therapy ?
Oh wait, we aren't talking about medicine, don't distract me.
Much of the applied herbicide consists of secret, allegedly « inert » additives.
What is officially tested is but a very small portion of the final product.
Moreover, common combinations such as PAR III, consisting of 2,4-D, mecoprop and dicamba, are not tested as such, even though a synergistic reinforcing effect is suspected.
These « inert » additives are so well hidden that even a spectrograph can't find them ?
Although they can probably find a ppb of glyphosate should you want to turn one up.
Could it be that the science you are using is rudimentary since you are unaware that there are methods of extracting information available ?
Oh wait, we can't go outside the « plan » and question the creators of the « plan ».
JEAN COTTAM, PhD it's been a slice Jean.
How old are you now ?
81, 82 ?
It has been some time, but I always enjoy seeing you are still somewhat active.
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer by 55312 ( text )
Ms Cottam is like all other antis.
When confronted with facts she reverts to industry hack allegations.
Could she possible be an anti pesticide industry hack ?
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer by NORAHG ( text )
NO THREAT TO CHILDREN
Cottam ( actually a Ghost-Writer ) is WRONG !
It is a MYTH to believe that pest control products somehow cause cancer.
Pest control products DO NOT CAUSE CANCER.
Only pest control products that DO NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF CANCER in humans are registered for use in Canada.
In fact, NO cause-and-effect relationship between pest control products and cancer has been established scientifically.
Pest control products are applied at VERY LOW DOSES, and DO NOT PRESENT A CONCERN to humans, even children.
IRONICALLY … both Daffodil Production for Canadian-Cancer-Society and the Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
IRONICALLY … both the Agriculture Industry and the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect and weed pests.
NO NEED FOR HEALTH CANADA LABORATORIES
Cottam expresses MOCK-DISMAY about the fact that Health Canada does NOT have its own laboratories.
In order to ensure the ACCURACY of STUDIES on pest control products, Health Canada DOES NOT need its own laboratories, and neither does any other regulatory agency in the world.
For the ASSESSMENT of pest control products, the ACCURACY OF STUDIES IS ENSURED since Health Canada follows a set of guidelines and principles developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ).
The STUDY of ALL pest control products must be conducted under these guidelines which adhere to principles of Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP ).
ALL STUDIES used in support the registration of pest control products must be completed by laboratories sanctioned by Good Laboratory Practice
( GLP ), and using ONLY GLP practices.
The 30 OECD member countries include Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Sweden, and Japan.
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES
Cottam FALSELY ALLEGE that Health Canada is somehow « very weak » in examining EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES when evaluating the safety of pest control products.
This is NOT TRUE.
EPIDEMIOLOGY is the study of the causes, distribution, and control of health problems in populations.
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES cannot be relied upon ALONE, and must be backed-up with ANIMAL TOXICITY STUDIES.
The MOST USEFUL AND RELEVANT EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES are those that properly characterize exposure in the specific context of how the product is used.
Thus, reliance on EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES in regulatory decision-making is challenging in the absence of a direct-measure-of-exposure.
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES tend to make use of surrogate or indirect measures for pest control product exposure ( e.g., area treated, amount used, amount purchased ), which can lead to UNRELIABLE ESTIMATES OF THE RISK.
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES that identify possible associations MUST BE EXAMINED WITH WELL-CONDUCTED ANIMAL TOXICITY STUDIES that are specifically designed to elicit toxic effects over a series of dose levels.
These ANIMAL TOXICITY STUDIES are assessed to determine if there is any biological basis for the POTENTIAL ASSOCIATIONS noted in EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES.
The examination of ANIMAL TOXICITY STUDIES from internationally-accepted guideline studies using doses well-above those to which humans are typically exposed, combined with exposure data obtained from well-designed studies, is currently a useful methodology available for assessing risks to human health.
Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) undertakes this kind of assessment to supplement information about POTENTIAL ASSOCIATIONS that may be established by EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES.
This approach is consistent with that of other regulatory authorities that base human health risk assessments on ANIMAL TOXICITY DATA.
THE CREDIBILITY OF EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES
EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES that ALLEGE certain health issues with pest control products are EVERY BIT AS CREDIBLE as those ALLEGING gay-men having short life-spans.
An EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDY conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia, reported that gay and bi-sexual men lose up to 20 years of life-expectancy.
By comparison, cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years of life-expectancy.
The EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDY concluded that the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bi-sexual man living to 65 years was only 32 per cent, compared to 78 per cent for men in general.
Do we believe this story ?
Nope !
The stories concerning gay-men are NO MORE CREDIBLE than those ALLEGING that pest control products somehow CAUSE HARM.
P.S.
COTTAM is actually a designation for a group of Anti-Pesticide Ghost-Writers.
The Cottam name is also used in order to give an unsuspecting public the FALSE and FRAUDULENT impression that the Anti-Pesticide Movement has considerable size and power, when in fact, it does not.
Cottam Ghost-Writers remain ANONYMOUS, fearing IMMINENT LEGAL REPRISALS FOR FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY against the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
———————
Dinosaurs Are In Our Gardens [ ?!?! ]
August 24th, 2011
Todd Major
North Shore News
North Vancouver, British Columbia
Letter to the Editor by Major ( link )
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Dinosaurs+gardens/5299877/story.html
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mail )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Major by Kost, Hunter, and Platts ( text )
Dear Editor:
Todd Major's Aug. 24 column, Dinosaurs are in our Gardens, is, in our opinion, blinded with anti-science and arrogance.
Kitchen salt is more dangerous to children than the weed killer 2,4-D, the main target of alarmists.
This chemical has been studied extensively by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Union and its Canadian equivalent, PMRA of Health Canada, and all have determined that it is biodegradable, has no demonstrable link to cancer and is safe ( just like salt ) when used as directed.
Drinking too much potable water has killed people but, like 2,4-D, it is safe if used in moderation; it's all about the dosage.
Pesticides sold for residential use are no more « cosmetic » for our lawns and gardens than paint is for our houses.
Lack of these cosmetics has an impact:
In May, for example, the Toronto Star reported that 82 per cent of Toronto residents felt the area's pesticide ban had hurt the city's appearance.
For an example closer to home, look at the mess of weeds in the District of North Vancouver.
To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, « Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts ».
Unfortunately, unsupported and false « facts» result when emotions dominate debate.
There is a myth that natural is better than« scientifically » produced products.
A question we put to friends is : « What fraction of man-made substances is carcinogenic ? »
Answer : About half.
We then ask : « What fraction of natural substances is carcinogenic ? »
Surprisingly, the answer is also about half.
Further, man-made pesticides are extensively tested for safety, but natural ones are often not.
Mr. Major wonders why municipal golf courses use pesticides. It's because natural methods are ineffective and/or too costly.
The City of Hamilton's Pesticide sub-committee estimated its weed control costs would increase from $75,000 a year to nearly $12 million in moving to supposed alternatives to manufactured pesticides.
When weed levels in city parks reached certain levels, the municipality used 2,4-D to get them back under control.
Lastly, Mr. Major laments that a municipal council « rolled their eyes » and ignored his anti-pesticide presentation.
In our opinion, given the tone of his recent column, we understand the council's reaction, assuming he presented the same attitude on that occasion.
CORRIE KOST, JOHN HUNTER, BRIAN PLATTS NORTH VANCOUVER
Response to Major by NORAHG ( text )
Todd Major CLAIMS that it UNNECESSARY to use pest control products against « helpless » dandelions and « pencil-head-sized » aphids.
We wonder about « pencil-headed » Anti-Pesticide Activists like Major who seemingly are OBLIVIOUS to the TRUE nature of damaging pest in turf and ornamental plants.
All they want is the PROHIBITION of pest control products that are necessary to effectively control DAMAGING PESTS in the Urban Landscape.
In response to his detractors, Major refers to them as « dinosaurs », and old ones, overtly showing a LACK OF ANY RESPECT for anyone beyond his years.
According to Major, « public health is not important to dinosaurs », implying that only HE has a reservoir of knowledge that his detractors seemingly do not possess.
Moreover, Major states that his detractors « lack the judgment and vision to change the status quo for society's betterment », once again implying that HE is, somehow, the light and the way on matters concerning pest control products.
Overall, Major is BLATANTLY AND CONSISTENTLY WRONG with his opinions and recommendations.
NOT QUALIFIED
Non-Expert Anti-Pesticide Activists like Todd Major are THE LEAST QUALIFIED to provide ANY advice concerning pest control products.
Major has NO competent expertise, recognized training, or successful background, in matters concerning turfgrass management and pest control products.
He has NEVER worked in the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Moreover, Major is closely affiliated with known Anti-Pesticide Organizations, like Canadian-Cancer-Society and Toxic-Free-Canada, who PAY people like Major to SCAM Government Officials into believing that it is necessary to legislate NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITION.
These organizations have a HUGE VESTED INTEREST IN PERPETUATING IMAGINARY DANGERS about pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
Major ALSO has a VESTED INTEREST, as a PAID-FOR-PROFIT LOBBYIST, SPEAKER, and WRITER.
SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE
Health Canada, and NOT Todd Major, has THE ESSENTIAL EXPERTISE on the subject of pest control products.
Conventional pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE !
NO pest control product can be sold or used until Health Canada’s scientists have evaluated ALL the existing evidence to determine whether the product meets stringent health and safety requirements.
Overall, when they are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
UNABLE TO PROVIDE BODIES
Major blurts out HOLLOW and DESPICABLY-ALARMIST expressions like « long-term health problems » and « mutations in newborn babies ».
However, Major is UNABLE to provide BODIES.
Major ALLEGES that « we are left with an ever-growing volume of research from scientists and doctors around the world that indicates we are loading our environment with a growing cocktail of poisonous pesticides that are linked to a range of serious diseases ».
Major MUST STOP using « mythical growing bodies of research reports » that DO NOT EXIST.
Major MUST STOP using « secret evidence » and DEBUNKED REPORTS.
The public must be warned that the issues concerning pest control products are CONTROVERSIAL only because they were CONCOCTED by Anti-Pesticide Activists like Todd Major.
Unfortunately, Major is UNABLE to provide bodies, bodies, bodies.
Bodies of REAL evidence.
Bodies of REAL evidence, and NOT JUNK SCIENCE REPORTS that have been DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY REFUTED AND DISCREDITED.
Bodies of REAL evidence, and NOT JUNK SCIENCE REPORTS that have NEVER been made available for independent review.
Bodies of REAL evidence, and NOT JUNK SCIENCE REPORTS intended to DISCREDIT the work of REAL experts, such as Health Canada.
Bodies of REAL evidence, and NOT « secret evidence » or DEBUNKED REPORTS.
More specifically, medical records, medical records, medical records.
Who are, or were, those people ALLEGEDLY harmed by pest control products ?
Where are the medical records ?
Make them available for public review.
Unfortunately, Major is UNABLE to provide bodies of REAL evidence.
GREEN ALTERNATIVES DO NOT WORK
Major is also WRONG concerning the « many options available to grow the garden sustainably ».
What options ?!?!
Name them !
In fact, there are NO viable, efficacious, or economical Green Alternatives to replace conventional pest control products.
VIRTUALLY ALL Green Alternatives are BOGUS, and have negatives ranging from almost TOTAL INEFFECTIVENESS except under very specific circumstances, to a question about their TOXICITY.
The Anti-Pesticide Activists like Todd Major do not know what they are talking about ― their opinions are WORTHLESS on matters concerning pest control products, and especially the Green Alternatives.
Without the use of conventional pest control products, many jurisdictions have had to resort to the BACK-BREAKING JOB OF WEED-PULLING BY HAND.
Without effective weed control products, municipal and lawn care employees are required to CRAWL ON THEIR HANDS AND KNEES on lawns ― pulling weeds manually.
In many jurisdictions, Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION has converted an educated professional labour force into a group of mere COTTON-PICKERS !
Moreover, municipalities and lawn care companies CANNOT afford the high cost manual labour required for WEED-PULLING.
In desperation, municipalities enlist the help of UNRELIABLE resident VOLUNTEERS, most of whom are women, elderly, and unemployed.
Ultimately, municipalities are UNABLE to take care of public green spaces, and allow them to become GARBAGE DUMPS INFEST WITH WEED PESTS and INSECT PESTS, and FILLED WITH DEAD GRASS AND PLANTS.
THE FRASER INSTITUTE
According to The Fraser Institute, the highly-rated Think-Tank of TRUE EXPERTS, PROHIBITIONS on the use of pest control product are ILL-CONCEIVED and DO NOT accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge
Also according to The Fraser Institute, HASTY PROHIBITIONS of pest control products SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED until the underlying science is conclusive, and until a comprehensive analysis of the potential side-effects resulting from the PROHIBITION has been undertaken.
Incredibly, some jurisdictions ARBITRARILY PROHIBIT pest control products that are, in fact, …
● Health-Canada-Approved,
● Federally-Legal,
● Scientifically-Safe, and
● Practically-Non-Toxic.
Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALREADY PROTECT OUR HEALTH and OUR ENVIRONMENT.
———————
Cosmetic Pesticide Polls Offer Interesting Numbers [ ?!?! ]
August 19th, 2011
Patti Moore & Carolyn Grant
The Kimberley Daily Bulletin
Kimberley, British Columbia
Article by Moore & Grant ( link )
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Major by NORAHG ( text )
ENVIRO-POLL
Patti Moore operates as a PAID LOBBYIST with Canadian-Cancer-Society.
It is not surprising that Moore reports that her organization’s ENVIRO-POLL indicates that pest control products are somehow harmful to the environment.
A poll BOUGHT and PAID FOR by Canadian-Cancer-Society CANNOT possibly be considered as legitimate since this organization has INCESSANTLY CONSPIRED to PROHIBIT pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
Sadly, this Enviro-Poll was commissioned by MISAPPROPRIATING and SQUANDERING PUBLIC MONEY THAT WAS NOT DONATED FOR THIS PURPOSE.
A MORE LEGITIMATE POLL, conducted by Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association ( CCSPA ), indicated that …
● The VAST MAJORITY of residents FAVOUR THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS around their homes and in public green spaces
● Residents are CONFIDENT they can SAFELY USE pest control products, and SUPPORT THE CONTINUED USE OF PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS in the Urban Landscape
SAFETY OF CHILDREN
Moore also ALLEGES that CHILDREN are somehow harmed by pest control products.
This is WRONG ! ― pest control products DO NOT HARM CHILDREN !
Pest control products are carefully regulated by Health Canada to prevent adverse effects on health and environment.
Moreover, pest control products cause NO HARM, including chronic effects such as CANCER.
Health Canada’s assessment of pest control products takes into consideration sensitive groups, such as INFANTS, and CHILDREN.
CHILDREN’s physiology, behaviours and habits WHILE PLAYING ON TREATED GRASS are considered by Health Canada when determining the safety of pest control products, and EXTRA SAFETY FACTORS are applied.
PROHIBITION FARCE
Once PROHIBITION is in place, Moore CLAIMS that residents comply.
This is NOT TRUE ― Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION is a FARCE for residents, and here’s why …
● MOST RESIDENTS STILL DO NOT KNOW THE REASONS FOR PROHIBITION ― in jurisdictions where PROHIBITION has been legislated, government has done a POOR JOB OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC as to the reasons why greens spaces now LOOK LIKE WEED-INFESTED and INSECT-DESTROYED GARBAGE DUMPS
● MANY RESIDENTS HOARDED PRODUCT PRIOR TO PROHIBITION ― residents simply stockpiled products prior to PROHIBITION, and are using them as they see fit ― correctly or incorrectly ― we will never know, since it is now out of reach of provincial over-sight and regulation that licensed applicators and companies needed to obey ― so the misuse of pest control products remains ― and PROHIBITION has ENSURED this
● RESIDENTS ARE OBTAINING PRODUCTS FROM OUTSIDE ― residents are obtaining products either from other provinces, or mostly from across the border in the United States ― it is NOT illegal to own or possess these products, only to apply them ― again, the mis-use of products remains ― thanks to PROHIBITION
● RESIDENTS ARE USING HOME-MADE AND INTERNET RECIPES ― this is where it gets scary ― gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, bleach, sodium chloride, nicotine tea, and the list goes on
PROHIBITION CARNAGE
Because of Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION, DAMAGES to the Professional Lawn Care Industry were EXTENSIVE because there were NO valid economical alternatives to replace the prohibited products.
In the Province of Ontario, the PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE INDUSTRY LOST OVER 500,000,000 DOLLARS.
Professional Lawn Care businesses were forced to TERMINATE many or most of their employees ― UP TO 12,500 BECAME UNEMPLOYED.
Observers are expecting 780 BUSINESS FAILURES OR BANKRUPTCIES.
In Ontario, ONE-COMPANY-PER-WEEK DISAPPEARS INTO TOTAL OBLIVION.
———————
Pesticides Are Poison [ ?!?! ]
August 16th, 2011
Ghost-Writer using the name Cottam
The Daily News
Kamloops, British Columbia
Article by Cottam Ghost-Writer ( link )
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20110816/KAMLOOPS0303/110819867/-1/kamloops/pesticides-are-poison
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer ( text ) ― 1
Ms. Cottam, in what exactly did you get your PhD??? That is the most lay-argument I have ever seen, let alone from an academic! It bears no reality whatsoever to physiological or biochemical reality (Detoxification gene… I can't believe I actually read that!!) and lacks any quoted, published, legitimate, repeatable multi-center double blind-randomized and controlled EVIDENCE BASED RESEARCH as the basis for your argument.
There are numerous compounds used daily with significantly more environmental toxicity, mutagenicity, cytotoxicity and carcinogenicity than pesticides and herbicides. (Tobacco, paints, solvents, shoe polish, automobile air-bag propellants, gasoline, and exhaust from internal combustion engines to name a very few) There are many many more that have solid causal relationships with pandemic morbidity within the daily food supply, and with processed foods.
Education on alternative methods is a better approach, but ultimately, the use of legitimate pest/herbicide compounds or methods is less harmful than the "old fashioned" use of Gasoline, torches, or other off-purpose chemicals.
Response to Cottam Ghost-Writer ( text ) ― 2
Jean, you have already sent in all these concerns to Health Canada and they addressed every single one of your questions. There is no truth to your claims. Cancer rates have remained steady and have not increase at all in the last 10 years in fact in some areas they have dropped. Our population is getting older and yes as we get older there is a greater chance of getting cancer. My Grandmother lived to be 101 and died of pancreatic cancer. Go figure. But she was 101! These products have been around for over 50 years! They have been tested and re-tested many times over. Not just by Canada, but by health authorities all over the world. So what is it, a global conspiracy? I think not. Thanks to modern day chemistry we have a much better quality of life and are living longer. Jean, 50 years ago you would not have lived to be the ripe old age of 81. This attack against pesticides is unfounded. One or two studies is not what good science is based on. I agree herbicides should not be used unnecessarily the difference is you believe they have no place at all. I would respectfully disagree. If I want to protect my landscape that I have invested thousands of dollars in by the judicious use of a herbicide, that to me is not unnecessary.
———————
CropLife Claims On Pesticides Predictable [ ?!?! ]
August 11th, 2011
Ghost-Writer using the name Cottam
The Daily News
Kamloops, British Columbia
Article by Cottam Ghost-Writer ( link )
Send a Letter to the Editor ( e-mails )
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.
――――――――――――――――――――
Terror Will NEVER END
Unless You DO SOMETHING
… NOW !
Against the
SCREECHING MONKEYS
EXPRESS YOUR OUTRAGE
SEND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
YOU SHOULD COMPLAIN,
COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN
――――――――――――――――――――
NORAHG has archived information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site …
The NORAHG Library of Web-Pages, Reports, and References
COMPLAINT CHANNELS Series
COMPLAINT CHANNELS – BUSINESS, FUND-RAISING, GOVERNMENT, & TAXATION AGENCIES ( Web-Page )
COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN
COMPLAINT CHANNELS – LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – MEDIA CONTACTS LIBRARY ( Web-Page )
COMPLAINT CHANNELS – HERE’S HOW TO SUE THE BASTERDS’ BRAINS OUT ! – LITIGATION AGAINST ANTI-PESTICIDE ACTIVISTS – 2012 01 28 ( Report )
The NORAHG Library of Web-Pages, Reports, and References
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Series
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR / LETTERS OF COMPLAINT – WE’RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE ( Web-Page )
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – RESPONDING TO LUNATIC JIHADISTS & SCREECHING MONKEYS – RE-DIRECT LINKS ( Web-Page )
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – RESPONDING TO LUNATIC JIHADISTS – WARREN BELL – GIDEON FORMAN – BARBARA KAMINSKY – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – 2013 00 00 ( Web-Page )
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – RESPONDING TO LUNATIC JIHADISTS – WARREN BELL – GIDEON FORMAN – BARBARA KAMINSKY – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – 2012 00 00 ( Web-Page )
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – RESPONDING TO LUNATIC JIHADISTS – WARREN BELL – GIDEON FORMAN – BARBARA KAMINSKY – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – 2011 00 00 ( Web-Page )
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – RESPONDING TO SCREECHING MONKEYS – 2012 00 00 ( Web-Page )
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – RESPONDING TO SCREECHING MONKEYS – 2011 00 00 ( Web-Page )
The NORAHG Library of Web-Pages, Reports, and References
SPEAKING OUT
SPEAKING OUT AGAINST ANTI-PESTICIDE TERRORISM – HEROES ( Web-Page )
SPEAKING OUT – WHITE PAPER REPORT ON PESTICIDE BANS – THE MYTHS ABOUT BANNING PESTICIDES ( PART 2 ) – THE WISDOM OF REAL EXPERTS – HEROES SPEAKING OUT AGAINST ANTI-PESTICIDE TERRORISM – 2012 11 15 ( Reports )
WITH CAPS AND WITH REFERENCES
PESTICIDE TRUTHS REPORT
The NORAHG Library of Web-Pages, Reports, and References
STRIKING BACK Series
STRIKING BACK AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL-TERRORISM ( Web-Page )
STRIKING BACK – FIGHTING PESTICIDE BANS IN COURT – STRIKING BACK AGAINST TERRORISM – 2012 05 25 ( Report )
The NORAHG Library of Web-Pages, Reports, and References
TERROR NEVER ENDS
TERROR NEVER ENDS ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
7 thoughts on “LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – RESPONDING TO SCREECHING MONKEYS – 2011 00 00”