CALIFORNIA MOTH SPRAYING is bad for your health

[OKthatsIT]

Air Force Major Tim Wilcox, an AWACs crew member, and currently a graduate student in National Security Policy Studies at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, reports how his 11-month-old son Jack responded to the allegedly 'safe' anti-LBAM aerial spraying - trips to the hospital that were '...like a scene from ER...just trying to get him to breathe...!" Parents of healthy infants in the projected target urban spray areas for this summer - Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Francisco Bay - please take note.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxXFZkVd0To&eurl=http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20080421_1

=================================================================
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/07/MNROVUMES.DTL&type=health

"Rigorous testing promised
This time around, agriculture officials will give state medical experts an opportunity to sign off on a pesticide product before it's used in aerial spraying, said USDA spokesman Larry Hawkins. There will be more rigorous animal testing on the product, he said."

YARITE. The USDA to the rescue?

[dana_b]

1. this has been such a big issue here. I live just south of San Francisco

and will be sure to spread the videos. Thanks.

[BuddhaGirl]

2. southern Marin here...

Thanks for the video. What happened to that family is criminal!! :scared:

[cui bono]

3. Thanks for the post! My bro lives in Santa Cruz with his family, 3 little kids.

I will pass this on to him.

[mike_c]

4. bullshit, plain and simple....

First and foremost, the child would already have been breathing mating pheromones produced by the moths themselves if there was any reason to use them for mating disruption in his location. The biologically active dose is VANISHINGLY small and it has no effect whatsoever on vertebrates. It doesn't even harm the moths, just makes the males horny but unable to find females. It's the pest management equivalent of screening soft porn.

This has been discussed here previously-- mating disruption with sex pheromones is the ULTIMATE environmentally friendly biological control. It's been the holy grail of environmentalist entomologists and other conservation minded pest control folks for decades. It's certified for organic farming. This is the good approach. It doesn't get any better.

The FUD surrounding this campaign has been extraordinary.

You should read the contempt ecologists and entomologists have been expressing for bay area californians on some of the professional message boards I frequent. This campaign is Rachel Carson's wet dream, and folks are acting like the state is dumping radioactive nerve toxins from black helicopters. Much of the public commentary about this has just been embarrassingly ignorant of both basic biology and environmentalism.

[BuddhaGirl]

5. it's not just them, but 400 others

according to the article. It's never been tested on humans. That's the REAL bullshit.

[mike_c]

6. it has been tested on humans for THOUSANDS OF YEARS....

Jesus H. Christ! If you breath during the spring, summer, or fall, you breath insect mating pheromones. Your ancestors have done so for as long as humans have existed. LBAM Checkmate is a commercial preparation of apple moth mating pheromone encapsulated in poly-UREA micro-beads, another common compound and the beads stick to surfaces rather than float so people don't generally breath any of them at all in the application zone. We're talking about teaspoons per acre. Any tree produces more particulate pollen and your kitchen is more toxic. Literally.

Complaining that LBAM pheromone hasn't been tested on humans is like complaining that air hasn't been tested on humans. EVERY single thing in the formulation has been a common component of human environments for timespans ranging from years to millenia. Learn how mating disruption works. The pheromones don't harm ANYTHING, including the moths they target. This has been the premier organic farming pest control method for years.

I'm sorry. This reaction is uninformed, ignorant, uneducated hysteria. It's embarrassing.

[piesRsquare]

7. Instead of calling us names

...and essentially speaking to those of us who are extremely concerned about the spraying as though we're stupid and beneath you, how about posting some links to the professional forums you mentioned, and academic information about the spray, etc so we can *learn* something?

I'm in the SF Bay Area, and this whole thing with the spraying scares the shit out of me. Don't call me ignorant, don't call me uneducated, and don't dismiss my fear and concern as being "hysteria". Please offer information (and links to information).

[mike_c]

8. ok-- here you go....

Understand that part of my frustration is that I HAVE linked this info here on DU before. I realize not everyone sees every thread, but the other side of your request is that this info is commonly available to everyone who looks for it. Furthermore, it really is part of a general college biology education, at least to a great enough degree to permit a much less hysterical consideration than I'm seeing here. BTW, for what it's worth, my credentials for discussing this are a Ph.D in entomology and a career in insect ecology in the California State University (at Humboldt State University).

Here's a basic description of how insect mating disruption works. The author is Gwen Pearson, a respected entomologist:

http://membracid.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/ask-an-entomologist-sex-pheromones-and-mating-disruption/


Here's what she says about this particular issue:

http://membracid.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/mating-disruption-pheromones-and-paranoia/


Here's a more scholarly treatment of the topic that describes it's implementation as an IPM strategy, as is commonly applied in organic agriculture:

http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/flint.htm


Another good introduction:

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=2702


An introduction to biological control. This article focuses mostly on natural enemies rather than mating disruption, but the principle is the same: use a naturally occurring interaction to disrupt pest species populations rather than toxic chemicals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pest_control


I cannot link you directly into the entomology list serve I was referring to-- you need an account even to search the archives-- but I can copy some of the messages I was referring to. Since they're copied without permission I'll remove most of the individuals' names. The list is ENTOMOL-L distributed from the University of Guelph. BTW, you might see occasional references to "Richard." His name is Richard Fagerlund-- he is a pest control operator who started some of this hysteria by writing an article the SF Chron published.

XXXXXX

Pheromones are pesticides as defined under FIFRA and used in that way. So
are many food items: "Pesticide" merely denotes an intended use, regardless
of level of toxicity. People freak out whenever anything simply carries
that name, even though many foods they eat and products they use daily may
be orders of magnitude more toxic and more poluting. Unfortunately,
fighting emotion with logic is a fools errand. Watch the movie
"Idiocracy"--it is not that far from reality!

Cheers,

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: planned ariel spray over SF Bay Area


I have heard a great deal about this, since people know I work in
pheromones.
The level of public hysteria is simply amazing.

The saddest part is that I fear that all pheromones will be tarnished
from the fallout (no pun intended) from this event.
It's a tiny amount of compound compared to a pesticide spraying; it's
an approved "organic" control method.

And a whole lot of people are freaking out. Big time.
It's important to point out that the last sprays happened during peak
allergy season, and that it's very difficult to separate out the
respiratory symptoms reported from the cause.

Also, if I hear pheromones called a "pesticide" one more time, I'm
gonna scream.

Yes, of course I know that they are classified as a pesticide, but
that word has a whole host of connotations that include death and
poisoning. That's what I'm objecting to; it makes it almost
impossible to have a conversation with a lay person:

Them: OMG, It's a pesticide!
Me: Well, technically, yes, that's it's classification, but it doesn't
actually kill anything. It just makes male moths very horny and
confused.
Them: So, you admit it's a pesticide *with sexual side effects*!! I

I've had several such circular conversations. It's not very fun.

XXXXXXXXXX

On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Matta, James F wrote:
> What should it be called? A “genocide?” That really doesn’t sound
> right.
>
> They must be expecting some impact on the Light Brown Apple Moth.
> What is the correct word to convey both the target and the function?
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXX

Look, I'm going to stop here for now-- it's way late for me and I'm spending too much time sorting through dozens of messages in my mailbox on the topic. I'll try to post more tomorrow. OR you can join ENTOMOL-L and search the archives for recent articles with "planned aerial spray over SF Bay area" in the subject line for starters. There is LOTS of traffic among the (mostly) entomologists and ecologists subscribing.

[KT2000]

9. Please post the complete

ingredient list of the product being sprayed.
Please include the inert ingredients as well.
Thank you.

[mike_c]

10. check back tomorrow, ok?

I'll see what I can dig up, but it's been a very long day. I can tell you off the top of my head that the PRIMARY active ingredients are the blend of compounds that are the moth pheromone itself-- the same compounds female moths release into the atmosphere naturally-- and the main inert ingredient is the poly-urea micro-beads the pheromone is contained within. Urea is also a common substance in nature and the microbeads biodegrade nicely after releasing the pheromone slowly. They're suspended in water, probably with a detergent. I recently read the list of active and inert ingredients and most of the inert ingredients are used in food or cosmetic preparations, so they're common in human environments. Remember too that the application rate is TEASPOONS per acre. Even heinously toxic compounds would be fairly benign at that concentration and the compounds in Checkmate are mostly naturally occurring and low or nontoxic.

One of the reasons Fagerlund's article caused such hysteria was that he quoted directly from the MSDS sheets for most of the inert ingredients. This is very misleading since even things like water carry toxicity warnings on MSDS sheets (thousands of deaths caused annually from breathing it, etc, LOL).

Anyway, I'll dig that stuff out of my files tomorrow, OK? In the meantime look through the links I've already posted and search for LBAM material on your own. There's LOTS of it online.

[piesRsquare]

11. He can't...

The company that makes the spray is not required to (and won't) disclose that information..."proprietary rights", you see.

So every 30 to 90 days, for up to 10 years, beginning in August, 2008, some manufactured product that has not, in itself, been studied with regard to potential health effects (if any) on humans--and is being used to wipe out some insect--is going to be sprayed throughout the SF Bay Area...yet those of us living here have been told we have no right to know what that product is made of.

The information I was looking for was along the lines of studies involving the spray itself; I thought the professionals on the boards mentioned by the other poster were discussing the actual product.

Myself, I know about pheromones and all that. I want information about this stuff that's going to be sprayed here!

I've read about experts looking at the list of ingredients and not seeing anything of concern...sure, perhaps as individual ingredients they may be fine, but what about when those ingredients are combined?

I have a neurological condition. My best friend has bad asthma, chronic respiratory problems. I'm really concerned about this!

[KT2000]

12. Exactly

I would never trust "experts" to determine the health safety of a product for me. Most experts make their money supporting the poison industry. When they refuse to disclose the full information they are hiding something.

All chemicals are inadequately tested for health effects.

[mike_c]

14. see #13 and do me the courtesy...

...of reading and thinking about the posts. I've spent several hours retrieving this information for you when I should be sleeping. Please do not be so disrespectful as to simply dismiss it as "evil scientific stuff" or whatever. Read the links and think about them, or don't complain when folks who study this sort of thing ridicule your self imposed ignorance.

[KT2000]

18. I was replying to

piesRsquare in my post. He was not told the ingredients but was told that experts looked at the list and concluded there was nothing of concern. That is not acceptable. There is so much lying and cover-up when it comes to toxic chemicals, full disclosure is needed.

Thank you for posting the ingredients. I do appreciate the time spent on that and I will consider it further.

I don't know where you are getting the "evil scientific stuff" and reference to self imposed ignorance.
It is a fact that all chemicals in use have not been adequately tested. Some have even been grandfathered in with bogus testing. None have been tested for exposure when in combination with other chemicals. Chemicals are tested individually, most as if there is a once in a lifetime exposure to a healthy white male. Consideration of fetuses and children has focused on reduced dose, not on the potential for hormone mimicry. The cost/benefit factor used to determine exposure levels fails to recognize many of the illnesses and the true cost of those illnesses.

Therefore, a true scientist must take into account and state those failures when using the platform of "science" to endorse the forced exposure of the population to chemicals. To do other wise is not practicing science, just promoting propaganda.

Please remember, objections to these forced exposures are not the result of ignorance, but rather very real people who have illnesses that are affected by the chemicals used. Rather than attack the people as ignorant, a wiser course would be to examine the complaints and possibly expand our understanding and knowledge. To do otherwise is to damn people to sickness based on inadequate information. That is cruelty.

[mike_c]

13. wrong-- they aren't required to disclose the inert ingredients BUT THEY HAVE...

Look, I said I'd locate them and post them. Do you think I was lying? My day starts at 5:00 AM so this is the point where I start getting angry because folks like you make statements like "He can't" immediately after I said I would. I'd like to have gotten some rest first.

Here are the ingredients. BTW, this info was released by Suterra LLC amd has been published online by the California Dept of Food and Ag-- THAT MEANS YOU COULD HAVE LOOKED IT UP ANYTIME YOURSELF rather than hassling me about it or impuning my reliability:


Active ingredients:

(E)-11-Tetradecen-l-yl Acetate (16.90%Z)
(E,E)-9,11-Tetradecadien-l-yl Acetate (0.71%)

These two compounds are the components of the female moth mate location pheromone. The moths release them naturally in this ratio so they are already present in the environment wherever the LBAM lives. Other, very similar compounds are released by other moth species. The air we breath is awash in these pheromones. We breathe these pheromones all the time. If the moth's are not eradicated you'll breath even more of them.

Inert ingredients (copied from a posting on ENTOMOL-L that ultimately references the CDFA website:

Water is by far the majority inert ingredient.

Ammonium phosphate - a common mineral nutrient in nature, used in "crystal growing kits" for children, and as a plant nutrient. If you feed your plants you handle this ingred in far higher concentrations than it is used in Checkmate.

Sodium phosphate - another naturally occurring substance and mineral nutrient. An additive used in egg products and as a prescribed laxative. Added to many foods as an emulsifier to prevent oil separation. Some examples are processed cheeses, processed meats, ready-made meals and tinned (canned) soups. Sodium phosphates are also commonly added to powdered soups, boullions and gravy mixtures, and are also be used as a leavening agent in the batter coating on breaded fish or chicken, and commercially baked cakes.

1,2-benzisothiazol-3-one - used as antibacterial and antifungal agents in a variety of products, including cosmetics.

2-hydroxy-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone - used in sunscreen and in lots of products made of plastics including food containers.

Cross linked polyurea - commonly used in the manufacturing of plastics. Urea is one of the most common nitrogen containing organic compounds in nature. Our bodies produce it constantly. Polyurea polymer is the main component of the microbead containers other than the pheromone itself-- the microbeads are MOSTLY pheromone.

Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) - a common food additive and preservative. You have almost certainly eaten some today. And yesterday. And the day before. And every day of your life.

Polyvinyl alcohol: - a polymer commonly used in shampoos and cosmetics, children's play putty, lubrication drops for hard contact lens wearers and MANY other products, including many cosmetics and body care products.

Tricaprylyl methyl ammonium chloride - commonly used in the manufacture of various pesticides and pharmaceuticals; contributes to product purity. This is the only inert ingredient that appears to have any degree of appreciable toxicity. It is commonly used to mothproof clothes. Note however that in Checkmate it is applied in VANISHINGLY small quantities.

It is my understanding that this is the whole list of inert ingredients in CheckMate LBAM-F. Most have MSDS sheets that detail toxicity and cautions, etc, but pay attention to dosage. Even water has an LD₅₀ and most of these ingredients are commonly ingested or worn by people and pets! All of these ingredients are common product components that you are already exposed to-- as I said above, your own kitchen is likely more toxic than Checkmate, certainly at the licensed application rates. Since Checkmate is applied at such small concentrations (0.65 oz per acre!) most of these inert ingredients are barely detectable EXCEPT in the products that are already all over most peoples' houes.

Again, READ THE LINKS I provided above discussing phermone mating disruption and biological control. YOU asked me to locate them for you and to post them.

[piesRsquare]

15. This just out:

"Immediate short term acute health concerns are to be expected from the known toxicology of several of the chemicals in the Checkmate formulation mix and in the polyurea plastic particulate capsule." -By Lawrence Rose M.D., M.P.H., former Senior Public Medical Officer for Cal-OSHA and part of the UCSF Occupational/Environmental Medicine Department

Read what he has to say (PDF document):

http://www.lbamspray.com/Reports/Health%20Hazard%20Alert%20by%20Dr.%20Larry%20Rose%20MD%20MPH.pdf

[BuddhaGirl]

16. wow! just...wow!!

:scared: :scared:

[mike_c]

17. more FUD, no science....

I'm not going to waste any more time with this because you are obviously not interested in listening to opposing professional points of view. You asked for information last night, I spent considerable time gathering it for you, all the while you said that I couldn't, and you've pointedly ignored it since. You're a scared, ignorant villager clutching a torch and a pitchfork. I'll leave you to your fears and superstitions.