Hello Everyone!

I research sustainable development issues. Many years ago I started to discover that synthetic chemicals used in society, especially farming, have potentially adverse environmental and human-health effects. This, I know, may not be new information to many; however, the social, environmental, financial and human health risks are evident if a person delves deeper i.e. beyond the mainstream media.

In October 2000 I received the Environment Agency's (EA) booklet: 'The National Centre for Ecotoxicological and Hazardous Substances. Protecting the Environment From Chemicals'. This was sent to me by the EA when I made inquiries about the EA's monitoring of chemical substances. The booklet stated,

Comments like this led me to become so concerned I questioned the fundamental actions of Government (local and central). I also looked in to solutions offered by other interested parties and discovered many synthetic chemicals are unnecessary in whole or part.

Synthetic chemical production is lucrative due to the profits that can be made by private or public companies. These profits can be passed-on to central and local Government employees via dividends through Government Pension Investments: even mainstream media such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) profit through their pension schemes from these petrochemical ventures – hence why you don’t see any mainstream media intervention or information relating to pesticides and animal testing (before license granting) i.e. no one wants to reduce their pension asset value.

The money needed to monitor for or remove these potentially harmful, environmentally persistent nasties is paid for by people through:

a) increased taxes to pay for departments like: the Environment Agency; Environmental Health; the Health and Safety Executive (to name a few). These departments cost £millions to run and, in many cases, are not completely up to speed on where many chemicals are;

b) increased bills issued by water supply or disposal companies: i) water supply companies have strict filtration regulations before supply to homes; ii) water disposal companies eventually have to dump waste back in to the environment using ‘consent licenses’ issued by central or local Government. However, these consents are hard to monitor and harder to enforce - it appears the environment is throw-away.

Synthetic chemicals are undermining the environment and society. The environment has always been more-or-less disposable, but what about human health? What about the health of children - if I have to highlight those most vulnerable to adult activities?

Synthetic chemicals such as synthetic biocides (pesticides (especially Plant Protection Products (PPPs), etc) disrupt life-forms. The UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) currently state,

While water sampling technology is improving, what about the decades that biocide existence could not be detected due to costly or ineffective monitoring? Why need monitoring at all, or have Maximum Residue Level (MRLs) regulations on food? What is the knock-on effect when allowing these ‘active substances’ (biocide (including pesticides)) in to our environment?

For a little positivity though, the European Commission website states (2017),

This sounds great, until you realise that central and local Government through their pension investments (worth £millions/billions) are heavily, financially dependent on synthetic chemical manufacturing and retailing. Will they want to reduce the asset value of their pension funds? I think not. Instead they will throw tax money at it to make sure their vested interests stay artificially inflated, while at the same time saying MRLs are safe – which is odd seems as human trials regarding these substances are not permitted: animal experiments (torture) however, is alive and well when testing these ‘active substances’ – another area the mainstream media -despite showing animal hospital and RSPCA programs - like to conveniently ignore.

Since starting my research in 1996 I have obtained a law degree (graduating in 2007): it was my research that led to the need for a degree i.e. how can you challenge the law if you don’t know how the law works? Finally, how can the answer to what causes cancer or defects be found when the environment is so consentingly polluted? Simple answer is, “It can’t”.

The money I am trying to raise will not only be used to challenge Government negligence, but to find the solutions; campaign and write a book – I can’t have all this information and your assistance, if you decide to help, going to waste. As you can see, I already know so much.

The target of £12,000 is enough to last me a year without paying income tax (2017) and to pay the Just Giving 5% donation fee. I shall declare it as earnings. It allows me to do this research for a year spending 40 hours a week = £220 wk. I know this is unorthodox, but sometimes unorthodox methods succeed where orthodox methods have fallen short.

Thanks for your time and if you don’t support me, I hope you have learned something anyway.

Wayne