Why Im talking about ants and bees

Fighting for Our Future: Why I’m talking about ants and Bees and writing to the government… And Taking a Stand Against Toxic Pesticide Use In this blog post, I'll delve into the specific ways these chemicals can impact our health, particularly women's hormonal health. I'll also discuss the devastating effects on our ecosystems and the urgent need for safer, more sustainable solutions. I'm writing to the Australian government to express my deep concern about the ongoing toxic fire ant eradication program. This program relies heavily on the use of harmful pesticides that pose significant risks to human health and the environment. Join me as I advocate for a healthier future for ourselves and generations to come.

PMDDHORMONES

11/23/20249 min read

You may be wondering why my topic of choice has suddenly switched to ants and honey bees… maybe its my stubborn and inquisitive nature again...

~ Don’t worry, I’m still working on the current update of my experience healing PMDD~

But while ants and bees may seem unrelated to hormones and PMDD. Unfortunately they aren’t.

I've always been curious. Questioning why, driven by a knowing that there is more to the story, pushing me to ask questions and seek to understand the reasons behind things.

Why ants and bees relate to our hormones, and why this is important has very recently come to my attention, in full light, after learning what’s going on here in my local town and the areas surrounding Brisbane and the Gold Coast. And yes this affects us all ~ earth is a closed system ~ what happens to one affects us all.

I've been dealing with hormone disruptions and PMDD maybe my whole life, but especially the past year and I am finally making progress in healing them. (You can read more about that here)

But, I've recently discovered that we've been exposed to toxic chemicals through spraying… From planes. And Drones. And ground teams. On our home lands.

In the name of eradicating fire ants.

And it feels like a big fucking kick in the face…

We can control the controllable in our home and what we consume. But when what is being sprayed directly onto our lands, waterways and homes is out of our control, we cannot.

When we moved to Dayboro, we got letters in the mail saying there was a program and we could add our address to help (I didn't)

But there was no mention of how or when this would be happening.

Turns out it already was underway…

And was happening in the area we lived before moving too. Samford Valley.

As a woman who has dedicated the last six months to balancing my hormones naturally and managing PMDD, I am deeply disturbed by the potential health implications of these chemicals.

So, my open letter to the government… Was going to be here, but as usual. I had alot to say, so I have added it to another post. You can read that here.

Please do. This is bigger than just ants and bees, and our surrounding areas.

This effects us all, down to the choices we have, the health of us and the environment, and the violation of our human rights.

~The right to life, liberty, and security of person~

“This is a fundamental human right that protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of these essential elements. Spraying toxic chemicals on land can potentially violate this right in several ways”~ Much like the current bill going through government now relating to our freedom of speech…

And below, enough research to for anyone to see this is a bad idea, all found in quick little internet search. (The info is out there, we just need to start asking questions)

Why I’m talking about Ants and Bees and writing to the Government… Taking a Stand Against Toxic Pesticide Use

You can sign the Petition here. And I urge you to read the information along with it. They link to some interesting articles relating to the chemicals being used. That I promise will make you question why the Australian Government would think of using these toxic chemicals that are banned in most countries, here in our country.

Directly from Stop the Toxic Fireant Program website

https://stopthetoxicfireantprogram.org/

Concerns Regarding The Fire Ant Eradication Program Dirctly (from their website:)

No local Environmental Impact Study has been conducted.
The two main baits being used contain Pyriproxyfen or S-methoprene as their active ingredients and are classified on their material safety data sheets as either ‘very toxic’ or ‘highly toxic’ to aquatic life, respectively.
This Program is about to repeatedly blanket 800,000 hectares of land – that’s 1.97 million acres – with chemicals.
The chemical-laced corn granules dropped by the helicopters on Sunday landed in Dawson Creek and the South Pine River. The APVMA permits state that baiting should not occur if rain is forecast. Most days it rained!

The permit for s-methoprene states do not apply when fire ant populations are not evident.

The current program was designed to run from 2023 – 2032 but already has insufficient funds and will run out of funding (currently $113 million/year) in 2027.
The Invasive Species Council estimated that for the program to have a chance of success, annual funding needed to be between $200 to $300 million.
Over 1 BILLION dollars already spent on this FAILED program and it hasn’t even managed to suppress the fire ants!
This is the largest eradication attempt ever undertaken anywhere in the world with other countries abandoning their efforts due to concerns over issues such as environmental pollution and lack of community engagement.

Dr Joshua King shares his concerns in his letter to Biosecurity Queensland

https://stopthetoxicfireantprogram.orgAlternative-RIFA-management-in-AUS-JR-King.pdf

Dr. Joshua King. He stated: “My concerns with the fire ant eradication programs that are ongoing and developing in Queensland and New South Wales are focused on two issues:

1) Excessive, potentially ecologically harmful over-application of toxic baits.
2) Lack of alternative management approaches and tools, other than widespread application”

Adding that: “no eradication program has ever succeeded in preventing fire ant establishment and spread over larger areas and longer time spans. This is not anecdotal but has unfortunately been repeatedly demonstrated”

And “Given the reality of this extremely challenging invasive species, and the lessons that failed eradications have taught us, it is extremely important that the National Fire Ant Eradication Program consider the costs and benefits of enacting a widespread toxic baiting program. It is especially important that the potential ecological costs (and other non-target impacts) of enacting such an eradication program in areas that are not yet invaded be weighed against the actual outcome of an invasion.”

“In summary, I strongly disagree with the current prophylactic approach to fire ant management and suggest that alternative approaches, like the hot water method, to fire ant management be considered. The current approach is not sustainable, excessively costly, and ultimately may hasten fire ant spread and establishment. This outcome runs directly counter to the goals of the Australian government’s fire ant management program.” Stated Dr. Joshua King

The chemicals commonly used to eradicate fire ants in Queensland are:

Methoprene
Pyriproxyfen Read more about Pyriproxyfen here and here
Hydramethylnon
Fipronil
Indoxacarb

These chemicals are typically found in baits designed to attract and kill fire ants. They work by disrupting the ants' growth and development or by poisoning them directly. It's important to note that these chemicals should be used carefully and according to the instructions on the product label. Always wear protective gear when handling these products and avoid contact with skin and eyes.

What the Guardian has to say about this program

A “wildly toxic” chemical used to combat fire ants and the varroa mite in Australia is banned in Europe and harmful to humans – and it is poisoning waterways and killing native fauna, experts warn. Read the article here

Toxic, prophylactic baiting refers to the application of chemical baits to prevent the establishment or spread of fire ants in an area, even if there are no visible signs of infestation. These baits contain insecticides that are toxic to fire ants and can be harmful to other organisms if not used correctly.

Concerns about prophylactic baiting:

Environmental Impact: Widespread application of chemical baits can potentially harm non-target organisms, including beneficial insects and wildlife.
Health Risks: Exposure to these chemicals may pose health risks to humans and pets, especially if not handled properly.
Resistance: Overuse of chemical baits can lead to the development of insecticide resistance in fire ant populations, making control efforts more difficult.
Public Perception: Some community members may have concerns about the use of chemicals in their neighborhoods.

It's important to note that:

Proper application and safety precautions are essential to minimize risks.
Targeted treatments are often more effective and less harmful to the environment.
Non-chemical control methods, such as physical barriers and biological control agents, can be used in conjunction with chemical treatments.

The use of prophylactic baiting is a complex issue, and decisions about its use should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances and potential risks and benefits.

Exposure to potentially hormone-disrupting substances can have severe consequences, including:

Endocrine Disruption: Interference with the body's hormonal system.
Reproductive Health Issues: Increased risk of infertility, birth defects, and miscarriages.
Neurological Disorders: Potential impact on brain development and function.
Increased Cancer Risk: Certain hormone-disrupting chemicals have been linked to various cancers.

What are the effects of these three chemicals on mice?

The effects of hydramethylnon, pyriproxyfen, and indoxacarb on mice can vary depending on the dose and exposure duration. However, studies have shown potential negative impacts:

Hydramethylnon:

Cancer: Long-term exposure in rats has been linked to increased risk of uterine and adrenal tumors, as well as lung cancer in mice.
Immune System: May affect the immune system, as seen in reduced white blood cell counts in calves.

Pyriproxyfen:

Endocrine Disruption: As an insect growth regulator, it can potentially interfere with the hormonal system of vertebrates, including mice. However, studies on its direct impact on mice are limited.

Indoxacarb:

Immune System: High doses can affect the immune system, leading to changes in white blood cell counts and increased susceptibility to infections.
DNA Damage: In combination with certain other factors, it may increase DNA damage.

It's important to note that these chemicals are generally used in controlled settings and at specific dosages to target fire ants. Accidental ingestion by mice or other animals can be harmful, so it's crucial to follow label instructions and safety precautions.

~I believe this baiting is a violation of our common law rights… Especially as it is not being carried out in the warnings stated about each chemical above~

Common Law Rights:

The common law, developed by judges over centuries, also protects various rights, including:

The right to life, liberty, and security of person is a fundamental human right that protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of these essential elements. Spraying toxic chemicals on land can potentially violate this right in several ways:

How Spraying Toxic Chemicals Can Violate Human Rights

1. Health Risks:

Direct Exposure: People living near the sprayed area, farmers, and workers applying the chemicals can be directly exposed, leading to:
- Acute health effects like respiratory problems, skin irritation, and eye damage.
- Chronic health issues like cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders.
Indirect Exposure: Contamination of water sources, air, and soil can lead to long-term exposure for communities, especially vulnerable groups like children and the elderly.

2. Environmental Damage:

Ecosystem Disruption: Toxic chemicals can harm wildlife, contaminate water bodies, and degrade soil quality, affecting biodiversity and ecological balance.
Food Security: Contamination of agricultural land can lead to reduced crop yields, affecting food security and livelihoods.

3. Property Rights:

Land Value Diminution: Contaminated land can lose value, affecting property owners financially.
Impaired Use: The land may become unusable for certain purposes, such as farming or residential use.

4. Community Well-being:

Public Health Crisis: Large-scale contamination can lead to public health emergencies and increased healthcare costs.
Social Disruption: Communities may face displacement, economic hardship, and social unrest due to environmental damage.

International Law and Human Rights:

International Conventions: Various international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, recognize the right to a healthy environment.
National Laws: Many countries have domestic laws that regulate the use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals to protect human health and the environment.

But for all the information I can find, this isn't the case...

Properties in Samford that grow organic, are getting sprayed. Bee populations will feel these effects, and we cannot naturally survive without them. And peoples animals are dying, humans and animals are getting sick.

There are so many creeks, rivers and waterways across this whole coast, all of them leading to our dams and the ocean. These chemicals directly effect marine life. And we all swim in them...

Therefore, spraying toxic chemicals on land can have far-reaching consequences that affect not only the individuals directly exposed but also the broader community and the environment. It is crucial to consider the potential impact of such actions on human health and the environment before engaging in practices that could harm these fundamental rights.

The concerns this research brings up most for me, is that while humans are so adaptable, and have the ability to heal, how long is this program intended to run? And how will we know the toxicology we will get when it is being sprayed by air, and also being treated by ground crews. And planned to run for the next 7 years...

We need to be questioning this. And questioning the reasons behind the reasons being given to us…

I understand the need to control the highly invasive, and intrusive species, but at what cost? And when we have better options offered to us, why would we take a blanket poison approach?