SCIENCE, POLITICS & MONEY. THE LAST TWO USUALLY TRIUMPH OVER THE FIRST

I have been going through a website which purports to be "Welcome to Ontario 2,4,5-T Records Online". Firstly I see nowhere near the 4,000 plus records that supposedly were made available to the Facy-Finding Panel in their Report released in June 2013 in the Ontario legislature. Secondly the opening page lists all the exceptions and deletions in records that occurred allegedly under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as well as under the Copyright Act. Personally I give those allegedly legal reasons very little credibility because my experience and others with FOI is that it is legislation, only in name, to assist citizens to access government data. Finally as indicated, the opening page also indicates numerous records have been blanked out or deleted as allegedly being "Not Relevant". Indeed many of the listed records are simply blank pages. Obviously very unimpressive.

To date I have downloaded about a dozen of what appeared to be the most interesting records. Lots more to go. One is a letter dated February 14, 1966. It simply is a Memo to "All Area Managers, Central Region" asking for their pesticide requirements for the upcoming 1966 season. It is under the subject Forestery- Brush and Weed Control chemicals. The first two chemicals are Brushkill, 2, 4-D & 2,4,5-T mixed followed by Brushkill, 2,4,5-T (For Resistant Brush). It is my understanding that Brushkill is one of the brand names for Uniroyal Chemical's products produced here in Elmira, Ontario. The other name is Brushbane .

There are three records I've seen to date which indicate a strong counteroffensive to honest efforts to determine human health effects caused by Agent Orange, 2,4,5-T and Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD). The first is a December 22, 1969 letter to Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, Science Adviser to the President (U.S.). It is critiquing a Report titled "Teratogenic Evaluation of 2,4,5-T" and clearly this multipage critique written by Glenn Klingman, President of the Weed Science Society of America, is self-serving. Just as clearly this Weed Science Society of America is some kind of chemical industry lobby group. Mr. Klingman has cc' d the following chemical manufacturers namely Diamond Shamrock, Dow Chemical, Hercules, Hooker Chemical and Monsanto.

There is also a letter dated February 26, 1970 from a Donald Grant, Director of Medical Services presumably for Ontario Hydro. He has sent it to Mr. J.E.F. Winter, Chief Forester of Ontario Hydro. This letter references a number of newspaper articles from both Canada and the U.S. warning of the health hazards of 2,4,5-T. Mr. Grant quite brusqely sweeps aside those public concerns as he states "The herbicide spray program for brush and weed control within Ontario Hydro should be continued without fear of harmful effects to our employees or the public.".

The third letter dated February 23, 1972 is from Dow Chemical of Canada, Sarnia Ontario. It is written by a Mr. Wiffen and sent to a Mr. J. VanRees presumably also of Dow Chemical. It is advising Mr. VanRees regarding his presentation to Ontario Hydro about 2,4,5-T and Dioxin! Two sentences many pages later state "...of the fact that there is a growing preponderance of scientific evidence and regulatory opinion attesting to the safety of 2,4,5-T to health and the environment." This is followed by "...discussion of 2,4,5-T and estimates of hazard from registered uses of the commercial herbicide quickly turns to the conjectural aspects about 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD)."

Tomorrow's posting will show other records indicating the opposite of what these three persons were trying to get across to decision makers and some of those with vested interests in keeping 2,4,5-T on the market.