Ask the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos — the pesticide that killed Katherine

There is a limited window of opportunity to comment directly with the EPA about the re-registration of chlorpyrifos, one of the deadliest of the organophosphates, the pesticide that we have every reason to believe killed Katherine, our beloved and brilliant eight-year-old.  You can comment on the EPA notification website directly at!submitComment;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0200  This is the preferable option, and it is possible to upload documents; I attached my book proposal on environmental chemicals and childhood health.

You may also go through an advocacy group like EarthJustice, but the EPA does not count duplicate or near-duplicate emails, so online activism may otherwise come to nothing.  When I posted, the EPA website said it had received only twelve comments on this re-registration; the EPA appears to be doing its best to stay in bed with the chemical industry and to close its ears to regular citizens.  Whichever way you go, it’s important to customize your message so they know you mean it.  Why do you wish to protect your children or your pets or yourself or future generations from deadly toxins?  Here is what I said:

It’s not just farmers who are harmed by pesticides.  Children are routinely and catastrophically exposed to these chemicals.  Our daughter Katherine died of leukemia we have every reason to believe was caused by mosquito spraying with chlorpyrifos without our knowledge or permission.  This exposure to deadly substances…deadly *particularly* to preschoolers…is tantamount to legal murder.  Our beloved Katherine was killed just as certainly and predictably as if someone had sprayed our house with bullets.  And indeed that might have been preferable, given her terrible suffering.  Nearly all the scientific literature of the last 50 years supports this connection between childhood cancer and organophosphates.  In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics declared pesticides a clear and present danger for childhood health: “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity….  Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems” (AAP 2012).  How many such letters must the mothers of dead children write, when the substance of our knowledge about the dangers of pesticides was in place when Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring more that 50 years ago?

Please take a moment to make a difference.  The next life affected could be your own.

Katherine’s Twenty-First Birthday


How well I remember Katherine’s last birthday, her eighth.  Dressed in gauzy pink as the Queen of Hearts, she presided over a fairy-tale party with blackbird pie, a fairy scavenger hunt, and all her guests dressed in red, pink, and white.  We had delayed chemo a few days to make sure she felt well; we knew it was unlikely to matter: they had only encouraged us to hope for a year after her second bone marrow transplant.

I don’t know what my beloved daughter wished for that day, blowing out the candles on her heart-shaped cake; we were a little superstitious about asking.  What I do know is that because of reckless pesticide use in our city mosquito spraying program, as well as countless other chemical exposures, none of her dreams came true; none of her wishes were fulfilled.  She wanted to finish learning cursive; she wanted to adopt a baby so she could watch it grow; she wanted to live to be an old lady.  Every night I prayed she would have a long and happy life; not long before she died, she plaintively pleaded with me that she not have a short and sad one.  But at that point, there was nothing I — or any of us — could do.

There is something you can do.  Now.  I appeal to you all in the name of my dead first-born child — unique, brilliant, and beautiful — to do these five things in her memory.

1) First, rid your home, lawn, and garden of pesticides and other toxic chemicals.  For ideas about alternatives, please consult The Midwest Pesticide Action Center at  

2) Call your City and find out what they do for mosquito and dandelion control.  If they spray, attend a City meeting and make your case.  All the evidence that these chemicals cause cancer and other dire health defects is contained in The President’s Cancer Panel and the American Academy of Pediatrics Statement on Pesticides.  But if you need help, I will personally consult and supply you with all the materials needed to convince a skeptical audience.

3) Contact your legislators and ask for protections against chemicals that contribute to cancer, birth defects, autism, ADHD, and lower IQs.

4) Call schools, universities, and hotels and ask what their policies are for pesticide use.  Demand pesticide-free environments for your children and yourself.

5) Eat organic.  A 2006 article in Environmental Health Perspectives showed that when kids go on an organic diet, metabolite levels of pesticides in their urine fall to non-detectable levels within weeks.

PANNA webinar


I just participated in an excellent webinar on pesticides and cognitive deficits in children run by the Pesticide Action Network of North America.  If you are not familiar with this organization, they provide an abundance of high-quality, well documented information on the subject.  One of the best reports for a general audience out there is A Generation in Jeopardy: How Pesticides are Undermining our Children’s Health and Intelligence, available for free at

Much of the webinar, which featured Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, and PANNA activists, repeated information already posted on this blog and elsewhere.  Pesticides and other environmental chemicals are responsible for dramatic increases in childhood cancer, autism, ADHD, and lowered IQs.  But a few things stood out.  One item is a new study (Shelton, 2014) again linking organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos to autism.  Children who lived in closer proximity to sprayed fields had significantly higher rates (OR 1.6) of autism.  But as Dr. Lamphear said, the cause for this and other maladies is likely multifactorial.  Another figure, which I have not seen before, is the efficiency rate for preventing cognitive deficits caused by pesticide exposure: for every one dollar spent in prevention, a benefit in the amount of $17-220 is gained, in health care costs alone.  That, of course, is aside from emotional and social burdens such deficits create.  For reference, the gold standard for prevention in public health, vaccines, results in $60 of reduced health care costs for every dollar spent.  Notably, Kristin Schaefer, PAN activist, pointed out that all regulation of pesticides evolved from laws to prevent farmers from being cheated by hucksters, in 1910.  The laws are still designed only for registration and accurate labeling; they are not now and were not then meant to protect human health and the environment.  Finally, I would like to quote the verdict of Dr. Lamphear in assessing the entire lack of regulation of pesticides for protection of health in the U.S.  He identified the root of the problem as “sociopath” corporations, who cannot be expected to self regulate and who are now “majority shareholders in our country.”  He pointed out that even though he is one of the top experts in the field, he is still not able to protect his own children from contamination.  Only government regulation can do that.  On a more positive note, he thinks that young people get it; perhaps we just need to “let the old guys die.”  While I am all for that, I would say we cannot wait so long.  New babies are born every day, every single one of them coming into this world already contaminated with scores of carcinogens, mutagens, neurotoxins, and endocrine disruptors, their intelligence already permanently damaged and their body burdens high.

If you are willing to speak up and do something about the deplorable poisoning of our children in this country, please visit PANNA’s action center:

Healthy Lawn Symposium at Benedictine University

My best day at work — and I have had many great days — was not actually at work.  I was replying to emails from President Bill Carroll from my vacation in a 1930’s cabin on the Wisconsin River.  This was the day that, after many years of gathering evidence and speaking to various groups on campus, Benedictine University took a leadership role on a very important issue of sustainability: natural lawn care.  This would never have happened without the cooperation of Campus Services; the active support of the Faculty, Student Senate, and the Center for Mission and Identity; and the unflagging campaigning by the student leaders of SEEDs, our student environmental group.  From now on, like the Chicago Park District and a growing number of school districts in the area, weeds will be controlled only by mowing.  It’s important for everyone to share the information about health and environmental concerns so that the public understands that dandelions are a sign that the lawns at Benedictine are safe for everyone to enjoy.

Even those who were not able to attend the Healthy Lawn Symposium last week at Benedictine can enjoy the presentations by accessing documents on Dropbox at   The presentations approached the problem of lawn chemicals in particular and toxic contamination more generally from a wide range of disciplines: science, public health, anthropology, advocacy, social sciences, and ethics.  It would be impossible to convey the richness of the discussions that resulted, but I hope you will be able to enjoy a taste of what it was.

Healthy Lawn Poster ACT edits final
The Stewardship and Sustainability committee of the Center for Mission and Identity (CMI) will sponsor two other events in Spring to share information and discuss.

Healthy Lawn Community Forums

March 10, 2015
7-9 p.m.
Presentation Room, Lisle Campus

April 22, 2015
Presentation Room, Lisle Campus

Devra Davis, The Secret History of the War on Cancer

secret history

Devra Davis’s book was so devastating in its indictment of the chemical and tobacco industries that I had to take it in small bites, to prevent the bile of it overwhelming me: not Davis’s bile, mind you, but the bitter pill of industrial and governmental complicity in the illness and deaths of millions. Of course, not everyone would take it so personally. The systematic refusal to acknowledge the real causes of the cancer epidemic cost me my darling Katherine. It was like reading the detailed confessions and court transcripts of her murderers. It was that, in fact. To say that these industries do not have my daughter’s blood on their hands, and the blood of uncounted innocents, would be merely specious.

With experience as Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services and authorship of nearly 200 books and articles, only a few people would have been as well poised as Davis to reveal the truth of this War on Cancer: that from the beginning, even those supposedly on our side, like the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, were complicit in the toxic war waged against us by the chemical and tobacco industries. Davis describes the systematic cultivation of a climate of doubt about scientific evidence, and a terrible hardening of assumptions about the evidence required to show that a chemical is harmful and subject to ban. She was there for much of the assault on public safety: “I watched the maturing of the science of doubt promotion – the concerted and well-funded effort to identify, magnify and exaggerate doubts about what we could say that we know as a way of delaying actions to change the way the world operates” (15-16). The callousness with which companies whose chemicals were implicated delayed protections by calling for more research is stunning: “From the very first reports that vinyl chloride could dissolve the finger bones of workers, cause cancer in animals and deform babies, the industry had a simple response: more research is needed. Let’s keep studying whether there really is a problem, while releasing enough information that people would feel assured the problem if it exists is trivial” (393).

This is a war in which the casualties have been legion: “I believe that if we had acted on what has long been known about the industrial and environmental causes of cancer when this war first began, at least a million and a half lives could have been spared, a huge casualty rate that those who have managed the war on cancer must answer for. This book explains how I have come to that reckoning” (22). Davis supports her claims, uncovering damning evidence from many different quarters. In some cases, she brought forth personal communications, in others, documents that show that scientists knew virtually everything about the link between cancer and smoking, radiation, and workplace exposures by 1938. But these findings did not see the light of day because of the many tobacco and chemical company executives in places of power, on the board of the American Cancer Society, for instance. Instead, all energies in the War on Cancer were diverted to treating the cases created by those industries. Davis describes the legal toxic onslaught against people everywhere in the United States, in chapters ranging from cigarettes to chemicals to cell phones.

Davis shows how all of us face a barrage of toxic exposures from a variety of sources, most of which we do not even think about. And not thinking about it is definitely part of the problem:

It is not simply that cancer is one of the diseases that afflicts the survivors of these polluted towns or those along China’s poisoned rivers in disproportionate numbers. What afflicts them more is that the very place they lived in – the air they breathed, the ground they walked on – was toxic. The real failure of the Superfund law, like the failure of the war on cancer, has only a little to do with bloated bureaucracies or scheming lobbyists or unfortunate yokels with trucks full of the wrong stuff. Ultimately, it’s a failure to look clearly at what’s right in front of our faces.

Davis’s book may be hard to stomach – because it looks at what’s right in front of our faces – but the effort is salutary, honest, and important to changing the world for the better. Her book is a call for action. She is frank about the barriers to truth-telling. She says in an afterward that her “own freedom to talk about avoidable cancer risks may suffer as well.” She names researchers who were fired or threatened with firing because their research impugned the chemical industry. Research funds were routinely withdrawn when results did not correspond with industry desires. Davis reveals how the secret war she refers to in her title was never as secret as she had thought: “Tobacco money paid for some of the best science in the world, yielding thousands of papers and years of delays in dealing with this important cause of poor health” (478). It is counter-intuitive but true that more science in this case resulted in worse health, not better, because of these deliberate, self-interested delays.

Despite the brutality of the subject matter, Secret History is very readable, and no doubt for someone with less at stake in the matter, would seem like a well-written mystery novel, or a true crime narration, more like. On the other hand, how many of us have less at stake in the causes of cancer when half of all men and a third of all women will develop the disease in their lifetimes? This is not the kind of book to bore readers, despite informing them and arming them against the duplicitous techniques of our industrial overlords. I recommend it above any other book I have read recently.  Davis’s work may give more people the courage to stand up and say that it is not too much to ask that evil corporations – and I’m sorry, but no other word is sufficient – be prevented from polluting our bodies without our knowledge or permission. It is not too much to ask. Environmental Injustice is too pale a term when one person is indirectly and legally killing another, in our case, a beloved child. Other individuals’ economic interests should not come at the expense of dead loved ones, or our own diseased bodies. A clean environment should be a human right – in the United States and everywhere.


Davis, D. (2009). The secret history of the war on cancer. New York: Basic Books.

A True Opt-Out on Smart Meters

A True Opt-Out: Evaluating Health Effects in Smart Meters

Smart Meters are coming to my town, as they may be to yours.  Smart Meters, which send WiFi signals back to mission control, will likely become more popular in future years since they save utility companies money and enable people to optimize energy savings if they so desire.  But there has been controversy over the non-ionizing RF-EMF radiation they give off. After investigating these claims, I have found that some concern is warranted. I have recommended to my Environmental Advisory Commission proceeding with the program but maintaining a true opt-out for citizens who continue to be worried after reading informational literature. It is not unreasonable to charge some modest amount for the additional work required to check meters, perhaps $25/ month.[1] But at no time should citizens be arrested in their own homes, as they have been in Naperville, IL, for refusing to have meters installed. We find that this is too great a violation of civil rights, particularly when the homeowners have done nothing wrong beyond working to protect their families from risks of cancer or other ailments.

Every person who objects should be supplied the report from the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), an independent scientific research group that advises the State of California on technological policy issues. Their measured assessment of the problem presents Smart Meters as potentially a health threat, but only on the order of many other well-accepted conveniences of modern life, like microwaves and cell phones. There are people who try to protect their children even from these ubiquitous devices, and these are the people for whom the opt-out should be available. Many other people, when reassured that the risk is in line with their current level of comfort, may decide that the opt-out is not worth the small financial penalty.

One of the key findings of the report is that “Wireless smart meters, when installed and properly maintained, result in much smaller levels of radio frequency (RF) exposure than many existing common household electronic devices, particularly cell phones and microwave ovens” (CCST, 2011, p. 1). We should note two things about this statement. First, consider the caveat that the meters be properly installed and maintained, which the group later says should be monitored and followed up on, which seems really quite unlikely. A parallel example is the case of CT imaging, which can expose patients to up to 350 times more radiation than a chest x-ray, and which can vary tremendously from facility to facility and machine to machine (Lafall & Kripke, 2010, p. v). Calibration with technologies like this can be notoriously uneven. Second, the data do seem to suggest that the Smart Meter exposure is on a similar level as cell phone usage. But recent research suggests that cell phone usage is indeed tied to cancer risk, and particularly for children, whose skulls are not as highly developed, whose systems are immature, and who will live a long time during which long-latency risks may manifest in disease. Finally, the panel concluded that “Consideration could be given to alternative smart meter configurations (such as wired) in those cases where wireless meters continue to be concern [sic] to consumers” (CCST, 2011, p. 1).

The comparison with cell phones is apt, as some scientists warn against allowing unfettered use by children, despite clever marketing to them (Davis, 2009). The graph in the CCST report shows that the Smart Meter at one foot is about equal to a microwave oven at one foot, and about one fifth of a cell phone at the ear, as measured in microWatts/cm2. However, there is potential for the Smart Meter to be much more frequently on than a cell phone. The President’s Cancer Panel reviewed the literature on cell phones and cancer risk in a report published in 2010. What they found is preliminary but sobering. “Sharp controversy exists in the scientific community as to possible adverse health effects from exposure to low frequency electromagnetic energy. The use of cell phones and other wireless technology is of great concern, particularly since these devices are being used regularly by ever larger and younger segments of the population” (LaSalle & Kripke, 2010, p. iv). In addition, some studies have suggested a link to brain tumors on the side of the head where the phone is held by long-term users. Considering how hard it is to establish a control group with most people using cell phones to some degree, these findings are ominous. The trend line of more recent research continues to implicate cell phones in cancer risk. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the WHO’s highly regarded international professional panel, categorized the RF-EMF from cell phones as a possible human carcinogen, with odds ratios of 1.71-2.55 for various diagnoses, or in other words, an about doubled risk of brain cancer (Hardell et al., 2013).  A review article of the evidence confirms these findings of doubled risk after ten years of cell phone use (Khurana et al., 2009). Hardell et al. note that the IARC findings have not spurred any governmental regulation to protect public health from this ubiquitous source of radiation (Hardell et al., 2013). Frankly, they are in too deep to do so. So it is not necessarily comforting that the Smart Meters could have a cumulative effect like that of cell phones, along with all the other sources of RF-EMF in modern life.

Keep in mind that many advances of modern life were advertised as perfectly healthy and safe when the reverse was true, and known to be true. Lies were sold to the public for decades. Smoking was advertised by doctors, and medical x-rays were touted as absolutely safe. Lead paint was advertised as healthful for nursery walls, and the ban on asbestos still cannot hold up in court (Davis, 2009). There is a reason that the public does not trust a technology that is being mandated in their home, without their consent, when that device emits RF-EMF radiation that is potentially linked to health effects. Although this risk is only commensurate with that of cell phones, families that wish to protect their children even from risks like that should be allowed to do so. After all, many risks like this – from pesticide exposures, medical radiation, and industrial pollution – are both unavoidable and cumulative. This should be one exposure that citizens have control over. Some people will want to employ the precautionary principle, and wait for evidence that a suspicious new technology does not cause ill effects. Indeed it would be in the interest of society as a whole to move more slowly before building an entire infrastructure based around RF technology. The inertia and investment once a system is built will influence many stakeholders to understate risks, as we have seen done with tobacco and chemical industries. People should have a choice before they and their children are subjected to an uncontrolled experiment with unknown outcomes.

Without endorsing all views expressed therein, I recommend you visit the website for those opposed to Smart Meters at


California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). (2011). Health impacts of radio frequency exposure from smart meters. Sacramento: CCST. Retrieved from

Davis, D. (2009). The secret history of the war on cancer. New York: Basic Books.

Gostin, L. O. (2005, April). Jacobson v Massachusetts at 100 years: Police power and civil liberties in tension. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 576.581.

Hardell, L. Carlberg, M., & Mild, K. H. (2013). Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology 20 (2), 85-110.

Khurana, V.G., Teo, C., Kundi, M., Hardell, L., & Carlberg, M. (2009). Cell phones and brain tumors: A review including the long-term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology 72 (3), 205-214.

Leffall, L. D. & Kripke, M. L. (2010). “Environmental cancer risk: What we can do now.” President’s Cancer Panel. USDHH, NIH, and NCI. Retrieved from

Mariner, W. K., Annas, G. J. & Glantz, L. H. (2005, April). Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s not your great-great-grandfather’s public health law. American Journal of Public Health, 95(4), 581-590.

[1] There is precedent set for this method of preserving civil liberties while imposing modest financial penalties for not contributing to the common good in the Public Health record, regarding vaccinations in particular. See Mariner et al. (2005) and Gostin (2005).



I am currently reading Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (2009).  Its main idea is so important, for health issues as well as for many other issues surrounding societal structuring: the idea that you can nudge people towards the best choices without violating their liberty, a principle already well known to advertisers, after all.

This ethical approach is called libertarian paternalism: while allowing people free choice, governments and others can promote the social welfare by structuring choices so that the default choice is the best for most people (Faden and Shebaya, 2010).  Because in modern society, people do not have the time or resources to research every little choice they make in their lives, it is important to use the work of experts to make the lazy or default choice the best one.  There are many examples of this, but the one I am reading about at the moment is Part D, or Medicare coverage of prescription drugs.  Although the coverage was a very good thing for many, many people, it was not viewed favorably because instead of offering a few good choices, and perhaps a full list for those choosy few, it offered everyone enrolling a list of more than forty plans, without making any recommendations about which were best: “In November, 2005, just as seniors were getting their first taste of forty-plus plans, half of eighteen hundred seniors surveyed had an unfavorable view of the program, compared with 28 percent who viewed it favorably” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009, p. 232).  Once participants got past the time-consuming labor of selecting a plan, they had a more positive opinion of the program, but unfortunately, there was very little evidence that people had made good choices.  Doubly bad is the fact that when people do not have the information to make good choices, free markets do not work as intended because the market does not receive signals needed to function properly.  In other words, people are not able to choose according to their rational interests, so bad companies or choices are not weeded out because they have caused harm or not functioned as well.

The choice structure for environmental chemicals is much, much worse than that.

The default choice on the societal level is that chemical companies are allowed to freely poison people, with only the barest patina, the minutest gloss of regulation.  Every single person on the face of the earth, including every newborn that enters the world, is contaminated with a toxic stew of hundreds of carcinogens, neurotoxins, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors.  This choice is not a rational choice for the body politic; it is made this way because of the financial interests of just a few people.

The default choice individually right now is to let one’s children and oneself be poisoned.  In order to protect their children, parents have to thoroughly research each of the 80,000 synthetic chemicals in production in the U.S., most of which have not been tested at all, and then try to choose not to expose their children to each one.  This is impossible.  I know because I’ve tried.  Devra Davis has shown how the regulatory system, in cahoots with chemical companies, including Johnson’s baby shampoo, has placed all the burden of research and proof on parents (2009).  Not only are we exposed willy-nilly through the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and nearly every consumer product we buy.  If we wanted to ban these chemicals, the burden of proof is all on us.  We would have to have many people die from only that one toxicant – when most of these chemicals have synergistic effects – and then we would have to do a complex, expensive, nearly impossible epidemiological study of it that establishes harm.  Even now that some of the heroes of public health – and here I am thinking of researchers, particularly at the National Cancer Institute – have done just that, it is still not possible to get the chemicals banned.  So we have no choice, only the illusion of one. What regulation there is gives the impression of a choice, while foisting on us a choice we would never rationally make.  Under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), only six substances have ever been banned, and the ban on asbestos was overturned in court despite the absolutely conclusive evidence against it.  Because of this, one in two men and one in three women will get cancer, and rates of childhood cancer, autism, learning disabilities, and auto-immune disease are climbing rapidly. Most people do not realize the degree to which these diseases are caused by environmental exposures.

We need to frame the choices we are making as a society much better because we are not picking the best ones in many, many cases.  The problem is that, with environmental chemicals, the architects of the choice framework, as Sunstein and Thaler would put it, are the chemical companies themselves, with the help of ingenious marketing.  And apparently, they do not care if their profits cost people their lives.  They may have the effect of exerting paternalistic control over people – but it is also malevolent control, not interested in liberty at all – not what one usually hopes for in a father.  Perhaps we should call it fascist homicidal paternalism.  Just sayin.



Davis, D.  (2009).  The secret history of the war on cancer.  New York: Basic Books.

Faden, R. & Shebaya, S. (2010). Public health ethics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition). Retrieved from

Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C.  (2009).  Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness.  New York: Penguin.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 227 other followers