With 20% of the world’s freshwater resources, many can assume that Canada is quite fortunate with its abundance of water. As Canadians though, we undoubtedly take advantage of our water as we consume on average 343 litres of water per capita per day (lcd). That is absurd considering that the Israelis consume 135 lcd and the Swedish 200 lcd. At least we’re better than the Americans’ 382 lcd. The focus of this post is to draw your attention to Ontario; Canada’s most populous and urbanized province in close proximity to the Great Lakes

In Ontario, we are just starting to have a dialogue over water conservation where water metering, incentives for water efficient technology and education around water resources is becoming a more important matter. While Toronto is beefing up its efforts — most recently through its low-flush toilet incentive program — it is neither Ontario’s nor Canada’s water conservation leader.

In Ontario, being surrounded by surface water reassures the population that water is plentiful and ubiquitous. This makes it difficult to justify the need for conservation. However, one municipality, Guelph (slightly west of Toronto) is being progressive and holistic with its water conservation efforts.

Guelph recognizes the importance of precautionary and proactive policy to protect its water and engage its citizens. The City has a Public Advisory Committee composed of a variety of stakeholders from academia and farmers to citizens and industry that collectively help devise water conservation strategies. This illustrates the power of collaboration and cooperative efforts in seeking solutions that benefit the common good. You can view their initiatives here and here [pdf]

Guelph is completely dependent on an aquifer for its water supply. However, with an informed populace and a good water conservation ethic, water is treated like a finite resource. On average, Guelph citizens use 210 lcd, a 20% drop from 1999. Guelph’s sensible use of water cannot only be attributed to a smart metering program but other solid demand-side management initiatives. It started a Royal Flush Toilet rebate program in 2003 to replace inefficient 13 l toilets and encourage the use of 6 l ultra low flow toilets.

In addition to incentive and rebate programs, it runs a number of public education and outreach initiatives including workshops, open houses, children’s water festivals and awards for water conservation and stewardship. The City also conducts audits and administers incentive programs for the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional sectors. These various conservation programs are not cheap (projected to cost in aggregate $20 million) but, all together, the total cost per litre for the conservation programs is 42% more cost effective than the cost of constructing new water and wastewater capacity. Using these demand-side management techniques will save a total of approximately 8.7 million ld. For more detailed budget, check out the links above.

Every Canadian municipality must learn from Guelph’s proactive and precautionary approach to water use, even those that draw from sources that might seem unlimited, like rivers or lakes. Indeed, Guelph is Ontario’s water conservation leader demonstrating and dispelling the myth that water is abundant and limitless, thereby providing the impetus to be more sensible about how we consume it.

Those Ontario municipalities that have implemented water metering programs have seen a drastic decrease in water use. However, Guelph has gone beyond just water metering and sophisticated pricing models with holistic efforts to promote efficiency and seek cooperation. With active participation in the water conservation programs, the City will achieve its goal of reaching 153 lcd and maintain a stable water supply for the future.

Bottom Line: Let Guelph be a water steward example not just for Ontario or even Canada, but for the United States and the World.

Unfinished Business

The Guelph Field Naturalists (GFN) would like to express our disappointment with your article “Risky Business” [Autumn 2009], which reported on the proposed Hanlon Creek Business Park (HCBP) development in Guelph.

The article is riddled with misinformation and was written in a biased manner. In addition, neither City of Guelph officials, Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff, the city’s Environmental Advisory Committee nor the environmental consulting firm that studied the site were cited. We suggest that, in future, your articles should be fact checked and that local affiliated members of Ontario Nature should always be contacted to provide local information.

The GFN has contributed input to the proposed HCBP for more than five years. We support the proposed HCBP development, both for its protection of natural heritage features and for one of its goals – providing local employment for Guelph citizens, [and] thereby reducing the need for commuting to other cities.

The City of Guelph has recently completed its Natural Heritage System study, which will become part of the city’s official plan. All the significant natural heritage features located on HCBP lands that were identified in that study will be retained and protected. The city has done all the necessary environmental and planning studies for the HCBP, which were reviewed and accepted by the GRCA and the city’s Environmental Advisory Committee. Further, the HCBP was subjected to an Ontario Municipal Board process that added further environmental restrictions and conditions to the proposed development. A thorough environmental review has been undertaken.

Contrary to your article, the HCBP is opposed by a relatively small group. The article refers to an old hop-hornbeam tree reputed to be one of the oldest of its kind in the province. Experts we consulted at the University of Guelph disagree on the basis of the lack of supporting evidence. The tree is located in an area that has been heavily grazed in the past, and little native understorey and ground flora now exist. The area is completely infested with common buckthorn.

The HCBP is located entirely within the city boundary and is therefore not contributing to sprawl. It is being developed in response to the province’s Places to Grow legislation. The HCBP will be protecting all natural forests and wetlands within its boundaries, which constitute approximately 24 percent of the site. The only trees being removed are those in hedgerows and a small edge area. Many trees will be planted to substantially increase canopy cover. Development will only occur on previously farmed lands. The Storm Water Management system is designed to match pre-development conditions. Laird Road, the main road now bisecting the large central forest/wetland complex, will be closed as part of the development, essentially rejoining the two forested halves. This is where a dead hybrid salamander of the Jefferson salamander complex was found and where substantial frog and toad mortality is now occurring.

Closing of the road will have a significant positive effect on the natural environment.

Your article mentions a potential threat to Guelph’s drinking water from the HCBP. Guelph draws its drinking water from a deep regional aquifer, whereas the HCBP contributes to the shallow aquifer that feeds Hanlon Creek. Hanlon Creek itself is not located on HCBP lands, but rather a small tributary of it. Only a small portion of the HCBP lands is actually on the Paris-Galt Moraine.

As naturalists, we strive to protect nature in the city and elsewhere. We strongly support the city’s Natural Heritage System in protecting the city’s green spaces. We also support initiatives that will reduce our carbon footprint, such as provision of local employment to reduce commuting needs and contribute increased density to our city.

Valerie Fieldwebster, President, Guelph Field Naturalists

All Ontario cities, including Guelph, are required by the Act to define and map vulnerable areas around water supply sources—either a supply well, or surface water intake area—that could be affected by potential threats. These areas require extra care in order to protect water quality. Potential threats, including common commercial and residential activities that take place on properties in these vulnerable areas, are currently being evaluated and will be ranked according to criteria developed by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

Once finalized the City’s Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment, Surface Water Vulnerability Assessment and Drinking Water Threats Assessment will be compiled with assessments by other municipalities in the Grand River Watershed, and used to develop the Grand River Watershed Source Protection Plan. The Plan, as required by the Clean Water Act, will outline protective measures so the identified potential threats do not impact the quality of each municipality’s groundwater.

The MOE funds water source protection investigations and has recently committed an additional $80,000 to Guelph for public education geared to home, business and rural land owners.

The Province of Ontario’s Clean Water Act was developed to protect drinking water at the source as part of a commitment to safeguard human health and the environment.

The policy recommendations include formally endorsing the three water reduction goals of the City’s Water Supply Master Plan, the formation of a Water Conservation and Efficiency Advisory Committee to provide ongoing public consultation throughout strategy implementation, and an enhanced public education program.

Residents, multi-residential building owners, businesses and developers can expect to see a number of new and enhanced rebate programs to encourage further water reduction. Rebates for the installation of water-efficient toilets, washing machines, humidifiers, outdoor water timers, rain barrels, as well as grey water reuse systems, and rainwater harvesting systems are some of the rebate programs recommended in the strategy.

The goal of the Strategy Update was to identify preferred program, policy and resource alternatives to best meet the water reduction goals identified in the Guelph Water Supply Master Plan, Community Energy Plan and Council Strategic Plan. The WCESU also identifies preferred program implementation forecasts, program support staff, and maintenance based resources required to meet and sustain the water reduction goals.

Since the completion of the 2006 WSMP, the City has achieved a 7.7 per cent reduction in daily water use. Implementation of the new conservation strategy is expected to save an additional 8.7 million litres of water per day by 2019 and will cost just over $20 million. The total combined water savings accounts for a 19.7 per cent reduction based on the 2006 average day water use of 53 million litres.

Water conservation is the most cost-effective and immediate source of new water supply and wastewater treatment capacity. It is anticipated that water savings to be gained through the new conservation strategy will allow for the possible deferral of future water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure needs. Guelph’s water and wastewater master planning studies estimate that construction of equivalent water and wastewater infrastructure to deliver 8.7 million litres of water per day would cost approximately $44 million.

The idea was originally conceived as an opportunity to provide a show of support for our hard working employees at the MRF, however the experience also gave us all first hand knowledge and understanding of some of the issues we face in improving our waste diversion targets for the City.

At the beginning of the shift we were teamed up with a buddy, an experienced employee we would work beside to learn the ropes. My buddy was fantastic, he not only showed me how to do the work but he shared with me his values and philosophies about waste and recycling.

I’m not sure I expected deep philosophical discussions working along the garbage line, however – I quickly found out that a lot of my initial expectations were misguided.

I empty the garbage at my house, it’s generally unpleasant. I fully expected that that unpleasantness would be magnified a hundred fold at the MRF.

I expected that it would be incredibly smelly, dirty, miserable work and as such I fully expected that anyone who would take such a job surely would do so only as a last resort, perhaps they were otherwise unemployable or just plain desperate.

I found that nothing could be farther from the truth.

Not only were the conditions not nearly as bad as I had imagined, the people I worked with that morning were, highly intelligent, driven, educated, motivated and proud. In many cases they were dedicated employees with years of service to the City.

I learned that these people go to work each day believing that they are making a difference in the world and I learned that at the MRF they are!

During the staff appreciation BBQ I learned that not only do our staff work hard each day to reduce the amount of garbage being sent to landfill, they are actively engaged in finding ways and means to do it better, more efficiently and cheaper.

I cant say enough about the men and women who work at the MRF – Thank You.

A couple of other things I learned while on the line:

1. The majority of our blue bag garbage is HAND SORTED. This means that when we take shortcuts and chuck non recyclables or dirty stinky garbage in the blue bag, a human being on the other end has to clean up our mess. Think about that the next time doing the right thing for the planet isn’t enough of a reason to care what goes into what bag.
2. Very small changes in how we deal with our garbage can make HUGE difference in how successful our recycling program works.

Examples:

Don’t mix recyclables together – don’t stuff one thing into another – leave them separate. The sorting line is going way to quickly for our staff to pull that jar out of the box or unwrap a recyclable item tied up with something that is not recyclable – keep it loose.

Empty the liquid and don’t put the cap back on the bottle –. Bottles with liquids can’t be recycled because they cannot know for sure what the liquid is. – pour it out.

And speaking of bottles – I was absolutely shocked and appalled by the number of waterbottles in our garbage stream. I couldn’t help but contemplate the MILLIONS of dollars spent each year by our residents buying the very same water that comes out of our tap! For free!

To add insult to injury we then pay taxes to employ sorting staff to pull these bottles out of the garbage for recycling. Something has to change here.

In closing

• The blue bag is the holy grail of our recycling system – maximum return on investment in waste reduction and cost recovery.
• Our garbage is sorted by real live human beings. Be nice – empty – separate – keep it clean – and you can help make a difference!

And so we sat there, staring at our prototype on the kitchen table.

My mother walked up and having no involvement in the project whatsoever took one look and said, “Why don’t you try….” and with that one naive comment she had solved the problem. I learned a very important lesson that day and it was perhaps because of that experience that I rejected a million-dollar proposal to solve our glass recycling system.

For months city staff have been diligently working on a solution to re-establish a key component of our recycling program. After sending out a second request for proposal (RFP) to secure equipment to sort our broken glass, staff  recommended a high-tech, laser-powered system to sort out bits of shattered glass from scraps of paper, bottle caps and pieces of plates. It’s a system called Lubo, which is used in recycling plants in Vancouver and Essex, England and a local glass recycling company has called “cutting edge.” The Lubo system is available at relatively reasonable cost and will save money in the long run, since glass recycling is cheaper than landfilling it.

So why in the world would I vote against such a great proposal?

Back in February 2007 city staff consulted with NexCycle, the local company that used to recycle Guelph’s glass to determine what quality standards we needed to meet and issued the initial RFP for equipment suppliers. Two responses were received and evaluated by staff as well as an outside consultant, and both responses were deemed unresponsive as neither bid would have cleaned up our glass stream to meet required specifications. The RFP was reissued and we once again we received only two bids (interestingly, the same two respondents as the original RFP).

These revised responses were checked for accuracy, and completeness, and analysed in depth by our staff and the consultant. Staff also confirmed the information they had received by visiting both technologies in operation to ensure they performed as reported and to interview the municipalities using them. Following this review staff determined that one of the technologies again, failed to meet specifications.

City staff did an excellent job in selecting between the two options, the recommendation that came to council was well researched, evaluated and backed up by site visits and end user interviews. I have no doubt the recommended system will perform well and be a great asset for our City.

What concerns me greatly is the RFP process that resulted in only two options. I am troubled that even after reissuing our tender we still only received responses from the same suppliers. I didn’t get into this during the council meeting but I wondered why the same two respondents were now providing suitable proposals when only months before they were deemed unsuitable. To top it all off, I wondered why we didn’t ask NexCycle, the company that takes sorted glass from both Guelph as well as municipalities all over Ontario what system they specifically recommended. In only receiving two responses to our RFP I worried that we may have missed an opportunity to get a more comprehensive range of technical and financial options.

During the debate I worried greatly that I was wading into technical areas that I am unqualified to judge. Our staff and the consultants know what they are doing and have taken great efforts to make the right recommendation, but I couldn’t help but think about my mother and how she saw what the experts couldn’t see because they were too close to the problem.

I am also worried to make the wrong decision. Guelph taxpayers have heard technologies referred to as a “cutting-edge solution” before. They were applied to SUBBOR and our failed wet composting plant. When only one out of two proposals are even worth considering I get worried that we haven’t cast the net wide enough. We can’t be the only recycler facing these issues?

In the end, I believe we made a good choice, and our staff did a good job with what they had before them, but at the end of the day, if I have lingering concerns and my gut is telling me something is not right then I have to vote accordingly. Given that I was the only councillor to vote no on this recommendation I just hope it was indigestion.

City of Portland is one of the most progressive urban environments in North America. The entire city is serviced by a system of light rail and transit so effectively that there is a noticeable absence of cars in the downtown core. With a population of just over 500 thousand people in the City of Portland the question on everyone’s mind was, “How can they afford this”

As it turns out, the City received money that was originally allocated for major freeway development from the state of Oregon to be used for the development of a comprehensive urban and regional transit system following a public outcry over the wisdom of spending millions of dollars on newly proposed highways.

Which brings me back to the $400 million question facing the good people of Kitchener and Guelph.

As it turned out, Jane Mitchell a councillor with the Region of Waterloo, attended the same conference and we spent a good deal of time talking about some of the common issues facing our cities. We talked at great length about Waterloo’s rapid transit initiative.

According to the region’s website:

Building a better community requires a more balanced and integrated transportation system that will help us accommodate future growth and development in urban areas while protecting our rural areas. The Region of Waterloo’s proposed Rapid Transit Initiative will link the employment, residential and commercial areas of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo, provide enhanced transit throughout the Region, and help us boost our Region’s economy, competitiveness and prosperity over the next 30 years.

Do you notice something missing? How does Guelph fit into this vision,…? Well currently it doesn’t ;we are building a new road instead.

The price of gas is skyrocketing, Al Gore tells us we are approaching a tipping point with our environment, population growth in our area is predicted to skyrocket, communities such as Portland are proving the business case for rapid transit while our neighbours are actively planning the infrastructure. Oh yeah, and the price tag for a shiny new freeway between Guelph and Kitchener has doubled in the last few years.

I’m not suggesting we don’t address the need for improved highway infrastructure between our cities, but do we really need to spend hundred of millions of dollars on a new freeway that in a few years will be just as congested as highway 7 is today?

Remember the 407 when it was first built, or the 401 when it was expanded to 4 lanes all the way to Milton? They are both parking lots during rush hour these days. Ask anyone from Los Angeles or Toronto and they will tell you bigger freeways are only a temporary solution to congestion.

Both Jane and myself are working with our peers in an effort to begin a dialogue on these issues. We simply CAN’T afford to let this opportunity slip away on us, $400 million could go a very long way towards “boosting our economy, competitiveness and prosperity over the next 30 years” to paraphrase the region.

We can learn from the mistakes and examples of other cities, or we can simply roll up the windows and wait for the car in front of us to creep ahead a few more inches.

Our previous strategic plan and vision statement were pretty straightforward, ”A Great Place to Call Home” Secure jobs, safe communities, good transportation and available housing… all reasonable goals for sure.

However as far as a vision for what Guelph could be, I felt that it was sorely lacking. As far as I am concerned, these are the kinds of things that we as a community should expect as a foregone conclusion. Guelph already IS a great place to call home…it’s not a vision; it is a statement of fact!

Guelph has a long history of innovation and leadership, our vision statement and resulting strategic plan needs to capture this quality and leverage it; not just state the obvious.

During the first strategic planning meeting, the issue of Canada’s failure to meet the Kyoto protocol came up, and then it occurred to me… perhaps the solution starts with one. As a community we are small enough to make significant changes in how we operate and yet large enough that these changes could have far reaching impacts. Why couldn’t Guelph honour the Kyoto protocol and set the stage for other communities to follow?

And so began an entirely different discussion about our strategic direction.

Perhaps we can solve our own problems and issues in a manner that sets an example that other communities can learn from and aspire to. Perhaps Guelph can become, “The City That Makes a Difference”

Lofty aspirations? …you bet, but it sure sounds like the Guelph I know.

Most of Guelph’s water comes from a permeable zone within the Amabel Formation which is locally referred to as the “Production Zone”. In places, the bedrock is overlain by overburden deposits – clays, silts and sands that were placed by glaciers. Rain water must first infiltrate through these formations to reach to reach the bedrock. Some of these layers are aquitards and water moves very slowly through these layers. The aquitards act as barriers to protect the deeper groundwater resources.

The issue as I understand it, is that by extracting more aggregate without increasing the size of the quarry means that the quarry floor (already well below the water table) will need to be pushed significantly deeper, posing two potentially serious problems for the residents of Guelph

1.    Deeper excavation will result in increased dewatering at the quarry which may draw down the water table around the quarry and possibly affect City wells
2.    There is the potential that a deeper quarry floor will breach the protective Eramosa aquitard which may lead to contamination of our primary aquifer.

This proposal has been posted for a 31 day public review and comment period starting July 13, 2007. If you have any questions, or would like to submit your comments, please do so by August 13, 2007

Ministry of Natural Resources – Ref # FSD GUE 22/07

For almost 6 years, the non-profit Guelph Community Car Co-operative has provided shared access to a vehicle for over 50 individuals and families in Guelph who choose not to own a personal vehicle.

Now ready to purchase a second vehicle, the co-op requested a dedicated parking space be made available in one of the downtown parking garages.

According to the co-op, every shared vehicle replaces 6-8 private cars on the road and results in 50% less emissions per member on average.

Recognising the opportunity to reduce green house gas emissions and support a proven ‘Made in Guelph’ alternative to adding more cars on our already overcrowded streets, council supported the request and waived the regular parking fees for the non-profit group.

As a home gardener and a professional landscape architect (who has nothing against a beautifully manicured lawn) I understand these concerns, however, allow me to explore the opportunities…

If you will recall, back in the 90’s communities were contemplating a ban on smoking in public places and there was a great concern that the legislation would destroy businesses. Some of the loudest concerns were voiced by coffee shops that saw a direct correlation between smoking and coffee.

What is really remarkable is that Tim Horton’s probably became the huge success that they are today not in spite of the ban, but as a result of the smoking ban.

Tim Horton’s evolved from the “truck stop coffee shop” into a clean, inviting, full menu (and outrageously profitable) restaurant that they are today. Hundreds of coffee shops and millions of dollars later I’m sure they are really happy that anti smoking legislation forced then to see beyond the limited perspective they originally had.

The same will probably be true for our lawns.

I have noticed that there are a number of people in Guelph as well as other cities who have forgone turf grass altogether. Some are nice… however not all of them are, and many are designed such that they result in far more work than is necessary. On the other hand, some alternative lawns are downright gorgeous and nearly maintenance free!

I have seen highly formal designs, fully naturalised environments and even uniquely themed alternative lawns leaving me to think that there is something to suit everyone’s taste.

Just as Tim Horton’s realised the huge opportunity moving beyond the perception that “cigarettes go with coffee” there will undoubtedly be designers, maintenance companies and garden centres that will quickly realise the huge opportunity that moving beyond the perception that “nice homes have perfect grass.”

Just like looking back at old pictures of Guelph devoid of street trees, we may look back at old pictures of our communities paved over with a monoculture of grass and say, “what in the world were we thinking?”

As a homeowner and taxpayer in your Ward, I feel strongly that the regulation of pesticides should remain the jurisdiction of the Federal and Provincial governments, and that it has no place on the municipal agenda. In my opinion, the City of Guelph has spent an inordinate amount of taxpayers money and Staff’s time in addressing this issue over the last number of years. Please leave pesticide regulation in the hands of the scientists at Health Canada, who have the expertise and the resources to regulate this issue from a scientific and not an emotional perspective.

In response:

Thank You very much for your email, pesticide use within the City of Guelph has indeed been a very long and expensive debate for our local government. This was one of the reasons (whether you agree with the direction or not) that I was firmly resolved that council clearly and definitively take a stand on the issue rather than drag out the debate for another 6 years.

However, you make an excellent point that policy must be based upon hard science from qualified experts rather than out of misguided emotion or political posturing. It was with this perspective that I have spent weeks going over the available literature from a wide range of fields before making an informed decision.

One of the first things I realised was that “scientific research” must be put into perspective with the ideology or political mandate of the sponsoring agency. As an example; anti-pesticide groups reference scientific literature against pesticides while pro-pesticide groups will reference neutral or supporting scientific research.

Health Canada’s mandate is to protect human health within the context of product regulation; “to minimize the risks associated with pest control products, while enabling access to pest management tools.”

This mandate is clearly about managing product regulation while ensuring a reasonable margin of safety rather than the sole purpose of protecting the health of Canadians and the ecosystem we live in. (This is the same Federal department that regulates cigarettes, a product that they admit on their website will kill over 37,000 people this year alone)

The other troubling aspect of Health Canada’s policy making procedure in this regard is its reliance on the ’scientific research’ conducted by the manufacturers of the products in question. While Health Canada purports to base its policy on sound scientific research, the regulatory agency does not specifically reference the scientific literature that it uses in making these recommendations.

By contrast, the College of Family Physicians of Canada mandate includes the maintenance of high standards of medical care, education and maintaining the reputation of excellence of family medicine in the face of an explosion of new clinical discoveries on an annual basis.

As a result of extensive, peer reviewed scientific studies conducted by respected health institutions; the CFPC and the Ontario Chapter have clearly expressed an opinion on the non-essential use of pesticides.

Our review has found evidence of serious harmful effects in several areas including cancer, reproductive effects and impacts on the nervous system. These effects are found in both occupational and home and garden exposures

We believe family physicians need to use a precautionary approach in informing patients about pesticide-related risks to health. This approach calls for precautionary measures to be taken where there is evidence of harm, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully understood.

We support efforts to reduce exposure to pesticides, such as the Toronto pesticide bylaw, and also support a comprehensive province-wide approach that could include education and legislation.

In the end, I must agree with the 127 other communities in Ontario that the use of pesticides represents a clear danger to the health of the citizens of our community and in particular to the very young… our next generation.

I believe that it is incumbent upon all elected officials, relying upon sound scientific research to act in the best interest of the citizens we represent and take action to protect our community.

References

• Declaration Backgrounder. 2005 April. Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns. An overview of scientific studies supporting hazards of lawn pesticides.
• Sanborn, Margaret, et al. 2004 April. “Systematic Review of Pesticides Human Health Effects,” The Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP). Toronto, Ontario.
• Glickman, Lawrence, et al. 2004. “Herbicide exposure and the risk of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder in Scottish Terriers,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 224(8): 1290-1297. (Press Release)
• Porter, Warren. 2004, Spring. “Do Pesticides Affect Learning and Behavior? The neuro-endocrine-immune connection,” Pesticides And You. Beyond Pesticides. 21(4):11-15. (Overview of Dr. Porter’s findings published in Environ Health Perspectives and Toxicology and Industrial Health.)
• Greenlee, Anne, et al. 2004.”Low-Dose Agrochemicals and Lawn-Care Pesticides Induce Developmental Toxicity in Murine Preimplantation Embryos,” Environ Health Perspectives. 112(6):703-709.
• Colt, Joanne, et al. 2004. “Comparison of pesticide levels in Carpet dust and self-reported pest treatment practices in four US sites.” J. of Exposure Analysis and Environ. Epidemiology, 14:74–83.
• Salam, MT, et al. 2004. “Early Life Environmental Risk Factors for Asthma: Findings from the Children’s Health Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 112(6): 760.
• Nishioka, Marcia G., et al. 2001.”Distribution of 2,4-D in Air and on Surfaces inside Residences after Lawn Applications: Comparing Exposure Estimates from Various Media for Young Children,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(11), November.
• Hardell, Lennart and Mikarl Eriksson. 1999.”A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides,” American Cancer Society.
• Zahm, S. “Mortality study of pesticide applicators and other employees of a lawn care service company.” National Cancer Institute. J. Occup Environ Med. 1997 Nov;39(11):1055-67.
• Nishioka, Marcia G., et al. 1996. “Measuring Transport of Lawn-Applied Herbicide Acids from Turf to Home: Correlation of Dislodgeable 2,4-D Turf Residues with Carpet Dust and Carpet Surface Residues,” Environmental Science & Technology, 30(11): 3313-3320.
• Hayes, Howard M., et al. 1991.”Case-Control Study of Canine Malignant Lymphoma: Positive Association With Dog Owner’s Use of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 83:1226-1231.
• Systematic Review of Pesticides Human Health Effects (The Ontario College of Family Physicians, April 23, 2004)

Websites of Interest

http://www.cape.ca/toxics/pesticides.html
http://www.ocfp.on.ca/English/OCFP/Communications/CurrentIssues/Pesticides/default.asp?s=1