Text

LibertySteward

IMPORTANT LINK

All public officials on the above list need to hear from the public that objects to the Salt Cedar Eradication Program.

Tell our public officials you support our efforts and disagree with the current method of chemical eradication. We need your help to enjoin this struggle. We need to bombard them with conscious email and letters.

George Luis Dewey

READ THE MANUFACTURER'S DOCUMENTATION

CLICK HERE
File is in PDF format

Toxic Herbicide Spraying in New Mexico for Salt Cedar Eradication
By George Luis Dewey
January 2003

The following is a compilation of several articles on Arsenal Herbicide (Imazapyr), which is the herbicide of choice for use in Salt Cedar Eradication. Libertysteward.com has drawn its own conclusions from these and other tangental sources illustrated in this document. We believe this program to be a fraud in the sense that it has been portrayed in the local press as harmless. Also Salt Cedar has been called a "salt producing plant". Such is utter nonsense. It is a salt tolerant plan and will grow on alkaline soils with his salt contents. Imazapyr is a salt as well and it seems stupid to dump 5 pounds of toxic chemical salt on an acre of shallow water table wetlands, especially since the manufacturers admonish against it and assume no liability.

Furthermore, chlorosis is not a death sentence for Salt Cedar, as they are herbicide resistant to this particular substance anyway and it will eventually require bulldozing and land clearing to extricate the trees and their extensive and highly propagative root systems. Then the end result will be that we have even more salt and still have to foot the cost of removal anyway. This is a giant waste of money and a deception at the least for profit.

In the Pesticide Fact Sheet compiled by Information Ventures for the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture says on P. 3:

"Do not apply (Arsenal) on irrigation ditches. Do not apply (Arsenal) where runoff water may flow into agricultural land. Do not apply (Arsenal) to water or wetlands."

Some of the inert ingredients in Imazapyr (among 74% are inert ingredients) are SECRET and UNKNOWN to consumers and users. EPA lacks clear guidelines for INERTS, yet many are known to be more hazardous than the actual active ingredient and no studies have been conducted to determine synergistic combinations or other environmental combinations either between ingredients in the pesticide or other organic or inorganic potential combinations and their subsequent effects. Also, nothing is known about the possible effects of burning treated material or its effect or impact on mammals. Furthermore, Federal standards have been liberalized to allow greater concentrations of the substance to be used near food crops, thereby facilitating its use around ditches and watercourses. All of this without proper testing and largely accomplished by simply internal facilitation by loosening up Federal Standards to allow for higher thresholds of exposure.

Numerous articles supply doubts about Imazapyr's suitability for use in defoliation and detail its obscure insufficiencies.

The following areas of use detail these doubts:

The forest acres in North Carolina treated with herbicides almost doubled between 1996 and 1997 (the last year for which data is available)

Advances in vegetation control and tree genetics have resulted in rapid changes in the way some North Carolina timber farms are managed.

Many of the issues the Wildlife Resources Commission are currently evaluating focus on the application of tank mixes by International Paper Company (IP) on their 450,000 acres of forest lands in southeastern North Carolina. (Exhibit J, Report To Wildlife Resources Commission, October, 1999)

Testing on these herbicides is conducted primarily on the chemical itself, not in combination with inert ingredients, and not in combination with other herbicides. Tests have shown that combinations of two weak estrogen mimicking chemicals used in herbicides are 1,000 times more potent than the individual chemicals alone. Low potencies of these compounds when studied singly may indicate little effect on biological systems, but when combined have profound environmental implications. - Science, June, 1996.

One fact becoming more publicized with each passing week is the danger to our children as they are exposed to herbicides, Children At Risk, U.S. News and World Report, June, 2000. Even very low exposures to herbicides are proven to impair children's development.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has determined that the Green Swamp consists of several types of soils, those being: Croatan, Torhunta, Rains, Woodington, and Pantego. Their common factor of high water table, rapid permeability, and seepage should prohibit the application of herbicides to these soils in an attempt to prevent contamination of downstream surface water and aquifers. Current Green Swamp forestry operating procedures include herbicide spraying over standing water and secondary ditches.

Chemicals that leach readily (move through the soil easily) can contaminate groundwater

The Concerned Citizens of Southeastern North Carolina (CCSENC) are now aware of five herbicides currently used in aerial and ground applications by forestry interests in the Green Swamp.

These herbicides have apparently been hidden from the public behind a cloak of secrecy . . . these are the ones we know:

VELPAR (Hexazinone), manufactured by DuPont

Ingesting as little as 1 teaspoon could kill an average sized adult human. The label affixed to each container of Velpar clearly states "The active ingredient, hexazinone, in this product is known to leach through soil into ground water under certain conditions as a result of agricultural use. Use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in ground-water contamination."

OUST (Sulfometuron Methyl), manufactured by DuPont

About 1 ounce (ingested) could kill an average size adult human.

The identity of 25 percent of the ingredients of Oust are called a "trade secret" by DuPont. There is no publicly available data about the identity of these secrets. Laboratory tests of Ousts leaching potential found that a high proportion (75 - 87 percent) of the amount applied leached from the soil column. Measurements of the mobility of Oust in soil showed that it was more mobile than Atrazine, (the second most common contaminant of groundwater in the U.S.)

Drift of tiny amounts of Oust have the potential to cause significant damage to plant life and surface water. One of the most important facts about drifting Oust is that it can occur at levels that cannot be detected in the affected crop. Label instructions clearly state: "Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present".

ARSENAL (Imazapyr), manufactured by American Cyanamid

About 1 ounce of Arsenal (ingested) could kill an average adult human

Arsenal is corrosive to skin and can cause irreversible damage to eyes. Adverse effects found in laboratory animals after exposure to imazapyr include fluid accumulation in lungs, kidney cysts, abnormal blood formation in the spleen, increase in the number of brain and thyroid cancers, and an increase in the number of tumors and cancers of the adrenal glands.

Imazapyr was a persistent herbicide in field studies lasting 436 days. This is a minimum estimate of persistence because imazapyr persisted (in many cases) until the last date tested.

Imazapyrs' chemical characteristics indicate that it is mobile in water and thus likely to contaminate water. Research in Alabama found that it is nearly as mobile in soil as water and was more mobile than the widespread water contaminant Atrazine.

Ozone degradation, a treatment used to remove pesticides from drinking water is not successful with imazapyr, removing only about half the imazapyr present.

Ingredients comprising about 47*percent of Arsenal are identified only as "inerts" by American Cyanamid.
(* error - 74% of formula is inert ingredients - Note:George L. Dewey)

There is no publicly available information about the identity of these ingredients. There are no publicly available data regarding the reproductive hazards posed by imazapyr-containing products.

There is no publicly available data considering the carcinogenicity of imazapyr-containing products. There are no studies about the chronic toxicity of imazapyr-containing products.

There are no publicly available data about the distance that imazapyr can drift. Label instructions clearly state: "Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present". Toxic Herbicide Spraying

Aside from problems with the Herbicide even greater potential hazards of use exist when one looks at the inert ingredients in the product:

PANUPS: "Inert" Pesticide Ingredients Pose Hazards, July 28, 1997.

At least 382 of the chemicals on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) list of pesticide inert ingredients are or were once registered as pesticide active ingredients. According to the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), a group currently undertaking a study of pesticide ingredients, these pesticidal substances can be used legally in pesticide products without being listed on the product label. There are approximately 2,500 inerts on EPA's list.

U.S. pesticide law defines an inert as any ingredient in a pesticide product other than the active ingredient. Inerts are added to perform a variety of functions, including dissolving a pesticide, helping it stick to its target or increasing the pesticide's efficacy in some way. Active ingredients are defined as chemicals which "prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest." Federal law requires that active ingredients be listed on the label, but inerts -- which can comprise up to 99% of the product -- may remain secret.

NCAP's findings indicate that EPA allows manufacturers to use certain active ingredients as though they were inerts -- NCAP calls these substances "active inerts." According to NCAP, the fact that so many "active ingredients can be used legally in pesticide products without being disclosed on the label constitutes a major oversight by EPA."

In 1987, EPA announced an inerts strategy it said was "designed to reduce the potential for adverse effects from the use of pesticide products containing toxic inert ingredients." Central to the strategy was the creation of four toxicity categories. List 1, "Inerts of Toxicological Concern," includes carcinogens, teratogens and neurotoxins. EPA stipulated that no new products could use these toxic inerts and that, in existing products, their use and a
warning must be disclosed on the label. List 2, "Potentially Toxic/High Priority for Testing," is made up of chemicals that are structurally similar to List 1 inerts and/or that had incomplete data sets. List 3 is called "Inerts of Unknown Toxicity" and List 4 contains substances generally regarded as innocuous. Inert ingredients on Lists 2, 3 and 4 are not required to be listed on product labels.

Approximately 70% of the active inerts are found on List 3, "Inerts of Unknown Toxicity" -- 264 out of the 382 active inerts. Included in the list are:

-- Naphthalene, an insecticidal fumigant that is a common component of mothballs. According to U.S. Health and Human Services, it can cause brain damage, convulsions and death in children
-- Chlorothalonil, a fungicide and a probable human carcinogen according to the U.S. EPA) and
-- Chloropicrin, a fumigant and respiratory tract irritant that can cause asthma, pulmonary edema, bronchopneumonia and death.

Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) is also among the 1,981 pesticide inerts included on List 3, "Inerts of Unknown Toxicity." However, in 1987 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified BHA as a possible carcinogen, and according to EPA's own criteria, chemicals that have been assessed as known, probable or possible carcinogens by IARC qualify for List 1. This discrepancy is particularly troubling because BHA is a commonly used antioxidant in butter, vegetable oils, cereals, baked goods, potato chips, meat products and many other foods.

In 1997, IARC classified two commonly used inerts as known carcinogens: crystalline quartz silica and cristobalite. Neither is required to be listed on pesticide product labels, and, based on information obtained by NCAP from a Freedom of Information Act request to EPA, crytalline quartz silica can be found as an inert ingredient in at least 1,560 pesticide products.

NCAP is calling on EPA to revise their inerts policy to include the required listing of all ingredients on product labels regardless of toxicity. In addition, NCAP states that all chemicals used in pesticide formulations must be subject to the same health and safety testing requirements as active ingredients. Under U.S. law, EPA must disclose the identities of pesticide ingredients that pose "an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." However, EPA cannot determine whether a chemical poses such a risk when it has little or no information.

NCAP will release a more detailed report of their findings this fall.

Source: Journal of Pesticide Reform, Summer 1997. Contact: NCAP, P.O. Box 1393, Eugene, OR 97440; Phone (541) 344-5044; fax (541) 344-6923; Email ncap@pesticides.org: http://www.pesticide.org/factsheets.html

Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
Phone: (415) 541-9140 Fax: (415) 541-9253

For general information about PANNA, send an email message to: panna@panna.org
http://www.panna.org/ panna-info@igc.apc.org

Inert Ingredients

In addition to active ingredients, herbicide products contain a certain percentage of "inert" ingredients, which enhance the action of the active ingredient. Inert ingredients are not listed by name on product labels, and their identity is considered a trade secret. Herbicide product formulas are not available to the public even through the Freedom of Information Act process, since the Environmental Protection Agency will not release the identity of inert ingredients without the manufacturer's permission.

Inert ingredients can include surfactants, carriers, preservatives, dyes, and anti-foaming agents among other chemicals. Many are "inert" ingredients are inactive in name only. Some inert ingredients are more acutely toxic to non-target species than the herbicide active ingredient itself. For example, the herbicide GARLON 4 combines diesel fuel with the active ingredient triclopyr. This "inert" ingredient is not listed on the product label, although it is a known water pollutant and is highly toxic to fish. The herbicide OUST includes a formaldehyde condensate as an inert ingredient (EI DuPont, Inc, personal communication, 1998). In addition, commercial products may contain contaminants due to imperfections in the manufacturing processes (O'Brien, 1990).

The herbicide glyphosate (ACCORD herbicide) requires the use of a surfactant to facilitate transport of the herbicide into the plant. Glyphosate product labels specifically recommend use of the detergent surfactant POEA, a potent water contaminant known to be dangerous to aquatic organisms. The popular lawn and forestry herbicide product ROUNDUP combines the herbicide glyphosate with the "inert" ingredient POEA into one herbicide product.

Unfortunately, most research on toxicity and environmental fate of forestry herbicides is conducted on herbicide active ingredients only. No research exists on the combinations of herbicide products (active ingredients and inerts) actually used in the Maine woods. Interactions between inert and active ingredients in these mixtures are likely, but impossible to investigate since some ingredients remain manufacturer secrets. Additionally, very little field research has examined the environmental impact of herbicide products at all. As Chen, Bolger and Calvie (2001) point out, acute toxicity studies have limited relevance to the actual impact of mixtures of forestry herbicide products in a real forest ecosystem.

In 1997, the Herbicide Project filed a formal request to the EPA for the identity of specific herbicide product inert ingredients. Prepared with volunteer legal assistance, the request used the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. The EPA responded by denying our request, pending permission to release the identity of inert ingredients from of the herbicide product manufacturers. Some granted this permission, others were selective. After several years, the information listed below was obtained. National anti-pesticide organizations are currently challenging the EPA's refusal to release the identities of inert ingredients.

Partial listing of inert ingredients:

ACCORD Herbicide
Manufacturer: Monsanto
Active ingredient: glyphosate
Inert ingredients: water, FD&C blue No. 1
Information source: EPA

ARSENAL Herbicide
Manufacturer: American Cyanamid
Active ingredient: imazapyr
Inert ingredients: glacial acetic acid
Other inert ingredientss unknown- permission denied by manufacturer
Information source: EPA

GARLON 4 Herbicide
Manufacturer: DowElanco
Active ingredient: triclopyr
Inert ingredients: Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid
Ethoxylated sorbitan monooleate
Petroleum solvent (usually diesel/kerosene)
Information source: EPA

ESCORT Herbicide:
Manufacturer: EI DuPont
Active ingredient: sulfometuron methyl
Inert ingredients: sodium naphthalene sulfonate- formaldehyde condensate
sulfate of alkyl carboxylate
Information source: EI DuPont, Inc.

And this from the Maine Woods detailing Imazapyr use:

Aerial Herbicide Spraying- Poisoning the Maine (and New Hampshire) Woods
by Daisy Goodman

Aerial application of herbicides is a common forestry management tool in the United States and Canada, and one which is currently employed in the northern New Hampshire and Maine woods. In 1998, a total of 58,264 acres in Maine were sprayed with a mixture of herbicide products by nine companies, including Bowater, SAPPI, International Paper, Irving and Champion International.

Herbicides are used in forestry to eliminate primary successional species which grow following clearcutting. These plants, including raspberry, blackberry, pin cherry, aspen, yellow birch, and grasses, are considered pest species by the forest products industry, competing with the desirable secondary successional spruce and fir "crop" trees. Herbicides act by disrupting specific metabolic functions in plants, causing disorganized growth and eventually killing the plant through starvation. Because hardwood and brush species have a different seasonal life cycle than softwood species, herbicides applied in late summer and early fall kill deciduous species only.

Four herbicides are used in forestry applications in Maine: glyphosate, imazapyr, triclopyr, and sulfometuron methyl. All are classified as broad spectrum, meaning they kill a variety of plant species. However, most herbicide applications in Maine involve at least two herbicides, most commonly glyphosate and triclopyr. Imazapyr and sulfometuron methyl are added if there is a predominance of species resistant to the first two herbicides (for example, sulfometuron methyl is very effective against grass species). In addition to active ingredients, herbicide products contain a certain percentage of "inert" ingredients, whose identity is not released by the EPA, even through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process, without the manufacturer's permission.

Some inert ingredients are in themselves toxic, as in the case of GARLON 4, which combines a diesel fuel carrier with the herbicide triclopyr, and OUST, which includes a formaldehyde condensate with the herbicide sulfometuron methyl (see sidebar). Furthermore, the herbicide glyphosate requires the use of a surfactant to facilitate transport of the herbicide into the plant. Although the Maine Board of Pesticide Control does not require companies to report on surfactants used, glyphosate product labels specifically recommend use of the detergent-like surfactant POEA. This compound is a potent water contaminant known to be dangerous to aquatic organisms.

Unfortunately, almost all research on the toxicity and environmental fate of forestry herbicides is conducted on herbicide active ingredients in isolation.

Sometimes herbicide products, including active and inert ingredients, are tested, but no research exists on the herbicide product combinations such as those in actual use in the Maine woods.

Additionally, very little field research has examined the environmental impact of herbicide applications on the ecosystem level. The toxicology and environmental fate studies which are available, therefore, give only a partial, simplified image of the actual impact of forestry herbicides in a real forest ecosystem.

Aerial applications are typically made by helicopter from 60-80 feet above the target area. Because of the method of application and the chemical behavior of the mixtures used, movement of herbicides, surfactants and inert ingredients off target is both inevitable and extensive. According to researchers at EPA's Environmental Fate and Effects Division, off target drift is estimated by the agency at 45% of applied rate, and some percentage of spray may transport as much as two miles off site.

Highly potent, mobile herbicides such as sulfometuron methyl and imazapyr require much lower concentrations to cause plant mortality, and therefore more widespread damage is likely to occur as a result of drift.

Movement in soil (leaching) and surface water transport increase the area affected by herbicide applications. The herbicide sulfometuron methyl has been shown to be more mobile in water than the highly controversial water contaminant herbicide atrazine. Surfactants that are detergent like- such as POEA- are highly water soluble and wash off sprayed vegetation. Once dissolved in water, herbicide mixtures run off site and contaminating nearby bodies of water. Such off target movement greatly increases the area impacted by herbicide applications.

Area along the Pinkham Road in Aroostock County where herbicide was applied in 1998.

Herbicide applications alter the forest ecosystem on all trophic levels. On the microbial level, growth and function are dramatically diminished after herbicide applications. Both the essential bacteria which fix nitrogen in soil, and the micorrhizal fungi which facilitate nutrient uptake by a plant's root system are inhibited by most herbicides. Bacteria and fungi have similar metabolic functions to higher plants, and so are affected by herbicides in similar ways. The herbicide sulfometuron methyl, in fact, is recommended for use by the manufacturer as a soil sterilant, and the herbicide Triclopyr has been shown to suppress mycorrhizal fungal growth by close to 100% at a concentration of 1000 ppm.

After an herbicide application, the early successional plant species which prevent erosion and nutrient leaching from soil die. Loss of their stabilizing root structure leads to an increase in water movement through the soil, increased nutrient loss, and increased erosion from the spray site.

In fact, soil nutrient loss from forest areas treated with herbicides has been shown to be greater than loss after either clearcutting or clearcutting followed by burning. The effect of herbicide treatments on soil quality and nutrient uptake by plants is compounded by the persistence of certain herbicides in soil. The half life of the herbicide imazapyr in soil is calculated as 49.5 months, and triclopyr was detected in soil at 365 days post spray.

Following herbicide treatment, regeneration occurs over the next several growing seasons for a reduced number of plant species. The herbicide triclopyr in particular has been shown to severely inhibit seed germination on the forest floor after forestry applications. Some species are able to grow more quickly in the presence of herbicide residues in the soil, these are typically the more vigorous primary successional species, including grasses and raspberry.

More sensitive plant species may be eliminated altogether, strongly reducing forest diversity.

Additionally, certain herbicides act to reduce a plant's ability to bear fruit at a sublethal dose level such as occurs with herbicide drift. Rare and endangered native plants are at great risk from interference with fruiting ability or seed germination.

Wildlife is adversely affected by forestry herbicide applications in many ways.

First, the reduction of plant diversity limits availability of preferred foods, shelter, and breeding/rearing areas for young. During the first year after herbicide application, a very limited number of species regenerate, and wildlife population densities are drastically reduced. Avoidance of sprayed areas is reported for a number of years after
herbicide treatment. As species that return to a given area seasonally are forced to re-locate, territorial boundaries are compromised and breeding and nesting behaviors are disturbed. Small mammals are more subject to predation due to loss of ground cover.

Wildlife is also directly affected by exposure to toxic chemicals. Although efforts are usually made to ensure that humans are not in target areas during spraying, other species are afforded no such protection.

Exposure occurs through herbicide mixtures contacting fur and skin, through inhaled mist, and through eating sprayed foliage. Aquatic organisms are exposed to herbicides when water contamination occurs through drift or runoff from spray areas after rainfall.

Dermal (topical) exposure to herbicide products causes mild to severe effects, particularly to the eyes, depending on the active and inert ingredients.

For example, imazapyr is classified by EPA as a "severe eye irritant", and the herbicide triclopyr requires a petroleum based carrier, typically diesel or kerosene, both of which are dangerous eye, skin and respiratory irritants. Exposure to diesel fuel reduces bird egg hatchability to almost zero.

Another area along the Pinkham Road in Aroostock County where herbicide was applied in 1998. Most herbicide products used in forestry have a severely irritating effect on lung tissue when inhaled. In particular, inhalation of kerosene or diesel causes potentially fatal chemical pneumonia. The combination of glyphosate and the POEA is linked to serious lung injury. This same combination causes inflammation of gill tissue in fish, especially in young fish, reducing survival. Even small amounts of diesel and kerosene in water are highly toxic to fish. The leaching of nitrogen from soil, increase in water temperature in sprayed areas also affects survival of cold water fish species.

Ingestion of herbicides can occur initially when an animal attempts to clean itself after dermal exposure- particularly likely if the substance is irritating, and chronically through eating plants containing herbicide residues. Although there is no visible damage to plants immediately after spraying (mortality may take up to six weeks), residues are present in plant tissue and herbivores may be exposed repeatedly while feeding within a spray area. Glyphosate residues have been found in animal tissues at six weeks following spraying, and triclopyr, because it is a fat-soluble compound, has been shown to accumulate in the tissue of mammals. Humans consuming animals exposed to triclopyr in particular should be concerned about herbicide residues in meat. Herbicides are also associated with reproductive problems. A strong correlation has been made between glyphosate exposure and decrease in sperm count and increase in abnormal and dead sperm in mammals. Exposure to sulfometuron methyl is linked with atrophied and degenerated testicles in rats and dogs. Both studies cited above point to disruption of reproductive function on the endocrine level, the body's hormone regulatory system, and raise grave concerns about the long term impacts of exposure, particularly to combinations of pesticides and other toxic ingredients of pesticide products. To date, no studies are available which specifically address endocrine disruption by any of the herbicides
currently in use in forestry in Maine.

Recently, pesticide exposure has been linked to immune disfunction in numerous studies. A study by Swedish oncologists Drs. Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson published in the journal of the American Cancer Society in early 1999 has revealed clear links between glyphosate exposure and development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a form of cancer of the lymphatic system which has increased worldwide at an alarming rate in recent years. The cumulative impact of aerial spraying on wildlife is poorly understood because of the narrow focus of the research available at this time. The combination of stressors which occurs through exposure to a mixture of herbicides, surfactants, and inert ingredients presents a far more serious threat to an individual's survival than is provided by a controlled study of one chemical and one exposure route in the laboratory setting.

Claims by the forest products industry that aerial spraying is harmless or beneficial to wildlife are hardly supported by the limited scientific literature that exists, and there is a serious lack of research available. Existing evidence shows that this practice alters the forest ecosystem on all trophic levels, but the real environmental impact of extensive aerial herbicide applications in Maine and northern New Hampshire is unknown. Should we continue to allow a giant environmental experiment to continue without challenge?

And for the chemists among us...... product names/manufacturers/chemical constituents:

ACCORD herbicide
manufacturer: Monsanto
active ingredient: glyphosate
inert ingredients: water, FD&C blue No. 1

ARSENAL herbicide
manufacturer: American Cyanamid
active ingredient: imazapyr
inert ingredients: glacial acetic acid, others- claimed confidential by manufacturer

GARLON 4 herbicide
manufacturer: DowElanco
active ingredient: triclopyr
inert ingredients: Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, Ethoxylated sorbitan monooleate, Petroleum solvent (usually diesel/kerosene)

ESCORT herbicide
manufacturer: EI DuPont
active ingredient: sulfometuron methyl
inert ingredients: sodium naphthalene sulfonate- formaldehyde condensate, sulfate of alkyl carboxylate, sulfate of alkyl naphthalene, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, trisodium phosphate, sucrose

OUST herbicide
manufacturer: EI DuPont
active ingredient: sulfometuron methyl
inert ingredients: sucrose, Sodium salt of naphthalene-sulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate, Polyvinyl pyrrolidone, Sodium salt of sulfated alkyl carboxylated and sulfate alkyl naphthalene, Hydroxypropyl
methylcellulose

All information obtained through EPA via Freedom of Information Request
(1996-1998).

Routine Mine Processing involves pumping:

drilling mud from pits at exploration sites
process water at industrial plants
waste from sumps & holding tanks at oil refineries
cooling water at power plants
salt brine transfer
tailings, slimes, sludges & slurries at mines
dewatering construction & excavation sites, mines, quarries
sand & gravel pits

and...

Several Mining operations cause the creation of large stockpiles of industrial waste such as:

Dredging produces:

mine tailings & precipitates
mill scale at steel mills
pulp, wood chips & waste at paper mills
sediment & silt from industrial run-off holding ponds
fly ash at power plants
caustic, corrosive, abrasive, radioactive wastes of all kinds

Not to mention the following litany of industrial toxic waste:

dredge
mill scale
petrochemical sludge
metal precipitates
lime sludge
biosolids
fly ash
alum sludge
mine tailings
coal fines

All above from dredging operations as a result of chemical company herbicide production and other related businesses.

Other Industry Application List for valvemakers for this industry also requiring lined tanks or special equiptment able to withstand corrosive attack include and refuse sources indirectly related to the production of pesticides, herbicides etc; as they provide a source of inert ingredients or base elements in formulations.

These are:

Acid recirculation w/fines
Alumina slurry
Animal tissue and diatomaceous earth
Asphalt sealer
Bacteria
Blast furnace underflow
Blood
Calcium silicate and fiberglass
Catalyst solution
Cement slurry
Ceramic glaze slurry
Ceramic slurry
Ceramics
Chalk
Chrome carbide slurry
Coal fines
Coating waste
Concrete
Cutting oils w/steel fines
De-bentonized tar w/coke fines
Decanting water w/steel slag
Diamond slurry
Dirt slurry
Drilling mud
Enzyme solution
Fiberglass slurry
Flocculant
Flocculent transfer
Garnet and water
Graphite mine tailings w/sulphuric acid
Grit slurry
Hospital laundry wash water
Hot strip water
Ice cubes from vacuum chamber
Limestone
Living cells
Magnesium slurry
Metal powder slurry
Micron steel pellets
Mill sludge and scale
Mill scale pit
Mill sludge
Mineral sands
Mirror back coating
Molybdenum slurry
Nuclear waste
Photoresist
Plankton
Precoat slurry
Pumice and water
Reactor recirculation slurry
Rock slurry
Rock fines and mud
S Silver slurry
Slip
Sludge w/traces of grit oil
Slurry w/wool
Soap collection
Spent oil/water/solids
Steel pellets
Styrene bead slurry
Sulfuric acid recirculation w/fines
Sulfuric acid (15%) w/salt
Tar sludge
Tomatoes
TV screen material
Underflow thickener
Uranium sludge
Wastewater sludge w/35% scale
Water/alumina slurry
Water w/sandstone
Water for furnace cooling
Water glass
Wax emulsion
Wood chips (3+ in)
Yeast (gas entrained)
Zealex and water
Zeolite slurry
Zinc slurry

Often we find that the refuse produced by one industry is the “active ingredient” or “inert” ingredient in another product. We are the end consumer and the final stage in the recyling loop and the dumping ground.

At one time American Cyanamid the company that produces Arsenal was itself in the equipment manufacturing business in 1950 ... with Kellogg Krebs, a Cyanamid metallurgist, to work towards the control of abrasive and corrosive slurries in their product line. It produces many corrosive wastes. http://www.emj.com/ar/mining_north_american_roundup_5/

The below mentioned articles detail a well documented history of the involvement of American Cyanamid Corp. in the production of Corrosive Tailings:

NORTH AMERICAN ROUNDUP
American Cyanamid exited the equipment manufacturing business in 1950 with Kellogg Krebs, a Cyanamid metallurgist, to control of abrasive and corrosive slurries.
http://www.e-mj.com/ar/mining_north_american_roundup_5/

January 2001 Pollution Litigation Review
... chromium to as an anti-corrosive in cooling ... International Smelting and Refining Co.; American Cyanamid; EI Du ... earlier (Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp., 12 ...
www.facworld.com/FACworld.nsf/doc/PollNetwJan01

[PDF] Releases of Hazardous Constituents Associated With Mixture...
... 8/16/96 American Cyanamid, Bound Brook, NJ Mixture ... 55,000 tons of leached calcine tailings were stored ... phenol, toluene, ignitable wastes, and corrosive wastes. ...
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ id/hwirwste/final/mwhaz.pdf

[PDF] SUPERFLOC HX Series Flocculant
... emulsion constituents end up in the user's tailings dam ... finding study to select a maximum, non-corrosive concentration for ... 4. American Cyanamid company report no ...
www.nicnas.gov.au/publications/CAR/ new/NA/NAFULLR/NA0000FR/NA78FR.pdf

RA4923903
... Brown 2R" from American Cyanamid Corporation. ... containers, sludges, mill tailings, burn residues ... ignitable, flammable, combustible, corrosive, or dangerously ...
www.aquafoam.com/patents/RA4923903.html

[PDF] Disposal Plan 2000 Update
... is not high-level radioactive waste, spent fuel, uranium or thorium mill tailings, or nuclear ... more than 1% by volume of free-standing and non-corrosive liquid...
www.state.nj.us/llrwsb/dp9a00.pdf

[PDF] annual report 96.p65
... Acid Mine Drainage Joseph Weaver Research Program in Turfgrass Pest Management FMC Corporation $2,000 Joseph Weaver Turf Research Program American Cyanamid Corp ...
www.wvu.edu/~osp/pdf-docs/annualreportfy96.pdf

[PDF] MINERAL POLICY CENTER
... and we are reducing them." James F. Dutcher, Louisiana American Cyanamid The New York ... AMD occurs when sulfides in waste rock, tailings, spent ore from leach ...
www.mineralpolicy.org/files/toolkit.pdf

The need to continue to utilize the wastes of other industries to produce old basically old formulations applies to the pesticide market as well as to the herbicide market. Both are struggling to grow in an overgrown captive stagnant market. To show profits they have to stimulate business with large International Pest Management Policy Platforms to create sales and a dumping ground for large vested interests in industrial waste.

Little potential for new chemical classes In spite of increased research costs, there is very little likelihood of
a surge in novel products. After nearly 50 years of research, most modern synthetic insecticides are still derived from just three chemical classes—organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids. According to industry observers, most research will generate support for existing products, aiming to maximise their potential and introduce lower dose-rate formulations. Increasingly, companies tailor their range of products to promote use as part of IPM programmes, encouraging the view that pesticides are central to the agenda for sustainable agriculture. Older products are re-launched in this manner, for example Hoechst’s endosulfan, an organo-chlorine with growing sales in developing countries. Biotechnology remains an area of interest to the major research-oriented agrochemical corporations, but few companies expect it to take the place of traditional chemical research for the foreseeable future. The exception to this may be Monsanto, in terms of bio-pesticides, and Zeneca in terms of seeds research.

The stagnant and stable market in the major pesticide consuming regions, and lack of novel chemicals, will increase the tendency in the agrochemical industry to look to export markets and sales in developing countries - particularly Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. Older active ingredients are likely to remain a key part of their product range, frequently in new formulations. (BD)

References:
1. McDougall, John and Phillips, Matthew (market analysts for Wood Mackenzie Agrochemicals, Edinburgh), The World Agrochemical Market, Chemistry & Industry, 15 November 1993.
2. FAO statistics, quoted in Hansen, Michael, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: FAO at the Crossroads, Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union and Pesticide Action Network, New York, 1993.
3. Agrow’s Top 25, PJB Publications Ltd, September 1993, 18-20 Hill Rise, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 6UA, UK, £250.
4. Ibid.
5. Agrochemicals and Fertilisers, Keynote Report, London, 1993.
6. Agrow, No. 188, 23 July 1993.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 22, December 1993,
page 11]

Studies on Bird Habitat also cast doubt on its use in the proximity of a hatchery and watercourse nesting area.

Bird Response to Prescribed Burning and Herbicide in Loblolly Pine Plantations

Commercial pine forests occupy approximately 25 million ha of the Southeast. Many of these systems are under intensive, short-rotation (30-35 yrs) management and will undergo commercial thinning, pruning, and understory competition control during the rotation. Prescribed fire and herbicide are frequently used in southeastern pine forests to control understory hardwood competition. These management practices are also used to enhance wildlife habitat and prepare seedbeds. Fire is a natural process that has been an integral part of southeastern pine ecosystems for thousands of years. Historically, prescribed burning has been the management tool of choice for site preparation and understory hardwood competition control. Increasingly, prescribed fire use is being replaced by herbicides because of factors such as smoke management, liability concerns, and limited number of allowable burning days.

Although effects of fire on wildlife and plants are well documented, few studies have examined effects of herbicide treatments on bird communities or combined effects of fire and herbicide, especially in mid-rotation loblolly pine stands. A team of scientists from the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University and Weyerhaeuser Company have just completed the 3rd year of a 10-year study to examine effects of selective herbicide, prescribed fire, and herbicide/fire on songbird communities. This manipulative, long-term research project is being supported through the cooperative efforts of BASF, Weyerhaeuser Company, National Council of Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), and Mississippi State University, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

The study is being conducted on industrial forest lands, owned and managed by Weyerhaeuser Company in Kemper County, Mississippi. Researchers are monitoring bird response to 3 competition control practices in 6 mid-rotation loblolly pine stands, 18-22 years old when the study began. Stands had been commercially thinned 2-5 years before the start of the study. Each stand was subdivided into 4, 25 ac plots which were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments: prescribed burning, Arsenal® herbicide (12 oz/acre), combination Arsenal® herbicide/burn, and no treatment (control).

Breeding bird communities were surveyed using 10 min, 50m radius circular point counts during May and June 1999-2001. Point counts index relative abundance (mean number of individuals/species) and species richness (number of species; Figure 1). Researchers also generated a measure of the “avian conservation value” of the stand by weighting individual species abundance by the Partners in Flight Conservation Priority Score (Fig. 2). Partners in Flight Conservation Scores are based on the relative scarcity and population trends of bird species. Species with restricted distribution, narrow habitat requirements, and regionally declining population trends are scored as having higher conservation value than widely distributed, abundant, stable species. Weighting abundance values by conservation scores provides a measure of the contribution of local bird communities to regional avian conservation goals.

In 1999, prior to treatments, bird communities were similar among stands with regard to mean species richness (Fig. 1), mean conservation value (Fig. 2) and mean total abundance. Pre-treatment relative abundances of most species were similar among treatments. In September 1999, Arsenal® herbicide was applied to plots assigned herbicide or herbicide/burn using a skidder sprayer, at a rate of 12oz/acre. In January 2000, plots assigned to burn or herbicide/burn treatments were prescribed burned.

All competition control practices altered the plant community and initially resulted in reductions in total bird abundance and species richness. During the first post-treatment growing season (2000), mean species richness (Fig.1), mean conservation value (Fig. 2) and mean total abundance did not differ among treatment plots. However, not all species responded the same. Treatments reduced abundance of some species, but increased abundance of others. Seven of the 42 species observed: white-eyed vireo, Kentucky warbler, hooded warbler, yellow-breasted chat, Northern cardinal, tufted titmouse and blue-gray gnatcatcher were more abundant in control plots than treated plots, whereas 5 of 42, including mourning dove, indigo bunting, hairy woodpecker, great-crested flycatcher, and eastern wood-pewee were more abundant in treated plots than control plots.

The second year post-treatment (2001), mean species richness, (Fig. 1) mean conservation value (Fig. 2) and mean total abundance were similar among all treatments. Again, some species were less abundant in treated
plots but others were most abundant in treated plots. Four of 42 species: white-eyed vireo, Kentucky warbler, hooded warbler and tufted titmouse , were more abundant in control plots, whereas 5 of the 42 species, including northern bobwhite, gray catbird, common yellowthroat, indigo bunting, , and Eastern wood-pewee, were more abundant in treated plots than control plots.

All management regimes resulted in a short-term (1-year) reduction in species richness, total abundance, and conservation value. Midstory species such as hooded warblers and white-eyed vireos declined whereas, open canopy species such as great-crested flycatcher and Eastern wood pewee increased. As the plant community recovered and the herbaceous layer developed, birds like northern bobwhite, common yellow throat, and indigo bunting that are associated with shrubs and herbaceous ground became more abundant in treated plots. Although species richness was similar among treatments, community composition differed with high priority species such as northern bobwhite occupying treated areas and others such as Kentucky warbler and hooded warbler favoring the burn and control plots.

Fire is a natural process to which many plant and animal species in southern pine forests are adapted. In the absence of fire, fire dependent systems succeed along un-natural trajectories due to encroachment of hardwood species. On true pine sites, hardwood encroachment shades out understory plant species important to many wildlife species as food and cover. In managed southern pine systems, prescribed fire has historically been used for hardwood competition control and wildlife habitat enhancement. However, the forest industry is increasingly replacing fire with herbicide applications. Herbicides may be equally or more effective for hardwood competition control, but may not have the same ecological effects as fire. Herbicide, herbicide in combination with fire, and to a lesser extent fire, when used for hardwood competition control, result in immediate and dramatic changes in the understory and herbaceous plant community. Fire changes the composition of the understory vegetation, whereas herbicide has a strong effect on shrub and midstory woody components. Herbicidal control of hardwood encroachment may increase the efficacy of prescribed fire. Herbicide, fire, and herbicide in combination with fire to varying degrees release a herbaceous ground cover. These changes in vegetation structure affect the bird community.

Although fire is an important natural process in Southern pine systems, the reality is that it will never occur to the extent and frequency that it did in the past. Selective herbicides like Arsenal can be used to recapture fire excluded pine systems and facilitate reintroduction of prescribed fire regimes. Application of selective herbicide under the conditions of our study did not have negative impacts on bird communities after the first growing season. In fact, herbicide used in combination with fire produced conservation benefits by creating regionally scarce pine/herbaceous communities colonized by regionally declining, high priority early successional species. The take home message is this:

Vegetation management affects bird communities. Midstory and shrub species will flourish in dense, fire-excluded stands, whereas early successional and pine/grassland species will benefit from midstory management. The management regime that is best for an area depends upon the suite of species for which one wants to manage. Further research is needed to measure the continued response of the bird communities and to study the effects of a fire regime to determine the long-term conservation benefits of these silvicultural treatments for bird communities.

It appears that there are many reasons not to rush into the use of this product. Also New Mexico has an obligation to downriver communities that are already suffering from the extensive use of pesticides and herbicides in our up-stream enviroment. Babies in Matamoros are already being born with mutagenic defects from suspected water borne toxins. It also appears that the Chemical Industry has only benefited from the poor standards that govern its industry and its ability to use these products as pervasively as they do. It also appears that the federal programs in place and specialized legislation for selective deforestation governs large market opportunities of use for these products and that often legislation is fastracked into place to meet these objectives by merely raising toxic threshold levels to open up new markets for the chemical producers. That was what was done in California, Maine and Florida and now New Mexico with Salt Cedar. Millions of dollars and tons of otherwise useless byproducts of production processes are generated and dumped on the American economy and worldwide where environmental legislation does not exist.

There is more to the story... and I'm working on it.

The People of Colombia in the name of the following groups, and professionals and individuals have plead to the United Nations to stop the Agro-Chemical Warfare being waged with the same chemical that will be used in New Mexico and others currently being dumped on the country of Colombia, ostensibly to rid the country of drugs. People and animals on a mass scale are suffering environmental devastation due to this marketing opportunity for the chemical companies.

Witness below:

FIRMAN: (Signed by:)

- ASAMBLEA DE LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL POR LA PAZ
- CONSULTORÍA PARA LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS Y EL DESPLAZAMIENTO – CODHES
- ASOCIACIÓN PARA LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS Y EL DESPLAZAMIENTO MINGA
- JUSTAPAZ
- CENTRO INVESTIGACIÓN Y EDUCACIÓN POPULAR – CINEP
- RED DE INICIATIVAS PARA LA PAZ Y CONTRA LA GUERRA – REDEPAZ
- RED DE UNIVERSIDADES POR LA PAZ
- CORPORACIÓN UNIDADES DEMOCRÁTICAS PARA EL DESARROLLO – CEUDES
- INSTITUTO DE ESTUDIOS PARA EL DESARROLLO Y LA PAZ – INDEPAZ
- CORPORACIÓN LUCHADORES POR LA PAZ
- CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN Y EDUCACIÓN POPULAR
- CORPORACIÓN AGUA VIVA
- CORPORACIÓN SALUD Y DESARROLLO
- CORPORACIÓN COMPROMISO
- CORPOCIVILES
- Elsa Nivia, Directora Ejecutiva de la Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y Alternativas – América Latina, RAP – AL, (Rapalmira Colombia)
- Rafael Orduz Medina - Senador de la República
- Gustavo Petro – Representante a la Cámara
- Milton Rengifo (Unidad Legislativa de Gustavo Petro)
- María Mercedes Moreno – colectivo Mama Coca
- Flor Múnera - Fundación Comité de Solidaridad con los Presos Políticos
- Carlos Mario Colectivo "Tercos por la Paz de Colombia" (México)
- Claudia María Buitrago Restrepo CC 30271913 (Abogada)
- Luis Carlos Valencia, abogado, profesor Universidad Nacional
- Fernando Millán - Periodista de EL TIEMPO
- Mario Rey - Revista La Casa Grande (Colombia-México)
- Laura Restrepo, escritora
- Claudia Sampedro Torres y Héctor Alfredo Suárez Mejía - Demandantes ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo en Acción Popular contra Fumigaciones aéreas con glifosato y uso de micoherbicidas en erradicación de cultivos ilícitos.

ORGANIZACIONES DEL CAUCA:

ANTHOC
COORDINADORA BLOQUE SOCIAL ALTERNATIVO
ANUC-OFICIAL
ALIANZA SOCIAL INDIGENA –ASI-
CENTRAL UNITARIA DE TRABAJADORES –CUT-
UNEB
MOVIMIENTO CAMPESINO Y POPULAR DE CAJIBIO CAUCA
ASOCIACION COMUNAL DE LA VEGA CAUCA
MOVIMIENTO POPULAR DE MUJERES

SIGUEN FIRMAS..

Rosa del Olmo, Investigadora criminóloga, Caracas, Venezuela - rolmo@reacciun.ve
Tomás León Sicard, Instituto de estudios Ambientales (IDEA), Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Director Maestría en Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo - teleonsi@babcta.usc.unal.edu.co
Olga Lucía González, periodista - olgaroa@yahoo.com
Juan fernando Alviar Ramirez, Médico, Director Operativo de Salud Pública, Secretaria de Salud Gobernación de Risaralda - Colombia - jufara@hotmail.com
Proceso de Comunidades Negras en Colombia (PCN) - pcnkolombia@hotmail.com
Max Henriquez, Director General del Movimiento Verde Colombiano-MOVER, Bogotá, Colombia, Bogota - movimientoverde@tutopia.com
Hector Jose Arenas A., Fundación América Latina, Bogotá, Colombia - willylo@cable.net.co
Lilliam Eugenia Gómez Álvarez, Organización u oficio:Presidente Copnsejo Seccional de Plaguicidas, Medellín, Colombia - liliame@latin.com
Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CC.OO.) España, (Joaquín Nieto) - ,jriechmann@istas.ccoo.es
Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, Ambiente y Salud (ISTAS), España. (Jorge Riechmann) - jriechmann@istas.ccoo.es
Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica (SEAE), Spain. (José Luis Porcuna) - jriechmann@istas.ccoo.es
Paulina Ospina, Psicologa Independiente, Bogotá, Colombia - Paulina@Colomsat.net.co
Juan Gabriel Soler Alarcón,biólogo Colombiano, Brasil - bambu@inpa.gov.br
Juana Camacho, Independiente, Bogotá, Colombia - jcamacho@norma.net
Barbara Dinham, Director, Pesticide Action Network UK, Reino Unido, London - barbaradinham@pan-uk.org
LA FUNDACION VERDE ANDINO DE PIJAO (Quindío) - algir13@hotmail.com
Alexandra Ramos, Coordinadora académica del Master en Derecho Europeo, Universidad de Leiden, Holanda - aramos@utopica.com
Laurent Laniel, EHESS, París, Francia - ghanaman@free.fr
Kaori Takise, Japan Offspring Fund, Ypokyo, Japón - ktakise@japan.email.ne.jp
Eva Echeverri - lunamagneticaroja@yahoo.com
Luís Miranda Sr.,CASA DE LA CULTURA HISPANOAMERICANA, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. USA - luismiranda98@hotmail.com
Camila Buendia Caro, Estudiante, Virginia, Estados Unidos - cbuendia@gwu.edu
Jaime Alfonso Aponte Medina, Psicólogo- Estocolmo, Suecia - sandyxa@chello.se
Rodrigo Sanchez, Asociacion Internacional de Educacion Humanitaria: Unios Humanos (AIEHUH), París, Francia - susanarm4@yahoo.com
Luis Guillermo Baptiste, Estudiante Doctorado Economía de Recursos Naturales y Gestión Ambiental, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España - brigitte_bb@yahoo.es
Richard Valencia Martínez, Licenciado Ciencias Sociales, Colombiano, Asilado del ACNUR, México - richard12_75015@yahoo.com
Eudoro Espinosa Rojas , Red de Plaguicidas RAPAL Nicaragua, Manuga, Nicaragua - eudoroe@sdnnic.org
Olga Lucía Toro Cardenas, Administradora Ambiental, SOCIA FUNDACION ESPIRAL, Pereira, Colombia - karana3@yahoo.com
Víctor Zuluaga, Historiador y poertenezco a la Fundación Espiral, Pereira, Colombia - vzuluaga@hotmail.com
Fernando Funes Monzote, Agrónomo, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba - mgahona@ip.etecsa.cu
Mario Ahumada Arenas, Movimiento Agroecológico de América Latina y Caribe, MAELA, Talca, Chile - maa@ctcreuna.cl
Rocio Romero, Socióloga, Lima, Perú - rrocior@hotmail.com
Danghelly Zúñiga, Docente, Bogotá, Colombia - gio51@hotmail.com
Iván Arturo Torres Aranguren, Director Ejecutivo y Contador de cuentos, La Fundación Cultural RAYUELA - cuenta_cuentos@hotmail.com
Gloria Inés González, Economista, Bogotá, Colombia - guiglova@yahoo.com
Alvaro Luna, Estudiante investigador, Antony, Francia - alvarolunap@aol.com
Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para América Latina, RAP-AL y Red de Acción en Alternativas al Uso de Agroquímicos - rapalpe@terra.com.pe Website: http://www.rap-al.com/
Irma Lucía Salcedo, Colombia, Hawaii - IrmaLuciafromHI@webtv.net
Jose Camacho Camacho, Profesor, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, Estados Unidos - jcamacho@rci.rutgers.edu
Luis Gomero Osorio, Organizacion: Red de Accion en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para America Latina (RAPAL), Perú - rapalpe@terra.com.pe
Jesús Alonso Jaramillo Arango, Historiador, Medellín, Colombia - alonsojllo@epm.net.co
O.A. Garcia Garcia, Federacion de organizaciones ambientales del sur de Holanda (ZHM), Rotterdam, Holanda - tropico@wish.net
Vanessa Gocksch, Intermundos - intermundos@yahoo.com
Catalina Toro Pérez, Investigadora CIDER Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia - ctoro@uniandes.edu.co
Pablo Castañeda, AQUAVIVA - pablojoc@tutopia.com
AQUAVIVA - pablojoc@tutopia.com
Maria Fernanda Cardona - macardon@mangle.univalle.edu.co
Elizabeth Chiappa T., Institucion:Universidad de Playa Ancha, Docente,Valparaiso, Chile - echiappa@upa.cl
Hernan Gómez, artista independiente, Bogotá, Colombia - chonakazanda55@hotmail.com
Amigos de la Tierra - Miembro de Friends of the Earth International, España - transgenicos@tierra.org
Yesid Santamaría, Economista, Bogotá, Colombia - yesid_44@yahoo.com
Jorge Fernando Horna Arévalo, Dirección General de Salud Ambiental (DIGESA), Lima, Perú - fhorna@digesa.sld.pe
Germán Toro Pérez, Compositor, Neulengbach, Austria - toro@eunet.at
Ingrid Morris, FESCAC Fundación Estudiantil Sobre Conflicto Armado en Colombia, comisión de Medio Ambiente: EHTQA El Humano es Tierra Que Anda, Bogotá, Colombia - ingruelamorris@yahoo.com, ehtqa@ciudadfutura.com
Kimberly Theidon, Investigadora - KTheidon@aol.com
Jorge Bocanegra, técnico forestal, miembro del Partido Verde francés, ex-concejal francés, Francia - jorgeforest@aol.com
Stephen Kobasa, Colombia Action/CT, USA - skobasa@snet.net
Sara D. Smith, School for International Training, 29 High St. #306, Brattleboro, VT 05301 USA - sara.smith@mail.sit.edu
Observatorio de Conflictos Ambientales, Universidad de Caldas, Manizales, Colombia - obscam@cumanday.ucaldas.edu.co
Adriana Herrera, periodista, Miami, Estados Unidos - adrianaherrerat@aol.com
Joep Oomen, European NGO Council on Drugs & Development (ENCOD), Amberes, Belgica - encod@glo.be
Marta Lucía Martínez Gómez, Proyecto Bota Caucana - mlmg@LatinMail.com
Catalina González, Antropologa, Estudiante, Francia - catago19@LatinMail.com
El COLLECTIF POUR LA COLOMBIE, París, Francia - x.colombie@wanadoo.fr
Luz Marina Martínez Cabrera, Estudiante de la Universidad Nacional, Filología e Idiomas, Bogotá, Colombia - janledaro@excite.com
Daniel Riveros Maldonado, asesor en medio ambiente, Santa Marta, Colombia - danriv@latinmail.com; driveros@prosierra.org
Jorge López Palacio, Grupo musical YAKI KANDRU, antropólogo - cantante - escritor, refugiado político colombiano en Francia, Francia - jorlopa@aol.com
LATIN-AMERIKAGRUPPENE I NORGE, Grupos Latinoamericanos de Solidaridad en Noruega - lags@online.no
Alfonso Pardo Martínez, Comisionado de Paz de Nariño - alpa@periodistasmix.com
Claudia GUARIN, Artista, Viena, Austria - claudiaguarin@hotmail.com
William Richard Aguirre Contreras, Profesor Universitario M.Sc. Ciencias - Física - wrac@calima.univalle.edu.co
Javier Serrano Ruiz, Ciudadano - jaseru@007mundo.com
Caroline Schmidt, estudiante de geografía, Alemania - lalay4@hotmail.com
Javier Cote Sierra, Postdoctoral Fellow National Insititute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA - JCoteSierra@niaid.nih.gov.co
Rex Warren, National President Australian Chemical Trauma Alliance - rexglor@bigpond.com
Dr Meriel Watts; Director Soil & Health Association of NZ Inc, Auckland - m.watts@organicnz.pl.net; http://www.organicnz.pl.net
Robert Lawson, English Ecologists Against Fumigation, Brighton, United Kingdom - english_ecologists@hotmail.com
Alejandra Sardá, Coordinadora del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe, IGLHRC (Comisión Internacional de los Derechos Humanos para Gays y Lesbianas) - alejandra@iglhrc.org
José Luis Reina Delgado, Licenciado en Historia, Miembro del Consejo Económico y Social de Canarias en representanción de UGT - jlrede@terra.es

Teresa Niedda, Directora, EEUU - FHSINJ@aol.com
Bonita Poulin, a person with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Ontario, Canada - poulin@recorder.ca
María del Carmen Moreno Vélez, Medellín, Colombia - mariamoreno@estoyenlinea.com
David Nicks, Adelaide, South Australia - fernando@ausisp.com
Susan Russell, North East Forest Alliance, NSW Australia - tsn19499@tsn.cc

Greg Hall, North East Forest Alliance, NSW Australia - tsn19499@tsn.cc
Dave Abbott, Council Member Public Health Association of Australia, Tasmanian Branch - Dave.Abbott@utas.edu.au
Comitato Scientifico Antivivisezionista (CSA), Roma, Italia - csafin@iol.it, oppure info@antivivisezione.it,
http://www.antivivisezione.it
Leonardo González Perafán, estudiante de derecho en la Universidad del Cauca, colectivo "Alvaro Pio Valencia" y a la ACEU (Cauca) - gonzalez@emtel.net.co
Lilliana Corredor, Ph.D., Experta en Ecosistemas Acuaticos, Directora Asociacion de Educacion Ambiental, Santa Marta, Colombia; Byron Bay, Australia - lcorredor@byrononline.net
Gloria Poupard-Walbridge, duena de hospedaje de lujo Cotter House, Auckland, NZ con interes en autodeterminacion y bio-seguridad com derecho intrinseco humano - info@cotterhouse.com
Ieneke van Houten,Reflexologist, Nakusp, B.C.,Canada - ienvan@columbiacable.net
Leonor Martínez Sierra, Profesión:Educadora Ambiental, Presidenta de la Fundación Ambientalista ECOVIDA - Pasto, Nariño, Colombia - ecovida@hotmail.com
Mauricio Burbano - arymaob@hotmail.com
Sharon Hunter-Taylor - sharon@law.uts.edu.au
Stephen Welstead, Manager, Northern Rivers Gateway (NRG), Lismore, Australia - welstead@nrg.com.au
Eric Vernay, professor, France - verney@moka.ccr.jussieu.fr
::::Elizabeth Chiappa T., profesora, Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaiso, Chile - echiappa@upa.cl
Eudoro Espinosa Rojas, Red de Plaguicidas RAPAL Nicaragua, Managua, Nicaragua - eudoroe@sdnnic.org.ni
Juan Gabriel Soler, Biólogo, Manaus, Brasil - bambu@inpa.gov.br
Juan fernando Alviar Ramirez, Médico, Director Operativo de Salud Pública, Secretaria de Salud Gobernación de Risaralda - Colombia - jufara@hotmail.com
Eve Plant, Yoga Teacher & Mother, Wangaratta Victoria, Australia - evepm@dragnet.com.au
Nick Harvey, Orange Hand Systems, London, Apple Mac Solutions - nick@orangehand.com
Vladimir Támara Patiño - http://www.tamarapatino.com/vladimir