From howardr@are.Berkeley.EDU Fri Jan 3 10:40:23 1997 Received: from [128.32.251.243] (gia320.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.251.243]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA10462; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:40:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-mailer: Eudora Pro 2.1.4 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 10:42:56 -0700 To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu From: "Howard R. Rosenberg" Subject: (1) REI exception for rose harvest; (2) forum post problems Status: RO Forum subscribers, Trying for two birds with one stone on this note. This is my third attempt to post an EPA announcement that was first sent when hot off the wire 12/20, two weeks ago. Inexplicably, the original message was not received by anybody I checked with, and it didn't appear in the December chronfile (automatically generated in the archive). Nor has any post been distributed since 12/16/96 by trusty Listproc, including one that another participant told me he sent during the week of 12/16-20. There is no telling how many such messages have drifted off to the Bermuda triangle. After second attempts on both of the known-missing posts failed again early this week, the cavalry was called in. System adjustments were made yesterday, and Listproc is now responding normally to commands ("GET", "SUBSCRIBE", "REVIEW", etc.), but we do not know for sure yet whether it is ready to do the right thing with posts. So this present message is both a carrier of WPS-relevant information and a test. If it gets to you, let's consider the problem gone. If you have tried to post anything since 12/16 (the last two that worked were from Charlotte Coffman and Paul Andre that day), please know that it has not been seen yet, and *do try again*. Our apologies for the service interruption, and thanks for your patience. --Howard ========================================= FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1996 EPA GRANTS ROSE GROWERS TWO-YEAR EXCEPTION TO WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD Effective Dec. 18, EPA has granted a two-year exception which will allow workers to hand harvest pesticide-treated roses grown in greenhouses before the restricted entry intervals have expired. According to Roses Inc., Haslett, Mich., which made the request, without an early-entry exception, the domestic cut-rose industry would not survive economically. Based on written statements received from the rose industry, on information obtained during public meetings, as well as on the Agency's knowledge of rose production, EPA finds that the benefits of early entry over the next two years are substantial. The Agency also believes that early entry under the terms of the exception will not pose unreasonable risks to rose workers. Risks for rose harvesters will be mitigated by the limited time harvesters are allowed in the treated area, the use of personal protection equipment that must be worn by the workers, accessible decontamination facilities, the provision of label-specific information for harvesters and the basic safety information that employers must present to workers. To provide greater certainty about the potential risk to early-entry rose workers, EPA has provided funding to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to conduct and evaluate the effectiveness of the personal protective clothing in mitigating residue exposure. EPA also expects that the rose industry will research and pilot alternative practices which could reduce and possibly eliminate the need for early entry for rose harvesting in greenhouses. EPA is interested in working with the rose industry to identify specific research efforts and explore how best to incorporate practices at individual grower establishments. The Agency expects to meet frequently with the rose industry to discuss implementation of the exception as well as the research efforts. The Worker Protection Standard prohibits agricultural workers from entering pesticide-treated areas for periods of time ranging from four to 72 or more hours (depending upon the toxicity of the pesticide) following application. The Worker Protection Standard is intended to reduce the risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among agricultural employees who may be exposed to pesticides while performing hand-labor operations in or on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses, as well as those who mix, load or apply pesticides. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Howard Rosenberg Cooperative Ext Specialist, Ag Personnel Mgt 320 Giannini Hall Dept of Agricultural and Resource Economics Berkeley, CA 94720 University of California, Berkeley 510/642-7103 http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From timlc@agr.state.ne.us Fri Jan 3 11:37:39 1997 Received: from localhost ([164.119.29.117]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA11835 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:37:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by localhost (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.14/2.12um) id AA0082; Fri, 03 Jan 97 13:35:54 -0800 Message-Id: <9701032135.AA0082@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 97 13:34:55 From: timlc@agr.state.ne.us To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Reply-To: timlc@agr.state.ne.us Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigations X-Mailer: Ultimedia Mail/2 Lite, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Content-Id: <58_134_1_852316495> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO > > (This is a retry from two previous attempts) > > > Season's greetings to the WPS Forum: > > Our agency recently participated in a legislative committee meeting > requested by the pesticide application industry. The industry members > were asking our legislature's Ag Committee to draft legislation that would > reduce or eliminate frivolous or harrassing pesticide complaints. As the > issues were discussed, the industry members proposed the following idea > which I would like to ask the Forum for comments on: > > The applicators felt that if the lead agency were able to collect > the costs of an unwarranted, frivolous, or harrassing complaint from the > complainant, it would quickly stop these types of complaints. The > discussion included both typical complaint scenarios we find here in > Nebraska, as well as the possibility of WPS-type complaints. Obviously > there are significant burden of proof problems with determining which > complaints are frivolous, unwarranted, or harrassing. There were also > questions raised regarding preventing the public access to services based > on their ability to pay. We have been asked by the legislative committee to > poll the states to find out if any other states have something like this > in statute or regulation. > > Any comments would be welcome, and if you prefer to send your comments to > me directly, I promise to summarize them and submit the comments to the WPS > Forum at an appropriate later date. My direct e-mail address is: > > timlc@agr.state.ne.us > > Thank you for any comments you send. > > > //-------------------------\\ > > \\ Tim Creger // > > // timlc@agr.state.ne.us \\ > > \\-------------------------// From gary.fish@state.me.us Fri Jan 3 11:49:42 1997 Received: from gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us [141.114.130.70]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA12068 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from gatekeeper ([141.114.136.138]) by gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us (8.7.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15036 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:49:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <32CD8CD5.4A81@state.me.us> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 14:48:53 -0800 From: Gary Fish Reply-To: 28@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us, State@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us, House@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us, Station@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us, Augusta@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us, ME@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us, 04333-0028@gatekeeper.ddp.state.me.us Organization: Maine Board of Pesticides Control X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigations References: <9701032135.AA0082@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO timlc@agr.state.ne.us wrote: > > > > > (This is a retry from two previous attempts) > > > > > > Season's greetings to the WPS Forum: > > > > Our agency recently participated in a legislative committee meeting > > requested by the pesticide application industry. The industry members > > were asking our legislature's Ag Committee to draft legislation that would > > reduce or eliminate frivolous or harrassing pesticide complaints. As the > > issues were discussed, the industry members proposed the following idea > > which I would like to ask the Forum for comments on: > > > > The applicators felt that if the lead agency were able to collect > > the costs of an unwarranted, frivolous, or harrassing complaint from the > > complainant, it would quickly stop these types of complaints. The > > discussion included both typical complaint scenarios we find here in > > Nebraska, as well as the possibility of WPS-type complaints. Obviously > > there are significant burden of proof problems with determining which > > complaints are frivolous, unwarranted, or harrassing. There were also > > questions raised regarding preventing the public access to services based > > on their ability to pay. We have been asked by the legislative committee > to > > poll the states to find out if any other states have something like this > > in statute or regulation. > > > > Any comments would be welcome, and if you prefer to send your comments to > > me directly, I promise to summarize them and submit the comments to the > WPS > > Forum at an appropriate later date. My direct e-mail address is: > > > > timlc@agr.state.ne.us > > > > Thank you for any comments you send. > > > > > //-------------------------\\ > > > \\ Tim Creger // > > > // timlc@agr.state.ne.us \\ > > > \\-------------------------// Tim: This is a pipe dream. You can't restrict public access to government agencies. No matter how harrasing people are. It is part of the job. If they aren't using obscenities or illegal actions, "their" government must respond. Just my opinion. Gary Fish Maine BPC From HAMV235@LNI.WA.GOV Fri Jan 3 12:41:16 1997 Received: from mail1.wa.gov (mail1.wa.gov [147.55.96.33]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA13008 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:41:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail1.wa.gov (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA19859; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:40:23 -0800 Received: from LNI.WA.GOV by WSSWVM1.WA.GOV (Soft*Switch Central V4L40P1A) id 293440120097003FWLNIVM1; 03 Jan 1997 12:40:12 GMT Message-Id: Date: 03 Jan 1997 12:40:12 GMT From: "HAMV235@WLNIVM1" Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigati To: wps-forum@ARE.BERKELEY.EDU Comment: WLNIVM1 HAMV235 01/03/97 12:40:32 INTERNET Status: O This note is from Ginny Hamilton, 360-902-5426 MS:4610 HAMV235 Wow! And who decides what is frivolous or harassing? The application companies? The purpose of government adressing complaints is supposed to be to see if state laws are being followed. So let's investigate the complaints, fairly and impartially. Every state will have whiners and complainers, but they are never the majority in my experience. *** Reply to note of 01/03/97 11:40 To: WPSFORUM--INTERNET WPSFORUM Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigati > > (This is a retry from two previous attempts) > > > Season's greetings to the WPS Forum: > > Our agency recently participated in a legislative committee meeting > requested by the pesticide application industry. The industry members > were asking our legislature's Ag Committee to draft legislation that would > reduce or eliminate frivolous or harrassing pesticide complaints. As the > issues were discussed, the industry members proposed the following idea > which I would like to ask the Forum for comments on: > > The applicators felt that if the lead agency were able to collect > the costs of an unwarranted, frivolous, or harrassing complaint from the > complainant, it would quickly stop these types of complaints. The > discussion included both typical complaint scenarios we find here in > Nebraska, as well as the possibility of WPS-type complaints. Obviously > there are significant burden of proof problems with determining which > complaints are frivolous, unwarranted, or harrassing. There were also > questions raised regarding preventing the public access to services based > on their ability to pay. We have been asked by the legislative committee to > poll the states to find out if any other states have something like this > in statute or regulation. > > Any comments would be welcome, and if you prefer to send your comments to > me directly, I promise to summarize them and submit the comments to the WPS > Forum at an appropriate later date. My direct e-mail address is: > > timlc@agr.state.ne.us > > Thank you for any comments you send. > > > //-------------------------\\ > > \\ Tim Creger // > > // timlc@agr.state.ne.us \\ > > \\-------------------------// From Heisler.Karen@epamail.epa.gov Fri Jan 3 14:04:01 1997 Received: from merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.148]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA14797 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:03:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from epahub2.rtptok.epa.gov (epahub2.rtptok.epa.gov [134.67.212.63]) by merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA17617 for <@merlin.rtpnc.epa.gov:wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU>; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 17:01:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by epahub2.rtptok.epa.gov (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA4625; Fri, 03 Jan 97 17:01:51 -0500 Message-Id: <9701032201.AA4625@epahub2.rtptok.epa.gov> Received: by EPA (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 73E223B36EE6413B882564140074CD89; Fri, 3 Jan 97 17:01:47 To: wps-forum From: Karen Heisler Date: 3 Jan 97 13:57:39 Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Status: RO It was interesting to read and consider the implications of this question. Like the two previous respondents, I feel strongly that government agencies are obligated to respond respectfully to all complaints from constituents, even if the request for information, complaint, etc. is deemed frivolous by some. The suggestion that a fee be used as a screening mechanism for what should rightfully be expected to be provided by public agencies is, indeed, a dangerous precendent to set. It doesn't take much discouragement to impede the 'average' citizen's perception of adequate access to information or response from government, and this seems to push forcefully in the wrong direction. In addition to the compliance-oriented function of agency response to complaints, "to see if state laws are being followed", said Ginny Hamilton, response by agencies also provides for critical educational opportunities. State and Federal pesticide laws and regulations are not always as transparent to citizens as to those of us charged with implementing and defending them. In addition to inviting a quick slide down the slippery slope toward government disdain for public concern, deeming a complaint frivolous might very well be a missed opportunity to provide information, information that might even be critical to public health or environmental protection. As well as the responsibility to investigate complaints fairly and impartially, as stated by Ms. Hamilton, we, as public servants, carry the responsibility to provide information, to educate fairly and impartially. Any compromise of this fundamental function of government threatens the credibility of all of our agencies, and challenges our fundamental rights as citizens. timlc @ agr.state.ne.us 01/03/97 10:34 AM To: wps-forum @ are.Berkeley.EDU @ IN cc: (bcc: Karen Heisler) Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigations > > (This is a retry from two previous attempts) > > > Season's greetings to the WPS Forum: > > Our agency recently participated in a legislative committee meeting > requested by the pesticide application industry. The industry members > were asking our legislature's Ag Committee to draft legislation that would > reduce or eliminate frivolous or harrassing pesticide complaints. As the > issues were discussed, the industry members proposed the following idea > which I would like to ask the Forum for comments on: > > The applicators felt that if the lead agency were able to collect > the costs of an unwarranted, frivolous, or harrassing complaint from the > complainant, it would quickly stop these types of complaints. The > discussion included both typical complaint scenarios we find here in > Nebraska, as well as the possibility of WPS-type complaints. Obviously > there are significant burden of proof problems with determining which > complaints are frivolous, unwarranted, or harrassing. There were also > questions raised regarding preventing the public access to services based > on their ability to pay. We have been asked by the legislative committee to > poll the states to find out if any other states have something like this > in statute or regulation. > > Any comments would be welcome, and if you prefer to send your comments to > me directly, I promise to summarize them and submit the comments to the WPS > Forum at an appropriate later date. My direct e-mail address is: > > timlc@agr.state.ne.us > > Thank you for any comments you send. > > > //-------------------------\\ > > \\ Tim Creger // > > // timlc@agr.state.ne.us \\ > > \\-------------------------// From pandre@mail.state.mo.us Mon Jan 6 05:37:23 1997 Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id FAA00449 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 05:37:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from LOCALNAME ([204.185.50.66]) by services.state.mo.us (8.8.3/8.8.0) with SMTP id HAA07644 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:37:36 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <32D11C61.6C95@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 07:38:09 -0800 From: Paul Andre Organization: MO Department of Agriculture X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigations References: <9701032135.AA0082@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Tim, I hope that you won't be too upset if one of your fellow Region VII states doesn't come to your rescue. While it would be wonderful to know which complaints were frivolous when the first call came in, we often don't know the "rest of the story" until an investigator wades into the situation. Most applicators think all complaints are frivolous until we fine them. In Missouri we are well into an attitude of more customer service and accessibility. This would and SHOULD preclude anything that would limit the people's access to their government. If you think its a pain dealing with frivolous complaints, wait until a lawyer wants YOUR AGENCY to reimburse his client for property damage allegedly caused by an application and gets the Governor and his legal counsel involved! In these days of budget difficulties and questionable future resources, think of frivolous complaints as job security! -- Key ya later, Paul Paul Andre Missouri Dept of Agriculture From sdavis@nclr.org Mon Jan 6 06:56:24 1997 Received: from relay3.smtp.psi.net (relay3.smtp.psi.net [38.8.210.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id GAA00967 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 06:56:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from nclr.org by relay3.smtp.psi.net (8.7.5/SMI-5.4-PSI) id JAA04676; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:56:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from NCLR-Message_Server by nclr.org with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 06 Jan 1997 09:53:04 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 09:52:50 -0500 From: shelley davis To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigations -Reply Status: RO This is to reply to your inquiry regarding the assessment of fees for "harassing" pesticide complaints. The Farmworker Justice Fund has been assisting farmworkers around the country in filing pesticide complaints for at least the past decade. The number one problem we face is that farmworkers are too afraid of retaliation to file complaints -- even when they are sick enough to see a doctor or spend the night in a hospital! In addition, the issue of what is a "frivolous" complaint is hardly free from doubt. As you all know, it is not easy to demonstrate a pesticide exposure incident, especially if even a few days have passed since the event occurred. Telltale metabolites or cholinesterase depression will only last a day or two; and clothing which might have pesticide residues may have been washed. In addition, even farmworkers who seek medical treatment may lack the proof they need. Frequently, pesticide poisoning symptoms mirror a variety of common symptoms of other conditions. Organophosphate poisoning may produce "flu-like" symptoms; pesticide dermatitus does not appear to have any signature characteristics. Thus, even when medical records reflect a diagnosis of "possible pesticide exposure" it is not certain that a state agency will find a valid complaint. We are currently reviewing 35 possible pesticide poisoning incidents in Florida, where someone complained of pesticide exposure resulting in injury or illness. While we haven't yet reviewed all the files, the first dozen reveal a number of incidents where a farmworker went to a clinic or hospital, the medical provider found symptoms which could be pesticide poisoning and yet no violation was found. While we can argue over the thoroughness of the investigation, few would disagree that these investigations are complicated and finding the necessary evidence to sustain a violation is not always easy. In our view, its also important to remember the context in which these events occur. At present the majority of pesticides currently in use still have not been fully tested for chronic effects. Dozens of pesticides now on the market are suspected or probable human carcinogens or teratogens. Dozens of organophosphates and carbamates are known to cause -- and do cause -- neurological harm. These chemicals are used on a daily basis, often when the pressure of the growing season is quite intense -- so that safety practices may be less than optimal. In these circumstances, people get hurt. It is to everyone's advantage to identify the pesticides and the practices which cause the most significant injuries so that we can figure out ways of preventing them. If we start imposing fines on people for "harassing" complaints, we will derail this process -- to everyone's detriment. Shelley Davis Co-Director Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. Washington D.C. sdavis@nclr.org 202-776-1757 From sdavis@nclr.org Mon Jan 6 09:12:13 1997 Received: from relay3.smtp.psi.net (relay3.smtp.psi.net [38.8.210.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA02123 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nclr.org by relay3.smtp.psi.net (8.7.5/SMI-5.4-PSI) id MAA27467; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from NCLR-Message_Server by nclr.org with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 06 Jan 1997 12:09:06 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 12:08:40 -0500 From: shelley davis To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.EDU Subject: Harassment Query Status: RO See attached file. ------------------- HARASSME.DOS follows -------------------- From: shelley davis To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley or timic@agr.state.ne.us Date: Monday, January 6, 1997 9:52 am Subject: Re: Reimbursement of Costs Related to Complaint Investigations -Reply This is to reply to your inquiry regarding the assessment of fees for "harassing" pesticide complaints. The Farmworker Justice Fund has been assisting farmworkers around the country in filing pesticide complaints for more than a decade. The primary problem we face, however, is that farmworkers are too afraid of retaliation to file complaints -- even when they are sick enough to see a doctor or spend the night in a hospital! Identifying a "frivolous" complaint is not so simple. As you undoubtedly know, it is not necessarily easy to prove a pesticide exposure incident, especially if even a few days have passed since the event occurred. Telltale metabolites or cholinesterase depression will only last a day or two; and clothing which might retain pesticide residues may have been washed. In addition, even farmworkers who seek medical treatment may lack the proof they need. Frequently, pesticide poisoning symptoms mirror a common symptoms of other conditions. Organophosphate poisoning may produce "flu-like" symptoms; nor does pesticide-induced dermatitis appear to have any signature characteristics. Thus, even when medical records reflect a diagnosis of "possible pesticide exposure" it is not certain that a state agency will find a valid complaint. We are currently reviewing 35 possible pesticide poisoning incidents in Florida, where someone complained of pesticide exposure resulting in injury or illness. While we haven't yet reviewed all the files, the first dozen reveal a couple of incidents where a farmworker went to a clinic or hospital, the medical provider found symptoms which could be pesticide poisoning and yet no violation was found. While we can argue over the adequacy of the investigation, few would disagree that these investigations are complicated and finding the necessary evidence to sustain a violation is not always easy. In our view, it is also important to remember the context in which these events occur. At present, the majority of pesticides in use have not been fully tested for chronic effects. Dozens of pesticides now on the market are suspected or probable human carcinogens or teratogen. Dozens of organophosphate and carbamate are known to cause -- and do cause -- neurological harm. These chemicals are used on a daily basis, often when the pressure of the growing season is intense -- so that safety practices may slip. In these circumstances, people get hurt. It is to everyone's advantage to identify the pesticides and the practices which cause significant injuries so that we can figure out ways of preventing these injuries from occurring. If we start imposing fines on people who file "harassing" complaints, we will only derail this process -- to everyone's detriment. Shelley Davis Co-Director Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. Washington D.C. sdavis@nclr.org 202-776-1757  From cefresno@ucdavis.edu Tue Jan 7 07:45:16 1997 Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu (root@guilder.ucdavis.edu [128.120.8.181]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id HAA16936 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 07:45:13 -0800 (PST) From: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Received: from dialupAcorn.ucdavis.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.8.3/UCD3.8.1) id HAA08888; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 07:45:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 07:45:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701071545.HAA08888@guilder.ucdavis.edu> To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: outreach Cc: cefresno@ucdavis.edu Status: RO This is Steve Sutter with a "re-post." ... At a Pesticide Applicators Professional Association board meeting, an English/Spanish Pesticide Drift Fact Sheet, crafted by the "Coalition to End Pesticide Drift," circulated. The coalition is united to "end the use of aerial spraying." In a cover letter, USEPA's Karen Salkind said the outreach materials were USEPA-funded to give the public the opportunity to "meaningfully participate in the dialogue that drives public policy on drift." ... After noting that in 1992 there were 191.8 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported used in California, the fact sheet says "Yet often less than .1 percent of pesticides applied to crops actually reached targeted pests. The rest of the pesticides drift onto nearby land, water and communities." ... Communities as far away as 100 miles from pesticide spraying "have experienced pesticide drift." ... Would someone please verify the .1 percent? ... The flyer notes ag businesses and th! e chemical industry have established many well-funded and well-organized associations that mislead the public. For information, ring up the Pesticide Watch Education Fund on (415) 543-2627 or e-mail pestiwatch@igc.ap.org ... Fresno Clear! From timlc@agr.state.ne.us Tue Jan 7 10:41:20 1997 Received: from localhost ([164.119.29.117]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA21024 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by localhost (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.14/2.12um) id AA0085; Tue, 07 Jan 97 12:39:24 -0800 Message-Id: <9701072039.AA0085@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 12:19:51 +0600 From: timlc@agr.state.ne.us To: wps-forum@are.berkeley.edu Reply-To: timlc@agr.state.ne.us Subject: Summary of Responses to Investigation Reimbursement Question X-Mailer: Ultimedia Mail/2 Lite, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Content-Id: <54_51_1_852657592> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO This is my summary of the responses to my earlier request for information regarding whether there were states that collected the costs of complaint investigations from the complainant. Most of the responses went through the Forum ListProc, so you have likely already seen them. Those messages that came directly to me mirrored the general opinion of the rest, that being there were no states collecting these costs due to the fact it had the effect of preventing access to public services. Our agency has tried to impress upon the applicators and the Legislature that even suspected "frivolous" complaints warrant some investigation, in order to determine other potential violations. Our investigation of complaints received from individuals who "have our telephone number on speed-dial" has rarely resulted in our conclusion that the complaint was harrassing in nature. It may have appeared frivolous to the applicator but not to the complainant or inspector. An interesting point made was that of how the applicators would respond were the statute that allowed us to collect for investigation costs involved in frivolous complaints also allowed us to collect costs from the applicator shown to be at fault. Experience here indicates we have a much higher percentage of our investigated complaints resulting in violations than in frivolous allegations. Thank you for your input, it has been helpful. <=< ____|_____ __ / _ \ \ /__\ / |X| \ \ |##| Tim Creger /_________\____\ |##| timlc@agr.state.ne.us | ___ | | |##| \\---------------------/|/\|/\||__|\|/|__|____||\/|\/|\/| From ROYR@cdpr.ca.gov Wed Jan 8 08:52:30 1997 Received: from teale.ca.gov (nic.teale.ca.gov [134.186.4.253]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id IAA05017 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 08:52:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpr.ca.gov by teale.ca.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA11601; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 08:48:18 -0800 Received: from cdprn-Message_Server by cdpr.ca.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 08 Jan 1997 09:07:50 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 08:53:13 -0800 From: Roy Rutz To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: outreach -Reply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Status: RO Steve I have seen estimates that center around the 0.1 % for years. That figure is not really that unreasonable if you think of it as the amount that actually contacts the bodies of the little creatures that they are trying to kiill. The next statement bothers me much more. I think it is misleading to assume that all the rest "drifts onto nearby land, water, and communities." I submit that most of it lands within the target area even though it doesn't actually hit the little critters. Maybry they are maintaining that the land within the target area is still nearby the target pests. I can't say if this statement is accidental or intentional. Certainly a respectable group like Pesticide Watch wouldn't intentionally mislead the pjublic to generate undue fear and increase sympathy for their point of view. That would be irresponsible! RoyR <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This is Steve Sutter The fact sheet says "Yet often less than .1 percent of pesticides applied to crops actually reached targeted pests. The rest of the pesticides drift onto nearby land, water and communities." ... Communities as far away as 100 miles from pesticide spraying "have experienced pesticide drift." .... Would someone please verify the .1 percent? ... From chessele@acesag.auburn.edu Thu Jan 9 09:23:17 1997 Received: from acesag.auburn.edu (dns.acesag.auburn.edu [131.204.46.50]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id JAA28748 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:23:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from aces1 by acesag.auburn.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06882; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:23:03 -0600 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:23:05 -0600 (CST) From: Charles Hesselein X-Sender: chessele@aces1 To: cefresno@UCDAVIS.EDU cc: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: outreach In-Reply-To: <199701071545.HAA08888@guilder.ucdavis.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO Dear Steve: I'm not surprised with the .1% figure. When you figure how much material is sprayed and how much of that spray actually contacts the target pest you can come up with those type of figures. On the other hand just because only 0.1% actually contacts the target pest doesn't mean that the rest of the spray material is going out of the sprayed area. I would suggest giving Ken Giles in Ag. Engineering at Davis (if that dept. still exists). He should have plenty of facts and figures for you. Chazz ******************************************* * Charles P. (Chazz) Hesselein * * Extension Horticulturist, ACES * * chesssele@acesag.auburn.edu * * 1-334-342-2366 fax: 1-334-342-1022 * ******************************************* On Tue, 7 Jan 1997 cefresno@UCDAVIS.EDU wrote: > > > > > This is Steve Sutter with a "re-post." ... At a Pesticide Applicators Professional Association board meeting, an English/Spanish Pesticide Drift Fact Sheet, crafted by the "Coalition to End Pesticide Drift," circulated. The coalition is united to "end the use of aerial spraying." In a cover letter, USEPA's Karen Salkind said the outreach materials were USEPA-funded to give the public the opportunity to "meaningfully participate in the dialogue that drives public policy on drift." ... After noting that in 1992 there were 191.8 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported used in California, the fact sheet says "Yet often less than .1 percent of pesticides applied to crops actually reached targeted pests. The rest of the pesticides drift onto nearby land, water and communities." ... Communities as far away as 100 miles from pesticide spraying "have experienced pesticide drift." ... Would someone please verify the .1 percent? ... The flyer notes ag businesses and th! > ! > e chemical industry have established many well-funded and well-organized associations that mislead the public. For information, ring up the Pesticide Watch Education Fund on (415) 543-2627 or e-mail pestiwatch@igc.ap.org ... Fresno Clear! > > > > > > > > > > > > From shenkm@ava.bcc.orst.edu Thu Jan 9 11:26:49 1997 Received: from mail.orst.edu (mail.ORST.EDU [128.193.4.4]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA02963 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bcc.orst.edu (ava.BCC.ORST.EDU [128.193.86.4]) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA29047 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:26:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from shenkm.orst.edu by bcc.orst.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20042; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:26:46 -0800 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970109192615.00688e6c@bcc.orst.edu> X-Sender: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 11:26:15 -0800 To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: Myron Shenk Subject: Re: outreach Status: RO Steve, I think the figure (.1% targeted pesticide) you refer to was made popular in an article by David Pimentel, and I thought he gave the figure of only 1% of the pesticides applied actually contacting the pest of interest. I don't think he intended to say that we could reduce pesticide rates by 99% and still achieve the same level of control. Granted, little of the pesticides we apply actually make contact with a specific pest. But, if we do not covered the entire leaf surface with a fungicide, but chose to apply a minute droplet since we anticipate that a single disease spore of less than 1 mm in diameter will fall on the leaf surface, what is the probability that it will fall precisely on our 1 mm droplet of fungicide? Hello Murphy, your law still functions!!! I believe this is the way this misleading figure is used to distort the efficacy of pesticide applications. Pimentel et.al. (10 additional authors) in a 1989/1990 paper, "Environmental and Economic Impacts of Reducing U.S. Agricultural Pesticide Use," state that "only 25% to 50% of the pesticides applied by aircraft actually reaches the targe area..." I do not have the time to wade through this article to see if the .1% figure is given, but I really think it was in a later paper. To follow up on my example, let us assume that prior experience suggests that we can expect that 32 weed seeds/square meter will germinate in our newly sown crop. We spray a herbicide that must be absorbed by that tiny tiny coleoptile as it nears the soil surface. Can you tell me where to place exactly 32 microgram-sized droplets of herbicide so each emerging coleoptile makes intimate and fatal contact, thus enabling us to save the remaining 99% of our herbicide solution? The .1% figure is useful for an anti-pesticide campaign, but it distorts reality. Myron Shenk At 07:45 AM 1/7/97 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >This is Steve Sutter with a "re-post." ... At a Pesticide Applicators Professional Association board meeting, an English/Spanish Pesticide Drift Fact Sheet, crafted by the "Coalition to End Pesticide Drift," circulated. The coalition is united to "end the use of aerial spraying." In a cover letter, USEPA's Karen Salkind said the outreach materials were USEPA-funded to give the public the opportunity to "meaningfully participate in the dialogue that drives public policy on drift." ... After noting that in 1992 there were 191.8 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported used in California, the fact sheet says "Yet often less than .1 percent of pesticides applied to crops actually reached targeted pests. The rest of the pesticides drift onto nearby land, water and communities." ... Communities as far away as 100 miles from pesticide spraying "have experienced pesticide drift." ... Would someone please verify the .1 percent? ... The flyer notes ag businesses and th! >! >e chemical industry have established many well-funded and well-organized associations that mislead the public. For information, ring up the Pesticide Watch Education Fund on (415) 543-2627 or e-mail pestiwatch@igc.ap.org ... Fresno Clear! > > > > > > > > > > > > Myron Shenk IPPC/OSU (Integrated Plant Protection Center of Oregon State University--don't need in address) 2040 Cordley Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-2915 Tel. (541) 737-6274 FAX (541) 737-3080 email: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu From ams@cftnet.com Thu Jan 9 14:15:52 1997 Received: from renoir.cftnet.com (renoir.cftnet.com [163.125.1.2]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id OAA10115 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from marc-s (ppp248_2.cftnet.com [163.125.248.2]) by renoir.cftnet.com (8.8.0/8.6.4) with SMTP id RAA11807 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:15:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:15:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701092215.RAA11807@renoir.cftnet.com> X-Sender: ams@cftnet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU From: ams@cftnet.com (Marc Donovan) Subject: Free pesticide tracking software Status: RO This is to announce that we have launched a new web site which allows you to download free software to manage your record-keeping for WPS and RUPs. Point your browser to www.OfficeWizard.com, and download the AMS system. Copy the file (AMS_566.EXE) to a temporary directory, and type AMS_566 and it will automatically run the install program. The system will then run a short demo. You may copy the AMS_566.EXE file, and give it to whomever has a need for it. We realize that this is not a forum for commercial products, however we feel that the free software will be extremely useful to the public. Marc Donovan Home of the: Commercial Computer Systems Office Wizard - Office Management System 8401 9th St. N. Suite E AMS - Pesticide Tracking System St Petersburg, FL 33702 www.OfficeWizard.com (813)579-0000 ams@cftnet.com From ward@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Thu Jan 9 16:12:27 1997 Received: from rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (ward@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu [129.81.224.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id QAA14450 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 16:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (ward@localhost) by rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (8.6.12/8.5) id SAA114323; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:12:13 -0600 From: William Ward Message-Id: <199701100012.SAA114323@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu> Subject: Re: pesticide coverage To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:12:13 -0600 (CST) Cc: ward@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (William Ward) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970109192615.00688e6c@bcc.orst.edu> from "Myron Shenk" at Jan 9, 97 11:26:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 TCS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Thursday, January 9 All purpose spray adjuvant, when mixed with pesticide and water, reduces the surface tension of the droplets. This leads to a greater coverage of the surface of the leaf. Bill Ward ward@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu > > > Pimentel et.al. (10 additional authors) in a 1989/1990 paper, "Environmental > and Economic Impacts of Reducing U.S. Agricultural Pesticide Use," state > that "only 25% to 50% of the pesticides applied by aircraft actually reaches > the targe area..." to > er. > > At 07:45 AM 1/7/97 -0800, you wrote: > > > " ... After noting that in 1992 > there were 191.8 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported > used in California, the fact sheet says "Yet often less than .1 percent of > pesticides applied to crops actually reached targeted pests. The rest of > the pesticides drift onto nearby land, water and communities." ... > Communities as far away as 100 miles from pesticide spraying "have > experienced pesticide drift." ... Would someone please verify the .1 > percent? ... The flyer notes ag businesses and th! > >! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myron Shenk > IPPC/OSU > (Integrated Plant Protection Center of > Oregon State University--don't need in address) > 2040 Cordley Hall > Corvallis, OR 97331-2915 > Tel. (541) 737-6274 > FAX (541) 737-3080 > email: shenkm@bcc.orst.edu > > From ward@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Sat Jan 11 08:55:03 1997 Received: from rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (ward@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu [129.81.224.53]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id IAA13179 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:55:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (ward@localhost) by rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (8.6.12/8.5) id KAA88145; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:54:58 -0600 From: William Ward Message-Id: <199701111654.KAA88145@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu> Subject: A special message To: ihp-net@interaccess.com, WPS-Forum@are.berkeley.edu, father-l@tc.umn.edu Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:54:58 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 TCS] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: RO Forwarded message: > From ward Sat Jan 11 10:39:04 1997 > Subject: A special message > To: ward (William Ward) > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:39:04 -0600 (CST) > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 TCS] > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Length: 5892 > > Forwarded message: > > From ward Sat Jan 11 10:13:16 1997 > > Subject: A special message > > To: ward (William Ward) > > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:13:16 -0600 (CST) > > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 TCS] > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Content-Length: 2011 > > > > Forwarded message: > > > From ward Fri Jan 10 19:01:13 1997 > > > Subject: A special message > > > To: ward (William Ward) > > > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:01:13 -0600 (CST) > > > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 PGP3 TCS] > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > Content-Length: 612 > > > > > > > > > Friday, January 10, 1997 > > > > > > Dear EVALCOMMERS, I am taking the liberty of including a personal > > > message from a woman who means a great deal to me. We dated in > > > high school and probably played in 50 tennis tournaments toge- > > > ther while growing up. We even founded a public tennis club in > > > Portland, Oregon and ran it the first year. Since that time, I > > > married someone else but my wife loves her as much as I do. If > > > you run across this post on another listserv, my apologies: > > > > > > To my friedds - > > > > > > Over the last wo years, many of you have asked me what > > > you can do to help me following my diagnosis of Primary > > Biliary Cirrhosis - a liver diseas of unknown origin and > > with no cure except a liver transplant, if you're lucky, > > and death if you're not. > > > > The Talmud, a book of Jewish law and tradition, tells us > > to "save a life and you will save the world." This > > year instead of hoping for peace, I am hoping you will > > join me in saving a life. And while it may not ulti- > > mately be mine we save, it will be someone's best friend, > > or someone's mother, or someone's child. And it is a life > > we can save. > > > > How? By carrying an organ donor card in your wallet. Or > > by having a "D" placed on your driver's license [for > > organ donor]. But most importantly, by telling whoever > > will make your health care decisions at the time of your > > death that you want your wishes carried out to become > > a donor. Because even if you carry a card, it's not > > enough. Your family, your partner, your friend must > > make that choice. > > > Why the urgency? Why now? I guess because I'm waking > up, because I'm tied of belly aching about the Mickey > Mantles and the people with money and power who somehow > seem to get a liver while others wait and die, and > because there's a line that should never exist. > > You see, there are only 7,279 people in the entire US > waiting for a liver. But in 1995-96, 3,922 got a > liver, 552 died waiting, and more will die, waiting. > In Oregon aloone, 100 wait. And here's the kicker: > 25,000 people a year die in Oregon. If only 1% of > them, 250, were donors and their organs healthy at > death, no one in Oregon waiting for a transplant. > And if you do this every state, the Mickeys kcould > theirs, but so could just plain Max and just plain > Sarah and Alice and Al and on it would go until > there's no line. ever again. > > Who are the best donors? For internal organs - > the younger the better .... children, young adults, > but also healthy adults kup to 70 years old. And > for eyes - there's no age limit. > > What do I need you to do? Pass out organ donor > cards - to yourself, your kids, your grandkids, > your friends. Be sure they fill them out, carry > them, and inform their families that they want > their decisions respected and followed. > > My hope, out of these cards, in each case, 2 or 3 > people will have a grasp, business, or club that > they give cards to, and from there more - and from > there, from there we will all together - in our > friendship - save a world. > > Will your effort save my life? Perhaps. But most > certainly it will make my spirit soar and my soul > dance. and for me, that is good enough. > > Let's do what organ committees in Washington DC > aren't worrying about; let's do what power and > influence never thought about; let's do what > they say is impossible - let's save one another. > > We can do more than wish for a good New Year. > We can make one happen. > > Thanks my friends, > > Love, Joannie Campf > > P.S.: whatever number of cards you need - a dozen, > 100, or more, call me at [503] 292-2137 or > fax me [503] 292-7703 and tell me the > number and you'll have them immediately. > > > Listserv members: I hope that you give this message as wide a > circulation possible. This seems even more > meaningful than posts re sending an ill > person a birthday card. By the way, Joanie > is far down on the priority list so probab- > ly won't benefit until many others have. > > Thanks, Bill Ward > ward@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu > > > > > From ROYR@cdpr.ca.gov Mon Jan 13 09:22:53 1997 Received: from teale.ca.gov (nic.teale.ca.gov [134.186.4.253]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id JAA11813 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:22:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpr.ca.gov by teale.ca.gov (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06530; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:18:16 -0800 Received: from cdprn-Message_Server by cdpr.ca.gov with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:38:47 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:23:07 -0800 From: Roy Rutz To: WPS-Forum@are.Berkeley.edu Subject: California Implements the WPS Status: RO On December 31, 1996, the Office of Administrave Law approvd and filed, with an early effective date of January 1, 1997, the Department of Pesticide Regulation's (DPR) rulemaking package to incorrporate the federal Worker Protection Standard into the California Code of Regulations (Title 3). This was announced to the county agricultural commissioners via DPR letter ENF 97-001, dated January 3, 1997. RoyR From chessele@acesag.auburn.edu Wed Jan 29 06:02:30 1997 Received: from acesag.auburn.edu (dns.acesag.auburn.edu [131.204.46.50]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA26071 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 06:02:26 -0800 (PST) From: chessele@acesag.auburn.edu Received: from maf01562.maf.mobile.al.us by acesag.auburn.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA02654; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:02:17 -0600 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:04:57 -0600 () To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Pesticide Safety Training Materials in Hatian Creole In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-X-Sender: chessele@dns.acesag.auburn.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO A grower in the area has asked me if there are any WPS worker and/or handler training materials in Hatian Creole out there. Anyone know of a source? Thanks, Chazz ***************************************** * Charles P. (Chazz) Hesselein * * Extension Horticulturist * * P.O. Box 8276 * * Mobile, AL 36689-0276 * * voice: 334-342-2366 * * fax: 34-342-1022 * * email: chessele@acesag.auburn.edu * ***************************************** From onn@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Wed Jan 29 07:10:09 1997 Received: from gnv.ifas.ufl.edu (gnv.ifas.ufl.edu [128.227.242.11]) by are.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA26803 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 07:10:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from 128.227.134.230 (128.227.134.230) by GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU (PMDF V5.0-7 #17348) id <01IES58KRPLS8WXKPK@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU> for wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:09:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:09:47 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU From: onn@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU (on nesheim) Subject: Re: Pesticide Safety Training Materials in Hatian Creole X-Sender: onn@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu To: wps-forum@are.Berkeley.EDU Message-id: <01IES58KTBHE8WXKPK@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Status: RO Yes, there are Hatian Creole WPS worker materials available. We translated the EPA WPS Worker Training Manual into Creole. We have a few copies available that can be used to make additional copies, i.e. camera ready for duplication. We also have a video narrated in Creole based on the EPA Publication "Protect Yourself from Pesticides-Guide for Agricultural Workers". The video may be ordered from IFAS Publications, University of Florida, PO Box 110011, Gainesville, FL 32611. Phone 1-800-226-1764. The order number for the video is SV 1223. The title is Protect Yourself from Pesticides: Guide for Agricultural Workers (Creole). The cost is $15. If you are interested in the printed publication, contact the Pesticide Information Office, Building 847, Box 110710, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. Phone 352-392-4721. O. Norman Nesheim Pesticide Information Coordinator >A grower in the area has asked me if there are any WPS worker and/or >handler training materials in Hatian Creole out there. Anyone know of a >source? > >Thanks, > >Chazz > >***************************************** >* Charles P. (Chazz) Hesselein * >* Extension Horticulturist * >* P.O. Box 8276 * >* Mobile, AL 36689-0276 * >* voice: 334-342-2366 * >* fax: 34-342-1022 * >* email: chessele@acesag.auburn.edu * >***************************************** > >