Comments
As ever, David’s observations are spot on and it seems that the application of ‘ecologic’ in no way affects the use of ‘egologic’.
Tasmania’s governing system is clearly tribal in nature, and brooks no threat to its supremacy.
Sadly, when it brings itself into ruin, it will take many others with it.
Posted by Mike Bolan on 28/01/08 at 11:32 AMAs suggested by another contributor (earlier), it appears to be factual (sorry Dr. B) that wetting agents ARE commonly sprayed with herbicides. Indeed, it would appear that many commercial brands of Atrazine come pre-mixed with wetting agents for the convenience of forestry companies. This is a common practice in agriculture, where wetting agents have the name of “adjuvants”.
The link below is to the mixing instructions for one brand of Atrazine in which the happy consumer is recommended to add 15ml of “Wetting Agent 600”. Whilst the chemisty of the compound is not discussed, another part of the document also describe “wetting agent 600” as an effective fire fighting agent. Whats that - a fire retardant being used as a wetting agent for atrazine spraying! I can hear the spin doctors at DPIWE now hitting the media diversion button….
Both PCBs and Triazine are known endocrine inhibitors and wonders if the “fire retardant” story is really pointing the finger at the right root-cause.
Posted by Thicker and wetter on 28/01/08 at 07:58 PMTasmania’s rule is corporate rule. Same as in the US. Here’s a great example (severely edited) of how this ‘governance’ operates:
Early 1970s– Dr Arthur Hayes (the future FDA Commissioner that quickly approved aspartame) served in the US Army’s Chemical Weapons division under the Nixon Administration.
1970 – Dr John Olney performed studies on aspartic acid. Aspartic acid is 40% of aspartame. He found that it caused lesions in the brains of mice.
1973 – Brain cancer in humans started to rise steadily in industrial nations.
1973 – GD Searle, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of apartame sought approval for the chemical from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
1974 – FDA approved aspartame for certain food uses. Two citizens challenged the decision.
1974 – An FDA task force set up to examine aspartame and GD Searle says it uncovered serious deficiencies in Searles operations and practices. The task force report concluded with the recommendation that G.D. Searle should face a Grand Jury “to identify more particularly the nature of the violations, and to identify all those responsible.”
1976 - An FDA “task force” brought into question all of G.D. Searle’s aspartame testing procedures conducted between 1967 and 1975. The final FDA report noted faulty and fraudulent product testing, knowingly misrepresented product testing, knowingly misrepresented findings, and instances of irrelevant animal research.
1977 – The US FDA wrote a 33 page letter to US Justice Department Attorney Sam Skinner. It requested that Skinner’s office convene a Grand Jury investigation into apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Comsmetic Act by Searle. At least some of the complaints were in relation to Searle’s apartame ‘science’. Searle, it was alleged, knowingly misrepresented data, concealed material facts and made false statements in aspartame tests. In February Skinner met with Searle attorneys at the Chicago law firm of Sidney & Austin. Suddenly, newly elected President Carter announced that Skinner would not remain in office, and Skinner thereafter announced that he would be hired by Sidney & Austin. Obviously, Skinner then had to recuse himself from the Searle prosecution. The case was taken over by US Attorney William Conlon, who essentially sat on the case, despite complaints from the Justice Department, which was urging that a grand jury be convened to prosecute Searle Company for falsifying Nutra-Sweet test data. Failing to perform his duty, Conlon also joined Searle’s law firm in January 1979. The Statute of Limitations on the aspartame case expired. In total three FDA Commissioners and eight other officers took jobs in the aspartame industry.
1977 – March. GD Searle hired Donald Rumsfeld as their CEO. Rumsfeld soon hired several of his Washington cronies as top management.
1980 – October 1st. The Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) issued its decision on aspartame saying “the evidence suggested aspartame ‘should not be approved for marketing until further animal testing was conducted to resolve the brain tumor issue’”.
1981 - The FDA revoked Searle’s license to sell aspartame.
1981 – January. Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, stated in a sales meeting that he would push for aspartame’s approval using his political clout in Washington, rather than scientific means, to ensure its approval.
1981 – Ronald Reagan became US President.
1981 – Later that year a new FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hayes Jr, appointed by President Reagan’s transition team (that includes the membership of Donald Rumsfeld). Hayes reversed the decision of the PBOI and licensed aspartame for “dry” uses as a substitute for sugar. No new studies were initiated to shed light on the brain cancer question. The FDA simply reinterpreted the data of previous studies under the guidance of Arthur Hayes. Shortly after aspartame’s approval by the FDA, Hayes joined NutraSweet’s public relations firm under a ten year contract at $1,000 a day.
1983 – FDA Commissioner Hayes extended Searle’s apartame license to include its use as a sweetener in “diet” soft drinks. Aspartame sales took off.
1985 – Monsanto bought Searle. Monsanto aggressively markets Nutrasweet.
.....The Australian Government has, of course, approved aspartame for widespread use here.
Posted by Brenda Rosser on 29/01/08 at 12:16 AMIn 2004 the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory (now called the National Measurement Institute) published a scientific paper on the various PBDE congener residues in Australian fauna. It was a first and it included 8 Tasmanian devils provided from Tasmania, 5 birds of prey from South Australia & Western Australia, 9 marine mammals stranded on Tasmanian coasts; 3 farmed Atlantic Salmon and one trout sample purchased from a retail supermarket (Country or State of origin, not given).
A very small survey, but the first indication of Tasmania’s top terrestrial predator bioaccumulating these persistent organic pollutants.
On analysing the concentrations of the PBDE congeners in the fat from these animals, the researchers highlighted the ‘distinct clustering’ of all the bird of prey samples; all the Tasmanian devil samples, and separate from the whale & fish samples co-existing. ‘This suggests different sources of the PDBEs or in fact different bioaccumulation by the different species studies.’ [Reference: Organohalogen Compounds: Vol 66(2004) 3959-3965]
The deca-BDE, BDE 209 was not analysed. This is the PBDE that was thought to have a short half-life and therefore not thought to bioaccumulate in mammals! The latest NMI results released under FOI to Matthew Denholm of The Australian newspaper indicates that this BDE residue is also present in significant levels in devil fat.
Now the question remains; what are the synthetic chemical sources of BDE 153, Hexabromobiphenyl (BB153) and BDE 209 in wild Tasmanian devils?
As most wild devils are not exposed to plastic products from urbanised living (from household dust, carpets, computers, televisions, mobile phones, sleeping on foam matresses or sofas) where have they obtained their distinctly clustering PBDE residues from?
Posted by David Obendorf on 02/02/08 at 05:07 PMThanks re #2. The provision of such facts may indeed have ruined the fun I was having with those who cannot argue their case effectively - but there will doubtless be more fun of a similar nature with their like some other day, and facts are what the debate requires.
Usual disclaimer applies.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham on 02/02/08 at 11:29 PMThanks David,
Valuable work!
Here is a link to the POP review:
http://www.pops.int/documents/meetings/poprc/poprc.htmInformation note
The third meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC-3) of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) took place from 19-23 November 2007, in Geneva, Switzerland. Over 100 participants attended the meeting, including all 31 Committee members, 39 government and party observers and representatives from 24 non-governmental organizations.
At its adoption in 2001, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants included provisions for international action on twelve POPs while allowing parties to nominate additional chemicals according to a three-step review process that determines whether a nominated substance has POP characteristics, whether global action is warranted and how to list the substance under the Convention. The outcome of the review undertaken by the 31-member POPs Review Committee is a recommendation to the Conference of the Parties (COP) on listing of the chemical under Annex A (Elimination), Annex B (Restriction) and/or Annex C (Unintentional production) of the Convention.
At the third meeting of the Committee, five chemicals were considered for the third and final step of the review process, another five entered the second phase, and one new chemical was nominated.
After a weeklong debate, the Committee approved the risk management evaluation for five chemicals, and recommended that COP-4 consider listing them under Annex A: lindane; chlordecone; hexabromobiphenyl (HBB); pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDE); and under Annex A or B: perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), its salts and PFOS fluoride (PFOSF). This would lead to elimination (Annex A) or restriction (Annex B) of the production, use, export and import of the chemicals.
Lindane is used as an insecticide in agriculture and in pharmaceutical products for the treatment of headlice and scabies; Chlordecone also known as kepon, is used as a pesticide in agriculture; Hexabromobiphenyl is used as a flame retardant mainly in plastics and coated cables; Pentabromodiphenyl ether is used in the manufacture of flexible polyurethane foam for furniture, upholstery, and packaging, and non-foamed polyurethane in casings and electronic equipment; Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is both an intentionally produced substance and an un-intentional degradation product of other related anthropogenic chemicals. PFOS-related substances are used as surface-active agents in different applications including fire fighting foams, textiles, paper and packaging, coatings, cleaning products, pesticides, photographic industry, semiconductor, hydraulic fluids, metal plating.
LOOKING AHEAD
POPRC-4, scheduled to meet on 13-17 October 2008 in Geneva, will have four more chemicals to review at the risk management evaluation phase (commercial octabromodiphenyl ether, pentachlorobenzene, and alpha and beta hexachlorocyclohexane), one at the risk profile phase (short chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs)), and any number of new chemical that might be proposed in addition to EU’s resubmitted endosulfan proposal. As parties gear up for COP-4, scheduled for May 2009, they will have to prepare to examine the implications of listing as many as nine new chemicals.
In the intersessional period between the third and the fourth meetings of the POPRC, fourteen of the 31 members will see their term end and replaced by new designated members in May 2008.
For more information, send an e-mail to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Posted by Chemicals? on 03/02/08 at 07:20 AMRe# 2
“As suggested by another contributor (earlier), it appears to be factual (sorry Dr. B) that wetting agents ARE commonly sprayed with herbicides. Indeed, it would appear that many commercial brands of Atrazine come pre-mixed with wetting agents for the convenience of forestry companies. This is a common practice in agriculture, where wetting agents have the name of “adjuvants”.The link below is to the mixing instructions for one brand of Atrazine in which the happy consumer is recommended to add 15ml of “Wetting Agent 600”. Whilst the chemisty of the compound is not discussed, another part of the document also describe “wetting agent 600” as an effective fire fighting agent. Whats that - a fire retardant being used as a wetting agent for atrazine spraying! I can hear the spin doctors at DPIWE now hitting the media diversion button….”
BUT…... wetting agents used in fire fighting are not the same compounds used as fire retardants in plastics (which are the PBDEs in question). Wetting agents are an entirely different class of chemical. Bunching all “fire retardants” together is pointless.
Posted by Nelly on 03/02/08 at 07:21 AMRe Wetting agents, the example given in #2 contains the following:
ACTIVE CONSTITUENT: 600g/L NONYL PHENOL ETHYLENE
OXIDE CONDENSATE NON-IONIC ORGANIC SURFACTANTCheck out this paper:
http://www.pesticide.org/nonyl.pdfPosted by Nelly on 03/02/08 at 07:52 AM(5)
HAVING FUN ! YEAH RIGHT !
d.d.Posted by don davey on 03/02/08 at 09:23 AMUp until now I have enjoyed the odd “Muttonbird” on the Barbie.
Knowing the immense distance and continents they travel across,flying to Russia, China & Japan, coupled with their large amounts of body fat, I am now questioning the amount of POP’s these birds accumulate.
David, do you know if any studies have been performed on Shearwaters? Is there cause to be concerned?Posted by Tony Saddington on 03/02/08 at 06:50 PMDear Nelly,
Nice try. I suggest you brush-up on your chemistry. The church of PCBs is very broad and actually has about 9 sub families, of which forms of linked oxylated aclohols are but one. This IS a fire retardant and IS used in some herbicides as a wetting agent (including some brands of Atrazine). True - many surfactants have no relationship with the PCB family - BUT others do.
Posted by Thicker and wetter on 03/02/08 at 06:59 PM-
#7Nelly - I am impressed!
Posted by Tomas on 03/02/08 at 11:08 PM #11 I wrote PBDE not PCB. PBDEs were the compounds found in the devils’ tissue not PCBs. PBDEs are not used as wetting agents.
Posted by Nelly on 04/02/08 at 11:12 AMTony, as to your comment #10. From my long and frustrated experience with successive State Governments there is no comittment for ecotoxicology monitoring. You can take it as a given that they aren’t proactive or anticipatory of new or emerging pollution threats to public health, ecohealth or underwriting their export products.
If you write & ask Minister Llewellyn about muttonbird ecotoxicology results, please also ask him about the test results for farmed & wild salmonids; oysters, mussels & abalone; wild duck; wallabies; dairy products (cheeses & whole milk); meats (beef, lamb, mutton and pork) and finally of course for us Tasmanians. If you don’t get a reassuring reply; consider an FOI request.
In my experience the resource hungry (nay, starved to emaciation & weakness) phalanxes of State Government responsible for environmental monitoring have not been encouraged by their political gatekeepers (i.e. the Ministers of the day) to be proactive or anticipatory in relation to new & emerging threats to the sustainability or well being of these vulnerable marine and land-based resource industries. The long-held process is to wait for the diseases or the toxic ‘shit’ to hit the public fan and then go into damage & media control.
If only, if only, we just had a few courageous investigative researchers and journalists plus some public servants who would speak out about the self-censorship of science that is systemic in this Sate.
If you are stimulated to write to the Minister responsible, I anticipate that David L will say all this ecotoxicology monitoring is either an specific Industry or a Commonwealth responsibility and will direct your concerns elsewhere. But in essence what he’s really saying is he (and the Government) don’t want to know whether or how we have contaminated Tasmania’s ecologies, its animals, its soils, its water and its people. Regrettably for these elected elites, keeping the populace ignorant is political bliss!
Posted by David Obendorf on 04/02/08 at 08:54 PMAustralia’s limited testing in 2004 of PBDE concentrations in humans (pooled breast milk to give a national concentration of chemical) put us below US and above EU in the scale of contamination.
This article from Canada is really of concern, as it will affect our kids and grandkids.Surely we must start getting a handle on what the actual level of pollution is around us and attempt to determine what impact this has. Only then can we decide whether it is reasonable to continue to voluntarily add to this. Is this not ‘sound science’?
Dr Alison Bleaney
Common flame retardants could hurt unborn
children, researcher warns
Phil Couvrette, Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, February 02, 2008Common flame retardants that are supposed to make everyday consumer items safer could adversely affect pregnancies and impede the development of the fetus, according to a Quebec researcher.
Environmental toxicology specialist Larissa Takser says the effects on humans of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, are still sketchy but lab tests on gestating animals have had an impact on the fetus that should at least press governments to ban their use.
“This a public-safety concern, and it’s urgent,” said Tasker, an assistant professor at the University of Sherbrooke’s Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Her studies on rats and sheep have shown that fetuses in animals injected with even small doses of PBDE faced health complications. “Current regulations do not take into account how sensitive the fetus is to the toxicity of polluting agents.”
The adverse effects of the flame retardants are well-documented, Takser said, but researchers were stunned to find their effects so visible at low doses.
“It’s the first time we observe the same effects at very low dose, at levels we consume every day,” she said, stressing the chemicals have been used increasingly over the last 30 years.Scientific studies, such as her current year-long government-funded observation of 100 to 400 pregnant women, could provide proper evidence justifying the need to ban PBDEs altogether, Takser said.
The chemicals can have an impact on a pregnant woman’s thyroid gland, she noted, and could adversely affect the fetal brain.
“It could impede cerebral development and prevent the child from developing its full potential.”
Takser said this could lead to problems of hyperactivity, as well as anxiety and attention disorders in children.
Health Canada’s latest assessments concluded “PBDEs are harmful to the environment.”
“As a result, the Government of Canada will be releasing a proposed action plan for addressing these substances,” said Joey Rathwell of Health Canada. “While the assessments did not conclude that these were harmful to human health at current levels of exposure, Health Canada supports limiting the use of PBDEs.”
“The scientific assessment found no evidence that current levels of PBDEs in the environment are harming human health at the moment. However, the rapid increase in PBDE levels in the environment over the last several years is cause for concern,” Environment Canada writes on its website. The presence of PBDE in maternal milk “does not automatically follow that PBDEs are causing harmful effects in humans. Human exposure in Canada is much lower than levels associated with effects in experimental animals,” the department adds.
Last year, U.S. researchers said that PBDEs could also be contributing to a rash of thyroid disease in household cats, and there has been some limited evidence that PBDEs may cause cancer in laboratory animals.
Particularly alarming, Takser said, is that no one can choose to simply isolate themselves from the chemicals, which are used in a range of consumer items from cars and popular electronic products such as computers and stereos, to wire coatings, furniture, carpets and draperies.
According to some British and Canadian studies, many people ingest the chemical additive in their diet, through the food chain, but Takser said most cases in Canada were the result of exposure to ambient air and dust.
According to an October 2004 assessment prepared for Washington State’s Department of Ecology, PBDEs have been measured “in a variety of human tissues, such as blood, fat and breast milk in people around the world,” but the highest levels of PBDEs in human tissues “have been found in Canada and in the U.S., which is the largest producer and consumer of PBDE products.”
“Levels of PBDEs in Americans are 10 to 100 times higher than levels reported for Europe and Japan,” the assessment said. According to other studies, PBDE levels in maternal milk have been said to be doubling every five years in North America.
Posted by alison bleaney on 04/02/08 at 11:44 PMcont of article above
Takser said that’s why Canada must match the European standards.
Health Canada’s recommendations that consumers seek out products with less PBDEs, limit fatty foods which could increase their intake and clean their houses often - to clear the air - aren’t enough, she said.
“Many forms of PBDEs are banned in Europe, and we have observed that their levels were 100 to 200 times lower in maternal milk there,” she said. “We can see these regulations have an impact.”
But even Europe’s tougher standards aren’t safe enough, Takser said.
“Some forms of PBDEs are still used in Europe and seemed safe because they were not deemed to be cumulative, but this assessment seems to have been wrong,” she said.
Banning PBDEs don’t mean their effects will immediately disappear, however, Takser stressed. Some forms of the chemicals have been banned already, but because they remain in the environment and were used in so many consumer items it will take some time for them to be completely removed.
The popularity of recycling also means that the chemicals could survive in items being given a second life, she said.
Posted by alison bleaney on 04/02/08 at 11:45 PMInvestigative Journalists in Tasmania?? David you would have to be joking. Most of them are on the “lunch list”
Posted by Ian Rist on 05/02/08 at 07:47 AMDavid Obendorf said: “The long-held process is to wait for the diseases or the toxic ‘shit’ to hit the public fan and then go into damage & media control…”
Actually David this is a massive understatement of the culpability of the State and Federal governments.
Whilst the public would find no difficulty in proving a link between their diseases and the toxic chemicals released in their living environment that is as far as they can go.
The problem is in actually taking legal action against those individuals and corporations that expose and harm humans (setting aside animals and plants for the time being). The laws are designed to actually make this action IMPOSSIBLE.
That’s where the REAL story is with these man-made and powerful toxins. The state and federal governments have made it IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE that whatever ailment you have is substantially a result of exposure to a chemical by a specific firm or farmer.
The state government has refused to reveal who is spraying, where they are spraying and when/what/how they are spraying. The state government has approved the manner of application of pesticides KNOWN to expose the human population to (often) the same level of exposure as the target crop. The federal AVPMA has refused to provide spray-drift modelling of specific activities undertaken in Tasmania. It has REFUSED to ban pesticides from use when they have been informed that they are being applied cowboy style here - without any consideration of drift.
Further, the APVMA has used fraudulent testing results in relation to Atrazine. Professor Hayes has more details. It doesn’t appear to matter whether the studies are done in a credible manner for the APVMA to accept them as evidence. Hayes has said that a Syngenta-funded firm (at least one) secretly exposed the control frogs to Atrazine. Since both sets were exposed the studies found no difference in mortality and deformity between the two sets of animals.
The state government (Tas) has for many years (despite repeated requests) refused to provide ANY data in relation to ANY risk assessment with respect to pesticide use in Tasmania.
The legal onus of proof of harm has been placed on the general public. NOT on the large corporations that are ALLOWED! to release untested chemicals into the environment. Individuals and groups are provided with a lack of funds to carry out studies or present their case and the legal system makes it extremely unlikely that one could win in a damages claim but still face the risk of loss of every bit of wealth you may have accumulated in your lifetime.
You can see the evidence for all I write above in the archives of the Tasmanian Clean Water Network online list at:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/tascleanwaternetwork[By the way, the APVMA (in relation to Cypermethrin) again used the fraudulent studies of Forestry Tasmania who tested rainwater of an immediate a neighbour after spraying knowing full well that these people had disconnected the pipe before the spraying took place, and washed down their catchment roof. In other words using such data as confirming lack of hazard when it was not representative of the actual situation where the rest of the community were not informed of spraying and thus didn’t take any action to protect their drinking water. (As you can see, the ‘normal’ situation is not represented in the data because FT only test the water of those neighbours who are forewarned.)]
What we’re dealing with here is in fact acts of deliberate genocide and assault entailing corruption of the highest level in the regulatory bodies that deal with pesticides. I don’t say that lightly. I’ve been following the behaviour of these bastards for over 10 years now.
What does it take for people to begin to protest in the streets?
http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj
‘PESTICIDE ABUSE IN TASMANIA’Posted by Brenda Rosser on 05/02/08 at 09:24 PMHawthorn losing at York Park because of a faulty siren/ umpiring error/ foul play by the other team/ rowdy behaviour by opponent’s supporters etc.
Anything else is too hard and hurts their heads.Posted by Mike Adams on 06/02/08 at 08:59 PMThis is what is happening in France at present.
No Government Dept carried out appropriate risk assessments,a fisherman decided to test his fish and determined that the food chain is contamined with PCBs. The whole river remains contaminated and will do so for many years. The consequences are enormous.
The ripple effect from not taking adequate precationary steps for protecting ecosytems when dealing with human interference is demonstrated in this article.
Tasmania has many lessons to learn.The ‘French Chernobyl’ that has poisoned the Rhône’s fish. The French government has banned the consumption of fish from the length of the Rhône—where it enters France from the Swiss Alps all the way down to the Mediterranean—because of PCBs. London Guardian, England.
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/Posted by alison bleaney on 24/02/08 at 11:28 AMThank you again, Alison for this link.
This is the latest ‘de javu’ story similar to the Sydney Harbour fishery closure last year due to unacceptable dioxin levels in fish going into the markets for human consumption.
There is HUGE a duty of care issue for Tasmanian authorities and if they will not act to monitor the residues of POPs and ensure food safety then it will only a matter of time before others will.
Posted by David Obendorf on 25/02/08 at 08:04 AMThis is what the consumer is up against.
The regulator (US EPA) cannot be seen to be un-biased, demands ‘sound science’ and needs absolute proof before it will act to protect people, environments- everything out there.
And yet the actual harm is being done to those the regulator should be protecting; not only is being done, it is being done with the tacit consent of the regulator.
And Australia follows the US approach.
It does not take the precautionary approach despite the rhetoric.
It does not follow the EU with regard to its approach to the regulation of chemicals.
Here in Australia, right now, the consumer has to prove that a product is absolutely not-safe, before the regulator will de-regulate it.
So much for the ‘first do no harm’ approach.
So much for the lessons we learnt from asbestos and are still learning about lead exposure.
This is an article about deca PBDE.
Dr Alison BleaneyOutspoken scientist dismissed from panel on chemical safety. Under pressure from the chemical industry, the EPA has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment. Los Angeles Times, California. [Registration Required]
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa29feb29,0,6191299.storyPosted by alison bleaney on 01/03/08 at 12:28 PM
