Hit my hot button again.... I have a few questions about your research cited, and I hope the original report was clearer or better written than the summary.... I started to put this down at the bottom of the page, but i figured a lot of folks were going to hit delete, and i damn sure want my opinion known on this topic. The american farmer raises more food more economical and BY GOD MORE SAFER than anyone anywhere in the world has ever done in the past. Yes, there have been some chemicals used which IF MISUSED COULD POSSIBLY CAUSE PROBLEMS, BUT SO CAN DRINKING TOO MUCH PURE WATER, EATING TOO MANY VITAMINES ETC My point being, anything can be abused, but just because the potential is there doesnt nmeen it happens., shit i am so damn mad i just went oiff. more to follow bob aka tex Environmental pesticides linked with Parkinson's <<...>> This report provides further evidence of the effect of environmental pesticides on Parkinson's disease (PD). Over a 10-year period, mortality rates associated with PD and ischaemic heart disease were compared across 58 Californian states, which had been ranked by pesticide use. I am assuming californian states are like Texas counties? What other similarities were looked at in these ranked states besides the use of restricted use pesticides? Since restricted use ag pesticides are primarily used by commercial farmers, and since commercial farmers are primarily located where the climate is most conductive to growing, I would assume that there were more similarities in these ranked states than the pesticide use....by the way, just which restricted use pesticides were included, and restricted by whom? the state of california or the federal restricted list? The investigators found that mortality from PD, as the underlying cause of death, was 19-47% higher in states reporting the use of restricted agricultural pesticides compared with PD mortality in states reporting no use of restricted pesticides. again, what restricted use pesticides, and which list? Although no dose-response relationship was observed, the risk of dying from PD was correlated with percentage of land treated for the single year in which this data was analysed. WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No dose-response was observed, but the risk of dying from pd was what????????? and this conclusion is based on a single ONE yrs data??? What happened to the 10 year study we started talking about, what about the other nine years, what was the statistical significance of the results, and what statistical methods were used to decide that these were real results rather than interpreted results?? How about a few more questions re this research? this research provides evidence that MORTALITY from pd is correlated... NOT incidence, but mortality? PD pop/ages/length of diagnosis, ave age of county (most farming counties are older ave age than the national norm), etc etc This research therefore provides evidence that mortality from PD is correlated with environmental pesticide exposure. Source: Ritz B & Yu F. International J Epidemiology 2000;29:323-329. Updated September 2000. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.