b
.
The Background of Previous Letters
My son's mother and I had
also previously
sent in a letter to WCH. Here is an extensive edited extract:
(i) Letter:
21st April 2009
Wentworth Community Housing
PO Box 4303
Penrith Westfield NSW 2750
[Tuesday,
21st April 2009]
Dear Housing:
[Daniel's mother] and
I need to discuss a situation whereby our chemical sensitive son
Daniel may be compromised in terms of his health with regard to a
proposed flea infestation treatment in McQuade Avenue, South
Windsor.
I have spoken with 3 other pest
controller-related firms and below present their perspectives for
your consideration.
Australian Pest Controllers Association Inc.
(Reynolds Av. Rozelle; Ph: 1300 660 200)
The Association agreed with me that this cooler
weather will retard flea activity considerably.
They also pointed out that the pet owners in
the affected residences need to treat their pets for fleas, and
without this measure being taken the entire proposed flea
treatment of a property becomes a simplistic exercise. The
Association said I should recommend that a more sophisticated
response be considered by Community Housing.
FumaPest
(Hawkesbury region; David Cloake; Ph: 1300 241 500)
David Cloake agreed that the cooler weather
retards flea activity. He added that a quick fix pesticide
treatment is a pointless exercise if pets (as the flea food
source) are left untreated. Just spraying represents an
unsophisticated response that achieves nothing.
He noted that pest sub-contractors will
recommend a treatment, even when it’s not necessary.
David further recommended a largely
non-chemical strategy wherein all pets must be treated/washed in
terms of addressing the infestation issue, the strategy being (in
detail):
·
Treating cats specifically (as
the source of the fleas) with an appropriate topical flea
application;
·
Washing dogs;
·
Very importantly, treating all
animals regularly (the consistent maintenance of animal
hygiene);
·
The regular washing of all pet
bedding;
·
The regular vacuuming of carpets.
David noted that the responsibility for fleas
has to be put back onto the pet owners.
A Bligh Park Pest Control
(Bligh Park; “Jenny”; Ph: 45774461)
Jenny noted first that all insects, fleas
included, become less active in the cooler weather. Essentially
they hide away.
She also noted that the core problem of
treating the animals/pets, their bedding and vacuuming inside the
house needs to be addressed, otherwise spraying out in the yard is
pointless because fleas will come inside the house on people and
animals.
Discussion
We recommend that Housing educate tenants in
dealing specifically with their own pets , as per the above
recommended least toxic approach. A context independent
chemical approach is not effective and is also broadly toxic and
dangerous, since many people will be exposed (including children
who are up to 10 times more vulnerable to chemical trauma than are
adults). Tenants must be responsible for the regular cleaning of
their homes because there is no substitute for hygiene. To that
end, Housing could provide tenants with an information sheet that
will assist tenants in understanding the complexities of the flea
issue and their personal animal hygiene/health maintenance
responsibilities.
[We] do not want
[this house] treated for fleas. We will deal with the issue
ourselves. Although we cannot stop Housing from treating the
homes either side of this residence, we advise that because of our
son’s considerable chemical sensitivity (and my extreme
sensitivity) he and I will very likely experience some level of
injury and illness as a result of the proposed eradication
procedure. I may even be unable to visit my child at McQuade Ave
after the spraying.
I will be organizing for Daniel and me to have
extensive blood tests prior to and after the proposed treatments,
in order to empirically establish the likely chemical injuries.
This information could be used should we decide to engage legal
action. Further to this end, we will need the name and contact
details of the pest contractors, as well as the name of the
product used so that I can identify its toxicology via Material
Safety Data Sheets.
The problem is that once you’re chemically
sensitive you become marginalized. The more injured you become
(with subsequent episodes of chemical insult) the less you are
able to function within normal society. The "chemical sensitive"
often end up being forced to live in isolation in the country.
The proposed flea treatments for the homes either side of 25
McQuade Ave could have a devastating health and economic impact on
our lives. [End of extract]
But, really, who cares
enough to put forth the effort to change chemical quick-fix policies for
the sake of tenant education and public health?
Who -- within any public housing corporation -- has even got the time or
genuine intellect to THINK?!
Here is an extensive edited extract of a
further letter sent to Wentworth Community Housing (WCH):
(ii) Letter:
11th May 2009
Murray
Thompson
(BAppSc Env.
Hth. UWS)
PO Box 5761
South Windsor LPO
NSW 2756
Monday 11th
May 2009
Attention: "Katrina"
Wentworth Area Community Housing
PO Box 4303
Penrith Westfield NSW 2750
Cc: CEO: Nick Sabl
Dear Katrina/WACH:
Re: our conversation of
Thursday 23rd
April 2009 after the flea pesticide treatment at McQuade Ave. in Sth.
Windsor.
Lisa's and my
previous letter
(Tuesday,
21st
April 2009) demonstrated clearly
that the more appropriate and responsible approach to flea
eradication rests with educating tenants on how to hygienically
maintain their Community Housing (WACH) properties.
Further, the letter used information
derived from local pest contractors to reveal that a flea treatment
was both no longer needed in McQuade Ave. because of the cooler
weather (automatically reduced flea activity), and pointless because
other vitally important features of residence hygiene were not being
adequately addressed.
As well, our letter showed that the
broad application of pesticides to multiple residences is not Duty
of Care context-rational in terms of each household and their unique
properties, which include
critically important (even health,
life and death)
personal issues,
issues that you have minimized in a dangerous manner.
The application of a toxic chemical
(that is assumed to protect public health on one limited level or
from one limited perspective only) must never obviate the much
broader and educated public
health considerations that form a constellation of inter-linked,
cross-referenced understanding.
When fleas can be quite adequately
treated by natural means (once this truism is understood,
internalized and worked down into policy), there no longer exists
within this intelligent and
integrated overview the fixed and
familiar (less
sophisticated and
less educated)
perspective wherein we resort to an assumed imperative to 'nuke' an
area with sprays.
The
"technological fix" is a blind approach to working through problems
with chemicals.
I am currently suing the NSW Department
of Housing precisely because of this bureaucratic problem with
knowledge and attitudes.
As a result of the pesticide
application, Lisa was overtly exposed to pesticide vapours on the
day of treatment.
She could smell the pesticide, and this
means that she was exposed to solvent/hydrocarbon vapours.
The
ELSEVIER scientific
article: 'Long-term neuropsychological impact of brief occupational
exposure to organic solvents' (Rodger Ll. Wood, Christina Liossi,
Department of Psychology, University of Wales
Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK;
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
20 (2005) 655–665
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/])
shows that only one
exposure to organic solvents can lead to "deficits… observed on
tests that measure speed of information processing, memory,
attention, and verbal fluency" (p.1).
Also, even after returning
later to his mother's home (a few days after the treatment), my
chemical sensitive son Daniel will still be exposed to Bifenthrin
and other chemical
residues
entering his yard and air space.
This is extremely important
regarding a child who has been initially overtly physiologically
injured by a termiticide: similar to the Bifenthrin product used in
McQuade Ave.
Daniel suffered considerable abdominal
pains for a full year as the termite pesticide's hydrocarbons
continued to emanate from the slab under my residence in minute
quantities.
Further, in moving to McQuade Ave. my
son developed life-destroying psychological and personality trauma
through extended glyphosate and/or surfactant exposure emanating
from the neighbouring Golf Club's activities.
The APVMA recognized that my
2003 Adverse Incident Report highlighted the potential for both
chemical sensitivity
AND of solvent
migrating through a concrete slab (with this second point of
interest being a physically harder dynamic to accomplish than the
easier toxicity of a spray being directly applied
internally to a residence or
externally in the yard).
Note:
It is possible the symptoms you have reported may have been due to
the odour of the product rather than exposure to the active
constituent. It is known that
some people do have a low-level intolerance to chemical odours.
The possibility of gaps or
cracks in the slab that may have allowed penetration of the product
or its vapours into the interior of your unit cannot be discounted
(Paul Thomas, Quality Assurance and Compliance,
Adverse Experience Report,
28 July 2004).
Exposing numerous families
to, not only solvent toxins, but also to Bifenthrin itself, is a
reckless public health approach encapsulated within a mentality of
molly-coddling tenants and denying them the opportunity to
understand flea problems and personal and pet hygiene
responsibilities.
A localized flea problem
should be always treated as locally and as non-toxically as
possible, rather than via the unsophisticated quick fix of treating
multiple properties with toxic agents.
This letter and attachments provides
WACH with resources for researching and obtaining non-toxic
pesticide alternatives.
In order for WACH to become educated in terms of pesticide toxicity,
please see Attachment #1:
Toxicological
Profile for Pyrethrins and Pyrethroids (US Department of Health
and Human Services, Sept. 2002), a printout that features my
extracts from the government document.
This helps to minimize the document size (for your
convenience) and highlight the disturbing toxicities investigated.
As well, my included comments provide added context...
If you do not have the time to read this article (as
you indicated previously), then you don't have the time to upgrade
your understanding of this issue.
Without an improved knowledge of pesticide toxicity you
cannot assist WACH to generate a better model of its Duty of Care.
A better Duty of Care model will help WACH to avoid legal
action in the future, and will enhance the overall public health of
its tenants (two exceedingly worthwhile benefits, you will agree).
You leave yourself open to legal action by making statements
(as you did during our phone conversation) such as: "the spraying
would have taken place regardless" (and apparently to the exclusion
of the medical warnings given well before the spraying by me and
Lisa). As well, this
statement is incredibly insulting!
The DECC, in investigating the spraying of herbicide by the
local golf club at the back of Lisa's WACH residence, warned the
club to "take note of neighbours' concerns and take some action in
response to them" (Letter,
DECC 1December 2008). [End
of extract]
NOTE: I RECEIVED A REPLY TO THESE LETTERS FROM
NICK SABEL AT WCH ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2009.
c. The
Bureaucratic Stampede to Tick a Box (Job Finished)
The rush to get a job done and ticked off the
list in an unthinking and unsophisticated manner, and in the
face of considerable personal and public health objections, is
typical of blind bureaucracy. Orthodox pesticide treatments
are now old fashioned and outdated in a world that knows that safer
alternative measures are readily available. This
link will open
up the web site of
Stephen
Tvedten, "the author of nontoxic pest
control books: The Best Control 2 & The Bug Stops Here.
Stephen Tvedten's current occupation is President of Get Set, Inc.,
an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) firm that uses exclusively
non-toxic alternatives to pesticides" (http://www.stephentvedten.com/Stephen_Tvedten.htm;
accessed: 7th May 2009).
Another of Stephen's sites (this
link) says:
Welcome to the
homepage of Stephen Tvedten, author of The Best Control 2©,
an encyclopedia of nontoxic pest control strategies, or Integrated
Pest Management (IPM), he has dubbed Intelligent Pest Management®.
Tvedten is the inventor of
The Ideal Pesticide - a revolutionary, nontoxic Pestisafe®
based on insect biology.
This is the wave of the pest management
future, needed -- very much -- NOW!
FURTHER
ATTACHMENTS TO THE PESTICIDE ACT I WAS GIVEN BY THE DECC
PESTICIDE USE RECORD-KEEPING
Requirement to make records relating to use of pesticides for
commercial and occupational purposes
11B. (1) A person must make (or cause to be made) a record,
in accordance with clause 11D, that relates to each occasion on
which the person uses a pesticide:
(a) in the course of carrying on a business involving the use
of pesticides (regardless of whether that use is the primary purpose
of the business concerned), or
(b) while acting in the capacity as, or while carrying out
pest control operations for, the landlord of the premises on which
the pesticide is used, or
(c) while carrying out pest control operations for or on
behalf of a public authority, or
(d) while carrying out pest control operations on a golf
course or bowling green.
Maximum penalty: 400 penalty units in the case of a corporation, or
200 penalty units in the case
of an individual.
Attachment 1: Information to be
Contained in a Record
Under
section 11D of the Pesticides Regulation 1995;
(1). A record required to
be made under clause 11B or 11C must contain the following
information:
a) The
full product name of the pesticide applied,
b) A
description of the crop in respect of which the pesticide was
applied or other situation in which it was used,
c) The
rate of application of the pesticide and the quantity applied,
d) A
description of the equipment used to apply the pesticide,
e) The
address of the property and the delineation of the area in which
the pesticide was released, and in the case of a record under
clause 110, the order in which areas (such as paddocks or sheds)
were treated,
f) The
date and times of the application of the pesticide (including
start and finish time),
g) The
name, address and contact details of the person who applied the
pesticide or, in the case where the pesticide was applied by a
person employed to apply the pesticide, the name of the employee
and the name, address and contact details of the employer,
h) The
name, address and contact details of the owner or occupier of the
land in respect of which the pesticide was applied (if the
information is not the same as the information required by
paragraph (g)),
i) In the
case where the record is required to be made by a responsible
person (as referred to in clause 118 (5)) - the name of each
worker who used the pesticide under the on-site supervision or
direction of the responsible person,
j) if the
pesticide is applied outdoors by means of any spray equipment
within the meaning of clause
11C,
I. The
estimated wind speed and direction at the start of the
application and whenever there is any significant change during
the application, and
II. If
other weather conditions (such as temperature, humidity, or
rainfall conditions) are specified on the pesticide label as
being relevant for the proper use of the pesticide - a
description of those conditions at the start of the application
and whenever there is any significant change during the
application
(2). The record must:
a) Be made
as soon as practicable after the use of the pesticide concerned and,
in any event, no later than 24 hours after the pesticide is used,
and
b)
Be in writing and in the English language,
and
c) Be
legible.
© Copyright 2009 Murray Thompson
poisonedpeople@gmail.com &
dreedlegilf@yahoo.com
Postal Address:
PO Box 5761
South Windsor LPO
NSW 2756
Australia