2nd February 1998


These pages have been provided in order to give those involved in health research an indication of the
problems which they may face from within the various agencies with whom they must become involved.
The information provided is fully verifiable and will indicate the degree of dishonesty in our ruling classes.

Organophosphates, Pesticides and Related Ubiquitous Substances are, as the title suggests, almost impossible to
avoid in our daily existence.
Those who are not aware of just how far the situation has developed may be shocked and dismayed by what they will
find reported here but fortunately for most people it is not too late for the individual to adopt a lifestyle which will
reduce exposure levels and therefore the risk of permanent injury to health.

It is a matter of deep concern that the chemical industry has been allowed the freedom to pollute both our environment
and our food for so long that they have been able to gain such control that even governments are afraid of their
commercial and political power. Serious questions must be asked concerning the links between our parliamentary
representatives and the multi-national chemical, drug and insurance companies. Many of us who have studied the
situation in depth are concerned that it is these commercial links which have resulted in the failure of government
departments to properly monitor incidents of poisoning or to ensure the enforcement of legislation.

It would appear that those responsible are prepared to accept an increasingly large number of deaths and permanent
illnesses in order to allow the manufacturers guaranteed profit both from the production of toxic materials and from the
drugs which they produce in order to treat the induced symptoms. Furthermore it would appear that other
commercial interests are also involved in this rather unpleasant scheme and that they too find advantage in the
deliberate suppression of known research. Those interests include Insurance Comjpanies and the Press who rely upon them.

Thousands of pages devoted to the symptoms of exposure can be found elsewhere and for this reason these pages will
not devote as much space as perhaps they should to that area but symptoms will be included where necessary.

Organophosphates have recently been given much publicity in respect of the connection with Gulf War Syndrome but the
controversy is much older than that and can be found in literature from the late 1800s. Spectacularly large numbers
have been reported in some poisoning cases from almost 60 permanent injuries in 1899 to between 10,000 and 20,000 in
incidents involving foodstuffs in the USA in 1930 and Morocco in 1959.

The permanent injury known as Organophosphate Induced Delayed Neuropathy (OPIDN) is said to have afflicted some
40,000 souls in documented cases only from 1899 to 1989.
How many go unrecognised and unreported can only be estimated but it is clear that many thousands are poisoned
annually and a high percentage are sure to develop the neuropathy.
Until recent years those numbers were rising as farmers and others moved from the organochlorine products such as DDT
to the OPs which were claimed to be the safer alternative.
However, it would seem that safety of humans was not even then a priority.

DDT was restricted, but not withdrawn completely, not for reasons of human health but because of its devastating effect
on wild life. Lindane, a related pesticide, has also raised considerable concern and has been linked to the causation of
Breast Cancer by those in Israel and elsewhere. Being extremely persistent in the environment even a total ban on
such products has little immediate effect. Restrictions on milk sales from New Zealand dairy cattle remain in force because
the milk contains high levels drawn from the pasture which had been heavily treated over many years with DDT for insect
control. Levels in freshly calved cows exceed the maximum levels regarded as safe for export but inevitably the levels in
New Zealand gradually fall as meat and milk fat is exported together with their DDT around the globe.

Some, if not all, OPs are also stored in body fats but it is the manufacturer’s claim that breakdown is more rapid than with
Organochlorines which allowed them to oust the latter chemicals from common use. Those claims are not well
founded as will be explained later. Now it seems that concern about OPs has increased the use of other pesticides, notably
the synthetic pyrethroids, which have been hailed as the safe alternative, but which also have known risks.

Scientists expressed concern about the effects of pyrethroids on the human body as long ago as the early 1800s.
They were regarded as cumulative and irreversible poisons which could seriously damage the human nervous system.
It has been said that recent reports suggest that those observations have been proved correct.

There then is the current picture in respect of pesticides and their use in Agriculture, Horticulture and in the home but
these chemicals lurk in places which only those who have inside information can ever know. OPs are to be found in
oils, petrol, fire retardants, pharmaceutical drugs and in plastics. Moreover they are rarely, if ever, used in their pure
form. Solvents and surfactants are added to the base chemical in order to enhance and extend the action of the chemical so
that smaller quantities need be used. Sadly those same chemicals may even be more toxic than the base chemical itself.

Being sensitising agents it is an unfortunate fact that those poisoned by pesticides can become sensitised to those
solvents and surfactants which in the modern world are almost impossible to avoid.

Seemingly harmless perfumes, washing powders, deodorants, hairsprays, paints, washing powders and soaps suddenly
become dangerously toxic to the individual. Life itself becomes almost impossibly restricted.

Given all the publicity surrounding the Gulf War Syndrome and the problems relating to OP Sheep Dips it would be
expected that our governments would supply all the relevant information at hand to those involved. The cost to the
National Health Service in Britain alone is considerable but even this is overshadowed by the costs of investigation and
repeated research and the extremely high cost of defended Legal cases world-wide. We can only wonder why our
political representatives treat this subject with such a fear and dread. The fear is not for the effects of the chemicals but
strangely the fear that knowledge of the effects on human health may reach the public.

We can only wonder why this should be the case but it is obvious that there is a determined effort to suppress any and
all information which can show that there are real and known risks to the health of the whole population.

Even in 1951 the Precautionary Measures against Toxic Chemicals used in Agriculture report produced by Lord
Zuckerman recorded deaths in farm workers caused by OPs.
The UK government itself recognised the danger of permanent and debilitating ill health caused by OPs and
introduced an Industrial Injury Pension for workers based on the known long term toxic effects. The paper is still available
for the disease remains a recognised illness but obtaining it,even with publishing details, is extremely difficult as is the
case with most officially recognised papers.
However it is clear from the text that the government described Prescribed Disease C3 on the basis of well
researched factual information.

How much of that information was gleaned from the Nazis experimentation on the poor souls in the Concentration
Camps is not known but it is a fact that the Allies gave great importance to both the scientists and their information when
Germany finally fell. A study of the modern Agrochemical industry soon shows that the companies of today owe much
to the war machine of both sides in both World Wars.

Wherever the information was obtained Prescribed Disease C3 is a very powerful paper for those who say that the
government has deliberately hidden the truth. Every aspect of phosphorus poisoning has been covered but what is more
important is that it clearly states that repeated small doses can lead to a situation where even a relatively small exposure may
induce the symptoms of poisoning. While governments deny any knowledge whatsoever of the long term effects either of
small doses or the chemicals themselves this 50 year old paper lists them in great detail.

In fact it reports that the symptoms of late OP exposure are common in the unpoisoned population which could mean one
of two things. Either they knew at the time that, like all poisons, the OPs’ action on the vital bodily functions is
similar in many respects to a myriad of natural diseases or they recognised that following the exposures of the
conscripted troops to nerve gas attack during the wars the population as a whole had already been affected.

If such was the case at that time the situation is far worse today as will be seen later. Perhaps the most damning part of
the Prescribed Disease C3 paper is that the government recognised even then that some of those exposed to OPs
would never recover. Obviously there would be no need for an Industrial Injury Pension which recognised permanent
effects if everyone recovered from OP poisoning. It is also interesting to note that individuals might be ineligible for the
pension if they did not become ill within one month of the end of their employment which in itself is recognition that the
effects of the chemicals on humans may have a delayed onset of up to a month.

While both the chemical companies and government deny the danger of the weaker garden formulations to the extent that
neither believes that warnings to the user regarding protective clothing are necessary one of the criteria which can deny an
individual the pension is the use of those very same garden OP formulations. This in itself is clearly an admission that
these formulations can also cause severe illness but only if it results in the denial of benefit payment which is to the
advantage of the government. Any attempt by an individual to declare them unsafe would be denied.

Another government paper which is of great importance is that known as MS17 which was produced by the Health &
Safety Executive (HSE) and later republished with vital alterations. Here again the dangers of OP exposure, even to
those who handle the contaminated clothes of victims, are listed in great detail. The difficulty in diagnosis is highlighted
and recommendations made that all those working with these compounds should be given regular blood tests both before
exposure to establish the base levels of vital enzymes for the individual and post exposure to ensure that those levels have
not deteriorated beyond known dangerous limits.
At no time was this legislation enforced.
At least, it was never made compulsory in the agricultural industry and, since the paper was not widely distributed, few
knew of the recommendation anyway. The HSE has much to answer for but is extremely well protected.

What stands out as plain as any honest person can see is that those who make the laws and those who enforce them have
failed at every stage to protect the health of the entire population of the world.

It is only by incredible good luck and the shear determination of Mother Nature to overcome all attacks against her that what
little diversity of both human and animal life remains.

Perhaps it is because of this ability to change the way life reacts to toxins that the human race has survived so far.
Unfortunately the insect world evolves at a much faster rate due to the ability to rapidly reproduce and so the problems
which these toxic chemicals were designed to control are still with us and we are losing the battle with nature and, much as
Rachel Carson warned in the late 1950s, destroying our own health and environment in the process.

Like our bodies the environment is a complex system which should be in balance.
In fact both systems maintain a balance within themselves over which we have no real control.
We have destroyed that balancing mechanism for short term advantage but Nature can manage without us.
Humans need a sound ecological system if we are to survive.
How did we arrive at this situation?

As already mentioned many of these chemicals were born out of the war but there has been a movement of late which seems
to be not so much discovery as the experimental production of materials for which a use is then found.

Early pesticides were developed as we observed their effect on the insect population. Now laboratories produce ever
more complex chemicals at great expense and there is then a need to both find a use for them and to persuade the
population that they are needed. Failure to do so means a loss of all the research costs.

The incentive to market dubious materials is there for all to see. An example of this came in recent years with the
chemical marketed as Bovine Somatotrophin (BST) which is said to have cost millions to research and develop.
In some perverse way the chemical has been presented as an essential management tool for UK dairy farmers who wish to
increase milk yield and profitability at a time when quotas have been introduced to control the excess production of milk
in Europe.

Adverse reports as to the effect on the health of BST treated cattle in the USA limited the sales in Europe and caused some
trading difficulties but another use for the manufactured form of the hormone “Recombinant BST” as a treatment for
pregnancy toxaemia in ewes was found. No doubt other uses will be sought in order to recoup costs.

From the same company glyphosate has taken the world by storm. Regarded by some as “God’s herbicide” for the
way it destroys green weeds without, it was said, harming animal life it has become the most used herbicide in the
world. No one promoted the fact that it was an OP or that it had harmed humans to the extent that the manufacturers had
been forced to change the formulation. The surfactant was said to be to blame and was changed but there is, according
to the UK government booklet “Pesticide Poisoning” insufficient human evidence as yet to prove that the
formulation is now safe. Recently the New York Attorney General’s office forced the company to withdraw adverts
claiming that the chemical broke down rapidly and was environmentally friendly and, California recently reported it
as being the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide poisoning in farm workers.

As the period of patent for this highly profitable chemical draws to an end the company has attempted to protect its
income with the development of genetically modified crops which have been developed to survive spraying with the
systemic OP glyphosate. Farmers are expected to be under contract to the company who will control all aspects of crop
growth from seed to sale and will supply all the chemical used in the growth process. The last concern on their mind seems
to be that the systemic chemical enters every cell in the plant. Recently enough seed to treat thousands of acres was recalled
because the company had added the wrong gene to the modified crop. The risks are there for all to see and yet the
politicians seem powerless to stop them. Perhaps because of the initial resistance in the general public to genetically
modified foods Glyphosate too was suddenly found to have another possible use.
It was suggested as a new miracle cure for cancer and trials began in tests for treating all types of cancer in humans.
Most observers have been sceptical about the likely success as similar substances have been tried before.

It would appear that these products are not tested quite as thoroughly as it is suggested before they are released into the
environment and those who study the situation will soon realise that this is the precise situation.
In very many cases it appears on examination that it is the basic ingredient of the chemical which is tested and often
involves almost pure chemical which has been marked by radioactive methods in order to trace the movement through
the body of the experimental animal. Unfortunately this pure chemical is not available in the commercial world as it is
usually mixed with solvents and surfactants in order to enhance the effectiveness.

This process inevitably alters the way in which the metabolism of animals and humans treats the chemical and
this in turn can induce a multiplicity of unexpected symptoms.
This is well recognised by the UK government as stated in MS17 and in fact it is suggested that many of the symptoms
experienced may be caused by the solvents.
Those solvents are also recognised to cause long term and irreversible damage to human health and the government has
also provided an Industrial Injury Pension covering these effects as Prescribed Diseases C7, C8, C9 and C11.
Interestingly the UK government lists leukaemia as a known result of exposure to Benzene in these papers, exactly as
Rachel Carson reported all those decades ago. This fact is of great significance since lymph cancer is a form of leukaemia
and it is a recognised Occupational Hazard in Agricultural workers in the USA. It is also an established fact that grain
workers have a higher than usual risk of contracting lymph cancer. Which should not surprise those of us who have
studied OP use. These insecticides have been added to harvested grain for many years.

Only in recent years with the publicity surrounding OP use has more care been taken when adding OPs to grain.
In the late 1980s residual levels considerably in excess of recommended levels were regularly found in grain. This
resulted in the introduction of declaration slips which were signed by farmers as information for the purchasers of the
grain so that further treatments could be avoided.

Many believe that the ban on meat and bone meal which was introduced at this time was more than just a coincidence.
The theory that just such OP chemicals could have caused BSE grows in strength as the restrictions on offal and
beef products become ever more unbelievable.
Quite why the UK government refuses to accept that new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease may have a common cause
with BSE and might not actually have been caused by eating beef is one of the great mysteries of our time. Their experts
claim that minute quantities of ingested prion protein can cause CJD but with some 10,000 of the highest risk material as
cattle brains having been eaten by humans at the crucial time it is strange that so few NvCJD cases have so far developed.
Experts say that CJD starts with damage at the synapses in the brain. The exact target of OPs.

It is clear then that the methods of testing have enabled chemicals to be marketed to the general public when the full
dangers have not been known. Animal testing has been found wanting since many chemicals which passed animal tests are
capable of causing serious human illnesses. Chemicals which failed animal tests may not have been as dangerous to humans
as some which came through them without showing any adverse effects.

Perhaps this is due to the higher powers of the human brain since animals have no way of explaining how they feel when
they have been poisoned. We tend to rely too much on observation and our modern technology which may not be
able to supply acceptable evidence which can prove damage has been done. It is all a matter of degrees.

An animal may not be able to feel its feet but may still be able to walk and survive. There may be sufficient signals sent
through the nerves for the scientists to assume that the feelings are intact. Humans with a similar condition however
will report this change in sensation for fear of further complications and a wise scientist will listen.

Unfortunately the commercial pressure on science is such that even when scientists are prepared to risk their own lives in the
furtherance of knowledge their peers may dismiss their findings. Some have actually poisoned themselves and
recorded their experiences and observations only to have their work dismissed at a later date by those who have a vested
interest in protecting the chemical concerned.

Tests which are generally utilised involve experimenting with various levels of one chemical. Here again the safety factor
which such experiments might indicate cannot possibly be reliable. Scientists have recognised the danger of
simultaneous exposures to just two different compounds because each can multiply the toxicity of the other.

In our everyday existence we are exposed to hundreds of chemicals and no scientist living can begin to determine which
combinations can result in damage to the human body. There is a limit to just how many toxins that the immune system of
an individual can break down. Indeed there is evidence that some chemicals may be converted to even more dangerous
toxins during the breakdown process. All these effects are completely unpredictable and it is difficult to imagine how the
scientists will be able to extract us from the situation in which we find ourselves.

Even if we assume that animal tests will provide reliable answers some estimates suggest that testing even for the
effects of combinations of just three chemicals using each of the thousands currently available could take centuries.
Every year new compounds are added to the list of available chemicals and the problem grows ever more difficult.
With each new release into our environment the chance of real disaster must draw nearer and yet the onus is on the
community to prove that their health has been endangered.
For some strange reason the chemical companies are able to retreat behind the Law in order to escape responsibility for the
damage they cause. If they were a vulnerable or weak section of society, deserving of additional support, there could be
some excuse for this scenario but they are very powerful organisations who control virtually every aspect of our lives
and yet seek even greater control.

Examine the situation. Independence is rare in the chemical industry. Scientists move from company to company and into
advisory or government posts and may even then return from whence they came. Agrochemical companies often have
divisions devoted to pharmaceuticals and links with the petrochemical industry. Government personnel and the
departments in which they work are closely linked, often with the same individuals sitting on a variety of committees,
both setting safe levels and determining whether or not to recognise that illness has resulted from contact with chemicals
of higher concentration than that which they themselves had determined was safe. Any scientific tests which might be
needed in such situations must be carried out in an officially recognised laboratory which in many cases will receive its
funding from the very company which manufactures the chemical concerned. The laboratory staff themselves may
even have been trained by the same company and may even use equipment supplied by them.
Moreover, in the UK, some government offices are rented from chemical companies.
University links to Industry have been promoted so that graduates are trained in methods which will be useful to
future employers.

There have been reported instances when independently minded students have been forced to change their views on
chemical safety or lose the opportunity of gaining their qualifications. It is fairly obvious that a student who dares to
question what is being taught is unlikely to succeed in gaining a scientific qualification and even if the academic
qualification was attained there would be no place for such thought within the Industry.

On the matter of information about the chemicals to which we are exposed it is therefore a fact that we know very little and
that what we do know is merely what those who manufacture them allow us to know.

Were a car manufacturer or supermarket to sell us a product which we then found it to be unsafe or even to cause death
they would find the full force of the law firmly on the side of the consumer. For some reason best explained by politicians
this is not the case when chemicals are sold which later cause harm. In fact the law protects the chemical companies and
guarantees that they will never lose financially.

Currently it is a fact that should a government ban the use of a chemical which is found to be harmful it must not only pay
the manufacturer for the unused chemical but it must also compensate them for the potential profit which might have
been earned from sales. This is a preposterous situation and can only have been formed by the cooperation of
governments across the world.

It would seem that this influence over government stems from the close liaisons formed during the two World Wars when it
became necessary for research and development of ever more advanced chemical weapons and the means to protect troops
and civilians from their effects. It is ironic that the very machinery invented to protect the population from invasion
may well be destroying the health of the people who sacrificed so much to save it.

There is growing concern that the military attitude to civilian life has been embraced by those who control the availability
of chemicals and their release into the environment. Military action necessitates the appraisal of all possible results which
might ensue from the employment of lethal weapons. There is risk to the military forces, means of transport, buildings,
foodstuffs and civilians and the calculations must take account of all such losses.

They come under the umbrella term “Collateral Damage” dehumanising the dreadful toll on human life
which results from most types of most military action. To the military mind such losses are both inevitable and acceptable
and it is this attitude which has pervaded the minds of those in the chemical and nuclear industries.

Many years ago, when any military action was relatively short lived and the damage done was restricted in both area and the
time taken for nature to recover, this attitude may well have had some merit. The weapons available in the modern age
have a completely different capability with which attitudes have not kept pace.

Human life around the entire world can be destroyed in seconds and any unlucky survivors would face disease and a
completely destroyed ecosystem exposed to radiation from both manmade sources and through the depleted ozone layer
from the sun. Yet still the use of such weapons is viewed as a possibility and despite protestations from many Nations
directly affected by them further tests have continued. Human life has become meaningless in the minds of those who seek
the power to control the destiny of others.

This then is the attitude which has pervaded the whole debate on chemical safety. Are several thousand lives ruined by
illness and eventual death every year a price worth paying so that excessive profits may be made by the chemical
manufacturers? Clearly our view is related to the position in which we find ourselves when asked.

A scientist will proclaim that we must advance or die.
The general public will have views dependent on how “green” they see themselves.
The families of poisoned victims will show extreme concern and wonder if they too will be effected by that which has
come into their lives.
The victims will be angry that they were not properly warned but will probably be too ill to help themselves escape from the
physical and financial trap into which they fell.

What is clear is that many of these poisons are accumulative and irreversible which means that the health of the entire
population of the world is inexorably being dragged towards a disaster. The cliff edge approaches and those of us who have
already passed the point of no return urge those of you who have not to head our warnings.

All there is left for us to do is hope that our immune systems will sustain our bodies for a few more years before we crash
to the rocks below. We try to help by avoiding contact with the damaging pollutants as much as possible but those of you
who do not realise the danger you are in make the task exceedingly difficult as you encourage the development of
ever more powerful washing powders, perfumes, hairsprays and deodorants not to mention the main triggering agents
which include the pesticides used to produce the perfectly formed fruit and vegetables.

Those who would question this view should take a closer look at those who proclaim otherwise and examine the true
motives for what they say and do in the name of progress.
It is my belief that you will inevitably come to the same conclusion if the source of your information is reliable.

Too many expert witnesses who proclaim themselves to know all there is to know about chemicals have absolutely no idea
how they are used, and abused, in practice.

They make wild assumptions based on dubious statistics.
They rely upon the research of others which itself may be based on inaccurate or even deliberately corrupted figures.
Almost invariably they are also directly linked in some, often unseen, way to the very chemical companies who would
have you believe that they are the key to man’s salvation here on earth, promising to bring relief from starvation and
disease. Often the opposite is true.

In the UK the chief agency for protection of the public has been the Health & Safety Executive but pressure from the
industry during the early days of EU entry removed the obligation on the Executive to investigate pesticide incidents
in Agriculture. As a result a very low percentage are ever investigated and yet they claim that few incidents actually
occur. What is more important is that the British Civil Service recognised the dangers from pesticides and produced a
detailed report intending to control their use during the Heath administration.

At this time EU membership had just begun and the promised hike in food prices during the transition period was about to
be felt with a vengeance. It appears that the decision was taken to ignore the warnings of the Zuckerman report and
actually extend the use of pesticides in order to increase production and attempt to reduce prices.

The scene was set for the most productive and most destructive period in the history of UK agriculture.

Nothing would ever be the same again. Even the ploughed acres which were introduced by the War Ag efforts did not
compare with the changes which took place, and continue to take place, in the British countryside as a direct result of the
UK entry into the highly subsidised EU Agricultural System.

The tried and tested schemes designed specifically for UK conditions were thrown out and the EU subsidies which
favoured large producers were embraced with gusto as hedges disappeared and pesticide use increased. Excess production
became common place for there was a guaranteed market for all produce in Intervention stores. The EU budget could not
take the waste and grain mountains were protected by new regulations virtually outlawing the presence of a single insect.
Thus the grain contained ever higher doses of insecticides until the advent of BSE which effectively reduced the beef
mountain in an instant and brought in belated controls on the admixture of insecticides in grain. The assumption was
always that such applications are both accurate and uniform but nothing could be further from the truth..

Several decades after the first use of insecticides as an admixture to grains used for human consumption the UK
government produced an evaluation document on the main chemical involved. It was published in October 1997.
There are however many worrying features which the reader is advised to note.

The document contains inaccuracies of which the UK government is fully aware. The dangers of the chemical are
clearly reported for all to read and it is strongly recommended that all interested individuals obtain a copy.

In experiments involving chickens several were killed due to severe neurological problems before the tests ended. Few
feed trials on cattle appear to have been done but in a trial involving goats much of the chemical fed was “lost” with no
explanation given. In many experiments the initial concentration of the chemical is not given with any certainty
and because sterile water was used in many cases it was not possible to determine the effects of acid or base or of any
additives to normal drinking water such as fluoride or chlorine.

Since in most cases the pure chemical was used the experimental evidence of safety obtained is not relevant to the
products which are currently commercially available. In effect this is evidence to show that the claimed short half-lives
for the commercial products cannot be relied upon.
This supports the experimental evidence given to the UK government which shows that the diluted products remain
toxic for in excess of 18 months and would also explain why experiments show that the chemical in grain degrades very
slowly, if at all.

No explanation has been given for the rising residual levels in treated grain for the first few months after treatment but this
may be the result of the absorption into the grain of the chemical over time. However evidence also suggests that the
chemical itself increases in strength in the sealed containers during shelf storage before use which is unexplained but may
be due to a reaction with the aluminium containers used at the time of the experiment which have since been replaced with

It appears that residue trials in crops were performed before the product became commercially available in the period 1969
to 1972 and even this data seems to be incomplete but it appears that dust formulations produced slightly lower residue
levels that the liquid form when added to grain. Trials have shown that up to18% of the applied chemical transfered to
white bread and 50% to wholemeal and despite only testing about 48 loaves of each available type of bread annually
higher than recommended levels have been found in a large number of loaves.

Worryingly it is reported that an experiment reflecting current commercial practice observed the effects of adding the
chemical to flour during the baking process. This is likely to be a further addition of the chemical following previous
treatments in farm or commercial grain stores.

Most animal studies are of short duration. the longest appears to be about two years and is usually followed by a rest period
which does not occur in the real world. Our grain intake continues throughout our lives.

We are therefore the experimental animals in an ongoing feed trial in which we are not told when our food has been treated
or the quantities of chemical which have been added.

In effect this is an undeclared food additive which has been shown to mutate bacteria, damage the nervous systems, so as
to cause listlessness, tremors, heartbeat irregularities, hypersecretions, convulsions and even deaths.

Calls have been made for further studies on the potential risks of mutagenicity while maternal toxicity and only partial
recovery of brain cholinesterase activity has been proven.

Most worrying of all is that the safe exposure levels are all based on the calculations relating to cholinesterase inhibition
levels and completely ignores the experimental evidence which proves damage to sperm at every dose tested which
only began to show some weeks after the exposures were stopped. Should this be a factor in the human male it may
explain the deterioration in human sperm quality which has been reported in recent years.

Too many assumptions have been made and from those guesses firm safety levels have been claimed.
Exposures are theoretical,
symptoms relating to thsoe exposures are theoretical,
safe exposure levels and acceptable intakes are also theoretical.

In addition it is becomming increasingly clear that the reluctance to admit that these theoretical levels have resulted
in serious ill health in the human population has resulted in the deliberate refusal to record even recognised poisoning cases.

Since the monitoring of licensed chemicals depends entirely on the statistical calculations of risk based on known
poisoning incidents it follows that those who proclaim the safety of chemicals by referring to the statistics are deluding themselves.


Since writing this introduction ever increasing evidence of the dangers posed by these poisons has been reported.
Repeatedly Government spokespersons state categorically that should there ever be evidence of harmful effects on human
health from any pesticides they would "not hesitate" to act and ban that chemical.

Clearly that often repeated statement is not based in fact.

Even pharmaceutical drugs, supposedly tested to a greater degree than pesticides, have passed testing on animals only to
seriously injure or even kill human volunteers. Pesticides are not so thoroughly tested.

Pesticides proven in court to have caused long term disability and then withdrawn from certain uses because they represent
a danger to operator health are STILL approved for use.

Independent scientists who have reported finding evidence of the deadly effects of these poisons have had their careers destroyed.
Some may even have lost their lives.

Well established medical and scientific journals have been forced to remove reports of harm to human health or the
environment that may be linked to pesticides or genetically altered crops from their publications.

Governments have actually assisted the multi-national chemical companies in their battle against restricting or
banning the use of even the most dangerous chemicals, often in opposition to the findings of the World Health Organisation and its warnings.

It is hoped that those reading the information on this web site will gain a greater understanding of the risks to their health -
and perhaps begin to understand how those responsible fail to reduce those risks.

A final point to ponder for those reading these pages.

Additional information has now been published here as the direct result of a former official of a government agency who
tried underhandedly to suggest that certain important information published here had no foundation in fact.
His involvement in the issue about which he referred ended some 21 years ago and his reasons for promoting false
information in 2016 can only be guessed at.
He was wrong when he was directly involved and is still wrong to this day.

So many of them are.....

Dated 02/02/1998    Updated 09/03/2016

Go to top

  Return to latest updates   Return to Front Page;   Return to OP file;