LeStourgeon: Well, I'd just like to give you some basic information and I've given you a packet that has a lot of documentation of what I will be saying here today. In the field of environmental toxicology, there are really two types of toxic effects that we need to be aware of. First, thereĠs the dose response effect. WeĠre all familiar with

Chair Bill Hance: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I made a mistake there. Would you introduce yourself please and tell us who you are?

LeStourgeon: Yes. Yes. I'm Wallace LeStrourgeon. I'm a professor at Vanderbilt University. I teach advanced biochemistry and environmental toxicology.

So, where was I? Okay, the dose-response effect. We're all familiar with. Because of the low threshold dose there is no overt effect and as the dose increases there's more or less a linear effect.

Ms. Margaret Behms (Board member): Dr. LeStourgeon, what are you asking of us specifically before you go into that? What is it that you are here to ask us?

LeStourgeon: I'm asking that you look at the information that I have provided to you today and spend 30 minutes to an hour looking at it before you decide to use sumethrin in the Nashville community.Ó (Our note: this is the pesticide the Health Department sprays for mosquitoes.)

Ms. Margaret Behms: Okay. I just wanted to know.

LeStourgeon: I'm going to take a minute and a half here just to make these introductory comments and then I am going to make a couple of points that I've presented in a letter to Mr. Hance. So, three or four minutes. The dose-response effect weĠre all familiar with and I believe that spraying for mosquitoes in Nashville will, indeed, not induce this kind of toxic response except for those people that have hypersensitivities to sumethrin. In otherwords, there will be no overt neurological toxicity.

The second type, though, of toxic effect is called the quantal effect and here we're concerned only with the incidence of a disease in a population group. For example, the incidence of prostate cancer in the Nashville community. I do believe that sumethrin and piperonyl butoxide because they are known mutagens and known endocrine disruptors that spraying will contribute to our overall body load of these chemicals and will, indeed, contribute to some extent to the incidence of these quantal-based diseases.

So, when dealing with the quantal effect the one thing you have to remember is that a mutation that we suffer today is not going to have an overt effect. It may be many years before there is a consequence. That's a problem when dealing with public health issues because the average person kind of feels like if I can't feel it and it doesn't hurt, it's not a problem.

Before the National Cancer Institute developed the SEER data base (that stands for Surveliance, Epidemiology and End Result) cancer epidemiologists were more or less driving down the interstate with the tarp up over the windshield. But, today we have a high quality data base. We can see trans incidences, increases, decreases, and can make important correlations.

In the letter to Mr. Hance, I point out that if the average citizen knew that about 95 to 98 percent of all cancers are not caused by inherited defective genes but rather they're caused by environmentally induced mutations and oncogenes there would be an overall new respect for environmental toxins. Also, I think if the general public knew that, today, 46 percent of all males will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime and 39.5 percent of all females will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. These go together, the incidence and the cause.

I also point out that mutations are cumulative. The general public doesn't know this. A mutation experience in a liver cell at age 7, the progeny of that cell will have that mutation at age 70 and that we often think of cancer as an age induced disease but it's not at all. It's the response of our DNA to the magnitude of mutagens.

And finally, there is no safe dose of a mutagen. That's a different concept than being exposed to some kind of physiological toxin. There is simply no safe dose of a mutagen. We acquire mutations throughout our lifetime and, so, again, the exposure to these chemicals is going to add to this overall load.

One of the pieces of information that I have in your packet today nicely demonstrates that over the past (since 1992) the tissues that show the highest incidence of cancer are the same tissues that are mostly in harms way due to their exposure to mutagens, to carcinogens. The liver up 4.8 percent PER YEAR since 1992.

The liver is the first organ that is exposed to mutagen and carcinogen. Everything that we take in the gut goes directly to the liver. Melanoma of the skin, a second cancer of high incidence. The thyroid gland, and the thyroid gland is the only gland that can add and remove halogens from organic compounds. The prostate. The kidney and liver, again the kidney is like the liver it concentrates mutagens/carcinogens and it's nicely illustrated from one of the packets from the National Cancer Institute.

So, in summary, I believe if you look at the data that is in here and the publications that unequivocally demonstrate that these compounds are endocrine disruptors and are, indeed, mutagenic, it will be difficult to choose to spray in the absence of definitive evidence that spraying will reduce the probability of mosquito-borne disease. Thank you for your time.

WHAT WAS THE BOARD OF HEALTH'S RESPONSE TO THIS PRESENTATION?

Not one question was asked of Dr. LeStourgeon by any Board of Health member or by Health Department officials after he made his presentation. They immediately asked for a response from the Health Department. Dr. Sanmi Areola, the toxicologist for the Health Department, was allowed to speak and was given the floor for about fifteen minutes.

(Note: Dr. LeStourgeon was told to keep his comments to 5 minutes and was not even added to the agenda until the last minute even though he made his request about 2 weeks before the meeting.)

The Board of Health has not responded to Dr. LeStourgeon's presentation. The Health Department has sprayed some Nashville neighborhoods with this pesticide since then.

THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL COMMITTEE OF THE METRO COUNCIL WAS MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT DR. LESTOURGEON HAD TO SAY

They called a special meeting on May 26, 2005 about the issue and the discrepancies in the spraying that took place in 2004. At this meeting, Councilman David Briley said this, "I think everybody on the council expects our departments to be responsive to two things: 1.) To the best possible management techniques that are available for whatever their task is. And, 2.) To the public. I guess, my fear here is that weĠre not getting either one from the Health Department."

In response to the comment made by Councilman Briley, Dr. LeStourgeon said, "Several weeks ago, when I presented some of this evidence and new information to the Board of Health, I tried to keep my comments within 3 minutes and I think I did, and following me the toxicologist, Dr. Areola, was allowed to speak some fifteen minutes. From my perspective, listening to his diatribe, I thought I was listening to a representative from the pesticide industry. Now, I know those guys go to seminars and symposia and meetings that are held by these companies but it was a bit of a shock to me to have that kind of a confrontation using old data and old ways of thinking."

The Health and Hospital Committee and other council members asked the Health Department to meet with the No Spray Coalition to " combine plans" and asked that a follow up meeting with the committee be scheduled on July 14, 2005.

(Note: The Health Department resisted requests made at this meeting and subsequent requests from council members for information. They have failed supply a response to the discrepancies that is supported by their own data.)