FYI

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=56 BGCOLOR="#666633" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="00fc8c83.jpg"> <div> FYI </div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=160 BGCOLOR="#666633" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>INDEX</B></div> <div> <B>1. </B><A HREF="id117_m.htm#ghost_town_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="FYI"><U><B>Chernobyl's Ghost Town</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>2. </B><A HREF="id117_m.htm#land_" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="FYI"><U><B>Mineral rights vs. property rights</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id117_m.htm#down_on_the_factory_farm___" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="FYI"><U><B>3. Factory farming: how it hurts family farmers, animals and the environment.</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>4. </B><A HREF="id117_m.htm#news" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="FYI"><U><B>Arsenic in lumber: Late lessons from pressure-treated wood. </B></U></A><A HREF="id117_m.htm#news" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="FYI"><U><I><B>From Rachel's Environment & Health News</B></I></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>5. </B><A HREF="id117_m.htm#george" TARGET="TRLX_Middle" TITLE="FYI"><U><B>The junk science of George W. Bush</B></U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=424 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>  </B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>In May and Early June, The New Yorker, one of the best and most carefully checked magazines in the world, has published "The Climate of Man" , a series of articles by Elizabeth Kolbert about the chain reactions now under way in the global climate system. From the concluding paragraph:</B></div> <div> <B>" As the effects of global warming become more and more apparent, will we react by finally fashioning a global response? Or will we retreat into ever narrower and more destructive forms of self-interest? It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing."</B></div> <div> <B> Read </B><B><U>The Climate of Man</U></B><B> </B><A HREF="http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm"><U><B> </B></U></A><A HREF="http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm"><U><B>Part 1</B></U></A><B>,    </B><A HREF="http://www.wesjones.com/climate2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wesjones.com/climate2.htm"><U><B>Part 2</B></U></A><B>,    </B><A HREF="http://www.wesjones.com/climate3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wesjones.com/climate3.htm"><U><B>Part 3</B></U></A><B> , </B><A HREF="http://www.wesjones.com/climate4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wesjones.com/climate4.htm"><U><B>Interview</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#ghost_town_" TITLE="FYI"><U><B>Chernobyl's 'Ghost Town'</B></U></A><B> <A NAME="ghost_town_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" >WHAT HAPPENED to the places surrounding Chernobyl following that devastating day in April 1986 when the atomic power plant had an "accident?" See for yourself in this incredible website in which a courageous young motorcyclist takes her camera through "The Dead Zone." What was once a beautiful, thriving town of 48,000 people is now as silent as a grave. The next time you think nuclear power isn't such a bad thing, take a look at this site:</FONT> <A HREF="http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddof"><U>http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/</U></A></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" ><IMG SRC="18d3bde0.jpg" border=0 width="315" height="222" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></FONT><B><IMG SRC="189887e0.jpg" border=0 width="136" height="126" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><B><IMG SRC="18b22c30.jpg" border=0 width="290" height="195" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <div> ======================================================================</div> <div> <B>Do you own the mineral rig</B><B>hts to you</B><B>r land?</B><B> <A NAME="land_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <div> <I><B>If not, you could have miners clear-cutting your trees and digging up your property -- with or without your say-so</B></I></div> <div> <I><B><IMG SRC="0c645f30.jpg" border=0 width="325" height="243" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">    <IMG SRC="0f2ef900.jpg" border=0 width="239" height="144" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> <IMG SRC="0f18b030.jpg" border=0 width="395" height="259" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">   </B></I></div> <div> <I>Examples of the kind of destruction clay miners can cause </I></div> <div> <I>on property they have the mining rights for. </I></div> <bR> <div> <B>OUTDATED MINING LAWS POSE GRAVE THREATS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>January 26, 2004</B></div> <div> <I><B>From West Coast Environmental Law</B></I></div> <bR> <div> VANCOUVER - Laws first enacted in the early Gold Rush days are becoming an increasing source of frustration to rural landowners who find they have few tools at their disposal to stop mining developments on their properties, a new report says.</div> <bR> <div> The report notes that in one recent case, a couple in the Kamloops area has been fighting a losing legal battle for more than 10 years, to stop one mining company from digging up all 16 hectares of their land and then using the excavated minerals to make kitty litter.</div> <bR> <div> "After a careful legal analysis, it is very clear that the rights and interests of private property owners in protecting their lands and operations are secondary to the interests of miners," says report author Karen Campbell, a staff lawyer at <A HREF="http://www.wcel.org/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wcel.org/"><U>West Coast Environmental Law. </U></A> "If a mining company stakes a claim on private land today, it is unlikely that the owner can stop it."</div> <bR> <div> Campbell adds that recent changes to mining laws in BC have actually strengthened the hands of miners. "It is even more difficult today for private property owners to defend their interests when miners want to dig up their lands."  West Coast released the report today, the day 3,000-plus industry participants in the BC and Yukon mining industry began meetings in Vancouver to discuss new prospecting opportunities.</div> <bR> <div> The report notes that "free entry" remains alive and well in most Canadian provinces.  Free entry says that miners are almost always entitled to whatever lies below the surface of the land, whether publicly or privately owned.  The concept was enshrined in the earliest mining laws in BC, dating back to the pre-Confederation Gold Rush days.</div> <bR> <div> The report also notes that in 2002, the BC government altered the province's mining laws in response to industry demands for "a more flexible regulatory atmosphere."  Changes included repealing a section of the Mineral Tenure Act that barred mining companies from interfering with activities on private lands, including existing buildings.</div> <bR> <div> "In the late 1850s during the Gold Rush days, free entry had a place.  Not today," Campbell says.  "Other provinces like Alberta and Newfoundland can veto mining proposals on private lands, thereby protecting social and environmental interests.  And in the United States, where private property interests are vigorously defended, miners cannot trample the rights of landowners.  It's time to revisit our anachronistic mining laws."</div> <bR> <div> Read the report and the backgrounder -- it is really well-prepared and eye-opening. If you don't follow any other links from this page, follow this one:</div> <bR> <div> <B>    * </B><A HREF="http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/2004/14094.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/2004/14094.p"><U><B>Undermining our future: How mining’s privileged access to land harms people and the environment - a discussion paper on the need to reform Mineral Tenure Law in Canada (January 2004) [PDF 420 Kb]</B></U></A></div> <div>     </div> <div> <A HREF="http://http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/wrapper.cfm?docURL=http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/2004/14095.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://http://www.wcel.org/wcelpub/wrapp"><U><B>* Undermining our future: Mining's privileged access to land - A Free Entry Backgrounder (January 2004) [PDF 48 Kb]</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> For more information, contact West Coast Environmental Law, at 604-684-7378, or 1-800-330-WCEL. </div> <bR> <div> <B>=============================================</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Do you know what you own?</B></div> <div> <I><B>Mining and surface rights</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <I><B>This article appeared in the Fall/Winter 2002 (Volume 29) edition of the S&W Report the newsletter of the </B></I><A HREF="http://www.ont-woodlot-assoc.org/mining_surface.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ont-woodlot-assoc.org/mining_"><U><I><B>Ontario Woodlot Association</B></I></U></A><I><B>.</B></I><I><B> </B></I></div> <bR> <div> THE MINING ACT R.S.O. 1990 DEFINES MINING RIGHTS as “the right to minerals on, in, or under the land.” Surface rights are “every right in land other than mining rights.” The act also provides equal right of access to the property if there are two different owners - mining and surface rights.</div> <bR> <div> So what does this all mean to a landowner? Well, ask a group of landowners in the Bedford Township area, north of Kingston, Ontario who learned that they do not own the mining rights to their property. For the past year these landowners have been on a steep learning curve, learning about their rights as landowners in relationship to the Mining Act, and the implications of only owning the surface rights and not the mining rights to their property.</div> <bR> <div> To fully understand the issue you need to look at the history of how mineral (mining) rights in Ontario have been handled and look at the legislation that governs mineral exploration in the province - the Mining Act. Over the past 300 years there have been different practices used in Ontario when dealing with mineral rights ownership. As a result, the ownership of surface and mining rights will vary from one parcel of land to the next across the province. Prior to May 6, 1913, any parcel of land granted as a patent by the Crown included mineral rights ownership and land patents granted after this date may or may not have included the mineral rights. Simply, what this means is if you bought Crown land, or the previous owner did after May 6, 1913, it is possible that you only own the properties’ surface rights and not necessarily the mining rights.</div> <bR> <div> This appears to be the current situation the Bedford landowners find themselves in. Recently, a number of landowners in the Bedford area have found, after the fact, that their properties(1) have been staked. They have learned when a landowner does not hold the mining rights, the Mining Act permits anyone holding a prospector’s licence to stake a claim, allowing them the right to prospect, and the legal right to later convert their claim to a mining lease on the property.</div> <bR> <div> Staking a claim involves entering(2) the property and establishing the corner posts and boundaries of the section of land being claimed. This includes marking the lines between claim posts and may involve the cutting of trees, blazing of trees, and/or the cutting of the underbrush along the boundary of the claim(3) Notification to the property owner (owner of the surface rights) for staking is not a requirement under the act. It isn’t until the claim holder wishes to do further exploration(4) work on the claim that there is a legal requirement for notification.</div> <bR> <div> As a landowner, do you know if you own the mining rights to your property? A quick check of the Ministry of Mines and Northern Development (MNMD) Web site at <A HREF="http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/LANDS/mlsmnpge.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/LAN"><U>www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/LANDS/mlsmnpge.htm</U></A> may provide you with some preliminary information. By navigating through the “Mining Lands CLAIMaps” section of this Web site, you will be able to locate your property and see if the Crown retains the mining rights. However, there are two important points to keep in mind! As the disclaimer on the site says, “material in this service involves a new use of technology, which may cause errors, and therefore the information may be inaccurate or incomplete.” It should also be noted that just because your property isn’t on the list, it may only mean that the Crown doesn’t own the mining rights. It is entirely possible that the previous owner may have sold the rights to someone else. As a result, the information on the MNMD Web site shouldn’t be used as gospel; it is only your first step in determining the status of the mining rights on your property.</div> <bR> <div> To be sure, the ownership to the various rights for a particular parcel of land is a legal question that can only be determined through a title search at the local land registry office. You can undertake this task yourself, or you may want to consider seeking legal assistance. Ask your lawyer to undertake a title search of the property seeking details of the ownership of both the mineral and surface rights.</div> <bR> <div> Looking for more information on the Mining Act? Here are a few places you may want to explore.</div> <bR> <div> A copy of the Mining Act and Ontario Regulation 7/96, Claim Staking for the Mining Act can be viewed online at http://<A HREF="http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90m14_e.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statu"><U>www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90m14_e.htm</U></A>. Or, a copy of the act and regulation can be purchased from Publications Ontario by calling 1-800-668-9938.</div> <bR> <div> Contact Roy Spooner, at the Provincial Mining Recorder Office in Sudbury at 1-888-415-9845 (ext. #5793) or by e-mail at <A HREF="mailto:roy.spooner@ndm.gov.on.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:roy.spooner@ndm.gov.on.ca"><U>roy.spooner@ndm.gov.on.ca</U></A>.</div> <bR> <div> Footnotes</div> <bR> <div> <I>(1) Section 32 of the act prohibits prospecting on that part of the property where there is a dwelling, cemetery, garden, orchard, vineyard, nursery, plantation, outhouse, church or crops that may be damaged through staking without the prior consent of the property owner.</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>It should be noted the term “plantation” under this exception might not include a reforested area. Precedence may have been established in 1988, when the Mining and Lands Commissioner concluded in Poprupa vs. Taylor, that the legislation was not intended to withdraw from staking those areas that have been reforested.</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>In addition, when MNDM were asked if woodlot improvements either approved under the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program or done otherwise by the owner fall within the meaning of crops that may be damaged under Section 32 of the act, MNMD responded “the interpretation of various aspects of Section 32 is currently a matter of a dispute process before the Provincial Mining Recorder and since there are legal decisions pending, the ministry cannot comment at this time.”</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>(2) There are laws that prohibit trespass. However, these same laws also contain exemptions that effectively say anyone who has a legal right to enter a property is not trespassing. And, under the Mining Act the holder of a valid prospector’s licence has a legal right to go on land that is open for staking.</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>(3) Compensation is available to landowners if in the opinion of the Minister there has been damage (i.e. trees cut) as a result of the staking or any ground assessment work.</I></div> <bR> <div> <I>(4) A 24-hour notice (minimum requirement) to the property owner is required before exploration work can take place on private land. Exploration work may include surface stripping of an area less than 1 hectare in size or extraction of a volume less than 10,000 m3.</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>Staking mining claims in cottage country</B></div> <div> <I><B>From the Eagle Lake Property Owners Association in eastern Ontario (not Haliburton County -- but it's close!)</B></I></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.newsweb.ca/elpoa/index.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.newsweb.ca/elpoa/index.html"><U>www.newsweb.ca/elpoa/index.html</U></A></div> <bR> <div> DURING THE LATE FALL AND WINTER, EVIDENCE MOUNTED why lake associations should plan for future development and threats to our pristine environments. As our neighbouring lakes in the Township of Bathurst, Bedford and Sherbrooke (BBS) and South Frontenac Township have discovered, mining operations could commence in these regions. Graphite Mountain Inc., the Canadian subsidiary of Diamond Lake Mines based in Salt Lake City, Utah, has staked over 100 mining claims registered in the two townships. Already, significant graphite mineral exploration has occurred in the area of the New Road near the Green Bay portion of Bobs Lake and it has been reported that the company has purchased land near Perth in order to process the ore. Since graphite mining is primarily a strip-mining operation, significant change to local environments would be inevitable.</div> <bR> <div> Cottage property owners also need to be aware of how they could be influenced by the Ontario Mining Act. For all land currently or even previously owned by the Province of Ontario, the government still holds the "mineral rights". As some land owners in BBS Township have discovered, they only retain "surface rights" to their property, which means that for the modest "prospector's licensing" fee of $25.00 anyone can stake a mining claim on their land. Although they will be compensated appropriately, such land owners cannot prevent exploration or even eventual development of a mine on their property.</div> <bR> <div> Last year, the BBS Township council passed a resolution opposing mining in the area and a non-profit organization, Bedford Mining Alert, has been formed to raise the profile of this issue through public meetings and the press and to assist land owners with staked property. If you wish to learn more about mining in the region or join the Bedford Mining Alert contact Marilyn Crawford at (613) 273-4511 (e-mail: <A HREF="mailto:buddyc@rideau.net" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:buddyc@rideau.net"><U>buddyc@rideau.net</U></A>) or Mary Loucks at (613) 273-6317 (e-mail: <A HREF="mailto:longpond@rideau.net" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:longpond@rideau.net"><U>longpond@rideau.net</U></A>).</div> <bR> <div> Perhaps it is timely for our association to become more actively involved in a lake planning process for Eagle Lake. What land and shoreline developments are cottagers and year-round residents prepared to accept and what mechanisms will be available to monitor and control environmentally destructive proposals? Would you have envisaged a mine in your backyard?</div> <bR> <div> Editor's Note: Such issues are thoroughly aired in three excellent articles in the The Frontenac News: "Landowners' Nightmares" and "Surface and Mining Rights" in the January 30, 2002 issue and "Minister Unresopnsive to Calls for Changes to Mining Act" in the February 6, 2002 issue.</div> <bR> <div> <I>Links</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines</B> <A HREF="http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/MNDM/MINES/lands/default_e.asp" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/MNDM/MINES/lan"><U>www.mndm.gov.on.ca/MNDM/MINES/lands/default_e.asp</U></A></div> <div> Go here to start looking to see if your property's mineral rights belong to someone else.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Western Industrial Clay Products</B> <A HREF="http://www.wicp.com/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wicp.com/"><U>http://www.wicp.com/</U></A></div> <div> This is the company that is taking over Carolyn Bepple's land in British Columbia. The website doesn't mention anything about the problems WICP is causing Bepple -- just how great the kitty litter is. It has cost her nearly 10 years, $100,000 in legal fees and near-bankruptcy but she has lost her latest appeal to keep WICP off her ranch. The kitty litter company has staked a claim to the minerals located below the Bepple's property. The Bepple's property, which is shaded by a forest of fir trees and is home to animals like bears, deer and owls, will be clear-cut and mined for possibly 30 years. WICP's actions are destroying the Bepple's lives but the company is simply asserting rights set in laws in every province based on statutes dating back to the gold rush. These outdated laws state that mining is the first and best use of the land and therefore give mining companies access to privately held land. Could what happened to the Bepples happen to you? Depending on what lies beneath your front lawn, it's a distinct possibility. You might want to check out the WICP website to make sure what's in your kitty's kitty litter box isn't made by WICP.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Land O' Lakes News Web</B> http://<A HREF="http://www.newsweb.ca/Mining_Claims_Cause%20Nigthmare.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.newsweb.ca/Mining_Claims_Caus"><U>www.newsweb.ca/Mining_Claims_Cause%20Nigthmare.htm</U></A></div> <div> Writer Jeff Green has a story about how miners have caused nightmares for Ontario residents.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Mining Watch Canada</B> http://<A HREF="http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.html"><U>www.miningwatch.ca/index.html</U></A></div> <div> MiningWatch Canada is a pan-Canadian initiative supported by environmental, social justice, Aboriginal and labour organisations from across the country. It addresses the urgent need for a co-ordinated public interest response to the threats to public health, water and air quality, fish and wildlife habitat and community interests posed by irresponsible mineral policies and practices in Canada and around the world.</div> <bR> <div> ========================================================================</div> <bR> <div> <B><IMG SRC="0e9abb70.jpg" border=0 width="427" height="183" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">  </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" ><I><IMG SRC="0f3a05f0.jpg" border=0 width="160" height="95" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></I></FONT></div> <div> <I>"State of the art" disposal of pigs (The tree line going east ends 1/4 mile away and across the road is one of the biggest lakes in the area.) Russell, Manitoba, Canada; February 4, 2002. Photos: Grace Factory Farm Project.</I></div> <bR> <div> <B> <A NAME="down_on_the_factory_farm___"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B><B>Down on the factory farm   </B></div> <div> <I><B>Factory farms are becoming huge problems in western Canada and the U.S. Now they're making headway into Ontario with a system that is tough on the environment, the animals and other farmers. </B></I></div> <bR> <div> RECENTLY DAVID SUZUKI'S <I>The Nature of Things</I> featured a two-episode look at agriculture. The first episode focussed on factory farming. The second episode looked at "old-fashioned" farming where pigs aren't jammed into tiny pens and lagoons full of liquid pig manure aren't making life unbearably smelly for neighbours and threatening to destroy groundwater. If you haven't seen these shows, try to do so. In the meantime, there is plenty of information about factory farming on the internet. Finding out where your food comes from may lead you to help stop industrial farming before it gets too big a toehold on Ontario.</div> <div> <IMG SRC="0eaaa1b0.jpg" border=0 width="426" height="283" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <I>Factory farm lagoon overflow in La Broquerie, Manitoba, Canada</I></div> <div> <I>April 19, 2001. Photo from Grace Factory Farm Project. Below, photos of pigs at factory farms (photos from the Grace Factory Farm Project). Compare this photo to those taken at family farms, below.</I></div> <div> <I>  <IMG SRC="0f49dff0.jpg" border=0 width="413" height="255" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></I></div> <div> <I><IMG SRC="0f59d170.jpg" border=0 width="413" height="279" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></I></div> <div> <I><IMG SRC="0f7ab1e0.jpg" border=0 width="427" height="286" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>The Nature of Things </B>also has links to other pages that deal with the subject of factory farms.</div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_agriculture.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_ag"><U>www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_agriculture.html</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>Should we fear the factory farm? </B>Reader's Digest has an excellent, balanced article on this subject.</div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/06/factory_farm.html " TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/06/"><U>www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/06/factory_farm.html</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>Factory Farm By-Law Decision Stinks, Residents Say</B></div> <div> <B>National environmental group supporting court case</B></div> <div> Environmental Defence Canada website includes this case where a group of Ontario ratepayers took suggested bylaws to their local council to keep factory farming out of the neighbourhood. The council turned down their proposal, thereby opening the door for factory farms to move in.</div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.edcanada.org/media/20020610.htmwww.edcanada.org/media/20020610.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.edcanada.org/media/20020610.h"><U>www.edcanada.org/media/20020610.htm</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>Pure Farms, Pure Waters : Waterkeeper's anti-CAFO campaign</B></div> <div> Across America, the days of the family farmer with a red barn and a herd of animals grazing in the field are all but gone. American food is increasingly produced by large corporations who are transforming food production into a consolidated, industrial system. Today, most of the meat and dairy products on supermarket shelves comes from so-called “factory farms” or CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). These livestock factories create millions of gallons of urine and manure: over 900 MILLION tons per year, or 5 tons per person in the United States. Unlike municipal sewage, which must be treated at sewage plants, livestock waste is almost never treated to remove disease causing pathogens, nutrients, antibiotic residues or other pollutants.</div> <div> Instead, CAFOs flush this waste into deep pits or open-air cesspools. These “lagoons” can be up to twenty acres in size and store millions of gallons of highly concentrated animal waste. Untreated, this waste is often applied to adjacent fields - runoff from these fields contaminates streams, lakes and rivers, and groundwater with pesticides and excess nutrients.</div> <div> Waste lagoons and pits often break, leak or overflow, polluting our waterways and groundwater. Waste spills have resulted in massive fish kills, caused algal blooms, and are linked to outbreaks of <I>Pfistieria piscicidia</I>, a toxic microorganism that kills fish and can cause long-term illness in exposed people. Leaking animal waste lagoons can contaminate drinking water wells with elevated nitrates, causing serious human health problems. </div> <div> <I>This campaign is being championed by Robert F.Kennedy Jr., who appeared on The Nature of Things documentary.</I></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.waterkeeper.org/mainarticledetails.aspx?articleid=87" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.waterkeeper.org/mainarticlede"><U>www.waterkeeper.org/mainarticledetails.aspx?articleid=87</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>Grace Factory Farm Project, U.S</B>. </div> <div> An amazing website/organization, designed to spread the word that factory farming will not feed the world or help farmers or do anything good for the environment. Check out 'The Meatrix' animated spoof on The Matrix.</div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.factoryfarm.org/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.factoryfarm.org/"><U>www.factoryfarm.org/</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>The Society for Environmentally Responsible Livestock Operations (SERLO)</B></div> <div> A non-profit organization that is a registered Society with the Province of Alberta, SERLO and its members are undertaking progressive and very positive steps to ensure that agriculture in Alberta maintains the sustainability, economic viability and environmental stewardship that has earned Alberta farmers and their produce, worldwide respect.</div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.serlo.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.serlo.org"><U>www.serlo.org</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>World Society for the Protection of Animals Canada</B> </div> <div> WSPA Canada is the Canadian branch of an international network representing more than 400 humane societies and other animal protection organizations in more than 90 countries. Through direct field work, campaigning, legislative work, humane education and training programs, WSPA strives to raise the standards of animal welfare worldwide. This site has information about factory farming and what can be done about it.</div> <div>  <A HREF="http://www.wspa.ca/ccfa/consumeralert.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.wspa.ca/ccfa/consumeralert.ht"><U>www.wspa.ca/ccfa/consumeralert.html</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <B>50 plus chat </B>has some interesting comments on The Nature of Things show. It also has some great typos!</div> <div> <A HREF="http://discuss.50plus.com/ubb/Forum60/HTML/000222-2.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://discuss.50plus.com/ubb/Forum60/HT"><U>discuss.50plus.com/ubb/Forum60/HTML/000222-2.html</U></A></div> <bR> <div> ================================================================</div> <div> <B>The danger of pressure treated wood</B><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#111111" FACE="Arial" > <A NAME="wood"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B><IMG SRC="15c65ed0.jpg" border=0 width="357" height="237" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <div> <I><B>This pint-sized picnic table, made for children, is made of pressure treated lumber containing arsenic and is for sale over the internet. Experts say you should never, ever eat  on a pressure-treated wood table. See story, below.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</div> <div> <IMG SRC="15a77e00.jpg" border=0 width="375" height="224" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <I><B>Some of the most beautiful backyards are some of the deadliest when pressure treated wood is involved. See story, below.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS</B><B> <A NAME="news"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <div> <B>Environmental Research Foundation</B><B> <A NAME="foundation"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <div> <B>P.O. Box 160</B></div> <div> <B>New Brunswick, N.J.  08903</B></div> <div> <B>Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: </B><A HREF="mailto: erf@rachel.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto: erf@rachel.org"><U><B>erf@rachel.org</B></U></A></div> <div> <B>Web site: </B><A HREF="http://www.rachel.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.rachel.org"><U><B>www.rachel.org</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #784</div> <div> February 5, 2004</div> <div> (Published Feb. 12, 2004)</div> <bR> <div> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</div> <div> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</div> <div> <B><IMG SRC="15940f00.jpg" border=0 width="320" height="240" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <div> <I><B>This beautiful beach is home to an attractive playground made from pressure treated wood that is leaching arsenic into the sand and the nearby water. Worse, children are playing on it, with constant exposure to their hands and thus, their mouths.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>LATE LESSONS FROM PRESSURE-TREATED WOOD - Pt. 1</B></div> <bR> <div> <I>by Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D.*</I></div> <bR> <div> Within the European Union, the European Environment Agency</div> <div> (EEA) is charged with providing information for environmental</div> <div> decision-making, especially in situations where the science is</div> <div> uncertain. Three years ago, this agency published a remarkable</div> <div> book, Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary</div> <div> Principle 1896-2000.[1]</div> <bR> <div> This report explores how scientific knowledge about possible</div> <div> environmental health threats is gathered and used to make</div> <div> public decisions. Organized around twelve case studies --</div> <div> ranging from radiation to mad cow disease -- the various</div> <div> chapters benefit from hindsight as they examine the ways in</div> <div> which the first warnings about these now-known hazards were</div> <div> sometimes wisely heeded but more often foolishly ignored,</div> <div> cynically scorned, or researched for decades until the evidence</div> <div> for harm became so egregious that something had to be done. In</div> <div> some cases, the actions finally taken to redress the problem</div> <div> were so late in coming that "pipelines of unstoppable</div> <div> consequences" were already set in place.</div> <bR> <div> The earliest warnings on the dangers of asbestos, for example,</div> <div> came from a British factory inspector, Lucy Deane, who, in</div> <div> 1898, correctly documented the "evil" effects of inhaling its</div> <div> tiny, glass-like fibers. One hundred years later, the United</div> <div> Kingdom finally banned white asbestos. The current death rate</div> <div> in England from asbestos-related disease is 3,000 people per</div> <div> year.[2] An early warning unheeded.</div> <bR> <div> Last month in Brussels, I had the privilege of hearing David</div> <div> Gee, the report's principle author, address the European</div> <div> Parliament. Why, he asked, do so many environmental health</div> <div> disasters fall victim to wait-and-see attitudes? What lessons</div> <div> can be brought from the past to the problems of the present? In</div> <div> an upcoming issue of Rachel's Environment & Health News, we</div> <div> will look more closely at the warnings and lessons in Gee's</div> <div> report (which is soon to be re-released with additional case</div> <div> studies [3]) and how it is inspiring the implementation of the</div> <div> precautionary principle in Europe.</div> <bR> <div> Here, we apply Gee's historical approach to an environmental</div> <div> health problem that continues to haunt back yards and</div> <div> playgrounds throughout the United States: pressure-treated</div> <div> wood.</div> <bR> <div> The name itself is a euphemism. What pressure-treated wood is</div> <div> actually treated with is a mixture of pesticides called</div> <div> chromated copper arsenate (CCA). Pressure-treated lumber is</div> <div> made by placing a freshly milled board inside a vacuum chamber</div> <div> and sucking from its fibers all water and air. Then, under high</div> <div> pressure, copper, chromium, and arsenic are forced into the now</div> <div> empty cells.[4] Pressure treatment is to wood what embalming is</div> <div> to humans.</div> <bR> <div> As of January 1, 2004, after seventy years of production, the</div> <div> manufacture of pressure-treated (CCA) wood for residential use</div> <div> has ended in the United States.[5] It turns out that the</div> <div> arsenic in pressure-treated wood rubs off on the hands of those</div> <div> who touch it. When those who touch it are children, their risk</div> <div> of developing lung and bladder cancer are significantly</div> <div> raised.[6] Young children at play put their hands in their</div> <div> mouth an average of 16 times an hour[7]. CCA is 22 percent pure</div> <div> arsenic by weight. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen.[8]</div> <bR> <div> A recall of all the swing sets, picnic tables, decks, and</div> <div> fences already constructed from this lumber is, however, not</div> <div> part of the decision to cancel the registration of CCA. And</div> <div> with 90 percent of all outdoor wooden structures in the United</div> <div> States made of pressure-treated wood, each with an expected</div> <div> life span of twenty years or more, a "pipeline of unstoppable</div> <div> consequences" may, even now, be well under construction.</div> <div> Weathered lumber leaches as much -- or more -- arsenic than</div> <div> newly milled boards.[10] Arsenic, like all metals, is</div> <div> absolutely persistent in the environment. It does not</div> <div> biodegrade. It does not go away.</div> <bR> <div> Pressure-treated wood is a case study not included in the EEA's</div> <div> "Late Lessons" report -- but it could be.</div> <bR> <div> The story begins in 1933 when an Indian engineer, Sonti</div> <div> Kamesam, made a discovery that saved the lives of countless</div> <div> coal miners: injected into wood, arsenic and copper prevent</div> <div> timber beams from rotting. Arsenic, a time-honored poison,</div> <div> kills wood-eating insects. Copper kills fungus. Kamesam's</div> <div> special trick was to add chromium to his formula, thereby</div> <div> binding the two toxic metals to the wood fibers.[11] The result</div> <div> was stronger roofs in the damp underground tunnels through</div> <div> which coal is extracted. One can imagine that the last thing a</div> <div> coal miner wants to see in the beams above his head is dry rot</div> <div> or termites.</div> <bR> <div> Kamesam's invention not only extended the life expectancy of</div> <div> miners in India, it saved money and trees. His work quickly</div> <div> attracted attention in the United States. A patent was granted</div> <div> in 1938.[12] Meanwhile, researchers in Mississippi pounded</div> <div> wooden stakes treated with copper chromium arsenate (CCA) into</div> <div> fields that swarmed with termites. Months later, they were</div> <div> still standing. In 1950, a highly impressed Bell Telephone</div> <div> applied for permission to use CCA wood for telephone poles.[13]</div> <div> At this time, arsenic was known to be an acute poison, but its</div> <div> ability to cause cancer at low doses was not generally</div> <div> understood.</div> <bR> <div> For the next two decades, CCA wood remained a specialty</div> <div> product. Porches, fences, docks, and boardwalks continued to be</div> <div> constructed out of tree species that are naturally</div> <div> rot-resistant, such as cedar, redwood, cypress, or fir. When</div> <div> the structures from these woods finally collapsed -- or some</div> <div> unlucky soul fell through the floorboards -- they were simply</div> <div> rebuilt. Then, in the 1970s, the price of wood soared. Cheap,</div> <div> plantation-grown southern pine became the homeowner's</div> <div> construction material of choice.[14] And it could be made to</div> <div> repel insects and dry rot with a pesticidal formulation</div> <div> originally intended to prevent mines from caving in.</div> <bR> <div> Early concerns about pressure-treated wood surfaced during the</div> <div> 1970s as pressure-treated wood found its way into picnic</div> <div> tables, gazebos, landscaping timbers, and California-style</div> <div> decks on the backs of suburban homes.[15] No one eats,</div> <div> barbecues, or sunbathes on the pesticide-soaked rafters of mine</div> <div> tunnels, but the back yard deck was specifically designed with</div> <div> such activities in mind. Even more ominous was the growing use</div> <div> of pressure-treated wood in children's playgrounds. Wooden,</div> <div> castle-style play structures, complete with towers and swaying</div> <div> suspension bridges, became the rage. In 1978, the U.S.</div> <div> Environmental Protection Agency began a special review.</div> <div> <IMG SRC="15d50760.jpg" border=0 width="80" height="118" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> Ten years and many delays later, the EPA decided to reregister</div> <div> CCA as a pesticide without restrictions on the use of the</div> <div> treated wood -- in spite of the fact that CCA exceeded the</div> <div> agency's risk criteria for carcinogenicity, and all other uses</div> <div> for arsenical pesticides were canceled.[16] At this point,</div> <div> almost no one in the general public was aware that</div> <div> pressure-treated wood contained pesticides. Nor that those</div> <div> sawing or sanding the wood should wear goggles and gloves. Nor</div> <div> that work clothing that comes in contact with the wood should</div> <div> be washed separately. Nor that food should never touch it.</div> <bR> <div> The EPA did recommend that pressure-treated wood sold directly</div> <div> to consumers via lumber yards and home improvement centers bear</div> <div> warning labels. The timber industry balked, proposing instead</div> <div> that retail stores should distribute fact sheets to educate</div> <div> buyers about the wood's potential hazards. The government</div> <div> agreed. Few retailers complied with this decision. The</div> <div> government did little to enforce it.[17]</div> <bR> <div> Warnings continued to trickle in throughout the 1980s. Workers</div> <div> in wood treatment plants were found to have elevated levels of</div> <div> arsenic in their urine. A government employee became completely</div> <div> disabled after building picnic tables in an unventilated shop.</div> <div> Eight members of a rural Wisconsin family fell ill with a</div> <div> mysterious neurological disease that turned out to be arsenic</div> <div> poisoning caused by burning pressure-treated lumber in the wood</div> <div> stove.[18]</div> <bR> <div> In 1990, the Consumer Product Safety Commission released the</div> <div> results of its investigation into children's exposure to CCA</div> <div> from playing on pressure-treated wood playground equipment. The</div> <div> study did conclude that contact with such play structures</div> <div> increases children's exposure to arsenic, but the only health</div> <div> endpoint considered was skin cancer and the risks were</div> <div> considered insufficient for a ban.[19]</div> <div> <IMG SRC="15e08170.jpg" border=0 width="264" height="279" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <I><B>These pressure-treated swing-sets are sold over the internet.</B></I></div> <div> Then, in the 1990s, the scientific case against</div> <div> pressure-treated wood became more damning. The National</div> <div> Research Council reported that arsenic exposure through</div> <div> drinking water was linked to lung and bladder cancers and could</div> <div> exert its carcinogenic powers at much lower levels of exposure</div> <div> than previously believed. Children, whose livers metabolize</div> <div> arsenic more slowly, were shown to be at particular risk.[20]</div> <div> Other discoveries followed: at very low levels, arsenic</div> <div> interferes with a family of hormones called glucocorticoids,</div> <div> possibly raising the risk for diabetes.[21]</div> <bR> <div> Meanwhile, in 1996, far from the lab bench, a Connecticut</div> <div> chemist, David Stilwell, began crawling around back yard decks</div> <div> throughout New England. A year later, he reported that the soil</div> <div> under and around pressure-treated structures contained</div> <div> concentrations of arsenic far in excess of background levels,</div> <div> and in some cases, far in excess of the clean-up standards for</div> <div> Superfund sites. More than sixty years after Kamesam's</div> <div> humanitarian invention, Stilwell discovered that chromium does</div> <div> not serve as such an effective binding agent after all.</div> <div> Eventually, the arsenic and copper leach out. Especially if the</div> <div> wood is rained on.[22]</div> <bR> <div> Still other researchers began to consider if inhalation of</div> <div> arsenic-contaminated dust -- as when children play in the dirt</div> <div> beneath decks and play structures -- might be a route of</div> <div> exposure as significant as ingestion by hand-to-mouth</div> <div> transfer.[23]</div> <bR> <div> In light of these discoveries, two environmental organizations,</div> <div> Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Healthy Building Network</div> <div> (HBN), teamed up to conduct their own investigation. Analyzing</div> <div> data from 180 different wood samples, these researchers</div> <div> concluded that playing on pressure-treated wood is a greater</div> <div> source of arsenic exposure for children than drinking</div> <div> arsenic-contaminated drinking water.[24] (At the time this</div> <div> report was released, spring 2001, the Bush administration had</div> <div> just delayed the implementation of new, tighter drinking water</div> <div> standards for arsenic -- to the outrage of many.) EWG and HBN</div> <div> then petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission for an</div> <div> immediate ban on the use of CCA wood in play equipment and a</div> <div> recall on existing structures.[25] The Commission responded by</div> <div> launching a new risk assessment. As did the EPA.</div> <bR> <div> Also in spring 2001, an investigative journalist in Florida,</div> <div> Julie Hauserman of the St. Petersburg Times, wrote a Sunday</div> <div> story, "The Poison in Your Backyard," that brought the issue to</div> <div> the public at last.[26] The result of months of investigation,</div> <div> Hauserman collected soil beneath playgrounds in a five-county</div> <div> area and sent it to labs for testing. Working closely with</div> <div> scientists at the University of Florida and the University of</div> <div> Miami, she also looked at what happens to the arsenic in</div> <div> pressure-treated wood dumped in landfills -- an issue that took</div> <div> on new urgency in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, when tons</div> <div> of demolition materials were added to the waste stream.</div> <bR> <div> "Arsenic," Hauserman wrote, "is leaking out of huge wooden</div> <div> playgrounds that volunteers built all over Tampa Bay. It's</div> <div> leaking beneath decks and state park boardwalks, at levels that</div> <div> are dozens of times -- even hundreds of times -- higher than</div> <div> the state considers safe. And discarded pressure-treated lumber</div> <div> is leaking arsenic out of unlined landfills... posing a threat</div> <div> to drinking water."</div> <bR> <div> The spring 2001 publication of Hauserman's investigation was a</div> <div> cultural tipping point. Time magazine, the New York Times, and</div> <div> the Los Angeles Times all followed up with investigative</div> <div> stories of their own, as did local television stations</div> <div> throughout the country. Bills were introduced in Congress and</div> <div> in the Florida legislature; class actions suits were filed.[29]</div> <bR> <div> Many parents, school boards, and parks superintendents did not</div> <div> wait for the outcome of these legal initiatives. Day care</div> <div> centers ripped out play structures. Arsenic-contaminated</div> <div> playgrounds closed throughout Florida and around the nation --</div> <div> including some in Rochester, New York, where citizen activists</div> <div> had been unsuccessfully pushing for their closure since</div> <div> 1990.[28] In May 2001, the city council of Cambridge,</div> <div> Massachusetts passed a resolution to "replace all existing City</div> <div> playground and park equipment constructed with CCA-treated wood</div> <div> with arsenic-free alternatives on an expedited, specific time</div> <div> table."[29]</div> <bR> <div> The following fall, EWG and HBN released a new report about</div> <div> arsenic levels in lumber purchased at Lowe's and Home Depot.</div> <div> Shoppers were sent into retail outlets in 13 states to purchase</div> <div> pressure-treated lumber. (Note: not a single buyer was offered</div> <div> the safety warnings required by law.) Arsenic was easily wiped</div> <div> off the surface of all purchased wood -- at levels up to 1,000</div> <div> micrograms per 100 square centimeters, which is about the size</div> <div> of a four-year-old's handprint. This was considerably more</div> <div> arsenic than the EPA's allowable exposure level for arsenic in</div> <div> drinking water.[30]</div> <bR> <div> Good investigative journalism, combined with the advocacy work</div> <div> of EWG and HBN, had a powerful effect. Catapulting the issue of</div> <div> pressure-treated wood further up the chain of command was</div> <div> blue-chip science. In September 2001, the National Academy of</div> <div> Sciences announced, based on new findings from Chile and</div> <div> Taiwan, that the cancer risks from arsenic in drinking water</div> <div> were even greater than estimated in their ground-breaking 1999</div> <div> report.[31] The EPA now had little choice about adopting the</div> <div> stricter drinking water standards that it had been quietly</div> <div> trying to back away from. And the dangers of arsenic were in</div> <div> the news again.</div> <bR> <div> In February 2002, the EPA announced that it had reached an</div> <div> agreement with the timber industry: CCA production would be</div> <div> phased out over a 22-month period.[32] This delay was to allow</div> <div> wood treatment facilities to convert to alternative chemicals,</div> <div> such as ACQ, a copper-based preservative. (Arsenic-free ACQ</div> <div> wood has been available in Europe for many years. Because it</div> <div> contains more copper, it is more expensive than CCA.) As of</div> <div> January 1, 2004, CCA would no longer be registered for use to</div> <div> treat wood intended for residential settings. While stores</div> <div> would still legally be allowed to sell left-over stock after</div> <div> the New Year's Eve deadline, the vice president of</div> <div> merchandizing for Home Depot pledged in the pages of the</div> <div> Washington Post that the process of phasing in alternatives to</div> <div> CCA wood "will be complete by December 31."[33]</div> <bR> <div> It was not. At this writing, the shelves of many home</div> <div> improvement stores are still full of CCA lumber for sale to</div> <div> unsuspecting buyers. The ban is still on the books -- but not</div> <div> in the stores, many of which have enough stock to last for</div> <div> months to come.[34] Moreover, there is still no plan to</div> <div> remediate all the structures already built from CCA wood. What</div> <div> happened?</div> <bR> <div> [To be continued.]</div> <bR> <div> ==========</div> <bR> <div> *Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., is a biologist and author (see</div> <div> Rachel's #565, #658, #776, #777). She is currently a</div> <div> Distinguished Visiting Scholar in the Interdisciplinary Studies</div> <div> Program at Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York.</div> <bR> <div> The following web sites are all excellent sources of</div> <div> information on CCA wood and provide assess to many key</div> <div> documents and reports:</div> <bR> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.ccaresearch.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ccaresearch.org"><U>www.ccaresearch.org</U></A></div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.bancca.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.bancca.org"><U>www.bancca.org</U></A></div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.noccawood.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.noccawood.ca"><U>www.noccawood.ca</U></A></div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.beyondpesticides.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.beyondpesticides.org"><U>www.beyondpesticides.org</U></A></div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.healthybuilding.net" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.healthybuilding.net"><U>www.healthybuilding.net</U></A></div> <bR> <div> [1] European Environment Agency, Late Lessons from Early</div> <div> Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896-2000 (Luxembourg:</div> <div> Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,</div> <div> 2001) Available at</div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=301" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cf"><U>www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=301</U></A></div> <bR> <div> [2] Late Lessons, p. 11.</div> <bR> <div> [3] David Gee, personal communication (david.gee@eec.eu.int).</div> <bR> <div> [4] C. Cox, "Chromated Copper Arsenate," Journal of Pesticide</div> <div> Reform Vol. 11 (1991), pgs. 2-6.</div> <bR> <div> [5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Cancellation of</div> <div> Residential Uses of CCA-Treated Wood: Questions and Answers,"</div> <div> (20 March 2003;</div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/1file.htm)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets"><U>www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/1file.htm)</U></A></div> <bR> <div> [6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Probabilistic Risk</div> <div> Assessment for Children Who Contact CCA-Treated Playsets and</div> <div> Decks (13 Nov. 2003; http:/<A HREF="http:///www.epa/gov/scipoly/sap )" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http:///www.epa/gov/scipoly/sap )"><U>/www.epa/gov/scipoly/sap )</U></A></div> <bR> <div> [7] N. Tulve and others, "Frequency of Mouthing Behavior in</div> <div> Young Children," Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental</div> <div> Epidemiology Vol. 12 (2002), pgs. 259-64.</div> <bR> <div> [8] U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,</div> <div> "ToxFAQs for Arsenic," 2001;</div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2html"><U>www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2html</U></A></div> <bR> <div> [9] D.A. Belluck and others, "Widespread Arsenic Contamination</div> <div> of Soils in Residential Areas and Public Spaces: An Emerging</div> <div> Regulatory or Medical Crisis?" International Journal of</div> <div> Toxicology Vol. 22 (2003), pgs. 109-128.</div> <bR> <div> [10] Evidence is reviewed in Belluck (see note 9 above.)</div> <bR> <div> [11] P.A. Cooper, "Future of Wood Preservation in Canada:</div> <div> Disposal Issues," paper presented at the 20th Annual Canadian</div> <div> Wood Preservation Association Conference, Vancouver, BC</div> <div> (http://<A HREF="http://www.forestry.utoronto.ca/treated_wood/future.pdf)" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.forestry.utoronto.ca/treated_"><U>www.forestry.utoronto.ca/treated_wood/future.pdf)</U></A></div> <bR> <div> [12] I. Lerner, "Potential Litigation Creates Concern for Wood</div> <div> Preservatives," Chemical Market Reporter, 14 Oct. 2002, p. 14</div> <div> (http://<A HREF="http://www.chemicalmarketreporter.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.chemicalmarketreporter.com"><U>www.chemicalmarketreporter.com</U></A>).</div> <bR> <div> [13] D. Hopey, "Wood Treatment Linked to Dangers," Pittsburgh</div> <div> Post-Gazette 25 Jan. 1998. (Available on</div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.bancca.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.bancca.org"><U>www.bancca.org</U></A>.)</div> <bR> <div> [14] C. Rist, "Arsenic and Old Wood," This Old House, Mar.</div> <div> 1998, pp. 118-25.</div> <bR> <div> [15] Belluck (cited above in note 9). (See also historical</div> <div> timeline provided on http://<A HREF="http://www.bancca.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.bancca.org"><U>www.bancca.org</U></A>.)</div> <bR> <div> [16] This history is described in Cox, 1991 (see note 4,</div> <div> above). See also G. Kidd, "CCA-Treated Lumber Poses Danger from</div> <div> Arsenic and Chromium, Pesticides and You Vol. 21 (2001), pgs.</div> <div> 13-15. (Available on http://<A HREF="http://www.beyondpesticides.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.beyondpesticides.org"><U>www.beyondpesticides.org</U></A>.)</div> <bR> <div> [17] J. Hauserman, "Treated Wood Industry Fights Back," St.</div> <div> Petersburg Times, 2 July 2001;</div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.sptimes.com/News/070201/Treated_wood_industry.shtml" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.sptimes.com/News/070201/Treat"><U>www.sptimes.com/News/070201/Treated_wood_industry.shtml</U></A></div> <bR> <div> [18] W. Takahashi and others, "Urinary Arsenic, Chromium, and</div> <div> Copper Levels in Workers Exposed to Arsenic-Based Wood</div> <div> Preservatives," Archives of Environmental Health Vol. 38</div> <div> (1983), pgs. 209-14; Cox, 1991 (cited in note 4, above); H.A.</div> <div> Peters and others, "Seasonal Arsenic Exposure from Burning</div> <div> Chromium-Copper-Arsenate Treated Wood," Journal of the American</div> <div> Medical Association Vol. 251 (1984), pgs. 2393-96.</div> <bR> <div> [19] U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Estimate of Risk</div> <div> of Skin Cancer from Dislodgeable Arsenic on Pressure-Treated</div> <div> Wood Playground Equipment (Washington, D.C., 1990).</div> <bR> <div> [20] National Research Council, Arsenic in Drinking Water</div> <div> (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1999).</div> <bR> <div> [21] R.C. Kaltreider at al, "Arsenic Alters the Function of</div> <div> Glucocorticoid Receptor as a Transcription Factor,"</div> <div> Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 109 (2001), pgs. 245-51.</div> <bR> <div> [22] D. Stilwell and K.D. Gorney, "Contamination of Soil with</div> <div> Copper, Chromium, and Arsenic Under Decks Built from</div> <div> Pressure-treated Wood," Bulletin of Environmental Contamination</div> <div> and Toxicology Vol. 67 (1997), pgs. 303-08.</div> <bR> <div> [23] Belluck (cited above in note 9).</div> <bR> <div> [24] Environmental Working Group and Healthy Building Network,</div> <div> Poisoned Playgrounds: Arsenic in Pressure-Treated Wood</div> <div> (Washington D.C.: May 2001;</div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplaygrounds" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplayg"><U>www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplaygrounds</U></A>)</div> <bR> <div> [25] Environmental Working Group and Healthy Building Network,</div> <div> "Petition to the United States Consumer Product Safety</div> <div> Commission to Ban Arsenic-Treated Wood in Playground Equipment</div> <div> and Review the Safety of Arsenic-Treated Wood for General Use,"</div> <div> May 22, 2001</div> <div> (http:/<A HREF="http:///www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplaygrounds/petition.pdf" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http:///www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplay"><U>/www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplaygrounds/petition.pdf</U></A>).</div> <bR> <div> [26] J. Hauserman, "The Poison in Your Backyard," St.</div> <div> Petersburg Times, 11 March 2001.</div> <div> (http://<A HREF="http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/arsenic" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/"><U>www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/arsenic</U></A>)</div> <bR> <div> [27] M. Dunne, interview with Julie Hauserman in SEJournal,</div> <div> Society of Environmental Journalists, Winter, 2001, p. 1.</div> <bR> <div> [28] Contact Rochesterians Against the Misuse of Pesticides for</div> <div> this fascinating history: Judy Braiman, 716-383-1317.</div> <bR> <div> [29] Cambridge (Mass.) City Council meeting, 7 May 2001.</div> <bR> <div> [30] Environmental Working Group and Healthy Building Network,</div> <div> The Poisonwood Rivals (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2001;</div> <div> http://<A HREF="http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonwoodrivals/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonwoodriv"><U>www.ewg.org/reports/poisonwoodrivals/</U></A>)</div> <bR> <div> [31] National Research Council, Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001</div> <div> Update (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2001).</div> <bR> <div> [32] U.S. EPA, 2003 (cited above in note 5).</div> <bR> <div> [33] J.M. Lerner, "New Rules on Treated Wood to Change the</div> <div> Backyard World," Washington Post, Sept. 6, 2003, p. G2.</div> <bR> <div> [34] G.C. Bruno, "Confusing Phaseout," Gainesville Sun, Jan.</div> <div> 24, 2004.</div> <bR> <div> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</div> <div> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</div> <div> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS</div> <div> Environmental Research Foundation</div> <div> P.O. Box 160</div> <div> New Brunswick, N.J.  08903</div> <div> Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org</div> <bR> <div> SUBSCRIPTIONS</div> <bR> <div> Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, send E-mail</div> <div> to listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words</div> <div> SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME</div> <div> in the message.</div> <bR> <div> SPANISH EDITION</div> <bR> <div> The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; to learn</div> <div> how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word AYUDA in an E-mail</div> <div> message to info@rachel.org.</div> <bR> <div> BACK ISSUES IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH</div> <bR> <div> All back issues are on the web at: http://<A HREF="http://www.rachel.org" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.rachel.org"><U>www.rachel.org</U></A> in</div> <div> text and PDF formats.</div> <div> ==============================================================</div> <div> <I>By George!</I><I> <A NAME="george"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></I></div> <div> <IMG SRC="15663f30.jpg" border=0 width="355" height="499" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <B>The junk science of George W. Bush</B></div> <div> Excerpt from: http://<A HREF="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=kennedy" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=200"><U>www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=kennedy</U></A></div> <bR> <div> Today (March 3, 2004), flat-earthers within the Bush Administration--aided by right-wing </div> <div> allies who have produced assorted hired guns and conservative think </div> <div> tanks to further their goals--are engaged in a campaign to suppress </div> <div> science that is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the </div> <div> Inquisition. Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply </div> <div> order up their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, </div> <div> censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens </div> <div> the profits of the Administration's corporate paymasters or challenges </div> <div> the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental </div> <div> agenda. Indeed, so extreme is this campaign that more than sixty </div> <div> scientists, including Nobel laureates and medical experts, released a </div> <div> statement on February 18 that accuses the Bush Administration of </div> <div> deliberately distorting scientific fact "for partisan political ends."</div> <div> <B><IMG SRC="15848900.gif" border=0 width="72" height="144" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>