Complete rubbish.

The point of the study would be to work out what these kids are getting exposed to in spite of the continuous litany of "pesticides are bad, pesticides are bad".

Without knowing WHAT they are exposed to it is impossible to correlate exposure with any possible health effects.

Without that data it's impossible to reach a rational decision as to whether exposure has to be reduced or products need to be withdrawn.

Just because someone SAYS it's bad for you doesn't make it so. I understand the precautionary principle but there are other things to be considered - not least the fact that 30% of children in the poorest areas of the USA show an atopic response to cockroach allergens. This is about weighing risk - is it worse for kids to be exposed to pesticides or get asthma through exposure to roaches? Is there a balance point? What level of pesticide exposure is safer than allergen exposure? What happens when we factor in roach-borne pathogens? What about rodenticide exposure? Is that worse than massive numbers of rats?

In an ideal world this could be dealt with by good hygiene but, in multi-resident blocks with central facilities an individual response doesn't work.

I'm not so sure about the ethics of giving away a video camera, etc. BUT the data needs to be collected. The exposure is happening anyway. They don't KNOW if the levels are excessive. If they are then education can take place to reduce that exposure.

Pete

God is our guide! from field, from wave, From plough, from anvil, and from loom; We come, our country's rights to save, And speak a tyrant faction's doom: We raise the watch-word liberty; We will, we will,we will be free!