next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01CABA00.BCAAD8C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Suzanne & All, Mar 2, 2010 While I have, from the first, maintained that use of pesticides for = cosmetic purposes is an obsene misuse of technology I think a ban is = undesirable for a host of reasons. Foremost among these is validation, by a ban, of the entirely false = premise that pesticides are hazardous to human health even if used as = directed.=20 Establishing policy on the basis of falsehood is a slippery slope = that could lead in time e.g. to banning of pesticide for all uses; = starvation is detrimental to health. [See Irish Potato Famine and social = history up to mid 19th century.] Figure 8 in Baxter & Ramlo ( 1998, What can you expect ? Life = expectancy in Canada, 1921-2021) shows a continuous increase in life = expectancy from 1831 (39 years) onward. Since pesticides were introduced = in the early 40s L.E. has increased from 64.6 years in 1941 to 77.6 = years in 1991. More recent figures from a World Life Expectancy Chart http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm show L.E. to be 79.2 and 79.4 years in 1998 and 2000 respectively. If pesticides are detrimental to human health then why has L.E. = increased by 23% over the last 6 decades ? Clearly pesticides are detrimental to the targets; weeds or insects. = But a mania for frequently mowed grass monoculture also detracts from = spatial biodiversity. A shift in values will in the long run be more = effective than a ban that addresses only one aspect of the overmanaged = yard. Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Suzanne Townsend=20 To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20 Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:55 AM Subject: [NatureNS] NS Provincial Pesticide Ban NS Provincial Pesticide Ban - TAKE ACTION NOW to make it happen!=20 If you haven't yet responded to the consultation on whether to ban = lawn pesticides throughout NS, there is just two weeks left to let the = government know -- YES, WE WANT A BAN ON SALE AND USE OF UNNECESSARY LAWN PESTICIDES. The government's consultation on whether to ban lawn pesticides ends = March 7. The Landscape Industry is hard at work spreading misinformation = to oppose the ban. You may have seen the article from Landscape Nova = Scotia in the Chronicle Herald with the claim that vinegar is twice as = toxic as Roundup. We need everyone who supports a ban to respond to the consultation. = NUMBERS COUNT! PLEASE, take a minute right now to reply to the consultation with this = core message: "I agree that NS should ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides. = Cosmetic pesticides pose an unnecessary risk to our health and our = environment." Then add a sentence (or more) that reflects why YOU care about this = issue. Are you a parent, a grandparent, a health professional, a person = with chemical sensitivities or asthma, a cancer survivor, a person who = wants a healthier planet - maybe all of the above. Send your message to=20 Email to Policy@gov.ns.ca Phone: 1-888-320-0555 =20 Fax: (902) 424-0644=20 or respond on line at https://www.gov.ns.ca/nse/pests/comments.asp The government's position paper is available on line at = http://www.gov.ns.ca/nse/pests/discussing.pesticides.asp. Check out the Cancer Society's Pesticide Free video on YouTube = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLU24HbMxwcE . But first, SEND YOUR EMAIL TO THE GOVERNMENT! If you have responded = already, thanks. =20 Please pass this on to anyone you know who wants a healthier = environment in Nova Scotia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com=20 Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2701 - Release Date: = 02/21/10 07:34:00 ------=_NextPart_000_02C9_01CABA00.BCAAD8C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876"> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>Hi Suzanne & All, = Mar 2,=20 2010</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> While I have, from = the first,=20 maintained that use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes is an = obsene misuse=20 of technology I think a ban is undesirable for a host of=20 reasons.</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Foremost among these = is validation, by a ban, of the entirely false premise that = pesticides=20 are hazardous to human health even if used as directed. = </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Establishing policy = on the basis=20 of falsehood is a slippery slope that could lead in time e.g. to banning = of=20 pesticide for all uses; starvation is detrimental to health. [See = Irish=20 Potato Famine and social history up to mid 19th century.]</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> Figure 8 in Baxter = & Ramlo=20 ( 1998, What can you expect ? Life expectancy in Canada, 1921-2021) = shows a=20 continuous increase in life expectancy from 1831 (39 years)=20 onward. Since pesticides were introduced in the early 40s L.E. = has=20 increased from 64.6 years in 1941 to 77.6 years in 1991. More = recent=20 figures from a World Life Expectancy Chart</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial><A=20 href=3D"http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm">http://g= eography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm</A></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>show L.E. to be 79.2 and 79.4 years in = 1998 and=20 2000 respectively.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> If pesticides are = detrimental