posted on July 20, 2001 02:58:51 PM
It's one thing when the republican party lets me know they could care less about me, but when they let it be known that they could care less about any kids in public school they won't hold the government for long. 2002 is right around the corner.
Who Need's a stink'n Sig. File?
posted on July 20, 2001 05:55:38 PMRepublicans attacked the provision during a hearing of the House Agriculture Committee, in response to complaints from some pesticide manufacturers and school district officials who said it would discourage pest control and substantially add to their paperwork, costs and legal liability.
Killing and injuring kids, teachers, and administrators is a far, far better thing than to allow greater legal liability of those responsible?
Senate Democratic and Republican leaders crafted the measure last month in consultation with representatives of the pest control and chemical industries, school officials and environmentalists. Supporters said it was designed to protect students, teachers and staff from excessive exposure to potentially dangerous pesticides.
You see? It isn't a betrayal of their corporate masters when they know that the provision will be shot down by the rest of their colleagues! It does make for good posturing, though, "Looky! Looky! We're for school children's safety -- we tried!!" Bah! Crap!
To me, it's just blood money -- money for the lives of American children. And those who vote for Republicans are just as guilty! Oh, yes! They knowingly vote these monsters into office, knowing what they will do. Don't let them get away without taking responsibility for their actions! Make sure that every person that you know that votes republican learns about this and tell them just how responsible they are! Don't let them get away with this!
posted on July 20, 2001 06:13:38 PM
Let's step back for a moment, and examine without political jabs:
[i]But the industry's support of the measure is not universal, and representatives of school districts criticized the amendment during yesterday's hearing.
Marshall W. Trammell Jr., a county school board chairman from the Richmond area and spokesman for the National School Boards Association, said it would cost his school district an additional $350,000 to $450,000 a year or more.[/i]
Safety of my children is a top priority. How in the world would we pay for this? This is for ONE school district. There are thousands across the country. I know in my area, it's quite difficult to raise those property taxes for school issues. If this bill were to pass, what other area in the school would be further neglected?
I'm not saying I agree with this, but there's not an easy answer to this. And simply dismissing this as a Republican blunder is missing the mark.
posted on July 20, 2001 08:28:32 PM"And simply dismissing this as a Republican blunder is missing the mark."
I agree. I wasn't saying that Republicans are thr only ones to blame. republicans are the only ones who voted in this sort of government knowing perfectly well what monsters they were. The Democrats are not much better than their collegues, the Republicans anymore. But Democrat politicans are supposed to be fighting for people, consumers, public saftey, those sorts of touchy-feely things and that is what their voters expect of them and hold them accountable for. There's the difference.
I just don't see why so many Republican voters, seeing how their own politicans vote on things that hurt them and their kids; or block and destroy protections for them and their kids, can stand themselves. Why they don't say, "Hey! I'm a decent person too! I'm going to go yell at the jerks for voting down XYZ legislation, or for watering down that important consumer protection!" Why don't they do this and impress the hell out of me?
"Safety of my children is a top priority. How in the world would we pay for this?"
You're right: the safety of our kids, their teachers, and adminstrators IS our top priority, and the costs of protecting them are secondary. God forbid, but if one of your children should become deathly ill over pesticides, I'm sure that the costs to the system is going to be the absolute LAST of your worries! Having to wonder if burial or cremation is necessary for the children that you're about to outlive makes you feel little pity for those responsible who wanted to cover up the matter that got your kids that sick. I say: PROTECT FIRST! Then, after the protection is in place, we'll handle problems of finance and other non-lethal problems as they arrise.
posted on July 20, 2001 09:59:10 PM
Now, I am neither a Bush fan, nor a Republican, but....
would require school districts to regularly disclose to parents the use of pesticides on school grounds.
You guys are making it sound like the schools would be spraying DDT or malathion through the school hall sprinkler system--on a weekly basis. While the kids are in the halls.
In reality it is more likely that the pesticides (more along the lines of Raid) are used when cockroaches or other bugs are sighted. Now, really, do you really want to receive a letter from the school each & every time a roach is zapped? Do you need to be?
I do not find a mention of which pesticides would be used or any detailing when they might be used in that article.
I do find an acknowledgement that children are potentially reactive to any pesticide; and that their use can be dangerous to their long term health.
Where do you derive the assumption that these chemicals would be used only when children are not present (as if that matters) or that the chemicals used would be of the "Raid" order that you mention?
You might want to read your can of Raid sometime and ask yourself if you would like to put those chemicals into your system, but that isn't the point. The bill would give a parent the ability to decide what risk to take with a child's health in considering pesticide exposures.
posted on July 21, 2001 01:40:40 AM
Children--and adults--are "potentially reactive" to any number of substances in daily use. So? It's ridiculous the way our society has allowed itslef to become prey to exaggerated fear about every little thing.
I haven't heard that children are dropping like flies due to pesticide use (in school or out)--have you? Now, perhaps if pesticides were being sprayed directly on the kids or their food... If a particular child is so sensitive that the mere fact that a pesticide has been used in the building is a health risk, then you've got to think that that child should not be allowed out in public at all.
As to the type of pesticides being used...a pesticide so toxic that its mere presence in a building is deadly to human life would certainly not be used in a school building (or any public building for that matter).
Next you'll be saying that every parent should be apprised of each & every product used to clean public schools--after all, those are chemicals, too, that children are potentially reactive to. And, hey, chalk dust could potentially cause lung problems--which brings to mind dust, number one allergan...why the hell aren't they making schools safe for our kids by totally removing that? I notice a lot of schools have plants & trees growing about--why aren't they notifying parents about the kinds of fertilizers in use--and when they're applied? My god, not only are fertilizers potentially a health risk, but they can also be made into explosives! How can they endanger our children this way?!?
Now...if you really want something to worry about in regards to chemicals in schools, look into the food being served to the kids there these days. Fast food, fast food, fast food. The fact that kids are taking in hundreds of grams of fat per day & rarely see fresh food (vegetable--what's that?) concerns me a whole lot more than the fact that schools don't notify parents every time they spray a roach.
posted on July 21, 2001 02:04:18 AM
In the first place, bunnicula, you are displaying a profound ignorance of the long term effects of pesticidal compounds. They are still today finding effects of some chemicals which were in wide use as much as thirty or forty years ago. Why would you deny that there is a possibility that a child exposed to a seemingly innocent pesticide (by the way, you do recognize the derivation of the suffix?) may one day parent a child with horrible birth defects because of it, for one example of ramification? Also neither of us knows what compounds are being, or will be used, and even the developers of these compounds must acknowledge that they cannot predict the over time effect of such chemicals with any surety unless there has been long term testing of their use in proximity to humans. The active life of many of them are vague which means that they can continue to do their work long after their application.
Everyone knows that children, even more so than some adults, are apt to put things into their mouths. They may eat leaves, dirt, or any other item they can make fit. Suppose then that a child rruns across a remaining "wet spot" of pesticide after it's application the day, or even a week,after it's use, puts it's hand into the stuff perhaps even unknowingly but then puts its hand into it's mouth. Viola, possibly a poisoned kid.
And you think that's OK. You say that a comparison between a killing drug and a Big Mac is enough to warrant the use of these compounds without warning because if a kid eats a french fry then he can sure as heck take his pesticide too or be kept home.
All that the bill asks is that these poisons not be used before parents can decide if they are OK with their child's exposure to it.
posted on July 21, 2001 02:42:37 AM
Yes, yes, we all know what the "cide" in pesticide stands for. That doesn't change the fact that is is yet one more ridiculously overblown "fear" being jacked up for the public. *Every* public building & most homes use pesticides--should notices be handed out to anyone entering any structure to warn of their use? Little kids put things in their mouths no matter where they are.
Now, those fast foods:
A Big Mac has 31 grams of fat and 1070gm of sodium. MacDonalds fries have between 10 & 26 grams of fat depending on size, and 135-350mg of sodium You should look up all the other fast foods currently being sold in schools: Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Carl's Jr., etc.
Now *there's* a hazard that's been proven. Substances that will certainly have long-range affects on the children's health. Why aren't you concerned? My god, the government is allowing our nation's children to be fed a diet high in substances that will affect their health for the rest of their lives. Feeding it to them on a daily basis. From Kindergarten through 12th grade.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! ....it wasn't, you know. Mr. Foxy-Loxy & Mrs. foxy-Loxy and all the little Fox-Loxies ate up Chicken Licken and all his friends before they could tell the king the sky was falling. Didn't matter. It wasn't.
posted on July 21, 2001 03:19:06 AM
Are you crying the sky is falling over the content of foodstuffs while at the same time ridiculing those who cry the same thing over toxic chemicals? You're usually not quite so hypocritical, bunnicula.
Aside that, the subject here is not the fat or sodium content of the foods sold at schools. Perhaps another bill is in the works concerning those things, and when it appears another thread on the dangers or benefits of those things could be started.
No, the subject here is only whether parents should be apprised that their children may be being exposed to chemicals with the potential to severely effect their health. Only that.
posted on July 21, 2001 04:26:50 AM
bunnicula - There are a lot of unexplained illnesses and plain changes in growth that are probably due to chemical exposure. There are young girls now showing premature sexual developement that is not the normal growth pattern. We have yet to see and must worry about what sort of pattern these girls will show of disease and morbidity later in life.
It is an unintended experiment that will take a lifetime to see the results.
If I am using pesticides in my home I am very carefull about how and where they are applied. I do not even have the choice of the same ones as a re used commercially. I do not trust the people doing this sort of work to respect other people's well being.
In MI we have a law that you can be signed on a register of people who MUST be notifired when they are going to lawn spray next door.
In the paper recently they went to see how that was working and found that nobody had ever filed a notice using the register in several years.
I have a friend who IS sensitive to the chemicals in lawn spray and about 5 years ago she woke up one morning having trouble breathing and the nice cherry furniture downstairs was ruined because they sprayed next door when a stiff wind was blowing and the fine spray came right through the screens and ruined the finish. Twice since they have sprayed ignoring that law and the last time put her in the hospital for 3 days.
posted on July 21, 2001 05:10:59 AM
They spray for mesquitoes <sp> around here, and while you can't stop them, they DO have to post public notices in the newspaper, and spraying is resticted to late at night.
they also dump herbacide in the lakes around here to kill off weeds, but again public notices are required.
I expect the same public notice when they use toxins in the schools my kids go to. Anything less is wrong.
Who Need's a stink'n Sig. File?
posted on July 21, 2001 07:12:02 AM
We should ban the use of pesticides. Anyone can go into the grocery store and purchase them. They purchase these pesticides without filling out any permits, no environmental studies are done before they use them, and they aren't trained in their use. Imagine the results if you or your child should go to one of these homes after pesticides have been used, there are no notices given or posted.
posted on July 21, 2001 08:48:22 AMkrs: actually I meant folks are crying "the sky is falling" over the issue of pesticides in school. The issue about sodium & cholesteral in food has been proven. I have yet to hear anything from you proing that children are in danger of their lives if a school sprays for roaches.
posted on July 21, 2001 10:48:55 AMhear anything from you proing that children are in danger of their lives if a school sprays for roaches
Peticides are, by their very nature, toxic. They are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing living things, and require proper use to avoid harm to humans and pets. In the 40's and 50's there was no proof that exposure to asbestos was life threatening. But now there is, and we spend big bucks taking it out of schools.
