Francesco Papalia Opposes New Albany Smoking Law

Hard to imagine in this day anyone could get this upset about upgrading smoking restrictions as dozens of other cities have done. Speaking in favor of the ordinance were representatives of the American Cancer Society and other public health groups.

Stop the Spray

KAWAMURA'S MISINFORMATION-SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

In a May 16 editorial on his department’s plan to eradicate the light brown apple moth (LBAM) by aerial spray and other means, California Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura accuses those who oppose the LBAM program of spreading “misinformation” and urges us all to rely on “sound science” and to “draw the line” on “exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims” that cause “unwarranted fear.”

Mr. Secretary, it is time to look in the mirror. You and your department are the primary source of misinformation and fear tactics.

You claim the pesticides you sprayed last fall and want to spray this summer over our communities are “just pheromones,” neglecting to mention that the products in question are designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as pesticides and contain not only untested, synthetic pheromones but a host of other toxic ingredients, dispersed in minute plastic capsules.

You claim that LBAM is a “ravenous” pest that will destroy California agriculture and eat everything from redwoods to Scotch broom when in fact this benign moth has caused no damage in California and almost no damage in the other states and countries where it is established.
You claim that the spray is safe and has been tested when your own department’s documents say otherwise. You claim that the state’s superficial review of the 643 illness reports after last year’s spray proves there is no link between the spray and the sicknesses when in fact that report reviewed only 10 percent of the reports and concluded it could not determine whether or not there was a link.

Who is relying on unsound science and unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims?
At least two courts in the state of California have agreed during the past month that your science is not sound, halting the spray program in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties and ruling that you and your department abused your discretion in exempting the program from any environmental review.

Local governments all around the Central Coast and Bay Area where spraying is slated to start this summer also agree that your claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Almost every city and county – more than 25 at last count -- where you and your department have made presentations about the LBAM program has now voted to officially oppose the program.

You say you choose to rely on facts. So let’s look at some facts.

Your own publications contradict your claims that the spray is safe. You say it is untrue that the pesticide used last fall has not been tested. In fact, the assessment published by the California Departments of Health and Pesticide Regulation and the California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment clearly says the active ingredient in those pesticides, a synthetic moth pheromone, has never been tested for human exposure. The “thorough review” that you claim those agencies gave the pesticide relied on short-term exposure data for other pheromones, assumed they would be applied only over unpopulated agricultural areas rather than the populous urban areas that will be affected by the LBAM spray, and ignored the other ingredients that made up more than 80% of the pesticide. Those other ingredients include carcinogens, mutagens, and chemicals associated with birth defects and miscarriages, and toxic to aquatic life. Your department repeatedly claims it is “unaware” of those health risks even though they are documented in the toxicology database of the United States’ Institute for Occupational Health and Safety and on Material Safety Data Sheets prepared by the chemical manufacturers.

Now you are touting the “six-pack” toxicology tests being done on the pesticides proposed to be sprayed over our communities this summer. But you fail to mention that these are short-term exposure tests that determine how much of a pesticide or individual ingredient will be fatal to an animal in a very short period of time. These tests will tell us nothing about the actual risks faced by human populations to ongoing exposure from a pesticide that time-releases during the 30-day periods between sprays or about the risks of long-term health problems such as cancer.
At a recent presentation in the Central Valley where CDFA is now trying to shore up its case for spraying Bay Area and Central Coast residents, a farmer who had researched the moth and found it is not a threat asked: “why are you bringing alarm into the Central Valley?”
The only fear being spread is by CDFA, claiming that LBAM is a “voracious” pest that will eat “anything green,” destroy California agriculture, and overrun the Central Valley. You have produced no science, substantial or otherwise, to support these claims. In fact, your own department has said the moth has done no damage to crops or plants in California. Respected scientists have shown that LBAM is just another of the many leaf-roller moths that do no harm in California and that it does almost no damage in other countries and states where it is established and which do little or nothing to control it. The USDA’s own research shows that LBAM will not reproduce in the extreme temperatures of the Central Valley.

For months you told us that the reason there was no crop damage due to LBAM was that it had just arrived last year. But on a recent radio show you admitted that it has been here at least 6 or 7 years. Meanwhile, entomologists across the UC system have been saying all along that it has been here 10-50 years. How many other claims have you made that will be revised when the moth of mass destruction turns out to be just another mild-mannered leaf roller? And, meanwhile, how many more people will have to get sick before your sham science and unsubstantiated denials crumble and the truth is revealed that the LBAM program is dangerous and unnecessary?

We have read a lot in the news recently about interference with the work of government scientists charged with evaluating the safety of chemicals to protect public health. A Government Accountability Office report found that the White House's and other agencies had “delayed or blocked efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to list chemicals as carcinogens,” (San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 30) and that the U.S. EPA has bypassed the results of its own scientists research to instead rely on recommendations of an industry-funded group. Rules changes by the Bush Administration have made deliberations about chemical risk secret so that there is no oversight or open scientific debate. An April 30 Washington Post article notes that this “makes it impossible to see whether agencies are acting in the interest of science or for less noble reasons.” It seems clear similar problems have trickled down to CDFA as you and your staff present cherry picked and misrepresented science to the citizens of California in an effort to rationalize a dangerous program for which there is no justification.

You claim that you are conducting the LBAM program “in an open, transparent manner.” In fact, East Bay residents have for some time been requesting CDFA’s schedule of LBAM presentations and asking that those presentations be balanced to include the scientists whose research counters the state’s unsubstantiated claims. Those residents have received no response.

With all these lies, omissions, abuses of discretion, and failures in transparency to your credit, Mr. Secretary, and with the burden that has been placed on the independent scientists and citizens of California to bring the facts about the LBAM spray to light, the charge of misrepresentation clearly lands at your own doorstep.

Mayor Robert Lieber R.N.

Visit ccc.stopthespray.org for more information

Health Problems with Artificial Surface at Santa Anita?

Looks like Magna is having health problems with the new track surface at Santa Anita. They used a different product at Golden Gate Fields but still not exactly what we wanted to hear. They asked Albany to take safety claims at face value. I don't think they have shared this with anyone at the City of Albany.

This is from their Q1 Conference call with inverstors:

Glenn Mattson – GTK Capital

Good afternoon. Could we have an update, please on what's happening on Santa Anita on the track surface and how much more is needed to be spent there, please? Thank you.

Frank Stronach

Yes. First of all, again, that was a – we got a, call it the state imposed or the Racing Commission which is the state organization imposed that we must use synthetic surfaces. And in hindsight we should have said, "Look, if you pay for it, fine. If not we're not going to change it, okay?" We're going to have a different attitude in the future. I'm personally I've always said I don't believe so much in synthetic surfaces but we have – we are right now in the process from health issues because there's a fair amount of dust flying away, so that has to be verified that there is no health issue and we should have that within the next maybe couple of weeks and then we will do what we do have a water test where we, because we had a problem, we had an unusual amount of rain and that kind of – the water didn't drain and thereby we had to cancel races and thereby we lost a lot of monies. So those things would have to be done, if the water test is fine because we made some amendments in the race course and if the health analysis is safe for horses and for people, then we leave it the way it is. Otherwise, it might mean we might have to go back to turf surface. We'll take the next question. Okay, another question, please?

Read the whole transcript here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/78684-magna-entertainment-corp-q1-2008-earnings-call-transcript?source=reuters&page=-1

AERIAL SPRAY NEWS 5/23/08

Five Items:

1) Hear Albany Mayor Robert Lieber and former Fairfax Mayor Frank Egger on Joanie Greggains show tomorrow (Sat. 5/24) am between 8 and 9. KGO, 810 AM.

2) Assemblymember Huffman's bill. AB 2765, passed the Assembly yesterday - this bill requires disclosure of aerial spray pesticide ingredients if the manufacturer consents and a public hearing to consider alternatives to a proposed aerial spray. The bill now goes to the state Senate for a vote.

3) San Francisco School Board will consider a resolution opposing the spray this coming Tuesday, May 27 at 7 PM. T

Irving G. Breyer Board Meeting Room
555 Franklin St, 1st Floor (McAllister & Fulton)
4) Save the dates:
NEWLY ANNOUNCED EVENT:
Benefit screening of the documentary Weapons of Moth Destruction at the Roxie in SF on Thurs., June 12. More info to come, including time and panel that will speak after the film.
ALSO, don't forget:
Gate Bridge Walk to stop the spray, May 31, 10 AM starting on Marin side, ending with rally at Crissy Field at noon. For more information: www.stopthespraymarin.org.
Other upcoming event:
Oakland Town Hall meeting, June 23, 7-9 PM, Lakeside Park Garden Center, Lake Merritt

5) How can you help stop the spray?
To donate to our work, particularly our media efforts, you can send contributions to:
Pesticide Watch Education Fund, 1107 9th St. Suite 601, Sacramento CA 95814. Note on the check that the donation is for Stop the Spray East Bay media fund.
To volunteer, contact Tracey@stopthespray.org or Tara@stopthespray.org.

Silly Olympics - Saturday, May 31st at Cornell School

If you have kids between 3 and 12 you want to drop by the annual Cornell School Silly Olympics next Saturday (May 31st). It's a PTA event all about having fun with your kids. Drop by and watch your kids have a couple hours of outrageous fun!!! Runs from about 11-3

Indian Casino Interests attacking Loni Hancock

Loni Hancock is running for the State Senate and needs your help. Earlier this week, a phony "education" committee funded by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians spent $100,000 on two mailers smearing Loni's good name as an advocate for education.

The mailers claim to be paid for by "Education Leaders for High Standards" but, according to the Secretary of State, the mailers are really paid for by six tribes that own gambling casinos -- including the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, the owners of Casino San Pablo. Why are they attacking Loni? Because Loni successfully stopped the Lytton's planned expansion of Casino San Pablo to a massive, Vegas-style casino.

The truth is, California's REAL education leaders support Loni. Loni is endorsed by the California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, and 30 current or former school board members throughout the 9th Senate District.

Loni needs your help. You can help Loni spread the truth about these attacks by talking with your friends and family in the District.

And the best way to fight back is to help get out the vote. We have an aggressive plan to turn out Loni's supporters - but we can't do it alone. Call (510) 486-8357 today to volunteer. Loni's campaign staff will follow up with you right away. Please, help Loni fight back against these deceptive attacks!

NO on 98, YES on 99

You may already have received your California absentee ballot. It could be sitting on your coffee table, or in that pile of mail. We want to remind you that the most important thing you can do today for the environment is pick up that ballot, fill it out, vote NO on Proposition 98 and YES on Proposition 99, and send it in.

If you are planning to vote at the polls on June 3, make sure to cast your vote No on Prop 98 and Yes on Prop 99.

Legal analysis of Proposition 98 shows that hidden provisions in Prop 98 would wipe out environmental regulations.

Here's how: Prop 98's language would prohibit laws and regulations that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." The problem with that language is that courts have ruled that virtually all environmental protections technically impose costs on the affected party and transfer economic benefits to other private parties.

Therefore, Prop 98 would instantly gut a wide range of laws and regulations that protect our environment and regulate growth and development, such as:

* AB 32 regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other laws to limit climate change;
* Protection of endangered species and their habitats;
* Protection of open spaces, coastal areas, wetlands, agricultural land, and cultural and historic sites;
* "Smart growth" regulations that promote compact, walkable, and transit-oriented communities;
* And many more.

On June 3 (or on your absentee ballot), remember to vote NO on Proposition 98 and to vote YES on Proposition 99, which is eminent domain reform (prohibiting government from taking homes to transfer to private developers) without the hidden agendas and adverse consequences of Prop 98.

Because turnout is expected to be low on June 3, your vote is especially critical to stop Proposition 98 and elect environmental champions. Read more about what's at stake on June 3.