~ be attributed

: ferata of fused ribs
‘hamster and also Bionetics III
‘researchers who found that

oe . By Phitip Musselman

With 1988 just two days away,
“some people may wonder what a
year means to mankind. ~

‘A year is a part of man’s.

organized time system, it con-

_ Sists of 365 days, 5 hours, 48
. minutes, and 46 seconds of solar

time. Years are then subdivided
into months ranging from 28 to

* 31 days, which are then sub-
divided into weeks of seven

days.
Each day has 24 hours, each
hour 60 minutes, and each

minute 60 seconds. This is how .

modern humanity keeps track of

‘the schedule it is so proud to ©

have created.

-To further keep track of days
humans have developed a calen-
dar which details each. month
and have also created holidays

_ and other special times for rest.

Meanwhile other days during the

-month are spent at work.

The calendar, so named after
the - Roman Kalends, which
divided time into, hours, days,

months and years, is not con-:

sidered complex today, but at

Chemical industry —

Agency who found, through a

__ review, positive evidence for car- -

cinogenicity of 2,4-D,
Despite Mullison’ s ignoring of

_ these previous studies, he goes

on to say, ‘*...no teratogentic ef-
fects were observed that could

exposure.,.”’ (refering: to three

‘Studies on rats and other ex-
‘periments on
-.hamsters).

sheep and

Again, one could ask whether

he errs-by:ommission.

- Compare this to Collins and
Williams (1971), who found
in’ the

2,4-D caused fetal mortality,
and fetal abnormalities in-

cluding missing eyes and jaws.
~~~ Confidently;-- Mullison: --adds-

the following statement:
‘*...There has never been a

- demonstrated hazard to human

health or the environment: from
the herbicideal use’ of -any
phenoxy herbicide with trace
dioxin contamination...’” |
It is small wonder then that at
a pesticide appeal in Terrace, the
public is committed to futher ex-
posure of this pesticide.
Mullison further adds,
toxic effects to

‘* Direct
wildlife have not been

_Teported...””

I have to compare this to an

obscure article that I have not
- Seen Mullison refer to.

Compare this to Lutz-
Ostertag and .H. Lutz (1971)
who found the following: ‘“Eggs
of game birds sprayed with
2,4-D at rates lower than those

_used in grain fields; 155 out of

201 grey partridge embryos died,
43% of red-legged partridge em-
bryos died and 77% of exposed
pheasants died. Most all surviv-
ing birds were partially or totally
paaralyzed, and crippled by fus-
ed cervical verebrae. The birds
claws were permanently con-
tracted and their feathers lacked
color. Females had abnormal
ovaries. and males had
undeveloped testicles, and were
either sterile or had reduced
ferility. The same results were

produced by spraying duck and

quail eggs:
, Reading this abstract leads me

; to a different conclusion.

\nd just what

one time only day and night, and
seasons made the difference in
time. To ‘some contemporary
peoples, the calendar is still a
complex tool.

Today’s Gregorian calendar,
named after Pope Gregory, is
pretty well a world-wide stan-

dard .of measure for the year.

It’s predecessor, the Julian
calendar, was. revised. Certain
elements of time came from
various places, in a patchwork
effect..The hour came from
Babylon, the month from
Egypt, and Rome contributed
the lengths of each manth and
the names which differentiate
them.

The calendar year as we know
it first came from the Romans
who. had several simular calen-
dars named after some of their
rulers. Julius Caesar was. the
first of these, when Pontifex
Maximus and the Greek
astronomer Sosigenes devised a
method other. than that of the
lunar month. The month was
then regulated by the sun. The
Julian. calendar first came into
use in 46 B.C,

The American people
recognize that a closed system is
unhealthy, and that free access
to information will keep
everyone more honest.

To that end there have been
important recent developments

in their legislation and Twish to’~

review these.
The US Congress recognized
that the evaluation of risk and

...benefits. of using herbicides
‘ should: be open to the public so °

that they can make up their own
minds about what they are will-

ing to accept, rather than have.

this legislated to them.
They did this by issuing a

Statement that all information -
concerning effects of pesticides.

on human health and environ-
ment shall be available for

‘disclosure to -the- public- and. an
-order that within 30 days after

the Administrator registers a
pesticide he shall make available
10 the public the data called for
in the registration Statement.

Monsanto and~ other
manufacturers have been
fighting that requirement in the
courts ever since its passage, and
Monsanto still has such a suit
preventing EPA from carrying
out its mandate from Congress.

Why would a chemical com-
pany not want the public to have
its registration and safety data?
Is it because that data may be
faulty, or inadequate, or reveal
something nasty from the past?
That’s not what the Monsanto
argues.

Monsanto filed suite against
the Environmental Protection
Agency over the requirement to
disclose data to the public, and a
US District Court ruled in the
Company’s favour. |

It was the judgement of the
court that, ‘*... The product label
provides the public with the
assurance that the product is
safe and effective and with the
products qualities.’’;
(disclosure) ‘‘should permit the
public to share in the regulation
of the pesticide industry, a task
that belonged to the EPA,"’

I found that there is a
disclaimer at the end of the pro-
duct label in some cases at least
which casts doubt on the con-
fidence of the companies in their

own comments. .

continued t from page 4

oo Terrace Review — Wednesday, December 30, 1987, 13 7

is a year all about? ~

Later Pope Gregory XIII cor-
rected an error in the Julian
Calendar which. would have
made the Spring Equinox vary in
the calendar from year to year.

New Year’s Day, January 1, is
a day of celebrating the beginn-
ing of a new year. The tradition
of celebration of a year’s begin-
ning has been practiced for cen-
turies. .

New Year’s Day, occurring
twelve’ days earlier in - today’s
Gregorian calendar than in the

Julian calendar, is a time which |

involves plans and resolutions
for the future. Persians and
Egyptians began each year dur-
ing the Automnal Equinox ‘on
Sept. 21, while the Greek people
celebrated on Dec. 21 (during
the Winter Solstice) up ‘until the
fifth century.

Before Julius Caesar,even the
Romans held. their New Year’s
celebration. on Dec, 21. The
Jewish celebration falls
somewhere between Sept. 6 and
Oct. 5 on the Julian calendar.
Before William the Conqueror
had taken Anglo-Saxon
England, the new year-for the

native people of the British Isles
began on Dec. 25, but William
ordered that the year should
begin on Jan. 1,

Later England followed the’

rest of Christian countries by
making New Years on March 21.
In 1582 the Gregorian calendar
restored the new year to Jan. 1
but Germany and Denmark did

not ‘conform | to this balck until

1700 and England in 1753. °

Today Jan. 1 means a lot of
things: the start of a new year,
the end of an old year, a time for
making plans, lots of New Years
football games, and many other
“traditions”? which follow the
freshness of a new year.

Local recognition —
awards proposed —

Alderman Doug Smith has

‘recommended that the city spon-

sor an award program to recog-
nize local residents who,
through their ‘activities, make a
significant contribution to the
city and its provincial image.
Smith said 10 awards per year
would not represent a significant

cost to the city and would make .

it possible to select from a varie-

ty of contributors such as sports, |
business, volunteers and proper
ty Owners.

He said that by sponsoring an
award program, the- city -would
be promoting community spirit
and involvement by encouraging
the best from its residents. oe

‘The idea has been sent to the
Recreation and Community Ser- |
vices committee for study.

RRA

However, the Supreme Court

was to review that decision. On
1984, the Supreme -
- Court of the US~
’ the former ruling.

June 26,
overturned

_ Monsanto’s arugment was:
..competitors can use the

‘line of the safety tests to

register similar products, and
that the requirement. for public
disclosure is therefore an un-
Constitutional . seizure | _of
valuable private property...

The Supreme Court wasn’t.

sympathetic, and eased the com-

pany out of this excuse by giving ©

them the right to sue the govern-
ment for redress, if they lost out
through competitors using this
device.

That there may have been
another reason for not wanting

“to” Have’ to disclose’ data came’ ”

from a different direction
related to the question of the
-safety-of the phenoxy herbicide,
2,4,5-T.-

“Documents obtained from
Monsanto dating back to the
early. 1950’s refer to ‘‘some
substance’ being present in- the
manufacturing process (of
2,4,5-T) that affected the liver,
kidney and other organ systems
of workers. Soon thereafter, the
company identified dioxin as the

offending agent. Thus, despite

the fact that Monsanto knew of
the toxicology of this process ..
they continued to use it,”? claims
W. Stuart Colwell, U. S. At-
torney in the Workers Against
Monsanto Trial, as reported by
Jeffrey L. Fox.

Another chemical giant, Dow,
also was embarrassed by the
release of documents by.a New
York court indicating that Agent
Orange contained levels of diox-
in that might be harmful to
humans according to a July 18
Newsweek Report.

The Newsweek Report goes
on to state that the documents
**,..included a 1965 memo by
Dow’s toxicology director warn-.
ing that dioxin could be ‘excep-
tionally toxic’ and another by
the company’s medical director
saying that dioxin-related
fatalities have been reported in
the literature.””

The evidence was intended to
‘support allegations Dow knew
Of dioxin’ 5 potentially harmful

effects five years before: it gave

the information to thé govern- -

ment. and the public. .
‘Newsweek further stated ‘'; .it
was disclosed that a top official

~ of the Environmental Protection
Agency allowed Dow scientists.
to review adraft report on diox:~

in contamination in Michigan,
the company’s home state. The

result: a sentence charging Dow .

with being the major if not sole
source of dioxin contamination
in two rivers and a bay was
deleted.’’

Were these major chemical
companies involved in cover-
ups? One might well ask from
the above evidence,

Non-disclosure, confidentiali-
ty, and a closed system were the
rule in the past, endorsed by
government; -

bad calls on life and death mat-
ters.

That past system spawned the
IBT Affair, in which 2,4-D was
involved in the USA. The IBT
Affair refers to Industrial Bio-
Test Laboratories, who con-
ducted research for chemical
companies that were trying to
get approvals from the govern-
ments.

It was found out that data was
being falsified at IBT, after
some 300 chemicals had had
things like cancer tests con-
ducted there.

That closed system also
prevented public scrutiny of the
true carcinogenicity and direc-
tion of pressures to resolve out-
standing disputes about the safe-
ty prior to use of this class of
chemicals. .

It permitted this dangerous
class of chemicals to continue to
be used despite many positive
findings of carcinogenicity by
many researchers, because the
public weren’t privy to the in-
sults being committed to their
own health. They thought that
their cancers were just the luck
of the draw.

My review has cast serious
doubt on the credibility of the
some people in the scientific
establishment and has
demonstrated that some scien-
tists’ integrity is for sale,

To have an open system with
free access to information is, as

who --didn't--want -
_the public bothering them about

demonstrated above, an n impor- 2
tant debate for the protection of °
the- health. of the. public.. The
Mulroney. ‘government. - ‘did
nothing to further protection of
public health in its indorsement

‘tion:

In a letter to Mr. “Alex Bolton
dated June 27,-.1986, Jim
Fulton, MP for Skeena, said;
“The Brian Mulroney, govern-
ment. has also refused to release
any of the studies on Garlon
submitted by Dow chemicals.”’
It is pretty bad when even our
elected representatives cannot

- get access to pesticide studies.

Clearly, the public interest is be-
ing neglected.

These options are at the roots
of the conflict between those

-who- wish--to-have-.a-habitable. - .

planet for our grandchildren,
and those who wish to have
wealth and profit. today for
themselves and also further in-
crease chemical sales. .

There was a court case in
eastern Canada recently where
some former herbicide sprayers
(SODA) are suing Dow because
they believe that their heighten-

_ed cancer rate is due to former

exposure to dioxins from their
work,

It might not have come to this
type of confrontation where
lives and chemical companies’
futures are at risk had we had
freedom of access to informa-
tion and had the onus to prove
safety had been placed on the
producers.

For those interested in preven-
ting cancers by reducing the en-
vironmental load of carcinogens
and in strategies used by com-
panies to divert attention away
from derogatory findings, Marie
M. Cohen and Jared M. Dia-
mond (1986) have something to
‘Offer. ‘'...it is better to prevent
cancer than to merely try to treat
it.’

For the reader interested in
corporate criminals, essential
reading is Robert Sherrill (1987)
Murder Inc. - what happens to
corporate criminals. Utne
Reader, March/April 1987,

As for Mr. Mullison, he
recently repudiated a Kansas
study that demonstrated an in-
creased incidence of lymphoma
from 2, 4-D in farmers.

of restricted access of informa- fee