All petitioners request a decision regarding the current policies for mosquito control. In addition, we ask for the creation of written policies specifically outlining the requested changes to policies in order to protect us from the pesticide being sprayed by the Health Department before any spraying takes place in Davidson County in 2005.

1. We request policy changes where the primary response and means of controlling mosquitoes is aggressive source reduction and larviciding when mosquitoes with WNV are found. We request specific scientific protocol to determine how far from the test site the MPHD will work on source reduction and larviciding in problem areas.

2. We request specific scientific protocol for determining how far from the test site the MPHD will spray, if you must, in a neighborhood when mosquitoes with WNV are found. (WNV mosquito carrier's flight range equals 1/4-1/2 mile).

3. We request the MPHD return to the 2003/2004 trigger criteria that requires WNV infected mosquitoes before spraying is considered and not the quantity of (disease-free) female mosquitoes as the new 2005 policy states.

4. The incidence of human WNV is extremely low in Davidson County and Middle Tennessee. We request policy that allows spraying to take place only when there is a concentration of WN infected mosquitoes which have also infected human beings.

5. We request that the MPHD immediately hire summer helpers. Summer helpers will work to reduce standing water in problem neighborhoods as recommended by the former state entomologist in 2003. Charlotte, NC uses summer helpers and has not had to spray because they have found source reduction to be effective.

6. We support plans by the MPHD to use the reverse 911 phone system to notify residents in any neighborhood the MPHD decides will be spray with pesticides. We request the calls be placed at least 48 hours in advance, include the date and time of spraying, how to opt out, precautions, and at least one emergency number to call if anyone experiences problems with the spray.

7. We also request that signs are posted in major intersections near the neighborhoods where spraying will occur announcing the date and time (at least 48 hours in advance). Signs should include the same information as the reverse 911 calls.

8. In all announcements about pesticide spraying, we request the MPHD list:

a.) The Poison Control number incase people have an emergency related to spraying.

b.) A number for the MPHD in case people have problems with spraying.

c.) The opt out number.

9. We request, whenever possible, written notification for spraying is distributed to each household in the area that will be sprayed by the MPHD.

10. We request a 300-foot buffer zone, which takes drift into account for those who have opted out. This is especially important for people who are hypersensitive to pesticides.

11. Emergency rooms, physicians, Poison Control and veterinarians must be directly informed by the MPHD about what pesticide is being used, where to find the spraying schedule and the symptoms and treatment for exposure to pesticides. This was not done in 2003 or 2004. We ask that bulletins be circulated to all clinics, emergency rooms, treating physicians and veterinarians regarding this information.

12. We request improved record keeping at the MPHD when someone calls in a complaint about spraying. The records should include: the name, address, phone number, date and information dictated by the person who is calling detailing the incident.

13. We ask that the MPHD staff read the information regarding adverse effects on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) to anyone who calls complaining of problems or symptoms from the spray. We also ask that callers are told how to attain a copy of the MSDS on the website or are mailed a copy. We also request that they are advised to see their doctors or call Poison Control if they are experiencing adverse effects as described in the MSDS rather than being told by your staff that, & quot;At the level and frequency at which we have sprayed there is no risk." This is what people were told who called in 2003 & 2004 when they complained of adverse effects that were listed on the MSDS.

14. We request better and more meaningful monitoring procedures of spraying complaints, illnesses and injuries with full disclosure of findings. Records kept by the MPHD of citizens reporting adverse effects should be included as part of the monitoring procedures. There should also be some system for emergency rooms, clinics and doctors to report actual incidents rather than examining averages as is currently done.

15. In addition to wind speed regulations, the presence of an inversion must be factored into a decision to spray. Air quality stipulations should also be established.

16. We request by August 15, 2005, the MPHD form an advisory panel (including interested citizens, physicians, scientists, elected officials, and public health professionals) in order to comply with CDC Guidelines. The advisory panel will be charged with reviewing mosquito control policies and developing a written plan considering all of the points above.

QUESTIONS AND INFORMATIONAL REQUESTS:

1. Can the MPHD provide scientific studies proving that spraying reduces human WNV cases?

2. Can the MPHD provide a risk/benefit analysis specific to Davidson County's disease incidence of WNV from 2002-2005 showing that WNV poses a public health threat worth taking the risks of spraying Anvil 2+2 which contains a known mutagen, an endocrine disruptor, kills beneficial insects, can cause resistant mosquitoes, and has caused adverse effects for citizens in Davidson County in 2003 and 2004?

3. Some U.S. cities have elected not to spray (or to reduce the "spray" component of their mosquito control programs). Why did they elect to do so, and what if any consequences have emerged as a result?

4. Does the MPHD agree that scientific studies prove that the ingredient PBO in Anvil 2+2 is a mutagen?

5. We request a full, detailed explanation of the scientific protocol followed by the MPHD to determined where to spray and where not to spray in 2003 and 2004. Since January of 2005, the MPHD has been asked to explain the discrepancies between spray sites and locations determined to be positive for WNV in 2003 and 2004. In a number of instances, the locations of positive tests for West Nile virus mosquitoes were not sprayed while other areas without diseased mosquitoes were. The Health Department has made claims they used historical data to determine where to spray however the data obtained directly from the MPHD does not support this claim.