An article "Allergieë weg' ná bome afgekap is" appeared in Die Burger on 21/12/2010
http://www.dieburger.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Allergiee-weg-na-bome-afgekap-is-20101221
Just why is it that our local Municipalities are in such a mess? Why is it that they do as they please, that they break the law and that they feel they do not need to consult with the ratepayers, those soft targets that actually pay their salaries? Who put them in their positions of "power" in the first place? We have all read of the high incidence of corruption to be found at Municipal level and the breakdown of their service levels.
With regards to the article above, we at The TATIB Foundation are of the opinion that the real cause of the high "allergy" levels in Paarl & Stellenbosch is in fact due to the use of the Fungicides and Pesticides used to spray the surrounding vineyards. In this regard, our cluster of medical practitioners have noted that the number of "allergy" related complaints peaks during the spraying season.
If one looks at the warnings contained on the Product Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets, of most of the chemicals sprayed on the vineyards, there are clear warnings that exposure to the spray drift of these products will cause eye, nose and upper respiratory tract irritation. Before my family & I moved to "The Boland" we never suffered from any form of "hayfever" . It was only after we were exposed to spray drift from nearby vineyards that our allergies started to take hold. When we sold our house and moved back to Cape Town, our allergies vanished. The doctors that we consulted all told us that it was our exposure to the agricultural chemicals that caused our "allergies" .
Both Drakenstein & Stellenbosch Municipalities, have been spraying the Oak trees of Paarl & Stellenbosch with a cocktail of fungicides [for dons skimmel / powdery mildew]. The products that they have admitted to using have been Tilt, Bumper & Rubigan. The Product Labels of these fungicides clearly state that exposure to the spray drift and volatile compounds will cause allergies.
Drakenstein, in its written warnings, has told all residents to stay indoors during the spraying of the oak trees and to close all doors and windows. The spraying has also been done under cover of darkness, more than likely so as to minimize human exposure and to reduce the number of complaints [if you don’t witness the spraying then you cant complain!] Drakenstein Municipality is also of the opinion that its spraying of the oak trees is lawful, which in fact it is not. Its actually a violation of Act 36 of 1947 to allow spray drift of any registered agricultural chemical to be blown into an area not under treatement. So when Drakenstein Municipality, under cover of darkness [for obvious reasons] sprays the oak trees in public streets, and the resulting spray drift gets blown into the gardens and open windows of the sleeping residents, Act 36 of 1947 has been violated and Drakenstein Municipality should be found guilty of a criminal offence.
The TATIB Foundation has received numerous complaints from Paarl & Stellenbosch residents regarding the spraying of the oak trees and the side effects suffered by the residents. Stellenbosch Muncip has now stated that it no longer sprays the Oak trees with fungicides, and only uses a foliar feed, as it was found that the fungicides caused allergic reactions.
To blame 5 old "seringa bome" for the high incidence of hayfever & allergies in the area is really unjustified. If you look at an aerial photo of Paarl you will see that it is surrounded by vineyards and when these vineyards are sprayed, the spray drift generated can only get blown into the residential areas. Perhaps the park next to Mrs Geldenhuys was also sprayed with a herbicide and that this could have been the cause of her allergies ? What about the high pollen count caused by the "Port Jacksons " in the area? What proof does Geldenhuys have that the allergies were caused by the seringa trees in the park ?
Perhaps the Oak trees should also be removed as they are not indigenous? And then what about the vineyards, they too are not indigenous and in fact are not suited to the high humidity of the area – hence so many fungal problems?
We suggest that you all go and take a look at the following link :
http://www.thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?storytype=1&storyid=612&id=6&storyaction=viewstory
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
LETTER FROM DR JOHAN MINNAAR
Dr Johan Minnaar's letter that appeared in Rapport newspaper following the Chameleons Montessori articles:
Eerstens wil ek vir Marlene Malan van Rapport geluk wens met die reeks artikels wat sy gepubliseeer het oor die gebruik van gifstowwe teenaan ‘n skool in Durbanville. Baie min mense het die moed om oor die onderwerp te praat of te skryf. Wanneer jy waag om dit te doen, word ernstige pogings aangewend om jou so vinnig moontlik stil te maak of dit word afgemaak as snert of les bes, “daar is geen wetenskaplike bewyse” daarvoor nie!
Is dit nie betreurenswaardig dat mense so blind en doof kan wees vir die waarheid nie! Die spreekwoord lui nie verniet, “daar is niemand so blind soos hy wat nie wil sien nie, en niemand so doof soos hy wat nie wil hoor nie!”
Ek is bekommerd as ek die artikels lees, veral in landbou areas, waar dieslefde probleme oor en oor kop uitsteek, ek dink maar aan ‘n paar plekke, Groblersdal, Riebeek Kasteel, Vaalharts, Marble Hall, Stellenbosch, Paarl en Jacobsdal. Is dit dan nie ‘n klinklare bewys dat gifstowwe ‘n gesondheidsgevaar inhou vir mense wat daar naby woon of met dit werk nie?
Ek, as mediese praktisyn, is baie bekommerd oor almal wat op plase werk, woon en skoolgaan, boere en plaaswerkers met hul gesinne, en ander in nabygeleë landbouareas wat daagliks onwetend en onbewustelik aan verskeie landbouchemikalieë blootgestel word.
Ek het reeds 4 jaar gelede met verskeie staatsdepartemente (Gesondheid, Landbou, Onderwys, Waterwese, Arbeid, asook die Industrie, AVCASA, ACDASA, Croplife in gesprek getree met betrekking tot die probleme van landbouchemikalieë in die Groblersdal area en die effek wat dit op die omgewing, water en menslike gesondheid het. Ek het voorgestel dat daar in die toekoms gekyk moet word na woongebiede en skole naby of tussen landbou areas. Bufferzones, lugbespuiting naby woongebiede ens, nodeloos om te sê, ek wag nou nog op terugvoer.
Miskien het dit tyd geword dat daar opgetree moet word teen die verskeie departemente. Ek het op verskeie vergaderings met dept landbou en die industrie versoek dat daar op die etikette van gifstowwe moet verskyn dat dit neurotoksies, karsinogenies, hormoonversteurders, inferteliteit ens kan veroorsaak. Onnodig om te meld dat hulle glad nie geneë met my voorstel was nie, aangesien dit sekerlik tot ‘n daling in verkope sal lei. Persoonlik voel ek dat dit krimineel is om sulke noodsaaklike inligting van die verbruiker en die publiek te weerhou. Dit is juis dié mense wat daagliks daarmee werk en in kontak kom op plase, by skole, huise, troeteldiere ens, wat nie werklik ingelig word oor die gevaar van plaagdoders nie. Verder bestaan daar ‘n groot gebrek aan kennis wat betref die gevare van kroniese lae dosis blootstelling en die effek op die omgewing en menslike gesondheid. Ongelukkig word die uitwerking van gifstowwe jare later eers gesien, met tragiese gevolge.
Gif word nooit aan sekere siektetoestande gekoppel nie, want die beeld word uitgedra dat dit “redelik veilig” is, want sommige gifstowwe kan sommer vanaf die winkelrak gekoop word, selfs kinders het toegang tot “soms baie gevaarlike gifstowwe”. Verder word dit ook as “veilig” bemark solank daar volgens die etiketvoorskrif gewerk word. Hierdie aspek het ek ook 3 jaar gelede met dept landbou bespreek, maar dít het ook op dowe ore geval!
Ek het persoonlike ondervinding en ervaring van die effek van gifstowwe op my gesondheid en die van my pasiënte opgedoen in die omgewing waar ek woonagtig is, Groblersdal. Ons het ook met kroniese siek kleuters gesit. Kinders is meer sensitief en reageer vinniger as volwassenes op gifstowwe. Hulle asem dieselfde konsentrasie in, maar hul liggaamsoppervlakte is soveel kleiner.
Voor 2006 het ek baie pasiënte verkeerd gediagnoseer wat herhaaldelik met dieselfde simptome en klagtes van hoofpyne, duiseligheid, naarheid, erge moegheid by my gekonsulteer het.
Alles het vir my duidelik geword nadat ek fakse van die lugbespuitingsoperateur ontvang het en ek eers begin ondersoek doen en uitgevind het van waar en waarmee gespuit word. Wanneer ek dan die gifetiket se newe effekte soos hoofpyn, duiseligheid, moegheid, diaree, sinus, rooi oë, gesigspiere wat spring (fassikulasies), bewe (tremor) lees, kon ek makliker diagnoses van vergiftiging maak deur te vra waar die pasiënt woon of werk, en of daar met gif gespuit is al dan nie.
Chemiese patoloë het my aangeraai om ‘n bloedtoets “RBS – Rooibloedsel-cholienesterase” te monitor. ‘n Ensiem in ons liggame wat geaffekteer word deur organofosfaat en karbamaat gifstowwe. ‘n Daling van 30% dui op akute organofosfaat /karbamaat vergiftiging. Ons ensiem het met tye gedaal tussen 20% en 35%. Skokkend hiervan is die feit dat ons nie met gif werk nie, dit is die daling wat veroorsaak is deur die gif wat ons onwetend vanuit die omgewing inasem. Die resultate uitgebeeld op ‘n grafiek dui dan op ‘n lae dosis chroniese blootstelling met episodes van akute vergiftiging wanneer daar gespuit is en daar ‘n skerp gifreuk in die dorp teenwoordig was. Dit was vir my skokkend toe ek in 2009 die verslag vanaf Dept Waterwese en Bosbou ontvang waarin ‘n grafiek van al die lugbespuitings wat gedoen is oor die tydperk asook ‘n grafiek van die gifstowwe wat die meeste gebruik is vir lugbespuiting vir die ooreenstemmende tydperk, nl karbamate, organofostate en verskeie ander gifstowswe. Die grafiek van die aantal lugbespuitings het die presiese teenoorgestelde verloop gehad as die van die ensiemwaardes, met ander woorde: hoe meer lugbespuitings in ‘n maand toegedien was, hoe laer die ensiem. Hoe minder lugbespuitings, hoe hoër die ensiem. Hierdie was vir my ‘n klinkklare bewys van die blootstelling aan organofosfaat/karbamaat gifstowwe vanuit die omgewing.
Dit was nie soseer die simptome op die etiket wat my bekommer het nie, maar die langtermyn gevolge wat nie op die etiket verskyn nie, nl kroniese respiratoriese probleme, neurologiese versteurings (ADHD, Autisme, Parkinson’s, Altzheimers), kanker sien www.chemtrust.org.uk, “A review of the role pesticides play in some cancers: children, farmers and pesticide users at risk?”, ontwikkelingsversteurings, effek op fertiliteit, geboortedefekte, miskrame, stilgeboortes, velsiektes, immuunonderdrukking, genetiese afwykings, hormoonversteurings (estrogeen, progestoroon, testosteroon, tiroïed ens). Sien “Our Stolen Future” http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/basics/chemlist.htm
Ek was bekommerd oor die water in die omgewing en het die dept Waterwese genader om ‘n studie te doen. Hierdie verslag “Report on an assessment of agricultural pesticides in the upper Olifants river catchment” is in my besit en beskikbaar vanaf die departement Waterwese en Bosbou, Eerste uitgawe Oktober 2008. Skokkend was dat gifstowwe wat reeds verban is, nog in die water opgetel is nl. DDT, Monocrotophos en arseenvlakke vêr bo die WGO standaarde. Ek is tans in afwagting op die lugmoniteringsverslag, hoop om die verslag onder oë te kry!
Vir verdere inligting kan u gerus gaan kyk na die “Agricultural Health Study” http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/ wat reeds vir die afgelope 17 jaar gedoen word, waarby 89 000 mense betrek is bestaande uit plaaswerkers, -gesinne, plaagbeheer operateurs betrek is.
Ek verwys ook na die “Chemical Exposure Linked to Gulf War Veterans’ illness, “Gulf War Syndrome” http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/ (Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2008) wat die langtermyneffek van gifstowwe (veral organofosfate) uitlig en beklemtoon.
Verder verwys ek na die verbanning van die gifstof “Chlorpyrifos” in Suid-Afrka waarby ek in Junie 2010 betrokke was. Hierdie gifstof is reeds in 2000 in ander lande (ontwikkelde) verban as gevolg van die toksisiteit op menslike gesondheid, die ontwikkelende kind en fetus. In Suid-Afrika eers 10 jaar later. Ek het gevra vir ‘n totale verbanning, maar dit is steeds toelaatbaar vir landbou gebruik. Dis vir my onduidelik waarom hierdie besluit geneem is, aangesien dit ewe toksies is vir boere, plaaswerkers en hul gesinne. Kyk gerus na die nuutste inligting oor chlorpyrifos “Critical window of development” http://www.criticalwindows.com/go_display.php en besluit self! Skokkend dat ons onsself, ons kinders en ongebore baba’s hieraan blootgestel het!
Ek sê altyd gif is vandag veilig, oor ‘n paar jaar word die gebruik daarvan beperk en nog ‘n paar jaar later word dit verban as gevolg van die newe effekte op menslike gesondheid en die omgewing. Hierdie stelling is al oor en oor bewys. ‘n Sprekende voorbeeld hiervan is die alombekende Chlorpyrifos, Monocrotophos, DDT ens.
Die vraag is, “Is geregistreerde gifstowwe veilig?” NEE. Redes hiervoor is die volgende:
1. Baie van die “veiligheidstoetse” wat gedoen word op die produkte is onvoldoende.
Daar word getoets vir die akute (nie kroniese) effekte van ‘n enkele (nie ‘n mengsel) chemikalieê op gesonde (nie siek, chemies sensitiewe,immuun-onderdrukte ens) volwasse (nie fetusse en jong) diere (nie mense) oor ‘n kort (nie lang) periode van tyd.
2. Melding van “Inerts” word nêrens op die verpakking aangebring nie. Sommige van hierdie “inerts” is meer toksies as die aktiewe bestanddeel wat wel genoem word.
Sommige gifstowwe word selfs meer toksies soos wat dit afbreek in die omgewing. Die verbruiker bly oningelig oor die ander chemikalieê in die mengsel, alleenlik die aktiewe bestanddeel word aangedui op die etiket. So bv is daar gifstowwe waarvan reeds bewys is dat die kleefmiddels (inerts) meer toksies is as die aktiewe bestanddeel.
Wanneer ‘n mens eers begin, weet jy nie waar om op te hou nie want daar is net eenvoudig so baie inligting. Ek kan aangaan en aangaan. Verder wil ek dit ook net beklemtoon dat ek in ‘n landbou omgewing woon, geen ander industrie of myne in die onmiddellike en direkte omgewing nie, behalwe landbou. Vir Dr Marais wil ek sê dat hy dalk moet kyk wat is in sy omgewing in Mosselbaai wat die mense siek maak.
Wat vir my onrusbarend is, is die feit dat die departemente en industrie bewus is dat gifstowwe gevaarlik is. Daar is reguit vir my in 2006 gesê, toe ek ‘n vergadering van SHE (Safety, Health and Environment Committee) wou bywoon, dat ek nie welkom is nie, aangesien hulle ‘n bedryf het om te beskerm. Die industrie word beskerm, maar wat van menslike gesondheid. Geen geld kan gesondheid koop nie!
Vir my as geneesheer gaan dit oor die oorsaak van mense se siektes en nie net om die simptome te behandel nie. As ons die oorsake kan elimineer gaan ons baie gesonder mense en omgewing hê.
Ek sluit af met die aanhaling: “Chemicals have replaced bacteria and viruses as the main threat to health. The diseases we’re beginning to see as the major cause of death in the latter part of this century and into the 21st century are diseases of chemical origin”. Dick Irwin, Toxicologist at Texas A & M Universities.
Ek daag enige toksikoloog of persoon uit om my verkeerd te probeer bewys. Die groot probleem is nie die boer of enige persoon wat met die gif werk nie, maar die gebrek aan kennis en inligting by die persoon wat met die toksiese chemikalieë werk.
Ek hoop ek het baie van jul vrae en onsekerheid beantwoord.
Dr Johan Minnaar
Algemene Praktisyn
GROBLERSDAL
Eerstens wil ek vir Marlene Malan van Rapport geluk wens met die reeks artikels wat sy gepubliseeer het oor die gebruik van gifstowwe teenaan ‘n skool in Durbanville. Baie min mense het die moed om oor die onderwerp te praat of te skryf. Wanneer jy waag om dit te doen, word ernstige pogings aangewend om jou so vinnig moontlik stil te maak of dit word afgemaak as snert of les bes, “daar is geen wetenskaplike bewyse” daarvoor nie!
Is dit nie betreurenswaardig dat mense so blind en doof kan wees vir die waarheid nie! Die spreekwoord lui nie verniet, “daar is niemand so blind soos hy wat nie wil sien nie, en niemand so doof soos hy wat nie wil hoor nie!”
Ek is bekommerd as ek die artikels lees, veral in landbou areas, waar dieslefde probleme oor en oor kop uitsteek, ek dink maar aan ‘n paar plekke, Groblersdal, Riebeek Kasteel, Vaalharts, Marble Hall, Stellenbosch, Paarl en Jacobsdal. Is dit dan nie ‘n klinklare bewys dat gifstowwe ‘n gesondheidsgevaar inhou vir mense wat daar naby woon of met dit werk nie?
Ek, as mediese praktisyn, is baie bekommerd oor almal wat op plase werk, woon en skoolgaan, boere en plaaswerkers met hul gesinne, en ander in nabygeleë landbouareas wat daagliks onwetend en onbewustelik aan verskeie landbouchemikalieë blootgestel word.
Ek het reeds 4 jaar gelede met verskeie staatsdepartemente (Gesondheid, Landbou, Onderwys, Waterwese, Arbeid, asook die Industrie, AVCASA, ACDASA, Croplife in gesprek getree met betrekking tot die probleme van landbouchemikalieë in die Groblersdal area en die effek wat dit op die omgewing, water en menslike gesondheid het. Ek het voorgestel dat daar in die toekoms gekyk moet word na woongebiede en skole naby of tussen landbou areas. Bufferzones, lugbespuiting naby woongebiede ens, nodeloos om te sê, ek wag nou nog op terugvoer.
Miskien het dit tyd geword dat daar opgetree moet word teen die verskeie departemente. Ek het op verskeie vergaderings met dept landbou en die industrie versoek dat daar op die etikette van gifstowwe moet verskyn dat dit neurotoksies, karsinogenies, hormoonversteurders, inferteliteit ens kan veroorsaak. Onnodig om te meld dat hulle glad nie geneë met my voorstel was nie, aangesien dit sekerlik tot ‘n daling in verkope sal lei. Persoonlik voel ek dat dit krimineel is om sulke noodsaaklike inligting van die verbruiker en die publiek te weerhou. Dit is juis dié mense wat daagliks daarmee werk en in kontak kom op plase, by skole, huise, troeteldiere ens, wat nie werklik ingelig word oor die gevaar van plaagdoders nie. Verder bestaan daar ‘n groot gebrek aan kennis wat betref die gevare van kroniese lae dosis blootstelling en die effek op die omgewing en menslike gesondheid. Ongelukkig word die uitwerking van gifstowwe jare later eers gesien, met tragiese gevolge.
Gif word nooit aan sekere siektetoestande gekoppel nie, want die beeld word uitgedra dat dit “redelik veilig” is, want sommige gifstowwe kan sommer vanaf die winkelrak gekoop word, selfs kinders het toegang tot “soms baie gevaarlike gifstowwe”. Verder word dit ook as “veilig” bemark solank daar volgens die etiketvoorskrif gewerk word. Hierdie aspek het ek ook 3 jaar gelede met dept landbou bespreek, maar dít het ook op dowe ore geval!
Ek het persoonlike ondervinding en ervaring van die effek van gifstowwe op my gesondheid en die van my pasiënte opgedoen in die omgewing waar ek woonagtig is, Groblersdal. Ons het ook met kroniese siek kleuters gesit. Kinders is meer sensitief en reageer vinniger as volwassenes op gifstowwe. Hulle asem dieselfde konsentrasie in, maar hul liggaamsoppervlakte is soveel kleiner.
Voor 2006 het ek baie pasiënte verkeerd gediagnoseer wat herhaaldelik met dieselfde simptome en klagtes van hoofpyne, duiseligheid, naarheid, erge moegheid by my gekonsulteer het.
Alles het vir my duidelik geword nadat ek fakse van die lugbespuitingsoperateur ontvang het en ek eers begin ondersoek doen en uitgevind het van waar en waarmee gespuit word. Wanneer ek dan die gifetiket se newe effekte soos hoofpyn, duiseligheid, moegheid, diaree, sinus, rooi oë, gesigspiere wat spring (fassikulasies), bewe (tremor) lees, kon ek makliker diagnoses van vergiftiging maak deur te vra waar die pasiënt woon of werk, en of daar met gif gespuit is al dan nie.
Chemiese patoloë het my aangeraai om ‘n bloedtoets “RBS – Rooibloedsel-cholienesterase” te monitor. ‘n Ensiem in ons liggame wat geaffekteer word deur organofosfaat en karbamaat gifstowwe. ‘n Daling van 30% dui op akute organofosfaat /karbamaat vergiftiging. Ons ensiem het met tye gedaal tussen 20% en 35%. Skokkend hiervan is die feit dat ons nie met gif werk nie, dit is die daling wat veroorsaak is deur die gif wat ons onwetend vanuit die omgewing inasem. Die resultate uitgebeeld op ‘n grafiek dui dan op ‘n lae dosis chroniese blootstelling met episodes van akute vergiftiging wanneer daar gespuit is en daar ‘n skerp gifreuk in die dorp teenwoordig was. Dit was vir my skokkend toe ek in 2009 die verslag vanaf Dept Waterwese en Bosbou ontvang waarin ‘n grafiek van al die lugbespuitings wat gedoen is oor die tydperk asook ‘n grafiek van die gifstowwe wat die meeste gebruik is vir lugbespuiting vir die ooreenstemmende tydperk, nl karbamate, organofostate en verskeie ander gifstowswe. Die grafiek van die aantal lugbespuitings het die presiese teenoorgestelde verloop gehad as die van die ensiemwaardes, met ander woorde: hoe meer lugbespuitings in ‘n maand toegedien was, hoe laer die ensiem. Hoe minder lugbespuitings, hoe hoër die ensiem. Hierdie was vir my ‘n klinkklare bewys van die blootstelling aan organofosfaat/karbamaat gifstowwe vanuit die omgewing.
Dit was nie soseer die simptome op die etiket wat my bekommer het nie, maar die langtermyn gevolge wat nie op die etiket verskyn nie, nl kroniese respiratoriese probleme, neurologiese versteurings (ADHD, Autisme, Parkinson’s, Altzheimers), kanker sien www.chemtrust.org.uk, “A review of the role pesticides play in some cancers: children, farmers and pesticide users at risk?”, ontwikkelingsversteurings, effek op fertiliteit, geboortedefekte, miskrame, stilgeboortes, velsiektes, immuunonderdrukking, genetiese afwykings, hormoonversteurings (estrogeen, progestoroon, testosteroon, tiroïed ens). Sien “Our Stolen Future” http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/basics/chemlist.htm
Ek was bekommerd oor die water in die omgewing en het die dept Waterwese genader om ‘n studie te doen. Hierdie verslag “Report on an assessment of agricultural pesticides in the upper Olifants river catchment” is in my besit en beskikbaar vanaf die departement Waterwese en Bosbou, Eerste uitgawe Oktober 2008. Skokkend was dat gifstowwe wat reeds verban is, nog in die water opgetel is nl. DDT, Monocrotophos en arseenvlakke vêr bo die WGO standaarde. Ek is tans in afwagting op die lugmoniteringsverslag, hoop om die verslag onder oë te kry!
Vir verdere inligting kan u gerus gaan kyk na die “Agricultural Health Study” http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/ wat reeds vir die afgelope 17 jaar gedoen word, waarby 89 000 mense betrek is bestaande uit plaaswerkers, -gesinne, plaagbeheer operateurs betrek is.
Ek verwys ook na die “Chemical Exposure Linked to Gulf War Veterans’ illness, “Gulf War Syndrome” http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/ (Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2008) wat die langtermyneffek van gifstowwe (veral organofosfate) uitlig en beklemtoon.
Verder verwys ek na die verbanning van die gifstof “Chlorpyrifos” in Suid-Afrka waarby ek in Junie 2010 betrokke was. Hierdie gifstof is reeds in 2000 in ander lande (ontwikkelde) verban as gevolg van die toksisiteit op menslike gesondheid, die ontwikkelende kind en fetus. In Suid-Afrika eers 10 jaar later. Ek het gevra vir ‘n totale verbanning, maar dit is steeds toelaatbaar vir landbou gebruik. Dis vir my onduidelik waarom hierdie besluit geneem is, aangesien dit ewe toksies is vir boere, plaaswerkers en hul gesinne. Kyk gerus na die nuutste inligting oor chlorpyrifos “Critical window of development” http://www.criticalwindows.com/go_display.php en besluit self! Skokkend dat ons onsself, ons kinders en ongebore baba’s hieraan blootgestel het!
Ek sê altyd gif is vandag veilig, oor ‘n paar jaar word die gebruik daarvan beperk en nog ‘n paar jaar later word dit verban as gevolg van die newe effekte op menslike gesondheid en die omgewing. Hierdie stelling is al oor en oor bewys. ‘n Sprekende voorbeeld hiervan is die alombekende Chlorpyrifos, Monocrotophos, DDT ens.
Die vraag is, “Is geregistreerde gifstowwe veilig?” NEE. Redes hiervoor is die volgende:
1. Baie van die “veiligheidstoetse” wat gedoen word op die produkte is onvoldoende.
Daar word getoets vir die akute (nie kroniese) effekte van ‘n enkele (nie ‘n mengsel) chemikalieê op gesonde (nie siek, chemies sensitiewe,immuun-onderdrukte ens) volwasse (nie fetusse en jong) diere (nie mense) oor ‘n kort (nie lang) periode van tyd.
2. Melding van “Inerts” word nêrens op die verpakking aangebring nie. Sommige van hierdie “inerts” is meer toksies as die aktiewe bestanddeel wat wel genoem word.
Sommige gifstowwe word selfs meer toksies soos wat dit afbreek in die omgewing. Die verbruiker bly oningelig oor die ander chemikalieê in die mengsel, alleenlik die aktiewe bestanddeel word aangedui op die etiket. So bv is daar gifstowwe waarvan reeds bewys is dat die kleefmiddels (inerts) meer toksies is as die aktiewe bestanddeel.
Wanneer ‘n mens eers begin, weet jy nie waar om op te hou nie want daar is net eenvoudig so baie inligting. Ek kan aangaan en aangaan. Verder wil ek dit ook net beklemtoon dat ek in ‘n landbou omgewing woon, geen ander industrie of myne in die onmiddellike en direkte omgewing nie, behalwe landbou. Vir Dr Marais wil ek sê dat hy dalk moet kyk wat is in sy omgewing in Mosselbaai wat die mense siek maak.
Wat vir my onrusbarend is, is die feit dat die departemente en industrie bewus is dat gifstowwe gevaarlik is. Daar is reguit vir my in 2006 gesê, toe ek ‘n vergadering van SHE (Safety, Health and Environment Committee) wou bywoon, dat ek nie welkom is nie, aangesien hulle ‘n bedryf het om te beskerm. Die industrie word beskerm, maar wat van menslike gesondheid. Geen geld kan gesondheid koop nie!
Vir my as geneesheer gaan dit oor die oorsaak van mense se siektes en nie net om die simptome te behandel nie. As ons die oorsake kan elimineer gaan ons baie gesonder mense en omgewing hê.
Ek sluit af met die aanhaling: “Chemicals have replaced bacteria and viruses as the main threat to health. The diseases we’re beginning to see as the major cause of death in the latter part of this century and into the 21st century are diseases of chemical origin”. Dick Irwin, Toxicologist at Texas A & M Universities.
Ek daag enige toksikoloog of persoon uit om my verkeerd te probeer bewys. Die groot probleem is nie die boer of enige persoon wat met die gif werk nie, maar die gebrek aan kennis en inligting by die persoon wat met die toksiese chemikalieë werk.
Ek hoop ek het baie van jul vrae en onsekerheid beantwoord.
Dr Johan Minnaar
Algemene Praktisyn
GROBLERSDAL
Thursday, October 21, 2010
HIGHLY TOXIC CHLORPYRIFOS
Chlorpyrifos is widely used in Agriculture in South Africa and in the average Western Cape Vineyard & Orchard
It was, until recently, also registered for domestic use (home gardens,in and around the house, schools,public places) but has since been banned (only for domestic / residential use)
TATIB would like to see this highly toxic organophosphate pesticide totally banned in South Africa.
The article and links below will shed more light on why we feel it should be banned
Chlorpyrifos data now available on TEDX’s Critical Windows of Development.
CRITICAL WINDOWS OF DEVELOPMENT is an interactive website tool that pairs human development in the womb with laboratory research showing where and when low-dose exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals results in altered health outcomes.
now joins bisphenol A, phthalates, and dioxin in the timeline, which reveals effects of chlorpyrifos on the central nervous system, thyroid, heart, liver and more, in laboratory animals experiencing prenatal and early postnatal exposure.
To see the timeline, go to: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/home.php
CRITICAL WINDOWS OF DEVELOPMENT is an interactive website tool that pairs human development in the womb with laboratory research showing where and when low-dose exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals results in altered health outcomes.
now joins bisphenol A, phthalates, and dioxin in the timeline, which reveals effects of chlorpyrifos on the central nervous system, thyroid, heart, liver and more, in laboratory animals experiencing prenatal and early postnatal exposure.
To see the timeline, go to: http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/home.php
In addition, 13,000 individuals and organizations from across the U.S. sent a letter to the U.S. EPA today calling for a ban on chlorpyrifos and a phase out of other organophosphate pesticides.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Green Times "SPRING IS POISON TIME IN THE BOLAND"
Please click on the link below to read the latest the well written article in The Green Times :
http://thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?storytype=1&storyid=612&id=6&storyaction=viewstory
http://thegreentimes.co.za/index.php?storytype=1&storyid=612&id=6&storyaction=viewstory
Sunday, October 10, 2010
THE END OF THE ROAD FOR CHAMELEONS MONTESSORI AS 'THE NOOSE TIGHTENS'
This week saw the removal of more children and the resignation of another two teachers following unlawful spraying of pesticides on Nitida Wine Farm.
Perhaps the schools owners will now see the light and agree to move the school to a safer location ?
http://www.rapport.co.za/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid=5926f2c5-ef12-4567-afc1-def6bba43a25&cid=2400
Perhaps the schools owners will now see the light and agree to move the school to a safer location ?
http://www.rapport.co.za/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid=5926f2c5-ef12-4567-afc1-def6bba43a25&cid=2400
Saturday, October 9, 2010
PAARL POST : TO SPRAY OR NOT
After receiving numerous complaints, of ill health, following the unlawful spraying of Oak Trees in Paarl, the
following article appeared in The Paarl Post
In reaction to this recent article, one of the residents has sent in a letter to the Editor of Paarl Post as follows :-
7 October 2010Dear Madam
I refer to your article “To spray or not?” in the Paarl Post of 7 October 2010.
Your article is mischievous for failing to mention legal requirements for all spraying activity in the vicinity of residential dwellings.
A minimum of 48 hours prior to spraying, residents are to be given written notice. Such written notice must include:
· Exact date and time of spray activity.
· Names of products used.
· Copies of product warning labels.
· Instructions of what to do in the event of exposure / contamination.
Method of spraying:
· The application method must ensure that no spray be allowed to drift into residential properties.
The current spray program of the Drakenstein Municipality fails to meet either of these legal requirements. We simply demand that the Drakenstein Municipality obey the law, nothing more.
Furthermore, the issue of product licensing:
Dr Verdoorn fails to address the fact that the products currently in use are not licensed for a residential environment.
I consider myself to be a very safe driver. I have had no accidents or traffic fines in more than 15 years. However, if I had to drive a truck I would be breaking the law as I am not licensed to do so
TATIB would like to comment as follows :-
- If Drakenstein Municipality did not feel that exposure to the fungicides was potentially harmful to human health then why would they instruct the residents to stay inside and close all doors & windows during the spraying process ?
- There are clear warnings on the statutory Product Labels as to the side effects , to humans, following exposure to these products. One does not have to be a medical practitioner to realise, after reading the Product Labels, that these products are harmful to humans. If there is a warning that exposure to the product and spray drift will cause permanent damage to ones eyes, I would rather tend to believe what is written on the label than listen to a consultant paid by the agro chemical industry.
- The Product Labels also list the active ingredients. If you run these listed ingredients through The Pesticide Action Network of North America's data base, you will find details and case studies of their molecular structure, side effects, laboratory reports etc. Who do we believe ? Verdoorn or PANNA , INTOX, ILO, WHO, INCHEM , Professor London, Dr Minnaar, Professor Rother.....???
- The Pesticide Action Network of North America, has done scientific studies and has access to published scientific reports on the active ingredients of these products. I tend to rather believe their data than the statements made by Verdoorn, whose is after all a representative of the agricultural chemical industry in South Africa and receives payment from them - ie he represents their interests.
- The TATIB Foundation has several "medical clusters" in various regions of South Africa, and our members consist of medical doctors, scientists & professors. Verdoorn seems to believe that he is the only expert in South Africa when it comes to 'agrcultural chemicals'.
- It is interesting to note, that whenever there is an article or report following complaints of spray drift, Verdoorn is there to defend the pesticide industry. Google "Gerhard Verdoorn" to read even more about what he has been up to - like for example his being Vice Chairman of "JAG SA" ( Hunting South Africa). He also wanted to allow a vast tract of the Karoo to be aerial sprayed with RoundUP a toxic herbicide.
- Verdoorn, in his articles in Die Burger & Landbouchemie of 26 March 2010 actually confirms that there is a problem with enforcement of Act 36 of 1947 and that furthermore there is a shortage of experts in South Africa inosofar the testing of agricultural chemicals is concerned. He goes on to state that "Geen voedselprodukte of plaagdoders word meer ontleed nie" . In other words there really is not much scientific research in South Africa when it comes to pesticides and their symptoms of exposure. All that we have to rely on, is the information contained in the Product Labels & Material Safety Data Sheets that are supplied with the product itself. We thus have to to rely on the information to be found on many international sites such as WHO, INTOX, PANNA, INCHEM as there is very little information to be found locally.
- In light of point 7 above , there are no toxicological studies that have been done in South Africa on these products. The experts rely on information from international laboratories.
- Whether or not the fungicides that Drakenstein Municipality are spraying are harmful or not is irrelevant in this issue. The law (Act 36 of 1947) prohibits any spray drift into a residential area. It would be impossible for Drakenstein Municiplity to prevent spray drift. The products that they have admitted to spraying are registered under Act 36 of 1947. They are thus only licensed to spray these products in a legal manner as prescribed by the act. Clearly they cannot do this and they know there will be spray drift - hence the warnings within their letter.
- The Oak Trees have been around for hundreds of years - during which time they have not been sprayed by Municipalities and yet they have survived and not died. Why is there now a belief that they will die if not sprayed for Powdery Mildew ? The reason they are sprayed, as admitted by Drakenstein, is that the farmers who have vineyards have blamed the Powdery Mildew on the Oak trees in the town and have threatened to take action against the Municipality. The fact is that the current methods of viticulture, as a monocrop, and given the location of the vineyards & the climate of the region, have resulted in vines that are very suceptible to all sorts of diseases, vines whose immune systems have been severely compromised.
- Stellenbosch Municipality originally used to spray the same products, and have admitted that after further research, they were told that it would be best to build up the immune system of the Oak tree, by applying a foliar feed, rather than by spraying with Tilt, Bumper & Rubigan - that the latter 3 fungicides actually attack and weaken the trees' immune system making it more prone to fungal attack - which of course is good for the manufacturer of the product as more product then gets sold.
- Stellenbosch Municipality insists that it now ONLY uses a foliar feed - why cant Drakenstein follow suit ?
- Regarding the comments made by Derek Clift, fungicides are not, as he states, used to combat fruit fly. Fungicides cannot kill insects. For this an insecticide is used. The story about spraying with water, is an excuse that even the farmer in Riebeek-Kastee tried to use - he told the residents that he sprayed water and that we made up the fact that we became ill. He then went one step further and allegedly told people that a 5 week old child never ended up in ICU, that the baby featured on Carte Blanche was in fact not a real baby, but a plastic doll. We have medical records and reports to prove that the child spent 45 mins in CPR and more than a week in ICU, following exposure to the "harmless" products that the friendly farmer had sprayed . We also have written notifications, on the farmers own letterhead, listing what products he had sprayed and in this regard they were class 1b Highly Hazardous Pesticides - like Dichlorvos, Thioflo, Dicarzol etc.
- If Verdoorn, Clift, the Municipality & the Paarl Post reporters do not believe that Tilt, Bumper & Rubigan will make them ill, well then let them put their beliefs to the test and allow themselves to be sprayed with the product, or better still stand underneath an Oak tree during the spraying. I guarantee that at the very least they will suffer from burnt, irritated skin , eyes and upper respiratory tracts, and perhaps even corneal damage.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
CHAMELEONS MONTESSORI UPDATE
BREAKING NEWS :
The other 2 teachers in the primary school have handed in their resignation today and walked out. The spraying is going on full swing and no-one was notified. Both teachers also report chest problems which started at the beginning of the spraying season. Another child, a boy, taken out with a severe and permanent rash in the groin area. This is the second boy so affected.
THE OWNERS & MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE SUED AND CRIMINAL CHARGES LAID AGAINST THEM AND THE OWNER OF NITIDA WINE FARM.
Monday, October 4, 2010
UPSET OVER SPRAYING
Residents of Heldervue Somerset West were recently exposed to a herbicide, with some nasty side effects.
Please go and read up on the article which appeared in The Bolander on 01 October 2010:
http://www.bolanderproperty.co.za/community/659-upset-over-spraying.html
About a month ago TATIB received complaints from residents in ParadysKloof , Stellenbosch, who were exposed to HORMOBAN when a park adjacent to their properties was sprayed. They had the same symptoms that the Somerset West residents experienced.
The City of Cape Town should be held criminally responsible for these unlawful acts and should be sued for damages. Clearly they hade no idea how toxic these herbicides are, or are very good at evading the issue.
What would have happened had young children, for example, gone into the park shortly after spraying, bare foot, and absorbed the herbicide through their skin ?
Please go and read up on the article which appeared in The Bolander on 01 October 2010:
http://www.bolanderproperty.co.za/community/659-upset-over-spraying.html
About a month ago TATIB received complaints from residents in ParadysKloof , Stellenbosch, who were exposed to HORMOBAN when a park adjacent to their properties was sprayed. They had the same symptoms that the Somerset West residents experienced.
The City of Cape Town should be held criminally responsible for these unlawful acts and should be sued for damages. Clearly they hade no idea how toxic these herbicides are, or are very good at evading the issue.
What would have happened had young children, for example, gone into the park shortly after spraying, bare foot, and absorbed the herbicide through their skin ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
