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