Is "Weed-N-Feed" killing you?

[Bruce McAuley]

How many people here know that Roundup(TM) and Weed-n-Feed(TM) contain dioxins,one of the most deadly and persistent of poisons?
These common herbicides are descended from Agent Orange, used in the 60's and early 70's in Vietnam, which poisoned an entire country. A lot of the jungle wiped out by those poisons still has not returned 30 years later, and Vietnam has tens of thousands of people dying of strange cancers and birth defects, Spina Bifida being one of the common ones.
My wife was an activist in the 70's getting the story out about Agent Orange, and what it did to OUR veterans, as her husband at the time was working on Ranch Hand and the spraying of 2-4D on the jungles at the time. She wasd eventually to help get the manufacturers to agree to a $180 million settlement for the affected vets, all well and good, but the manufacturers thought they were buying immunity to any FUTURE prosecution involving dioxins in herbicides.
Enter Roundup and Weed-n-Feed, both trademarked herbicides. That's the stuff you smell when you walk the pesticide/herbicide aisle at your local Wal-Mart.
THAT, people is the smell of death! My wife, who is VERY sensitive to dioxins, CANNOT walk down those aisles. I could go through the whole chemistry thing, but what is really important is that many people have NO idea what that stuff is, and use it indiscriminately all over the place on their property and lawns. Kills them weeds DEAD, from the roots up, just like the ads claim.
Unfortunately, it kills humans JUST as dead, from the ground up nover a longer period of time, which the ads do NOT say. Vietnam has shown us the reality. Dioxin is one of the deadliest poisons and the most persistent known to science. The stuff on the lawns gets tracked into the house, and it persists for YEARS, maybe decades.
Do you know somebody who has great lawns but is dying of a strange cancer? I do!
The Poisoning of America has been going on for over 30 years, and would Dow Chenical ever put profits above human suffering?
Yes.
Got Weed-n-Feed or Roundup around YOUR place?
I don't and CAN'T, or my wife would be dead.
Discussion?

Bruce

[bowens43]

1. LOL! This is not what I expected.......

I was thinking pot and pizza

[voice of reason]

131. heh . . .

me too!

v.o.r.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. If You Say So

Stuff with inherent dangers automatically means death? Therefore, there is no safe way to use anything dangerous? Syllogistic at best.

Seems like the thesis a conservative would develop.
The Professor

[Bruce McAuley]

10. So do you use it?

I'm just throwing this out for the unaware.
If you were aware that this stuff kills over long periods with great persistence, would YOU endanger your family by using it?
Just wondering.
Personally, I feel Dow has been responsible for WAY more deaths than we give them credit for, yet they continue to make unconscionable profits from death. Please name one thing Chlorine is good for, by itself. Obviously in combination with Sodium it makes common salt, but by itself and as a Polychlorinated Bi-Phenol it is VERY deadly and persistent.
Everybody's tolerance of this stuff varies, but the question here is WHY we need the stuff in the first place if it's going to kill for decades after application. Maybe we should ask the Vietnamese, but our government doesn't EVEN want to open that can of worms.

Bruce

[ProfessorGAC]

19. I Don't Agree With You

Whether i use it or not, is irrelevant. You are making a broad, and unscientific leap that no dangerous material can be used in such a way as to be generally safe. I say that's wrong.

Your comparison of agent orange to yard care is specious at best, and an intentional canard at worst.

I could name ten thousand things that chlorine is good for, but for two, it is a fundamental atom in almost any disinfectant (upon which the medical industry relies for sterility) and is used in water treatment to make our water system safe. By the way, i would expect you to swear off Bactine and related products. Just let the chance of infection take its course.

The direct addition of chlorine to butadiene is the first step in the formation of synthetic rubber. That invention has obviated the need to deforest most of Indonesia.


There is nothing inherently bad about any element, and chlorine exists abundantly in nature, so i don't think Dow is on the hook for that.

Is that enough?

The point of contention i have is your extension of logic that goes from "this is dangerous stuff" to "any use of it is too dangerous to broach". (Not quoting you, just offsetting for emphasis.) I don't buy it.
The Professor

[Bruce McAuley]

23. OK, your opinion, but..

Many people here have stories of unexplained deaths surrounding pesticide/herbicide, as do I, and they cannot be discounted as easily as you might like.
Granted the headline might be a little dramatic, but it is NOT untrue.
Weed-n-Feed DOES kill people as well as plants, as many here will testify.
The question is whether it is as safe as it is claimed to be, and is marketed as.
As for Chlorine in our water, maybe we better not go THERE, that opens ANOTHER can of worms, eh?

Bruce

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Whatever?

First, i dismissed NOTHING! So don't put words in my mouth. I said in BOTH prior posts that these things are carry intrinsic, and potential dangers. I dismiss the idea that there is no use for these things and that they cannot be used safely.

Secondly, anecdotal information does not satisfy the scientific method. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

I would suggest that all your evidence is that of someone who would need a control group that lives forever. All of this stuff is killing us? We're going to die eventually anyway, so what is the frame of reference?

The idea that, over the past 100 years as life expectancy has risen in every industrialized country, somehow we're killing ourselves with toxins, is a tough nut to swallow. The data are contrary to the basic premise.

If pesticides/herbicides are so bad, and if the water isn't as safe as advertised, then exactly how did the life expectancy rise so dramatically in just 10 decades? Luck?

See what i mean, now? Your basic thesis is two-dimensional, based upon a minimal number of datapoints, and unsupportable in the overall.

I would suggest that a few serious and clearly unfortunate incidents are hardly the basis for the sweeping conclusions you've drawn.
The Professor

[FlaGranny]

57. Well, Professor, those chemicals

must REALLY be safe when you consider that deaths from heart disease have skyrocketed over the past 60 years, which contributes greatly to decreasing the average lifespan. So, I do indeed see your point. :-) I WILL refrain from eating most man-made chemicals, though.

[DrWeird]

58. The average lifespan as gone down?

Silly me. I thought it was going up. And I thought the reason that more people were dieing of heart disease was because less people were dying of smallpox and typhoid. Thanks to man-made chemicals.

[ProfessorGAC]

73. Thanks, Doc

Geez, people are really off on a rant over this.

All i want is for people to realize that the original poster is "chicken littling" and that dangerous stuff can be used safely, as long as it is used in moderation.

These folks might want to ban alcohol again, given that it's inherently dangerous, and we now know that inherently dangerous substances can't be used safely.

Better keep an eye, or there'll be a new temperarance union around here.
The Professor

[FlaGranny]

94. Please see post 91. n/m

[ProfessorGAC]

62. Huh?

There is NO data to support a decreasing life span. Sorry, it's just untrue.

Also, there is significant biodmedical evidence that heart disease hasn't really skyrocketed the way it seems.

Over the past 60 years, our diagnostic abilities have become so much more powerful, that we identify these things much sooner, which adds to the number of folks diagnosed with those maladies dramatically. Also, dying at 70, which 50 years ago was termed "died of old age", is now highly likely to be heart disease or cancer.

Ask any actuary who's been in the insurance field for more than 10 years, and they will corroborate what i'm saying here.

So, you can do and eat whatever you want. I'm not trying to tell anyone here what they should do.

But, i just can't sit here reading things which require me to ignore the facts. Your fact about decreasing lifespan is untrue. The original posters points were unfounded in data and science.

Opinions are fine, and everyone has them. However, there is a difference between an opinion and declaration of fact when plenty of information is available that refutes said declaration.

I like a nice yard. But, i don't go nuts with pesticides and herbicides, either. I don't think i've ever used a pesticide, in fact. (Not 100% sure, but i don't think so.) So, i'm not defending their use, and i'm not condemning them either. I just don't concur that just because something is potentially dangerous, that there is no safe way to use them. There is just no evidence to support such a contention.
The Professor

[FlaGranny]

91. Duh, I don't know why I can't make a post

that someone doesn't read wrong. Is it me? I said heart disease contributes to decreasing the life span. I didn't say life span was decreasing. Deaths from cardiac disease DO NOT increase life span do they? I guess I better learn to decrease my use of double negatives.

And didn't you see my smiley? I was making a joke that supported your position - or at least I thought I was. Edit: I guess I should give up any attempt at comedy in the future.

[Bruce McAuley]

59. Watch out for that Chem-Lawn truck, then.

Obviously you are happy with Weed-n-Feed, and feel my anecdotal evidence is spurious.
That is your right, but don't say you weren't advised otherwise by some crackpot wacko enviro-hippy(MY term for me) when your Scottie gets cancer.
:hi:

Bruce

[ProfessorGAC]

69. Yawn!

I never said these things weren't potentially dangerous. You put words in my mouth.

It's patently absurd, however, to suggest that their use is the root of all evil. (Now i'm doing the hyperbole!)

In this entire thread, i haven't seen one shred of information, or any links, that provide data to support this belief.

My objection, from the very beginning, was that the premise was flawed because there isn't any evidence in the biomedical data to support such a "chicken little" conclusion.

Now, you're warning me about the danger. More "chicken little-ism". If i'm supposed to be worried, where is the evidence that should worry me.

Folks like you (and me) laugh out loud when Tom Ridge raises the terror level, and accuse him crying wolf. But, when things like this come up, the data don't matter. Apparently, only Tom Ridge is supposed to share his data and the way his conclusions were reached.

If there is a hint of environmental awareness or public health in a conclusion, we don't apply that same standard. That's a pretty convenient way to apply logic. A little too convenient, for me.
The Professor

[ecoalex]

74. No links ? look at post # 47

There is documented proof round up is toxic , ...if you look, if you keep an open mind.

[ProfessorGAC]

78. I Already Did

And, apparently you can't absorb what you read either.

I never said roundup wasn't toxic. I said, that at modest use levels, it's biodegradation rate is high enough, and it's toxicity low enough to be less than the critical public health issue implied by many of the posters here.

So, once again, you resorted to putting words into my mouth, by suggesting that i said these things were non-toxic. Never said such a thing.

That being the best you can do, indicates why you're boring me, and i yawned.

I'm a scientist. It's my JOB to keep an open mind. I don't need your coaching to remember that!
The Professor

[ecoalex]

96. Science is bought every day

Just look at all the Rep scientists that back up shrub's statement that global warming is a farce.Scientists are humans and cal be bought, used to promote ANY point of view.Scientific theory is fine , it's the interpretation of data, and the manipulation of data that scurrilises the scientific method.

I had an officer of Ca.EPA come , after I had my pasture sprayed with Transline herbicide, applied by the County for Yellow Star thistle on their road right -a- ways. I filed a complaint, because the truck sprayed way past the fence line into my pasture, which my Angus graze, over 1/2 mile of frontage. The EPA rep was a "chemical head" , as I call them. He was so ready to talk toxcicity, and had many web sites to show that ag chemicals are just fine. I kept asking him about "personal thresholds" of toxcicity . He just shrugged me off, and told me it just isn't that easy, toxicicity is a complex matter. It is of no comfort to those who are sensitive to these materials, or their inert ingredients. It escapes me how these materials are freely made, they cause cancer, and other diseases, yet the Drs and pro industry people sau oh well, too bad.It seems to me, elimination of these materials, not the people is the answer, but sick people fill the pockets of scientists, Drs, industry, so people dying is a business, like crime, it employs many, and profits a few.Suffering is passe in the brave new world, profit is king, and scientists are a part of the equation. Too bad scientists are only human, and will not distance themselves from toxic science. Like the energy shortage , if the money spent on wars for oil were spent on clean energy research, we'd not need wars for oil. If the public demanded a clean agricultural/ horticultural system , then the suffering and dying of the people would abate greatly.Atrazine is illegal in Europe, yet in the USA it is the holy grail for a corn herbicide,all well water in corn areas have it, and the health effects are well known, but will the EPA outlaw it, no.

[TexasSissy]

67. I'm sure there are scientific tests, but really, one doesn't

need scientific tests to know that a poison is harmful. Yes, Roundup and such things are poisons. That's why they are so effective at killing plants.

Do you REALLY need a scientific test to tell you that if you huff it or drink it, your health is in immediate danger? Do you REALLY need a scientific test to tell you that after years of using it and smelling it and handling it, there MIGHT be some effect on your health?

If you do, then you are living in denial. Just read the warning on the label. For myself, my common sense tells me that if it kills strong weeds on contact, it's a dangerous substance, and neither I nor my pets need contact with it.

[ProfessorGAC]

70. Can You Read For Content?

Geez, people are appearing a little dense in this thread. Unlike DU, i would say.

I NEVER suggested that these things aren't poisons, and have inherent dangers. You are the 3rd one who, in support of their own weak argument, needed to put words in my mouth. I never even suggested any such thing.

Secondly, you are implying that i use these things profligately, which in prior posts, i said i do not. So, you aren't paying attention to what you're reading.

My objection is solely based upon the idea that something dangerous can never be used safely.

The original poster did not question that inference when in first made it, and the subsequent replies are showing that a lot of folks here don't care about the facts, and don't care to actually read what i'm saying.

Their minds are made up, and it doesn't even matter that, like you, they're objecting to something i didn't even say.
The Professor

[DrWeird]

77. Oh who needs science when you've got unfounded beliefs.

When has science ever proven unfounded beliefs wrong?

I mean sure, science says it knows exactly how Roundup works. Sure it says it kills plants by inhibiting the shikimic acid pathway. A metabolic pathway specific to certain plants, and only plants. It is not at all occur in animals. But that's according to science, and we all know how unreliable science is. And then there are all those studies done to test toxicity of Roundup. It's been tested on all sort of animals. No ill effects. It's been tested on plants that don't utilize the shikimic acid pathway. No ill effects. It's been sprayed over wide swaths of terrain to test environmental and ecological effects. No ill effects.

But hey, if it kills dandelions, then common sense tells us it's Agent Orange and will give us cancer. Therefore anybody who says otherwise obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

[ProfessorGAC]

79. Apparently, Not Only Conservatives Fear Science, Doc

Some liberals apparently fear science and hate those damn "ivory tower elites", too!
The Professor

[yellowcanine]

101. Weed-n-Feed DOES kill people as well as plants - links?

Do you have a link for such an assertion - I have never heard of anyone being killed by Weed-n-Feed. You must have at least one case to make such an assertion?

[LibertyorDeath]

109. "There is nothing inherently bad about any element" LOL

In that case ProfessorGAC I've got your glass of carcinogenic hydrocarbons right here.

Bottoms up!

[DrWeird]

113. Carcinogenic hydrocarbons are not an element.

If you mean hydrogen and carbon, there's nothing inherently bad about them either.

C'mon people, this is high school chemistry we're talking here. It's not rocket science.

[MISSDem]

119. Do you use this stuff on your lawn? I'll bet you do because only

someone who wants to keep using something like this defends it so zealously, even thought it is obvious that it is dangerous and should be taken off of the market. People can justify anything that they want to do/eat/use.

[ecoalex]

145. Toxic chemical zeal

Yes, there are those who do not yet see the whole of things, how all are interrelated, an ecology , and in this ecology some chemicals, not ever there before, do by their design , manipulate normal biology. The question is why do these chemicals keep being used?, or not cleaned up of their pollutants, dioxin as an example, it's toxicity is well documented. Even white tissue paper has traces of dioxin from the chlorine bleaches used in the paper processes.The question is there an alternative? Yes, it's up to you to signal the market, and disseminate the cleaner healthier message.The idea is cheaper is not always healthier.Cleaners , insecticides , general practices can be done without toxics, asthma people know about sensitivities. a cleaner less toxic environment for us all is a better choice.There are many alternative answers for insect ,rodent,plant disease, most any problem. It just takes some research and desire to solve a problem without toxics.

[bleedingheart]

3. I don't use many pesticides

I actually weed my yard by hand...and I have a fairly large lot.

I thatch with a rake and then get the other stuff by hand.

I do spread lime but that is safe.

I have used some stuff to treat trees from mites...but have willingly moved to none pesticide stuff...like homemade insecticidal soap.

My kids have asthma so putting that junk on my yard is a risk I won't take...

[sui generis]

5. I have St. Augustine grass

I just water it and it chokes out all other life in the vicinity. I fertilize every other year, lightly, and have never had to do anything else, i.e., no weed control etc.

[bleedingheart]

8. is that like zoysia?

my mom has that and it is horrid to walk on...and because we live in PA...it looks brown most of the time...

normal grass will choke out weeds if it is healthy.

[sui generis]

28. zoysia is a derivative of St. Augustine

St. Augustine grows well in the south - a "broad leaf" grass.

I overseed with winter ryegrass in the fall and have a sprinkler system, so I have a vibrant green lawn almost all year round here in Texas.

[demnan]

4. My Mom's neighbor started using that stuff

in the 80's. Thereafter she developed breast cancer. Thereafter, two of her cats died of cancer, one was an untimely death (young cat) as was one of my brother's (age 3).

She recovered from her cancer but no longer uses that stuff on her lawn, thank God. But it will probably be in the ground for ages.

Give me the weeds, please!!! I hate that stuff!

[SidDithers]

89. Alot of cats die from cancer...

your run-of-the-mill kitty litter is chock full of crystalline silica, classified as a potential or confirmed carcinogen by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Read Professor's and DrWeird's posts above - anectodal stories are interesting, but are of little or no scientific value.

Sid

edit - spelling

[Junkdrawer]

6. Corporate ethics..

[LWolf]

7. I knew that.

I was just reading this article this morning:

http://www.evesgarden.org/archives/2004/07/03/breaking_the_lawncare_pesticide_cycle/

Elise Craig lives in a garden apartment in Portland, Oregon, where children roll in the grass and run barefoot across lawns in the summer light. A year ago, she realized that whenever the landlord spread lawn-care chemicals on the grass, her six-year-old son, Michael, lost bowel and bladder control for weeks afterward.

“Michael’s symptoms came back every time they treated the lawn,” said Craig. “They told us it was safe after a day, so I kept him off the grass for a week or two. Michael still got sick. We were ultimately successful in organizing our community to go organic, but we are about to move, and I may face this battle in our new home with new neighbors.”

Kids often play on lawns treated with toxic herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides — and some of them get sick.

In Portland, where Craig organized teams of weed-pulling parents at her son’s school (with help from a principal who’s an organic farmer), the city has put up billboards that say, “Is Your Lawn Chemical-Free? Maybe It Should Be.”

[redwitch]

9. My mom's oncologist attributes rising rate of lymphoma

to herbicides and pesticides. My mom has non-hodgkins lymphoma. She lives in NJ, home of the perfect suburban lawn. I just love all the little poison flags they put up after an application of the stuff. My mom never used any of it, but she is dying by inches anyway.

[depakid]

11. Round-up doesn't contain dioxins

Glyphosate, the active ingrediant in Round-up, is an organophosphate and while it's toxic and can and does cause injuries, it's not very persistent. Other ingredients in glysophate herbicides like Roundup are actually more toxic- because they're serious irritants of the respiratory tract, eyes and skin and are contaminated with dioxane, not deadly dioxin.

In any event, herbicides are nasty stuff- both for the people who are around them and for the environment. Using them to keep your lawn nice is just not smart.

[HuckleB]

61. well... i don't use anything on my lawn other than organic fertilizer...

once a year. my lawn looks great, and i probably spend 30 minutes a year pulling the few weeds that find their way in. if you use grasses native to your area, there's really no need to use a weed n feed product.

not sure about the science of the possible ramifications, but i am sure that there's nothing good that comes from such products running off into our streams and rivers, which is why i stay away from them.

[depakid]

143. We didn't either-

Personally, I didn't give a damn about the lawn- that was the ex's province! She mowed, I pulled weeds. That was the deal. We used as much space as possible to landscape and garden. Had cool things growing or blooming pretty much year round.

Right about now, we'd be awash in homegrown tomatos and summer squash. damn... I miss that garden.

Nitrogen runoff from organic fertilizers an be a problem, but used modestly and sparingly like you and I do, it's not too big an issue.

[enki23]

98. glyphosate herbicides aren't organophosphate esters

it's a member of a completely different class of compounds. organophosphate esters are used as insecticides. glyphosate, not being an organophosphate ester, is not a substrate for acetylcholinesterase.

other than that, we're on the same side. ;-)

[depakid]

142. Technically, we're both right

In pure chemical terms glyphosate is an organophosphate in that it contains carbon and phosphorous. However, it does not affect the nervous system in the same way as organophosphate insecticides.

But you're also right, glyphosate is the trade name for N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, which is represented by another class of chemicals.



I got interested in herbicides while working on forestry issues as an in Oregon in the late 70's and 80's (during the Alsea miscarraige studies). Before 2-4-5 T had its registration cancelled, some yahoo professor at Oregon State drank a beaker full of dilution to "prove" that it was safe!

I wish I could remember the guy's name, so I find out what happened to him- :think:

[ecoalex]

12. Herbicides

There are many clases of herbicides. Agent orange was a mix of the old phenoxy herbicides 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T , and diesel fuel.Round up is a different class of herbicide , an amine based herbicide, which disrupts a different phyiology of the plant. Round up is "less toxic" by nature, but still does cause cancer.

Home owners use more horticulture chemicals than all the farmers in this country use a fact. It is ignorance, and market pressures that disseminates the chemical line. Any curious person, who wishes to find alternatives can, it's a matter of doing the research for yourself.There are some good non toxic herbicides, using many begign agents susally employing oils of various sources,orange oil, soaps,mint oil , and others.Vinegar used full strength, at 5% works well , as also does a flame weeder.

A strong vigorous lawn should diminish the dreaded dandelion, the main scourge of residential lawns.To have such a lawn, you must revert the lawn to an eco lawn, not a chemical dependent lawn. It starts with the correct species of grass, adding legumes for nitrogen, and using only gypsum for fertilizer after the lawn is established with organic nitrogen.

Many golf courses are now organic, or eco , as it turned out, the early morning golfers , had a higher leukemia rate, testicular cancer rate than later in the day golfers. Exposure to fungicides were the culprit.There is no need for fungicides , when eco /organic principles are adherred to. If there is a need , benign bicarbonate of soda is used, or maybe a chelated copper based fungicide may be used. Risking exposure to many toxic chemicals is not necessary , there are alternatives in the garden shop, and on the internet, it's a matter of wanting to change old toxic habits.

[nuxvomica]

14. I use orange oil around the house as an insecticide

It works well on ants and will stop wasps in their tracks. I spray some on the wasp nests that annually appear on my front porch. I had decided I would never use household insecticides when I got a cat and saw how he often licked his paws that, of course, had frequent contact with the floor.

[nuxvomica]

13. I am happy to say no one in my neighborhood uses them

Everybody has a crappy lawn except my closest neighbor who uses only organic methods exclusively. Healthy grass with deep roots, infrequently watered but frequently mowed, will not have weed problems anyway. It is unbelievable to me that the government allows people to put poisons on their lawn but doesn't want them to order drugs from Canada because they are "unsafe".

[Bozita]

15. Bladder cancer and lawn chemicals -- my experience

I was using a lawn chemical service for a couple of years. Ditto for my mother.

Chemicals included broadleaf weed killers and pre-emergent substances. Round-Up may or may not have been applied.

In September 2002, my border collie mix died from bladder cancer.

In May 2003, my Doberman-German Shepherd mix died from bladder cancer.

Last month, my mother passed away. Bladder cancer.

Coincidence? I really cannot say. But I will never again allow these chemicals to be used on my property.

[TeeYiYi]

41. Coincidence ? . . .

. . . I think not. :(

TYY:hug:

[progressivebydesign]

50. Pet risk is a BIG issue!

Yes, this is not anecdotal. There is a huge increased cancer risk to pets who live and play on treated lawns. Also... golfers are warned NOT to go barefoot at all, and to wash their hands a lot.. after handling their GOLF balls on the course.

[madrchsod]

16. i have a friend who has sold farm chemicals

for years..this shit is deadly. when i saw it on the open market i was really surprized. this stuff if applied wrong can kill anything it touches and even in lower long term applications. if it doesn`t pass the smell test stay the hell away and children never ever be exposed to it in any form..

[Bruce McAuley]

21. I have a friend who sold farm chemicals, and is now disabled..

Not that ALL people who sell that shit are automatically gonna get cancer, but I think a VERY high percentage will end up screwed for life, my own opinion. I've never seen any statistics on this, and think they are carefully covered up, IMO.
Corporate conspiracy? Hmmmmmmmmm....

Bruce

[Snow]

111. National Cancer Institute is sponsoring a large

study of licensed pesticide applicators in the states of Iowa and North Carolina. The outcomes include both cancers and neurologic diseases, especially Parkinson's Disease. I don't know for sure what the status of the study is at the moment, but it's called The Agricultural Health Sudy, and some of the investigators are Aaron Blair, Mary Ward, Sheila Hoar Zahm, Caroline Tanner. Do a pubmed search on those names & see if they're publishing. In fact, hang on, I'll check...

Okay, all that seems out at the moment is this methods paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12074034

[LizW]

133. My brother-in-law used to be a crop duster

he had his own little airstrip on his farm and a shed where he stored all the chemicals. The place reeked. But he was unconcerned. His vegetable garden was just yards away, and the well not much further.

They thought I was nuts because I wouldn't let my kids near the shed and brought bottled water for us to drink when we visited.

Well, he changed his tune after a stray dog that had taken up with them went out to the shed and laid in the shade there while my brother-in-law worked on the plane. Later in the day, he found the dog dead with foam coming out of its mouth. He got out of the business not long after that.

And I still don't drink the water there.

[NewJeffCT]

17. So, what does one do?

Do we just let our lawns go over to weeds? Is there a green-friendly fertilizer out there that you'd recommend as an alternative?

Is anything safe anymore? I had some contractors over to talk about decks this past week and the last one warned about getting pressure-treated wood from most contractors, as it will likely contain arsenic as arsenic-wood has flooded the market lately because it will be illegal to sell in the near future.

[Bruce McAuley]

22. There ARE safe alternatives out there...

Many of the posters here have some great ideas for natural insecticides/herbicides.
Do a little research, and watch out for stuff from Dow and Monsanto in the pesticide aisle at Wal-Mart.
Sometimes my wife can't even walk up to a checkstand because the weed-n-feed stuff is right by the checkout stands, so you don't forget your poison.
Yukk! I hate that smell, and it hates ME.

Bruce

[treepig]

72. natural insecticides/herbicides ARE NOT safe

just completely untested. hence, their dangers are unknown.

a few of the many natural herbicides:



a few of the many natural insecticides:



a few of the many natural fungicides:



work done by dr. bruce ames at the university of california, berkeley has shown that these "natural" chemicals are every bit as dangerous to humans as man-made compounds:

The facts show synthetic chemicals in a more positive light. Professor Bruce Ames, he of the Ames test, lists the facts likely to have a major effect in reducing rates of cancer in humans as: first, a reduction in smoking; second, improving diet (for instance, increasing the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables) and third, the control of infection. Synthetic chemicals have an indispensable role in the last two and a growing role in achieving the first.

Synthetic chemicals are, however, known to be ingested unavoidably as pesticide residues in foods. The point to make is that the amounts are minuscule compared with the quantities of natural pesticides present in fresh fruit and vegetables and that, unlike these "natural" chemicals, the synthetic ones have been tested for toxicity in accordance with our strict laws and regulations. For example, the known carcinogens in a single cup of coffee (about 40 have been identified) are about equal in weight to an entire year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic pesticide residues consumed by one person.

Professor Ames points out that a typical American consumes about one-and-a-half grams of natural pesticides per day, about 10 000 times more than he or she consumes of synthetic pesticide residues.

http://www.cia.org.uk/newsite/talking_points/tparticle.asp?id=89

for more, do your own search on "bruce ames" AND "toxicity of natural chemicals"

[ecoalex]

85. Sounds like John Stossel to me

There is an idiot circling the world saying organic produce is very dangerous, much more so than chemically grown produce. He's using the raw manure argument.All organic farmers know raw manure causes more problems than good , but compost the manure, and the pathogens, are destroyed by heat and attrition in the pile.

To infer that vinegar, and other "natural" herbicides are possibly more toxic , or equal to toxicity is absurd. Like it has been mentioned, the "carriers" of many herbicides are more toxic , and persistent than the active ingredient itself.

The nuances of organic products are lost compared to strict chemical agents. Chromatography , show this clearly. It is the yet unresearched nuances , undocumented , by the land grant colleges, who mostly are shills of the ag input manufacturers , that are the basis of organic, eco, biodynamic , and other forms of agriculture, that use these yet undocumented abilities to produce crops with much less inputs of traditional materials; NPK fertilization , and eliminating , or reducing the need for crop protectants. Just because it hasn't been proven by these "accredited" institutions, doesn't mean the independent farmer isn't having successes, and producing more nutritious and toxic free crops.

[HuckleB]

87. LOL! Exactly.

You hit it on the nose.

[treepig]

93. yup, anyone who uses real science to disprove nutball theories

is a total shill.

like bruce ames at berkeley:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Ames_Causes.html

In any case 99.9% or more of the chemicals we eat are natural. For example, 99.99% of the pesticides we eat are natural chemicals that are present in plants to ward off insects and other predators. More than half of those natural pesticides tested in high dose animal tests are rodent carcinogens. There are about 10,000 or so different natural pesticides in our diet, and they are usually present at enormously higher levels than synthetic pesticides.

Cooking food also generates thousands of chemicals. There are over 1000 chemicals reported in a cup of coffee. Only 26 have been tested in animal cancer tests and more than half are rodent carcinogens; there are still a thousand chemicals left to test. The amount of potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues consumed in a year is less than the amount known of rodent carcinogens in a cup of coffee.

The reason we can eat the tremendous variety of natural chemical rodent carcinogens in our food is that animals are extremely well defended against all chemicals by many general defense systems. These enzymes, e.g., DNA repair and glutathione transferases which defend against reactive compounds such as mutagens, are all inducible (more of them are made when they are in use). They are equally effective against natural and synthetic reactive chemicals. Thus, animals are extremely well defended against low doses of chemicals. One does not expect, nor does one find, a general difference between synthetic and natural chemicals in their carcinogenicity, and though less well studied, the same would be expected for mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and acute toxicity.

The effort to eliminate synthetic pesticides because of unsubstantiated fears about residues in food will make fruits and vegetables more expensive, decrease consumption, and thus increase cancer rates. The levels of synthetic pesticide residues are trivial in comparison to natural chemicals, and thus their potential for cancer causation is extremely low.

it might be noted that this "shill" was highly regarded by the clinton administration:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Clinton today named nine of the nation's most renowned scientific researchers to receive the National Medal of Science, citing these Americans for "their creativity, resolve and a restless spirit of innovation to ensure continued U.S. leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge."

Among the nine was Bruce N. Ames, a University of California, Berkeley, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology, who has made major contributions to our understanding of the biology of cancer and aging. Director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences Center at UC Berkeley, he is interested primarily in the prevention of cancer and other degenerative diseases of aging. He turns 70 on Dec. 16.

Ames and the eight other recipients of the nation's highest scientific honor have had a wide-ranging impact on social policy, cancer research and materials science, and greatly extended knowledge of Earth and the solar system, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF), which announced the awards. Their theoretical achievements also led to many practical applications.

"These are superstars in their respective fields," said Rita Colwell, NSF director. "They've contributed a lifetime of stunning discoveries. We can only recognize them with a science medal once, but we applaud them daily for their continual contributions to humankind, to the reservoir of scientific knowledge and for the impact they have on the students they mentor and educate along the way."


but i humbly defer to the experts here at DU and will say no more . . .

[HuckleB]

130. LOL! "Real Science?"

Umm. Junk science, out of context, out of reason, without taking actual practice into consideration.

It's nonsense. But you can believe in this religion, if you choose. Just don't call it science. It's anything but...

[treepig]

136. bruce ames epitomizes "real science"

of course, you're free to reject "real science" - but to label his work as junk science is ludicrous - he is a mainstream scientist by any measure you define -

1) he is a tenured professor at a top research university.

2) he is a member of the national academy of science. and it might be noted that he received this honor for the very work cited in my previous post - it's not a wacky diversion of his efforts after he achieved fame (just thought that should be emphasized in case anyone compared him to another member of his department who has similar qualifications and now touts the hypothesis that hiv does not cause aids)

3) he has published 331 research articles in peer-reviewed journals (do a PUBMED search).

4) he has received millions of dollars from federal funding agencies over almost four decades (which, btw, is essentially impossible if your work is not absolutely accurate - when only 8-12% of applications are funded, one's peers ruthlessly shoot down anything not 100% verifiable in the review process).

[treepig]

90. do you know the origin of "man-made" pesticides?

they are almost entirely discovered through the screening of natural products.

effective compounds (i.e., those that inhibit the target organism) are then tested for their effects on the environment and human health. consequently, many of the more dangerous compounds are eliminated at this stage, leaving the more benign ones to be marketed and used.

you appear to be of the mindset that plants are completely helpless, and just sit their waiting to be eaten by insects (etc). that's not true (which should be fairly self-evident) - rather, they produce complex repertoires of chemicals by metabolic pathways that mammals do not have. further, these pathways are upregulated upon insult by the insect, bacteria, fungus, or other predator in question. therefore, if the "pest" is controlled by artificial means, endogenous production of these mostly untested chemicals remains low. if the "pest" is not controlled artificially, the plants dramatically (often by several-thousand fold) up-regulate the production of their natural pesticides. if you wish to believe that these natural compounds are benign i have no objections. however, for those who wish to take a scientific approach and actually do the experiment, in the few cases where these natural compounds have been tested, they have been every bit (or more) as carcinogenic and otherwise bad for human health as man-made chemicals.

[enki23]

125. and then they're usually engineered to be *less* toxic to humans

.

[ecoalex]

129. yes vinegar is vary carcinogenic

We all know the toxicity of vinegar, flame weeding with propane, and orange/clove/soap oils, it almost wiped out......no it didn't.if 'organic' pesticides from plants are so bad, why is the new generation of pyretheums OMRI labeled/acceptable? Sorry, no sale

[ecoalex]

137. Synthetic pesticides derived from plants

Firstly there are many defences in the plant world, brix is used by ecofarmers to protect plants. Plants with adequate nutrition have barrier protection, ( waxes ). Healthy plants are invisable to predatary bugs, they absorb ultra infared light ,and can't be picked up by the bug's antennae , searching for stressed,plants, reflecting the infared light. There is a world of difference from isolated toxins to the targeted pest, and pesticides derived from a whole plant or animal source. Why is it that synthethic cannibis ( cannibinol )drug does not give the efficacy of treatment of the whole plant smoked? It lies in the "nuances" of a natural plant material used for medicine, or other uses compared to "isolated" synthetic materials? I doubt the original herbicide , which was derived from the noticing that weeds were suppressed with the auxins exuded from oats.So many farmers know that interseeded oats and alfalfa work well, the oats suppressing the weeds with the auxins( hormones) from their roots, supressing weed competition for the alfalfa, allowing it to get a early start before the weeds.This hormone was then made into an ester( synthetic ) and graduated to I believe synthetic 2,4 D, I maybe wrong on the particular herbicide, but the 'science' model is correct for the original herbicide.

[treepig]

75. in regard to my previous post

the point isn't necessarily that natural pesticides are good, it's just that just because mother nature makes something, that doesn't mean it's harmless.

mother nature, given the slightess opportunity, won't hesistate to infect you with the ebola virus dealing you a fast but painful death, send a rabies-ridden raccoon to gouge your eyes out, or install a chimpanzee in an office of incredible power. and that's just a start of what she'll do to you. be afraid, very afraid.

[Eloriel]

30. GardensAlive! That's what you're looking for.

They sell all sorts of wonderful organic products for your lawn (incl weed suppressants), plus flower and vegetable gardens, and gardener equipment and supplies. They're great.

http://www.GardensAlive.com Or call 513-354-1483 (Customer Svc) and ask for a catalog. I've ordered a few things from them and found them to be terrific people, very customer-service oriented. I've been happy with my products, too.

Go for it!!

[Pathwalker]

55. Thank for remining me, El - time to mail my order to them!

I have the ugliest lawn in my neighborhood, and I DON'T CARE! I'm working my way to getting rid of it entirely. My township let the ordinance lapse that required lawns, so guess what - it's outta here! We're installing mulch (I only use CERTIFIED pure hardwood mulch becuase as it breaks down, it improves my soil) and peastone paths around our little acre. A flower bed here, vegetable beds there, there, and there, shrubs and treeas everywhere, and pretty soon, I'll have to sell my lawn mower. I can hardly wait.

I use boiling water wherever possible to kill weeds, and we pull the rest. We just give them names like Cheny, Ashcroft, Bush, Condi, etc. and rip and tear. It's therapeutic!

[HuckleB]

68. Pull a few weeds.

Don't get so dramatic. That's marketing. You pull the weeds when they're young, and you don't have very many weeds. It's as simple as that, especially if you have a lawn that's seeded with grass for your area.

[NewJeffCT]

84. I have a new lawn

at a new house. My lawn is mostly weeds, unfortunately.

[HuckleB]

86. Sounds like you have an old lawn.

And it sounds like the lawn in our backyard when we bought our house. I tilled it under, reseeded it with local seed, and have been enjoying its comforts ever since.

[NewJeffCT]

88. nope, brand new...

Just that mid-summer is not a good time for new grass to be growing up here in Connecticut.

[RobinA]

102. We Let Our Lawns

go to weeds. Once mowed you can hardly tell the difference, weeds and grass - it's all green from a distance. And dandilions never killed anybody. Plus, weeds don't need a lot of fertilizer that the ecosystem can do without.

[CrispyQ]

18. Monsanto is the most evil company in the world.

Besides, I don't use herbecides or pestcides. Of course, all my neighbors do, so I don't know how much impact my decision makes. But I still do what I think is right.

[bleedingheart]

20. Here is a recipe from my neighbor for home made insecticide

1 part Fels Naptha Soap Solution
1 part antiseptic mouthwash
2 parts of chewing tobacco juice


I used this on azaleas and it worked to keep down lacebug...

I am using it on viburnums right now ...

[Eloriel]

31. tobacco juice is a very strong toxin

I'd be very careful with it. In fact, I wouldn't use it, personally. It's probably better than commercial pesticides, but it's still VERY toxic and usually strongly discouraged by organic gardeners.

[bleedingheart]

44. I use it sparingly and only on stuff that is not edible.

I never use pesticides on edible stuff...I figure if I plant enough the bugs and animals can have some...and I will get what is left.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. never used the stuff & i love dandilions and weeds i have 23 acres of them

[Eloriel]

36. I've developed a very strong admiration for weeds

For their incredible variety, their various self-preservation methods, their tenacity, AND the good that they do.

Yes, they do good things. Aside from the fact that some of them are wonderful, useful herbs (dandelion whose root is a liver tonic and whose leaves and flowers can be used as food; plantain which is a great herb applied to insect bites; comfrey whose root is outstanding for almost any musculo-skeletal problems like sprains and bruises, and many others), they also prevent soil erosion, feed the soil in some cases (clover which fixes nitrogen in the soil), and help hold moisture in the soil.

That's not to say I don't pull weeds, and try to prevent them in places where I'm trying to grow flowers or vegetables. But I no longer think of them as some sort of "enemy."

[ElsewheresDaughter]

42. Eloriel my sentiments exactly...i learning to be a green witch myself...

Susan Weed, Woodstock, NY :7

[NJCher]

26. cancer, pets and how to get neighbors to stop using lawn chemicals

My mother lives in Nebraska. She used lawn chemicals on her lawn and Ortho-type stuff on her garden. She is recovering from breast cancer now. Throughout her ordeal, she would often say the same thing to me: "I can't believe how many people have cancer! It seems like everyone does." The cancer treatment center where she goes is always filled with people.

This is an area where the farmers dump pesticides onto the land like there's no tomorrow. If you read some of the processes they go through you would cringe.

Here's an option for people who want to do stuff for their lawn but not use pesticides:

http://www.naturalawn.com

I used to belong to a couple organic gardener forums and we would get people joining at the rate of 3-5 per week because they'd learned lawn chemicals probably caused cancer in their pets.

Finally, here's one last idea for people surrounded by neighbors who use lawn chemicals. When I first moved to my neighborhood six years ago, every single person around here used Chem-Lawn or some such company. I did research on the I'net at night and printed up a lot of the more easy-to-read articles and research reports. Then I photocopied them and mailed them anonymously to everyone in the neighborhood. I got the addresses from the bi-street directory at the library.

Five years later, not one person uses Chem-Lawn. One by one, you could see the neighbors quit using them. Pretty soon, the Chem-Lawn truck just came around here no more.


Cher

[KittyWampus]

27. Roundup breaks down incredibly fast

I am an organic farmer who ON OCCASSION does us Roundup because its the best option.

[Eloriel]

32. Then you're not really an organic farmer, are you?

Do you have the USDA certification? Do you sell things as "organic"? Why not use full-strength vinegar?

[KittyWampus]

37. Because Full Strength Vinegar Is USELESS For When I Need An Herbicide

Sometimes RoundUp is the best option.

And saying I'm not an organic farmer because ON OCCASSION I use RoundUp is like saying someone doesn't practise alernative medicine because they occassionally take an antibiotic for a serious infection.

Post Script: I rarely sell my produce but when I have it isn't labelled organic even though it is organic I don't have a permit or whatever to say such a thing. HOWEVER, I do NOT use pesticides or herbicides in the immediate vacinity of my veggies.

[ecoalex]

46. Organic and round up don't mix

If you wish to look up the ill effects of round up. It is illegal in many european countries, seem that round up degrades into amines that disrupt protein synthesis in plants /people. Many degradeables of ag chems are worse than the original chemical applied.Organic is organic, to use round up is not being organic . I farm O.P.corn , and have always used non chemical practices to stop weeds to a non damaging thresold, after the canopy is formed, weed problems abate to almost nothing.

[DrWeird]

49. Round-up is an amine, and yes it disrupts protein synthesis...

in certain plants. That's what it's supposed to due. It inhibits the shikimic acid pathway in weeds when you apply them, then it degrades, and you can plant your crop.

[ecoalex]

64. Read my post on round up persistance

It lasts over a year, documented

[DrWeird]

66. Glyphosate is readily decomposed.

It has a half-life of about 32 days on average. In soils with poor microbial activity, it can be detected after about 3 to 4 years, but at very minute concentrations.

[ecoalex]

150. 4 years?

Like nuclear contamination , these chemicals have 1/2 lifes , and total lifes of possible antagonism to an organism . What is the threshold of an individual? Who is "condemed to disease due to heredity, health why add more stress to our immune systems? The argument that it's just another chemical , is absurd, we are literally walking profiles of synthethic chemicals already. To be comfortable with this is absurd, as the synergy of the many chemicals we are composed of do not come as a choice , it is from general exposure. I have heard of severe reactions to a person exposed to round up a short time after spraying.It was 6 months until she recovered.

[RobinA]

107. It Didn't Last

over a year in my garden. I'd say a month at best. It's quite lush and green in the area I sprayed. I try to use it as little as possible, but it does serve a purpose. I feel the same about the occasional pesticide if the bugs are really destroying something I've worked hard on. As far as Chem-Lawn and its ilk, our dogs die of old age. Of course, we don't have Stain Master carpets, either.

[KittyWampus]

51. The MINUTE Amount Of RoundUp Used Here Is Harmless

and again... I don't use it immediately on my veggies. But then I am repeating myself.

My family runs a bed and breakfast. It is essentially just my father and myself running a business.

We also have a community sized veggie garden as well as two acres to mow and take care of.

ON OCCASSION I use RoundUp. Outside the immediate garden area. It does the job most efficiently and with little needed to be applied. It goes DIRECTLY on the plants. I don't spray it indiscriminately.

For you to tell me that my vegetables aren't organic is obnoxious and untrue.

[ecoalex]

47. Round up persistance one year in some veggies/crops

Here's the facts, Round up is not safe, and is persistant

Compiled by Caroline Cox, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides- (NCAP)

Roundup, and related herbicides with glyphosate as an active ingredient, are advertised as products that can "eradicate weeds and unwanted grasses effectively with a high level of environmental safety." However, an independent, accurate evaluation of their health and environmental hazards can draw conclusions very different from those presented in the ads. Consider these facts:

1. Glyphosate can be persistent. In tests conducted by Monsanto, manufacturer of glyphosate-containing herbicides, up to 140 days were required for half of the applied glyphosate to break down or disappear from agricultural soils. At harvest, residues of glyphosate were found in lettuce, carrots, and barley planted one year after glyphosate treatment.

2. Glyphosate can drift. Test conducted by the University of California, Davis, found that glyphosate drifted up to 400 meters (1300 feet) durng ground applications and 800 meters 12600 feet) during aerial applications.

3. Glyphosate is acutely toxic to humans. Ingesting about 3/4 of a cup can be lethal. Symptoms include eye and skin irritation, lung congestion, and erosion of the intestinal tract. Between 1984 and 1990 in California, glyphosate was the third most frequently reported cause of illness related to agricultural pesticide use.

4. Glyphosate has shown a wide spectrum of chronic toxicity in laboratory tests. The National Toxicology Program found that chronic feeding of glyphosate caused salivary gland lesions, reduced sperm counts, and a lengthened estrous cycle (how often an individual comes into heat). Other chronic effects found in laboratory tests include an increase in the frequency of lethal mutations in fruit flies, an increase in frequency of pancreas and liver tumors in male rats along with an increase in the frequency of thyroid tumors in females, and cataracts. (ne fruit fly study used Roundup; the other studies used glyphosate.)

5. Roundup contains toxic trade secret ingredients. These include polyethoxylated tallowamines, causing nausea and diarrhea, and isopropylamine, causing chemical pneumonia, laryngitis, headache, and bums.

6. Roundup kills beneficial insects. Tests conducted by The International Organization for Biological Control showed that Roundup caused mortality of live beneficial species: a Thrichgramma, a predatory mite, a lacewing, a ladybug, and a predatory beetle.

7. Glyphosate is hazardous to earthworms, Tests using New Zealand's most common earthworm showed that glyphosate, in amounts as low as 1/20 of standard application rates, reduced its growth and slowed its development.

8. Roundup inhibits mycorrhizal fungi. Canadian studies have shown that as little as 1 part per million of Roundup can reduce the growth or colonization of mycorrhizal fungi.

9. Glyphosate reduces nitrogen fixation. Amounts as small as 2 parts per million have had significant effects, and effects have been measured up to 120 days after treatment. Nitrogen- fixing bacteria shown to be impacted by glyphosate include a species found on soybeans and several species found on clover.

10. Roundup can increase the spread or severity of plant diseases. Treatment with roundup increased the severity of Rhizoctonia root rot in barley, increased the amount and growth of take-all fungus, a wheat disease), and reduced the ability of bean plants to defend themselves against anthracnose.

These facts about Roundup are taken From a two-part article about the health and environmental hazards of glyphosate published in NCAP's Journal of Pesticide Reform. Copies of the article, with complete references for all of .the information presented, are available from NCAP for $2.00. NCAP, PO Box 1391; Eugene, OR 97440; [phone].

--

[Eloriel]

82. Thank you, thank you, thank you,

for your contributions to this discussion.

I realize I rattled cryingshame's chains with my comments, but it absolutely boggles my mind that anyone who purports to garden (let alone farm!) organically can be so blase about RoundUp, used ANYwhere. It's not even an issue in my mind about how "quickly" the stuff breaks down, but rather its use is absolute antithesis to the whole philosophy of and entire rationale for organic growing.

:shrug:

I just don't get it.

Let me explain a little more. I personally have always been "in favor" of organic gardening and farming. It just goes with the territory of being an aging hippie and raging feminist liberal, I think.

However, when I moved out in the country and for the first time in my life started a garden, learned organic gardening principles and techniques, and was able to observe Nature in action first hand, organic gardening wasn't just a good idea to me, it became clear it is the only SANE way to grow things. Work WITH Nature, not against her. Facilitate and enhance Nature's natural processes, her natural tendency toward balance.

All you have to do is look around you, wherever you are. Nature KNOWS how to grow things. She does that with or without us and often in spite of us, day in, day out, in every corner of the globe (even the poles, tho there may not be much plant life in these extremes). Where in God's name did we silly, imperfect, critically flawed human beings ever get the idea we know better than Nature, and can DO better than Nature? It's absolute folly. (Actually, I know where the idea came from, the so-called Enlightenment, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

The simple truth of the matter is this: if we want things to grow for OUR pleasure and use where Nature doesn't provide them naturally, all we have to do is provide the ingredients that Nature hasn't in our location. In addition to the particular plant stuffs, we may have to improve the soil texture and composition, add nutrients, help manage water, and also help manage pests and disease -- but doesn't it make more sense to do all that in ways that are Nature-friendly (esp. with her very own ingredients, brought in from elsewhere as necessary) instead of Nature atagonistic? Isn't it more productive to do so in ways that benefit the soil, and esp. its "microherd," help the beneficials of the area, and keep the humans who will be consuming the foods or enjoying and visiting the flower garden safe and even better fed than they otherwise would be?

Organic gardening/farming is the only thing that makes any sense to me whatsoever. Period. And no, it's neither less productive in terms of output nor in any other way less feasible.

[Palacsinta]

29. My yard looks like hell.........

compared to my neighbors. They all use weed & feed stuff and their lawns look like golf courses. Then there's ours............crab grass, clover, dandelions and plantains (?). I pull as much as I can but, really, it doesn't bother me. My grandkids can roll all over the place and so can my cats.........however, I am concerned about the poisons that leech over from the neighbors. . Nobody asks me if I mind, so I don't worry about my weed seeds traveling over to their lawns. It's kind of amusing, though.............I can read their minds when they look at our lawns............."Damn hippies!".

[blindpig]

33. lawns are a serious environmental problem

unless one foregoes all chemical applications. Where does that stuff go after it runs off? Your local watershed, possibly the oysters that you might slurp. And don't get me started on golf courses!

[trogdor]

34. Or in my well.

My wife brought home some of this shit this spring. It still sits in the garage because I refuse to use it. My question is, how do you dispose of it without farking up the environment.

[Eloriel]

39. That's the thing, isn't it?

I had a horrible experience similar to that several years ago. I bought some wheat straw at the local feed store to use as mulch around my vegetable garden, and I also used it with abandon in my compost pile to intersperse with all those greens (lawn and weed clippings during the summer). Unfortunately, I came to realize -- way too late -- that it was horribly contaminated. I think the compost broke it down well enough, but the corn I'd mulched grew stunted, turned yellow and didn't produce but one or two ears. I had no idea what was wrong, and of course blamed myself for being a terrible (and inexperienced) gardener.

In another area of the garden the following year I cleverly used wheat straw as a mulch cover to suppress the weeds during the summer. In the fall I planted some mustard and other greens mix after I applied about an inch of compost. The seeds germinated and did just fine in that compost cover, but when the roots extended far enough into the soil past the compost, they stunted and turned some beautiful but very unnatural colors (yellow, purple, lavender, chartreuse, etc.)

I had a tissue test done on these plants and they showed extremely high conenctrations of aluminum and some heavy metals (I've forgotten which ones). The extension agent said he used to see those kinds of values from herbicide/pesticide poisoned crops when he worked in the UGA lab that did these tests during school.

It could only have been the wheat straw "mulch" I used.

I came home and ripped up all the wheat straw I could where I had it in thegarden -- but then, WHAT TO DO WITH IT????? I couldn't just toss it in the woods on our property, certainly not responsibly esp. since any rain runoff fed two samll creeks downhill which feed larger streams. I couldn't (counterproductively) throw it on the compost pile. We have our own well that I didn't want any of the crap to reach into the groundwater. Didn't want to feed the landfill with these toxins. It was a horrible lesson re the insidious nature of this shit.

[Zookeeper]

127. County hazardous waste site?

In my county, we receive reminders once or twice a year to only dispose of paint, lawn chems, insecticides, etc. at a county-run hazardous waste site.

I believe there are also places for recycling some products like paint to people who are looking for a smallish amount and not too particular about the color. :)

[Bozita]

35. Purdue Univ study links lawn chemicals to cancer in dogs

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4797699/

Study links lawn chemicals to cancer in dogs

Purdue researchers hope to study children next

Updated: 7:01 p.m. ET May 21, 2004

WASHINGTON - A study that links lawn chemicals to bladder cancer in Scottish terriers could help shed light on whether they cause cancer in some people, U.S. researchers said in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association.

For their report, Purdue University researchers surveyed 83 owners of Scottish terriers whose pets had recently been diagnosed with bladder cancer.

“The risk ... was found to be between four and seven times more likely in exposed animals,” said Larry Glickman, professor of epidemiology and environmental medicine in Purdue’s School of Veterinary Medicine.

Human connection
“While we hope to determine which of the many chemicals in lawn treatments are responsible, we also hope the similarity between human and dog genomes will allow us to find the genetic predisposition toward this form of cancer found in both Scotties and certain people.”

more...

[Bjornsdotter]

38. Everyone has a perfect lawn.....

....except me!

I get so angry at my neighbors and I know that the feeling is reciprocated. We all have wells and the idiots who live here use professional pesticide services on their lawns. The lawns must be perfect...they are maniacal about that fact.

Well my lawn is perfect too! In the spring and early summer I have a wonderful crop of dandelions...they so beautiful with their sunny tops waving in the breeze. It drives my neighbors batty...I love it!

Cheers,
Kim :toast:

[sendero]

40. Could you.....

... provide a link to a reputable site that says Roundup contains dioxins? Because frankly, I find that hard to believe, as Roundup is a certain chemical that works in a completely different mechanism to all other herbicides. I can say with 99.999% certainty that Roundup is, from a chemical standpoint, completely unrelated to things like Agent Orange.

[DrWeird]

43. unmitigated bullshit.

Glyphosate does NOT contain dioxins, it is completely unrelated to Agent Orange, and poses NO health risks to humans or any other animals.

[Bruce McAuley]

53. No ill health effects? What are all these people talking about

???????
Well, maybe Weed-n-Feed doesn't have dioxins, then, but are the glycophosphates any better?
I think not, from all the personal observations on this thread, and my own as well.

Bruce

[DrWeird]

54. I don't know what the composition of Weed-n-Feed is.

I'm talking Round-up. Glyphosate. Completely harmless.

[mzmolly]

45. I don't use it any longer. I've also heard pesticides are just as bad.

I have a lot of weeds this year but it beats cancer.

I've also heard simple fertilizer is not the best?

[progressivebydesign]

48. I only use natural products on our lawn.. because..

.. anything you put on your yard is washed into the watershed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you put poisons on your lawns.. it will end up in the eco system. How hard is it to pull some damn weeds? I often ponder about what makes people think one flower is a weed to be killed, and another something prized. (yeah, I think about those things)

[HuckleB]

83. Exactly.

When did pulling weeds get replaced with a more time- and money-consuming practice like spreading weed and feed? If you pull the first ones early, there aren't going to be many to pull. So what's the big deal?

As for your point about weeds vs. flowers, I started a humorous conversation with a local gardening E-mail group about this a few years ago. It ended up going all over the place, including to the question of supposed "ethnic cleansing," which, uh, yeah, was probably not in good taste. But, your point is noted.

Salud!

[janx]

52. I use it, I love it, and I will continue to use it--twice a year.

We don't have much lawn area, thank God, as we xeriscaped the back. But in front we use it. Some students who live next door have nothing but weeds that continually infest our front yard.

But in coming years, we'll get rid of the grass in front, too, if we don't move.

[CaTeacher]

56. sensationalistic--but nothing to be concerned about

1) glyphosate does not contain dioxin

2) different species have varying sensitivities to dioxin--and humans are not very sensitive to the chemical. However, if you are a guinea pig you should be very concerned about dioxin exposure. Guinea pigs are the most sensitive species by far--and most toxicity data comes from studies of guinea pigs. However, this data cannot be extrapolated to humans.

3) the greatest source of dioxin exposure is from the furnaces of hospitals (from the burning of sheets etc--which they now do routinely after the advent of HIV) hospital workers are exposed to very high levels of dioxins--and epidemiology shows that they are not suffering illness due to that exposure--so I don't think the average person should panic over the comparatively teeny tiny amount that they may encounter in plastic material etc.

Agent Orange is a topic for another time--suffice to to say that most of the mythology that non-scientists spread willy-nilly about this plant defoliant is dead wrong.

[UdoKier]

60. I don't use herbicides on my yard.

I pull the weeds by hand when they are a problem.

I try not to use bug sprays, but there are times when we have to...

My neighbors yard is an unwatered weeed patch, so I have a feeling they are not using Roundup! :)

[Tsiyu]

63. Oh Boy

A Seneca writer spelled it out best, if I could only find the book to exactly quote him. He let the weeds grow and the neighbors complained, but there was a use for every plant (weeds ony to dummies) growing along his fence row.

I particularly love the dying dandelion ads the chem co.'s air. Dandelion is a fantastic plant. If you believe in God, you could say it appears at just the right time in Spring to cleanse the system and restore the body after the winter months of having few fresh greens.

But you will never convince some people that having a pure fescue or Zoysia or Bermuda lawn isn't the first step to godliness. I quit trying. But just be aware that that chemical crap IS bad for you, the environment and the rest of us.

[HuckleB]

65. well... i don't use anything on my lawn other than organic feed...

once a year. my lawn looks great, and i probably spend 30 minutes a year pulling the few weeds that find their way in. if you use grasses native to your area, there's really no need to use a weed n feed product.

not sure about the science of the possible ramifications, but i am sure that there's nothing good that comes from such products running off into our streams and rivers, which is why i stay away from them.

so you pull a few weeds? big deal. in the end, you spend just as much time going to the store to get your weed n feed, you waste money on it, time on it, and you come out poorer in the wallet and in time. just pull a few weeds.

this is a product that is not needed. why are so many people convinced that they need it?

[TexasSissy]

71. No need for me to worry....I have an organic yard.

Some organic products are toxic, so don't get me wrong about that. But I don't even use organic poisons.

Roundup and such things that kill strong weeds on contact are poisons. Obviously. I don't use poisons in general, EXCEPT when I have a severe problem and have tried non-toxic things to no avail, then organic poisons, to no avail. Then, and only then, do I progress to ONE use of a poison.

I have used poisons I think three times in my yard during the last 11 years. I hated to use them those times, but....

I'm sure my neighbors wish I'd use poison. I'm the only one on the block with weeds. Don't let organic books tell you that if your yard is healthy the good grass will choke out the weeks. That hasn't happened to my yard. I've just grown accustomed to the weeds. After all, if the lawn is mowed, you can't tell they are there, unless you look really closely.

I cannot prove, but I think with all my heart, that the high rate of cancer nowadays is related to all the toxic substances in teh environment. The least I can do is keep them out of my yard. AND IT MAKES ME FEEL GREAT THAT MY DOG AND CAT CAN ROAM FREE OF TOXICITY IN MY YARD, and never will a bird die from eating anything in my yard.

[HuckleB]

76. Actually, I never use anything on my lawn, and I have virtually no weeds.

And believe me, I've got to pull weeds in the other areas of the yard where we've planted native perrenials and some flowering annuals for color. And I've got neighbors down the street who have nothing but dandelions and other weeds for a lawn, so I know there are weeds in the area, but the lawn keeps most of 'em out.

I do admit to having used some nasty stuff on some blackberries that were taking over the yard, when we first moved in, several years ago, but nothing since.

[TexasSissy]

116. What kind of grass do you have?

I have both St. Augustine and Bermuda. I notice that there are tons of weeds in the Bermuda area, but very few in the St. Augustine areas. So I figure that St. Augustine is just less susceptible to weeds.

What do you do to keep the weeds out?

[HuckleB]

132. It's such a mishmash, at this point, that I'd just call it Amalgam.

The thing about lawns is that what works best varies greatly from region to region, even sometimes within a state. It's best to go talk to a very good local nursery, see what they say, and buy their local blends. Stay away from Big Box stores when it comes to buying grass and seed, as their varieties may not work well for your area, soil type, etc...

I just pull a few weeds in the Spring, as they come up. Put a little seed down where I pull them, and then I maybe pull one weed a week through summer, so it's never to big a deal.

Good luck.

[noonwitch]

80. I have a dog, I don't use any of that crap on my lawn

I do have problems with weeds growing, but I can live with that, literally. Everyone I know who has a dog that spends time in the yard beyond doing his business and sprays their yard with chemicals has had their dog die young of some kind of cancer.

Yeah, the bindweed is killing all my rosebushes and I have a lot of crabgrass, but my dog is healthy and she gets to run around the backyard a lot. I bought the house for the fenced-in yard for her to play in far more than for the pretty garden.

[TexasSissy]

117. Me, too. I feel so good knowing I don't have to worry about my dog

accidentally ingesting something poisonous in the yard. I let my cat out periodically for a breath of fresh air, and you know how cats like to eat greens sometimes....I don't have to worry about her eating the grass (or weeds, as the case may be).

I didn't know that about dogs dying young from cancer when the owners use chemicals, but that does make sense to me. My concern was more immediate, but long term safety should be a concern, too, I see.

[MissB]

81. I don't use it. Never will. (nt)

[yellowcanine]

92. Neither of these products contain dioxin. This is not true. Stop scaring

people with false information or someone might mistake you for *.

[enki23]

95. the manufacture of roundup does not lead to dioxin contaminants

the entire premise of your post is off. there's no factual information here at all. the manufacture of 2,4,5-T *did* entail the production of small amounts of various dioxins. oddly enough, this wasn't the case for 2,4-D, which made up the other main active ingredient in agent orange.

glyphosate herbicides, like roundup, are *relatively* nontoxic. obviously, there is no substance on earth that isn't toxic at some dose, so the really important point is that measurably toxic doses of glyphosate herbicides are pretty large for both acute and chronic endpoints.

and anyway, you are most certainly *not* "smelling" dioxins when you walk down the aisle in walmart. the nastiest dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tcdd, is odorless at any tested levels. there is no information on the other dioxins so far as odors are concerned. one thing you could be almost *certain* of, however, is that if you *were* smelling dioxins, you'd likely die a quick and nasty death.

[CaTeacher]

104. what she is smelling is most likely nitrogen compounds--

which are very common in fertilizers. Some also contain phosphorus compounds--these are also often "stinky". A little less commonly used, are fertilizers containing sulfur compounds (these smell like rotten eggs). If she is typically bothered while going down the shopping aisle--I would imagine that her sensitivity is to nitrogen compounds.

Although, I have never heard of someone getting a significant inhalation exposure by walking past the bags. It seems truly impossible for the compounds to reach a target (what is their target?)through this exposure pathway in sufficient amounts so that they may exert a toxic mechanism of action. Particularly suspect is the assertion that she "feels" the effects then and there--this is at odds with the known facts.

However, if you could prove this, I am sure you would have a very nice law suit.

BTW---all ice cream contains dioxin--the higher the fat content the more dioxin present. Ben and Jerry's was the highest in a series of tests a few years ago. It was actually published in a peer reviewed journal--but this was the only web link I could find

http://www.junkscience.com/nov99/benjerry.htm

[enki23]

106. nod. pretty much anything with non-synthetic fats contains dioxins

not just ice cream. same with pcb's and other highly chlorinated (and brominated) aromatics.

[Eloriel]

149. Hypersensitivity to some chemicals is probably a sign of

incipient environmental illness.

A number of years ago, after a bout with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (Epstein-Barr), among other lasting effects I noticed I could not abide any artificial fragrances any more -- perfumes and colognes and the like. I don't have physical reactions to them (that I know of), just a strong aversion.

Last week I was in a warehouse style fresh produce market and in one section, near the back of the warehouse, I detected the smell of pesticides. No reaction, other than a strong aversion (and a reminder of Tom Delay :P ).

I don't think I have an environmental illness per se, but I recognize with this hypersensitivity and strong aversion that the last thing in the world I need to do is subject myself to any more chemicals than I absolutely have to, even household cleaners and the like. I mentioned this aversion to a preventive medicine M.D. I consulted recently on another matter in the course of his taking my medical history, and he suggested I see an environmental illness specialist. I won't do that until or unless I get some other symptoms.

So I'd certainly suggest that anyone who has developed similar "aversion" or other signs of hypersensitivity stay widely clear of as many chemicals as possible. And NEVER forget that things are quickly absorbed through the skin.

For those who may be interested, Chlorella and spirulina are fairly good for detoxing some heavy metals (cilantro too, for mercury IIRC), and milk thistle is wonderful for protecting and helping rebuild the liver.

[TeeYiYi]

97. Pesticides Too Harmful to Use in Any Form, Doctors Warn

Pesticides Too Harmful to Use in Any Form, Doctors Warn
ALANNA MITCHELL / Globe & Mail (Toronto) 24apr04

The link between common household pesticides and fetal defects, neurological damage and the most deadly cancers is strong enough that family doctors in Ontario are urging citizens to avoid the chemicals in any form.

The frightening message came yesterday when the Ontario College of Family Physicians released the most comprehensive study ever done in Canada on the chronic effects of pesticide exposure at home, in the garden and at work.

"The review found consistent evidence of the health risks to patients with exposure to pesticides," the study said, naming brain cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer and leukemia among many other acute illnesses.

As well, the college found consistent links between parents' exposure to certain agricultural pesticides at their jobs and effects on a growing fetus ranging from damage to death. The risks, they concluded, can come even from residue on food, ant spray and the tick collar on the family cat.

The researchers also found that children are far more vulnerable to the effects of pesticides than adults because their bodies are growing, they have a greater skin surface in proportion to their size than adults, they ingest more food for their size than adults and they often have less-developed systems to excrete chemicals.

More: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2004/Just-A-Weed24apr04.htm

TYY

[Bruce McAuley]

99. NCAP data about glycophosphates...

http://www.1hope.org/glyphos8.htm
This data is about 10 years old, but I suspect it's still relevent.
OK, I admitted above somewhere I was wrong about the dioxins being in Roundup and Weed-n-Feed, but are glycophosphates or their surfactants killing you instead?

Bruce

[enki23]

100. considering all the *other* nasty stuff that we're exposed to

it seems unlikely, with present information, that glyphosate herbicides need to be a priority concern.

[Bruce McAuley]

103. I respectfully disagree...

Most poisoning happens at home, and inside or around our very homes. Was NIMBY created only for Roundup or W-n-F?
Do you trust your neighbors not to poison your water supply or air or dirt with their increasing use of poisons? Do you trust Dow or Monsanto to tell you the truth about their poisons, or the government to protect you from them?
Haw Haw is all I can say.
:hi:

Bruce

[Snow]

115. As a public health practitioner, I worry a lot more about cars....

crashes, tail-pipe pollutants etc. Do you know, whenever we do a study of neighborhood clusters of leukemia, especially the childhood forms, the first thing we have to do is adjust for the effects of vehicle traffic since that's one of the strongest predictors of leukemia rates.

[TexasSissy]

118. I disagree. The sheer volume of toxic use on lawns, coupled with the

frequency, makes what Americans use on their lawns of primary concern. Everything Americans use on their lawns ends up in the water supply. When there were fewer Americans and fewer weedkillers and pesticides, it wasn't as big a concern as now.

Read up on this subject, and you will be amazed at the level of pollution lawn care has contributed to our society.

There are many things that are toxic that have genuinely good and necessary uses. Lawn care, IMO, isn't one of them. Though good, I wouldn't consider lawn care a necessary use of pesticides and weedkillers. There are new subdivisions springing up which use natural landscaping for yards, instead of mowed lawns. The floor would consist of leaves and other things you find on the floor of a forest, with trees, wildflowers, etc. Those require upkeep, as lawns do, but do not require as many pesticides or weedkillers.

[enki23]

124. i agree lawn care is a huge offender

but in general i'm more upset about the "feed" than i am about the "weed."

glyphosate ends up *very* strongly adsorbed to soil particles. this acts as a fairly a strong limit on the amount that ends up in surface and groundwater, even though it actually is a fairly polar compound.

[yellowcanine]

105. Or maybe it is the butter on your bread.......

Point is, nearly anything can kill you if used improperly, or too much, etc. etc. But many substances have good qualities that make their use convenient or even necessary - water probably being the best example. Drink it and it keeps you alive. Breathe it and you die.

[Bruce McAuley]

108. No, the point is that most pollution occurs in and around the home.

It has already been established that most people get more pollution INDOORS than outdoors. Indoor pollution can take many forms. How about them cute little plug in scent nightlights? Poison.
Hell, even COOKING can produce indoor pollution, but we have to eat, now don't we?
Just about ANY perfumes have the same base nerve agents use, which is why some people are so chemically sensitive to scents, like my wife.
SOME people have no taste AND no sensitivity to these agents, but they might end up killing the person after 20 years or so.
The question is how to live with as little poison in your PERSONAL space and its surrounding environment.
Why add to your load with Weed-n-Feed that gets tracked right inside by you, your kids, or your pets? Seems kinda crazy, doesn't it?
:hi:

Bruce

[CaTeacher]

112. I'm not sure if I agree that more pollution occurs indoors--

what has actually happened is that as we have made our homes more energy efficient and well insulated--we also have less free exchange of indoor and outdoor air. Allergens and other things tend to get trapped within the homes--especially if people have pets etc.

Then--people are exposed to these contaminants in greater concentrations and for longer amounts of time. And to make things worse--all of our environments are becoming like this--our homes, cars, and work places are all well-insulated environments with very controlled interface between inside and outside air. This situation tends to trap nasties inside so that we get exposed to many things. And then more allergies and other problems develop.

It is not so much that there is more pollution indoors--it is just that contaminants and allergens get trapped indoors--because of our highly artificial living environment.

[Bruce McAuley]

120. Yup. More pollution indoors from whatever source.

[TexasSissy]

121. It's public buildings, not homes, that cause indoor pollution sickness.

Here in Texas we have ozone and air pollutant red alert days....it is too dangerous to go outdoors. If someone had told me when I was a child that the country would reach such a state that we would get alerted that it's too dangerous to go outdoors because of ozone depletion and pollution, I would've said that's science fiction and a scare tactic. Alas, it has happened.

And it didn't happen because of indoor cooking in private homes.

But I agree that to add to it by using unnecessary pesticides and weedkiller is silly.

[CaTeacher]

141. Actually, SHS (Sick House Syndrome)

is a more common phenomenon in homes than public building (hence the acronym).

Hasn't anyone here read about the homes in the east (where cellars and basements are common) that were contaminated with Radon? Many of these homes end up having to be razed to the ground (this used to be all over the news).

People also worry about asbestos and lead. (Lead is considered to be more of a problem in a home where small children live than in a public building--because the children may have extensive contact with the walls whereas presumably people passing through a public bulding have little prolonged or long-term contact with the walls.)

This is a good link that explains some of the problems in non-technical terms.

http://www.onthehouse.com/wp/20020218

Edited to add: And let's not forget mold! This is a problem increasingly getting attention in the media.

[ecoalex]

151. Indoor pollution

Most indoor pollution is from cleaning agents, and cleaners with chlorine, and other toxics in them. Bathroom and oven cleaners top the list. There are good alternatives that are not toxic, again do some reading.

[DrWeird]

110. You can't even get the name right.

It's glyphosate, not glycophosphate.

And your link is terribly misleading.

Yes, it's an irritant if you get it in your eyes. Yes, if you drink large amounts of pure glyphosate it could kill you. But so could dish soap, or table salt. You don't go around calling table salt an "acute human toxin" that will cause cancer if you sprinkle it on your popcorn.

[Bruce McAuley]

126. You can drink it, not me...

http://www.monsantowatch.org.uk/Products/roundup.htm
I'll pass!
:hi:

Bruce

[Cleita]

114. I don't use it except in cracks and retaining wall blocks

that weeds have grown in. I weed the old fashioned way with a trowel. However, as to it's toxicity, my understanding is that Round-up is made with processed animal urine, so it's organic in origin. If your dog pissed on your lawn and ground cover regularly, it kills it. I think this is the principle behind these weed killers.

[OneTwentyoNine]

122. Not if you use it correctly.....

Actually I don't use those all in one BS packages,IMO they don't work. I ran a lawn care business for 6 years (87-92) and I'm still alive and kicking. I've was doing it when even diazanon was legal.

First off don't hire those guys like Chemlawn. Those SOB's dump more crap on lawns in one season than all the farmers in the World. They want to come by and treat around here even when the snow is flying--its a joke. They want to treat at least 8-10 times per year which is total overkill.

Get grass thats suited to your area and keep it well watered--right there you've eliminated 99% of the weeds. The few that you have can be shot using a bottle as small as a old Windex bottle and some weed killer. Don't shoot the whole damn yard like Chemlawn,just spray the few weeds that you have. Do it on a calm day and all will be well.

David

[MISSDem]

123. The professor must have gotten

tired of talking with us idiots who don't want to put poison on our gardens and don't think anyone else should be allowed to either.

[LiberalEsto]

128. spraying 2,4D at school bus stops

About 10 years ago I drove past my kids' school bus stop and saw a lawn company employee spraying there. It was blowing all over the little guys, (grades K-5) who couldn't go home to get away from it, even if they knew it was dangerous stuff.
I asked the guy what he was spraying. He reluctantly told me it was 2,4 D but insisted it was no big deal. I looked it up, and when I found out it was a probable carcinogen I went and raised hell with the school board, the school superintendent, and every elected official I could think of.
Luckily I live in a progressive community (Montgomery County, MD). The school district called every lawn company in the county and told them that spraying near kids at bus stops was prohibited, as of that week. I believe since then they have enacted a formal ban. I've never seen this happen since.

DO YOU KNOW IF LAWN COMPANIES ARE SPRAYING NEAR YOUR KIDS as they play or wait for school buses?

If they do, fight back!

Last year I lost my dog to a horrible sinus cancer. We don't nuke our own lawn with chemicals, but she may have encountered the toxins on our neighbors' lawns while sniffing at their mailboxes and shrubs.

[Zookeeper]

134. Why take any chances?

Maybe it's toxic, maybe not. But we know it's not really necessary, unless a homeowner is absolutely "anal" about having a weed-free lawn.

My previous neighborhood was full of lawn chemical junkies. One of my neighbors introduced himself by telling me that my lawn was full of weeds and he was there to help me out by preaching the gospel of Scott's Turfbuilder. A couple of years later, he died rather quickly of colon cancer. At the same time, my next door neighbor (also chem junkie)was diagnosed with terminal cancer. And a year later, the neighbor across the street from the Scott's user, was diagnosed with colon cancer (which she survived, happily). I have no scientific proof that these cancers were caused by lawn chemicals, but it is certainly worth noting.

My current neighborhood is a little bit more relaxed, but my next door neighbors, who have a three-year old child and a dog regularly have Chemlawn out to poison their lawn (and mine, if the wind is blowing). They were also tacky enough to keep their Norm Coleman sign on the lawn during the days after the Wellstone's untimely death.

[Snow]

135. See, the way to study this, and it's not that hard, is to

gather a group of people with cancer, another group without, and compare the use of lawn chemicals in both groups. If the cancer patients have used more, then you have proven your hypothesis. What your or anybody else's anecdotes lack is that bit about the rate to which non-cancer patients also use lawn chemicals.

I realize this is vastly oversimplifying the exposures, ie the chemicals can drift, the dog can bring them in, how many years elapses from exposure to cancer, so forth and so on, but the point I want to get across is that observation of what seems to be a cluster of cancer cases in an area of heavy lawn treatment is not enough to test the question of "Does lawn treatment raise the risk of cancer?" There's an implicit comparison, and until you collect exposure information on people without cancer, you can't address the question.

Then of course there's the question of other exposures - viz, do people who treat their lawns and sport Coleman yard signs also smoke cigarettes? You get the idea.

[Zookeeper]

139. Well, as I said...

I certainly don't have proof that the lawn chems caused my neighbors' cancers. But, it's common sense to balance the risks of an action to the action's benefits. I'm not attached to the idea of a weed-free lawn, so the possible risk outweighs the benefit. My neighbors have a different perception. I have been putting up with "second-hand" Chemlawn for way too many years though, in this, and my previous, neighborhood.

I'm happy that people are becoming more open to alternatives to golf-course style lawns.

[Walt Starr]

138. Not me, no synthetics on my lawn or in my garden.

I fertilized my lawn with Espoma Plant Tone, followed by an application of Earth Juice mixed in a balanced method.

A couple weeks after that I applied a mixture of Mexican and Jamaican Bat Guano, waited a week, then lightly applied Urea.

Next month I'll put on another application of Espoma Plant Tone and dress the lawn in October with a light layer of sifted compost.

[Zorra]

140. I grew up around apple orchards.

And there is nothing like the smell of parathion or malathion as you drive down the road on a beautiful, sunny summer morning. Yuk.

Hi, Bruce! :hi: Great post. Thanks.

"A terrible mine is a good thing to waste";)

Hope you are still in office.

[Bruce McAuley]

146. Actually, we moved to Republic...

We could NOT have lived in the Okanogan Valley anywhere, or my wife would have been dead or dying of some strange cancer.
Had some good friends who died young of the valley sprays, and while my evidence may be anecdotal and my facts lacking in spots, still and all I think you have to make your personal environment as clean as possible if you want to live to an old age, and pollution starts AT HOME.
Get rid of the plug in scents and the Bounce thingies for your dryer and the Weed-n-Feed, you're KILLING yourself with that crap.
Running for PCO next month.
:hi:

Bruce

[Zorra]

147. Yes, we need to start going organic, and stop using all these nasty

toxins. I agree with you, Bruce, it starts individually, at home. We need to be responsible about the products we use, and the corporations we support. There are many environmentally and people friendly products available at co-ops these days. Parathion, malathion, roundup, etc., were, and probably still are, (as you well know), often used very indiscriminately and unsafely in the valley.

No nasty chemicals in my house, and I try not to put them in my body with the food I eat and water I drink.

Good luck in the election, hopefully the rez will pull through for you if it is part of your district.
:toast:

[West Coast Democrat]

152. "Bounce thingies" for the dryer?

you mean fabric softener sheets? I love the smell. I hadn't heard those were harmful.

[depakid]

144. BE WARY of eating blackberries by the side of the road

however tempting they look.

Unless you know for certain, the chances are that they've been sprayed with some herbicide or another by the county or state, or had contaminated oil from dirt roads kicked up on them.

[Lorien]

148. My dad lives a few miles from a Scottslawn plant

and about 30-40% of the people in his neighborhood have cancer. I keep asking him to move out of there, but he seems to enjoy his home too much . :-(

Every spring and fall when my neighbors fertilze their lawns, I end up taking extremely sick birds and baby raccoons to the wildlife rehab center. Most of them die within a few days, and the majority of the survivors end up brain damaged. The wildlife center workers always give me a harsh lecture about spraying my lawn with weed and feed or pesticides, but I'm not the one doing it (my lawn looks like crap). Unfortunately, my neighbors think NOTHING is more important than a perfectly green lawn-they even cut down the magnificent live oaks on their properties to give more sun to their beloved lawns!(which of course means that they need to water them more often). I'll take native ground covers and trees over a toxic carpet any day!