Air Hazards in Lompoc, L.A.

Robert I. Krieger (Commentary, March 28) argues that pesticide applications in the Lompoc area cannot be responsible for the increased incidence of respiratory problems there. He bases this conclusion on the results of tests conducted on air samples. Air samples likely did not include worst-case scenarios. Has Krieger considered the possibility of health effects from specific instances of pesticide misuse which were not captured in the samples? Did the samples occur at regular, closely spaced intervals next to fields where pesticides were being applied? Also, while Krieger mentioned health effects on farm workers, he did not address the question of what direct exposure these workers received. Does Krieger’s conclusion that the pesticide levels were too low for health risks mean no increased health risk or just “acceptable risk”?

Even if Krieger’s conclusions are correct, this does not mean that pesticide use should be ignored. I have serious concerns about the effects of pesticide use on the environment. These effects are often cumulative over time. I will continue to buy as much of my food organically grown as possible.

DAVID HOLLAND

Northridge

*

Congratulations to David Friedman on his “The Danger of Hyping Hazards” (Opinion, March 28). The time is long overdue for shedding light on the bureaucratic distortion of the federal Clean Air Act. I fully agree with Friedman that the activists are out to help themselves, not the “people.”

If the environmentalists are allowed to roam untethered it won’t be long before breathing will be outlawed because breathing air is dangerous to our health. This is to say nothing of the fact that all this hype is being paid for with public money!

JAMES E. CROMMETT

Orange