Planning for your long-term future by taking into account the possiblity of physical limitations is smart. I think many people assume there will be a technological fix in store so they need not be concerned. Dependence on technology also includes the the use of the variuous 'cides as a substiute for willingness or ability to sustain an ecologically dynamic environment.

Although the article is interesting for me to read, I'm not convinced a chemicalist gardener will be moved. One reason is because the study focused on farmers. An ordinary gardener isn't likely to embrace the warnings since this apparently only applies to farmers. I have no alterantive suggestions to offer.

Farmers that apply "cides" are around the "fresh" liquid several hours. After and during application, they are likely to be downwind at times.

Hired crews that apply fumigants and other chemicals commercially and especially in vegetable crops probably fare the worst of all.

Yes, it would be difficult to pinpoint exposures or the culprit to toxic exposures when cides are used in private and public places usually as a general treatment and/or precautionary practice. Schools, restraunts, greenhouses, department stores, manicipalities,neighbors yard, surrounding industries, disposal sites, etc.,and etc..

Althea, its just has to get awarness from somewhere and start relating. non farmers are around food just as much as a farmer is...people have to eat dont they?

Wayne, I wonder what kind of pay such hired help recieves?
I suspect that it is not top dollar and no benefits and then you are laid off. Which is fine, as long as the hired help agrees and that all chemical exposure wasnt abusive,(hired help was properly protected and not smoking, eating, urinating whileor any time during working and if so had a good washing before)!

It would probably be a lot more difficult to measure the effects of farm chems on migrant workers, which is who I'm assuming Wayne is referring to.

I agree, there should be more awareness of problems with 'cides but I don't think the article would be the best starting point. People who want to use synthetic chems in their home gardens can point out that the report included things that are now banned and some of the chems currently on the market for home gardeners are a weaker version than that sold to licensed farmers. Yes, we all have to eat, but the report doesn't say what the farmers were growing - commodity crops destined for animal feed, vegetables, etc.. The report offers too many loopholes for anyone who wants to defend their right to use synthetic chemicals in their garden.

p.s. Also because the highest correlation of use and neurological problems was found with insecticides, nothing statistically significant with herbicides & fungicides, the results wouldn't cover all that you want to address.

I would think that applicators of insecticides in commercial orchards, large vegetable farms, and crop dusters would be exposed a lot more even though they may have better protective clothes and equipment than the home gardener or nursery worker.

Migrant workers do a lot of the application of chems on the bigger farms. Around here there are coops [for example] that apply fertilizers and herbicides.....yet individual farmers often do their own.

Thanks for the clarification Wayne. I agree, those who routinely spray by profession would have the highest likelihood of neurological damage. This group could also include exterminators.

Sue, I think a better approach would be to stress benefits of non-synthetic chemical methods, like ipm, habitat building and soil building which are very effective. Articles such as the one you linked are often used to scare the living daylights out of people. This method of persuasion seems to me at least, very manipulative, and not likely to enact any long-term, positive changes in approach or understanding.

Althea, I disagree that articles of this type are not useful for any long-term, positive changes in approach or understanding. I give lectures to garden clubs and the audience appears very interested in reports of this type. I suspect this is because the members of garden clubs are normally up in years and all (or almost all) have lost family members to (or are themselves suffering from) afflictions that were virtually unheard of 2 generations ago. Gardners used to think that if a spray did not kill them within a week it was safe. Now they are beginning to understand that it may take 20-40 years to have an effect and that the effect can be horrible (concerning the quality of life).

Henry,
It's true that age can make a person more careful. Mortality kind of comes home. You see others your age getting sick or dying. Young people often [not all of them] must think they are immortal!

There is a "movement" that advocates that we should promote "a feel good society"
( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22feel+good+society%22&btnG=Google+Search ).

If we would apply this to smoking, we would advocate that people stop smoking so that they can have white shiny teeth instead of telling them that science has documented that smoking can cause a horrible death from lung cancer.

Which approach works? People that I know have told me that they have stopped smoking to avoid increasing their chance of getting lung cancer. (Of course we all know some who have continued smoking in spite of what science has documented.)

I feel that the smoking example is applicable to the situation of using dangerous chemicals in the garden.

Here is a link that might be useful: feel good society

One thing I've learned when talking with old-timers who have some environmental concerns is you'd better be prepared to listen. These people have a lot to say based on their experience of living through the effects of various miracle substances. Their opinions are well grounded and worth hearing. It could be, as Wayne suggests, because of a keener awareness of mortality.

Henry, I'm not sure why you interpreted what I've said so far as little more than a feel-good approach. The core of what I've said is about understanding the natural environment as a network of inseperable patterns and relationships. Learning how we can work within this community forms a basis for the study of ecology, which includes a whole range of fields. One could discuss how a broad spectum pesticide kills target and non-target species and has the potential do do long-term damage to the person applying it. This should be brought up in the context of creating a sustainable environment. Beyond simple cause and effect, understanding the roles of various species in our garden, and real and potential consequences of interfering with the functions of the entire web of life takes effort, far more than what is implied with fugitive feelings. An egological conscience moves understanding beyond a personal level.

Althea, I have no problems with what you stated in your last post. But what you have stated is an advanced goal requiring a significant amount of background understanding. By the time a person is able to appreciate the information at that level you may be in the situation of "preaching to the choir". The part that I disagree with was in your earlier post, where you stated: "Articles such as the one you linked are often used to scare the living daylights out of people. This method of persuasion seems to me at least, very manipulative, and not likely to enact any long-term, positive changes in approach or understanding."

My reply: I think that there are many parallel situations where we can judge whether this type of approach is effective (smoking, seat belt use, drinking while pregnant, excessive speed while driving, etc.).
-------------------------------

In my search of examples of the feel-good movement I added the search word pesticide. The following was one of the hits.

My comments on the link. I feel that a university is a place where students are meant to be challenged. Of course I did not attend his lectures so I cannot comment on his total effectiveness; but it appears (to me) that he planted some very worth while seeds.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Henry, the article about Prof. Barnard ends with "There was absolutely no redeeming value in his course." The other comments suggest that no one learned much from someone who was intent on shoving his views down the students throats. It doesn't sound like a very worthwhile learning environment to me. This quote is appalling, "Therefore, those that use pesticides and those that smoke cigarettes are bad, bad people." Casting moral judgement & labeling people is not much different than replacing a sound center with either horror stories or whatever "feel good" means. It is easy to get past being frightened by the latest headline. Understanding the headline within a greater context should be of more value to the teacher & student.

On the other things you brought up, smoking, seat belts, and so on, you should toss smoking because nicotine is highly addictive. The others I think people continue to do until a law is passed and there are consequences for not obeying the law.

Henry & Sue, what response do you expect when presenting this sort of article as an opening to discussion?

Althea, regarding your comments as to what the student wrote: you are taking what the student wrote as gospel. If you are a parent and/or a teacher I should not have to say more.

I have no problem with your statement: "It is easy to get past being frightened by the latest headline. Understanding the headline within a greater context should be of more value to the teacher & student." I do have one comment: presenting a scientific abstract/article is a far cry from a headline and in my mind is presenting what is needed to put the title in perspective.

If you feel people (in general) only did something or refrained from doing something because of "its the law", that certainly is an interesting opinion (prohibition comes to mind). My experience with people leads me to a different opinion that mankind (in general) is interested in self preservation. Of course I know plenty of exceptions.

Regarding your question as what response did I expect. I did post this article on the roses forum when I was first informed of its existence (I am on their notification e-mail list). It received a number of comments and then scrolled off as that forum moves at a rapid rate. I was satisfied with the "seed" that I planted.

Henry, I based my opinion of Prof. Barnard not only on students views but also on a direct quote from Prof. Barnard.

Without any grounding in principles of ecology, one headline regardless of whether is about a peer-reviewed scientific study or preliminary research, can look like any other piece of bad news.

Regarding seat belt use, the Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Assoc. has a website about the importance of wearing seatbelts. Here's a clip.
.....
While the first seat belts were installed by automobile manufacturers in the 1950s, seat belt use was very low  only 10-15 percent nationwide  until the early 1980s. From 1984 through 1987, belt use increased from 14 percent to 42 percent as a result of the passage of seat belt use laws in 31 states. Then, from 1990 through 1992, belt use increased from 49 percent to 62 percent as a result of a national effort of highly visible enforcement and public education.

[snip]

Seat belt use in the 11 states with primary (standard) seat belt use laws currently averages about 15 percentage points higher than in states with secondary laws. California and Louisiana increased their seat belt use rate by 13 and 18 percentage points, respectively, by upgrading their secondary laws to primary laws. Early reports from Georgia suggest that similar gains will be achieved. Georgia had a use rate of 53 percent near the end of 1995, which fell to 51 percent shortly before the change to primary enforcement on July 1, 1996. After four months of primary enforcement (and despite the media's and law enforcement's attention on the Olympics during that period), statewide use was observed at 62 percent.
.....

I appreciate that you have a more idealistic view of humankind than me.

Could you restate your expectations? Your answer isn't clear to me.

Here is a link that might be useful: nhtsa

Althea, if you have a direct quote from Prof. Barnard, please share it with the forum (I am not asking for what a student said that he said). Also, of course to be fair; please put it in context.

Thank you for the link to seat belt use data; you apparently overlooked the above 50 % data for the state with no law. Interpretations of data are just that - interpretations. I "could" say that I would use the above 50 % data as the background number giving the effect of education. Unfortunately this interpretation would suggest that in some of the states, a seat belt law resulted in a rebellion as subtracting out the background number would give negative uses.

You also overlooked the following statement in the same link that you gave: "In NHTSA surveys, full-time users say their primary reason for wearing seat belts is to avoid injury."

To me that is a very clear statement (and one not based on interpretation of complex data).
------------------------------------------------------------
Self preservation is not a part of Idealism ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idealism ), it is considered "a natural or instinctive tendency" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=self-preservation

-----------------------------------------------------------

I do not have a copy of the complete rose thread. I tried using Google to find it as Google often will carry the thread for a time after it is scrolled off of the forum. I could not find it. The seed that I planted is the link to the announcement. Each commenter gave their interpretation of the significance or commented on someone else's comment. I "hope" that at least some of the readers of the thread will now have a greater understanding of one of the dangers of insecticide use at levels that can occur in their garden (500 times). "Researchers found that nearly 3,000 participants had a high lifetime exposure to insecticides -- that is, they used insecticides more than 500 days in their lifetime. Nearly 800 of these farmers reported more than 10 neurological symptoms compared to those using insecticides fewer than 50 days." One of the posters did comment specifically on this point (that 500 times is within reality for home gardners).

I re-read the article and realized that although some the review included direct quotes, that one wasn't. Interesting Henry, how you championed the statement when it fulfilled your criteria.

"you apparently overlooked the above 50 % data for the state with no law."

No, I didn't.

"You also overlooked the following statement in the same link that you gave: "In NHTSA surveys, full-time users say their primary reason for wearing seat belts is to avoid injury.""

I didn't overlook that either.

"Interpretations of data are just that - interpretations. "

I agree.

Altha said: "Interesting Henry, how you championed the statement when it fulfilled your criteria."

What statement do you feel that I have "championed" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=championed )?

Many years ago a graduate of Cornell University (of considerable fame on his own accord) told me that one of the main benefits of his University experience was being exposed to great minds in the lecture hall. Books are useful in dispensing knowledge but another dimension is added when one is able to observe the thinking process that goes on in oral communication.

Based on my own experience as a student, graduate teaching assistant (1959-1964), and then as a faculty member (1965-1993), I feel that his advice was very good.

I picked that article as I felt that it was a good example of "some" students (who are used to a "feel good" educational environment) initial reactions to being challenged. Hopefully, that same student 30 years from now will rank Professor Bernard as one of his/her "best" Professors.

If the reader is not familar with Professor Bernard's contributions to society, the following may be useful.

The first specifically relates to pesticides and does include a quote attributed directly to him:
Http://www.dailybruin.com/news/printable.asp?id=24074&date=4/29/2003

The following graduate student comment ( "When he was accepted at UCLA for graduate studies in Physiological Science, he "read through all the faculty descriptions" and decided that Professor R. James Barnard's work on the impact of lifestyle factors in chronic diseases "sounded really interesting," Tung says, dovetailing with his own concerns and goals. "Working with Professor Barnard turned out to be a great decision."" ) is impressive (to me):

http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/asis/profile/phsc.htm

A Google search is given below:

Http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22James+Barnard%22++professor+ucla&btnG=Search

Here is a link that might be useful: first link - environment-pesticides related

"Henry & Sue, what response do you expect when presenting this sort of article as an opening to discussion?"

I cant say I have any expectations other than to hopeful find some leverage that may slow down usage much like how the antiquated use of arsenate and lead as treatments for many home gardeners in the early 1900 ceased.

Pesticide use will definitely be much easier to understand in another 20 years...most current events always seem easier to understand when it becomes history.

interesting reading, thanks.

I have been thinking a lot about this thread and the different posting by Henry and Althea and I would like a little more time to think before I comment on specifics.