This is regarding the article "You Spray, You Pay" (Lucy Chabot), which appeared in the April 2 issue of New Times. I felt that the issues presented in the story were very biased and based loosely on opinion. I found it unfair that the majority of the article was devoted to one person's claims while factual statistics were barely explored. It angers me that someone so "sensitive" to chemicals can condemn them, yet exist happily while swimming amongst the chlorine and muriatic acid currently destroying the pool's algae and bacteria.
Is it safe for me to claim that substantially more people suffer sickness and death annually from ant bites than from properly applied EPA-approved pesticides? Am I out of line merely because I would rather read about facts generated from years of research and the millions of dollars companies spend on registrations and labeling? Or am I to be convinced solely by a select few individuals who spread hysterical propaganda based on their own beliefs? Take this for what it is worth since my words are as strong as Susan Peterson's.
I appreciate what the professional pest-control industry is doing for our state's parks and recreation areas.
Jeff Deloian, Golf Course Superintendent
Wynmoor Community Council
You Spray, You Pay, So Sayeth the Mermaid
Thanks for the wonderful article by Lucy Chabot ("You Spray, You Pay," April 2). My experience with the City of Fort Lauderdale Parks staff who decide on chemical use is that they seem unable to absorb any information about negative health effects on children and others. Also, this year's budget request for horticultural chemicals is about twice as large as last year's.
Furthermore, I never objected to Kathy Connor's or Karl Shallenberger's serving on the Toxics Reduction Education Committee (TREC). Actually, Karl demanded that I resign from the committee at the January 21 meeting.
"Mermaid Susan" B. Peterson
Marilyn Manson Gimmicky and Talentless? Perish the Thought
I am writing to commend New Times on its article exposing some of the myths surrounding the Marilyn "Alice Cooper/Ozzy Osbourne" Manson phenomenon (Music, "A Little Help From His Friend," Jim DeRogatis, April 2). The truth about this guy's "career" should be told. Manson has had only one true hit album, and that was in 1995 -- three years ago. He has come out with nothing musical since then. He is quickly on his way toward joining the ranks of other illustrious music "icons," such as Skid Row and Slaughter.
Yet, with the help of bogus journalists like [Neil] Strauss and the commercially oriented, no-longer-progressive Rolling Stone, this "Alice Cooper/Ozzy Osbourne" wannabe has kept his unbelievably repulsive face in the media to help keep his name current. A face, I might add, that is obviously inspired by The Phantom of the Opera.
True, rock music is devoid of new, creative talent and is desperate to promote anyone it can make money on, but Manson has contributed nothing to the industry's need to evolve into new art forms. His immature posturing as Satan is both reactionary and totally devoid of originality. Thanks for your excellent analysis of this overly sensationalized autobiography.