- Petitions Signed Against Sebastopol Council's Wi-Fi Ban
- Taking a precautionary approach, the city council of Sebastopol, California is having second thoughts about installing a wide-area wireless computer network -- but local students are asking, "Why worry about little more radiation?"
- Environmentalists Decry Hunting's Record Toll On B.C. Grizzlies
- Mr. Genovali said he is concerned because B.C. [British Columbia] doesn't know how many grizzly bears there are in the province. "These bears are being taken out of a population that we don't believe the government has a handle on," he said. "This is the opposite of the precautionary principle."
- City's Waste Not Wasted: Sludge Is Used On Crops
- "A lot of organic standards follow the precautionary principle that it's better to err on the side of caution, of being too safe, rather than not safe enough," Janke said.... "You just never know. It seems like the more research we do, the more we learn how these things [toxicants in sludge applied to soils] really work," Janke said.
- Brominated Chemicals Industry Attacks Greenpeace
- The brominated chemicals industry attacks Greenpeace and claims that the precautionary principle demands the use of brominated flame retardants, which Greenpeace opposes.
- Ban Six Food Colourings, Say European Consumer Organisations
- "We, the undersigned 42 organisations from 12 member states representing a wide range of consumer groups, food and health charities, and parents, call on the European Commissioner to employ the precautionary principle by suspending use of certain food colourings found to affect the activity and attention of children."
- Lawmaker Heightens Awareness For Pesticide Notification
- "We are not asking for a complete ban; we are asking people to use the precautionary principle... if there is a risk of harm, you don't use pesticides, and in this case at least notify the neighbors that you are using them so they can protect themselves and their animals."
PETITIONS SIGNED AGAINST SEBASTOPOL COUNCIL'S
The Sebastopol City Council's decision not to contract with Sonic.net for free Wi-Fi service downtown because of health concerns about electromagnetic waves from wireless devices is getting a bad reception.
Wi-Fi proponents, including students at Analy High School, plan to present as many as 1,000 signatures on petitions supporting the network to the City Council tonight.
The students don't see the logic of spurning a free Wi-Fi network downtown when city residents already are using cell phones and private wireless Internet networks that also emit non-ionizing radiation. They say the World Health Organization considers electromagnetic radiation safe, compared to ionizing radiation from ultra-violet light, X-rays and Gamma rays.
The City Council rescinded its agreement with Santa Rosa-based Sonic.net March 18 after Sandi Maurer and others expressed their health concerns. Maurer gathered 400 signatures against Wi-Fi and said she, like others, is electro-sensitive and suffers health issues.
The issue is not on the council's agenda and no action is expected tonight.
Councilwoman Linda Kelley asked the item be discussed last month in support of the "precautionary principle." She also said supporting Wi- Fi raises a social justice issue because some residents cannot afford DSL.
Wi-Fi opponents site literature from the BioInitiative Working Group
that claims studies show electromagnetic fields are linked to increased risk of childhood leukemia and may lead to cancers in adults.
At the March 18 meeting, Sonic.net founder Dane Jasper said his company provides one-tenth of one watt from light poles and the coverage is small and has a small power level. He said the KZST and KJZY radio stations broadcast with 6,000 watts, according to minutes of the March meeting.
He said he did not know if businesses will disconnect their existing Wi-Fi if new, free Wi-Fi is available in the city and that Sonic.net has a variety of services for low-income residents.
Jasper said if the city does not want Sonic.net's Wi-Fi services he would not challenge the decision.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press
Return to Table of Contents Read or make comments
From: Toronto Globe and Mail
ENVIRONMENTALISTS DECRY HUNTING'S RECORD TOLL
ON B.C. GRIZZLIES
By Mark Hume
"It's kind of shocking... very disturbing," Chris Genovali of the Raincoast Conservation Society said of provincial government statistics that show 430 grizzly bears died in 2007, bringing the total to nearly 11,000 killed in the province since 1975.
"I don't think you can call that a sustainable harvest," said Mr. Genovali, whose group has long been lobbying for a moratorium on B.C.'s grizzly bear hunt.
The numbers could rekindle the bear-hunting debate in B.C., an issue that has brought the province international criticism. Typically, about 300 grizzly bears are killed each year in B.C., but the numbers fluctuate, ranging from a low of 97 in 1975 to last year's high of 430. "We were very surprised to see the numbers up for last year," said Mr. Genovali, whose organization won a court order in 2004 that allowed it to pry bear mortality statistics out of the province.
While the 1975 to 2003 figures had previously been released, the latest information, for 2004-2007, was obtained only when the David Suzuki Foundation requested it recently, citing the earlier court ruling.
Mr. Genovali said the numbers show that, from 2004 to 2007, 1,391 grizzly bears were killed in B.C., which, because of its salmon rivers and mountainous wilderness, is recognized as the heart of the grizzly's remaining habitat in North America.
The vast majority of the bears -- about 88 per cent -- were shot by hunters, while animal control measures, poaching and other unspecified causes accounted for the remaining mortalities.
Mr. Genovali said he is concerned because B.C. doesn't know how many grizzly bears there are in the province. "These bears are being taken out of a population that we don't believe the government has a handle on," he said. "This is the opposite of the precautionary principle."
He said population estimates for grizzly bears in British Columbia have changed, going from 6,660 animals in 1972 to about 13,000 in 1990 to about 17,000 today. He said those estimates aren't scientific.
Environment Minister Barry Penner said he hadn't seen the latest data, but noted the government has imposed regional hunting closings whenever game biologists raised concerns about sustainability.
"Our commitment is to a science-based approach," he said. "My top concern is sustainability... [and] my preference is to err on the side of conservation."
Faisal Moola, science director of the David Suzuki Foundation, said the government estimates the grizzly bear population by determining how much bear habitat there is and then extrapolating a number based on how many bears should be found there.
"But they are not actually out there counting bears," he said. "Leading bear biologists are very, very critical of this approach because of the level of imprecision."
Mr. Moola said grizzly bears are designated by the national Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, the federal Species At Risk Act and the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species as a species of special concern.
Since 2003, the European Union has banned the import of grizzly bear trophies from B.C. because of concerns the hunt is not sustainable.
"It doesn't make sense to be hunting a species that is at risk," Mr. Moola said.
He called on the government to establish no-hunting zones for grizzly bears in B.C.
"The government has made some progress in establishing protected habitat. They did set aside areas in the Great Bear Rainforest recently... but hunting is still allowed in those areas, so we have a situation where the habitat is protected, but the bears aren't. That doesn't make any sense," he said.
But Scott Ellis, general manager of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., said the province is doing a good job of managing grizzly bears. "The grizzly bear harvest is at a sustainable level," he said.
He said he didn't have any hard figures to back it up, but anecdotal reports from guides around the province indicate "there's more grizzly bears than ever out there." He said guide outfitters hunt in designated areas that range in size from a few hundred square kilometres to a few thousand square kilometres.
But each guide, he said, will take only one or two bears a year. Clients pay about $10,000 to go on a grizzly bear hunt.
B.C. residents can also hunt grizzlies without hiring a guide.
The B.C. Wildlife Federation, which has about 30,000 members in the province, believes the grizzly bear harvest is being correctly managed.
"We believe that hunting as it is currently practised in British Columbia does not threaten any grizzly bear population," the organization states in a position paper. "It is our opinion that grizzly bear populations continue to thrive and are not endangered ..."
Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc.
Return to Table of Contents Read or make comments
From: Lawrence (Ks.) Journal-World & News
CITY'S WASTE NOT WASTED: SLUDGE IS USED ON
It might be overstating it to say what is Lawrence's trash is Roger Pine's treasure.
But the large piles of biosolids being dumped by the semitrailer load on the farmer's corn fields last week definitely were appreciated.
The piles -- which look like fine, black topsoil -- originated from what the homes and businesses of Lawrence flush down the toilet and wash down the drain. Of course, there are about a half-dozen steps that transform the waste collected in sewer pipes to the fertilizer applied on farm fields.
Pine is among the farmers who benefit from Lawrence's biosolids program. The biosolids (basically refined sewage sludge) boost the nitrogen and phosphorous levels in the ground and add to its organic matter.
For Pine, it is a true win-win proposal that keeps the city from having to unload its waste into landfills.
"Even though it might not smell good, it is something that is good for the ground and helps fertilize the crops," Pine said.
For more than 50 years, the city has had some form of biosolids available for its residents to use.
In the mid-1970s, the city applied biosolids to the fields it owned around the plant. In the early 1990s, it began working with farmers.
Along with what is applied on cropland, the city has higher-grade biosolids that anyone can use on gardens and lawns.
"It's basically recycling," said Jeanette Klamm, the city's utilities program manager.
The use of biosolids -- and its safety -- was called into question early this year when a federal judge ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to compensate a Georgia farmer after biosolids from a municipality poisoned his fields.
According to The Associated Press, the land was filled with arsenic, toxic heavy metals and PCBs that exceeded federal health standards by two to 2,500 times. Hundreds of the farmer's cows died.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, called the judge's decision a landmark ruling.
"I think it is significant that the court makes the finding that land application damages and in fact causes harm to farmland and animals," he said.
The Center for Food Safety, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest and environmental advocacy group, is against the use of what it calls sewage sludge on cropland. Even treated sludge could contain pathogens, industrial wastes, heavy metals and residue from antibiotics and other drugs, Mendelson said.
"There is no question that proponents of this technology say that it is somehow better to recycle this stuff, but you know we don't recycle hazardous materials, and we don't want to create a new environmental problem," Mendelson said.
For food to be certified as organic, biosolids from municipal sewage plants can't be used, said Rhonda Janke, associate professor of sustainable cropping systems at Kansas State University.
"A lot of organic standards follow the precautionary principle that it's better to err on the side of caution, of being too safe, rather than not safe enough," Janke said.
Besides the organic label, there isn't any way for U.S. consumers to tell whether food has been grown using biosolids, Janke said.
While Janke doesn't have a problem with biosolids fertilizing shrubs, trees and lawns, she doesn't think they belong on crops to be eaten by humans or animals.
"You just never know. It seems like the more research we do, the more we learn how these things really work," Janke said.
The final product
At the Lawrence Wastewater Treatment Plant, an open-air concrete building holds six months' worth of the city's biosolids. It's everyone's waste -- about 90,000 of us in Lawrence -- since November reduced to what would cover roughly 150 football fields.
On an overcast spring day, standing on a catwalk above this stockpile of refined sewage, the smell is not breathtakingly awful. Rather it's an earthy, musty odor.
About twice a year, these storage units get cleaned out and their contents spread on fields in a 10- to 20-mile radius of Lawrence. They usually end up on soybean, wheat or corn fields. Sometimes -- if the biosolids are applied in the summer -- hay fields will receive them.
The city produces about 7,000 tons of biosolids a year.
The operation in Lawrence -- a nationally recognized one -- is removed from the questionable practices that were occurring in Georgia, said Klamm, of the city's utilities department. As part of an environmental management system, the city's testing and treatment goes beyond what the Environmental Protection Agency requires.
Before it ever lands in the field, the biosolids have gone through a multiple-step process including one that has microorganisms eating away at solids, killing off disease-spreading pathogens.
The final product is sent to an outside lab to be tested for 10 metals (zinc, lead and copper are among them). The city has never seen its levels come close to the EPA's allowable limit. And the city's industrial sites are required to treat wastes for those toxic metals before they reach the sewage plant.
"Lawrence is very, very residential compared to other cities, and we have an active pretreatment program, so our metals are very low. A lot of times, they are not detected (in the sludge)," Klamm said.
When the biosolids are ready to go on fields, soil samples are taken to make sure the right amount of nutrients are applied.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment tests the Lawrence facility at least four times a year for heavy metals, pathogens and odor, KDHE spokesman Joe Blubaugh said. It is one of more than a hundred municipalities in the state the puts biosolids on fields.
On top of testing and treating, Klamm said EPA has requirements on what fields can take the biosolids. They can't be too close to rivers or ponds.
And if farmers plant crops that grow underground (such as carrots or beets), they have to wait one to three years before harvesting. Klamm said Lawrence doesn't touch the produce crops.
The restrictions for biosolids are far greater than those for farmers who just use the livestock manure as fertilizer, a practice that is largely unregulated, Klamm said.
Nothing goes to waste
Pine doesn't see any hazard with using the city's biosolids, and neither do the landlords who own the land he farms. Along with what the city tests, he has had scientists from Kansas State University test the soil for heavy metals.
"If it was a heavy-metal type of product, we wouldn't be interested," Pine said.
The majority of Pine's corn goes toward feeding livestock or making ethanol.
DeAnn Presley, an environmental soil scientist with K-State Research and Extension, said she believes using biosolids on fields is a good way to make sure wastes don't go to waste.
"Agronomists and engineers alike agree it's better to apply and get some good out of it than to put it in a landfill and never get any good out of it," she said.
It's a program that saves the city money. Storing the biosolids at a landfill would cost around $300,000 a year. Right now, the city is paying the Iowa-based contractor Nutri-Ject $80,000 to $100,000 to haul and spread the biosolids.
The city is in the enviable position, Klamm said, of having farmers more than willing to use its biosolids. They have a list of about eight to 12 who are regularly in the program.
Klamm said research has been done by almost every land-grant university that shows the process is a safe one.
Presley predicts that in the coming decades -- after farmers have used biosolids on fields for 30 or more years -- municipalities will have to look for new ways to reuse it.
Presley is working to rewrite the extension's publication on the use of biosolids. The document will be useful for the neighbors of biosolid-using farmers.
"If you first hear biosolids and there is metals in it -- that sounds awful, but then again there are metals everywhere in our world," Presley said. "So (the concern) is at what levels and is it regulated?"
Return to Table of Contents Read or make comments
BROMINATED CHEMICALS INDUSTRY ATTACKS GREENPEACE
Ignoring the significant fire danger that electronic products can pose if they overheat, the international environmental group Greenpeace has stepped up its campaign against electronics manufacturers that use brominated flame retardants (BFRs) to provide fire-safe consumer electronics. BSEF
[the Brominated Science & Environmental Forum, a European trade association for the brominated chemicals industry] reporty [sic] that Greenpeace wants to force the major electronic manufacturers -- and their customers -- to stop using the best scientifically documented flame retardants, which have been proven to be safe from an environmental and human health point of view, disregarding experts' conclusions and competent authorities' decisions.
In a recent update of its report Guide to Greener Electronics, Greenpeace announces that it will toughen its demands on electronic manufacturers regarding BFRs. The NGO will now insist that companies eliminate the whole range of brominated compounds used as flame retardants (more than 75 different substances) in consumers electronics. These represent the main solution selected by the market to fulfill the fire safety standards in electronic goods.
In doing so, Greenpeace continues to ignore the following facts:
The vast majority of the substances it seeks to eliminate have been approved for use by the competent authorities in Europe and in North America;
The biggest brominated compounds in terms of volume (Deca-BDE and TBBPA) have been thoroughly tested and have been through environmental and human health risk assessments procedures, notably in the EU, which concluded positively on their continued safe use;
These products provide critical performance and safety functions in a wide range of electronic products. In certain applications, they are the most effective, efficient products available.
If they bow to the Greenpeace requirements, electronics manufacturers will be forced to use less-tested chemicals, since they cannot simply offer their customers products that are not fire resistant -- and thereby put them at risk. BSEF urges electronics manufacturers to act responsibly and apply the precautionary principle by preferably using the well known and well tested brominated compounds.
In Europe and the US, thousands of people are killed every year as a result of domestic fires, many of which are started by, or involve, consumer electronics.
"It is critical that consumer electronics be fire safe, and brominated flame retardants are a very effective, proven way to provide that protection," said Michael Spiegelstein, chairman of the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum. "We continue to think that Greenpeace acts irresponsibly by simply requesting elimination of some of the best scientifically documented flame retardants, and by pressing for their replacement by lesser-known chemicals." BSEF Secretariat
BSEF is the international organisation of the bromine chemical industry, whose remit is to inform stakeholders and commission science on brominated chemicals such as flame retardants.
Copyright 2002-2007 EMSNow Media, LLC
Return to Table of Contents Read or make comments
BAN SIX FOOD COLOURINGS, SAY EUROPEAN CONSUMER
Recent UK research has showed a link between six food colourings and hyperactivity in some children. Despite these indings and agreement on the fact that there are strong grounds to suggest that these additives affect children's behaviour, no action is foreseen at EU level to remove these substances from food.
On 11 April, national experts are meeting to discuss this issue at the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health, part of the EU Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General (DG SANCO).
BEUC, together with 41 other organisations of public interest, have written a letter (in annex below) to Commissioner Vassiliou calling for a mandatory ban of the six colourings.
Monique Goyens, Director General of BEUC stated: "It is unacceptable to leave on the market substances strongly suspected to increase hyperactivity in children while having no added value at all except colouring food. The European Union must place the health of its most vulnerable consumers before any other interest."
Joint Statement to Mrs Androulla Vassiliou, European Health Commissioner
We, the undersigned 42 organisations from 12 member states representing a wide range of consumer groups, food and health charities, and parents, call on the European Commissioner to employ the precautionary principle by suspending use of certain food colourings found to affect the activity and attention of children.
We ask, where there is uncertainty surrounding the safety of a purely cosmetic food ingredient, what possible purpose is served by its continued presence in our food? The European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) recently published opinion on the UK Food Standards Agency's (FSA) "Southampton Study
" acknowledged that mixtures including the six colourings and one preservative in question had an effect on children's behaviour, yet recommended no reduction in the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). In doing so, The EFSA gave greater weight to the need to prove a substance 'harmful beyond any doubt' before removing it, than to the need to prove it harmless in order to allow its use. We find the EFSA conclusion, that the Southampton Study gives no grounds for a reduction of the ADI for these ingredients, deeply disconcerting.
We call on the European Health Commissioner, as risk manager, to take a decision in favour of precaution and consumer protection. Use of the six colours should be suspended, and manufacturers should continue to seek alternatives. This is in line with what consumers want, and with current market trends.
It is our view that:
There are risks but no benefits Risk:
The Southampton Study gives strong grounds to suggest that there is an appreciable risk associated with these additives, even at a much lower level than current ADIs allow for. That the Southampton study found any effect of dyes on behaviour was remarkable because a number of factors acted to decrease that effect. The subjects were children in two age groups (3-years and 8-9 year olds) in the general population, but excluded the most sensitive individuals: children being treated for ADHD.
EFSA recognised that doses used in the study were realistic. Though toxicology studies normally give exaggerated doses of the test chemicals, the Southampton Study used doses that only constituted between 2.5 and 20% of the ADI and still found an effect. The ADI should represent a level that can be ingested, even by sensitive individuals, over a lifetime without an appreciable health risk. In the UK, The Food Commission's identification of 1020 retail products containing one or more of the additives in question, suggests that many children may consume much more dye than was used in the study. Benefit:
On the other hand the dyes serve no purpose but to colour food. Other food colours are available, and it is possible to omit food colouring additives completely, as in organic food. Thus, we see no benefit to the continued use of these colours.
Consumers do not support the continued use of the food colours
In a March 2008 survey conducted by the Danish Consumer Council, just 2.7% of 1055 people surveyed agreed with the statement; "Authorities should not do anything more. As long as there is only a suspicion about the effect on sensitive children, this is not something that society should spend money investigating."
EFSA's recommendation therefore, that nothing be done, does not have strong support among Danish consumers. Similarly, an internet survey undertaken by Netmums of more than 1000 parents in the UK found that 87% wanted the additives from the Southampton Study removed from food, and that 98% were worried about the impact these additives have on their children's health and behaviour.
Industry is already acting, but regulators are lagging behind The dyes featured in the Southampton Study are added to foods for purely cosmetic purposes. In response to consumer demand, manufacturers in many countries have started to reformulate products to exclude these dyes. For instance, at least 21 manufacturers in the UK and 45 manufacturers and retailers in Denmark, have recently indicated that they are working on, or intend to start working on re-formulations. This confirms that th dyes are not essential, and that manufacturers recognise that consumers do not want them in their food.
In conclusion, we cannot see any reason for continuing to use these food colourings in our food. There is, in fact, a strong case to argue that there is risk involved in doing so. The European Government has a responsibility to place the health of the consumer at the forefront of food policy, and to safeguard the wellbeing of children. To do nothing would seriously fail European consumers, and fall short of fulfilling the stated purpose for which the EFSA was initially formed.
'EFSA was created as part of a comprehensive programme to improve EU food safety, ensure a high level of consumer protection and restore and maintain confidence in the EU food supply.' EFSA website Note
The six food colourings which, along with the preservative E211 Sodium Benzoate, were featured in the Southampton Study:
E104 Quinoline Yellow
E110 Sunset Yellow
E122 Carmoisine "
E124 Ponceau 4R
E129 Allura Red Signed:
Aado Luik Director, Tallinn Consumer Advice and Information Centre, Estonia
Aisling Murtagh Food and Health Researcher, Consumers' Association of Ireland Alar Tamm Director, Estonian Union for Child Welfare, Estonia
Alison Gehring Senior Policy Officer, The Royal Society of Health, UK
Anna Glayzer Co-ordinator, Action on Additives Campaign, UK
Annika Marniemi Food Officer, The Finnish Consumers' Association, Finland
Asen Nenov Bulgarian National Consumers Association, Bulgaria
Bengt Ingerstam The Swedish Consumer Coalition, Sweden
Bente Hessellund Andersen NOAH -- Friends of the Earth, Denmark
Brynhildur Petursdottir Neytendasamtokin, Consumer Association of Iceland
Camilla Udsen Senior Food Adviser, Danish Consumer Council, Denmark
Cathy Court Director, Netmums, UK
Charlotte Jeavons Chair, National Oral Health Promotion Group (NOHPG), UK
Christian Ege Chairman, The Ecological Council, Denmark
Conchy Martin Rey International Relations Director, CECU (Confederacion de Consumidores y Usuarios), Spain
David Smith Policy Adviser, Welsh Food Alliance, UK
Domolki Livia National Association for Consumer Protection in Hungary
Dr Helen Crawley Science Director, The Caroline Walker Trust, UK
Dr Nigel L Carter BDS LDC (RCS) Chief Executive, British Dental Health Foundation, UK
Dr Tim Lobstein Childhood Coordinator, International Obesity Task Force, UK
Eleni Alevritou President, EKPIZO, Greece
Emma Hockridge Campaigner, the Soil Association, UK
Fiona Bird Founder, Stirrin'Stuff, Scotland, UK
Ghita Parry Danish Diet & Nutrition Association, Denmark
Ilse Friis Madsen Naestformand, Landsorganisationen Gron Hverdag
Jan Bertoft Secretary General, Swedish Consumers' Association, Sweden
Jessica Mitchell Director, The Food Commission, UK
Klaus Melvin Jensen Campaign manager, Active Consumers (Aktive Forbrugere), Denmark
Linda L��nesaar Director General, Eesti Tarbijakaitse Liit (ETL)
Lizzie Vann Trustee, The Organix Foundation, UK
Magda Stoczkiewicz Director, Friends of the Earth Europe
Mare Abner Chairwoman, Estonian Disabled Women Society, Estonia
Monique Goyens Director General, BEUC- The European Consumers Association
Patti Rundall, OBE Policy Director, Baby Milk Action, UK
Pia Valota Co-ordinator, ASECO Alliance of Social and Ecological Consumer Organisations
ACU Associazione Consumatori Utenti, Italy
Prof Erik Millstone Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, UK
Richard Watts Children's Food Campaign Director, UK
Sally Bunday MBE Founder /Director, Hyperactive Children's Support Group (HACSG), UK
Steve Nash Co Founder Member, Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome Help (HUSH), The UK E.coli Support Group, UK
Tiiu Muursepp Director, Tartu Consumer Advice and Information Centre, Estonia,
Board Member, Tartu Women Society, Estonia
The European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) was created in 1962 by the consumer organisations of Belgium, Luxembourg, France, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany. After working together for a number of years, these organisations decided to create a European association, based in Brussels, right at the heart of Community policy. BEUC was a pioneer, one of the first lobbying organisations to set up base in the European capital in a bid to influence the decision-making process. BEUC -- The European Consumers' Organisation
EUbusiness Copyright EUbusiness Ltd 2008
Return to Table of Contents Read or make comments
From: Mid-Hudson News Network
LAWMAKER HEIGHTENS AWARENESS FOR PESTICIDE
RHINEBECK, N.Y. -- Dutchess County Legislator Joel Tyner of Clinton continues to lobby for a pesticide notification law in the county.
As chairman of the Environment Committee, he renewed his call Monday for the notification before a homeowner applies those chemicals to their lawns.
With Tyner was Beverly Canin of Breast Cancer Options of Kingston, who supports his efforts.
"We are not asking for a complete ban; we are asking people to use the precautionary principle and that is if there is a risk of harm, that you don't use it, and in this case at least notify the neighbors that you are using it so they can protect themselves and their animals," she said.
Tyner walked from Rhinebeck to Poughkeepsie to urge support for a 48 hour notification before pesticides are sprayed.
Return to Table of Contents Read or make comments
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical
examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in
action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making
decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to
answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary
principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we
believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what
their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed
to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to
provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary
principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle --
please Email them to us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Peter Montague - email@example.com
Tim Montague - firstname.lastname@example.org
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution
Reporter send any Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: email@example.com
Table of Contents (TOC) edition: firstname.lastname@example.org
In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that
you want to subscribe.
To unsubscribe, send any email to email@example.com
or to firstname.lastname@example.org, as appropriate.