Chemicals and Effects on Health

There are two aspects to the harmful effects of chemicals on the health of all life-forms. Firstly the
physical/emotional/mental and then the spiritual. The spiritual effects are put as a follow-on because that is
the way that evolution proceeds, first the physical development, then the emotional and finally the physical
before the spiritual body can begin to be formed and continue the long trek to the Originating Source.

When you read the following information on chemicals the foregoing should be kept in mind.

This portrayal of the harm that can be done by the indiscriminate use of chemicals is provided on this site
because of the spiritual implications. The Entity that created this planet gave its environment, the setting in
which life exists, into Man’s hands with the express purpose of man maintaining and enhancing it for the
benefit of all life. This is not happening because the environment is being despoiled on a continuing basis. In
the spiritual context everything on the planet has life, it is all part of the web of consciousness in which we
live, and move, and have our being.

Humanity is meant to expand consciousness as a means to moving closer to the Entity that gave it life but
this requires sufficient time to give attention to making that expansion occur. If an individual is hungry, ill-
housed, or unhealthy the odds of achieving the optimum expansion of consciousness are stacked against
him/her. Ill-health is not necessarily a bar but it is a distraction from the main effort.

Please read the information provided and if you are satisfied that a case is made for strong and immediate
action by governments to eliminate the threats of chemicals take appropriate action to enable this to happen.

If you want to receive any of the articles noted on Appendix “Ä” please email me on the website email
address.

The following exchange of correspondence was emailed to every federal politician in July, 2007. Not
one politician replied by stating that this is a serious problem and that action will be taken to restore
environmental health to a safe standard.

Greetings:

I received this report today and thought it might be a wake-up call, particularly for those members of
parliament who receive this email, to seriously think about the continual flow of untested chemicals into the
environment. Surely there is enough combined intelligence in today's humanity to realise that now is the
time to stop putting new chemicals into the environment until they have been fully proven to be benign to all
life.

There is also the need to fully evaluate chemicals already in the environment but this is a difficult task as
witness the problems the EU is having with its REACH proposal. Government has it in its power to prevent
harmful chemicals entering the environment but has it the courage to actually do that. Certainly chemical
companies exert power by virtue of political donations and other arm-twisting methods but why should they
be allowed to decide what we humans and the rest of the environment have to accept.

This is a tough call and I am optimistic enough to believe that there are politicians, somewhere, that are
aware of the need for action.

Are they in Australia? in one or more of the States? Or are we to increase spending on IVF treatments to
counter the growing infertility. The attached report is not the only one to point out the problem and the
causes. (Health report #398 was attached)

If it is believed that this matter is all hot air I give my address so that you can tell me so, and why.
Arnold Ward
82 Bonython Avenue
Novar Gardens SA 5040

With my regards

Arnold Ward

Australian Government
Department of Health and Ageing
Office of Chemical Safety
Mr Arnold Ward
82 Bonython Avenue
NOVAR GARDENS SA 5040

Dear Mr Ward

Thank you for your email correspondence of 8 November 2006 to the Minister for Health
and Ageing, The Hon Tony Abbott, MP, concerning the responsibility of Government in
ensuring chemicals are safe to use. The Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf.

The role of government is to provide a policy and regulatory framework to ensure the
safe and sustainable use of chemicals. In this respect it is important that the health
and environmental risks posed by chemicals are identified and adequately communicated
and effectively managed:"

In Australia, a system of chemical safety assurance is achieved via a national

regulatory framework that covers industrial chemicals, pesticides, medicines and food.
The Office of Chemical Safety is responsible for human health risk assessment policy
and practice within this framework.

For all chemicals new to the Australian market, there are extensive safety data
requirements as well as a rigorous risk assessment process undertaken before they are
approved for use. This process looks at identifying risks to human health and/or the
environment and only allows access to chemicals that can be used and disposed of
safely. Chemicals that are already in use (existing chemicals) are subject to priority
review.

The Office acknowledges that some chemicals already in use can pose concerns due to
insufficient knowledge about their risks to human health and/or the environment. This
has called for a more proactive approach to achieve a higher standard of risk
management. For example, the industrial chemicals regulator has recently completed a
major review of the assessment program for existing industrial chemicals.

This review focussed on identifying new tools and approaches to identify and manage
those chemicals that pose risk. The review recognised that biomonitoring and exposure
information are integral to identifying risks posed by these chemicals. Further, the
importance of public access to reliable chemical safety information was highlighted.
These findings are supported by the Office of Chemical Safety and will form a valuable
platform for us to continue to ensure chemicals remain safe for use in Australia.

In addition, Australia is signatory to a number of chemical treaties aimed at global

control of toxic and persistent chemicals. These activities complement our national
programs in eliminating those chemical that pose unacceptable risks.

Yours sincerely
Dr Margaret Hartley Director

Address: PO Box 100 Woden ACT 2606 Website: www.tga.gov.au/chemicals/ocs/

Telephone: 02 6289 3200 Facsimile: 02 6289 3299
8 December 2006

S.A. & M.A. Ward

 82 Bonython Avenue
Novar Gardens SA 5040
29th January 2007
The Hon. Tony Abbott MP
Minister for Health and Ageing
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Mr. Abbott:

Chemicals and Human Fertility

Although Dr. Margaret Hartley responded, on your behalf, to my email of 8th November, 2006, I appreciated
receiving her letter dated 8th December. My purpose in again addressing yourself is that the nature of the
reply is not satisfactory as it fails to take into account a number of factors which are within the competency
of good governance to deal with. As Minister for Health it is your responsibility to ensure that the health of
the Australian people takes precedence over most other matters since without a healthy population we
cannot give of our best. I therefore submit the following for your consideration and comment.

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was first published in 1962 and caused great indignation from the chemical
industry such as “If man were to faithfully follow the teachings of Miss Carson”, complained an executive
of American Cyanamid, “we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would
once again inherit the earth.” Monsanto published and distributed 5,000 copies of a brochure parodying
Silent Spring entitled “The Desolate Year” And 45 years later not much has changed, the chemical industry
is still spewing out millions of tonnes of old and new chemicals and governments still refuse to accept that
strong regulations are needed and that chemical companies must prove safety before marketing present, and
new, chemicals. Referring to the executive quoted above, we still have the diseases, both more prevalently
and in new forms.

From my knowledge of the situation, the only attempt at remedying the situation is the EU’s REACH which
has already been watered down because of protestations of the chemical industry.

The Coalition Government is certainly not ahead of world practice based on its present policies. One
example is the Maximum Residue Limits set by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines
Authority (APVMA) for food and animal feedstuffs. As at December, 2006, there were 283 chemicals listed
for use on foods – those used for animals and cotton have been excluded from that figure. Of the 283 there
are 116 (41%) listed on the Pesticide Action Network site classified as Pan Bad Actor. That signifies one or
more of the following for each one: -
Known or probable carcinogen,
Reproductive or developmental toxicant,
Neurotoxic cholinesterase inhibitor,
Known groundwater contaminant,
Pesticide with high toxicity.

Two of them belong to the dirty dozen which are slated for removal on a world-wide basis. Aldicarb is one
and the other, Parathion Methyl is noted by the APVMA as being phased out or experiencing further
experimental work.

What I suggest is of concern in the letter from Dr. Margaret Hartley are the reassuring words that if
chemicals inimical to health have not been taken off the market (is there a list?) work is progressing to
achieve that. The bureaucracy and relevant government ministers are surely not that lacking in knowledge
that people and the environment are allowed to be contaminated by harmful chemicals, on a regular basis. It
must be a lack of will and lack of concern about those people and the environment that allows this situation
to continue. There is a similarity here to the situation as it existed in the tobacco and asbestos industries until
the health concerns finally reached breaking point. In all three cases governments were, and are, aware of
the true situation but prefer to do little, if anything, to bring matters to a head. There is no excuse,
whatsoever, in putting the health of the chemical industry ahead of ours and the environment in general.

Attached is Appendix “A” which contains a number of items of information on the results of contamination
by chemicals. Arising out of those notes are a number of pertinent observations which the government
should comment upon. Copies of any of the reports noted can be supplied upon request although it is quite
likely that most, if not all of that information is already available within government sources.

Contamination of Water

It is reasonable to say that all chemicals put into the environment and that includes pharmaceutical drugs,
personal care products etc., eventually enter into the earth’s water. (1,11)

Chemicals in People’s Blood

It is understandable that with the proliferation of man-made chemicals in the environment and over a very
long period of time it is no wonder that our bodies are becoming polluted by them. Information arising from
US studies indicate that more than 90% of US residents carry a mixture of pesticides in their bodies with
children having higher levels of some pesticides.

The extreme prevalence of these mostly toxic chemicals, and perhaps they all are as they synergise with
each other and are also additive in their effect in the body, can be verified by reference to the articles in the
parentheses. (2,3,4,7,10,11,12,18,19)

Human Health

Rates of disease in the US have escalated since the mid 1980’s ranging from 26% to 1,000%. As the
chemical load is increasing it is not surprising that increases in ill-health have also occurred. Setting
maximum residue levels in foods is an attempt to minimise the intake of chemicals but it can well be stated
that government bodies that set the levels are most likely governed by the needs of chemical companies to
sell their products rather than the need to protect human health.

There is enough research in the public domain to make it evident that some chemicals can affect the immune
and hormonal systems even if the trace is as small as mere parts per trillion.

Setting maximum residue levels for individual chemicals is woefully inadequate because it is possible for
two or more chemicals together to considerably increase their capacity to cause harm to the body.
(2,5,6,7,9,13,14,15,17)

Obesity and Overweight

Fat cells perform the function of taking out of body tissues any chemicals which are not eliminated by the
normal body functions. If bodies are subjected to increasing quantities of chemicals then it is a sine qua non
that more fat cells will have to be created to remove them. Children are especially vulnerable in this regard
because their smaller bodies and not fully developed systems would seem to indicate the need for a more
rapid formation of fat cells. (8)

Hormone Disruption

Our bodies rely on hormones being in a healthy state and in a relative balance with each other. Unfortunately
there is a class of chemicals known as hormone disruptors which can mimic natural hormones such
oestrogen and testosterone. These then interact with the endocrine system, the resulting toxic effects having
the potential to lead to reproductive and developmental abnormalities and cancer. (13, 14, 15, 17)

Chemical-free Foods

As would be expected, because organic foods are not contaminated with chemicals, which are allowed on
most other foods, particularly those that are fresh, children who eat them have fewer chemicals in their
bodies. (16)

If you are still unconvinced about the chemical problem I suggest you read the following, at least: -

Silent Spring – Rachel Carson

Our Stolen Future – Theo Colborn et al
The Feminisation of Nature – Deborah Cadbury
Quick Poison, Slow Poison – Kate Short

Closing Comments

In my opinion it is incumbent upon you to: -

1. State whether the information in this letter, plus the Appendix, is reasonably correct.
2. If the tenor of what is written is not factual then the errors should be identified.
3. Provide information that will indicate what steps you intend to take to remove those products that are
at the root of the problem.

Trusting that you will provide a complete response concerning this very important factor in our lives.

Yours sincerely

S. A. Ward

Appendix A

A Selection of Various items of Information on Chemicals in General

1. Stuart Khan – looked at drugs prescribed in Australia in high enough concentrations – included
antibiotic compounds, blood lipid regulators and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory compounds plus
common analgesics. Western Sydney sewage treatment plant – checked what went in: primary
treatment revealed significant concentrations in output – up to secondary treatment found variable
removal. [Health #317]
2. Mount Sinai School of Medicine – evaluated nine adult subjects not working with chemicals – found
167 industrial compounds (average of 91 compounds) in the blood and urine. Included were
breakdown products from organochlorins and organophosphate pesticides, PCB’s , dioxins, furans
and pthalates. These chemicals are associated with cancer, brain damage, hormonal disruption, birth
defects, developmental abnormalities. Rates of disease in the US with potential links to chemical
exposures have increased since mid 1980’s – asthma(under 5’s) 160%; autism 1,000% (1985-2002);
hypospadias 100% (1968-1993); cancer in children 26% (1975-1999); testicular cancer in young men
85% (1973-1999). The American Cancer Society states only 5-10% of all cancer can be attributed to
inherited factors. Survey notes that low-level exposures can be more harmful than high-level. [Health
#348]
3. In 2005 Centers for Disease Control (US) found that more than 90% of US residents carry a mixture
of pesticides in their bodies. Children had higher levels of some pesticides. Environmental Working
Group tested foetal cord blood of 10 healthy infants born in various locations around the US. It
revealed exposures to a total of 287 chemicals. [Health #357]
4. The Wall Street Journal, in a 4-part series in 2005 stated 1,800 brand-new chemicals released through
commercial channels each year with no regulation. Series pointed out that some chemicals with
traces as minutes as mere parts per trillion have biological effects. [Health #365]
5. Evidence that low levels of chemicals can cause greater effects than high levels at certain stages in
life. [General #273]
6. A chemical mixture can be dramatically more harmful than an active ingredient. [General #273]
7. Synergy profoundly challenges traditional risk analysis calculation. [General #273]
8. Excess chemical build-up beyond what the body’s detoxification pathways can cope with is diluted
by creating fat cells to store them in. This could be one explanation of increasing obesity. [Ecologist
Dec 2006 p40]
9. The National research Council of the National Academy of Sciences issued a report in August 2004
which contained this – “….studies of wildlife, laboratory animals, and humans, that many industrial
chemicals, at levels already present in the environment, are currently interfering with hormones,
causing problems in reproduction and development, the nervous system, and the immune system.
Harm is happening now.” [Health #094]
10. Express Newspapers 1999 contained this in a news report. “Express writer Lucy Johnston was
shocked to discover that a single cell of her body fat contains hundreds of toxins…..” Lucy’s tests
were only for pesticides. [Health # 107]
11. New Scientist 3/4/99 reported that most of the rainwater contains such high levels of pesticides that it
is legally unfit to drink – the chemicals appear to have evaporated from fields. [Health #160]
12. A study released by the US Centers for Disease Control reviewed 27 chemicals found in a general
sample of 5,000 men, women and children. [Health #162]
13. Environmental Health Perspectives (Vol 109. No 9, pg A420) contained this – “Endocrine-disrupting
chemicals are among the most complex environmental health threats known today. By mimicking
natural hormones such as oestrogen and testosterone, these chemicals can interact with body’s
endocrine system and exert toxic effects that may lead to reproductive and developmental
abnormalities or cancer.” [Health #238]
14. Cavieres et al. report in Environmental Health Perspectives (111:1081-5) that a commonly-used
commercial mixture of 2,4-D reduces the litter size of mice exposed to low, environmentally-relevant
doses. They found the largest reduction in litter size at the lowest dosage level used, which
corresponded to the EPA’s “reference dose”, the concentration calculated on the basis of experiments
to be sufficiently low to avoid adverse health effects. This was one-seventh of the “maximum
contaminant level” allowed in drinking water by EPA Standards. NOTE: 2,4-D is an APVMA
allowable chemical. [Health #239]
15. Extract from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US) 99:pgs 5476-5480 – “A vivid
recent example is the discovery that a widely used herbicide, atrazine (permitted by APVMA),
causes tadpoles to develop into hermaphroditic adults at a level of exposure approximately 30,000
times lower than traditional toxicological work had identified as toxic to frogs. [health #250]
16. “….new evidence shows that children who eat more organic food have fewer chemicals in their
bodies PANUPS, January 31, 2003) [Health #254]
17. While paediatric endocrinologists have implicated pharmaceutical or personal care products for
causing pubertal problems in children, some environmental scientists also claim that some
widespread industrial and pharmaceutical pollutants harm the normal sexual development of fish and
animals. By extension, they may also contribute to earlier or disrupted puberty in children, these
scientists contend. Robert Kavlock, a senior reproductive toxicologist at the Environmental
Protection Agency (US), said these concerns “caused a shift in worry from cancer to non-cancer”
effects of environmental pollution over the past decade. [Health#399]
18. World Wildlife Fund (UK) National Biomonitoring Survey 2003 took blood samples from 155
volunteers in 13 locations. Tested for 78 chemicals – 12 organochlorines, 45 PCB congeners, and 21
PBDE flame retardants.
Extract from findings: -
• Every person tested is contaminated by a cocktail of known highly toxic chemicals which
were banned from use in the UK during the 1970’s and which continue to pose unknown
health risks.
 • One conclusion was that UK and EU legislators and chemical regulators have not learned
the lesson from past experiences of the adverse effects of persistent and bioaccumulative
chemicals on people and wildlife. Current legislation is not adequate, since the use of such
chemicals is still allowed. [Index #147]
19. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its Second National report on Human
Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals in January, 2003. The report reflects the results of testing 9,282 people for
the presence in their bodies of 116 chemicals, including pesticides. A 60 page report analysed these
findings. It is noted that “Risk Assessment Doesn’t tell the Whole Story”. [Index #152]

Phone/Fax: (08) 8376 4445

Arnold1@chariot.net.au

S.A. & M.A. Ward

 82 Bonython Avenue
Novar Gardens SA 5040

12 March 2007
Department of Health and Ageing
Office of Chemical Safety
GPO Box 9848
Canberra ACT 2601

Attn: Dr. Margaret Hartley

Dear Dr. Hartley:

Chemicals and Human Fertility

Thank you for your reply of 27th February which enclosed a copy of the Final Report
December 2006 titled “Promoting Safer Chemical Use”

With regards to that report I would appreciate answers to the following:

1. What is the status of that report now?

2. Has, or is it, to be referred to another body for consideration and possible
action? If so, which body?
3. If the recommendations are to be dealt with at some stage will the public be
involved in the decision making?
4. Is there a timetable which will indicate what will happen and when?
5. Is there any ongoing testing of chemicals both individually, in mixtures, and in
the product marketed? Glyphosate, for example, acts much differently in its
status as a chemical and when it is included in a proprietary brand such as
Roundup.

Your assistance in this regard will be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely

S. A. Ward

Australian Government
Department of Health and Ageing
Office of Chemical Safety
S.A. Ward
82 Bonython Avenue
NOVAR GARDENS SA 5040

Dear Mr Ward,
Thank you for your correspondence received on 16 March 2007 regarding
Chemicals and Human Fertility. In response to your queries regarding the NICNAS
Existing Chemicals Program Review report, I advise as follows.

Status of Report
The report by the Review Steering Committee was accepted in full by the Acting
Director NICNAS and in-principle policy approval of all 23 recommendations was
received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health. I am advised
that NICNAS will now develop an implementation plan and strategy to assist in the
process of putting the review findings into practice. The report has not been
referred to another body. However as some of the recommendations were referred
for action by the proposed COAG Ministerial Task Force on Chemicals and Plastics,
the report will be sent to them when a decision is announced about the
commencement on the Task Force meetings, noting that although the Task Force
was in announced early 2006, they are yet to sit. Key stakeholders, including the
community, will be involved in finalisation of the Implementation Strategy
currently being drafted by NICNAS. The Implementation Strategy will include a
timetable for implementation of the recommendations. The strategy will also
indicate how the recommendations are to be implemented, eg impact on
stakeholders, consultation etc.

Testing of chemicals
Whilst NICNAS does not test chemicals per se it does assess the health and
safety information about a chemical in a desktop evaluation. Under Australian
Chemicals regulation, all new chemicals and pesticides must have safety
evaluations before they are introduced into Australia. Further, the regulatory
system maintains an ongoing safety evaluation process through the formal review
(or re-evaluation) of chemicals and pesticides already on the market. This process
can be triggered through community concerns, the publication of new safety
research and other information that may give cause for concern.

Should you have any further enquiries about the NICNAS Review, the contact at
NICNAS is Bob Graf who can be contacted on 02 8577 8850 or 1800 638 528.

Yours sincerely

Dr
Margaret
Hartley
Director
Office of Chemical Safety

3 April 2007
Cc: Mr Bob Graf; Team Leader Reform, NICNAS

Address: GPO Box 9848 Canberra ACT 2601 Website: www.tga.gov.aulchemicals/ocs/

Free call: 1800 170 723 Telephone: 02 6289 3200 Facsimile: 02 6289 3299