EvansMediaUSA

The Bush administration pleased farmers and frustrated environmentalists Monday by declaring that pesticides can be sprayed into and over waters without first obtaining special permits.

The heavily lobbied decision is supposed to settle a dispute that's roiled federal courts and divided state regulators. It's popular among those who spray pesticides for a living, but it worries those who fear poisoned waters will result.

"We need to act fast to stop mosquitoes when they are found," argued Jim Tassano, a pest-control operator in the California foothills town of Sonora. "Any delay results in adults emerging. It is far cheaper and much more effective to kill them as larvae ... (and) if a permit is required, the costs would skyrocket."

Tassano was one of hundreds to weigh in over the past three years as the Environmental Protection Agency mulled its options. His sentiments were shared by California's Merced and Tulare mosquito control districts, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and the Washington State Potato Commission.

"Requiring (federal) permitting would unnecessarily disrupt the effectiveness of (pest) control operations and adversely impact hundreds of business," the South Carolina Aquatic Plant Management Society warned.

The EPA decision gave the pest operators what they wanted. It also closely parsed the English language for what the all-important word "pollutant" means.

EPA officials concluded that a pesticide, when it's deliberately applied, isn't a "pollutant" under the terms of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Consequently, after considering nearly 700 public comments, officials ruled that federal "discharge" permits aren't necessary when using pesticides to control waterborne pests.

"It will just make things a little less messy," Fresno Mosquito and Vector Control District Manager David Farley said of the decision Monday. "It means we can continue to do what we have done for years, without additional permitting requirements."

The EPA also declared that permits aren't needed when using pesticides to control pests found over or near waterways, as in national forests. Any resulting damage is unfortunate but strictly collateral, officials maintained.

"Forest canopy insecticide applications can result in deposition to streams and other waters of the U.S., which are either not visible to the aerial applicator or not possible to avoid," the EPA stated.

Environmentalists, though, note that mosquito-killing chemicals can also poison shrimp, frogs and other aquatic innocents. The good intentions of mosquito-hunters shouldn't exempt the chemicals from permit requirements, these advocates believe.

"Pesticides are intended to kill living organisms, something that most would consider an adverse effect on the environment," noted Janette K. Brimmer, legal director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

EPA officials note that lawmakers didn't specifically include pesticides in the list of items covered under the Clean Water Act. Lawmakers did specify, though, a litany of substances that include "chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials ... and agricultural waste."

The quantity of pesticides applied directly to water is only a small percentage of the total used. In California, for instance, the pesticides applied for mosquito abatement last year amounted to less than 4 percent of the state's total pesticide use.

When agencies in California's Central Valley were tamping down the West Nile Virus threat last summer, they typically were aerially spraying about one ounce of pesticide per acre. California officials hope that the new EPA decision could clear up some potential confusion over how such chemicals are regulated.

"The fact that we now have some clarification on this is a good thing," said Glenn Brank, a spokesman for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

The prior confusion stemmed in part from court decisions.

In 2001, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal permit was required before herbicides could be applied on national forests in Oregon. Courts elsewhere, though, issued conflicting opinions, leading the EPA to try to clarify the muddle.

With environmentalists warning that the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act is "unlawful," the possibility for future legal challenge remains.

© 2006 McClatchy Washington Bureau and wire service sources

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 JFK

WORDS OF WISDOM

CLICK TO VIEW

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Palm Springs resident Suzanne Somers returned from a controversial book tour Friday to be hailed as trail-blazing hero by cuttin-edge members of the medical community meeting at the Westin Mission Hills Resort in Rancho Mirage.

Somers, who turned 60 last month, has been hyping her book, "Ageless: The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones," which this week hit No. 1 on the New York Times Hardcover Advice best-seller list.

But critics, especially in the pharmaceutical-supported medical community, have criticized her claim that, "The second half of your life can be better than your first half."

She told a conference of the American College for Advancement in Medicine she's a layman bringing the message of forward-thinking physicians to the public, and she said pharmaceuticals have a place in modern medicine, notably in pain relief.

But she said she's happy to deflect criticism from physicians, such as members of ACAM who are seeking alternatives to pharmaceutical treatments.

ACAM, which has attracted more that 400 medical practitioners from as far away as Denmark and Japan to its five-day conference here through Sunday, is trying to raise $2 million for a Food and Drug Administration-approved one-year test of bioidentical hormone therapy, which replaces lost hormones causing symptoms associated with aging - such as sleep loss and diminished sex drive - with plant extracts containing the same molecular structures as the lost human hormones.

"This is the changing face of medicine," the sleek and darkly attired Somers told an outdoor lunch crowd. "It needs to be done and you are going to get flak. And maybe having me in front will deflect some of that."

Somers has some detractors in the medical community, OB/GYN Michele Curtis of the University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center has said her biggest concern about bioidentical hormone therapy is "lack of standardization and quality control."

Somers interviewed 16 doctors and people who have "taken charge of their own health," including Rancho Mirage resident Wendy Fitzgerald. Many, including Fitzgerald, attended the luncheon.

Dr. Michael Galitzer of Los Angeles, who wrote the foreword for Somers' book, said he expected criticism of Somers book from the pharmaceutical-supported medical community because bioidentical hormones can't be patented.

A patent requires a change in the natural chemical structure, and that's what bioidentical hormones seek to avoid.

"When you alter a drug, you're changing the molecules to a structure that's foreign to the body," said Galitzer. "That's the real key."

Somers said she feels a great responsibility leading her fans to new approaches in medicine, especially the 80 million people she speaks to over 25 hours each month on the Home Shopping Network.

"I am thrilled I can be the person out there," she said, "and to use my celebrity for our greater good."

WHAT THEY SAID:

Dr. Hans Gruenn of Los Angeles: "I think she was excellent. She is a good voice for everybody. She embodies the spirit (of advancement in medicine). And I think a little Hollywood is good for everybody."

Dr. Michael Galitzer: "I think (the criticism of Somers) comes from doctors who are a little bit envious. I think she wrote a better medical book than they did."

Heidi Osterman, certified nutritionist and chelation therapy technician from British Columbia: "She is the missing link between lay people and professionals. So far, the only information they get are from the pharmaceutical doctors and they are only trained in drugs and surgery. So, if a disease isn't amenable to drugs and surgery, those are still the only two options available to them.""You can't go back to being 20, (but) all of her information is perfectly accurate. I think she's brilliant."

Dr. Kenneth Bock, Rhinebeck, N.Y., president of the American College for Advancement in Medicine: "Whenever there's a proposed change you are parading you always expect flak. (But) bioidentical hormones make total sense. Now we need to decide the ways to doing that. That's what we want to study."

The victory in Virginia leaves the Democrats and Republicans with 49 seats each in the Senate.

The remaining two seats are held by independent senators who say they will vote with the Democrats, giving the party a 51-49 majority.

In his speech, Mr Allen said he had telephoned Mr Webb to congratulate him.

He said he did not want to cause "more rancour" by seeking a recount which he did not think would alter the outcome.

Mr Webb had been leading by about 7,000 votes, and although Mr Allen could have demanded a recount, it became clear that further checks were unlikely to overturn the result.

Our correspondent says Mr Allen had been tipped to be a future presidential contender, but his campaign went disastrously wrong.

He was derided in the media for comments which were seen as racist, and appeared to be embarrassed about suggestions that he had Jewish ancestry - while facing a Democratic opponent who was a former marine and strong on national security.
 
To massive cheers from gathered supporters, Mr Webb held up a pair of boots worn by his son, who is currently serving in Iraq.

He described his opponent as "gracious" and called on President Bush to denounce what he said had been "unnecessarily brutal" tactics in the bitterly fought election campaign.

'Constructive'

Earlier, Mr Bush appealed to members of the US Congress to rise above party differences.

"It is our responsibility to put the elections behind us and work together" on the issues facing the US, he said.

He said a lunch on Thursday with Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who is set to become the Speaker of the House of Representatives, had been "very constructive and very friendly".

Ms Pelosi has called for a change of strategy in Iraq, describing the current policy as a "catastrophic path".

Mr Bush said he was open to "any ideas and suggestions" on ways of achieving US goals in Iraq.

Every person, by virtue of the Laws of humanity, has the right to choose how to live their life.  The consequences they face as a result of their choices are theirs alone to face – and to believe that we have the power to decide for any other person is a violation of the Laws of humanity, and Article IX of our US Constitution.  

Is it not hypocritical to demand the right to act and live as we choose, and yet expect that others will listen to us as we protest this right – believing that our protests will influence them to our way of thinking?

Perhaps there are those who need the firsthand experience of war to fully realize its destructive nature.  

There are well-known mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers who now speak out against war as a result of their firsthand experience with war.  They address the fact that they wish they had done so earlier, but no amount of public protests were able to draw them in.  It was not until they faced a personal loss from war that they were willing to take the significant action they did to change their lives.

How soon they seem to forget, however.

No one could influence them to believe with the passion needed to speak out – only their personal experience could do this.

Why should it be so difficult to expect that others are the same?

What right do we have, simply because our firsthand experience put us straight into the fire, to believe that we now have the power to tell others to think as we do, without benefit of their own firsthand experience?

War destroys – but perhaps there are some who must face that destruction themselves before they truly understand.

Yes we can talk about our personal experiences, but they are the personal experiences we were allowed to have, we needed to have in order to come to what we now believe.  Perhaps we must give the same allowance to others so that they, too, can come to their own beliefs.   

How can we expect others to simply choose as we have chosen?

We can teach, we can explain – we can offer alternatives.

We cannot take away an individual’s right to choose – or the time in which they learn the lessons set before them.  

It can be painful to watch others having to go through what we have.  The witness tends to remind us of our own experiences – something many of us do not want to see again.  We must realize, however, that it is not within our power to keep others from facing what they must face in order to grow and understand from their own perspective.

It is this realization that we all must make if we are to make any progress toward Peace.  

Peace relies on a strong foundation and that foundation is laid one brick at a time.  Why does the effort toward peace continue to fail?  We foolishly believe that others will trust our word enough to act as we do without proof that our actions are true.  

We say that the choices of individuals matter – and yet in our demand for peace we give others no choice.  

We say that the rights of others to live freely, without influence from outside sources are a right of all humanity – and yet in our demand for peace we expect to influence others to think as we do.  

We say that war must end because all killing is wrong – and yet we are willing to sacrifice the value of our own lives to make such a statement as boldly as possible.

Until our actions match our words – there will always be war, and life will continue to be destroyed.

Isn’t the answer to live as we believe – giving others the right to come to their own determination of right and wrong?  The consequences will be painful at times– but the individual lessons learned will bring a greater understanding of the need for peace than any amount of public protest.

Innocents die in war – but while we are busy protesting the destructive force of war on other countries, we are allowing innocents to suffer different aspects of that same destructive force – right here at home.

Innocent children grow up without the benefit of the moral guidance that comes best from families who care about each other more than they care about the families of others.

Teenagers who need parents setting limits are left to their own devices while parents seek to find gratification in an activism that would not be necessary if they would simply take the time to help their children develop into adults with the security of knowing that parents cared about them first, before taking responsibility for the actions of others.

Our youth are learning their values from those who have no responsibility to care what they teach, as parents are concerned more with saving the young lives of children whose parents were doing just fine before our intervention – sacrificing the young lives of their own children in the process; ignoring the cracks in a foundation of family values that could be the strength in regaining what this country now stands to lose.  

We believe we have the knowledge and the experience to tell others how to live and yet we trust the teaching of our own children to people we know nothing about.

We wonder when our children join the military – where did we go wrong?  We join counter-recruiting organizations to go to our schools and tell the children of others what we never bothered to tell our own.  

Peace comes from within not without.

Peace comes from acceptance – not agreement.  

Peace comes from understanding that the lives of others do not belong to us – we cannot be responsible for the choices others make.  But we must be responsible for our own.  

Peace comes from knowing that we are free to live as we choose, simply because we allow others to do the same, even if their choices lead them to face painful consequences – they are consequences they must face before they learn the true value of Peace.    

Peace does not come from simply respecting those who are in agreement with what we believe.  Peace comes from giving the same respect to those who disagree, who are seen as opposition, as “enemies”.  Peace comes from knowing that no amount of destructive behavior directed at us has allowed us to lose sight of our own commitment to the peaceful process. 

Peace is not about controlling others.

Peace simply knows that we control ourselves.

Monica Benderman is a Senior Staff Writer for Choice America Network.  She has been widely published throughout the Internet and Newspapers around the world.  Her husband is Sgt. Kevin Benderman.   You may contact her at mdawnb@coastalnow.net

 Copyright 2006 EvansMediaUSA

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK