In early March, a Tomales resident, while bicycling on Fallon Road, was sprayed by helicopter with the restricted herbicide 2-4,D, which was being applied to ranchland alongside the road. She is a very private person, so does not wish her name to be revealed yet.
Those who lobby for alternatives to aerial spraying of pesticides (a generic term which includes herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides and insecticides), always fear that an innocent bystander will be directly affected by the spray. The Marin County Agricultural Commissioner, Stacy Carlsen, has assured the concerned populace that great efforts are taken to make aerial spraying safe for humans. That may be so, but obviously the system is not working.

The spraying was monitored by Laurel Thomassin, listed as an inspector on the Commissioner's Office web site, but no warning was given to the cyclist that she was in danger. At the date of writing this article, three weeks later, the victim is still suffering from soreness in the throat and nasal passages. At first, she thought she was coming down with a cold, but when no further cold symptoms arose, she realized that she had had the soreness since being exposed to 2,4-D. She also has a taste in her mouth that will not go away. The diseases that occur as a result of pesticide exposure frequently show up after many years, or even decades after the initial exposure. By that time, those responsible will be long gone and, of course, the connection between the 2,4-D poisoning and any disease would be almost impossible to make.

When the victim called for our advice, we said she should be examined by a doctor, get a blood test, have her biking garments tested by an independent lab for residue and lodge a complaint with the Agricultural Commissioner. We also suggested she should ask the Commissioner's Office if their monitor in the field was wearing protective equipment. She was told that Ms. Thomassin was not wearing any protective gear while in the field.

The Agricultural Commissioner's staff requested that she make a formal report, and informed the victim that they would come and pick up her cycling garments for testing, without reimbursement for the clothing, which would have to be cut up for analysis. They did not mention any medical testing to check for toxic effects to her body. A member of our community familiar with treatments for pesticide exposure has recommended to the victim that she be tested for chlorinated pesticides, and has advised her that there are a number of natural methods for detoxing pesticides, which are well known in the environmental medicine community.

When we first received the public record of spray permits issued by the County between 2002 and 2005, we asked Mr. Carlsen to create a timetable and plan for stopping aerial spraying. Failing that, we implored him to at least initiate public notification of spray dates and locations, so that incidents like the Fallon overspray would not happen. Nothing came of it but more meetings and yet another season of aerial spraying without public notification. Now we have a situation in which a bystander's health has been directly affected by "monitored" aerial spraying of restricted herbicides.

We will no doubt hear from the sprayers and public agencies that the pesticides and methods are safe, just as we always do until enough harm is done that even they cannot ignore the evidence. Despite the platitudes and assurances from the Agricultural Commissioner's Office, this monitored spraying is obviously not safe, when innocent bystanders are shown to be directly at risk. It is time to put a stop to this dangerous procedure, to devote time to researching and practicing safer, viable alternatives.