Pesticide more than problematic
By Rob Leggett
Imagine that a five-year-old comes inside from playing at the park across the street and complains that she does not feel well. The parents notice that she is running a slight fever, so they give her some medicine and put her to bed to rest.
Later that evening, when they check on her, she’s burning up and is struggling to breathe. Terrified, they try to wake her, but she can barely stay conscious, so they rush her to the hospital, holding one of her tiny, limp hands in their own through the traumatic ambulance ride.
The doctor explains she has somehow breathed in a small quantity of a pesticide, and they are lucky they got her there when they did. Thankfully, she will be alright, however they are told that she may suffer longterm effects such as leukemia and brain cancer, asthma and allergies, polyneuritis with numbness and pain in lower limbs, altered neurological functioning and long-lasting neuro-behavioral impairments, birth defects, neurotoxicity, and gangrene (tissue death) of the extremities.
The parents have no idea how she was exposed to the pesticide, as neither they nor their neighbors use them. Before long, a friend informs them that the city sprayed the park the night prior to the child becoming sick. Curious, they look out the window at the park across the street and cannot see any tape, barriers or signs … in fact they can’t see any warning that the park was sprayed with pesticides at all. Then the glimpse a small white sign, no bigger than a sheet of paper and barely visible from the window. They cross the street and notice the small black print informing them to not use the park because of pesticide spraying.
This scenario may sound impalusible. Nevertheless, the sad truth of the matter is that it could happen … and not to just any child, but your child.
Many municipalities across B.C. still use pesticides in a manner I think is patently irresponsible – in public areas and parks. A parent may notice the tiny, white warning signs too late, if at all … after a small child eager to roll around in the grass becomes sick. Even older children running to their favourite play areas may not notice … thus, the city has exposed them to deadly toxins.
It seems to me local and provincial governments that continue to allow cosmetic pesticide use can only be ignorant of the proven health concerns that arise from using these toxins.
In spite of what municipalities might tell you about pesticide use, it is a fact that the chemical residue stays long after it has been used. This creates a potential death sentence, literally, for any animal that may eat the now-poisonous grass, leaves, nuts or berries which can cause cancer, abnormal thyroid function, decreased fertility, decreased hatching success, demasculinization and feminization of males, or alteration of immune function. If truth be told, an argument can easily be made against private use as well, given that chemicals do not respect fences and boundaries and will freely travel through the air, soil and ground water, contaminating untargeted properties.
On April 25, 2006, the journal Pediatrics and Child Health issued a report from a study claiming that 2,4-D, the most commonly used weed killer on Canadian lawns and gardens is “persuasively linked” to cancer, neurological impairment, and reproductive problems. Yet local and provincial authorities still insist on using these poisons, knowing the information regarding the health dangers, just so they can have pretty, bug- and weed-free parks and lawns.
As Dr. J. Irwin stated, “When it comes to pesticide use in Canada, we are a human experiment without records being kept. We have chemical warfare going on in our neighbourhoods. The spreading and the spraying of chemicals on lawns, trees and in houses is against the common right of all citizens to breathe clean air and to remain in good health.”
We need to insist that our communities no longer use us as “human experiments”, and denounce the politicians reluctant to put an end to pesticide use. In the end, the science is there, the truth of pesticide use is known and it gives the impression it’s only through ignorance that its use continues. In my opinion, politicians who need to “consider” not using pesticides instead of acting, despite all the facts, have nothing to offer the voters who elected them, and since it seems they have no apparent concern for our health, they should not receive our continued support.
Let the ignorant remain ignorant if they wish, but not at the expense of our children.
Comments