Category: Toxins

The facts about chemicals, pesticides, and clean water.

  • Join the Live Experience & Fellowship with Like Minded People at the Premiere Screening of the Documentary “Follow the Silenced” – 9/17 7pm Nampa

  • Pesticides and Harmful Side Effects

    Your Right To Opt Out

    When my family and I moved to Emmett, Idaho, we were chasing our dream of homesteading and growing our own organic food. The quaint, country town seemed like the perfect escape from city life. However, we soon discovered that Gem County has a Mosquito Abatement District, something we hadn’t known before moving here.

    A few years into our homesteading journey, we began to notice some alarming changes. Initially, the fogging seemed sporadic, but gradually, the frequency and intensity of spraying increased. It became impossible to ignore. Our once-thriving garden stopped producing, despite our commitment to organic practices. Our broody ducks could no longer hatch their fertilized eggs, and our chickens started suffering from paralysis, eventually dying.

    The real shock came when our own health began to deteriorate. Previously, we were rarely sick, thanks to our holistic lifestyle. But now, we experienced dizzy spells, headaches, nausea, coughing, and major respiratory issues. Desperate for answers, I started investigating the chemicals used by the Gem County Mosquito Abatement District. After much persistence, I finally obtained the chemical labels and safety data sheets. What I found was horrifying.

    The weekly fogging in Gem County involves the use of Permethrin, a chemical with a 300-foot swath. Our one-acre property is surrounded on three sides by roads and driveways where the abatement trucks spray. According to the National Pesticide Information Center, Permethrin can cause lung irritation, difficulty breathing, headaches, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting. It lingers on plant leaves for 1-3 weeks and can remain in produce for 30-120 days after application. Moreover, it is highly toxic to cats, dogs, fish, and bees.

    As if that wasn’t bad enough, we had chickens that were getting paralysis and couldn’t walk and ended up dying. But the big kicker was that fact that our family started to have serious health issues. Prior to moving here we were rarely ever sick. We are a holistic-minded family and work very hard at being as healthy as possible. We started having dizzy spells, headaches, nausea, coughing and major respiratory issues, which we still continue to have today. That’s when I started digging and discovered that the Gem County Mosquito Abatement uses harmful chemicals to abate. After much research and hassle with the Gem County Abatement Board, they finally released to me the chemical labels and safety data sheets. Most of the chemicals have trade secret ingredients, which means no one really knows what’s in the chemicals and the side effects that they may have. I was in shock!

    What I discovered is that the abatement truck fogging that is done weekly, sometimes twice a week, here in Gem County all summer long uses Permethrin to kill adult mosquitoes. This chemical has a 300ft swath. My one acre property gets it on all 3 sides because they abate every road and driveway. According to the National Pesticide Information Center, Permethrin is harmful if breathed in. It causes irritation of the lungs, nose, difficulty breathing, headaches, dizziness, nausea and vomiting. It also stays on plant leaves for 1-3 weeks and studies have shown trace amounts of Permethrin in produce 30 – 120 days after planting. It also effects cats, dogs and is highly toxic to fish and bees. 

    The Alarming Truth About PermaSense 4-4 and Mosquito Abatement Chemicals

    Here are some concerning realities surrounding PermaSense 4-4 and the chemicals used in mosquito abatement programs. Firstly, let’s address the elephant in the room: PermaSense 4-4, a product designed to combat mosquitoes, is actually prohibited for use in Florida, according to its own product label. This begs the question: why would a state known for its warm climate and mosquito prevalence ban such a product? The answer lies in the concerning ingredients it contains. One of the key components of PermaSense 4-4 is Petroleum Distillate, a substance that is insoluble, meaning it does not dissolve in water. Instead, it settles in the sediment of lakes, ponds, and rivers, potentially causing long-term environmental damage.

    But that’s not all – Petroleum Distillate has been linked to respiratory issues, dizziness, headaches, vomiting, and skin and eye irritation, raising serious concerns about its impact on human health. If that wasn’t alarming enough, the abatement process itself employs a staggering array of up to nine different chemicals, some classified as adulticides (targeting adult mosquitoes) and others as larvicides (targeting mosquito larvae). These chemicals are applied through various methods, including quad or aerial drones, truck fogging, and aerial planes, blanketing vast areas with potentially harmful substances.

    One of the most concerning chemicals used in this process is Naled (Dibrom), a known carcinogen that is aerially sprayed from planes. Dibrom breaks down into Dichlorvos, another carcinogenic compound. According to the International Agency for Research on Carcinogens, laboratory tests have shown that Dichlorvos can cause leukemia and pancreatic cancer, raising grave concerns about the long-term health implications of exposure to these chemicals.
    Sources:

    According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the aerial spraying of Dibrom can travel up to one-half mile from the application site, potentially exposing a vast area to its toxic effects. The agency further warns that Dibrom is moderately to highly toxic to birds and fish, posing a severe threat to the delicate ecosystems it touches.But the dangers don’t stop there. In tests conducted on birds, Dibrom has been shown to reduce egg production and hatching success, potentially disrupting the fragile balance of nature. Similarly, growth tests on fish have revealed the detrimental effects of this chemical, casting a dark shadow over the health of our aquatic environments.

    As an organophosphate, Dibrom’s impact on human health is equally concerning. Exposure to this chemical can lead to a nightmarish array of symptoms, including headaches, muscle twitching, nausea, diarrhea, difficulty breathing, depression, seizures, and even loss of consciousness. These effects are not mere inconveniences but potentially life-threatening conditions that demand our utmost attention. Adding to the growing list of concerns is the presence of Naphthalene in Dibrom.

    According to the EPA, Naphthalene is classified as a possible human carcinogen, and the state of California has included it on its Proposition 65 list of known carcinogens, further underscoring the grave risks associated with this chemical.Sources:


    After all this research and knowing that my family and property have been having harmful side effects, I decided to contact the Gem County Abatement and tell them I do not want to be fogged or sprayed. I was met with great opposition by the manager of GCMAD. I was told that these chemicals are safe and effective and they are spraying according to the EPA safety levels. I explained my concerns along with other people who are having similar issues. We even attended a GCMAD meeting to express our concernment of the side effects from these chemicals. The board cut us off when we were talking, and GCMAD has an attorney that told us that we are no longer allowed to ask questions about the chemicals.
    Since that meeting last September the GCMAD board has not addressed our questions.


    After continued emails to the manager of the GCMAD we were told that we can opt out of abatement if we filled out their form. I read their form and felt it was far overreaching concerning my property rights. They proceeded to present the Idaho Law to me saying they have every right to come onto my property.

    Idaho’s Mosquito Abatement Laws Spark Debate Over Public Health and Private Property Rights

    Many Idahoans are voicing concerns over the state’s mosquito abatement laws, citing potential conflicts between public health measures and personal liberties, including property rights. The controversy centers around Title 39-2804, which grants abatement districts broad authority to conduct mosquito control measures, even on private property. According to the law, abatement districts have the power to “come on [one’s] land and abate” mosquitoes, with limited options for property owners to opt-out.

    While residents can choose to forgo adulticide truck fogging and larvicide treatments, they are reportedly prohibited from opting out of aerial spraying, a practice that has raised concerns among some citizens.”I was told that by no means are we allowed to opt out of aerial spray,” said Emmett resident who has been researching the issue. “This law seems to conflict with our constitutional rights to protect our property and secure our safety.”

    The Idaho Constitution, Article 1, guarantees the right of “enjoying and defending Life, Liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.” However, Title 39-2804 appears to grant abatement districts the authority to monitor private property and conduct treatments if deemed necessary, regardless of the owner’s wishes.”By signing the abatement district’s form and agreeing to Title 39, they essentially have the right to come onto my land and abate, even if I’ve opted out,” Doe explained. “This raises concerns about government overreach.”Critics of the law also point to potential trespassing concerns, citing Idaho’s Trespass Law, Title 18-7008, which defines trespassing as “entering upon or over real property either in person or by causing any object, substance or force to go upon or over real property.” Aerial spraying, they argue, could be interpreted as a form of trespassing. Environmental concerns have also been raised, with some arguing that the indiscriminate elimination of insects disrupts delicate ecosystems and could lead to unintended consequences. Additionally, the potential contamination of groundwater and soil from chemical treatments has sparked fears about long-term health risks. Despite repeated attempts to engage with state officials, representatives, and local authorities, concerned citizens like Doe have encountered resistance and closed doors.As the debate intensifies, calls for transparency, public discourse, and potential amendments to Title 39-2804 are growing louder. The clash between public health measures and personal liberties promises to be a contentious issue in the coming months.

    Sources:


    A Call to Action for Idahoans: Embracing Knowledge and Safeguarding Our Future

    Fellow Idahoans, the time has come for us to heed the lessons of history and take a stand against the potential perils that lurk in the shadows of our mosquito abatement practices. We cannot afford to remain complacent, for the consequences of inaction could be dire.Let us not forget the cautionary tale of DDT, a pesticide once heralded as a safe and effective solution, only to be banned by the EPA in 1972 due to its devastating effects on the environment, wildlife, and human health. The scars left by this chemical serve as a grim reminder of the price we pay for ignorance and blind trust.

    We cannot, in good conscience, wait another 50 years to uncover the potential side effects of the chemicals currently in use. To do so would be to gamble with the well-being of our communities, our children, and the very land that sustains us.

    Knowledge, as Rachel Carson so eloquently stated, is power. “It is the public that is being asked to assume the risks that the insect controllers calculate. The public must decide whether it wishes to continue on the present road, and it can do so only when in full possession of the facts.”

    Idahoans, we have an obligation to demand transparency, to seek out the truth, and to make informed decisions that prioritize our health, our safety, and the preservation of our natural wonders. We cannot turn a blind eye to the potential consequences of the chemicals raining down upon our properties, seeping into our soil, and contaminating the very air we breathe.In the words of Jean Rostand, “The obligation to endure gives us the right to know.”

    We have endured enough uncertainty, enough closed doors, and enough dismissal of our concerns. It is time to raise our voices, to demand answers, and to chart a new course – one that embraces sustainable practices, responsible stewardship, and a unwavering commitment to the well-being of our communities and our environment.Let us not be remembered as the generation that stood idly by, ignoring the lessons of the past. Instead, let us be the catalysts for change, the torchbearers of knowledge, and the guardians of a future where our children can thrive without fear of unseen dangers.

    Idahoans, the time to act is now. Join me in this call to action, for together, we can forge a path toward a safer, healthier, and more sustainable tomorrow.

  • Steps Forward: Holding Cloud Seeding Accountable


    Part 4: Steps Forward: Holding Cloud Seeding Accountable

    Demanding Notification and Transparency

    The current cloud seeding program in Idaho potentially infringes on private property rights, yet residents are not provided the option to opt-out or even notified before spraying occurs. It’s high time for Idaho to adopt responsible measures seen in other states, such as public hearings and publishing notifications in newspapers at least two weeks prior to the start of the program. Shockingly, Idaho lacks such public notification services, leaving citizens in the dark about activities that could impact their health and property.

    Following Montana’s Responsible Model

    Our research highlighted Montana’s commendable approach to cloud seeding, serving as a model of transparency, accountability, and regulation. Our bill aimed to replicate their method by implementing clear notification, permitting, licensing, and liability provisions for cloud seeding operators.

    These recommendations are not just reasonable but necessary for building public trust in the cloud seeding program. By adding these provisions to HB 266, we have taken a step towards ensuring that cloud seeding operators bear some of the liability for their activities.

    Time for Action

    It’s time for every Idahoan to question why our state is allowing such risky experimentation without adequate safeguards. We urge you to spread the word and take action to hold our legislature accountable for implementing responsible and transparent cloud seeding practices.


    Find a Weather Modification Generator or Flight Path Near You:

    For more information on weather modification generators or flight paths near you, please visit the following link: Weather Modification Generator and Flight Path Locator.

    Budget

    Proposed FY2024 Budget for the Secondary Aquifer Fund, Cloud Seeding: $7M. Cigarette tax proceeds contribute to the totals listed here, highlighting the significant investment in this experimental program.

    1. The Idaho Legislature has authorized the creation of “weather modification districts” that can levy up to 4 mills in property taxes to fund weather modification activities. This is outlined in Idaho Statute 22-4302.3
    2. The Idaho Water Resources Board (IWRB) and Idaho Power Company (IPC) collaborate on cloud seeding programs in Idaho, with the IWRB overseeing the programs and IPC providing the majority of the funding.
    3. According to the presentation slides, the “Collaborative Cloud Seeding Program” in Idaho has an estimated annual operations cost of $3,995,000. This covers projects in the Boise River Basin, Wood River Basin, Payette River Basin, and Upper Snake River Basin.5
    4. The state of Idaho has provided around $14,050,000 in total funding contributions to support the development and analysis of these weather modification programs over the past several years.5

    What You Can Do:

    1. Call or Write Your Representative: Reach out to your representative and express your concerns. Encourage them to support responsible cloud seeding practices. The bipartisan support our bill received is encouraging, and your voice can make a difference.
    2. Sign the Petition: If you’re concerned about cloud seeding operators receiving special liability protections and want to see responsible testing practices, sign our petition to make your voice heard.

    Want to Learn More?

    NOAA weather modification reports often include maps showing the locations of generators used to disperse chemicals. Reports from Idaho Power, Let it Snow (owned by Marty and Conni Owen), Weather Modification Inc., and others can be found here.

    Conclusion

    As Idahoans, we must demand accountability and transparency from our legislature regarding the cloud seeding program. It’s crucial to implement responsible practices that protect our health, property, and environment. Take action today to ensure that our state prioritizes public safety and well-being over risky experimentation.

    MORE RESEARCH

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717532/

  • Unveiling the Chemicals: Transparency Concerns in Idaho’s Cloud Seeding Program

    Part 3: Proceeding with Caution in Weather Modification

    Experimental Approaches Raise Concerns

    Idaho Power has been cloud seeding since 2003. It now operates 57 remote ground generators in the Payette, Boise, Wood River and upper Snake River pumping a variety of chemicals into the skies to ‘increase precipitation’.  Our state budget has 7 million ear marked for just cloud seeding for the fiscal year of 2024. (see page 34)

    1.-Budget-Resolutions.-RE-Dec-1-2023Download

    Idaho Power’s 2021-2022 cloud seeding application revealed the use of “liquid propane for testing purposes” without specifying the quantities[^1^]. The lack of transparency regarding the amount of liquid propane used and the experimental nature of such tests underscores the need for greater public awareness and oversight of cloud seeding operations in Idaho.

    Idahoans deserve to be informed about any experimental “test” activities conducted by Idaho Power or other cloud-seeding operators. Transparency is crucial to ensure that citizens understand the potential risks and impacts of these weather modification techniques on their communities and environment.

    Assessing Chemical Impacts

    Ongoing testing to assess the environmental impact of silver iodide and other seeding agents is a responsible measure to safeguard against long-term accumulation damage. Our legislation included provisions requiring the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to conduct and report on testing in seeded basins[^1^].

    However, a FOIA request to DEQ revealed a lack of records and testing procedures, contradicting statements made by Kala Golden at the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR)[^1^]. The discrepancies highlight the importance of ensuring that DEQ is actively involved in testing and monitoring the environmental impacts of cloud seeding operations.

    Increasing Usage Quantities

    Recent NOAA reports indicate an increase in the dispersal rate of silver iodide from 7-8 grams per hour to 20 grams per hour[^1^]. The rationale behind this increase remains unclear and raises concerns about the potential for over-seeding, which could decrease moisture levels and impact local ecosystems.

    Without required ongoing testing and monitoring, it is challenging to determine the accumulation levels of seeding agents in the environment, further emphasizing the need for comprehensive and transparent monitoring programs.

    Disclosure of Chemicals Used

    Earlier NOAA reports revealed the use of multiple chemicals, including silver iodide, ammonium iodide, ammonium perchlorate, sodium perchlorate, and acetone[^1^].

    Chemicals Used in Cloud Seeding:

    1. Silver Iodide (AgI):
      • Description: Silver iodide is a chemical compound that is commonly used in cloud seeding to induce precipitation.
      • Potential Environmental Hazards: While silver iodide is generally considered to have low toxicity, there are concerns about its environmental accumulation and potential long-term impacts on ecosystems. Silver ions can be toxic to aquatic organisms and may bioaccumulate in food chains.
    2. Ammonium Iodide (NH4I):
      • Description: Ammonium iodide is another iodine-containing compound that can be used in cloud seeding.
      • Potential Environmental Hazards: Ammonium compounds can contribute to nutrient loading in water bodies, potentially leading to eutrophication. Excessive levels can harm aquatic life and disrupt aquatic ecosystems.
    3. Ammonium Perchlorate (NH4ClO4):
      • Description: Ammonium perchlorate is an oxidizer that is sometimes used in cloud seeding to enhance the formation of ice crystals in clouds.
      • Potential Environmental Hazards: Perchlorate compounds can persist in the environment and may contaminate groundwater. Chronic exposure to perchlorate can interfere with thyroid function in humans and wildlife.
    4. Sodium Perchlorate (NaClO4):
      • Description: Sodium perchlorate is another oxidizer that can be used in cloud seeding.
      • Potential Environmental Hazards: Similar to ammonium perchlorate, sodium perchlorate can contaminate groundwater and pose risks to aquatic ecosystems and human health due to its impact on thyroid function.
    5. Acetone (CH3COCH3):
      • Description: Acetone is a solvent that can be used as a carrier or dispersant for other cloud seeding agents.
      • Potential Environmental Hazards: Acetone is relatively volatile and can contribute to air pollution. It can also contaminate water bodies and soil, posing risks to aquatic life and terrestrial ecosystems.

    However, current reports only mention silver iodide, raising questions about the full disclosure of chemicals used in cloud seeding operations.

    Our legislation addressed the reporting requirement for disclosing all chemicals used in weather modification activities, ensuring greater transparency and accountability in cloud seeding programs.

    Transparency and Public Involvement

    While weather modification programs are required to submit interim and final reports to NOAA, the current database lacks searchable document fields, limiting public access to information[^1^]. Reports typically cover a 5-6 month window without providing exact dates of seeding activities, further reducing transparency.

    The public should be notified about cloud seeding activities, and public hearings should be held to ensure that citizens have the opportunity to voice their concerns and ask questions about these experimental weather modification techniques, as modeled by other states.

    In conclusion, as we continue to experiment with nature through cloud seeding and other weather modification techniques, it is crucial to proceed with caution and prioritize transparency to protect the well-being of citizens and the environment.

    MORE FROM HFI

    Idaho Cloud Seeding Raises Flood Concerns

    Citations:

    [^1^]: NOAA – Idaho Cloud Seeding Program

    Cloud Seeding Program

  • Idaho Cloud Seeding Raises Flood Concerns

    BOISE, Idaho — As cloud seeding programs continue to be implemented across the western United States, concerns are growing over the potential risks and unintended consequences, including the risk of flooding and environmental damage. With an annual budget of $7 million, the Idaho Power Company’s cloud seeding program, along with the oversight from the Idaho Water Resources Board (IWRB) and Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), has come under scrutiny for its management and transparency.

    Cloud seeding is a weather modification technique used to enhance precipitation, primarily through the dispersal of silver iodide or other substances into clouds. While some studies suggest it can increase precipitation by 5-15%, the impacts are not always easy to quantify, and the potential for unintended consequences, such as flooding, remains a concern1.

    The recent flooding events in the Wood River Valley in May 2023 have raised questions about the role of cloud seeding in exacerbating flooding conditions. According to documents obtained through a FOIA request, the cloud seeding program in the Wood Basin area was terminated in March 2023 due to high snowpack levels and water supply forecasts2. Yet, just two months later, significant flooding occurred, leading to mandatory evacuations2.

    Idaho Power’s weather modification application outlines termination procedures and safeguards to suspend or stop the program when certain conditions arise, including the risk of potential flooding3. However, the responsibility of managing these risks and the burden placed on citizens in case of accidental operator error or unknowingly contributing to environmental damage remains a contentious issue.

    “Is it responsible to place the risk burden on the citizens in case of accidental operator error or unknowingly contributing to environmental damage?” questions the full report on Idaho Power’s cloud seeding activities3.

    Temperature shifts, which can contribute to snowmelt and runoff, were not explicitly considered when earlier season cloud seeding took place. This raises concerns about the potential contribution of cloud seeding to the runoff flooding experienced in the Wood River Valley2.

    In response to these concerns, a recent 2023/2024 NOAA report by Conni Owen revealed that Idaho Power has created a new daily-updated long-term suspension criteria named the Flooding Index. The report also highlighted drawbacks to the Snow Water Supply Index (SWSI), which Idaho Power previously relied on, including inconsistencies in thresholds and database dependencies4.

    The shift to new methods by Idaho Power is raising questions among Idahoans about the adequacy of the previous flood index and the need for more robust and transparent monitoring and evaluation of cloud seeding programs.

    The delicate balance of nature isn’t as easy to manipulate as some presume, and the complex and sometimes unpredictable nature of cloud seeding underscores the need for careful oversight and transparency. As cloud seeding continues to be used as an experimental program with the potential to cause environmental and property damage, there is an urgent need for the government to prioritize the safety and well-being of local communities and ensure that proper safeguards and transparency measures are in place.

    Citations:

    Footnotes

    Budget for Cloud Seeding on Page 34

    Budget-Resolutions.-RE-Dec-1-2023Download

    https://library.oarcloud.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/OAR/OWAQ/Weather_Modification_Project/FY22/2021IDCM-1.pdf

    https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2023-05-16/hailey-flooding-big-wood-river-sandbags

    1. CNBC – How Cloud Seeding Can Help Replenish Reservoirs in the West ↩
    2. Boise State Public Radio – Hailey Flooding ↩ ↩2 ↩3
    3. NOAA – Idaho Cloud Seeding Program ↩ ↩2
    4. UNLV – Weather Modification and Hydrological Modeling ↩
    Unveiling the Chemicals: Transparency Concerns in Idaho’s Cloud Seeding Program

  • Oppose H653 Do Not Protect Profit Over People

    If enacted, this H653 would absolve pesticide manufacturers of any accountability for harm caused by their products, regardless of the evidence of harm. Just two weeks ago, this crucial bill was defeated by a full Senate vote. Yet now, it resurfaces under a different number. Why the sleight of hand? To shield manufacturers from the repercussions of their unsafe products, placing profit above safety. Supported by Bayer, the company behind Monsanto’s Roundup, which has been embroiled in countless lawsuits due to its glyphosate-containing herbicide. Despite a staggering $10.9 billion settlement in 2020, H 653 seeks to grant sweeping legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers.

    We staunchly oppose this bill as it blatantly disregards public health in favor of protecting corporate interests.

    “If we have learned anything over these past few years, it is to not blindly trust the so-called experts; the mere fact that something has been designated as EPA compliant does not mean it isn’t causing cancer. I am hopeful that, with the preservation of the common citizen’s right to his day in court, the truth of actual health impacts will organically come to light through evidentiary proceedings.

    – Ben Toews Idaho State Senator District 4 (about the previous immunity granting bill sb1245 voted down in the Senate.)

    TAKE ACTION!

    SEND EMAILS TO ALL THE SENATORS

    Then the bill will be heard in the HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE

    Do you have more to say on this bill?
    Send a personal email to the committee members:

    LClow@house.idaho.gov, JCrane@house.idaho.gov, BCrane@house.idaho.gov, JPalmer@house.idaho.gov, VBar@house.idaho.gov, SDixon@house.idaho.gov, KAndrus@house.idaho.gov, RFurniss@house.idaho.gov, BMitchell@house.idaho.gov, JCornilles@house.idaho.gov, JEhlers@house.idaho.gov, GLanting@house.idaho.gov, JPetzke@house.idaho.gov, JRedman@house.idaho.gov, SBerch@house.idaho.gov, BGreen@house.idaho.gov, IRubel@house.idaho.gov

    BAYER IS IN THE WRONG AND THEY ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE IMMUNITY

    Granting immunity to large corporations through legislation is a betrayal of justice. When profit is prioritized over human life, accountability and informed consent is abandoned. Let’s demand that companies prioritize safety over dollars and uphold the sanctity of every individual’s well-being.

    Miste Karlfeldt, Health Freedom Idaho

    Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced numerous lawsuits related to its product Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to a settlement of $10.9 billion to resolve about 125,000 lawsuits related to Roundup23. The settlement was intended to resolve approximately 75% of the claims made against the company, with individual plaintiffs estimated to receive between $5,000 to $250,000, depending on their circumstances and the strength of their cases.

    The bill would eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate in these suits. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and individuals would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages. Local research in Idaho has shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields.

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4. –Read More Here

    Communities with larger populations, such as Caldwell and Nampa, are also exposed to cancer-causing chemicals. A study conducted in Idaho revealed an increased occurrence of cancer linked to pesticide exposure. Consequently, the threat extends beyond rural areas to impact urban residents, where neighborhoods often border agricultural fields. Recent reports highlight that individuals living in Nampa and Caldwell are exposed to these chemicals simply by residing near these fields.

    Testimony from Senator Brian Lenny

    Idaho’s has a bill on deck that basically throws a giant, indestructible shield around Big Pharma, (in this case, Bayer) RE: their cash cow, glyphosate in Roundup. Are you kidding me?! Where’s the accountability? Where’s the protection for the little guy… the everyday person who trusts these products are safe? Are we trading crops for cancer? Slamming the door on this one isn’t just a no; it’s a HELL NO. Corporate immunity on this level isn’t just over the top; it’s a leap into a realm where consumer safety takes a backseat to profit. And that’s a ride I’m not willing to take.

    Senator Brian Lenny

    Key Concerns:

    1. Lack of Accountability for Harmful Products: H653 essentially grants blanket immunity to pesticide manufacturers, regardless of the harmful effects their products may have on human health. This undermines the principle of corporate responsibility and leaves affected individuals without recourse for seeking justice.
    2. Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Exposure: Numerous studies have linked exposure to certain pesticides with serious health ailments, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and neurological disorders. By shielding manufacturers from legal consequences, H653 disregards these well-established health risks and prioritizes corporate interests over public health.
    3. International Discrepancies in Pesticide Regulation: While many countries have banned certain pesticides due to their harmful effects, the United States continues to approve their use. H653 further exacerbates this discrepancy by preventing affected individuals from seeking legal redress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of harm.
    4. Financial Implications: The bill shifts the burden of covering damages associated with pesticide exposure onto Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and affected individuals. This not only undermines accountability but also imposes additional financial strain on already vulnerable populations.
    5. Environmental Impact: Pesticides not only pose risks to human health but also contaminate groundwater and harm wildlife. The lack of accountability for pesticide manufacturers perpetuated by H653 exacerbates environmental degradation and threatens the long-term sustainability of Idaho’s ecosystems.

    CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR TO TELL THEM TO OPPOSE 1245 IMMUNITY FOR CHEMICAL COMPANIES

    In conclusion, Health Freedom Idaho urges the Idaho Legislature to reject H653. By opposing this bill, legislators can uphold the principles of public health, corporate accountability, and environmental protection. It is imperative that Idahoans retain the ability to seek legal recourse for damages caused by pesticide exposure and that pesticide manufacturers are held accountable for their actions. We stand firm in our commitment to promoting health freedom including freedom from toxins for the health and well-being of all Idaho residents.

    MORE TO READ: https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/gut-wrenching-dangers-of-glyphosate/

    RESOURCES ON PESTICIDE HARM

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4.

    https://www.uidaho.edu/news/news-articles/news-releases/2022/062122-chemicals-cancer

    https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/08/university-of-idaho-researchers-find-correlation-between-pesticides-and-cancer/

    Research conducted by Boise State University, as reported in various sources. The study found that pregnant women living near agricultural fields in southern Idaho had significantly increased concentrations of the pesticide glyphosate in their urine, especially during the spraying season. The research team collected 453 urine samples biweekly from 40 pregnant women for this study24.

    Several countries have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate due to health concerns. Some of these countries include:

    1. Austria: The Austrian parliament voted unanimously on a partial ban of glyphosate, prohibiting its use on “sensitive” areas and for private use13.
    2. Belgium: Banned the individual use of glyphosate3.
    3. Germany: Has banned glyphosate in public spaces and plans a total ban by 202424.
    4. France, the Netherlands, and Belgium: Glyphosate is banned for household use2.
    5. Mexico: The Supreme Court denied appeals from major agrichemical corporations, affirming the country’s glyphosate ban14.
    6. Vietnam: Is the only country in Asia to have fully banned the use of glyphosate15.

    These bans and restrictions are often due to concerns about the potential link between glyphosate and health issues, including cancer and environmental impact

  • Oppose Senate Bill 1245 and Hold Pesticide Manufacturers Accountable

    This bill aims to provide sweeping legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers. This bill, if passed, would shield pesticide manufacturers from legal accountability for any harm caused by their products, even in cases where individuals can prove direct harm from pesticide exposure. We firmly believe that this bill undermines public health.

    THIS BILL WAS DEFEATED BY A FULL SENATE VOTE 15-19-1

    An almost identical bill H653 is currently being sponsored by Representative Blanksma Health Freedom Idaho strongly opposes this bill.

    TELL LEGISLATORS TO OPPOSE 1245

    TAKE ACTION!

    SEND EMAILS TO ALL THE SENATORS

    Then the bill will be heard in the HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE

    Do you have more to say on this bill?
    Send a personal email to the committee members:

    JHoltzclaw@house.idaho.gov,MBundy@house.idaho.gov, MKingsley@house.idaho.gov, TWisniewski@house.idaho.gov, JWeber@house.idaho.gov, LMcCann@house.idaho.gov, RCheatum@house.idaho.gov, DHawkins@house.idaho.gov, DHealey@house.idaho.gov, SMiller@house.idaho.gov, EPrice@house.idaho.gov, JoshWheeler@house.idaho.gov, NRoberts@house.idaho.gov, mwilson@house.idaho.gov, SChew@house.idaho.gov

    BAYER IS IN THE WRONG AND THEY ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE IMMUNITY

    Granting immunity to large corporations through legislation is a betrayal of justice. When profit is prioritized over human life, accountability and informed consent is abandoned. Let’s demand that companies prioritize safety over dollars and uphold the sanctity of every individual’s well-being.

    Miste Karlfeldt, Health Freedom Idaho

    Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced numerous lawsuits related to its product Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to a settlement of $10.9 billion to resolve about 125,000 lawsuits related to Roundup23. The settlement was intended to resolve approximately 75% of the claims made against the company, with individual plaintiffs estimated to receive between $5,000 to $250,000, depending on their circumstances and the strength of their cases.

    The bill would eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate in these suits. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and individuals would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages. Local research in Idaho has shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields.

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4. –Read More Here

    Communities with larger populations, such as Caldwell and Nampa, are also exposed to cancer-causing chemicals. A study conducted in Idaho revealed an increased occurrence of cancer linked to pesticide exposure. Consequently, the threat extends beyond rural areas to impact urban residents, where neighborhoods often border agricultural fields. Recent reports highlight that individuals living in Nampa and Caldwell are exposed to these chemicals simply by residing near these fields.

    Testimony from Senator Brian Lenny

    Idaho’s has a bill on deck that basically throws a giant, indestructible shield around Big Pharma, (in this case, Bayer) RE: their cash cow, glyphosate in Roundup. Are you kidding me?! Where’s the accountability? Where’s the protection for the little guy… the everyday person who trusts these products are safe? Are we trading crops for cancer? Slamming the door on this one isn’t just a no; it’s a HELL NO. Corporate immunity on this level isn’t just over the top; it’s a leap into a realm where consumer safety takes a backseat to profit. And that’s a ride I’m not willing to take.

    Senator Brian Lenny

    Key Concerns:

    1. Lack of Accountability for Harmful Products: SB 1245 essentially grants blanket immunity to pesticide manufacturers, regardless of the harmful effects their products may have on human health. This undermines the principle of corporate responsibility and leaves affected individuals without recourse for seeking justice.
    2. Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Exposure: Numerous studies have linked exposure to certain pesticides with serious health ailments, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and neurological disorders. By shielding manufacturers from legal consequences, SB 1245 disregards these well-established health risks and prioritizes corporate interests over public health.
    3. International Discrepancies in Pesticide Regulation: While many countries have banned certain pesticides due to their harmful effects, the United States continues to approve their use. SB 1245 further exacerbates this discrepancy by preventing affected individuals from seeking legal redress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of harm.
    4. Financial Implications: The bill shifts the burden of covering damages associated with pesticide exposure onto Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and affected individuals. This not only undermines accountability but also imposes additional financial strain on already vulnerable populations.
    5. Environmental Impact: Pesticides not only pose risks to human health but also contaminate groundwater and harm wildlife. The lack of accountability for pesticide manufacturers perpetuated by SB 1245 exacerbates environmental degradation and threatens the long-term sustainability of Idaho’s ecosystems.

    CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR TO TELL THEM TO OPPOSE 1245 IMMUNITY FOR CHEMICAL COMPANIES

    In conclusion, Health Freedom Idaho urges the Idaho Legislature to reject Senate Bill 1245. By opposing this bill, legislators can uphold the principles of public health, corporate accountability, and environmental protection. It is imperative that Idahoans retain the ability to seek legal recourse for damages caused by pesticide exposure and that pesticide manufacturers are held accountable for their actions. We stand firm in our commitment to promoting health freedom including freedom from toxins for the health and well-being of all Idaho residents.

    MORE TO READ: https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/gut-wrenching-dangers-of-glyphosate/

    RESOURCES ON PESTICIDE HARM

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4.

    https://www.uidaho.edu/news/news-articles/news-releases/2022/062122-chemicals-cancer

    https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/08/university-of-idaho-researchers-find-correlation-between-pesticides-and-cancer/

    Research conducted by Boise State University, as reported in various sources. The study found that pregnant women living near agricultural fields in southern Idaho had significantly increased concentrations of the pesticide glyphosate in their urine, especially during the spraying season. The research team collected 453 urine samples biweekly from 40 pregnant women for this study24.

    Several countries have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate due to health concerns. Some of these countries include:

    1. Austria: The Austrian parliament voted unanimously on a partial ban of glyphosate, prohibiting its use on “sensitive” areas and for private use13.
    2. Belgium: Banned the individual use of glyphosate3.
    3. Germany: Has banned glyphosate in public spaces and plans a total ban by 202424.
    4. France, the Netherlands, and Belgium: Glyphosate is banned for household use2.
    5. Mexico: The Supreme Court denied appeals from major agrichemical corporations, affirming the country’s glyphosate ban14.
    6. Vietnam: Is the only country in Asia to have fully banned the use of glyphosate15.

    These bans and restrictions are often due to concerns about the potential link between glyphosate and health issues, including cancer and environmental impact

  • Idaho Cloud Seeding on Trial

    Part 1: Liability Release Analysis

    Why were cloud seeding operators given special liability protections in 2021?  

    HB 266 states, “The act of cloud seeding pursuant to a project funded in whole or in part by the state of Idaho or authorized by the state water resource board shall not be the basis of any claim of liability, including but not limited to trespass or public or private nuisance, and shall not require any state or local permits.”  

    Public concerns 

    What good is a program that requires liability protections? Where there is risk, there must be liability. Many Idahoans were alarmed by this language and wondered why citizens and private property rights were potentially put in harm’s way for an experimental program. 

    Cloud seeding is performed by either ground generators or aerial application. Both methods do not allow Idahoans to opt-out. Citizens began to wonder why cloud seeding operators asked for liability exemptions. 

    Risk of accident

    According to a 2023 Idaho Aviation accident Score Card (IAASC) report, “Aircraft accidents increased from 24 in 2020 to 38 in 2021 – a 35% jump” Did Idaho Power, Idaho Water Resources, and cloud seeding stakeholders acknowledge aviation risk and ask for liability exemptions?  

    Risk of environmental impacts

    “A 2016 study published by the National Library of Medicine found “cloud seeding may moderately affect biota living in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems if cloud seeding is repeatedly applied in a specific area and large amounts of seeding materials accumulate in the environment.” The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) must develop and test the accumulation levels of all chemical agents used in cloud seeding. This includes silver iodide and the impacts of liquid propane as well as all trace chemicals (discussed in an upcoming article). HB 266 allows cloud seeding operators to experiment without “state or local permits.” No permits and no liability for cloud seeding operators only increased public skepticism in the safety of the program. 

    Risk of infringement on private property rights

    We will also investigate where cloud seeding generators are located and flight maps of aerial cloud seeding. If your property is located near these generators or within flight paths, ask yourself why cloud seeding operations, “shall not be the basis of any claim of liability, including but not limited to trespass or public or private nuisance.” 

    We will explore other reasons (from flooding to chemical use) Idahoans are asking questions and demanding accountability in this experimental cloud seeding program. This is part one of a four-part series. 

    SIGN THE PETITION

    Unveiling the Chemicals: Transparency Concerns in Idaho’s Cloud Seeding Program
    Idaho Cloud Seeding Raises Flood Concerns

    What can you do?

    1. Call or write your representative. Several representatives expressed support of our bill and, encouragingly,  it was bipartisan support. 
    2. Sign the petition. If you are concerned with cloud seeding operators receiving special liability protections and would like to see responsible testing take place.

  • Cloud Seeding One Big Dangerous Experiment

    Cloud seeding is a weather modification scheme that has been around for years. Many water resources departments refused to advertise the program until legislation was passed, giving them authority over the operation and special liability protections. Locally, these protections cover Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) as well as the state contracted private company/s spraying cloud-seeding particulates into our skies. Unfortunately, the Idaho legislature passed HB266 in 2021, granting IDWR complete control of cloud seeding operations. Under this bill, IDWR and their contractors can operate the program with no permit required and no recourse for citizens, farmers, or anyone else negatively impacted by the experimental program. Concerningly, the bill states, “Chapter 43, Title 42, Idaho Code: (5) The act of cloud seeding pursuant to a project funded in whole or in part by the state of Idaho or authorized by the state water resource board shall not be the basis of any claim of liability, including but not limited to trespass or public or private nuisance, and shall not require any state or local permits.” Many citizens and small farmers are asking why IDWR required such broad protections. A farmer or rancher could be gravely impacted by human error while cloud seeding – overseeding could lead to flooding or applying too much chemical could lead to crop loss. The burden is unreasonably placed on the citizen. 

    Does it work?

    The science is dubious, at best. As programs fail to prove the efficacy and safety of cloud seeding, the proponents of weather modification shift their focus from one failed program to a new program, usually proven through computer modeling. The Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Project program was a model used to support cloud seeding programs but failed to show statistically significant results. Reportedly, “analysis showed that cloud seeding produced a 3 percent increase in precipitation with a 28 percent probability that this result happened by chance. Most scientists and statisticians wouldn’t accept that level of uncertainty, says Breed, [a meteorologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research].” The Wyoming program is currently under pressure to pull back funding for the cloud seeding program. In February 2023, several legislators in Wyoming decided the cloud seeding data was unproven and funding should not continue. “State Sen. Bo Biteman, R-Ranchester, proposed an amendment to an omnibus water bill that would have eliminated nearly all state funding for the program…The amendment was defeated on a 18-13 vote.” In a recent email with Julie Gondzar, Weather Modification Program Manager in Wyoming, regarding the likelihood of IDWR potentially partnering with Wyoming in cloud seeding funding, she commented that, “[the] Wyoming program is under a lot of pressure from the Wyoming Legislature to cut back.” Final approval of program funding will not be voted on until January or February of the upcoming legislative session. 

    With unproven results in Wyoming, Idaho shifted its focus to their own local experimentation on the Payette Basin.  The SNOWIE (Seeded and Natural Orographic Wintertime Clouds — the Idaho Experiment) project is the new frontier of more unverified cloud seeding programs. The project is described as, “SNOWIE used supercomputing technology to develop a new computer model to simulate cloud seeding, as well as new measurement capabilities, such as a high-resolution cloud radar on a Wyoming research aircraft that can see previously invisible cloud features.” Furthermore, studies cite minimal success in forcing precipitation from clouds, “[a] cloud-seeding flight on Jan. 19, 2017, that generated snow for 67 minutes, dusting about 900 square miles with a tenth of a millimeter of snow beyond what was falling naturally.” Perhaps these results are perceived to be good in a computer modeling analysis, but citizens have to wonder what the real-world risk/reward trade off is. 

    Is it safe?

    The researchers admit that isolating a control group is very difficult with cross-wind contamination and other natural factors. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) requires that cloud seeding operators submit a form notifying the department of planned cloud seeding experiments. The form allows the operator to insert a date range (no limit to duration of range; could be months or years in length) and a description of “modification agents.” The reported amount of silver iodide applied continues to increase each year and many previously disclosed chemicals are now left off of the NOAA form. Upon asking NOAA to clarify if cloud seeding operators need only disclose those chemicals which modify the clouds/weather or all agents used, NOAA responded, “When in doubt, please include all!” I believe that it is not only possible, but likely cloud seeding operators are taking advantage of NOAA’s lax reporting requirements, leaving some previously disclosed chemicals off their reports in recent years. A report filed by Marty and Conni Owen in eastern Idaho for the period 12/20/1999-4/30/2000 shows “ground based generators… used silver iodide, ammonium iodide, acetone. Application rate of silver iodide, 7-12 grams per hour.” However, the Owens’ recent reports only include silver iodide and in greater quantities than in previous years. A more recent report filed for 11/01/2022-05/31/2023 shows, “ground based generators and a propane gas supply. Silver iodide is used as the weather modification agent at a rate of 20 grams per hour.” There are many issues with both these reporting concerns. How much silver iodide is too much and what are the accumulative effects?  Upon asking the IDWR department for past historical water tests monitoring chemical levels in water before and after cloud seeding, the department responded, “The Idaho Water Resource Board and Idaho Department of Water Resources do not test or maintain records of water quality tests of rainwater.”

    One big (dangerous) experiment

    Lastly, why is IDWR stating in presentations that they look for “opportunities for seeding with propane” in recent meetings? As seen in the NOAA report referenced above, it is clear that propane is currently used in cloud seeding operations. It probably goes without mentioning, but propane is extremely flammable. With risk should come responsibility. IDWR and their partners cannot continue experimenting. IDWR and their stakeholders should provide proof of effectiveness and safety. Dates of seeding should be discrete and specific to allow citizens, farmers, and interested parties the opportunity to assess the results. If these modest requirements are adopted, IDWR and their contractors will not need the special liability protections they currently enjoy. 

  • Weather Modification in Idaho

    Idaho’s Cloud Seeding and Weather Modification: Addressing Concerns and Seeking Transparency

    Watch this video of Miste Karlfeldt discussing the Idaho Water Resource Board and Cloud Seeding in Idaho with Dr. Daniel Bobinski of True Idaho News

    In Idaho, cloud seeding and weather modification programs have raised legitimate concerns among residents who question whether we are unwitting subjects of experimental weather manipulation and what potential health impacts might arise from seeding our skies with chemicals that eventually return to earth. These concerns deserve thoughtful consideration, Health Freedom Idaho is calling for transparency and accountability in exposing our family’s potential health risks.

    Meeting agenda: https://idwr.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/iwrb/2023/Cloud-Seeding-CommMeeting-No.-2-23MATERIALS.pdf
    Zoom link to join the meeting: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89715998383?pwd=Vk80cWZyZjFzdlZ6UEkrcHJqa3hGQT09
    Meeting ID: 897 1599 8383
    Passcode: 478824
    Dial in Option: 1 (253) 215-8782

    Experimental Manipulation of Weather

    Residents have every right to question whether cloud seeding amounts to experimental weather manipulation. While cloud seeding is a recognized weather modification technique, it is crucial that these programs are conducted responsibly, with transparency, and within the bounds of established regulations. The Idaho Water Resource Board, responsible for overseeing such activities, must ensure that cloud seeding programs are based on sound scientific principles and are carried out with the utmost care. On September 6, 2023, they conducted a public meeting.

    Health Impacts and Chemicals

    One of the primary concerns centers around the chemicals used in cloud seeding, specifically silver iodide and calcium chloride. These substances, when released into the atmosphere, can return to the earth’s surface and potentially affect our environment, including our food, pets, and children. Idaho residents are subjects of comprehensive monitoring and research.

    Those individuals responsible for weather modification do not completely understand the extent of these potential impacts. Does that concern you?

    While silver iodide is generally considered safe when used in small quantities for cloud seeding, there are potential negative impacts and concerns associated with its use. These concerns include:

    1. Environmental Impact: One of the primary concerns is the potential environmental impact of silver iodide. When released into the atmosphere, silver iodide particles can eventually fall to the ground and enter the environment. Accumulation of silver in soil and water bodies can be harmful to aquatic life and terrestrial ecosystems.
    2. Water Contamination: Silver iodide can find its way into water bodies, potentially contaminating surface waters. Elevated silver levels in water can be toxic to aquatic organisms and disrupt ecosystems.
    3. Human Health Concerns: While the concentrations of silver iodide used in cloud seeding are generally low and not considered harmful to human health, there are concerns about the potential inhalation of silver iodide particles. Inhaling silver iodide dust could potentially lead to respiratory irritation, although this risk is minimal under normal cloud seeding operations.
    4. Ethical and Legal Concerns: Some individuals and communities raise ethical concerns about cloud seeding, including questions about informed consent and whether weather modification should be carried out without the consent of affected parties.
    5. Unintended Consequences: The practice of cloud seeding aims to increase precipitation in specific regions, but there can be unintended consequences. Altering weather patterns through cloud seeding may affect downstream regions, potentially leading to water resource conflicts or other unintended impacts.
    6. Effects on Local Climate: Altering local weather patterns through cloud seeding could have unforeseen effects on the climate and ecosystems of the targeted areas. These long-term effects require careful consideration and study.

    Lack of Long-Term, Comprehensive Studies

    There is a lack of comprehensive, long-term studies on the environmental and health impacts of silver iodide from cloud seeding. More research is needed to understand the full extent of potential negative effects. The call for long-term, comprehensive studies on the safety and efficacy of cloud seeding is entirely valid. To date, there remains a scarcity of in-depth research that can conclusively determine the practice’s impact on our environment and human health and its effectiveness in increasing precipitation. Transparency in sharing such studies when they become available is imperative to address public concerns. How do they conduct these studies without subjecting us to exposure to assess the risks?

    Number of Cloud Seeding Stations: Idaho currently has multiple cloud seeding stations throughout the state. These stations work in collaboration with various weather modification programs and agencies to enhance precipitation in areas facing water scarcity.

    Understanding Man’s Impact on Weather Systems: The extent of humanity’s impact on natural weather systems remains a subject of ongoing scientific study. Weather modification programs like cloud seeding are designed to enhance precipitation within the natural variability of weather patterns. Determining a direct link between cloud seeding and specific weather events, such as the “snowpocalypse” of 2015, is a complex challenge that requires comprehensive research and analysis.

    The concerns of Idaho residents regarding cloud seeding and weather modification are valid and must be addressed. Transparency, rigorous research, and responsible oversight are essential to ensure that these programs are conducted safely and within the bounds of ethical and environmental considerations. It is our collective responsibility to advocate for transparency, engage in informed dialogue, and seek answers to legitimate questions as we navigate the complex realm of weather modification in Idaho. Only when citizens express concern and interest through open dialogue and call for transparent practices can we ensure the well-being of our communities and the preservation of our environment.