The Agricultural Experiment Station
276 Altheimer Drive,
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Telephone: (501) 575-3955 Fax: 575-3975

Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 391,
Little Rock, AR 72203
Telephone: (501) 671-2000 Fax:671-2251

University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture and USDA Cooperating

ARKANSAS PESTICIDE NEWS EDITORS

Terry Lavy and Briggs Skulman, Department of Agronomy, Fayetteville and Ples Spradley, Coop. Extension Service, Little Rock

Web Page: http://cavern.uark.edu/depts/napiap/newsletter/newslet.html

October, 1997
Visitors to date

Counts file completly FULL

Arkansas News.........................................................1
	Some Observations and Notes On residue Analysis...............1
	Catfish Industry Moving Beyond Regulatory Nightmare...........2
National News.........................................................3
	Total Diet Study Intended To Aid
	Future Food Policy Decisions..................................4
	Environmental Goals Include Targets 
	for Pesticide Residues........................................4
	Goals, Objectives and Time-Lines 
	for the FQPA..................................................5
General Interest News.................................................6
	Reducing Pesticide Rates 
	Would Increase Cancer.........................................6
	"Air Time" for Methyl Bromide.................................7
	Benefits and "Pesticides vs 
	Natural Carcinogens...........................................7
	Perception Is Reality.........................................7
	Tulane Lab Retracts Study Reporting 
	Synergism in Weakly Estrogenic Chemicals......................8
	Pesticide Data Program Results Reported.......................8
Registration and Usage News...........................................9
Biotech / IPM / Advanced Technology News..............................9
	Fighting Fungi With Fungi....................................10
Did You Know?........................................................10
Getting Connected....................................................11
Humor From The Internet..............................................12

Some Observations and Notes On Residue Analysis

A portion of the mission of the University of Arkansas Agronomy Department's Pesticide Residue Laboratory is to conduct research on agrochemicals in the environment, develop methods of degradation and to determine the potential for worker exposure to pesticides as well as to monitor pesticides in ground and surface water. During the years this laboratory has also had a farmer service program for analyzing farmer's soil samples to answer questions related to herbicide carryover or proper application r ates. This work is usually achieved using previously developed procedures for the compounds known to have been applied to the field at typical application rates for that product. The interesting kinds of questions and requests directed to us at the Pest icide Residue Laboratory make it clear that the public is not well informed about what a laboratory can do. A lab may have the latest sophisticated equipment for analytical work, but that equipment comes into play as the last step in the analytical proce ss. Because of their effectiveness and formulation pesticides are applied at relatively low concentrations. Most of the samples submitted to the laboratory ordinarily have, after extended periods of exposure to the sun, soil, rain, microbes and plants, only trace quantities left. The extraction of these trace quantities and removing the interfering impurities from the sample of concern is the laborious, time consuming and expensive step to most analyses. This work requires mixing and shaking soil with some combination of high quality organic solvent(s), filtering, impurity removal, concentrating the sample, solvent exchange and, depending upon the compound, possibly derivitization. All of these steps must be done in a quantitative manner. Here is an example of just how small these quantities are. If I measured out enough salt that when added to a quart of water would give a concentration of 1 part per million, this would require approximately 10-15 CRYSTALS of salt! In our laboratory we typically measure down to concentrations of 1 part per billion (ppb) or 0.01 -0.015 crystals of salt in a quart of water!

Many of the procedures that we use require 5 or more hours of hands on work by the laboratory technician (not counting the associated paperwork and records they must keep). Typically, in a good day about 8 samples can be processed by a technician. T hen there is the actual instrumental analysis by one or more different types of chromatography equipment such as a gas chromatograph (GC), a high performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC) or a combined gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer (GC-MS). This equi pment must be operated by a well trained chemist.

We often receive requests about analyzing plant samples for various pesticides (usually herbicides). Usually the request is made due to the concern that either the wrong material or too much of some material has been applied. Problems associated wit h doing analysis of plant material are multifaceted. First, the sample material is often from plants sprayed several days prior to the development of "symptoms". Second, there are often few procedures published for plant analysis (while the converse is true with respect to residues from soil). Third, physiological factors, such as how much of the herbicide was actually absorbed into the plant verses how much remained outside on the surface, will affect the manifestation of phytotoxic effects and the in terpretation of results. Finally, other environmental aspects such as rainfall and photo degradation may change the amounts detected in the analysis verses what actually was initially on the plant. So we may be able to detect a compound and even say th ere was a certain amount present, but we cannot say with certainty if that amount may or may not affect a crop without other previous research results.

Some requests are more general such as: "I'd like to know if there is anything bad in the soil in the garden/field of this property I plan to buy" or "I think someone dumped something on the soil around my walnut tree. It smells like____(fill in the blank) and I'd like to test for it." In the first case the person is asking for a pesticide screen; this is possible, but is very expensive. Depending upon the levels desired, the sample analysis could cost over $1000. Each pesticide in a soil sample may have to go through a separate laboratory extraction procedure! In the latter case one might guess at what the substance was, but what if the lab doesn't detect it? Then we are back to the same dilemma, a possible pesticide screening to find out what may have been dumped.

Finally, this summer a concern arose about dioxin that may have gotten into some catfish and poultry (see the following article). The new legal limit for dioxin in poultry and fish is 1 part per trillion (1 ppt). With the above salt analogy that wou ld be the equivalent of 0.00001- 0.000015 of a salt crystal in a quart of water! To achieve these extremely low levels of detection requires very meticulous and precise laboratory efforts coupled with improved technology and equipment. Though we wanted to help out the Arkansas farmers in this instance, the circumstances were such that only a few laboratories in the country were geared up to make these costly analyses for dioxin at such low levels from catfish and poultry.

What I am wanting to point out with this editorial is that as people become more concerned about low levels of residues (whether pesticide or other chemicals) in the environment, the detective work becomes very complicated. One doesn't merely take a soil, water or plant/food sample and sprinkle it into the back of a machine to get a measurement. The amounts that can be detectable keep changing with advances in equipment, new techniques and the legal limits. A good set of records of one's agrochemic al applications makes good sense on the farm. A chemical history of your farm may become a future requirement for land sales. Having good records may circumvent having expensive analysis performed in the future.

The collective sigh heard across Southern states last week came from those working in the catfish industry. With lab results in hand from sampling tests conducted on fish from three states, catfish slipped the federal regulatory noose.

Just two weeks prior that noose had threatened to choke the life from the industry. And despite eventual exoneration of farm raised catfish, long-term market effects of the dioxin/catfish linkage -- however tenuous -- are yet to be measured.

Still, Bill Allen, president of the Catfish Institute, says there's reason for optimism. "The bottom line is it's over. We complied with the FDA's requirements that we do sampling on all the catfish that had received feed that potentially had b een contaminated. We were ecstatic with the results and it's time to get back to a normal routine. All this happened in about two weeks and I hope it goes away even faster."

For the tests, the FDA stuck to its guns that sampled fish had to be cleared below the previously set one part per trillion level. This steadfastness shocked many who pointed out the seeming arbitrariness of the number.

"We argued to the end that wasn't a fair level," says Allen, "and we weren't the only ones. I'll go to my deathbed maintaining that the one part per trillion threshold level was in no way fair. It should have been much higher given the record we have of lake fish with 25 to 50 part tolerances."

But all that was a legal issue, says Allen. The FDA never concluded that one part per trillion was any health issue. That number was simply the threshold level they set to find out if catfish products had been adulterated.

"It goes back to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act where if you add a toxin into the food chain, they don't have to prove any health risk. All they must have is any minor trace level in the product to call it adulterated and pull it from commerce ."

The tests were conducted the week of July 13. Samples were collected from fish in over 100 different locations in the three states -- Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi -- known to have received feed from the feed mills that had used dioxin contaminated clay.

The results came in on July 22. Everything was well below the one part per trillion marker that the FDA had set. "We didn't have a single test from any of these mills that were higher than that level. The issue, then, is resolved."

The FDA issued a letter spelling out the results to processors on July 24. They also issued a talk paper. The talk paper confirmed that the concerns are resolved and all the producers, processors, and mills are allowed to continue operating with out any further restrictions. The Catfish Institute paid for the sampling tests.

"I'd say the cost to us for this whole matter -- analytical work, legal representation, extra public relations support, and all the rest we've done the last couple of weeks -- cost us approximately $100,000," says Allen.

However, despite the cost Allen has no desire to prolong the issue in the courts."We're not looking for reimbursement. We want this to end here and be dropped."

Others, though, may not be so eager to drop their pursuit of the FDA or other federal agencies. The poultry industry, which has hired lawyers to look into pursuing legal action against federal agencies, has reportedly been joined by some Arkan sas catfish farmers.

"We're going to beg the people talking of litigation not to go forward with that. We're also going to implore the congressmen who want to hold hearings not to push for those. We're through with this situation, we want it to end. We don't want to create any additional publicity about this. We want to get back to running business as normal and try and forget this ever happened," says Allen.

Early on, the Catfish Institute worked out a compromise with the FDA. In exchange for agreeing not to sue them and not file a restraining order against them, the institute extracted many things from the FDA, says Allen.

"We got 13 days extension in the time they originally proposed for testing. They wanted July 7, which went to July 20. We got a very reasonable protocol for collecting and sampling composite samples by feed mills rather than the original plan t hat called for 1,300 different farmers pulling their own samples. We got them to allow processor inventories to flow into commerce without the requirement for specific lot testing for their frozen inventory. We also got their commitment to only release information that kept to the high road. They were required to continue their line -- the truth -- that catfish posed no health risks and consumers had nothing to fear.

"So, they agreed to many things and we agreed not to sue them. If we did that now, I think it would be improper from an ethical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, even if we won and made the FDA look like fools, we wouldn't win in eye of th e consumer or public. Anytime you put the words 'dioxin' and 'catfish' in the same sentence it works against the catfish industry. It can't help but hurt. We know we've got a good, safe product. Any hearings or litigation puts this issue before consumers again and we'd rather not put any exoneration for our treatment ahead of any potential negative consumer impact."

Perhaps not surprisingly, officials in Washington had no idea of the scope of the catfish industry, says Allen. The officials also had no idea how catfish were raised and marketed. "After we met with them, I think some of the FDA officials rea lized that this was going to have a much greater economic impact on this industry than they'd originally thought. I think starting out they perceived us as a small industry and only a small portion of our small industry would be affected by their new rul es. They thought farmers could hold their fish for a few months and wouldn't be a big deal."

Allen and others made it crystal clear that the FDA's original requirements would have devastated the catfish industry for at least two years and could have killed a $4 billion-industry over four states.

"After they heard that, I think they understood better. I think they became reasonable. The original requirements by them weren't based on any wisdom. But I think the compromises they made were, in fact, reasonable. For that reason, I give them some benefit of the doubt."

Another thing Allen says he's thankful for is a shutdown in the industry was avoided. Unlike the poultry business, "during this nightmare, we've not lost one hour of processing. We haven't shut down for one minute and no farmer has lost one live fish as a result of this. That's something to smile about.

Reprinted with permission from:
Delta Farm Press Volume 54, No. 32. August 8, 1997

Total Diet Study Intended to Aid Future Food Policy Decisions

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending its Total Diet Study compliance program for fiscal years 1997 through 1999, primarily because of new toxicological findings, improved detection techniques, and changing patterns of food consumption. This compliance program focuses on two areas - one looks at pesticides, industrial chemicals and toxic elements, and the second looks at nutritional elements and folic acid.

This program will estimate the daily dietary intake of: pesticide residues, PCBs, lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, other contaminants, and trace and macro elements such as copper, zinc, selenium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, phosphorus, calciu m, iron, and sodium. Groups to be studied independently include: 6-11-month-old infants; 2-year-old toddlers; 6-year-olds; 10-year-olds; 14-16-year-old males; 14-16-year-old females; 25-30-year-old males; 25-30-year-old females; 40-45-year-old males; 40-4 5-year-old females; 60-65-year-old males; 60-65-year-old females; 70+ year-old males; and, 70+ year-old females. FDA noted: "New toxicological findings, the identification of new problem areas, improved detection techniques, changing use of pesticides and other industrial chemicals, and changing patterns of food consumption necessitate continued monitoring of dietary intake levels of these substances. Changes in food technology and manufacturing practices may alter the nutrient content of foods. Data on t he levels of certain nutritional elements in the American diet are needed to help FDA make appropriate decisions concerning food fortification policy and the use of food additives that contain or affect these elements."

Following the determination of levels of pesticides and chemical contaminants, and identifying trends in the levels of such substances in the food supply, FDA plans to compare the levels in foods and diets with acceptable levels and intakes recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and other agencies. Generally, four total diet collections of 260 food items are carried out each year by FDA, with each collection coming from the four regions of the U.S. (south, central, northeast, and west). Each of the four collections consists of three separate samplings of the 260 items, which are obtained simultaneously from the three loc ales in each region, over a five-week period.

Food Chemical News; March 3, 1997

Environmental Goals Include Targets for Pesticide Residues

EPA has produced a draft version of a new guide for the environment entitled: Environmental Goals for America - With Milestones for 2005. There are 66 goals outlined in the guide, three of which include:
* The frequency of illegal pesticide residues in food will remain at or below the current low level; * There will be a significant reduction in the use of the food production pesticides that have the highest potential to cause cancer; and, * All pesticide residues in food will meet the statutory standard of a reasonable certainty of no harm.'

One strategy for attainment of these milestones stated that by the year 2005, "the percent of U.S. crop acreage under integrated pest management will increase to 90 percent." The document noted that "the effectiveness of IPM requires the support of pesticide user groups, extension specialists, researchers, applicators, consultants, pesticide suppliers, and federal agencies." Other strategies to assure that food supplies are safe include: implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act, reregistration, special reviews, communication, and to harmonize pesticide program requirements with those of other nations.

EPA also wants to increase the use of "safer pesticides." By 2005, the Agency predicts that 75 percent of new pesticide registrations will be for safer pesticides. Additionally, all inert ingredients in registered pesticides will be safe.

Safer pesticides include such things as naturally occurring compounds and biological pesticides such as fungi, bacteria, viruses, and other microbial pesticides. Concerning inert ingredients, EPA noted that all new inerts must have a database adeq uate to evaluate risks. The Agency is also reevaluating inerts in previously registered pesticides, categorizing them based on their known toxicity. EPA has reviewed about 300 of the existing food use inerts and will make determinations on the remaining 3 00 food use inerts and 1,400 non-food inerts by 2005.

Food Chemical News; March 3, 1997 Chemically Speaking April, 1997

Goals, Objectives, and Time-Lines for the FQPA

EPA has announced details on a plan for carrying out the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The plan is based on five guiding principles including: sound science; a protective, health-based approach to food safety; promotion of safer, effective pest control methods; an open, fair and consistent evaluation process that involves consultation with stakeholders and an informed public; and, public accountability of EPA's actions and resources to achieve the goals of the law. Full details on this implementation plan and additional information on the FQPA are available by calling (703) 305-5805, or via the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/opppsps1/fqpa

Full details on FQPA itself are available via the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/lawsregs.htm

EPA has four primary goals concerning the FQPA. These goals include:
* I. SAFE FOOD. All foods Americans produce or consume will continue to be safe for all people to eat. To accomplish this goal, by the year 2005 EPA wants:
* To see a 50 percent reduction in the use of pesticides classified as having the highest potential to cause cancer;
* A 100 percent reduction of pesticides used on foods that do not meet the new statutory standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm";
* To double the number of registrations of safer chemicals and biopesticides;
* To obtain a 50 percent reduction in the number of agricultural acres treated with pesticides that have carcinogenic or neurotoxic characteristics; and,
* To have completed the active ingredient and product reregistration for all pesticides being reregistered under FIFRA 88.

II ENSURE THAT COMMUNITIES, WORK PLACES, AND ECOSYSTEMS ARE SAFE FROM POLLUTION.
By relying on pollution prevention and other approaches that eliminate, reduce, or minimize contamination with respect to how we produce, consume, use, and reuse materials, all Americans will live and work in safe environments and healthy communities. The Agency believes that by 2005: * Public and ecosystem exposure to pesticides will be reduced by implementation of improved cultural practices, enhanced public education, and registration of products with reduced toxicity;
* The number of workers who experience adverse health effects caused by things such as acute poisoning will be reduced by 50 percent;
* The quantity of biopesticides used in agriculture will double;
* Consumer and commercial nonagricultural use of pesticides with significant neurotoxic effects will be reduced by 50 percent;
* The use of pesticides that a have high potential to leach into and persist in ground water will be reduced by 50 percent;
* Alternatives for 80 percent of the pesticidal uses of methyl bromide will be registered; and,
* Protection for endangered species will be included in all pesticide labels.

* III. EMPOWERING PEOPLE WITH INFORMATION AND EDUCATION EXPANDING THEIR RIGHT TO KNOW. Information on the state of the environment will be user friendly and widely accessible. This will increase the opportunities for Americans to learn about the env ironment and foster environmental stewardship through information exchange within communities and across economic sectors. By 2005, EPA will: * Have current, accurate, and easily accessible information about pesticide products and policy decisions publicly available, including on the Internet;
* Have agreements with most of the major food retailers to distribute information to consumers about pesticides.

* IV. DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT INNOVATIVE APPROACHES FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS. EPA will develop and start new tools and concepts to provide the best possible scientific basis for addressing current and future environmental problems . So by 2005, EPA will: * Establish 10 cross media environmental protection projects using voluntary public/private partnerships;
* Develop or revise 100 percent of the regulations, policies and guidelines for registering safer pesticides to improve and streamline the registration process.

Time-Lines The following bullets are a list of FQPA Implementation highlights and the Statutory Deadline for completion.

* May 1997: Proposed Antimicrobial Reform Regulation must be published in the Federal Register.
* August 1997: The schedule of pesticide tolerances to be reassessed within the next 10 years must be published in the Federal Register.
* August 1997: Final regulation outlining the process for establishing emergency exemption tolerances must be published in the Federal Register.
* August 1997: Procedures and guidelines for implementing expedited processing and review of reduced risk pesticides must be developed.
* August 1997: The process to coordinate Federal and State data requirements must be developed.
* November 1997 and Annually Thereafter: A report containing the status of the reregistration progress and projected years of completion must be published in the Federal Register.
* May 1998: The final Antimicrobial Reform Regulation must be published in the Federal Register.
* August 1998: Endocrine disrupter screening and testing strategy must be completed.
* August 1998: Consumer brochure to be distributed to large retail grocery stores.
* August 1999: Progress report on the registration of minor uses must be published in the Federal Register.
* August 1999: Progress report on registration of minor uses must be published in the Federal Register.
* August 2000: Report to Congress on endocrine disrupter screening program due.

What do all these future implications have on activities today? Overall, there are currently about 20,000 registered pesticide product formulations, containing approximately 675 active ingredients and 1,835 inert ingredients. About 470 pesticide a ctive ingredients are used in agriculture, and EPA has established more than 9,300 residue limits (tolerances) for pesticides in food. The FQPA mandates that the EPA reassess all 9,300 existing tolerances. The Agency has admitted that they are not likely to meet their annual goal for the reregistration of pesticides in 1997 due to the impact of the FQPA. In an average year, EPA registers 40 new active ingredients and reregisters 40 older pesticides. Since enactment of FQPA, EPA has now registered two new active ingredients, 10 new biological pesticides, and one new antimicrobial pesticide.

EPA has received 137 requests for Section 18 Emergency Exemptions since the passage of FQPA. 42 Emergency Exemptions have been granted and 11 tolerances established for 21 of the requests. One request has been denied, five have been withdrawn, an d the rest are still pending.

The action EPA takes in fulfilment of the FQPA will affect hundreds of pesticide producers, 2,500 formulators, 29,000 distributors and other retail establishments, 40,000 commercial pest control firms, more than 1,000,000 farms, 3,500,000 farm wor kers, several million industry and government users, and each and every household. Within EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), a total of approximately 800 people will carry out these activities related to pesticide regulation and management.

EPA Environmental News Press Release; March 18, 1997 Chemical Regulation Reporter; Feb. 28 & March 21, 1997 1996 FQPA Implementation Plan; March 1997, Chemically Speaking May, 1997

Reducing Pesticide Rates Would Increase Cancer

A new paper published by Drs. Bruce Ames and Lois Gold at The University of California- Berkeley shows that synthetic chemicals in the human diet are NOT a significant cause of cancer. They say that a series of misconceptions about environmental c hemicals, such as pesticides, in foods have given the public and our government a mistaken impression about the impact of these chemicals on human health.

Their research shows that the U.S. spends 100 times more to prevent one hypothetical, highly uncertain death from a synthetic chemical than it spends to save a life by medical intervention.

Regulatory attempts to reduce "tiny hypothetical risks" from chemicals in foods may do more harm than good by making farming less efficient, which may raise the costs of fruits and vegetables (known cancer preventatives) thereby decreasing consump tion, then cancer would be increased. It cannot be stressed enough that eating fruits and vegetables is one of the most important things a person can do to ward off cancer.

The authors stated that cancer is one of the degenerative diseases of old age, increasing exponentially with age. Since cancer is due partially to normal aging, cancer will occur at a later age for some people despite steps they take to prevent th e disease. While some epidemiological studies have found an association between cancer and low levels of industrial pollutants, the associations are weak, the results usually conflicting, and the studies do not correct for potentially large confoundin g factors like diet.

The notion that carcinogens and other potential hazards to which humans are exposed are nearly all synthetic chemicals was challenged. Approximately 99.9 percent of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. On average, it was shown that Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides via their diet. Humans have not had time to evolve into a toxic harmony' with all of the plants in their diet because the human diet has changed drastically in the last few thousand years, and most humans are eating many recently introduced plants our ancestors did not. Natural selection works far too slowly for humans to have evolved specific resistance to food toxins in these newly introduced plants. Reducing our exposure to the 0.01 percent of ingested pesticides that are synthetic is not likely to reduce cancer rates because synthetic pesticide residues rank extremely low compared with the background of natural chemicals in the human diet.

It was concluded that the popular belief that synthetic chemicals pose greater carcinogenic hazards than natural chemicals is based on biased assumptions, and that bias has led to a proportionate bias in testing. A committee of the National Resea rch Council/National Academy of Sciences recently reached similar conclusions about natural vs. synthetic chemicals in the diet.
Food Chemical News; April 28 Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News; April 23 Chemically Speaking, June 1997

"Air Time" for Methyl Bromide

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has announced findings that methyl bromide remains in the atmosphere for LESS time than scientists previously thought. This conclusion stems from the finding that oceans remove more methyl bro mide from the air than was believed.

NOAA researchers found that the atmospheric lifetime of methyl bromide (how long the chemical stays in the atmosphere before it breaks down or is removed) is about 8.5 months. Up until now, it was believed that methyl bromide's atmospheric lif etime was more than 24.0 months. The shorter atmospheric lifetime was calculated after researchers discovered that the ocean absorbs methyl bromide from the atmosphere at a rate faster than previously thought.

Methyl bromide can be removed from the atmosphere by two major, natural processes. It is chemically converted in the atmosphere through oxidation, and it is absorbed by the ocean. The loss of atmospheric methyl bromide to the ocean is just about a s fast as oxidation in the atmosphere.

The U.S. is the world's biggest user of methyl bromide. Plans are to phase out the chemical here in the year 2001. By contrast, the European Union, the second biggest user, only plans to cut consumption by 25 percent by 1998 and phase it out by 20 15. The third largest user, Japan, has no plans at all to reduce or phase out methyl bromide.

On a related note, the 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions is scheduled to be held on November 3-5, 1997, at the Double Tree Hotel, Mission Valley, 7450 Hazard Center Drive, San Die go, CA 92108. For more information and registration forms, contact the Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach at (209) 447-2127.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; June 20 and 30, 1997 MBAO Press Release; June 1997 Chemically Speaking, July 1997

Benefits and "Pesticides vs. Natural Carcinogens"

The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP), a nonprofit research organization, has issued a paper stating that in their food safety decisions, the EPA should consider the benefits that pesticides provide in preventing contaminati on by insect-borne fungal carcinogens. Certain insect pests can create opportunities for cancer-causing aflatoxins to enter food and animal feed by feeding on the crops. Also, the insects can carry the disease- causing fungi in or on their bodies.

Aflatoxins are naturally occurring cancer causing agents that are produced in food infested with Aspergillus fungi. NCFAP says that no chemicals have been found that directly kill the fungi that produces aflatoxins, but a review of scientific liter ature shows that in certain crops, pesticides control the insects that spread aflatoxins. According to NCFAP, pesticides that control insects on peanuts, corn, cotton, and almonds are a primary method to keep aflatoxin contamination at low levels.

The paper noted that pesticide chemicals found to control the insects that act as vectors for aflatoxins are generally members of the organophosphate (OP) chemical family, a class of pesticides that will be at the front of the line for reconsidera tion under the revised safety standard of the Food Quality Protection Act. NCFAP recommends that any review of the pesticides effective on aflatoxin vectors must consider the risk-risk tradeoff with aflatoxin. Although chemical pesticides such as OPs pos e certain dietary risks, it will be necessary for EPA to determine the potential for increased dietary risk from aflatoxin ingestion that might be expected if those uses were canceled.

For more information on the aflatoxin controls provided by pesticides, contact NCFPA at (202) 328-5048.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; May 23, 1997 Chemically Speaking, July 1997

Perception Is Reality

Pesticides are generally perceived by the public as toxic substances that poison our food, water, and areas where we live and work. Much of the information the public receives about pesticides comes from sources that frequently contain non- expert editorial commentary rather than citations from scientific literature. Attention is frequently diverted by "headline hysteria" to issues of relatively small risk. What is news is not necessarily the biggest health problem. Despite discussions in the scie ntific literature that put the significance of residue levels and their potential to cause harm in perspective, the initial negative perception remains and is easily recalled when similar incidents are reported.

Reports that equate the toxicity of a chemical with hazard and hazard with risk, tend to escalate these concerns. The terms toxicity, hazard, and risk are not interchangeable. Toxicity refers to the property of a substance to produce harmful effec ts.

Hazard, on the other hand, is a function of the toxicity of the substance and one's EXPOSURE to it. A substance may present little or no hazard unless there is sufficient exposure to it. Risk refers to the probability that the hazard could occur u nder a given set of circumstances.

The Alar scare of several years ago is an example of a small risk issue being perceived by the public as a significant health issue because of extensive media coverage. (Alar is a plant growth regulator that was used on crops such as apples and ch erries to promote uniform ripening, better harvesting characteristics, and improve the quality and longevity of the commodity in storage.)

Studies found that the active ingredient of Alar and/or its degradation product caused an increased incidence of tumors when fed to rats. Risk assessments done by EPA did not conclude the potential risk to humans to be sufficient to remove Ala r from use. An environmental group hired a public relations firm to create a media event revolving around Alar, apples, and rats with tumors. As a result of public fear, consumers, schools, and grocery stores destroyed large quantities of apples and apple products. The manufacturer of Alar ultimately voluntarily withdrew Alar from the market, due to public pressure and not for valid health concerns. Now consumers pay higher prices for apples that do not keep as well during storage.

Evidence to support pesticide residues on food as being a health problem is virtually nonexistent and speculation. Cancer rates, except for lung cancer and those related to sun exposure, have remained fairly level since the 1930s, which was prior to significant use of pesticides. It is true that more cancers are recorded, but this is due to improved detection techniques and more people living long enough to get cancer. Scientists believe that 70-80 percent of cancers are related to the body's tota l environment (everything to which the body is exposed), because there are natural carcinogens and mutagens everywhere.

According to risk assessment experts, the public's fears are way out of proportion. They believe attention needs to be diverted toward "simple, boring remedies" that can save/protect lives such as avoiding smoking, not eating too much fat, eating more fruits and vegetables, installing smoke detectors, and having better crash protectors and line markers on highways.
The Chemist; Jan/Feb 1997 Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?; ABC News; 1994; Big Fears, Little Risks; American Council on Science and Health; 1989; AP; July 28, 1997 Chemically Speaking, August 1997

Tulane Lab Retracts Study Reporting Synergism in Weakly Estrogenic Chemicals

Tulane University researcher John McLachlan published a retraction in the July 25 issue of Science of his laboratory's well publicized study that found mixtures of weak estrogens could be significantly more powerful when combined than when tested individually. The study, published in the June 7, 1996 issue of Science, found that mixtures of weak estrogens including two pesticides, dieldren and toxaphene, could be as much as 1,600 times more powerful in combination. The study was retracted beca use neither the Tulane University laboratory nor other laboratories could reproduce the results. Four U.S. laboratories published a technical comment in the January 17 issue of Science and a full study report in Endocrinology in April which stayed they co uld not reproduce the Tulane University results. McLachlan explored several hypotheses that might have explained his laboratory's results, but none of the theories explained why the synergistic results could not be replicated.

The study had captured worldwide attention because it offered a possible explanation of how low levels of chemicals might be causing increased breast and testicular cancers and other health problems which some scientists say may be caused by endoc rine disruptors. If the study's findings had been duplicated, EPA would likely have had to change the way it assessed risks of endocrine disruptors.

McLachlan felt it important to publish a formal retraction because "a lot of people have given this study a lot of accord in the public policy debate." The study was used by some to push a "we need regulations agenda."
Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, July 23, 1997 Chemically Speaking, August 1997

Pesticide Data Program Results Reported

USDA's Pesticide Data Program (PDP), a program designed to provide a "real world" picture of pesticide residues on foods near the point of consumption, again has found that most residues detected fell below legal limits (tolerances). USDA cond ucts the PDP to collect statistically reliable data on pesticide residues in foods. Food samples are collected close to the point of consumption to obtain information on the residues actually found on foods as consumed. These data are then used for dietar y risk assessments and multiple residue evaluations by EPA.

Samples were collected from nine states (including Florida), representing about 50 percent of the U.S. population. Samples collected originated from 39 states and 17 foreign countries. A total of 12 commodities were represented in these analyses: apples, bananas, carrots, grapes, green beans, oranges, peaches, potatoes, spinach, sweet corn, sweet peas, and wheat. In this latest PDP report, which covers calendar year 1995, out of the 6,924 samples analyzed, 263 (3.8%) were reported as presumpti ve violations of tolerances. Of the 263 presumptive violations, nine samples (3.4%) exceeded the established tolerance for the pesticide-commodity combination. The remaining 254 samples (96.6%) found residues on food for which no tolerance existed (not la beled for use on that crop).

Approximately 35 percent of the samples analyzed had no detectable pesticide residue at all. If post-harvest applications of pesticides are excluded, that percentage rises to 51 percent. Where residues were detected, they were generally well below the level of established tolerance in part because of the dissipation of residues between farm and the marketplce and the standard food preparation techniques applied. Of all the violative samples detected, about half were found on spinach.

Funding for the PDP almost ended during the appropriations process for the current fiscal year, but Congress passed supplemental funding to keep the program alive. The House Appropriations Committee also restored funding for USDA's Food Safety Under Secretary position and provided $29 million for new food safety efforts. This is an increase of $12 million from the subcommittee's proposal, but still is shy of the $43 million requested by the administration. For more information or to obtain a co py of the free report, "Pesticide Data Program, Annual Summary Calendar Year 1995," call: USDA at (703) 330-2300.
PDP 1995 Summary; USDA AMS; May 1997 Chemical Regulation Reporter; June 27, 1997 Reuter; July 9, 1997; Chemically Speaking, August 1997

Registration and Usage News

* New 2(ee) label recommendations published recently include:
* Danitol 2.4EC (fenpropathrin), Valent, for mixing with Monotor 4 Insecticide to control the silverleaf whitefly on fresh market tomatoes.
* Mesurol 75W (methiocarb), Gowan, for control of aphids, mites, western flower thrips, snails, and slugs on nursery and greenhouse ornamentals, flowers, shrubs, and trees.
FDACS Communications; July 13 & 11, 1997 Chemically Speaking, August 1997

* Also for cotton, EPA has approved the use of Finish (ethephon +cyclanilide) as a harvest aid on that crop
.Federal Register; July 3, 1997 Chemically Speaking, August 1997

* Time-limited tolerances have been established for Karate (lambda-cyhalothrin) on rice.
Federal Register; July 9, 1997 Chemically Speaking, August 1997

* A one-stop source for environmental regulations will soon be available. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) says that summaries of state and federal environmental regulations will be listed on the Internet starting in September at:
http://www.nasda-hp.org
The Kipplinger Newsletter Chemically Speaking, August 1997

* The EPA has registered a new fungicide called Abound (azoxystrobin), from Zeneca, for use on grapes, pecans, peanuts, peaches and bananas. Abound is designated as a reduced risk pesticide because it has a favorable toxicological andenvironmental pro file. Azoxystrobin, the active ingredient, was derived from naturally occurring fungicides called strobilurins, found in certain species of wood-decaying mushrooms. Abound is reportedly effective against powdery mildew, downy mildew, black rot and Pho mopsis cane and leafspot on grapes; scab and anthracnose on pecans; white mold, Rhizoctonia limb and peg rot, and early and late leaf spot on peanuts; blossom blight and scab on peaches; and black sigatoka on bananas. Azoxystrobin is already registered for use on turfgrass.
Press Release; June 4, 1997 Chemically Speaking, July 1997

* Agri-Mec (abamectin) can now be used on melons, cucumbers, andsquash to control mites and leafminers. Apply sprays using ground application equipment and observe a seven day pre harvest interval.
Chemically Speaking, July 1997

* Uniroyal's Alanap L (naptalan) can now be tank mixed with Command (clomazone),Curbit (ethalfluralin), Dacthal (DCPA), and trifluralin products when used on cucurbit crops.
Chemically Speaking, July 1997

* Pumpkins and winter and summer squashuses have been added to Platte's Curbit EC(ethalfluralin) label.
Chemically Speaking, July 1997

* DuPont's Staple (pyrithobac) can now be used on cotton as a preemergence herbicide.
Chemically Speaking, July 1997

Fighting Fungi With Fungi

Tomato plants grown in USDA experimental plots have a new, natural ally against a fungus that causes wilt disease. It is a relative of the wilt fungus that crowds out the wilt fungus from the plant's roots but does not harm the plant itself. Wilt is caused by strains of Fusarium oxysporum fungi that attack tomato and other plants through their roots. Researchers have found benign strains of Fusarium that actually protect the plants.

The beneficial fungi crowd their disease-causing cousins away from choice nutrients and space on or around the roots. A few of the good-guy Fusarium strains even help jump-start the plant's natural defense system. These helpful fungi may have pot ential as a natural alternative to methyl bromide, the fumigant scheduled to be banned in 2001.

In the lab, scientists isolated and screened several hundred bacteria, actinomycetes and other microbes with wilt-fighting potential. They narrowed the search to ten strains of benign Fusarium. Of particular interest were five that stimulate tomat o seedlings to churn out chemical defense compounds, a phenomenon called "induced systemic resistance." These compounds apparently kill or block wilt-causing fungi that try to grow and spread in the plants' vascular tissues.

Researchers use fermentation techniques to "brew" millions of spores of Fusarium. They apply the spores to the roots of potted tomato or watermelon seedlings. In about a week, when the fungi germinate to form a living protective coat around the ro ots, the seedlings are ready to be transplanted outdoors. In earlier studies in the greenhouse, up to 90 percent of treated seedlings grew into mature, wilt-free plants. The goal of this work is todevelop an effective biocontrol mechanism for fusarium w ilt on tomatoes and other plants of economic importance.

Unchecked, Fusarium wilt disease can wipe out a susceptible plants or crops. Most losses are in the seedling stage, four to six weeks after they are transplanted into the field. In Florida, second only to California in producing domestic tomatoes, growers spend approximately $3,800 per acre applying methyl bromide to rid the soil of Fusarium wilt fungi. Methyl bromide also controls other soil-dwelling pests such as nematodes and weeds. But in 2001, the EPA currently is scheduled to impose a ban o n methyl bromide's use in all domestic crop production and post harvest treatments.
USDA ARS News Service; August 7, 1997 Chemically Speaking, September 1997

* Late blight (Phytophthora infestans) infects potatoes on every continent except Australia and Antarctica, and causes the annual loss of 20 percent of the global potato crop at a cost of $17 billion. Genetic engineering has developed "suicidal" potato es that may help in dealing with this disease problem. The Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding in Germany has patented, and is conducting field trials on potatoes of the hypersensitive"cultivar bintje" variety. These altered tubers have been genetical ly programmed to enhance production of barnase, a naturally occurring antifungal ribonucleic enzyme. Researchers attach a gene encoded for production of this barnase enzyme to the promoter of the plant gene. This promoter activates the plant's defenses ag ainst the invading late blight by triggering the enzyme's production in the plant's leaves.

By destroying essential acids in cells surrounding the infected area, the enzyme helps the infected tuber plant create a buffer between the disease and the rest of the plant, while starving the invading fungus. Eventually part, or maybe all, of th e potato would die, but the fungus will have been partly isolated. This research, now in its second year of field trials, was interrupted last year by opponents of genetic engineering in plants. So the scheduled three full years of field experiments hav e been extended to the end of 1999.
The Financial Post; April 24, 1997 Chemically Speaking, June 1997

* The largest apple farm in Vermont was sabotaged when someone deliberately hid up to 10 gallons of the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) in spray tanks reserved for fungicides. The resulting application resulted in damage of 10,000 trees valued at least $500,000.
AP; June 20 and 22, 1997 Chemically Speaking, July 1997

* Mexico has agreed to gradually phase out DDT and chlordane use over the next 10 years. The agreement was reached at a meeting of the Council of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, established by NAFTA to ensure Mexico would not gain a trad e advantage by ignoring environmental concerns.
Reuter; June 15 & AP; June 13, 1997 Chemically Speaking, July 1997

* As a result of the IR-4 Project's efforts, registration has been received for the use of:
* Malathion on chrysanthemums;
* Oftanol (isofenphos) on 22 new ornamental species;
* Aliette (fosethy-Al) on azaleas and roses; and,
* Ornalin (vinclozolin) on 15 new ornamental species;
* Cycocel (chlormequat) on geranium and hibiscus.
Chemically Speaking, July 1997

* The Environmental Working Group in August issued a report calling for the immediate ban of triazine (atrazine, cyanazine, simazine) herbicides and a phase out of "all pesticides that contaminate tap water supplies." More than 10 million people in the Midwest are exposed to such residues, the group said in a news release. In response to the EWG report, the American Crop Protection Association estimated the "number of gallons of tap water a person would have to drink every day for a 70-year lifespan in order to ingest the amount of pesticide to meet the EPA standard of No Observable Effect Level'." Using data in the EWG report, ACPA concluded that a 150 lb. adult would need to drink between 6,374 and 27,337 GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY, depending upon his or her Midwest location.
IFT Communicators' Alert; September 1997 Chemically Speaking, September 1997

* USDA is creating an Office of Pest Management in an effort to coordinate work on "minor use" pesticides with EPA and to encourage development of new, safer chemicals. This new Office will serve as USDA's focal point for pesticide regulatory issues, compiling data on pesticide use, residues in food, and overseeing information gathering. This will help make available high quality data on pesticides for regulatory decision making and aid the registration of minor use pesticides. EPA announced creation of a Minor Use Program Team to work with USDA, growers and chemical firms on issues including development of safer pesticides. Minor use pesticides are those used on fruits, vegetables, nuts, and horticultural and specialty crops, all of which are grown o n far smaller acreage than crops like corn and soybeans. Reuter; September 8, 1997 USDA Press Release; September 8, 1997; Chemically Speaking, September 1997

* Cocaine acts as a natural insecticide. Cocaine has been found to have surprising insecticidal effects at levels in which it occurs naturally in plants. Cocaine is obtained from the leaves of coca plants, but its natural function in plants has prev iously been unknown. Curious about observations that coca plants tend to be relatively pest free, researchers at the department of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston decided to examine cocaine's effects on feeding insects. Their exper iments showed that insect larvae exposed to cocaine sprayed leaves display "marked behavioral abnormalities, including rearing, tremors, and walk-off activities." Their data show that cocaine's toxicity stems from its ability to block re-uptake of oct opamine, a key insect neurotransmitter and hormone that regulates movement, behavior, and metabolism. The researchers point out that cocaine's effect on humans, which is caused by blockage of re uptake of the neurotransmitter dopamine, is likely an uninte nded evolutionary side effect of its ability to block the amine re-uptake in insects.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 90 9645 (1993), via Kansas Pesticide Chemically Speaking, June 1997

* The company hired to do the aerial malathion sprays in the battle against the Mediterranean fruit fly has been fined $20,000 by FDACS after it was discovered that the planes were discharging insecticide rinsate from the DC-3's hoppers over the Gulf of Mexico. The company contends that the rinsate, which is dispersed in small droplets approximately 800 microns in diameter, would have evaporated before striking the water. Thus, they believe no water contamination took place. The plane's onboard tanks are now rinsed and emptied into holding tanks.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; July 11, 1997 Chemically Speaking, August 1997

* The two unlicensed exterminators in Mississippi who were convictedof illegally spraying methyl parathion and permethrin inside homes and businesses to control roaches and other household pests were sentenced to record jail terms by a federal magistra te. The first exterminator, convicted on 48 misdemeanor counts, was sentenced to a term of 6.5 years. The second man, found guilty on 21 counts,was sentenced to 5.25 years. No monetary fines were imposed because of the defendants' poor financial conditi on. Fines could have exceeded a total of more than $6 million. In addition to the jail terms, the defendants cannot engage in any pest control work for one year after their release.
Chemical Regulation Reporter; July 11, 1997 Chemically Speaking, August 1997

* The federal government unveiled a site on the World Wide Web that links Internet users to statistics gathered by 70 agencies on topics ranging from agriculture to transportation. The FedStats site (http://www.fedstats.gov) gives high schoolers better access to federal statistics than top officials in Washington had five years ago.
Wall Street Journal & The Washington Post; May 23, 1997; Chemically Speaking, July 1997

* The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) Hotline, a toll-free information service on a wide variety of pesticide related subjects, will now be extending its service to seven days a week. NPTN also now has a World Wide Web site at: ht tp://ace.orst.edu/info/nptn/ NPTN provides objective, science-based information about pesticide products, pesticide poisonings and emergencies, toxicology, and environmental chemistry. NPTN can also direct callers for pesticide incident investigations, safety practices, clean up an d disposal of pesticides. Telephone operating hours are 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.eastern time. The telephone number is (800) 858-7378. Information is available at no cost via the phone and Internet.
EPA Press Release; June 13, 1997 Chemically Speaking, July 1997

Darwin Awards are (by definition) granted posthumously. This citation is bestowed upon (the remains of) that individual, who through single-mined self-sacrifice, has done the most to remove undesirable elements from the human gene pool. This story was clipped from the recent Darwin awards, which people get for doing something incredibly stupid. True stories.

Here's the winner: Larry Walters is among the relatively few who have actually turned their dreams into reality. His story is true, as hard as you may find it to believe . . .

Larry was a truck driver, but his lifelong dream was to fly. When he graduated from high school, he joined the Air Force in hopes of becoming a pilot. Unfortunately, poor eyesight disqualified him. So when he finally left the service, he had to satisf y himself with watching others fly the fighter jets that crisscrossed the skies over his backyard. As he sat there in his lawn chair, he dreamed about the magic of flying.

Then one day, Larry had an idea. He went down to the local Army-Navy surplus store and bought forty-five weather balloons, and several tanks of helium. These were not your brightly colored party balloons, these were heavy-duty spheres measuring more t han four feet across when fully inflated. Back in his yard, Larry used straps to attach the balloons to his lawn chair, the kind you might have in your back yard. He anchored the chair to the bumper of his jeep, and inflated the balloons with helium.

Then he packed a few sandwiches and drinks, and a loaded BB gun, figuring he could pop a few balloons when it was time to return to earth. His preparations complete, Larry sat in his chair and cut the anchoring cord. His plan was to lazily float into the sky, and eventually back to terra firma. But things didn't quite work out that way. When Larry cut the cord, he didn't float lazily up; he shot up as if fired from a cannon!

Nor did he go up a couple hundred feet. He climbed and climbed until he finally leveled off at eleven thousand feet! At that height, he could hardly risk deflating any of the balloons, lest he unbalance the load and really experience flying. So he sta yed up there, sailing around for fourteen hours, totally at a loss about how to get down.

Eventually, Larry drifted into the approach corridor for Los Angeles International Airport. A Pan Am pilot radioed the tower about passing a guy in a lawn chair at eleven thousand feet, with a gun in his lap . . . now there's a conversation I would h ave given anything to have heard! LAX is right on the ocean, and you may know that at nightfall, the winds on the coast begin to change. So, as dusk fell, Larry began drifting out to sea.

At that point, the Navy dispatched a helicopter to rescue him, but the rescue team had a hard time getting to him because the draft from their propeller kept pushing his home-made contraption farther and farther away. Eventually, they were able to hover above him and drop a rescue line, with which they gradually hauled him back to safety. As soon as Larry hit the ground, he was arrested. But as he was led away in handcuffs, a television reporter called out, "Sir, why 'd you do it?" Larry stopped, eyed the man, then replied nonchalantly, "A man can't just sit around!"

The 1996 nominees are:

1. *=San Jose Mercury News* An unidentified man, using a shotgun like a club to break a former girlfriends windshield, accidentally shot himself to death when the gun discharged, blowing a hole in his gut.

2. *=Hickory Daily Record 12/21/92* Ken Charles Barger, 47 accidentally shot himself to death in December in Newton, N.C., when, awakening to the sound of a ringing telephone beside his bed,, he reached for the phone but grabbed instead a Smith & Wesso n .38 Special, which discharged when he drew it to his ear.

3. *=Unknown, 25 March* A terrible diet and room with no ventilation are being blamed for the death of a man who was killed by his own gas. There was no mark on his body but autopsy showed large amounts of methane gas in his system. His diet had consis ted primarily of beans and cabbage (and a couple of other things). It was just the right combination of foods. It appears that the man died in his sleep from breathing from the poisonous cloud that was hanging over his bed. Had he been outside or had his w indows been opened, it wouldn't have been fatal. But the man was shut up in his near airtight bedroom. He was a big man with a huge capacity for creating (this deadly gas). Three of the rescuers got sick and one was hospitalized.

4. *=Reuters, Mississauga, Ontario* Man slips, falls 23 stories to his death. A man cleaning a bird feeder on his balcony of his condominium apartment in this Toronto suburb slipped and fell 23 stories to his death, police said Monday. Stefan Macko, 55 , was standing on a wheelchair Sunday when the accident occurred, said Inspector D'Arcy Honer of the Peel regional police. "It appears the chair moved and he went over the balcony, " Honer said. "It's one of those freak accidents. No foul play is suspecte d ."

5. *=UPI, Toronto* Police said a lawyer demonstrating the safety of windows in a downtown Toronto skyscraper crashed through a pane with his shoulder and plunged 24 floors to his death. A police spokesman said Garry Hoy, 39, fell into the courtyard of the Toronto dominion Bank Tower early Friday evening as he was explaining the strength of the building's windows to visiting law students. Hoy previously had conducted demonstrations of window strength according to police report s Peter Lauwers, managing partner of the firm Holden Day Wilson, told the Toronto Sun newspaper that Hoy was "one of the best and brightest" members of the 200-man association. (editors note - I thing this guy should win, not only because he removed some incredibly stupid genes from the pool, but he also eliminated a lawyer in the process....)

(BEST AND BRIGHTEST? WHATEVER DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE REST OF THEM?)

6. *=AP, Cairo, Egypt, 31 Aug 1995 CAIRO, Egypt (AP)* Six people drowned Monday while trying to rescue a chicken that had fallen into a well in southern Egypt. An 18 year old farmer was the first to desend into the 60-foot well. He drowned, apparently after an undercurrent in the water pulled him down, police said his sister and two brothers, none of whom could swim well, went in one by one to help him, but also drowned. Two elderly farmers then came to help. But they apparently were pulled by the same undercurrent. The bodies of the six were later pulled out of the well in the village of Nazlat Imara, 240 miles south of Cairo. The chicken was also pulled out. It survived.

7. *=Times of London* A thief who sneaked into a hospital was scarred for life during his suntan time. After evading security staff at Odstock Hospital in Salisbury, Wiltshire, and helping himself to doctor's paging devices, the thief spotted a vertical sun bed. He walked into the unit and removed his clothes for a 45-minute tan. However, the high-voltage UV machine at the hospital, which is reknowned for its treatment of burn victims, has a maximum dosage of 10 seco nds. After lying on the bed for almost 300 times the recommended maximum time, the man was covered in blisters. Hours later, when the pain of the burns became unbearable, he went to Southampton General Hospital, 20 miles away, in Hampshire. Staff became suspicious because he was wearing a doctor's coat. After tending his wounds they called the police. Southampton police said: "This man broke into Odstock and decided he fancied a quick suntan. Doctors say he is going to be scarred for life."

"MORE INTELLIGENCE CHALLENGED PEOPLE"

8. 45 year old Amy Brasher was arrested in San Antonio, Texas, after a mechanic reported to police that 18 packages of marijuana were packed in the engine compartment of the car which she had brought to the mechanic for an oil change. According to police, Brasher later said that she didn't realize that the mechanic would have to raise the hood to change change the oil.

9. Portsmouth, RI police charged Gregory Rosa, 25, with a string of vending machine robberies in January when he: 1. fled from police inexplicably when they spotted him loitering around a vending machine and 2. later tried to post his $400 bail in coin s.

10. Karen Lee Joachimi, 20, was arrested in Lake City, Florida, for robbery of a Howard Johnson's motel. She was armed with only an electric chain saw, which was not plugged in.

11. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan at 7:50 am, flashed a gun and demanded cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he couldn't open the cash register without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they case weren't available for breakfast. The man, frustrated, walked away.

THERE ARE "DO IT YOURSELFERS" AND THEN THERE ARE "DO IT TO YOURSELFERS"!

James Burns, 34, of Alamo, Michigan, was killed in March as he was trying to repair what police described as a "farm-type truck." Burns got a friend to drive the truck on a highway while Burns hung underneath so that he could ascertain the source of a troubling noise. Burns' clothes caught on something, however, and the other man found Burns "wrapped in the drive shaft."

In Wesley Chapel, Florida, Joseph Aaron, 20, was hit in the leg with pieces of the bullet he fired at the exhaust pipe of his car. When repairing the car, he needed to bore a hole in the pipe. When he couldn't find a drill, he tried to shoot a hole in it.