With the ranks of those who oppose the aerial spreading of 1080 swelling exponentially, you may well be asking, why are folk so concerned about this poison? (Note, If you are new to 1080 poison read here for an overview). I’ve been following this issue for at least three years now & this widespread aerial distribution of 1080 into NZ’s environment for pest control is the issue that gets by far the most views and shares at EnvirowatchRangitikei. The article by Jenese James on the GrafBoys’ press release on 89 (dead & not tested) Kiwi has had 
54K shares to date on facebook. Folk are outraged at what is coming to light and rightly so. I personally began researching the independent information about 1080 after watching the documentary by the GrafBoys called Poisoning Paradise. These two Kiwi guys were raised in the bush, they know their stuff. Their doco has won four international awards (see here also) and yet … get this … NZ television will not play it here in our own country. They are assuming that we cannot listen & judge for ourselves? Does that not raise alarm bells for you? It should. That doco was the starting point that left me with enough question marks around the official line, to prompt me to look further than DoC’s own research. That is literal too, for the research DoC uses to justify the alleged safety of aerial distribution of 1080 in NZ is 70% in-house, writes Reihana Robinson in her book The Killing Nation.
So what is coming to light then? Does NZ’s Department of Conservation (DoC) not have our best interests at heart? The best interests of our native flora & fauna? Don’t they have all the right checks & balances in place? Do they not have a body of scientific data & research (including follow up data) justifying the use of this poison, that has been banned incidentally by most other countries on the planet? Well, as it turns out, no they don’t appear to have a sound, watertight body of scientific data that actually proves 1080 is both safe & achieving (after 60+ years) what it set out to do.
“… there is not a single scientifically credible study showing that aerial 1080 when used on the mainland is of net benefit to any species of New Zealand’s native fauna. Thus the upside for native species is entirely unproven, despite 15 years of increasingly desperate attempts by DoC to show one.” … Pat and Quinn Whiting-OKeefe, Scientists
In light of this, people are understandably worried about their food sources. If it’s touted as being ‘safe’, safe in our food, safe in water and so on, yet the science has any kind of question mark over it, then logically, folk will be concerned. I certainly am. The authorities should be practicing the precautionary principle:
“The precautionary principle is the concept that establishes it is better to avoid or mitigate an action or policy that has the plausible potential, based on scientific analysis, to result in major or irreversible negative consequences to the environment or public even if the consequences of that activity are not conclusively known, with the burden of proof that it is not harmful falling on those proposing the action. It is a major principle of international environmental law and is extended to other areas and jurisdictions as well.” (New World Encylopedia)
Always I go back to the statements of the late Dr Peter Scanlon on this:
“Where are the cancer causing or carcinogenicity studies? … there aren’t any;
Where are the reproductive studies, particularly focusing on female eggs? … there aren’t any;
Where are the developmental studies, early exposure to brain, immune system? … there aren’t any;
Where are the long term chronic exposure studies looking at mitochondrial DNA content and mutation rates? there aren’t any.
There’s a lot of doubts about this substance, it’s dangerous.”
Should they not be stopping the use of aerially dropped 1080 until the studies are done as a US Biophysicist from Tufts University has suggested?
So not only is there concern about contamination of hunted animals, but contamination of the flora as well.
Not only is 1080 highly toxic to mammals, birds and insects- one scientist has even discovered that it is toxic to plants and so forests do not do so well after 1080 drops. (interview with Clyde Graf) ourplanet.org
Lest you think I’m scaremongering here, be assured, the safety data sheet for 1080 warns that it should not be dropped into any body of water.
Forest & Bird Say 1080’s as Safe to Eat as a Packet of Crisps … and DoC Says it’s Deadly to Dogs?
1080 poisoned trout risk much greater than first declared says researcher – fishermen BEWARE
TROUT MASS-POISONED IN NEW ZEALAND-DOC warned fishermen in 2014 not to eat their catch
Family face permanent disablity after eating wild pig 17/11/17
Take for instance the recent poisoning of the family in Putaruru in the Waikato. This family, after beginning a meal of wild pork, fell instantly ill and had to be rushed to hospital by ambulance. The scenario that followed is revealing indeed regarding the apparent cover up that is going on with regard to testing possible victims of 1080 poisoning. A Doctor suspected 1080 as the source of the problem early in the piece as records showed when they were finally released after some of the usual foot dragging that seems to be characteristic of any request by the public for official documentation around possible 1080 poisoning. The family could not even access their own records! Not only did the hospital fail to test for 1080 within the required time frame, the fact that the patients were literally tied to their beds because of the violent convulsions characteristic of 1080 poisoning, was never mentioned in the media.
The ongoing mantra from mainstream media on this was ‘botulism’.
You can read about this whole shocking debacle at the 1080 page, ‘Suspected 1080 Poisoning Cases’. Please read the evidence there if you at all hunt or fish for food. And if you are a tourist, it is better in my opinion, not to drink from the streams as many have been observed doing. Observers have described how tourists are sometimes not even aware of the purpose of 1080 drops going on right over their heads. So much for public warnings.
Invariably what I am seeing in the reports, articles and general chat by eye witnesses is that the toxicity of 1080 is totally downplayed. It is even being taught in children’s school texts that 1080 is ‘not very dangerous’ to humans. This is a substance that is banned in most countries. That kills all breathing organisms from insect life to worms, right up to larger animals such as horses. And yet we are supposed to believe it specifically targets pests? How ever is that possible? Another miracle from NZ’s Department of Conservation? Read Dr Meriel Watts’ exposé of that theory.
Then we heard this year from research by the Graf Brothers that the authorities have changed the rules to allow the dropping of 1080 into our waterways without a Regional Council consent. They can now effectively bypass the pesky Resource Management Act. And dropping it they are. Prior to this, it was ending up in waterways anyway as witnesses have shown with their many photographs posted online. The late Bill Benfield’s research revealed that a drop in the Hunua Ranges, home of Auckland’s town water supply, saw the water filters filled with 1080 pellets! Seriously. In addition, there is NO antidote! It is undetectable as the cause of death if tests are not done early enough.
To date there are no known epidemiological studies that have been carried out in relation to 1080 and potential adverse health effects on humans.
… NZ Ministry of Health 2008
Then there is the risk to outdoors people who simply walk or hike. Over the past three years I’ve seen various reports of folk out picnicking, out tramping or simply enjoying the scenery, rained down on by 1080 pellets.
Government Rains “1080 Hailstones” On Visiting Anglers – Welcome to Paradise Down Under
THREE years on, two women alleging 1080 poisoning while picnicking STILL waiting for answers from NZ Health
Two women fell ill after this kind of scenario while innocently out for a picnic. Nobody will of course admit to any link between their illness & exposure to 1080. The most upsetting of all the examples of this has been that of the young US woman who died following a tramp in the Queenstown area. Her Doctor suspected 1080 poisoning & tried to bring about an investigation into that. Her heart was sent for testing as to the cause of her cardiac rest and unbelievably the NZ lab lost her heart. Seriously. They lost her heart! Dr Charlie Baycroft a retired MD, recently warned the public that if anybody dies from 1080 poison nobody will know. He was threatened with prosecution by the Ministry of Health for publicly advising folk how to go about getting tested if they feared poisoning.
Are you beginning to feel uneasy at all about our wild food sources?
I read a comment just the other day by a woman who has stopped taking her children to a recreational/scenic area where she’s noticed signs up saying it’s been treated with 1080. I spoke recently with a university lecturer on the poisoning program, he has noticed a proliferation of poison signs when he goes into the bush. This is a common comment from tourists and locals. Poisoning signs everywhere. There are 65 dogs die each year from 1080 poisoning a NZ site called Pause for a Cause reports. Then there are the ongoing and endless reports of farmers whose stock have succumbed to death by 1080. Dr Meriel Watts in her book ‘The Poisoning of New Zealand’ (1994) of a South Island farmer who lost 570 sheep in a bungled drop, with sheep still dying six months later. To make things even worse, they die a long slow horrific death that, says a veterinarian, is like two days worth of electrocution. The NZ authorities changed the animal welfare act to allow this. To top it off, adding insult to injury, they are forced to lie about this in the paperwork should they desire compensation for their losses. Hobson’s choice.
Then there is the apparent lack of regard for public safety around the handling & storage of 1080 including disposal of leftover 1080. That’s another whole issue by itself.
POISON JUST LYING AROUND IN THE BUSH ALARMS OVERSEAS VISITOR – IN SAME AREA THE PIG THAT POISONED THE PUTARARU FAMILY CAME FROM
Second incident of 1080 dump found on Stewart Island
Then there was the Whitianga debacle. The attendance by one concerned man at the scene of the unloading of 1080 in the CBD of Whitianga with no public warnings or signage out as legally required, a man who was subsequently assaulted by a security guard, was himself charged with assault, the case eventually dismissed but leaving him with more than $22K in court costs. If you were at all conspiratorial you might think a clear message was being sent to the public. You can read about that at these links. Then in Levin a Horizons storage facility where 1080 was stored caught fire, with apparently no public warnings in place. I observed myself, comments on social media by a man who had noticed symptoms of illness following that fire. He lived in the vicinity. His conversation around the effects cut abruptly short I noticed.
More recently we’ve had revelations on lack of safety with 1080, by an ex employee of Horizons. Diluted solutions of 1080 were sprayed all over the Palmerston North landfill by a contractor surprised that he was allowed to do this. What of the leachate from that dump? What of public in the vicinity of the spraying? What of the earth it was sprayed onto? Of nearby water sources/streams/ditches and so forth?
ERMA’s Agency warned that “No studies have been conducted using standard international guidelines to assess the route and rate of degradation of 1080 in soil. The rate of such degradation under New Zealand conditions is uncertain.”And regarding water: ”Overall, the relevance of the aquatic plant/water studies to the degradation of 1080 in water in NZ is not clear.” … Dr Jo Pollard (BSc (Hons, PhD)
You can read about that at this link:
Shocking revelations on 1080 from a former Horizons employee
And yes there is more that folk are concerned about.
The birds. Frequently we are reading comments by people who note there is no birdsong … no birds in the bush. Folk who have lived long enough to remember how things used to be, like an 82 year old gentleman recently who said the Kiwi, Kereru, Kea, Weka & Tui had all disappeared from where he lived on the West Coast. Reports also come from people who aren’t even anti 1080 or even aware of these drops. Tourists. One I read commented that since their last trip to NZ in the ’70s the birds were noticeably scarce. The GrafBoys & others have posted videos online following 1080 drops & illustrated the lack of birdsong. Listen below.
Below a blogger comments about Lake Matheson in the South Island:
It seems pertinent at this point to highlight one of the apparent major incentives for the continuation of 1080 drops, as a former Mayor of Taupo expounded:
Orillion, the company in Whanganui that makes 1080 baits is a State Owned Enterprise, its two share holders are the Minister of Finance & the Minister of Primary Industry. (Info at 2.40 in this video).
People need to look beyond the diversions mainstream is constantly throwing out … were the dead birds on Parliament steps killed by 1080 or blunt force? Seriously? What does it matter?
Some better questions to ask would be … were the 89 dead Kiwi documented in DoC’s own records killed with 1080? Or was the young female hiker’s heart really lost? Or why is DoC allowed to wipe out 10K non target birds in one 1080 drop? And why were they allowed to wipe out all the Weka on Tawhitinui Island? Or why DoC would ask that their lawyer not be questioned in court?
These are questions however that mainstream media quietly & persistently ignore. It is fairly obvious who they are working for & their current mandate is clearly painting any persons who are against poisoned food & environments as dangerous terrorists.
And we are never of course going to hear answers to those questions … figuring them out for ourselves really isn’t rocket science though is it?
NOTE: For further articles on 1080 use categories at left of the news page.
There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information to make your own informed decision on this matter.
If you are pro poisoning of the environment, EnvirowatchRangitikei is not the place to espouse your opinions. Mainstream would be the place to air those. This is a venue for sharing the independent science you won’t of course find there.
Finally we don’t endorse violence in any way shape or form.
NOTE: Periodically & randomly the facebook share option will disappear from posts on the front (news) page. If it is not appearing, click on the heading of the article to go to its own page, usually the share button will show up there. (All else failing copy & past the url to your facebook page).
Environmental Health Watch NZ 
Deceiving little Morons they are. I was told some time ago that the Manawatu Gorge Project was delayed (postponed) until February next year. However checking the Pesticide Summaries on their website (http://maps.doc.govt.nz/mapviewer/Index.html?configBase=http://maps.doc.govt.nz/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/Pesticide_Summary/viewers/Pesticide_Summary_Viewer/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default&&run=PestSumStartUp&CalledBy=Region&LayerID=2&Region=manawatu/whanganu) it shows that bait has been applied already. I have not seen any advise or warnings of any kind. This was most likely done to avoid protesters coming to the area. Nice going DOC! A popular recreational area with a large number of very popular walking tracks and in the holiday season. It is amazing that a government does allow this to happen, they certainly have not our best interest at heart!
LikeLike
Just checked that page Pete (& thanks). If you untick all the boxes then just tick the ‘pesticide will be laid’ one, it shows aerial drops to be done. If you uncheck & only do the ‘to be laid’ the bait stations come up. If you tick the whole lot it does look like aerial’s been done. Unfortunate merging of maps. That’s my interpretation anyway. I’ll ask around though.
LikeLike
Thanks for that reply Pam, good observation. I will go and check the area out something next week, see what’s been happening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Palmy DoC did eventually reply to my email around November assuring me the drop had been postponed to next year 2019. Keep us posted though with anything you find. I know other folk are watching too.
LikeLike
Hi Pam,
To let you know they are getting ready to aerial drop on Mt Taranaki , The bee hives have been moved and a relative of mine that lives by the mountain has been given pamphlets and they said they were waiting for the weather , please let the Graf Boys know.
Kind regards
Ian Moratti
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry to hear Ian. Keep me posted. Are you taking photos etc?
LikeLike
Good summary of how our corrupt government works. Would still want to see though who actually benefits from the gravy train. Names and data would be appreciated. As well as who owns the media. I think people have a right to know. Like you I do not condone violence but on the other hand NZ people are violated on a daily base. My view is that the beneficiaries from that gravy train can see the end is near that’s why the dropping rate is increasing. Make money while they can.
Your views are greatly appreciated.
Thanks Erik.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Erik … re the gravy train, yes I believe there are bloggers/forums that have provided those details. The scope of that really requires another article. Something I do hope to research more in the next while. The media, see our media pages (main menu) on that. Ownership of the media is now down to around 6 corporations world wide. Not hard to see who is controlling the media flow. As to violence (non) – I am being very cautious. The people who are opposing 1080 use are constantly accused of being violent terrorists; we are not, and becoming so simply plays into their hands. We simply aim to raise awareness of the facts. You are likely right in your last paragraph there. And I am sure this issue has more than one agenda. Thanks for your thoughts on the issue.
LikeLike
water Quality in NZ
Alan Rennie
Tue, Dec 18, 3:07 PM (6 days ago)
to EPADutyBCO
Hi all,
Can you tell me why we ,as a WHO paid partner, and I as a tax payer are paying twice for water standards, one from the WHO who I trust more than the EPA , and paying to have the EPA set water standards in NZ , SEE BELOW <and PLEASE STICK to the WHO standards as the EPA ,NZ standards are WRONG , and quite frankly SHITE
Alan Rennie
The only NZ Drinking Water Standards ever signed off by the World Health Organisation was the first one prepared by our Health Ministry in 1984.
Appropriately there was no allowable level for 1080 residue in our childrens drinking water.
The U S. recognise the physical size difference of our societies most viunerable and have some lower “Maximum Allowable Values” for certain poisons for children. NZ Ministry of Health base all their figures on a 70kg adult.
.lIn the early ninties, Min. of Health toxicoligist Natalia Foronda oversaw a “Provisional’ Maximum Allowable level for 1080 in Drinking Water of .05 parts per billion.
But they got a bit scared ” of another 245T” and even stated “further drops would be irresposonsible” in a hard-to- read ( but well worth it) hand-written internal Health Ministry memo (photo 1) after seven kids from the Featherston district came down with suspected mitochondrial disorders ( a Krebs cycle condition that normally affects one in 3 million) they hastiy adopted a reduced 3.5 parts per billion “Provisional” Maximum Allowable Value (M.A.V) in 1995.
Landcare Scientist, Charles Eason had offered to to provide ” publically defendable data to demonstrate the safety of 1080 in water ” to Nick Hancox and other Akld/ Whangarei Cons. Dept. staff PRIOR to the 1990 Rangitoto Island 1080 aerial poisoning taking place. (” The Poisoning of New Zealand” Meriel Watts. )
Eason’s in 1998 conducted 1080 teratogenic experiments on rats where birth defects were ” pjysically obsetved at .35 parts ber billion.
On that basis alone Eason set a No Obvious Effects Level ( NOEL) for rats at .33. (N.B – only observable physical birth deformities were used as this baseline)
The MAV for people ‘s Drimking Water was then extrapolated back ftom this figure just 0.02 back from where newly born animals bent limbs were able to be VISUALLY observed !
Eason was so scared by the Frankenstein he now realised he had let out of the bottle a quarter century earllier ( if you will forgive me mixing my metaphors) that he did not even want to provide an affadavit to E.R.M.A’ s corrupt review” of 1080’s re-registration ! ( W. Benfield” The Third Wave”)
But back to 2018. 23 years later that MAV for 1080 in Drinking Wster is still “Provisional”, just like West Coast Medical Officer of Health, Cheryl Brunton’s dodgy ” Provisional” report into the two picnicing sisters poisoned by 1080 toxic dust at Karamea three years ago.
Why “Provisional”? Because that single word “Provisional” is their “get out of gaol and keep my superannuation” card when it finally is established there whole 1080 public health procedures are shonky.
The W.H.O. Drinking Water Guidelines (2016 Vol. 4) have allowable levels in drinking water for really poiisonous shite like 245D and even Paraquat, there is no allowable level for 1080 residue in watet at all. Full stop. Period.
Just like New Zealand Drinking Water guidelines used to be from 1984 to 1995 !
Why you may well ask ? The W.H.O actually do go on to unequivocally enlighten us why.
” It is inappropriate to allow any level of a pesticide toxic agent in human’s drinking water”
So where then is the Health Ministry’s peer review of its 2016 Sodium Fluoroacetate Sodium fluoroacetate (SFA) is a longlasting, toxic, and miscible-to-highly-soluble rodenticide. One bench-scale study tested the adhesion of sodium fluoroacetate applied to simulated cement-lined pipe and decontamination by flushing and hyperchlorination. SFA was shown to adsorb onto the pipe material coupons. Persistence and flushing evaluation suggested that decontamination with flowing water (1.5-2.0 fps) for SFA on concrete was not effective. Hyperchlorination (25-50 mg/L) with no flow was not effective in decontaminating SFA on concrete [20
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phenomenal article Pam: Thankyou! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Kerry!! And you’re welcome 🙂
LikeLike
of interest –
Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching causes numbers of baby coral to plummet – 89%
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-04/great-barrier-reef-changes-coral-bleaching-recruitment-plummets/10962054
… I think it is related to Aussie uranium mining and toxic waste …. but the gov’t is all in with the criminals so w’ll never know!
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks FC. Interesting info. And no, we will likely never know. Not now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
so sad … that reef is the fish incubator for half the planet. People have no idea ….
It is the underwater Amazon ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it’s completely insane. The planet’s run by psychos as we know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ocean disposal of radioactive waste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste
Find point on the map 20 km of Wellington, Cook Straight, New Zealand.
There is one of 9 biggest marine nuclear grave yards.
Meditate on absorption method of enriching uranium in 1954.
Think who was capable of doing it and why.
The problem of NZ is that unopposed official propaganda have bleached peoples brains.
It is more dangerous then bleaching corals or killing birds with 1080.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1080 IS A DESIGNATED CHEMICAL WEAPON DESIGNED TO POISON ENEMY WATER SUPPLY.
Under the stress of World War II chemists in
1. England
2. Germany and their allied countries sought to develop chemicals (independently, of course!) which would incapacitate, maim, or kill the enemy.
These remarkably successful researches led to the synthesis and large-scale production of several types of warfare agents:
1. nerve gases,
2.vesicant agents,
3. tear gases,
4 harassing compounds,
and, perhaps the most frightening of all,
5.water poisons.
For the latter kind of chemical agent, it can be easily envisaged that a secret agent could poison the water spun.
The requirements for a water poison are stringent: it should be
1. colourless.
2. odourless.
3. soluble
4. stable
5. highly toxic
6. delayed action to prevent early detection.
7. cannot be filtered through activated carbon ( gas mask filter, #7 is my comment)
8. no antidote available (#8 is my comment)
It, therefore, must have come as quite a surprise to chemists in England, Germany, Poland
when they discovered independently during the early stages of the war that a simple derivative of acetic acid fulfils all of the above criteria for an ideal water poison!
This compound is methyl fluoroacetate (MFA) and it, along with fluoroacetic acid (FA) and 2-fluoroethanol, represents one of the most toxic classes of non-protein substances known.
Gordon W. Gribble’
Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
Recipient of a Public Health Service Research Career Development, Award from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences
It is no surprise that using 1080 must comply with the
CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION, STOCKPILING AND USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION,
namely ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA and ANNEX ON CHEMICALS, GUIDELINES FOR SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS, Guidelines for Schedule 3 (a), (b), (d).
This CONVENTION was signed by New Zealand Government :
Signature:14/01/1993,
Ratification, accession or succession:15/07/1996,
Entry into Force: 29/04/1997
Permanent Representative to the OPCW : H.E. Ms Lyndal Walker
The CONVENTION regulates using such toxic chemicals as 1080 under the provision of ARTICLE VII, NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, General undertakings
Each State Party, during the implementation of its obligations under this CONVENTION, shall assign the highest priority to ensuring the safety of people and to protecting the environment, and shall cooperate as appropriate with other States Parties in this regard.
We should bear in mind that the deadly properties of fluoroacetate (1080) that make it the designated chemical weapon cannot be changed by different trade names applied to it, or by the fact that fluoroacetate (1080) is produced by native plants in Australia or anywhere else.
The aerial application of 1080 from helicopters constitutes unparalleled exposure of New Zealand citizens to the substance known for its extreme toxicity.
It is alarming that New Zealanders have never been told that fluoroacetate is the chemical weapon renamed as pesticide 1080, that there hasn’t been a referendum regarding its usage and that ordinary people have no practical means to measure the contamination of air, drinking water and food by the deadly toxin.
The whole concept of the “safe” deployment of 1080 in New Zealand by DOC and Animal Board has been derived from the animal model.
The animal model itself is based on the hypothesis that the effects of toxic chemicals on lab rats and mice may be extrapolated to people.
Such an approach, as a preliminary model, could be useful for pre-deployment stage 1080.
It cannot justify ceaseless dumping of huge quantities of lethal chemical weapon in the areas close to public water supply, food sources and National parks, while the only available certain data for 1080 has been the lethal (tactical) dose.
Summary and Conclusion
It is appaling that the validity of animal modelling of 1080 effects on people has never been tested by epidemiology research on the affected population.
While lethal effects of fluoroacetate have been proven by dozens reported human cases in China, Vietnam and other countries, the statistical assessment of effects of sublethal poisoning on New Zealanders has never been made.
It is a clear violation of the CONVENTION.
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
List of sources:
1.Fluoroacetate toxicity,
Gordon W. Gribble’ Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
Recipient of a Public Health Service Research Career Development, Award (1K04-GM23756-01) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Journal of Chemical Education, volume 50, number 7, July 1973.
2. CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION, STOCKPILING AND USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION.
ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA, ANNEX ON CHEMICALS, GUIDELINES FOR SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS, Guidelines for Schedule 3
ARTICLE VII, NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, GENERAL UNDERTAKINGS
3.Fluoroacetate, Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents,
Nikolay Goncharov, Elena Savelieva, Valeriy Zinchenko, Sergey Kuznetsov, Igor Mindukshev, Maxim Vinokurov, Pavel Avdonin, Natalia Voitenko, Anton Ukolov, Tatiana Orlova, Richard Jenkins and Anatoliy Kuznetsov.
10.1016/B978-0-12-800159-2.00016-6, (193-214), (2015).
4. In view of the public health importance of a sound epidemiologic database, it is surprising to realize how limited is the body of well-conducted and informative human studies.
Drinking water and cancer* Cancer Causes and Control.
Vol 8. 1997 Kenneth P. Cantor
Dr Cantor is with the Occupational Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
5.National Toxicology Program, Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens Monographs,
July 20, 2015
6.Chemical warfare agents: chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and therapeutics editors, James A.Romano Jr. and Brian J. Lukey. — 2nd ed.
7. Drinking-water Standards, for New Zealand 2005,(Revised 2008)
1080 IS A DESIGNATED CHEMICAL WEAPON DESIGNED TO POISON ENEMY WATER SUPPLY.
Part two: How to reduce the risk of 1080 poisoning.
Unfortunately, we can not rely on safety regulations provided by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA NZ) (EPA) because the safety of people is not ERMA’s (EPA) highest priority as demanded by the Convention:
“As such, by definition, the ERMA is not an advocate for public or environmental health per se, but instead an advocate for balancing risks and benefits of potential hazards.”
(Policy Implications of 1080 Toxicology in New Zealand, Sean Weaver PhD Environmental Studies, School of Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand)
The policy of the ERMA NZ (EPA) is deficient compared to other signatories of the Convention, namely US, that demand all available information on the toxin in question, which is in complete accord with
ARTICLE VII, NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES,
General undertakings:
Each State Party, during the implementation of its obligations under this CONVENTION, shall assign the highest priority to ensuring the safety of people and to protecting the environment, and shall cooperate as appropriate with other States Parties in this regard.
The policy of the US is clear from the following:
EPA must avoid a situation in which a requestor only provides some of the available information on a chemical substance, e.g., only that information suggestive of low risk, and omitting other information.
( Comments of the Environmental Defence Fund on Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act Proposed Rule, EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0654 82 Federal Register 7562-7580 (Thursday, January 19, 2017) Submitted March 20, 2017 )
It has been shown in part one of “1080 IS A DESIGNATED CHEMICAL WEAPON DESIGNED TO POISON ENEMY WATER SUPPLY” that regulations based on the animal model are flawed because the validity of the animal model has not been verified by comprehensive human epidemiological studies.
It would be foolish to rely on statements regarding the safety of 1080 made by various 1080 advocates since not one among them is an independent professional toxicologist recognised by the International Union of Toxicology.
To protect ourselves and our families we have to follow simple rules:
Rule NUMBER ONE: NO 1080 NO DANGER.
Avoid any area where 1080 has been used.
Hunting and fishing poisoned or recovered from intoxication species in the National Parks and areas where 1080 has been deployed is not only dangerous but also unethical
(no trophy value).
Remember that 1080 cannot be filtered by the filters containing activated carbon or deactivated by boiling water obtained from poisoned water sources.
Do not consume any food or water which could be contaminated by 1080 (meat, fresh water fish, honey from the National Parks and other places affected by the War for our Birds and Animal Board TB activities) unless they have been certified by an approved laboratory for the absence of any traces of 1080.
Rule NUMBER TWO: If no estimated human oral toxicological data were available, the Army used an uncertainty FACTOR of 10 for interspecies extrapolation from animals to humans
(NAS, 1995).
If you decided to visit areas affected by War for our Birds and Animal Board TB activities and/or can not afford food and water tested by an approved laboratory for the absence of 1080 then you have to rely on FACTOR of 10 developed by the US Army to avoid casualties during troops deployment.
FACTOR of 10 means that any official safe dose for food and water obtained from the unproven animal model must be divided by 10.
Bear in mind that the safe dose of 1080 (if any) for healthy adults can be unsafe for foetuses and children due to the lower rate of excretion of 1080 poison by them.
Rule NUMBER THREE: Use bottled water from approved sources for drinking and cooking.
“Sodium monofluoroacetate (SMFA; Compound 1080) and sodium fluoroacetamide (Compound 1081) are candidate chemicals for terrorists and criminal activities targeting humans, domestic animals, and wildlife”
(Holstege et al., 2007)Threats to Wildlife by Chemical and Warfare AgentsRobert W. Coppock, Margitta Dziwenka, in Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents (Second Edition), 2015
“Ideal poisoning agents that can be used to contaminate water should be reasonably or highly toxic.
They should be highly soluble or miscible in water, have no taste or odour, be chemically and physically stable, and be resistant to aqueous hydrolysis and water treatment.
Additionally, ideal contaminants should be difficult to recognize and detect, as well as having delayed activity, and no known antidote.”
(Deininger, 2000).
In asymmetric warfare and terrorism, it is sometimes difficult to recognize or identify the Enemy.
Terrorists may avail themselves of toxic industrial chemicals and materials that are transported and already stockpiled in this country.
”As a food defence measure against an extortion threat to poison infant formula with monofluoroacetate, a robust methodology for monofluoroacetate analysis in fluid milk and powdered dairy products was developed and optimized.”
TERRY P. COONEY, PETER VARELIS and JUSTIN G. BENDALL, High-Throughput Quantification of Monofluoroacetate (1080) in Milk as a Response to an Extortion Threat,
Journal of Food Protection, 79, 2, (273), (2016).
DOC has already created a possibility for one psychopath to poison baby food with 1080 and there is no guarantee that it would not happen on a bigger scale while 1080 is used in
New Zealand.
The next target of local or foreign terrorists can be public water supply.
List of sources:
1. Fluoroacetate toxicity,
Gordon W. Gribble’ Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
Recipient of a Public Health Service Research Career Development, Award (1K04-GM23756-01) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Journal of Chemical Education, volume 50, number 7, July 1973.
2. CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION, STOCKPILING AND USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION.
ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA, ANNEX ON CHEMICALS, GUIDELINES FOR SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS, Guidelines for Schedule 3
ARTICLE VII, NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES, GENERAL UNDERTAKINGS
3. Fluoroacetate, Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents,
Nikolay Goncharov, Elena Savelieva, Valeriy Zinchenko, Sergey Kuznetsov, Igor Mindukshev, Maxim Vinokurov, Pavel Avdonin, Natalia Voitenko, Anton Ukolov, Tatiana Orlova, Richard Jenkins and Anatoliy Kuznetsov.10.1016/B978-0-12-800159-2.00016-6, (193-214), (2015).
4.” In view of the public health importance of a sound epidemiologic database, it is surprising to realize how limited is the body of well-conducted and informative human studies.”
Drinking water and cancer* Cancer Causes and Control.Vol 8. 1997 Kenneth P. Cantor
Dr Cantor is with the Occupational Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
5. National Toxicology Program, Handbook for Preparing Report on Carcinogens Monographs,
July 20, 2015
6. Chemical warfare agents: chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and therapeutics
Editors, James A. Romano Jr. and Brian J. Lukey. — 2nd ed.
7. Estimating the “First in human” dose – a revisit with particular emphasis on oncology drugs
Kin Tam, Faculty of Health Science, University of Macau, Macau, China Received: June 30th, 2013; Revised: October 21st, 2013; Published: December 16, 2013
ADMET & DMPK 1(4) (2013) 63-75; doi: 10.5599/admet.1.4.10
8.International Programme on Chemical Safety Poisons Information Monograph 494,7.2 Toxicity,7.2.1 Human data,7.2.1.1 Adults,2.2 Summary of clinical effects
http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim494.htm#2.1
9. Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration
Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Division of the National Toxicology Program National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences January 9, 2015
10. Threats to Wildlife by Chemical and Warfare Agents
Robert W. Coppock, Margitta Dziwenka, in Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents (Second Edition), 2015
11. Comments of the Environmental Defence Fund on Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act Proposed Rule,
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0654 82 Federal Register 7562-7580
The Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) (Thursday, January 19, 2017) Submitted March 20, 2017
12. Policy Implications of 1080 Toxicology in New Zealand
Sean Weaver PhD Environmental Studies, School of Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Journal of Rural and Remote Environmental Health 2(2): 46-59 (2003)
13. Rodenticides, a) Accidental and Intentional Poisoning,
Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology,
Alain F. Pelfrene, Hayes Third Edition, 2010
14.Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
Stephen Peckham and Niyi Awofeso
Academic Editors: S. H. Hsu and A. Youk
Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury NF,
UK Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK -School of Health and Environmental Studies,
Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University, P.O. Box 71400, Dubai, UAE
The Scientific World JournalVolume 2014,
Article ID 293019, 10 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/293019
Received 22 August 2013; Accepted 22 October 2013;
Published 26 February 2014
15. PREVENTION OF FLUORIDE ION-INDUCED IQ LOSS IN CHILDREN
Bruce Spittle, Editor-in-Chief, Fluoride, Dunedin,
New Zealand Editorial Fluoride 50(4)385–392October-December 2017
16. Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States)
Elise B. Bassin, David Wypij, Roger B. Davis, Murray A. Mittleman
Received: 24 July 2005, Accepted: 07 November 2005
17. Letter to Select Committee members.
Dr Peter Scanlon, (Accident & Medical Practitioner) M.B.ChB., B H.B, P G.DipCEM, B.Sc., F.AMPA 2 Bremworth Ave, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204, 03/12/10.
18. 2007 EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet Name of Chemical:
SODIUM FLUOROACETATE (COMPOUND 1080)
Reason for Issuance:
CANCELLATION/DENIAL/SUSPENSION/DATA CALL-IN
Date Issued: OCTOBER 1988 (updated 8/9/90) Fact Sheet Number: 174
19. Label Amendment – Revise Labelling Due to Change in First Aid Text
Product Name:
Sodium Fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) Livestock Protection Collar
EPA Registration Number: 56228-22
Application Date: September 3, 2015
Decision Number: 515884
20. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards
last updated: February 13, 2015
21UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, DC 20460 Fast Track Label Acceptable v.20150320 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION October 13, 2016
22.Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Volume 47, Issue 1, February 2007, Pages 84–89
23. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Sodium Fluoroacetate (1080)
Published by the Occupational Safety & Health Service
Department of Labour,PO Box 3705, Wellington, New Zealand, First edition (as pdf): August 2002
24Application overview, 3.3 Significant effects on human health and safety
Application code: HRE05002
Application type: Reassessment
Applicant: National Animal Identification and Tracing
Applicant postal address:P1997 O Box 3412, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand
Application state: Decided
Application decision: Approved with Controls
Application purpose: Reassessment of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and substances containing 1080 (a vertebrate toxin). The applicants wish to continue to use 1080 for control of possums, wallabies and rabbits, and for targeted by-kill of rodents and mustelids (mainly stoats)
Decision notified date:13/08/07
25.KOCHUMMAN poisoning case.
Ian C Shaw,
FRSC, FRCPATH, PROFESSOR OF TOXICOLOGY, University of Canterbury, 7 February 2018.
26. Is it time to end pig-hunting in New Zealand?
Opinion: Clyde Graf Tuesday, 13 February 2018, 10:59 am
27. Clinical Presentation and Prognostic Factors in Sodium Monofluoroacetate Intoxication
Chih-Hsien Chi,Kuan-Wen Chen,Shih-Huang Chan,Ming-Ho Wu &Jeng-Jong Huang Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology Volume 34, 1996 – ,Pages 707-712
Published online: 25 Sep 2008
28. An outbreak of severe rodenticide poisoning in North Vietnam caused by illegal fluoroacetate.
Hoger J.,Hung HT, Du NT, Kylin H, Rosling H.
Swedish Poison Information Centre, Stockholm, Sweden;
Poison Control Centre, Hanoi, Vietnam;
Department of Environmental Assessment, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden;
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 2003, NACCT.
29.FLUOROACETATE POISONING A Review and Report of a Case
D. CARLETON GAJDUSEK, M.D.; GERTRUDE LUTHER, M.D.
Author Affiliations Am J Dis Child. 1950;79(2):310-320. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1950.04040010321007
30. Computed tomography demonstration of brain damage due to acute sodium monofluoroacetate poisoning.
Trabes J, Rason N, Avrahami E1983 Mar; 20(1):85-92
31. Contactless conductivity detection of sodium monofluoroacetate in fruit juices on a CE microchip
Qin Lu, Peter Wu, Greg E. Collins Journal: Electrophoresis, vol. 28, no. 19, pp. 3485-3491
32. Determination of fluoroacetate and fluoride in blood serum by capillary zone electrophoresis using capacitively coupled contactless conductivity detection,
Denis Tadeu Rajh Vidal, Marcio Antonio Augelli, Guilherme Minoru Hotta, Fernando Silva Lopes and Claudimir Lucio do Lago,
ELECTROPHORESIS, 32, 8, (896-899), (2011).
33.”HOW OFTEN DO WE HEAR DOC AND FOREST AND BIRD CALLING 1080 POISON A NATURALLY-OCCURRING SUBSTANCE?”
by Ian Rist
34. A new approach to fully automated synthesis of sodium [18F]fluoroacetate — a simple and fast method using a commercial synthesizer
Li-Quan Sun , Tetsuya Mori, Carmen S. Dence, Datta E. Ponde,
Michael J. Welch, Takako Furukawa, Yoshiharu Yonekura,
Yasuhisa Fujibayashi
Nuclear Medicine and Biology, Volume 33, Issue 1, January 2006,
Pages 153–158
35. Population-Based in Vitro Hazard and Concentration–Response Assessment of Chemicals: The 1000 Genomes High-Throughput Screening Study
Nour Abdo, Menghang Xia, Chad C. Brown,Oksana Kosyk,
Ruili Huang, Srilatha Sakamuru, Yi-Hui Zhou, John R. Jack,
Paul Gallins,Kai Xia, Yun Li,Weihsueh A. Chiu,
Alison A. Motsinger-Reif,Christopher P. Austin, Raymond R. Tice,
Ivan Rusyn, and Fred A. Wright
Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.1408775
PUBLIC RELEASE: 11-AUG-2016
36. The use of myocardial and testicular end points as a basis for estimating a proposed tolerable daily intake for sodium monofluoroacetate (1080).
Foronda NM1, Fowles J, Smith N, Taylor M, Temple W, Darlington C.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007 Feb;47(1):29-36. Epub 2006 Oct 6.
37. A 90-Day Toxicological Evaluation of Compound 1080 (Sodium Monofluoroacetate) in Sprague-Dawley Rats
Charles T. Eason Patricia Turck
Toxicol Sci (2002) 69 (2): 439-47.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/69.2.439,
Published:01 October 2002
38. Veterinary Toxicology, p. 162
Clarke, M. L., D. G. Harvey and D. J. Humphreys.
2nd ed. London: Bailliere Tindall, 1981., p. 162
39. Persistence of Sodium Monofluoroacetate in Livestock Animals and Risk to Humans
C.T. Eason, R. Gooneratnel, H. Fitzgerald
First Published February 1, 1994, Research Article
40. Poisoning of honey bees (Apis mellifera) by sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in baits
R. M. Goodwin & A. Ten Houten
New Zealand Journal of Zoology
Published online: 22 Nov 2013.
41. Is sodium fluoroacetate (1080) a humane poison?
Miranda Sherley
The Canberra Hospital
The article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · November 2007
42. Critical Look at Aerial-Dropped, Poison-Laced Food in New Zealand’s Forest Ecosystems
Alexis Mari Pietak, PhD, 2010
43.An updated review of the toxicology and ecotoxicology of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool in New Zealand
Charles Eason1*, Aroha Miller1, Shaun Ogilvie1 and Alastair Fairweather
1Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Ecology,
Lincoln University, PO Box 84, Lincoln 7647,New Zealand
Published on-line: 19 December 2010
44. High-Throughput Quantification of Monofluoroacetate (1080) in Milk as a Response to an Extortion Threat,
TERRY P. COONEY, PETER VARELIS and JUSTIN G. BENDALL,
Journal of Food Protection, 79, 2, (273), (2016).
45. A DISCUSSION ON NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION & ISSUES AROUND 1080 by GEOFF BOOTH,
Published on September 14, 2018
46. Opinion piece by Robbie Kaiviti.
47. Measuring intangible costs: human capital and willingness-to-pay approaches to valuing life.
(Rice 1994).
48. Glossary of Reference Terms for Alternative Test Methods and their Validation
Daniele Ferrario1, Roberta Brustio2, and Thomas Hartung3, 4
1 Private consultant, Varese, Italy; 2Molecular Biology and Genomics Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Joint Research Centre, Ispra (VA), Italy; 3Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Centre for Alternatives to Animal testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA; 4University of Konstanz, CAAT-Europe, Germany , published May 7, 2014
49. Drinking-water Standards, for New Zealand 2005,(Revised 2008)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your very thorough reply/comment. I will read it again properly it contains so much info.
LikeLike
The 1080 dose which has been mentioned in the Drinking-water Standards, for New Zealand 2005,(Revised 2008) as recommended by WHO it is not proven standard value!
It is outdated also. It would be interesting to look through 400 pages WHO to find out how the got this number.
I bet that they took the tactical dose and draw a straight line to extrapolate it to the theoretical safe dose, as Americans did.
You have to look at US standard handbook on poisons to see it by yourself.
Anyway, this 1080 dose is outdated but even more important it goes under ”PMAV” abbreviation, that means Provisional Maximum Available Value.
It means that the manufacturer is not obliged to follow this number because the very essence of it tells that it is not standard!
LikeLiked by 1 person