[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PANUPS: Methyl Bromide Drift
you seem to know quite a bit on Methyl Bromide. Is it true it kills all
the soil microorganisms and after using it so many years it will be hard
to make the soil sustainable again. Where does it fit in sustainable ag.
Is it true that once the microbes are destroyed that most of the time
the bad organisms move and more pesticide and harmful stuff needs to be
used. Does it destroy the O zone? Everything I heard about it is bad so
you guys think it is a good thing to spray it right next to school grounds.
humm do you think because other states use it and we may lose money if we
were to stop using it is a good reason to keep it around if it is harmful
to the earth and mankind. If they are going to ban it WHY are they
banning it? Has it killed anyone? Who when where and how? I don't know
because I think microbes are what make sustainable ag. and I don't want to
kill them so I don't use anything like that and was just wondering if the
rest of the bad stuff they say about Methyl bromide is true. have you
found any harmful side effects and what are they. I think the reason
people give you guys so much heat is because once they decided to ban it
that they keep putting the ban off. seems to me if it was bad enough to
ban we would stop using it yesterday.
At 03:12 PM 9/5/97 -0700, Glenn Brank wrote:
>Members of your newsgroup may be interested in the
>following statement issued on the day of the press
>conference held by EWG, PAN et al.
>Glenn Brank, Information Officer
>California Department of Pesticide Regulation
>(916) 445-3970
>gbrank@cdpr.ca.gov
>
> Statement
> James W. Wells
> Director, Department of Pesticide Regulation
>
> The hysterical accusations against the
>Department of Pesticide Regulation have reached a
>despicable low point. DPR has been the national
>leader in developing and enforcing safer ways to use
>pesticides, including methyl bromide. Ironically, it is
>since we began tightening down on methyl bromide
>use in 1992 that the chorus of criticism has
>escalated, reaching a overwrought crescendo with
>today's accusations by Californians Against Pesticide
>Reform.
>
> It is time to look at science and fact, not--as
>our accusers do--start with a point of view and bend
>and stretch the truth until it somehow fits their skewed
>view of the world.
>
> Key facts are:
>
> DPR did not keep *secret* that methyl bromide
>can move from one area to another. Any high school
>physics student can tell you that a gas--like methyl
>bromide--will move from one area to another. This
>scientific principle is known as Graham's Law of
>Diffusion, and was actually discovered in 1829.
>
> FACT: We didn't need to tell fumigators about
>it. They already knew--that is why they use tarps to
>hold methyl bromide in a structure during fumigation.
>
> FACT: That is also why existing law has long
>required that all openings in a structure be sealed
>before fumigation.
>
> As part of its continuing evaluation of methyl
>bromide use practices, DPR did study methyl
>bromide levels outside homes. As a result, new
>regulations will be noticed in September to carry out
>even-tighter controls over methyl bromide use,
>including buffer zones around structures, better tarps
>over the fumigated structure, and increased controls
>over methyl bromide when tarps are removed.
>
> FACT: Even though the regulations are still to
>be formalized, structural pest control firms have has
>already adopted the new restrictions as the industry
>standard.
>
> DPR recognized in 1992 that structural
>exposures to methyl bromide needed stronger
>controls. Acting by emergency regulation, the
>Department required lengthy ventilation periods after
>structural fumigations to reduce the risk to returning
>residents. DPR's action was later followed by U.S.
>EPA, which imposed similar measures for the rest of
>the nation. In California, DPR's regulation had the
>effect of dramatically reducing the use of methyl
>bromide in structural fumigations. Before DPR took
>action in 1992, methyl bromide was used in about 45
>percent of the state 100,000 structural fumigations
>each year. (The remaining fumigations used sulfuryl
>fluoride.) Today, only about 13 percent of the
>fumigations are with methyl bromide.
>
> FACT: There is no connection between a
>fatality in Los Angeles and alleged shortcomings in
>laws or regulations governing methyl bromide.
>
> Before a structure can be fumigated with
>methyl bromide, the law requires the applicator to
>carefully inspect the structure and seal all openings.
>Until last March, there had been no deaths related to
>methyl bromide structural fumigations since early
>1992--before DPR imposed strict controls. The
>March fatality involved a woman in Los Angeles
>County. After investigation, it was found there were
>several open electrical conduits running from the floor
>of the treated building underground to the floor of the
>woman's home. These conduits are not standard in
>building construction, and the applicator did not see
>them and therefore did not seal them, as required by
>the law.
>
> FACT: The study was not secret. It was
>mailed early last year to at least 15 university
>libraries--standard practice for this type of study. It
>was also presented and distributed at a public
>meeting last November.
>
> As part of its continuing evaluation of methyl
>bromide use practices, DPR scientists have done a
>number of studies of structural fumigations. One
>study was done at an abandoned Air Force base near
>Sacramento. The base was selected for the study
>because the homes were unoccupied. The study
>involved treating one house seven times using various
>application techniques. Each time, methyl bromide
>levels were measured outside around the home and
>in neighboring homes. In the first phase of the study,
>methyl bromide levels inside one neighboring home
>were much higher than would be expected.
>
> An examination of blueprints of the area
>revealed a nonstandard sewer connection between
>this home and the treated house. We found that the
>sewer system had been drained when the Air Force
>abandoned the base, and there was an open
>connection between the two homes. Our scientists
>filled the sewer with water and next time a treatment
>was done, the problem did not reoccur. It would also
>not be expected to occur in any home with functioning
>plumbing. And if plumbing did not function, odors
>from sewer gases would drive residents out.
>
> FACT: No entity--inside or outside
>government--has studied methyl bromide as
>intensively and extensively as DPR scientists have in
>the past five years.
>
> It is ironic that DPR began its strict controls on
>methyl bromide in 1992 and has been the focus of
>criticism ever since. First from farmers, who
>protested that their counterparts in other states did
>not have to abide by such restrictions, and the cost of
>complying would make California farmers less
>competitive. Nonetheless, DPR has continued to
>carry out increasingly tough restrictions to protect
>both workers and the public.
>
> DPR will continue to evaluate the toxicology of
>methyl bromide and periodically examine the
>effectiveness of use restrictions to fine-tune them if
>necessary. DPR has earned its expertise in this
>arena through careful, complex, and meticulous
>scientific work. DPR scientists and specialists have
>devoted thousands of hours to ensuring that this
>chemical be used safely with every protection for all
>citizens.
>
>
References: