Rachel's Precaution Reporter #88
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
From: MindaNews (Mindanao, Philippines) ...................[This story printer-friendly]
May 1, 2007
BANANA GROUP ASKS COURT TO NULLIFY ORDINANCE ON AERIAL SPRAY BAN
[Rachel's introduction: The government of Davao City in Mindanao, Philippines, invokes the precautionary principle to justify banning aerial spraying of pesticides on bananas. Banana growers say they'll fight this precautionary measure in court.]
By Walter I. Balane, MindaNews
DAVAO CITY (MindaNews/30 April) -- From the halls of the City Council and the newsrooms, the battle over the legislation to ban aerial spraying has reached the halls of justice. The Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association (PBGEA), which last month indicated it might go to court, asked the court Wednesday to declare the ordinance null and void but pending that, the group wants a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction against the city government to prevent it from implementing the ordinance banning aerial spraying.
The city government stood firm on implementing the ordinance passed on March 23, giving the banana industry three months or up to June 23 to prepare the shift to ground spraying.
Mayor Rodrigo Duterte last month said they will defend the ordinance in court as only a TRO can stop its implementation.
City Administrator Wendel Avisado in an interview Monday welcomed the suit saying the City Legal Office is ready and prepared to answer the case. "We have no plans of backing out of the implementation," he said.
He said it is better that way (court battle) to settle the issue once and for all on who is right or wrong.
He clarified that the bottomline of the case could be the challenge of the constitutionality of the city council enacting the ordinance.
He said it is embodied in the Local Government Code of 1991's Section 16 on the General Welfare Clause.
PBGEA claimed the ordinance was oppressive, without due basis and could lead to the collapse of the banana industry in the city, according to the petition by its president Stephen Antig.
Antig earlier said they didn't want to resort to legal battle right away.
Antig last month told reporters the industry could invest in the needed infrastructure demanded in the shift but asked the city government to extend the phase out period from three months to five years.
Duterte found the requested period too long and told reporters the city was awaiting legal challenge to the ordinance as it is intent on its implementation.
PBGEA had earlier stressed the ordinance lacked scientific basis that would prove the chemicals used harm people and the environment. City legislators countered by invoking the precautionary principle.
PBGEA said in the petition the shift to ground spraying could mean workers losing jobs and the city government losing millions of pesos in taxes.
On March 24, Antig told reporters banana firms would continue doing business in the city and would not displace jobs as he announced they would continue sending feelers for reconsideration.
Environmentalists hit PBGEA's going to court. In a press release, the Mamamayan Ayaw sa Aerial Spraying (MAAS) denounced the group for its alleged arrogance and inability to respect the city government's decision "over a policy that involved lives of the people and the environment."
Lia Jasmin Esquillo, executive director of Interface Development Interventions, Inc. (Idis), was quoted as saying it is a manifestation of the group's (PBGEA) denial to recognize its responsibility to provide the people with a secured and safe environment as it do business.
Davao City is only the second local government after Bukidnon, which legislated a ban on aerial spraying in Mindanao.
At least 76 percent of the country's 4.28 million metric tons banana output in 2004 came from Mindanao, 41% of which came from Southeastern Mindanao region, where Davao City is.
Copyright Copyright 2006 MindaNews
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, N.Y.) ...........[This story printer-friendly]
May 2, 2007
NUKE PLANT NEIGHBORS ISSUED PRECAUTIONARY PILLS
[Rachel's introduction: People living near a nuclear power plant in New York state are being offered "precautionary pills" -- potassium iodide to protect their thyroid glands in case of serious radioactive releases. Another precautionary approach would be to eliminate the hazard by ending the use of nuclear power.]
By Bennett J. Loudon, Staff writer
Monroe County [N.Y.] official are distributing potassium iodide to residents who live within 10 miles of the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario, Wayne County.
The free medication provided by the state Emergency Management Office will be available through May 25 at these three Wegmans Food Markets stores only: 900 Holt Road; 1955 Empire Blvd; and 2157 Penfield Road.
The medication protects the thyroid gland from radiation that might be released if a serious incident occurred at the power plant. Most of the people in the affected area live in Penfield and Webster.
Officials recommend that residents in the affected area to have one pill on hand for each family member.
Maps at the stores will help residents determine whether they live within 10 miles of the plant. People who receive an emergency planning calendar from Constellation Energy each year are in the affected area.
Businesses in the affected area can get potassium iodide by contacting the town of Webster at (585) 872-1000. Potassium iodide that was distributed in 2002 should be placed in the trash, not in the toilet or sink.
For more information, call (585) 753-5600 and press option 1.
BLOUDON@DemocratandChronicle.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: California Safe Schools ............................[This story printer-friendly]
May 1, 2007
CALIFORNIA SAFE SCHOOLS SUSTAINS 8 YEARS OF HEALTHIER STUDENTS
[Rachel's introduction: When Robina Suwol and a few friends objected to their children being sprayed with pesticides in school in Los Angeles, they were considered hysterical housewives. Now -- 8 years after they lobbied successfully for precautionary pest management policies in L.A. schools -- they're heroes.]
LOS ANGELES, Calif. -- On Monday April 30, at Charles H. Kim Elementary, California Safe Schools (CSS) celebrated the 8th Year Anniversary of the Los Angeles Unified School District's groundbreaking Integrated Pest Management policy called IPM. This policy, the most stringent pesticide policy in the nation for schools, stresses least-toxic methods of pest control, and has become a national and international model.
Joining the celebration and presentation of special awards by CSS to Los Angeles Unified Boardmember Julie Korenstein and Director of Environmental Health & Safety Angelo Bellomo were Steven John, LA Office Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Javier Hinojosa of the California Department of Toxic Substance and Control, as well as other officials.
California Safe Schools is a grassroots children's environmental health Organization formed by parents who witnessed their children walk through a toxic cloud of insecticide at an LAUSD campus nine years ago. Founded by activist Robina Suwol, CSS has gained a national reputation for its effective education of parents, schools, and elected officials about protecting children from toxins.
"It takes a village -- and several bureaucracies! -- to protect children's health," said Suwol, Executive Director of CSS. "I am so pleased to see how far we have come and grateful that so many school districts, communities, and government officials have contacted us for assistance in replicating our policy and protocol. All children everywhere deserve the protection of IPM."
IPM is an inherently sustainable method using low risk measures to eliminate pest and weeds. The CSS policy adopted by LAUSD was the first in the United States to embrace the Precautionary Principle and Right to Know about pesticides used on school campuses. To ensure implementation, the policy includes an IPM Oversight Committee. The fifteen member team which has met monthly for almost a decade, includes parents, environmentalists, community members, teacher, principal, physician, school staff, County Health Representative and an "independent IPM expert."
"As a physician who practices Environmental and Preventive Medicine, I appreciate LA Unified's groundbreaking Integrated Pest Management Policy," said Dr. Cathie Lippman. I've enjoyed serving on the LA Unified oversight IPM Team, and often cite the successful program for understanding the link between health and the environment. Happy 8th Year Anniversary!"
Last month CSS and its founder Robina Suwol were honored by Volvo of North America, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 for their "Outstanding Achievement " to protect human health and the environment.
Robina Suwol Executive Director, California Safe Schools Tel : 818-785-5515
Copyright Copyright Environmental News Network.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Bangor (Maine) Daily News ..........................[This story printer-friendly]
April 26, 2007
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE BACKS BAN ON DECA
[Rachel's introduction: Maine may soon ban the brominated flame retardant known as deca.]
By Kevin Miller
A legislative committee voted in support of a bill Wednesday that would ban one of the most common types of chemical flame retardants used in televisions and other consumer products.
On a 10-3 vote, members of the Natural Resources Committee sent the bill, LD 1658, to the full Legislature for consideration. The committee vote after a lengthy work session late Tuesday as well as hours of public testimony earlier this month on the proposal to ban the chemical known as "deca."
The measure would phase out the use of deca in televisions and other electronics sold in Maine by 2010. The bill also would prohibit the sale of mattresses and other upholstered furniture containing deca beginning next year, although bill supporters say that is largely a preventive ban since deca is not currently used in those products.
Environmental and health organizations claim that deca, a type of polybrominated diphenyl ether, or PBDE, is a neurotoxin that could pose health risks to humans and wildlife. The chemical is used in plastic casings in televisions, computers, other electronics and some upholstered products, such as the flame-resistant backing on drapes.
Deca manufacturers have steadfastly defended the chemical as safe, well-researched and extremely effective at stopping or slowing the spread of deadly fires. They also questioned whether the alternative fire retardants are any safer or as effective.
The chemical industry and Maine organizations pushing to ban deca have been involved in a public relations war for the past several weeks over the bill.
The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, which represents the major manufacturers, has run television and newspaper ads defending the safety of deca and suggesting that the bill could put Maine residents at risk because of fire. Bill supporters have responded by accusing the industry of putting profits ahead of safety.
The committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing whether the top alternatives to deca are any safer.
In the end, lawmakers amended the bill to give the Department of Environmental Protection the authority to restrict the use of other flame retardants if health or safety concerns arise. DEP officials would have to consult with the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the state fire marshal about available alternatives.
DEP Commissioner David Littell said Wednesday evening that he supported the version of the bill endorsed by the majority of the committee. The department had recommended adding deca to the list of PBDEs already banned in Maine.
"The bill certainly works. It includes all of the department's recommendations and builds on them, so we are quite pleased with it," Littell said.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Voltimum ............................................[This story printer-friendly]
May 3, 2007
GOVERNMENT MUST LEGISLATE TO AVOID POWER LINE HEALTH RISK
[Rachel's introduction: The British Government should legislate to avoid any potential health risks from overhead high voltage power lines, says the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.]
As one of forty members of the advisory group SAGE (Stakeholder advisory group to Government on electric and electric magnetic fields), RICS [Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors] has called on the Government to legislate to restrict the building of new homes and schools next to existing power lines and on the placing of new power lines close to existing schools and homes.
Since all groups agree that there is a raised risk for childhood leukaemia, RICS believes that this is enough for the Government to consider the need for precautionary measures in the built environment in respect of exposure of people to EMFs.
Contributing member, Michael Jayne FRICS said: "The Government should take precautionary measures in order to ensure that the health risk is minimised by preventing the building of residential property within specified distances of overhead power lines."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::