out, as the children ate different things. One alert parent noted that her son’s flu-like
symptoms (headaches, stomachaches, and low-grade fevers) returned when he went
back to school the following week. She also noted that his symptoms seemed to occur
when he was in the cafeteria or after lunch, but cleared up over the weekend. Then
she learned that at least one teacher and eleven other students were also experiencing
frequent headaches, stomachaches, and low-grade fevers at the school. One girl suffer-
ing from the symptoms even had a grand mal seizure.
The parent began to investigate further after her son’s doctor suggested she call
state agencies about having the school tested for environmental contaminants. She
learned that the school was making regular applications of Dursban (chlorpyrifos) in
the kitchen, cafeteria, and teacher’s lounge in an effort to control ants, and that the
insecticide was applied at the school on September 27, the day so many children got
sick. The parent reported that she was given different stories about the time of day
that the application occurred, but she believed that it was during the school day.
The parent asked her son’s doctor to do a blood cholinesterase test, and results
indicated a recent exposure to organophosphate pesticides. The county health depart-
ment took air samples at the school nineteen days after the pesticide application.
Samples were collected in the cafeteria and in a classroom, where windows were
opened for ventilation during the test. The test failed to find pesticide residues. (In
fact, the tests that were done were not designed to detect organophosphate pesticides.
Experts consulted about the testing say that it was conducted improperly, and fur-
thermore, that any pesticide residues that remained at that point would likely have
been absorbed into the carpet.) No other environmental tests were done, nor were
human blood or urine samples collected. The agency concluded that there was no
evidence of a public health hazard. No attempt was made to determine the cause of
ongoing symptoms of illness reported by students or the teacher. According to a letter
from his doctor, one boy remains chemically sensitive.
The state Department of Agriculture lost or inadvertently destroyed its files on this
case. However, personal notes by one investigator said the agency concluded that the
illnesses at the school on September 27 occurred before the pesticide application was
made that day, and that no pesticide violations were found. The state health depart-
ment did not get involved in the investigation.^51
Fall 1993 to Spring 1994, Indiana.Eighth-grader Emily Schultz was diagnosed
with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the fall of 1993. In struggling to find out what
could have caused their young daughter to contract this deadly disease, her parents
learned that studies have found that people exposed to 2,4-D and other phenoxy her-
bicides have been shown to have elevated rates of this cancer. Then they discovered,
much to their horror, that their daughter’s school district was routinely using this very
herbicide to kill dandelions and keep its school grounds looking neatly groomed.
Emily’s cancer was brought into remission by a grueling course of chemotherapy.
However, on the girl’s first day back at school in the spring, the school district made
another application of herbicides to the school grounds. When Emily’s mother138 | Pesticides