Letters for Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Enough with the rumors2491 adds up to Lucifer’s numberNotification system would be fairOpinions based on researchBill 2491 is not necessary

Enough with the rumors

I was at the hearing for Bill 2491. The testimony was sometimes terrifying. I heard doctors support the bill and myself talked to a medical professional who said some disconcerting things about the link between illnesses and the westside of Kauai. Being a concerned citizen, I turned to the regional director of the Cancer Society.

We talked demographics and socioeconomics, as well as rates of oddball and pediatric cancer cases. In conclusion, I found there is absolutely no science-based evidence available that I can find to show that our environment here on the westside of the island causes a higher rate of illnesses, but sadly, the rumor is perpetuated with such passion and emotion as if it were fact.

With the fervent, radical fear that I have seen among people at the hearing for Bill 2491, anyone in authority spreading these unfounded rumors is promoting a dangerous chain reaction that could eventually result in harming seed company assets and employees.

Eco-terrorism is an ongoing problem in other parts of the country, and this is just the type of provocation used to justify it. Passing this bill would be a frivolous political move to assuage people’s irrational fears, and it would be a mistake with unintended consequences. Instead let’s focus on education and transparency.

Sundee Cline

Kekaha

2491 adds up to Lucifer’s number

Why is Councilman Gary Hooser’s controversial bill “2491” tearing a community apart? The bill, in short, puts huge limitations on seed companies operating on Kauai. The companies believe they may be forced to leave if the bill is approved and enacted, thus causing huge unemployment numbers on an island still suffering from the last recession.

I did some Google research into numerology and here is what I came up with:

If you add 2+4+9+1 (2491), it equals “16.” The number “16,” according to a website titled,” The meaning of numbers http://www.timstouse.com/Numerology/whatnumbersmean.htm, suggests “Mysteries are revealed, and emotions are stirred at the deepest level. Intense lessons, such as betrayal, abandonment, and loss of property are not unusual.”

And, according to Creusot, it symbolizes the construction and the destruction.

According to Guy Tarade, 16 (2491) is the number of Lucifer. https://www.google.com/search?q=what%20does%20the%20number%2016%20%20represent

When the numbers of Bill 2491 are all added together, you get 16. 16 is the numerical value of Lucifer.

Need I say more? Vote no on Lucifer and 2491!

James “Kimo” Rosen

Kapaa

Notification system would be fair

I just want to add my two cents in on the debate of pesticides in farming. First off as a leukemia survivor — and the only survivor in my immediate family — my oncologist stated as far back in 1998 that pesticides on produce and fruit can mean life or death for a cancer patient/survivor.

Although I am in remission, my chances for a relapse of cancer are tripled when I am exposed to pesticides and herbicides and certain chemicals. As a side effect of my cancer I struggle with systemic lupus, and pesticides cause damage to my organs — why shouldn’t I be notified of pesticides in my food at farmers markets and in crop areas on the island?

The Leukemia Society reports on their website the number one killer of children between ages 1-14 years old in the U.S. is blood cancers, and they are linking pesticides to be a factor both pre-birth and post-birth.

Don’t kid yourself that your children are healthy — they may seem to be now but cancer has no time limit. Educate yourselves on the immune system and what causes cancers and you will see — there is no such thing as a safe pesticide for everyone.

Lastly, I’m tired of farmers at the markets lying to me about them being organic.  You need a USDA certification to prove it.

Suzzanne Marie

Koloa

Opinions based on research

I am happy to answer the allegations of financial bias. There is no financial bias on my part. Neither I nor my university has ever received any money from biotechnology companies.  

My opinions are based on more than a decade of research into GM crops and food. “Failure to Yield” is not peer reviewed and is easily refuted by USDA and ISAAA data. It was published by a vocal NGO with a long history of churning out anti-GMO literature. The lead author earns a living criticizing GMOs. If you are concerned about financial bias, you should look more closely at that author.  

Your suggestion that the global GMO debate must be decided by locals is an interesting position considering the number of anti-GMO speakers who have come to Hawaii recently. Why are you not questioning their financial interests in this debate?

Now that I have answered your questions, perhaps we can discuss the points I made in my opinion piece.

Robert Wager

Canada

Bill 2491 is not necessary

As regards council Bill 2491, we don’t need it and we can’t afford it.

We don’t need it because there are already sufficient laws on the books, state and federal, to regulate the safe use of pesticides and herbicides by commercial agricultural interests. There are also adequate controls on permissible genetic research and development programs. Simply because the county may enact a law, it does not mean that the county should enact that law.

We can’t afford this bill because we currently have no means to enforce it. To do so would likely require that a new department be established within the county government and staffed at taxpayer expense. This expense is not presented in the bill or in the current county budget.  

The bill also requires that the county prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before future GMO Kauai county government will prepare that EIS, and at what cost? I seriously doubt that the county employs anyone with the requisite scientific background to undertake such a project. Again, the taxpayers would bear the burden of this expensive endeavor.

Should Bill 2491 be passed by the council, there is little doubt that legal challenges will follow. As usual, the county attorney will secure council approval to fund special legal counsel. If past practice is any indication, this will cost the taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars just to get started.

We don’t need more government intervention. It simply costs too much.

Steve Hansen

Kekaha

0 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, send us an email.