tcreeley
Elite Member
People try so hard to protect the status quo!
Risk Article about spaying for weeds.
- Thread starter Gale Hawkins
- Start date
- Views: 1944
charlz
Elite Member
And some people will jump on any bandwagon that supports their world view.
They say right in the part I quoted that they have no evidence of anything that supports their observation... which leaves it wide open to a variety of suspects.
NorTracNY
Platinum Member
Maybe we need a rule that only someone with a degree in science can report on scientific articles.
charlz
Elite Member
I have a degree in science. I would say we first need scientific articles and not news articles which are the writers interpretation of scientific articles and/or papers. Unfortunately most scientific articles/papers are 'pay to play' so beyond the reach of most. In the case of the French Farmers you need a subscription to the American Journal of Epidemiology which can be had for the incredibly low rate of $400/year for individuals.
The bee article on the other hand is available for free. It is free because it is published by an organization which believes the common man should have access to scientific information and not have to rely on the interpretations of others. This article, if you read it, attributes bee problems to the levels of fungicides not herbicides which is what the French Farmer article is about.
So right out of the gate we are not very scientific-y.
PoorPlowboy
Platinum Member
Since when does applying a fungicide equate to "spraying for weeds?" Whoever correlated the two should be kicked in the nuts.
tcreeley
Elite Member
We had a company up here - Holtra Chem that for years leached huge amounts of mercury into the Penobscot river. Its people said there was no problem. It took the courts and finally the state (with public urging) to get them to clean it up- and it still is incomplete.
The state likes to do business its way. The state EPA used to say portions of the Penobscot river were fine- met expected safe levels. The Penobscot Nation, located on an island in the Penobscot river thought otherwise as they were downriver from a papermill. The algae bloom was readily visible for miles down the river coming from the mill. The Penobscot Nation hired people to take water samples and sent them out to a lab. Their results were inconsistent with the state's results. This went to court and with further testing the state EPA admitted their results were incorrect, and they started some clean up of the contamination.
These two situations resulted from maintaining the "status quo". The state "protected" the mill and Holtra Chem until public pressure and the courts were involved. The state protected the status quo- rather than adopting a pro-active attitude to protect the lives of its citizens. (Doesn't help that Maine has the highest cancer rate in the country).
In this state the bluberry fields are sprayed (pesticides) from the air. The pilots are frequently not paying attention to the weather, just inaccurate, or whatever, but spraying residences as well. People complain of feeling ill from this, and the state tends to look the other way. Our local international airport used to spray deicer on the wings in heavy doses. It went down the storm drains and made it into the local Kenduskeag river. Residents along the river would complain of the smell and headaches. This went on for years before it was finally tested for and addressed. Today the airport employs a recovery system to keep the de icer out of the local river.
People always protect the status quo.
Why don't we require business to prove a product/process is safe, before they can use it in their operations. Why do we wait for illness to become evident, biological impact to be evident before we begin to investigate. The lag time runs 10-20 years. That is a lot of impact time.
Just think if the FDA operated in that manner- think of the drugs (untested) that would be available + the effects.
That is what we are doing with everything else- waiting until the illness/catastrophe reports come in before we'll address potentially toxic situations.
The state likes to do business its way. The state EPA used to say portions of the Penobscot river were fine- met expected safe levels. The Penobscot Nation, located on an island in the Penobscot river thought otherwise as they were downriver from a papermill. The algae bloom was readily visible for miles down the river coming from the mill. The Penobscot Nation hired people to take water samples and sent them out to a lab. Their results were inconsistent with the state's results. This went to court and with further testing the state EPA admitted their results were incorrect, and they started some clean up of the contamination.
These two situations resulted from maintaining the "status quo". The state "protected" the mill and Holtra Chem until public pressure and the courts were involved. The state protected the status quo- rather than adopting a pro-active attitude to protect the lives of its citizens. (Doesn't help that Maine has the highest cancer rate in the country).
In this state the bluberry fields are sprayed (pesticides) from the air. The pilots are frequently not paying attention to the weather, just inaccurate, or whatever, but spraying residences as well. People complain of feeling ill from this, and the state tends to look the other way. Our local international airport used to spray deicer on the wings in heavy doses. It went down the storm drains and made it into the local Kenduskeag river. Residents along the river would complain of the smell and headaches. This went on for years before it was finally tested for and addressed. Today the airport employs a recovery system to keep the de icer out of the local river.
People always protect the status quo.
Why don't we require business to prove a product/process is safe, before they can use it in their operations. Why do we wait for illness to become evident, biological impact to be evident before we begin to investigate. The lag time runs 10-20 years. That is a lot of impact time.
Just think if the FDA operated in that manner- think of the drugs (untested) that would be available + the effects.
That is what we are doing with everything else- waiting until the illness/catastrophe reports come in before we'll address potentially toxic situations.
MotorSeven
Elite Member
How about a not so scientific observation? No one around here sprays fungicides, only herbicides. As a former member of a Bee club here in the last 4 years 100% of our members lost 70-80% of their hives. Yes, they are also under attack from non indigenous insects brought over from other continents which clouds the issue. But whatever it is, the loss rate is astounding and I am quite confident that herbicides play a major role.....lets just call it a hunch, or if you prefer a WAG
MotorSeven
Elite Member
Speaking of aerial spraying, we had a pretty big fluff here over the TVA spraying their powerline right of ways on private property via helicopter. TVA was refusing to stop the practice even though many were complaining. An unidentified individual with a dreaded assault rifle took quite a few shots at or in the general direction of their bird. All spraying operations permanently ceased at least in our County.
tcreeley
Elite Member
Sometimes you have to do what is needed!
