Our BerkshireTimes Magazine
  • Home
  • About
    • About Our BerkshireTimes
    • About the Publisher
    • Reviews
  • Blog
  • Magazine Archive
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us

Pesticide Use in Berkshire County: Why Do We Allow It to Continue? By Alan Inglis, MD

6/12/2013

39 Comments

 
Picture
Anvil is a commonly used pesticide. This chemical is being fog-sprayed weekly and biweekly [by truck] in at least seven towns in Berkshire County in the summer months under the Mosquito Control Project. Towns involved include Clarksburg, Hinsdale, Otis, Richmond, Sheffield, Stockbridge, and Tyringham. Spraying is either requested by homeowners or initiated as a result of surveillance that identifies areas of high mosquito density.¹ The practice is allowed because the available science is interpreted to mean Anvil is safe when used to spray in these ways. Those entities that actually conduct the spraying are simply relying on what is accepted as “expert opinion.”
       This practice poses potential hazards to residents. The use of Anvil is based on fundamentally flawed thinking on what is safe and what is dangerous. I will confine my remarks in this brief article to comments on Anvil. My principal points also apply to most herbicide and pesticide use, including the chemicals used on lawns by thousands of homeowners countywide. 


Point #1 

I maintain there are reasonable grounds for concern² that repeated toxic exposure over years in vulnerable individuals may be a contributing cause to chronic illness and premature death.

Point #2

Current health care practices in the United States are based on a quasi-scientific dogma that insists harm must be proven before a substance can be considered dangerous. The precautionary principle proposes we should have to prove no harm before a potentially harmful substance or practice is allowed.

Many of you, having read thus far, may decide that these two points are good common sense and sufficient reason to stop the spraying. I agree.      
       Unfortunately, precaution and common sense remain pieces of grit in the oil of conventional governance and the quasi-scientific dogma it assembles to support its policies. The financial ties between corporate interests and the scientific community further drive arguments fashioned to support these hazardous practices.

Adverse Long-term Effects in Humans

Many scientists are rightfully concerned about the risk of harm to individuals who may have repeated exposures to chemical toxins over time. Cumulative exposure over a lifetime to chemical toxins, starting in the womb, and the risk of synergistic adverse effects on human health, certainly constitute reasonable grounds for concern about the unregulated use of these chemicals.
       Mainstream medicine is reluctant to face the fact that disease may result from repeated gene-environment interactions over many years. Predicting adverse reactions across a wide population is costly and time consuming. Individuals within the population may be vulnerable because of a combination of genetic predisposition and prior toxic exposures. Identifying vulnerable individuals is difficult, if not impossible.  

Safety Unproven

The major active component of Anvil is sumithrin, a so-called pyrethroid, which may be associated with liver damage, breast cell proliferation, lowered sperm counts, cognitive problems and hormone disruption (“endocrine disruption”).³ It may also harm or kill other wildlife, including bees, butterflies, and grasshoppers. Health problems in humans can take years to surface so it can be very difficult to establish a connection, especially when Anvil exposure may be only one of many insults to the body over time. Chemical companies, like cigarette makers, are aware of this lag time and complexity, and naturally exploit it to avoid liability.
     Mainstream medicine has trouble getting its arms around the issue of repeated toxin exposures in vulnerable individuals over time. The maladaptive acute care model that still drives chronic disease care is preoccupied with finding single causes, then treating them with drugs and surgery. The very methodologies employed to support this approach are ill-suited to the multi-factorial, long latency realities of chronic disease that may result from repeated toxin exposures over many years. As a result, hard questions about the safety of potentially hazardous substances don’t get asked, because they are difficult to answer without great cost and delay.  

Fundamental Flaws in the Prevailing Science

As matters stands at present, when scientists look at a pesticide like Anvil, they attempt to disprove the null hypothesis. This stacks the deck in favor of avoiding false positive results. In common parlance, scientists are afraid of incorrectly showing harm when there is none. They are less concerned about incorrectly showing no harm. This bias favors the ill-advised and premature use of potentially harmful chemicals while favoring the bottom lines of chemical manufacturers eager to put product out into the market.    
     The available scientific evidence consists of animal studies that examine the effects of solitary exposure to pyrethrins and human studies are limited to a small number of chemical workers. These do not come close to approximating the realities of cumulative toxic load from multiple toxic agents acting synergistically over time in the bodies of potentially vulnerable individuals.

Everything Connects

Compartmentalized, reductionist science with its linear, mechanistic propositions is an inadequate base for making wise policy decisions on the potential impact of complex processes. It needs to be enhanced with the dynamic, emergent properties of systems science. This is not yet being done. In the meantime, caution and informed decision making should prevail.    

Let’s Stop Rolling the Dice

There are many unanswered questions about the use of Anvil in our communities. What are the true benefits of Anvil? How many mosquitoes does it really kill? Have meaningful measurable outcomes been recorded, such as how many people are spared from disease, what disease, and how severe?  How many lives does it save, if any? Who are the vulnerable individuals who might be harmed years later? Do we really have adequate proof of no harm? Who benefits the most from spraying? corporations? town governments? Are we gambling with the future of our children?

1. Based on phone conversation with Berkshire Mosquito Control
2. European Commission on the Precautionary Principle, Copenhagen, 2002
3. www.pesticidefreezone.org
4. www.pesticideinfo.org


To stop spraying directly in front of your property:

1. Send a registered letter to your town clerk by March 1 of each year.

To get spraying stopped in your town:

1. For a basic overview of town meeting procedures in Massachusetts (condensed below), check out Massachusetts’s Citizen Information Service website provided by our state government at www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/cistwn/twnidx.htm. You must contact your Town Clerk or Town Meeting Moderator to find out specific information and procedures for annual and special meetings in your town.

2. Get to know your town selectman.  Request that they place the topic on an upcoming meeting warrant.* Get ten registered voters to sign a written request (physical addresses recommended) to insert an article in a warrant, and deliver to your selectmen before the warrant is closed. Check out a past annual report (which will contain warrants) as a sample, or ask your town clerk for assistance in drafting the article.

3. If necessary, citizens may demand that an article be inserted in a warrant by the Selectman for a special Town Meeting, if you obtain the signatures of 100 registered voters or 10 percent of the total number of voters (whichever is lesser).

4. If necessary, voters may call a special town meeting by creating a signed written request including the signatures and addresses of 200 registered voters, or 20 percent of the total number of registered voters in your town (whichever number is less).  Deliver this request to your Selectman and a special meeting must be called within 45 days.

5. Note that any member of the public may attend a Town Meeting and the town’s registered voters may vote at any open town meeting.  Check out your town’s website for more information, if they have one.

*A warrant lists the meeting’s time, place, and agenda - a town’s meeting’s action is not valid unless the subject was listed on the warrant. Note that warrants must be made available to the public for viewing at least 7 days before an annual meeting and 14 days before a special meeting.
39 Comments
Carol price
6/13/2013 09:58:30 am

Forwarding to everyone in these zones....thanks

Reply
Kathy Regan
6/13/2013 11:53:18 am

Terrific, thank you!

Reply
Bruce Winn link
6/14/2013 02:20:14 am

I agree with you 100%. And furthermore, pyrethroids have been shown to kill non-target species, including fish, dragonflies, and mayflies. Dragonflies are predators of mosquitoes.
Bruce Winn (Berkshire Environmental Action Team)

Reply
Chris Horton
6/15/2013 05:23:36 am

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/mosquitoes/mosquitojoint.htmCheck this address for mosquito control and pesticide information.

Reply
Kathy I. Regan
6/27/2013 03:05:50 am

Mr. Horton, are you Commissioner of the Berkshire Mosquito Control Project?

Reply
Bruce Winn link
6/17/2013 10:46:30 pm

And here are a couple more websites with relevant info. The first is from the Maine Environmental Policy Institute. They assess the health risks posed by mosquitoes in the Northeast. The second is from the Massachusetts chapter of the whistleblower group PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility). They look at the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of current mosquito-spraying procedures in Massachusetts.

http://www.meepi.org/wnv/overkill.htm

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2012/09/11/massachusetts-balks-at-proving-aerial-spray-success-claim/

And here's a third paper. (http://www.pesticidewatch.org/sites/default/files/ca-overkill-pesticide-spraying-for-west-nile-virus-text.pdf) from Pesticide Watch. It focuses on California, but has some relevance to our situation.
Bruce Winn

Reply
Kathy Regan, Publisher
6/18/2013 03:05:43 am

Excellent information! Very much appreciated.

Reply
Richard Pollack, PhD
6/27/2013 12:18:13 am

Dr. Inglis presents some commonly raised concerns and utters a frequently stated philosophy: "The precautionary principle proposes we should have to prove no harm before a potentially harmful substance or practice is allowed." But, strict adherence to that 'precautionary principle' would render unusable virtually every medication in his own arsenal to treat patients! Does this really make sense? Note that the same kinds of risk assessments are utilized in regulating or approving drugs or pesticides. The products used for mosquito control in the Commonwealth, and the manner of their application, are carefully selected so that they offer far greater benefit than risk. It is helpful to keep in mind that more than a few MA residents are rendered ill - or worse - each year by the ravages of mosquito-borne infection. Yet many others suffer quality of life issues because of the treats posed by mosquitoes. Furthermore, thousands (and perhaps tens of thousands) of birds likely succumb each year to mosquito borne infections. How many residents are measurably harmed by mosquito control activities? You'd be hard pressed to document a single case. So, yes, residents are encouraged to learn far more about the issues and make informed decisions. Hopefully, many will read this blog, then learn that the concerns raised here are not based upon a sound understanding of the issues or facts.

Reply
Kathy I. Regan
6/27/2013 03:04:17 am

Mr. Pollack, are you Commissioner with the Norfolk Mosquito Control District?

Reply
Richard Pollack, PhD
6/27/2013 03:23:05 am

Ms. Regan,

Yes. My relevant credentials are as follows:

-Chair, Norfolk County Mosquito Control District Commission (The commissioners represent the interests of the ~500 thousand residents within the District. We do not work for the project.)
-Chair, Mosquito Advisory Group, MA Dept of Agricultural Resources (This group is composed of entomologists, infectious disease specialists and toxicologists and advises the MA Depts of Agricultural Resources and the Dept of Public Health).
-Former Chair, Working Group on Pesticide Risks, MA Dept of Public Health (This body assessed and stratified risks from pesticides used in mosquito control).
-Former Chair, Science and Technology Committee, American Mosquito Control Association (This Committee assesses, amongst other mandates, the scientific bases for assessments of risk from mosquitoes and mosquito control)
-Instructor, Harvard School of Public Health (I have taught and performed research on mosquitoes and other public health pests at Harvard for 25 years).
-I have earned degrees in entomology (BS) and parasitology (MSc and PhD).
The list goes on, but this might offer you insight as to my background and expertise. I hope this answers your question. Now that I've shared my credentials, may I ask about your relevant background pertaining to mosquitoes, mosquito control, or toxicology?

Kathy I. Regan
6/27/2013 03:37:09 am

Would it be fair to say that you have a vested interest since your job depends on the use of these chemicals?

As per the question about your blog entry being blocked, no it was not. Somehow you posted your reply 5 times and I just erased the extra copies.

Reply
Richard Pollack, PhD
6/27/2013 03:46:22 am

Ms. Regan,

Thank you for deleting the redundant posts. Each time I tried to post I received an error message with the request to try again.

Would it be fair to say that I have a vested interest? Absolutely not! Why would you believe I have any such agenda? None of my jobs depend on the use of these chemicals.

I hold no fiscal interest, whatsoever, in the manufacture, distribution or use of any of those products. Whereas I sometimes support their use when and where I believe they are justified, I also frequently advocate restraint. Be aware that the mosquito control districts do far more than just spray adulticides. They conduct surveillance, perform source reduction (non-chemical), apply biological larvicides, and educate the public.

Reply
Kimberley King
6/28/2013 04:16:11 am

Sept 11,2005 Adreanna Wing would have had her first ride on. The big yellow school bus but instead rode to her final resting place after the bite of a very real infected mosquito claimed her life in under six days. Mosquito control and public health listened more to those with a political agenda rather than those trying to protect the public health.

Reply
Bruce Winn
6/27/2013 03:48:11 am

I don't believe the editor was questioning your credentials. She was asking about your affiliation, which is quite another matter. I do believe that in a public discussion about public policy, the only requirement is that you are an interested member of the public. We have far too few interested citizens as it is. Let's not discourage people.

Reply
Richard Pollack, PhD
6/27/2013 04:26:30 am

Bruce,
Yes, I know what she asked. I added more info because I thought it would be pertinent and helpful. I agree with you regarding a public discussion about public policy. I fully encourage such discourse. I also encourage that declarative statements be based upon substance and not misconception. Dr. Inglis' comments are presented in a manner that would likely lead many readers to believe that the use of Anvil in Massachusetts poses a clear and present danger to people and the environment. Such a conclusion would not be valid.

Reply
Bruce Winn
6/27/2013 10:32:17 pm

I totally agree that statements should be based on “substance and not misconception.” I would like to offer some thoughts on the precautionary principle.

I don't believe your fear of the precautionary principle is well founded. Specifically, I don't believe that “...strict adherence to that 'precautionary principle' would render unusable virtually every medication in [Dr. Ingall's] own arsenal to treat patients!” The precautionary principle merely assigns the burden of proof to the chemical manufacturer rather than to the public and regulatory agencies. Under the precautionary principle, manufacturers must prove that their chemicals are safe before they can be put on the market. Under our current system, the burden of proof is on the government and on the public to prove that a chemical is unsafe and should therefore be taken off the market. Notice that neither of these protocols actually defines what is meant by safe or unsafe. The precautionary principle addresses burden of proof, not actual standards. A form of the precautionary principle has been adopted and implemented by the EU. Pharmaceuticals are staying on the shelves, and their health system is functioning just fine. Some would argue that their health system is doing better than ours.

Emily Torgersen
6/27/2013 10:49:11 pm

Mosquito Control is an easy target, why are you not attacking the commercial pesticide industry (pest control companies and lawn services)? They put out far more pesticides on lawns, in homes, in restaurants, etc.? The pesticides they use are much more toxic and are applied more often. They commonly use Imidacloprid, which is a neonicotinoid that has been linked to declining honey bee numbers and stays in the environment for much longer than the pesticide that mosquito control uses. I researched Anvil, and it breaks down within 24-48 hours. The chemical that "Tru-Green" or "ChemLawn" just sprayed on your neighbors lawn or the pesticide that was just sprayed ground your neighbors home or injected into the soil for a termite treatment is far worse! Why don't you mention these folks? It seems to me if you really want to have an affect on reducing pesticides in the environment, you would call the commercial companies on the carpet and hold them responsible. But hey, mosquito control is a much easier target. More less complicated for you. Why deal people who are truly contaminating the environment?

Reply
Kathy I. Regan
6/27/2013 11:53:48 pm

I think we can all agree that we want to live in as healthy a community as possible. I would be glad to publish a quality article about the subjects you mentioned above as well, since ALL of this information is extremely important -- I do not think that there is anyone in this day and age that does not know someone with cancer, an autoimmune disorder, or other serious chronic health condition.

Let's not forget that DDT was once touted as perfectly safe (as were many other chemicals and drugs since proven otherwise).

Most of our articles are contributed by community members. You are very welcome to submit something for consideration.

Reply
Emily Torgersen
6/28/2013 02:12:08 am

You would like me to write an article? Talk about passing the buck instead of answering my question of why you don't mention commercial companies that apply pesticides. I am not a expert on the subject nor do I profess myself to be an advocate. I just get tired of reading about how awful mosquito control is from "environmentalists" (most of who also are not experts) but then notice there is complete silence from them when it comes to the commercial industry. How many local pest control or lawn companies have you written to or complained about?

My husband has cancer. I know all about lowered immune systems due his chemotherapy and how it puts him in a high risk category for contracting EEE or WNV. When I weigh my husbands health (and potentially his life) against a low risk pesticide ... I'll take the pesticide every day of the week and twice on Sunday!!!!!!

Kimberley King
6/28/2013 04:07:46 am

DDT was not used by label instructions. DDT saves more lives in third world countries than it causes harm. It's the 21st century can we base or opinions on science and fact not Rachel Carson's fear of non sense that made her wealthy!

Kimberley King
6/28/2013 04:03:17 am

The commercial industry has much more funding to fight them as well as not having to follow all the PC state policies

Reply
Kathy I. Regan
6/28/2013 05:06:04 am

Suggesting that you write an article is not "passing the buck." We do not have writers on staff. I have not published an article about the subjects you have mentioned, simply because no one has submitted this type of material yet. Your assumptions and hostility are unfounded and made without doing any research about our publication.

Our policy -- the way our magazine works -- is that we publish quality articles from local community members that wish to share information about subjects they feel passionate about that will add to our quality of life in this community.

There are many experts with credentials that share Dr. Inglis’s point of view.

"The chemicals [pesticides] have not been adequately tested for their human health effects," cautioned Dr. Sheldon Krimsky, a pesticide-risk expert at Tufts University. "There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that they cause cancer in animal studies, that they are hormone disruptors. Remember, these are neurotoxins," Krimsy said, adding that most studies done on the effects of spraying focused on agricultural spraying — not spraying in populated areas. "We simply don't know what effects it's going to have, the indiscriminate spraying on human populations," he added.

Kimberly, may I ask if you have a personal connection to the mosquito control project or any of the people that work there?

Richard Pollack, PhD
6/28/2013 05:45:08 am

Kathy,
Correlation does not imply causation. This notion seems to be completely lost on those who rely excessively upon circumstantial evidence. It is also an error to extrapolate observations of chemical effects in vitro and assume that these will predict what will occur in a real world situation.

Kimberley King
6/28/2013 09:15:04 am

Ms. Regan,

First I am the mother of a precious and beautiful 5 year old girl who died as the result of EEE infected mosquito bite in 2005.

Second I am advocate & director of not for profit to educate

Third I am a commissioner of Plymouth County MCP which I became 2 years after my daughter death.

Wearing all hats I have worked with different environmental groups on issues we agree upon.

Richard Pollack, PhD
6/27/2013 11:54:41 pm

Bruce,
First, I have no ‘fear’ of the precautionary principle. Rather, I am displeased when folks trumpet this warm and fuzzy philosophical notion without really understanding what they’re promoting. The apparent meaning of the precautionary principle differs wildly depending upon who utters the phrase. Your own definition seems at odds with what I frequently read from others.
You suggest that under the precautionary principle manufacturers must prove that their chemicals are safe before they are put on the market. How would you propose to have a manufacture attain that goal? What if a new drug or pesticide benefits ten thousand people but then some physiological oddity causes an adverse event for one person? Would that product then be considered ‘unsafe’? Would it have to be withdrawn from the marketplace? To what extent would withdrawing the product be wise or burdensome to the vast majority of those who receive benefit of the product? The approval processes of drugs and pesticides each are based on probabilities, not merely possibilities.
Note that pesticide manufacturers are prohibited by federal regulation from using the word ‘safe’ on their products or in their promotional materials. This acknowledges that there are potential inherent hazards with any product and risks associated with their use. That’s reality. As with pesticides, every drug presents certain hazards and risks from use. This is also true with ‘natural’ products, as well as with every kind of food and even with water. A little water is good (and necessary), but too much can cause illness and injury.
Finally, the EU system is not necessarily better than ours. There’s a lot of junk on the market there (as there is here). There may be a somewhat greater standard of ‘proof’ regarding the so-called ‘safety’ of products in the EU, but this doesn’t necessarily assure that the products are effective. Many are not.

Reply
Bruce Winn
6/28/2013 12:09:14 am

You make some good points, but they are not scientific points. They are subjective conclusions that you have reached, or concerns you have - perhaps based on your understanding of the science - but they are not scientific conclusions. My point is that someone (e.g., Dr. Ingalls) who disagrees with you, sometimes just disagrees with you. They are not necessarily wrong, misinformed, or unscientific as you suggested. And as for your question about how we determine whether or not a product is safe, this is a question society always has to ask. We make these kinds of determinations all the time. Sometimes they're difficult decisions, and sometimes we'll get them wrong. But we still have to make those decisions.And as for asking how I would have a manufacturer attain a safety goal set by society, that's not my problem. If society comes up with a safety standard, and the manufacturer can't meet it, maybe the product shouldn't be on the market. I'll try to provide a more complete response later. Right now I have to run.

Reply
Richard Pollack, PhD
6/28/2013 12:28:01 am

Bruce,

What is not 'scientific' regarding my comments or conclusions? I very much look forward to your more complete response.

We agree that the current system may not be perfect. Until you or others propose an alternative system that is better and practical, we'll have to rely upon what we have today. I'd urge you to propose a better strategy. It is easy to identify an issue that requires correction and to expect someone else to figure out a solution. It is more challenging to immerse yourself into the subject and then make those difficult decisions. You might be surprised that the current system may be the most reasonable strategy.

Reply
Bruce Winn
6/28/2013 03:45:03 am

I'm confused. For what system am I not proposing an alternative? The current regulatory and permitting system? I would propose that it be replaced with one based on the precautionary system. The mosquito control program? I don't think I said anything negative about the mosquito control program.

Reply
Richard Pollack, PhD
6/28/2013 05:37:04 am

Bruce,

The precautionary principle is a philosophical argument, not a practical way of regulating drugs or pesticides. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Reply
Kimberley King
6/28/2013 03:58:47 am

Noone has stated facts about how arboviral diseases are carried and transmitted by real mosquitoes

Reply
Bruce Winn
6/28/2013 04:14:26 am

The New York Health Department has good information on this. (http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/west_nile_virus/). Here's some info on mosquitoes in general from the Maine Department of Conservation (http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/mosquito.htm).

Reply
Kimberley King
6/28/2013 04:37:57 am

Bruce,

National Pesticide Information Center mosquito control methods:
Http://npic.orst.edu/pest/mosquito

EPA website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/oppref/insect

CDC web page: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile

Massachusetts State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board:
Www.mass.gov/EEA/agencies/agr/pesticides/ mosquito

MA Dept of Public Health also has a great web page in the topic

Reply
Kimberley King
6/28/2013 04:54:42 am

This Sunday 6/30 CBS Sunday Morning Show is airing a special on mosquito control called Waging a War on mosquitoes

Reply
Kimberley King
6/28/2013 09:18:09 am

I would be happy to write an article for the magazine.

Reply
Bruce Winn
6/28/2013 09:21:41 pm

Thanks Kimberly,
Great information. I am very sorry for your loss. But here's what I'm struggling with in trying to understand this situation. What are the chances of a person in the Berkshires actually getting WNV. (the experience in Plymouth and in Norfolk County is different from that in the Berkshires). And if they do, what are the likely levels of severity. WNV is certainly a health risk, but we have others that don't seem to get this level of attention. Maybe that's justified, but I havent' seen the numbers yet. I'm trying to understand the level of that risk. Also, what is the effectiveness of Pyrethroids in reducing this risk. It doesn't help the situation if we apply a solution that isn't effective. Post-spraying assessments are often conducted a few hours after spraying. Given the fact that mosquitoes are good at repopulating an area, I'm not sure that's a valid assessment. The state claims the program is effective, but under a Freedom of Information Act Request (http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2012/09/11/massachusetts-balks-at-proving-aerial-spray-success-claim/) from a group in Boston, they seem to be unable to produce the data. Anvil also kills non-target species. Dragonflies seem to be especially vulnerable. Since they prey on mosquitoes, has anyone looked at the net balance of the spraying? I don't have a problem with the larvacide program, but I'm not convinced the adulticide is effective. This is a complex issue. Further information on the above would be greatly appreciated. I really am still trying to understand.

Reply
Kimberley King
6/29/2013 04:04:11 am

Bruce,

I agree 100% this is a complex issue. West Nile Virus was a federal health threat last year. It serverly injured or killed thousands of HUMANS last year. The summer of 2012 the CDC issued a federal health emergencies. Science, facts, and numbers you wish to see exist- they are on line for the public to view. West Nile has appeared early in the US and MA itself. To " understand " mosquito control in MA you have to understand the mosquito species habitats that mosquito control projects send into the state lab. I'm glad you favor the larvacide program however larvicides aren't effective with every specie that transmits devasting illnesses in MA or across the US. Adultiding is a necessity when trying to control a risk to the public.

Reply
JJ
8/25/2013 02:06:56 am

For people living in the south east section of Pittsfield spraying will start again sunday night, August 25th and Monday night the 26th. Closing your windows is the best advise I can offer to limit personal contact. I got a recorded robo call with this information.

Reply
Carol price
8/25/2013 02:29:55 am

Reply
LOise link
10/21/2020 05:01:38 am

Hello. I am so amazingly cheery that click these destinations. Right when I've to click this I'd see a significant substance a Positive article which can bolster me so,. The most thing that can feel me cheerily. Thankful to you for such an incredible sum for these Tips.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Animal Talk
    Business Services
    Contests
    Coupons
    Education & Workshops
    Environment
    Events
    Fashion & Beauty
    Food & Drink
    Grants
    Health & Wellness
    Home & Garden
    Michael Romano
    OBT Magazine Archive
    Question Of The Month
    Vibrant Living Tip

    RSS Feed

Our BerkshireTimes Magazine  ●  P.O. Box 133, Housatonic, MA 01236 
[email protected]
Photos from sunshinecity, photofarmer, Extra Ketchup, Big 3 News, nrkbeta, Ano Lobb. @healthyrx, JFXie, Loren Javier