From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Montoursville, PA

QUOTE: "This is a time when forces of a very different nature too often prevail--forces careless of life or deliberately destructive of it and the essential web of living relationships.

My particular concern, as you know, is with the reckless use of chemicals so unselective in their action that they should be called biocides rather than pesticides. Not even the most partisan defenders can claim that their toxic effect is limited to insects or rodents or weeds or whatever the target may be.

These are large problems and there is no easy solution. But the problem must be faced. As you listen to the present controversy about pesticides, I recommend that you ask yourself, "Who Speaks? And Why"? UNQUOTE

2/4/2004 11:33:45 AM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

Rachael Carson, 1963

2/4/2004 12:29:30 PM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

I'm sorry Dwaine. My comment is probably going to ruin this thread.

While I honor her determination to a seemingly nobel cause, she may be responsible for as many as 60 million Malaria related deaths world wide since the needless ban of DDT in 1972.

I know this will now start a fire storm a hate related posts & likely accusations of "nuke the birds" & "chemical charlie" or "snake oil selling chemical industry lackey" & other lovely names. It's OK. I've been called all these & more. I'm thick skinned! LOL I can deal with it. But remember; In Africa alone, a child dies of Malaria every 30 seconds. Worldwide - every 12 seconds someone dies of Malaria. So prepare well. LOL

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html

Fire away!

2/4/2004 12:44:25 PM

Bemidji, MN

I'm neither pro/con of pesticide/insecticide usage, but do accept the fact that they are used and sometimes necessary. We own 21 sections of land in North Dakota , that is/has been farmed for many years. Thirty years ago, for the most part, all of it was cropland, void of much native vegetation/wildlife. Thru the use of pesticides/insecticides/chemical ferts, we are able to produce the same quantity,sometimes even more, on 1/3 less land, than when we cropped everything. In turn, this has allowed us to return a huge amount of acreage back to wildlife habitat/natural vegetation. To me, this is a win/win situation for all. If we banned/forbid the use of such things, would/could we still produce the quantities of crops needed....yes. But in return, you would turn many thousands of acres of wildlife habitat/etc, back into cropland...thus defeating any positve purpose. Just my two cents. Steve

2/4/2004 12:45:23 PM

Indiana

If these people didnt die of malaria they would die of starvation from the overpopulation that would eventually happen, so which is worse?
Steve

2/4/2004 4:30:49 PM

Montoursville, PA

I think I see the almighty dollar facts bring about the changes in agriculture. Most of the questioned synthetic products are produced using natural gas, a non-renewable resource. The increasing cost, of this non-renewable resource is the major product cost factor.

Many smaller acreage growers are now discovering they can produce with less synthetics. Some have found they can produce some of their crops using none of the synthetics they once thought they could not live without.

It will likely be a necessary consideration that larger growers will ban together to solve this very difficult problem as they are forced to do so for economic reasons.

In the meantime some hobby growers, smaller independent and larger vegetable sites and fruit producing sites have already achieved outstanding success. In the Northeast there are more than a few that have solved the problem in turf management. If some can do this it stands to reason given time and American inventiveness all can and will eventually overcome the present practices and evolve into ways and practices we do not envision possible today.

We do not need partisan wars anymore. It is already happening. We do not need emotional scare tactics. Any intelligent observer can read of the present successes and failures. The net is full of interesting happenings as this change back to basics is gaining momentum. Not every load of poop tossed on a parking lot will grow a successful anything...so expect failure as a learning process.

2/4/2004 7:32:22 PM

White Plains, NY

The Hobbyist has the luxury of growing as to his liking.

The Commercial grower does not! Without the use of chemicals our food supplies would be greatly diminished and would cause starvation to many. Our life span has been greatly enhanced with our advancement of the sciences. In short the big picture is that commercial growers must use chemical and you the hobbyist do not. So Grow a giant your way.

2/5/2004 11:16:23 AM

Oz

ok reality check,,,
short of killing every mosquito on earth you will never stop malaria.
needless ban of ddt? lol
tell that to the "tree huggers" who measure the health of eagle eggs.
every year away from ddt and the shells get thicker.
the data is there and so is the truth.
if you wish to see it.
money tends to blind most people,,
handling name calling is that hard,not addressing the possibility that the names fit is easy also.

2/6/2004 4:31:50 PM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

OK. Accurate reality check. I've studied this issue for years now. Let's try to forget what we hear on TV and think real science.

The egg shells thinned due to the lack of calcium & phosphorus in the birds diet caused by a lack of insects to eat. The Poultry industry screamed bloody murder when DDT was banned. They used it to control lice, mites, etc in the coops. They did there own studies to try & save DDT. When layers & cookers are fed DDT on purpose, their eggs shells actually thickened very slightly! It took the better part of 10 years for real scientists to figure out why. But by 1983 no one cared any more.

The chemical companies let DDT go on purpose. They had the data to keep it. But they also had new Patented (read more expensive) Chemicals to sell. No idiot would pay more money for less performance as long as DDT was available so they let it drift on down the river. I've spoken to the ones who were there & watched it happen. Young men then. Nearing retirement now. Maybe someday one of them will write a book & come clean.

No insecticide should ever be used as widely as DDT was. But that wasn't DDT's fault. It was just so cheap that everyone & their brother was spraying it from trucks, trains, & airplanes. No place was sacred. Think about it. Many metro center urban homes didn't even need window screens by 1960. We decimated flying insects for a good long time by overuse of insecticides in general. DDT just had the good fortune of being the fall guy. It was & still is the cheaapest way to kill bugs fast & good.

DDT is now in every living thing on Earth & it's here for good. And we're living (on average) about 31 years longer now than folks did in the years prior to it's dicovery & wide spread use. LOL

So yes. It was about money. But that's all it was about.

2/6/2004 5:53:50 PM

Schenectady,New York

I was a commercial applicator back in the early 60's and used to spray resorts and summer camps for misquitoes and blackflies and used DDT by the 55gal drum. We put the chemical where it was supposed to be placed and it did a good safe job. The state of New York sprayed thousands of gals. per week in the Adrondack Mts to control spruce budworm. They sprayed it in the lakes and streams which contaminated the fish which humans and eagles eat. It was the misuse of the chemical that did all the damage to the environment. Human error does it again. The chemicals today don't last as long and aren't as effective so you have to apply them more often and at a greater cost, hence the more money you pay for the same control. Tremor is right we're all going to pay more money from now on. Ray

2/6/2004 8:09:24 PM

Oz

ahhhh,,money/industry

no reports from the science community? the real one.
the ones that dont work for the industry.
of course not.
they are not swayed by money.

the us forest service used agent orange(dioxn) for years also.

if it stays in the ecosystem and doesnt break down quickly it is not enviormentally sound.

like i said,you cant kill all the bugs.
you never will.

WHEN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY IS DRIVEN BY MORALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, THE "TRUTH" WILL BE KNOWN.

THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN UNTILL THE PEOPLE DEMAND THE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE AND INVESTIGATE ALL THESE "SAFE"
CHEMICALS.

AS LONG AS THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY LOBBIES THE GOVERNMENT
THAT WONT HAPPEN.

im sure the thickining shell claim will prompt sane thinkers to to feed birds ddt!

the instructions to control mosquitos with ddt was to spray it on standing water. ie swamps. where the fish/frogs/etc live.
and the birds ate the contaminated food.............
and so did we.

the most recent wonder chemical is teflon.
great on non contact items,,,bad on food contact(non stick pans). ever wonder where it goes when it fails to stick to the pan? IN YOU.

2/8/2004 8:50:48 AM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

The government already does require safety testing & regulates the bloody bejeepers out of my industry.

http://www.epa.gov/

2/22/2004 3:32:08 PM

Kenyon, Mn.

Well, I do my gardening as organic as possible; however, I will use something "IF" All else has failed, then I try to use a Rotenone and pyrethrin combo. I wouldn't ever let something get the best of me though, but this year may be different. Is there a low-impact systemic?? To this date, no problem with borer, cucumber beetles are the main problem I have. And My view , I reckon is, Exp. people , who use chemicals, usually(not always) Do so with respect, MY problem is the idiots out there that think, More Is Better! I have talked to many gardeners that DO NOT READ the instructions at all. And I also DO NOT like the fact that ANY chemical kills the GOOD BUGS too.

2/24/2004 6:42:35 PM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

Couldn't agree with you more Mr. B. I once watch a moron dump a 400 sq ft squeeze tube of Ortho Sevin dust on a tree trunk from as high as he could reach (about 7') & a ring around the root flare about 6' in diameter. for a grand total of about 45 square feet. This was *AFTER* I told him that the Carpenter Ants he so detested weren't killing his tree. Rather the Ants only harbor & feed on the existing decay.

I thought I'd throttle the guy as I watched him from my friends deck as his wife 2 year old daughter & 4 year old son all got "dusted" b when the wind changed direction. Idiot!

Merit is the lowest impact systemic insecticide manufactured. And it works. Mammalian LD/50 of >5000. Three tenths of a pound of active ingredient per ACRE lasts a good 90 days & doesn't harm Earthworms. It does however kill some Arthrods that aren't really pests like Earwigs & Garden Beetles but they recover pretty quickly. Plus they often frequent areas we're not treating so the impact is pretty minimal. Since we drench Merit, it also won't impact Bees.

2/24/2004 6:58:05 PM

Kenyon, Mn.

Thanks Tremor!! Supplied at the local ag center I suppose??

2/25/2004 12:19:55 PM

Ctpumpkin@optonline.net

Not really. Check out:

http://store.seedoutlet.com/seedoutlet/insecticides.html

Brent's got the stuff.

2/25/2004 9:57:02 PM

Kenyon, Mn.

Thanks Tremor

2/26/2004 7:56:37 AM