Before the chemicals can be released on to the unsuspecting public
they must be tested "to ensure safety" but this is not as effective
as it may seem.
Some test animals have been bred to be more susceptible to chemically induced problems that others.
Some tests, such as the hen test, which supposedly determines if an OP pesticide can cause delayed neurological problems are of questionable merit.
In this test for example the hens may be given the antidote and protective treatment both before and several times after the poison dose is administered and yet if the hen does not develop symptoms the chemical is still regarded as safe even if some die in the process.
Humans do not always have the opportunity to receive the antidote - not even if they have already been poisoned.
The Ames tests utilises bacteria and the effects of the chemical on them to determine mutagenic properties but some pesticides commonly used have been shown to mutate these bacteria and yet are still cleared as "safe" despite the obvious risks.
It would seem that the regulators see these problems but clear the
chemical with a request for more testing to fill the gaps in the data
and confirm the accepted safety levels.
Sadly this means that chemicals are released into the environment and we are then dependent on the monitoring process to confirm or refute any problems which should have been dealt with before common use.
Post market monitoring is dependent on observation. Any exposed victim has to first know about the exposure, which is not always obvious, as is found with pesticide residues in food, and must then link the symptoms with the exposure, which without the knowledge is impossible.
We are therefore reliant almost entirely on the regulatory system and the medical profession if we are to properly monitor chemicals after release into the environment.
Unfortunately most Doctors are not trained in toxicology and therefore
misdiagnosis is a frequent problem. If the Doctor makes the wrong
diagnosis he may treat the symptoms without knowing the cause and this
presents its own deadly dangers. Many of the drugs used to treat
symptoms such as are presented by natural diseases are contraindicated
in pesticide poisoning and can serve to worsen the condition.
If the Doctor does not realise what has happened he will assume wrongly that other diseases are present and the real cause will remain unknown.
Doctors call in specialists but often this is too late as the drugs may mask the real cause.
Poisoning experts are often linked to the chemical companies and many
a victim has found the wrong testing procedures performed.
Examples have been reported where tests for organochlorines now found in almost everyone have been negative in poisoned subjects. Others poisoned by organophosphates have found themselves tested for organochlorines, again with negative results.
The simple way to hide the truth is to fail to look in the right place.
A poisoned individual may become disabled and if eligible a claim might
be made for Social Security Benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act.
Even if the victim had undergone thorough medical investigation by a specialist hospital over the course of two weeks as an in-patient and had the supporting medical opinion of the head of a poisons unit there is no likelihood of qualifying for the rightful benefit.
Social Security doctors are not normally specialists in the field of poisoning and they do not have access to the expensive procedures required to make such a diagnosis but they are prepared to over-rule specialist opinion in order to deny the victim's rights.
The poisoning victim may then appeal but the new medical examination
may well be a sham. The new reasons for denial of eligibility may
even be quoted word for word from the earlier Social Security report.
A further appeal may find the victim before the panel of a Tribunal but the Social Security documents may be incomplete and illegible so as to make them appear to disadvantage the victim.
The victim may be asked to see another specialist chosen by the Tribunal but he may be surprised that he too has no real understanding of the issues or the technical equipment with which to make a diagnosis.
Some years later there may be another Tribunal, again with picked members, who will deny the victim the right to introduce supporting medical evidence from the hospital records. They may even suggest that the victim is 80% disabled and eligible for two different Industrial Injury benefits, those for the chemical and those for the solvents used in the formulation.
When the report of the Tribunal is received by the victim he may find no reference to the above facts but will instead be informed that they could find nothing wrong.
Once more the poisoning victim may be denied but if this was the case then serious offences would have been committed for the Tribunal Service is under the control of the High Court.
Crimes may have been committed but it is not easy to have them recognised by the Court.
The UK Government brought in new rules for Court procedures in attempts
to speed up the process of law. It made special reference to
"Expert opinion" and stated that the expert's duty was to the Court.
They must "help the court on matters within their expertise, bearing in mind that this duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom they have received instructions or by whom they are paid."
It also states that experts must make a declaration that they understand and have complied with their duty to the Court.
The expert's opinion forms a statement and there is a section devoted to statements which demands that statements of case, witness statements and expert reports must be accompanied by a "statement of truth".
"Any document with a signed statement of truth which contains false information given deliberately; that is, without honest belief in its truth, will constitute a Contempt of Court by the person who provided the information."
Despite this it is clear that experts are withholding vital information on formulation of pesticides, adverse health effects of pesticides and the medical records which show that individuals are suffering from proven health problems known to be caused by pesticides.
Yet we never see expert witnesses who have given false evidence against a victim charged with Contempt of Court or perjury.
Perhaps it is no surprise then that when studies of statistics are performed it is discovered that there is no problem with pesticides.
One case typifies the problems faced by the victims of poisoning.
In the UK residents of a small village were concerned about the number of illnesses which followed pesticide spraying operations.
The farmer denied any wrong doing and the Health & Safety Executive claimed that they had carried out a thorough investigation and found nothing wrong.
The sprayer operator became ill and faced the sack but notified the supermarkets who had been supplied by the farm of problems with pesticides.
As a result the farmer was fined a considerable sum on almost a dozen counts of improper pesticide use including the use of illegal pesticides and ignoring the post spraying pre-harvest intervals designed to reduce pesticide residues.
Interestingly the health problems which triggered the investigation were not raised and no action was taken regarding the dangers to the health of the people of the village or those who ate the contaminated food.
When Nelson utilised his blind eye it was to save lives.
When the regulators turn Nelson's Eye to a problem reported to them they endanger the lives of millions of innocent people.
Go to top
Return to Front Page;
Return to Contents file
Return to Front Page; Return to Contents file