Frank Conci wants to end the SIR program. (I disagree)

[Thinktank]

Every so often some guy comes to the conclusion that the Sterile Insect Release Program
is costing too much money, and they think they'll be real popular by wanting it stopped.
Vernon City Council were compaling a few years back. Frank Conci is doing it now. It's
one of the dumbest things anyone can do, because first - it's not all that expensive, and second
or every dollar saved by cancelling the SIR program, some orchardist will just pay out that money
ob pesticides, which will go into the environment, and probably end up ruining someone's health.
The SIR is an intelligent way of doing things. We don't want to be like countries like India or Nicaragua
where the farms blast the people with pesticides that cause all kinds of cancers among the people.

I'm not sure if Frank Conci even knows what the SIR is really about.



.

[twobits]

We don't want to be like countries like India or Nicaragua


.

They still spray just across the border in Washinton state. I'm with Frank, the SIR program is expensive and pointlesss to continue.

[Thinktank]

You've got to be kidding.

It's not all that expensive when you consider one person with cancer costs us
maybe $1 million.



.

[Thinktank]

Humans are a real clueless bunch. For some reason people can't get things
right, from the start and we have to suffer. With agriculture we are paying
a fortune indirectly to have pesticides sprayed on our food. If all the costs
of our produce were added up, including government subsidies and health costs
to farmers and farm workers, and the costs to the environment
- if all those indirect costs were added up - organic food
would be cheaper. That is just how truly backwards and simple humans really are.

The SIR program results in less pesticides being used. Sure it costs a bit, but people
like Twobits and Frank Conci don't have a good grasp of what it's all about. To cancel
it and go back to spraying organophosphates on our apples and into the air and into
some of our neighbour's lungs, - to go back to spraying codling moth with pesticides
two or three times per year would be going backwards.

Go to the cultureunplugged website. Search pesticides. Watch the 'Orange Alert' documentary
about how stupid the orange growers of Thailand are and the health problems they've created
with their stupidity. Learn something new. Then come back here and discuss the SIR program.

http://www.cultureunplugged.com/


.

[fluffy]

I thought the SIR program was under Regional District jurisdiction, how is it an issue in a municipal election?

[Thinktank]

he mentioned it on his website

frankconci.com

[Michael Brydon]

I thought the SIR program was under Regional District jurisdiction, how is it an issue in a municipal election?

SIR actually involves four regional districts (Okanagan-Similkameen, Central, and North Okanagan plus Columbia-Shushwap). The cost of the program is split between (a declining number of) orchardists and general taxpayers. The northern participants have expressed some dissatisfaction with the SIR program because (a) their climate is less suited to apple and pear crops, which are the main targets of the SIR program and (b) water runs downhill, which in the Okanagan mostly means south. In other words, folks in Vernon, Armstrong, and Salmon Arm believe they are subsidizing both South Okanagan orchardists and South Okanagan residents (who drink significantly less pesticide due to SIR -- see http://www.oksir.org/benefits.asp or http://www.rdosmaps.bc.ca/min_bylaws/contract_reports/CorpBd/2011/13Jul7/BoardReports/4_1_2SIRGuide_ExecutiveSummary.pdf).

I can certainly see their point up north. But the program is expensive, so its viability depends on widespread cost sharing. Whether a particular regional district (or unit within a regional district, such as the City of Penticton) can withdraw from the program is ultimately up to the provincial cabinet. They have the legal authority to simply block withdrawal if they believe the program is in the best interest of the province or region as a whole.

So short answer: Penticton could certainly ask the province to let it out of SIR. My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the province would say no, especially given than Penticton receives more benefits than others from the program.

The guy to talk to about SIR is Allan Patton, from RDOS Area 'C', who sits on the SIR board and also grows fruit.

Michael Brydon
Director, Area 'F', RDOS
[email protected]

[twobits]

Humans are a real clueless bunch. For some reason people can't get things
right, from the start and we have to suffer. With agriculture we are paying
a fortune indirectly to have pesticides sprayed on our food. If all the costs
of our produce were added up, including government subsidies and health costs
to farmers and farm workers, and the costs to the environment
- if all those indirect costs were added up - organic food
would be cheaper. That is just how truly backwards and simple humans really are.

The SIR program results in less pesticides being used. Sure it costs a bit, but people
like Twobits and Frank Conci don't have a good grasp of what it's all about. To cancel
it and go back to spraying organophosphates on our apples and into the air and into
some of our neighbour's lungs, - to go back to spraying codling moth with pesticides
two or three times per year would be going backwards.

Go to the cultureunplugged website. Search pesticides. Watch the 'Orange Alert' documentary
about how stupid the orange growers of Thailand are and the health problems they've created
with their stupidity. Learn something new. Then come back here and discuss the SIR program.

http://www.cultureunplugged.com/


.

I understand what you are saying. Chemical residue is not desirable in our foodstuffs. That's the perfect world. The reality is somewhat different however and if you think that our little island of SIR is making one bit of difference in the health of the general population, I've got some swamp land to sell ya. Until the entire world, from which our foodstuffs now come, moves in the direction you desire, you are just pizzing into the wind and spending tax dollars on nothing. The other glaring fact, and an unfortunate one, is that without all of these chemicals and "modern" farming techniques (organic if you like), world food production would collapse and three quarters of the world would be starving within two years. Reality. We cannot produce enough food to support ourselves with the methods you suggest. Even diverting all production away from inefficient livestock rearing and the entire world going vegan, would still leave us short.

[clouseau]

I am with Twobits.

So let me guess this right. We read letters to the editor from regional district directors on why citizens living on the immediate boundaries outside of Penticton should not have to contribute to Penticton amenities but somehow it is apparently fair game that citizens for Penticton should be expected to pay for the amenities used within the RDOS ? Yes, I realize that Westbench residents put some token funds forward to Penticton but that is the exception and not the norm.

The Federal Government already regulates what can be safely applied to food crops to protect against pests. I am tired of seeing my tax dollars paying guys in Honda ATV’s running around orchards releasing sterile insects. If orchardists want to pay for that power to them, they already get a break on property taxes and I am tired of paying the bills for RDOS free loaders.

I had no idea who Frank Conci was prior to this thread but he will get one of my votes as will any other councilor who is willing to help put an end to Penticton taxpayers subsidizing the lifestyles of those who choose to live outside of Penticton city limits.

[Thinktank]

I knew Twobits nver really had a clue, and I suspect Frank Conci doesn't have a clue either.

Said by twobits:
blablabla... Chemical residue is not desirable in our foodstuffs. blablabla...our little island of SIR is making one bit of difference in the health of the general population...

We don't actually care that much about the health of the general population. We care about the health
of people living in the valley, not because of pesticides residue on food (although that is important too)
but we care about pesticide drift onto neighbours, pesticide drift onto school children nearby, pesticide drift
into the lake, pesticide residue on the leaves and trees that farmwokers from Quebec will be inhaling,
or farmworkers from right here,
pesticide in the orchard the orchardist will be exposed to , every farm has a shed somewhere where the pesticides
are stored, and the containers can break or spill, or children can go near and be exposed. Plain and simple,
for the people who find it difficult to understand, reducing the amounts of pesticides used in the valley
is a very intelligent thing to do, and the SIR is one of the rare intelligent things a government has ever done
in history. When you think of the cost of cancers and brain tumours and leukemias, you would have to be absolutely
*bleep* to start 'saving money' on the SIR program.

But what the people like Frank Conci are saying, is 'Why should EVERYONE have to pay, when a lot of people
have nice homes in rich lakeview areas far away from any orchards, or places not near any possibility
of pesticide drift. But people like Frank Conci are 'small thinkers.' They think small. They're thinking
of the little bit of money in their own pocket, and not thinking of the farm worker for example
that goes out to thin apples all day one day after being sprayed with organophosphates, breathing in the
residue the whole day, into his lungs. People like Twobits are thinking of themselves and the extra
hundred dollars they'll have instead of thinking of studies that show children who are exposed to organophosphates
in their food are being adversely affected. And what about the backyard people with apple trees that need to be sprayed two or three times per year, and then another once or twice for other pests because the sprays killed off beneficial insects?
The SIR helps the whole valley, so everyone must chip in and pay. By getting rid of the codling moth
WITHOUT harming beneficial insects, it's the most intelligent way of pest control ever.

Start to think bigger, people. If everyone pays for the SIR
they might not see the results immediately, but it is a benefit to all of us in the long term.


.

[Thinktank]

By Andrew Schneider
P-I Senior Correspondent

Government promises to rid the nation's food supply of brain-damaging pesticides aren't doing the job, according to the results of a yearlong study that carefully monitored the diets of a group of local children.

The peer-reviewed study found that the urine and saliva of children eating a variety of conventional foods from area groceries contained biological markers of organophosphates, the family of pesticides spawned by the creation of nerve gas agents in World War II.

When the same children ate organic fruits, vegetables and juices, signs of pesticides were not found.

"The transformation is extremely rapid," said Chensheng Lu, the principal author of the study published online in the current issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

"Once you switch from conventional food to organic, the pesticides (malathion and chlorpyrifos) that we can measure in the urine disappears. The level returns immediately when you go back to the conventional diets," said Lu, a professor at Emory University's School of Public Health and a leading authority on pesticides and children.

Within eight to 36 hours of the children switching to organic food, the pesticides were no longer detected in the testing.

The subjects for his testing were 21 children, ages 3 to 11, from two elementary schools and a Montessori preschool on Mercer Island.

The community has double the median national income, but the wealth of Mercer Island made no difference in the outcome, he said.

"We are confident that if we did the same study in poor communities, we would get the same results," he said. The study is being repeated in Georgia.

The study has not yet linked the pesticide levels to specific foods, but other studies have shown peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, nectarines, strawberries and cherries are among those that most frequently have detectable levels of pesticides.

Measuring the harm
Lu is quick to point out that there is no certainty that the pesticides measured in this group of children would cause any adverse health outcomes. However, he added that a recent animal study demonstrated that persistent cognitive impairment occurred in rats after chronic dietary exposure to chlorpyrifos. Death or serious health problems have been documented in thousands of cases in which there were high-level exposures to malathion and chlorpyrifos. But a link between neurological impairments and repeated low-level exposure is far more difficult to determine.

"There's a large underpinning of animal research for organophosphate pesticides, and particularly for chlorpyrifos, that points to bad outcomes in terms of effects on brain development and behavior," Dr. Theodore Slotkin, a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University in North Carolina, said in the April 2006 Environmental Health Perspectives.

Lu says more research must be done into the harm these pesticides may do to children, even at the low levels found on food.

http://www.downtoearth.org/news/2009-01 ... d-products

[StraightUpLogic]

Alot of people posting on this topic like drinking pesticides. Sweet.

It's in your food, in your drinking water, and airborne. The less spray the better. D
Penticton is not in a place to jeprodize the health of it's citizens. It's not a subsidy it affects us too.

[clouseau]

Alot of people posting on this topic like drinking pesticides. Sweet.

It's in your food, in your drinking water, and airborne. The less spray the better. D
Penticton is not in a place to jeprodize the health of it's citizens. It's not a subsidy it affects us too.

And if the SIR program stopped spraying one hundred percent that would be one thing but spraying still occurs in orchards and that much is a fact. If you as a Penticton taxpayer want to keep having your tax dollars go towards paying guys in expensive ATV’s running around releasing sterile moths then vote accordingly. And by the way…Washington State doesn’t have a sterile insect release program…do you seriously think non sterile moths stop at the border? This is a classic case of money being washed down the drain but I have no doubt those living outside of the City of Penticton are happy to take the free money courtesy of Penticton taxpayers.

[fluffy]

Until the entire world, from which our foodstuffs now come, moves in the direction you desire, you are just pizzing into the wind and spending tax dollars on nothing.

This is a classic case of money being washed down the drain...

I disagree. The motivation behind eliminating the SIR program is purely financial, it has achieved local success in reducing the amount of sprays released into our immediate environment. This is another example of putting our pocketbooks ahead of the health of our environment and I will not support it. Even a small step in the right direction is better than backing up.

[twobits]

Until the entire world, from which our foodstuffs now come, moves in the direction you desire, you are just pizzing into the wind and spending tax dollars on nothing.

This is a classic case of money being washed down the drain...

I disagree. The motivation behind eliminating the SIR program is purely financial, it has achieved local success in reducing the amount of sprays released into our immediate environment. This is another example of putting our pocketbooks ahead of the health of our environment and I will not support it. Even a small step in the right direction is better than backing up.

Then you would support the carbon tax as well based on the same logic?