Hard News: What to make of the spray
72 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
B Jones, in reply to
Until a diagnosis of a rare chronic leukaemia in a family member who had no real reason to get it.
Without understanding much about the epidemiology of leukaemia, does anyone ever have a real reason to get a disease like that?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
the best they could do for NZ
(businesses)
What I actually wrote was
I think they could have done better but I don’t think for a second they were doing anything other than what they believed was the best they could do for NZ.
Misquoting is uncalled for. I'd also point out that the horticulture industry in NZ is more than just the business owners and also point out that much of the horticulture industry is made up of very small operations who would be as affected by this pest as the big companies.
-
We didn't understand much about the epidemiology.
We do now.
Our family member who was diagnosed sits (literally) well outside the 'at risk' groups.
Having broken his neck some 40 years earlier, been an office worker, had not participated in any those risky activities/occupations......
If I developed leukaemia....it would be no big surprise, having worked on farms, in plant nurseries, handled timber and paints, and been a very keen dressmaker....although with increased awareness now of the risk factors....
I am not going to spend much time on trying to convince folk that there is widespread and largely unregulated use of substances that have been proven to cause significant adverse health effects in mammals....the research is there for those who want to learn. I could send you a file we put together just on carbendazim....
-
tussock, in reply to
OK, so I don't think the government can use evidence from 2008 in the decisions they made in 2006. Time, it only goes one way.
The numbers from medfacts.com are you seeing patterns in noise, confirmation bias. 1/256 is ONE PERSON. There's no R^2 there, it's not even a correlation, let alone causative.
The "silent crisis" people aren't saying there's an increase, they're saying we could do more with the large numbers of people who die of that group of cancers and always have died from them. Which is where we could do more with pretty much everything in NZ. 30% tax doesn't pay for itself.
People being evacuated after showing unusual reactions is because people who show early allergic symptoms from anything are prone to anaphylaxis with continued exposure. Metal. Plastic. Peanuts. Sawdust. Bee stings. Anything.
Worldwide death rates for anything are useless for NZ. Almost everyone in the world is very poor, and those people die of things that don't happen here. Few of them live long enough to get our most common forms of death, heart attacks and cancer. We have more cancer deaths than poor countries because we don't die of everything else first.
Yes, pesticides and herbicides and fungicides often show health problems in heavily exposed populations down the track, more so in the past (especially in NZ where things sometimes got dumped after being banned elsewhere, under the Bretton-Woods system you sometimes had to buy some awful crap to be able to export /aside). But they're mostly very rare and located in people who are regularly exposed in relatively massive doses. I've got a cousin used to spray for a living and had to stop after developing nasty allergies due to constant wind-blown exposure, unrelated congenital problems making it much worse. Nearly killed him one day and he finally thought better of it.
But compared to normal stuff like particulates from road traffic (or, say, the sugar added to your food), the numbers exposed in dangerous amounts are tiny and so are the number of deaths. Workers are much better protected and the sprays are much better targeted at specific organisms.
Like, the one farmer who gave himself a hundred doses every couple weeks for two years, that's not how people in Auckland were exposed.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
But they’re mostly very rare and located in people who are regularly exposed in relatively massive doses.
Hmmmm.
When family member with leukaemia was in hospital having chemo we got quite close with the nurses…as you do under very trying circumstances. Most of the patients on that ward were being treated for various forms of leukaemia/lymphoma.
The nurses were under no illusions whatsoever that many, if not most of these diseases were caused by exposure to pesticides.
There would be ‘clusters’ from quite specific areas. There was, at that particular time, three patients from a little known region in the lower end of Lake Taupo….they did not know each other, yet had various manifestations of the same disease.
Then there was three patients….one a kiwifruit grower, one owned a retail plant nursery and one a farm worker.
Then there was my guy.
Our property had been sprayed by the neighbour, using a helicopter, up to and over all three sides of our one acre property with carbendazim. Multiple times. We had asked what it was and we were assured by our Regional Council it was a harmless spray for facial excema.
Carbendazim is a known mutagen.
Carbendazim is a known skin sensitiser.
Carbendazim is acutely toxic and persistant in the soil and water environments.
Most importantly it is systemic, and when applied to plants, attracts strict witholding periods. I.e. Thou shalt NOT harvest this plant within 3-60 days(dependant on species).
This shit was being sprayed onto our property during the time we were harvesting.
Unfortunately, the crops we had growing closest to our boundary were the ones that my partner was the largest consumer of.
He also picked up the spray from the hard surfaces around our property on the pushrims and wheels of his wheelchair.Again…we asked….and no one told us how dangerous it was.
And yes, it is being ‘dumped’ on the NZ market to this day….even though it’s efficacy is limited as fungi rapidly develop resistance.
To combat this resistance….they simply increase the concentration.
And no one is enforcing what few regulations there are.
-
Sacha, in reply to
He also picked up the spray from the hard surfaces around our property on the pushrims and wheels of his wheelchair.
Ah. Bet nobody has ever researched that transmission method either.
-
Sacha, in reply to
it is being ‘dumped’ on the NZ market
we have a great history with 2,4,5-T etc. The producers must laugh at our gullibility.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
The 2008 research was related to the recent findings in relation to Grant’s case. Grant is ONE PERSON and leukemia is an under-diagnosed condition:
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). With CLL, the most common chronic adult leukemia, you may feel well for years without needing treatment.
Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). This type of leukemia mainly affects adults. A person with CML may have few or no symptoms for months or years before entering a phase in which the leukemia cells grow more quickly.
This 14 year old was undiagnosed until 14 hours before death.
From the Ombudsman’s report:
13.38 Dr Watts asserts that there is a systematic discounting of reported effects of Btk and Foray 48B exposure throughout the reports. She points out that where data is lacking the assumption is made that the effect will be absent. She also refers to the assertion made that the risk is small, but this cannot be justified on a scientific basis.
[Dr Watts] “The assessment should say that because data on long-term exposure is lacking, the risks from long-term exposure cannot be ascertained. Instead it concludes the risks are small. It seriously underestimates exposure.
WRT:
The “silent crisis” people aren’t saying there’s an increase,
This was neither my conclusion nor my point, I directed attention to this to highlight New Zealand’s relative high blood cancer rates against all cancers worldwide. Poverty does, as you point out, correlate with reduced life expectancy but regardless:
Leukemia is the most common cancer in children worldwide, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is the most common subtype, accounting for 80% of all cases(6%)
note that most people diagnosed with leukemia are over 50 years old and yet:
New Zealand Maori have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (RR 1.5 in the age group 25-49 and RR 1.31 in the age group 50-74), relative to New Zealand Caucasians. New Zealand Pacific Islanders have an increased risk of chronic myeloid leukemia (RR 2.13 in the age group 25-49 and RR 1.52 in the age group 50-74)
None of these statistics can be taking at face value, but cumulatively a compelling case can be made:
Leukaemia is the 11th most common cancer worldwide, with around 352,000 new cases diagnosed in 2012 (2% of the total). Leukaemia incidence rates are highest in Australia/New Zealand and lowest in Western Africa, but this partly reflects varying data quality worldwide
Back to the spraying, as the Ombudsman noted:
14.1 I refer now to the Government’s response to the issues which arose in the wake of the use of Foray 48B. In my draft report I characterised the official approach to that substance as being that it was “benign and harmless to people”, but I also noted that the Government had set aside some $6 million for healthcare and associated issues.
Please note Tussock that in exploring this stuff, which is all pretty new to me, my initial motivation was to attempt to create reasonable doubt as to the findings informing the decision against Grant, spurred by Rosemary this has lead to more general assumptions about New Zealand’s position with regard to these issues.
Like, the one farmer who gave himself a hundred doses every couple weeks for two years, that’s not how people in Auckland were exposed.
Based on the Ombudsman’s analysis of Ms Sally Lewis’s testimony, I don’t find any reason to discount the relevance of that sample:
For present purposes, however, it is significant that on 23 October 2002 Ms Lewis was told that spraying had taken place over her house by helicopter and by plane on five occasions during the course of a spray operation which apparently lasted from 6:30 a.m. through to 5:45 pm. Again on 3 December 2002 her house was said to have been sprayed over 10 times in the course of the operations on that day. On 17 February 2003 spraying had been carried out over her house seven times in the past two days. In all she calculated that during the course of the spray operations through to 30 September 2003 the house was in the spray path 53 times.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
You might have noticed Sacha, most wheelchair users are not compulsive handwashers....even though they are walking on them, so to speak. Peter will wash his hands when they are obviously soiled...but if he was bug obsessive....he'd always be at the sink.
Had we known, and had we had the spare water in our tanks, we would have washed those surfaces. (This stuff is used mostly during times of drought.)
Carbendazim can be absorbed through the skin, and can cause local irritation....kind of like prickly pins and needles. Peter has no feeling in his hands or arms to alert him something is amiss.
-
Sacha, in reply to
You might have noticed Sacha, most wheelchair users are not compulsive handwashers
indeed, having lived with one for several years
-
Sacha, in reply to
Peter has no feeling in his hands or arms to alert him something is amiss.
Much like advanced diabetics having to visually inspect their feet to make sure they aren't damaged. Whole lot of that in our collective future. Yay for Coke machines in schools.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
"It is no light thing to be sprayed,
perhaps repeatedly, with some substance the ingredients of which are to
some extent confidential, and to have one's life substantially disrupted for
what may be a quite lengthy period of time."Mel Smith got it.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Yes, that report makes for very depressing reading. Likewise Valent Bioscience’s patents raise further questions about this:
Hon. MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister for Biosecurity), on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity: Mr Gear was taken by surprise by that question, hence his response. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has now consulted the spray’s manufacturer, which has advised that it does not knowingly use ingredients containing genetically modified (GM) material.
10/10/2002
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
Our family found the whole experience beyond depressing.
We were not well versed in the whole issue of pesticides....and sometimes I wish I could turn back the clock and unlearn what I now know.
Successive governments have failed to address the issue of adverse effects on humans and the general environment of these "plant protection products".
There is big money to be made from pesticides...and big money to be made from pharmaceuticals....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/wine/8274192/French-winegrowers-warned-over-pesticide-use.html
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Our family found the whole experience beyond depressing.
I hear you, adjectives are ineffectual.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Tussock, just to further clarify this in case it was a bit vague:
Based on the Ombudsman’s analysis of Ms Sally Lewis’s testimony, I don’t find any reason to discount the relevance of that sample:
My consideration here is not specifically related to chloramphenicol itself, which occurs in very low concentrations in Foray 48b. My emphasis is on the lack of available data related to exposure, it’s an unknown. One study found toxicity from foliage collected up to 3 km from the spray zone. Another study showed that outdoor exposures were highest two to three hours after spraying and that drift was up to 4 km outside the spray zone. On a windy day even higher Btk concentrations were found outside the spray zone than inside. Along with the dearth in studies of long term effects, it’s under-explored territory. Other ingredients make up 87.35% of the insecticide, and as Muriel Watts stated:
there is no known safe level of exposure by inhalation; the failure to identify the chemical ingredients in the formulated product so that the assessment can itself be assessed; failure to determine the effects of the mixture of chemicals that constitutes Foray 48B, allowing for synergistic or additive effects, as opposed to assessing each chemical as if it were the only chemical to which people would be exposed, when it is known that mixtures can be significantly more toxic
Which is very convenient for ACC when discrediting allegations of causality to one chemical:
"were most unlikely to be attributable to chloramphenicol exposure”.
Setting a clear precedent for future cases:
ACC however went ahead and forwarded the claim to the panel, which did not find a link between Philpott’s health condition and his alleged exposure to the spray.
Which is not to say that I don’t understand where you’re coming from as much as that with this little data, it’s habitual for me to question dismissals of attributability, and especially so now knowing who has the most to gain .
-
This... http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/painted-apple-moth/pam-health-report.pdf may be of interest..if only for the rather slanted tone.
My favourite bit....
"The Painted Apple Moth eradication programme has been highly controversial. Some residents felt they were being subjected to “chemically toxic bombardment”. These fears could not be assuaged by the disclosure of the component list of Foray 48B for commercial reasons. This led to the perception of a small number of individuals that public officials were not forthcoming with information and that there might be something to hide. Allied to this issue of public perception querying the validity of official health information is the history of occasional discoveries of harm associated with previously trusted products, e.g. asbestos insulation and lead in petrol."
Silly, neurotic, hypochondriac, tinfoil hat wearing nutbars!
-
Grant Philpott, in reply to
That was me in court. I will sort out posting the ACC Toxicolgy Panel's report online so people can compare the report to the reporting on Stuff and available information online about chloramphenicol.
I took the ACC to court as the head of the ACC Toxicology Panel had written to me and said that the Panel would look at any new information I had. The ACC then refused to have the Panel look at chloramphenicol when I found out about the patents for using it to genetically modify Btk..
Remember the Food Safety Authority has banned the presence of chloramphenicol in food down to the limit of detection as there is no safe level of exposure for some people. Compare that to what the Toxicology Panel says about exposure.
The Stuff report also mentions a male doctor of mine? I had a young female GP who did not believe me. I warned her at the time that she could have been susceptible to Foray 48b. She died a year or so ago. She also failed to check my endocrine system when I was gravely ill and I nearly died from that incompetence. I was lucky though, that she gave up on me and suggested I try a mens clinic. I picked one at random from the phone book and went to see them. I went to Living Proof and saw Doctor Twentyman. The first thing he did was order tests of my endocrine system and on seeing the results stated that I had the hormone levels of someone in their seventies who was about to die. He first put me on DHEA then pregnenolone. I was back to functioning health within a couple of weeks of seeing him! Right before I saw him I had seen an specialist over the constant cough that I had and he looked at me blankly.
The Stuff report also mentions about the use of chloramphenicol in New Zealand. A few years back my son was given chloramphenicol ointment to put on a cut on his skin by a doctor at Waitakere Hospital. I have a haematology book that is several decades old and written at the time that people were getting sick and dying in large numbers from the use of chloramphenicol in the USA. The book warns that chloramphenicol should never be used prophylactically because of the dangers, yet decades later doctors in New Zealand are still using it dangerously. Check how much chloramphenicol is used now in the USA. Check the safety data sheets for it. It is still over used here for eye and ear infections. Young children have no ability to detoxify it as they don't have enough vitamin D in their bodies. Try and hunt down the injuries it causes when used on eyes and ears such as blurred vision, tinnitus, and balance problems.
I am currently struggling to clear antibiotics from my body that were shoved into me a year ago after I was hit by a car and had my leg smashed. The hospital never monitored me for side effects and used an array of antibiotics which I suspect most were there to make up for the hospital's poor hygiene. I am now fighting with the ACC again because the antibiotics have caused the calcium to be leached from my bones so I now have severe osteoporosis and I had to have an operation a few months ago to remove the calcium stones from my bladder that I got from the leaching. The hospital that treated me refuses to help me with this latest nightmare caused by their profligate misuse of antibiotics. -
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
The book warns that chloramphenicol should never be used prophylactically because of the dangers, yet decades later doctors in New Zealand are still using it dangerously.
Ha! My partner Peter (who developed leukamia from fungicide spray) mentioned his sore dry eyes to his GP. GP prescribed drops. Drops caused instant and violent reaction to the extent that I had to repeatedly flush out his eyes. Looked up drops...chloramphenical...I was horrified that it was prescribed to someone who already had dodgey bloods. Dear oh dear.
Grant, when we were researching our issues with carbendazim, we stumbled accross your case and thought...poor bugger...he's set himself a task and a half.
Respect to you for taking them on. Some of us more than understand just what a huge undertaking it is to bring these truths to the table.
To be told, repeatedly, that there is no data/research confirming that a substance is harmful by those with a vested intrest in hiding the truth...well...it can make one feel very much on your own.
The lies, deceit and manipulation that goes on....once one uncovers it....makes your head spin.
But it is all about the dollar.
Your ongoing health issues...I hope you get something sorted out.
For what its worth...my partner was having chemo a few months after this guy, who happened to have the same rare form of leukaemia as Peter as well as swine flu.
...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrhkoFcOMIIPeter has been taking 2000mg Vitamin C since 2010. Despite being in a high risk group for infections (being a tetraplegic) he has been well since recovering from the chemo.
Again, the medical professionals dismiss this as being effective.
Sometimes you just have to go ahead and do your own thing.
Good luck to you.
-
Grant Philpott, in reply to
Chloramphenicol shuts down the bodies ability to make the hormone Vitamin D and also pregnenolone, which is the precursor to the major hormones in the body. It also causes ear and eye problems and birth defects. My daughter and daughter in law were both affected during the spraying. Both have had problems with very low Vitamin D. My daughter gave birth to a baby with Rickets. My daughter in law had a miscarriage and after I got vitamin D into her two boys both born with mouth mutations and the first with undescended testes as well. Most basic medical texts only focus on a few effects of chloramphenicol. It also causes symptoms that are similar to motor neurone disease. It took me many many hours of research to find the effects of chloramphenicol that I know of so far. Even the WHO know only part of the effects of this toxin.
-
Having spent a couple of nights exploring this, prompted primarily by your messages as asgardnz, I’ve found your research very thorough. This site is very convenient for linking from (as shown at the bottom of the page):
[ [ url | link text ] ]
For those of us inclined to learn more or facing these same issues and to better counter flippant scepticism I hope you can provide more sources Grant.
-
I'm giving this issue a wee bump here.
Our local giveaway paper has a half page ad for carbendazim spraying from a helicopter.
Your truly not happy. Phoned paper. Fobbed off by adman, told by reporter to write Letter to Editor.
Submitted letter.
Today's issue has offending ad now bumped up to page 2....underneath the Letters.
Editor has indicated he will print.
Will be interesting to see if my "common fungicide causes birth defects and irreversible male infertility" letter will be printed above the "helicopter spraying with fungicide will cure all your facial eczema problems" advertisement.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.