Posted under activism & government
The Estuary article says that (1) analysis shows that bird kills on Monterey Bay were not, as some people have claimed, due to the “checkmate” pheromone spray; (2) an oft-quoted report by UC Santa Cruz’s Daniel Harder, that says that the moth is not a major pest in New Zealand, has been criticized by New Zealand researchers who “issued a stinging rebuke to his paper’s conclusion”; and (3) the California Department of Food and Agriculture is claiming success in eliminating the moth from some areas in Southern California through use of the pheromone spray.
[UPDATE: Thursday, April 24: “Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick ruled Thursday morning that aerial spraying to control the light brown apple moth could not continue in Santa Cruz County” pending an environmental review, which the state is trying to avoid on the grounds of an “agricultural emergency.” The Santa Cruz Sentinel has an article about this, thanks to a blog commenter for passing this along.]
If it were my call, I would choose some alternative to spraying in the parts of the state that are objecting the most, and maybe in all densely populated areas, pending some more study about human health effects. But I think it’s a close call. Deciding to spray is not unreasonable. Suing to stop the spraying is also not unreasonable. Some of the public comments by opponents of spraying are unreasonable, though.
People dread risks that they’re not used to much more than risks of comparable magnitude that they are used to. (There are actually researchers who study this effect and try to quantify it in various ways). We breathe literally millions of 0.5- to 10-micron particles per day of pet dander, brake dust, pollen, toner, cigarette smoke, viruses, combustion products, etc., etc., many of which are chemically and/or biologically active, but we literally don’t even think about them, most of the time. But the prospect of adding something new to the mix is scary, even if it’s a tiny quantity that (unlike the above) you’ll only be exposed to for a very short time. There seems to be a lot less resistance to the idea in agricultural areas, where they’re used to the idea of much more toxic stuff being sprayed around all the time. I’m not saying that spraying toxic chemicals around is a good thing! In fact, a problem with _not_ spraying pheromones now is that if the moth gets established as an agricultural pest, the amount of pesticide use is likely to go up in the future, to control the moths.
I also think there’s a phenomenon like one I sometimes experience…bear with me for the analogy. When we’re leaving the house, my wife will sometimes say “did you lock the back door after going out this morning?” If she didn’t ask, I would be quite confident that it was fine, but once she asks it introduces this gnawing element of doubt. I always go back and check, and indeed, the door is always locked. (This also works in reverse, if I ask my wife she also can’t forget about it). Somehow, just bringing the question to the forefront seems to make it more likely that the answer is “no.” Similarly, just the fact that people have prominently raised the question of whether the spray is safe, seems to make it more likely that it isn’t. Or at least, I fancy that is an effect.
There are negatives to spraying pheromones, such as possible human health impacts, even severe ones for a few people. There are negatives to not spraying pheromones, including possible crop damage, ecosystem damage, and negative health and ecosystem impacts from future spraying of pesticides. It’s by no means obvious whether spraying pheromones now will have worse environmental impact in the long run than allowing the moth to spread (coupled with future chemical attempts to control it). It’s also by no means obvious which will have worse human health impacts in the long run. I wish everyone on both sides would stop pretending that the answer is obvious, and try to have a rational or at least calm discussion of it.
By the way, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (remember, they have an agenda too!) has a press release about the criticisms of Harder’s article.
bpm4327 on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:08 am #
I have been actively reading and educating myself for months now. My father died of asthma in his early 50’s. My daughter also has asthma and allergies and is attending the University of California, Santa Cruz, which is where they plan to spray in June, 2008. Her physician has advised her to immediately leave Santa Cruz and not return to any location where the spraying is taking place. She will have to return home and reapply to colleges this fall, which then puts her 1 year behind in graduating with her same age peers.
Please educate yourselves because spraying pesticides over 7 million people in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area Region 9 months a year, for 3-10 years is an absolute nightmare. The airplanes fly 300 to 500 feet above homes unloading these chemicals. The LBAM pesticide chemical data sheets state that there are known carcinigens, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors that are delivered in microencapsulated plastic that takes 30-90 days to disolve in the environment.
7% of this micro-capsules are less than 10 microns in size and get lodged deep into your lungs with no escape. There have been no short and long term health and environmental impact studies since the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) alleges this LBAM problem to be an emergency. These chemicals are damaging to honey bees because the bees pick up the micro-capsules and take them back to their nests. Over 600 people have made health complaints and the state dismissed 90% of them because forms that nobody knew about were not completed. CDFA failed to educate physicians and the public about the contents of the chemicals and the forms. CDFA did not contact any individuals who made the health complaints nor their physicians. Several people ended up in emergency rooms and an eleven month old little boy almost died because his air passages were closing down on him, which he now has permanent asthma and there is no asthma family members on both sides of his family. LBAM, per the CDFA, has no crop damage. This is all about financial loss to farmers and nurseries because they are in LBAM quarantine zones. This is an absolute nightmare. Please educate yourselves, get involved, and stop the spray. CDFA likes to state it is just pheromones but they fail to tell you about all the other toxic ingredients and the microencapsulated plastic delivery system.
admin on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:31 am #
bpm,
You’re right, the plan is to spray chemicals and tiny plastic capsules that contain pheromones over the entire state, including the Bay Area, and the capsule fragments are small enough to be inhaled….just like particles of copy-machine toner, pollen, brake dust, diesel soot, cigarette smoke, sea salt, pet dander, human skin cells, dead cockroach fragments, and many many other things that we inhale every single day. And that’s bad! Some people with allergies and asthma are endangered by these things! I’m not saying it’s good, just that the perspective that our bodies are exposed to biologically active particles in huge numbers every day seems to be completely missing from the anti-spraying side.
(And by the way, it is simply not true that particles get lodged in the lungs with “no escape”: a continually moving mucous layer moves particles out of your lungs and up to your throat, where you swallow them. I actually did a teeny-tiny bit of work related to this issue, which you can find in my chapter of the “Aerosol Handbook”, CRC Press, Ruzer and Harley, editors).
I agree with you that reports of health effects should be investigated more carefully. I downloaded and read most of the health reports from Santa Cruz, and although many were not credible or not informative, there are indeed some that should be checked out. But you really can’t attribute any particular health problem to the spraying. Every day, some kid in the area has his first-ever asthma attack, of her first-ever serious attack, and every day some kid in the area gets sick in some unusual way. You can’t just look at whatever cases occurred the day after the spraying, and say Oh, we don’t know what caused the cases last week or last month, but we know that THIS case is due to the spraying.
And it’s just not true that the LBAM isn’t a significant pest in New Zealand. It’s true that it doesn’t cause a huge amount of crop damage, but that’s because of an extensive control program that includes spraying of chemical pesticides, and the use of biological controls that would not be allowed here in California.
All of this said, I don’t think the State should be spraying in highly populated areas until they know more about health effects (and it’s possible that whatever they find out should stop the project). And they should have a better way of monitoring health effects.
I’m (just) on the side of people who are opposed to the spraying, but I wish the anti-spraying side were presenting its case in a very different way.
–Phil
bpm4327 on 23 Apr 2008 at 3:16 pm #
We can agree to disagree on the 10 microns or less. All I can state is that numerous physicians over many years have always stated less than 10 microns are an issue in getting lodged deep into one’s lungs. You can also check with the American Lung Association since they have several articles on this topic and on particulate matter. I also have a friend who is a scientist who works on air quality in the bay area and he also says 10 microns or less.
My daughter’s physician, who is an asthmatic specialist, is highly concerned for all populations, but especially for the most vulnerable, which are: pregnant women, nursing mothers (breast milk), infants, children, elderly, people with medical problems, etc. Additionally, the homeless have, for the most part, no indoor location to go to, as recommended by CDFA to go inside, yet they are directly be sprayed on with toxic pesticides.
For your readers, google in the following two organizations for a wealth of information:
stopthespray.org
lbamspray.com
On April 16, 2008 CBS 5 News Investigates with Anna Werner did a well balanced report on LBAM. There is an article to read and a short video. Here’s that website:
http://cbs5.com/investigates/apple.moth.spraying.2.700753.html
Many UC Entomologists are stating that LBAM has been established here 40+ years because it so wide spread and established here (Napa to L.A. Counties) that eradication has a 0% success rate; pheromones have never been successful with eradication - just control; and in the end millions of tax dollars will have been spent without achieving eradication.
On April 21, 2008 KGO-AM Christine Craft Radio Program, she hosted guests, Drs. Dennis Knepp (Engineer-statistics & probability specialist in Monterey County) and Jeff Haferman (Pediatric Physician in Monterey County), about the LBAM spray. The Drs. recent put out a scientific report uncovering a basic math error by the state that resulted in underestimation of the number of the smallest and most dangerous particles in the LBAM spray last fall.
What is PM10?
PM10 is a notation used to describe particles of 10 micrometers or less. It doesn’t matter what they are particles of. It could be plastic, dust, ash, sand, it could be a deadly chemical, or a micro-encapsulated artificial pheromone pesticide.
PM10 from Aerial Spraying Increases Hospitalization and Death Experts say that any matter that is PM10 or smaller is considered particulate pollution and is a cause of potential fatality in human beings. In several reports released by CDFA and in their court filings and letters, the public has been falsely assured that aerial spraying of CheckMate would create only minor, negligible amounts of PM10 in the air. However, they’ve made a tremendous error. Based upon the new calculations done by Dr. Knepp, a single application of CheckMate would increase the ratio to 141 PM10s per cubic meter - almost 7 times as much dangerous particulate pollution! Over the lifetime of the particles, winds will concentrate the PM10 in certain places increasing the exposure still more.
Around the country, air sampling stations measure the amount of PM10 in the air. As an example, on an average day in Watsonville, California, the density of PM10 is 19 micrograms per cubic meter. In an average group of 5 million people, there are normally about 15,000 deaths per year from pneumonia and cardiovascular disease. By adding the deadly burden of aerial CheckMate spraying, Dr. Knepp has calculated that 1400 more of these kinds of deaths would occur within 2-3 days after each spraying. CDFA intends to spray 700 square miles, up to 5 nights a month, 9 months a year, for up to 10 or more years. Similarly the average 17,000 admissions to hospital from pneumonia will increase by 4600. The number of additional deaths will be increased accordingly. These calculations are based on long-term medical studies involving the effects of PM10 in many large U.S. cities. Similar statistical studies in the past resulted in the recognition of coal miner’s disease, the effects of asbestos, and of tobacco where not all the exposed population is immediately affected. PM10 explains the correlation between the aerial spraying and the health complaints in Monterey and Santa Cruz.
The Hardest Hit
Again, Dr. Knepp and Dr. Jeff Haferman, who explains that children, elders, and people with chronic illness will be LBAM spray’s will be the first targets for disease and fatality. Those very elements of society, which decent people try hardest to protect because of their heightened vulnerability are set to become the commonest victims of this intolerable aerial spraying.
Audio:
http://bayradio.com/kgo_archives/12300.mp3
Drs. Knepp’s and Haferman’s Full Report:
http://www.lbamspray.com/Reports/KneppAndHafermanLetterwithAttachments.pdf
Press Release (Drs. Knepp’s & Haferman’s Report):
http://www.lbamspray.com/Reports/PressReleaseLocal%20Scientists%20spot%20error%20in%20CDFA%20Analysis%20of%20LBAM%20spray.pdf
All the research that I have completed has been for my daughter health concerns because she has asthma. I live in Fremont and thus far won’t be sprayed. This spray will be detrimental to her health and perhaps even her life. All anyone has ever asked CDFA to do is do a health and environmental risk assessment for short and long term consequences and use pheromone twist ties and traps in the meantime, which have proven to be successful.
LBAM is a minor pest in New Zealand and several other countries. This is paper pest related to international trade. LBAM needs to be downgraded and reclassified. Again, I urge you to go to the websites I provided in my post. There are letters, documents, videos, scientific reports, journal articles, etc. Of particular interest is the same situation that happened in Auckland, New Zealand for the Painted Apple Moth. You will find a lot of parallels under stopthespray.org “People’s Inquiry”, which devasted Auckland’s citizens who now are very ill from the pesticide spray.
admin on 23 Apr 2008 at 4:04 pm #
I guess I wasn’t clear: particles less than 10 microns can indeed be deposited deep in the lung. What I’m saying is that this happens all the time. We all inhale many, many particles of this size every single day. Even if you are outside for the duration of the spraying, the pheromone pellets are going to be only a tiny fraction of the PM1 or PM10 that you’re exposed to that week.
As for the calculations of Knepp and Haferman, which I had not seen before, I just looked at their report and found that they made this assumption:”In our calculation of PM10 caused by aerial spraying, we assume that all the CheckMate spray ends up suspended in the 2 meters of air at ground level.” That’s a really crazy assumption, guaranteed to hugely overestimate the concentration. I’m all for being conservative when health is at stake, but I am NOT in favor of performing deliberately misleading calculations, which is what this is. These authors also take an estimate of health effects from chronic exposure to particles, and apply it to temporary exposure. And I could go on, their report is just nonsense. This is EXACTLY the type of false statements and misleading arguments that I object to the most! I don’t care if someone is on the right side, that does not mean that it’s OK for them to say things that aren’t true!
Lots of people look at this stuff and don’t realize that it’s garbage. It’s a cryin’ shame that this is how decisions get made.
–Phil
bpm4327 on 24 Apr 2008 at 12:17 am #
Since scientists, physicians, and county medical public health officials have looked at the data and weighed in against the pesticide spray that speaks volumes to the majority of people who don’t want to have toxic pesticides in their environment for the next several years. Will agricultural’s financial trade interests trump the public’s health and environmental concerns, I for one hope not. As for this being a blog about bay area birds, perhaps you have not heard that the watersheds were sprayed in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. The bay area water districts have also gone on record opposing the spray. All of this is common sense since we already know that pesticides cause so many problems.
admin on 24 Apr 2008 at 7:39 am #
bpm4327, I agree, most people around here don’t want the spraying. But as for not wanting toxic pesticides, that’s a bit contradictory: if the LBAM gets established, agribusiness is likely to respond by spraying pesticides. It’s true that it will be farm communities that get the exposure, rather than cities…but it’s also true that the pesticides will likely be much more toxic than the pheromones-with-other-ingredients that are being used to try to eliminate the moth right now.
I don’t think it’s accurate to pitch this as a choice between “spray toxic chemicals, or don’t spray toxic chemicals” — obviously nobody would choose the toxic chemicals! Instead, we’re choosing between various options.
Option A: spray pheromones and some toxic ingredients for several years, everywhere, including on many people.
Option B: spray pesticides with much more toxic ingredients forever, in areas with orchards. Also, have some losses from the moth (especially for organic farmers). Also, possibly have some ecosystem effects (probably minor) from the moth damaging native raspberries and other plants that provide food for birds.
Perhaps there’s also an Option C: ban pesticides that would control the moth. Have possibly substantial crop losses, increasing food costs, and possibly face restrictions on export of California food crops. Import more fruit from places that don’t regulate pesticides, so there will be more conversion of land to fruit production in other countries, and increased pesticide use there.
Of course there are really endless options, we could come up with all sorts of variations. But there’s no variation that goes like “Don’t spray anything now, don’t spray anything later, don’t have higher food costs, don’t shift more food production overseas.”
It’s obvious to you that Option B or C is better than Option A. It’s not obvious to me. I’m not saying it’s not true — I lean against the pheromone spray, myself, partly because I don’t think it will succeed in eliminating the moth, which means I think we’re likely to end up going with Option B whether we like it or not. But I’m not thrilled about Option B, either.
I think the right way to have this discussion is, well, like I’m trying to have it here: what are the choices we face, what are their consequences, which one is best, etc. But that’s not how people are thinking about it.
–Phil
bpm4327 on 24 Apr 2008 at 11:07 am #
Here in California alone, there are already 80+ native moth leaf rollers of the same family as the light brown apple moth and it is just another moth like all the other leaf rollers.
UC Entomologists are stating since LBAM has been here 40+ years that natural predators (spiders, birds, etc.) are keeping LBAM in check like all the other moths and probably CDFA doesn’t need to do anything, which is what integrated pest management is truly about.
LBAM does not like the heat, such as in California’s Central Valley agricultural areas. UC Entomologists are not predicting a Central Valley LBAM issue. LBAM has been found in the cooler climate areas of the San Francisco Bay Area Region.
However, if CDFA wants to keep LBAM out of California’s valley for all their fears, they can control LBAM with pheromone sticky traps and twist ties since eradication is not possible. Additionally, if pesticides do need to be used in the Central Valley for LBAM, the agricultural industry already uses pesticides that would take care of LBAM per UC Entomologists.
CDFA has already made numerous mistakes and has alienated the public to the extreme. As Steve Lyle with CDFA told Monterey and Santa Cruz residents before the spray began, “This is not a democracy since you have no vote on this issue (LBAM aerial spraying).” Yet the Monterey Herald secured email and telephone records from CDFA to write a story and CDFA agreed with the public that the questions being asked were legitimate questions even they had.
CDFA needs access to people’s yards to do the ground spraying, which includes spraying a permethrin “goo”. Scientist Caroline Cox / Journal of Pesticide Reform v.18, n.2, Summer98, is JPR’s editor.
The insecticide permethrin (in the synthetic pyrethroid family) is widely used on cotton, wheat, corn, alfalfa, and other crops. Permethrin, like all synthetic pyrethroids, is a neurotoxin. Symptoms include tremors, incoordination, elevated body temperature, increased aggressive behavior, and disruption of learning. Laboratory tests suggest that permethrin is more acutely toxic to children than to adults. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified permethrin as a carcinogen because it causes lung tumors in female mice and liver tumors in mice of both sexes. Permethrin inhibits the activity of the immune system in laboratory tests, and also binds to the receptors for a male sex hormone. It causes chromosome aberrations in human and hamster cells.
Permethrin is toxic to honey bees and other beneficial insects, fish, aquatic insects, crayfish, and shrimp. For many species, concentrations of less than one part per billion are lethal. Permethrin causes deformities and other developmental problems in tadpoles, and reduces the number of oxygen-carrying cells in the blood of birds.
Permethrin has been found in streams and rivers throughout the United States. It is also routinely found on produce, particularly spinach, tomatoes, celery, lettuce, and peaches. A wide variety of insects have developed resistance to permethrin. High levels of resistance have been documented in cockroaches, head lice, and tobacco budworm.
UC Entomologists are stating that with global agricultural trade, the U.S. Agriculture Department is antiquated and it needs to be updated to reflect this century’s trade policies and procedures in dealing with pests and reclassify many pests, such as LBAM, since we can not continue on the path of using chemicals for minor pests. This is the answer to LBAM.
bpm4327 on 24 Apr 2008 at 11:17 am #
4/24/08 Santa Cruz Sentinel Newspaper:
‘Judge rules that LBAM spraying can’t continue in Santa Cruz County’, Article below:
“Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick ruled Thursday morning that aerial spraying to control the light brown apple moth could not continue in Santa Cruz County. Burdick ruled that the state had not provided sufficient evidence of an emergency and must complete an environmental impact review before spraying resumes. The state says it will appeal.
California Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura said of the ruling “My department will aggressively seek an expedited appeal of this ruling, which threatens the safety of our agriculture, environment and economy. The light brown apple moth is a serious threat not just to Santa Cruz but to the entire state, and the method we are using is the safest, most progressive eradication program available.”
My opinion:
Truth and justice has prevailed. An Environmental Impact Report will answer the many unanswered questions even CDFA staff agreed with the public on.
Robert Dolezal on 12 Aug 2008 at 11:34 am #
I’m writing on behalf of my association, the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers (CANGC) to add that the scientific facts you point out are right on target. Since a number of our grower and nursery members are in ground zero in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, we have been fielding lots of comments about the facts of this pheromone spraying.
The critique by Drs. Haferman and Knept of the particle size analysis–in addition to taking into account the amazing assumption that the particles would remain suspended in a layer 2 meters above the ground–failed to reconcile their calculated result with the actual measured particle counts found for 18 sprayings–which show not 30,000 particles per square meter, but a median of 135 particles per square foot, by actual counts, on photographic paper.
They also fail to reconcile their particle size assumptions–the sizes were randomly but approximately linearly distributed across the P10 to P200 range.
As both a private birdwatcher (and birding author) and as someone with a hard science background, the distortions in facts in this LBAM matter are of grave concern.
Diego Delerme on 21 Dec 2011 at 2:28 am #
Very well written post. It will be supportive to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep doing what you are doing - can’r wait to read more posts.