From ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA Mon May 30 00:19:16 EDT 1994
Article: 33710 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ken Toews)
Subject: Pesticide FAQ
Message-ID: <CqH0uv.Ao3@freenet.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca
Reply-To: ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ken Toews)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 17:06:31 GMT
Lines: 606




BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON PESTICIDES.

 BY FAX PHONE 825-4034
 EMAIL CONTACT ar367@freenet.carelton.ca


WHAT IS AN ADDICTED LAWN?


     An addicted lawn is a lawn without a healty biologically
active soil. Pesticides like 2,4-D and MCPA destroy the life giving
property of soils making harmful fertilizers like urea necessary.
a viscous and very profitable circle. Your lawn has become addicted
to drugs.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:


1: Commonly used lawn care products contain products that are known
to cause cancers of the kidney, testicles, stomach, colon, prostate
and liver. Also disorders of the skin and liver, reproductive and
developmental disorders, low sperm counts, increased birth defects,
phycological effects, immune system disorders, gastrointestinal
ulcers, and altered lipid metabolism are known to occur in people
who use pesticides.

2: Pesticides have been linked to childhood brain tumours and
leukaemia.

3: Pesticides mimic natural estrogens, because of this they are
associated with breast cancer and testicular cancer.

4: Dogs of home owners who spray pesticides are more likely to get
one of the fastest growing types of cancers in humans.

5: Pesticide use is growing, especially in the lawn care industry.
Its growth is paralleled by a steady increase in cancer deaths in
humans.

6: Humans are in the process of becoming immune to pesticides, like
any population where this has occurred a majority of the population
must die or fail to reproduce. Human sperm counts are down 50% over
the last 50 years.

7: Pesticides pose a serious threat to ground water, birds, bees,
fish.

8: Most pesticides have NOT been tested for safety. They are
regulated. There is no safe pesticide. 

9: The process to determine if a pesticide is safe is called risk
assessment. This process is used to calculate how many people it is 
acceptable to kill with a product. 

10: Evidence indicates that the pesticide industry can not be
trusted. In the past they have shipped banned products to the third
world, used dangerous manufacturing processes that have killed
thousands of people and they have falsified product safety data.

11: Lawn care companies regularly misrepresent their products as
safe. No government agency has ever labelled any pesticide as safe.

12: Workers with at least one year of exposure are more likely to
get cancers of the lung and suffer unexplained premature death.
There is a dramatic increase in soft tissue sarcomas among
pesticide workers.

13:You can stop pesticide spraying in your community. On Aug 19
1993 a superior court judge ruled that the municipality of Hudson
was legal in passing a bylaw outlawing the spraying of pesticides
around homes.
     Although pesticide regulations are a matter of provincial
jurisdiction the Judge decided the town council acted in response
to a PUBLIC HEALTH MENACE under Quebec's Cities and Towns Act.
Ontario has a similarly worded act that allows municipalities to
rule on matters that are of concern to the health and well being of
residents. 



COMMON WEED KILLERS ARE LINKED TO HEALTH PROBLEMS


     There have been over 200 independent studies that link 2,4-D
with various diseases. 2,4-D is found in 1,500 over the counter
weed killers.  The National Cancer Institute has linked pesticide
exposures to lymphatic cancers. Their study was based on 948
farmers who had cancer and an equal number who did not. Exposed
individuals were 600% more likely to contract cancer than people
who did not contact the pesticide. Farmers who used protective
equipment, such as respirators, gloves, and a change of clothing
after contact were able to reduce the risk by only 20%.
     Hazleton laboratories found that 10% of rats exposed to 2,4-D
developed brain tumours. 2,4-D is contaminated with dioxins during
manufacture. Dioxins are the most potent poison known to man. 
     The Veterans Legal Services Project of Washington D.C.
reviewed 285 different published studies of human exposure to
phenoxy herbicides and dioxins. They found that they caused
specific cancers, skin and liver disorders, reproductive and
developmental disorders, low sperm counts, spontaneous abortions in
the wives of the affected individuals, increased birth defects,
including skin, nerve, heart, kidney, and cleft lips and palate.
The study went on to say there was "sound scientific evidence" of
an association between the 2-4,D and a whole host of other diseases
including cancer of the kidney, testicles, stomach, colon,
prostate, liver, psychological effects, immune system disorders,
gastrointestinal ulcers, and altered lipid metabolism.
     Another common chemical used for lawn care is M.C.P.A. (4-
CHLOR-2METHYLPHENOXY ACIDIC ACID). This is an organic acid that is
closely related to 2,4-D. The chemical industry will create a
compound similar to a pesticide that is found to be dangerous. It
takes years for the new chemical to be proven as dangerous as the
old chemical.  
     The two most common weed killers used around the home are 2,4-
D and diazanon. Diazanon is known to be a hazard to songbirds.

SOURCES: 

A. Blair, " Herbicides and non-Hodgkins lymphoma New evidence from
a study of Saskatchewan farmers" Journal of the National Cancer
Institute Volume 82 1990 Pages 544-545

Olav Axelson and others, " Herbicide Exposure and Tumour Mortality"
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health Volume 6
March 1980 pages 73-79

Mikael Eriksson and others," Exposure to Dioxins as a risk factor
for Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Population based case control study"
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Volume 82 March 22 1991
pages 486-490

National Veterans Legal Services Project "Human Health Effects
Associated with exposure to Herbicides and or their associated
Contaminants - Chlorinated Dioxins" (Washington D.C. National
Veterans Legal Services Project, 2001 S Street N.W. Washington D.C.



PESTICIDES HARM CHILDREN


LEUKAEMIA

     A parents use of pesticides around the home can increase a
childs' risk of developing leukaemia.  A 1993 study looked at 123
pairs of families, one family with a child less than 10 year old
with leukaemia matched with a healthy child of identical age, race,
socioeconomic status and sex.
     Parental exposure to pesticides inside the home, or in the
garden increased the children's risk of leukaemia. Previous studies
have linked pesticides to leukaemia in farmers.  This is the first
study showing a link between household pesticides and leukaemia in
children.

BRAIN CANCERS

     The incidence of childhood brain cancers has increased 47%
between 1973 and 1988. The cause of brain cancer is unknown. It is
usually fatal. The average time between diagnosis and death is nine
months. 
     A 1993 study of brain cancer in Missouri children shows an
associations between brain cancer and pesticides. The products
included flea strips, collars, spray bombs, and the spraying of
yards for weeds.    This study examined 45 Missouri children with
brain cancer plus 2 control groups. Control group 1 was 85 healthy
friends of the cancer stricken children and Control group 2 was 108
children with other types of cancers.
     What distinguished the families with brain cancer was their
pesticide use. They used pesticides in their homes more often than
did families whose children did not develop brain tumours. The
study found 15 statistically significant associations between
pesticide use and childhood brain cancer. 

METABOLIC DISORDERS

     Pesticides can be eaten on food or absorbed through the skin.
Some interfere with the body's ability to use vitamin B-6. Vitamin
B-6 deficiency interferes with essential fatty acid metabolism. It
also has neurological effects ranging from epileptic seizures to a
feeling of pins and needles in the extremities.

MENTAL DISORDERS

     The American Journal of Psychiatry has reported three clinical
studies of patients who suffer from panic attacks as a result of
exposure to pesticides.
     Panic attacks are a medically defined condition involving:
confusion, disorientation, cold sweats, palpitations of the heart,
difficulty breathing, tremors, fatigue, muscular cramps, and chest
tightness. 
     The panic attacks became debilitating. These attacks were
brought on by the organic solvents in pesticides and were not dose
related. These are examples of ecological illness, like an allergic
reaction, to the presence of exotic synthetic chemicals in the
environment. If exposure to synthetic chemicals increases, more
such medical problems must be anticipated.

CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY

     15% of North Americans experience some form of increased
allergic sensitivity to chemicals or the environment. This
phenomena is increasing in occurrence and severity. Chemically
sensitive individuals are victims of the modern Industrial
environment. The best treatment is avoiding the use of unnatural
chemical agents in and around your home. Fortunately allergic
reactions to dandelion pollen are extremely rare. The size of the
dandelion pollen makes it unlikely to be a source of allergic
reaction.

IMMUNE SYSTEM DISORDERS

     There is a large and convincing body of evidence showing that
pesticides harm the immune system. Pesticide exposure is linked to
a variety of immune system disorders including suppressed T cell
activity, T cells are a particular kind of cell that circulates in
the blood and fights off bacteria,viruses, and cancer cells. The
incidence of immune system disorders is increasing in the general
public.
     It is noteworthy that the same rare cancers affect three
divergent groups; Farmers who have been exposed to pesticides,
patients with AIDS, and people who have had organ transplants who
are then given drugs to suppress their immune system. 

Sources:

Devra Lee Davis and Joel Schwartz, "Trends in Cancer Mortality:
U.S. White Males and Females, 1968-1973." The Lancet Vol 1 march 19
1988 pages 633-636.

Devra Lee Davis and Others "Is Brain Cancer Mortality Increasing in
Industrial countries?"  American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Volume  19 1991 pages 421-431

Tim Beardsley "Childhood Leukaemia" July 1987 
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Pages 39-46.

J.M. Peters; Brain tumours in children.... Science Vol 213
(1981) Pg. 235 237 

James R. Davis and others " Family Pesticide use in the home,
Garden,Orchard and Yard" Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology. Volume 22 1992 pages 260 to 266

Leo Galland M.D. Diane Dincin Buchman P.H.D. "Super immunity for
Kidsthe scientific guide to nutrition for children" page 13

D. Toth "Actual New Cancer-Causing Hydrazines, Hydrazides, and
Hydrazones" Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 97 (1980):97-108

D Toth and J Erickson, "Reversal of the Toxicity of Hydrazine
Analogues by Pyridoxine Hydrochloride," Toxicology 7 ( 1977):31-36

Stephen R Dager and others, "Panic disorders Precipitated...."
American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 144 August 1987 Pages 1056-1058
Reprints available from Dr Dager ZA-99 Harborview Medical Center 
325 9th Avenue, Seattle WA 98104

National Center for Environmental Health "Chemical Sensitivity" 
1100 Rural Avenue, Voorhees, N.J. 08043; 1-609-429-5358 

Ashford and Miller, "Chemical exposure: Low Levels and High Stakes"
NY Van Nostrand Reinhold 1990

P.T. Thomas and others, "Immunological Effects of Pesticides" in 
Scott R Baker and Chris Wilkinson, editors "The Effects of
Pesticides on Human Health" Prinecton N.J. Princeton Scientific
Publishing, 1990


PESTICIDE USE IS RELATED TO BREAST CANCER

     Scientists first found DDT in human breast milk in 1951. DDT
like many pesticides are more fat soluble than water soluble. 
Because of this they enter the body and build up in the fatty
tissues. In 1975 the Environmental protection Agency tested human
milk for pesticides. 100% of the samples contained DDT, 99%
contained PCBs and 83% contained dieldrins. All three of these
substances are carcinogens in humans.
     A 1982 study of human milk found that 75% contained the
following man made chemicals; methylene chloride, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, benzaldehyde, and acetone. 
     Is it surprising then that one in nine women now gets breast
cancer? Breast cancer appears to be caused by environmental causes
more than genetics. Women in Japan have one quarter the incidence
of breast cancer until they move to North America, then the levels
rise to North American levels. Cancer experts claim that 30% of
breast cancers can be attributed to social conditions. Birth order
(younger is better), exercise (more is better), animal fats (less
is better), green vegetable (more is better). But what of the other
70% of Breast Cancers?
     Recent conditions in Israel have shown that pesticides may be
an important cause of breast cancer.    Measurement of three
pesticides in  human milk in Israel in the 1970's revealed levels
of contamination of Lindane, alpha-B.H.C. and DDE in concentrations
1000 times higher than in Canada. (DDE is formed when DDT breaks
down and is more dangerous than DDT.) 
     In 1978 public protests brought about a ban of these
pesticides. There was a rapid reduction in all these contaminants.
By 1980 breast milk contamination had dropped by 90% or more among
Israeli women.
     During this unusual rise and fall of pesticide residue in
human milk there was a corresponding rise and fall of breast cancer
in young Israeli women. The scientists who studied pesticides and
breast cancer in Israel made the important observation that
pesticides mimic or interfere with estrogen metabolism.
Corroborating this view is a study of American women that shows
that women with elevated levels of pesticides have a higher levels
of breast cancer than a control group without elevated level of
these toxins. Research is showing that many synthetic pesticides,
mimic or interfere  with estrogen and other sex hormones in
wildlife and humans.

Sources:

Jerome B. Westin and Elihu Richter, " The Israeli Breast Cancer
anomaly"  as cited in Cancer statistics review 1973-1988 National
Institute of Health publications No 91-2789 Journal of the National
Cancer Institute.

Frank Falck Jr., and others "Pesticides and Polychlorinated
Biphenyl Residues in Human Breast Lipids and their Relation to
Breast Cancer." Archives of Environmental Health Volume 47 No 2
March 1992 pages 143-146

Edo D Pellizzari and others, "Purgable Organic compounds in Mothers
milk", Bulletin of Environmental contamination and Toxicology Vol
28 1982 pages 322-328

E.P. Laug, "Occurrence of DDT in Human Milk" Archives of Industrial
Hygiene, Volume 3 1951 pages 245-246

PETS ARE AT RISK FROM PESTICIDES

     According to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute dog
owners who spray or dust their lawns with weed killers containing
2,4-D are getting cancer at twice the rate of other dogs. Dogs walk
across or roll in herbicide treated lawns and then ingest toxic
chemicals when they lick their coats and paws. Naturally, children
who play on treated lawns will also come in contact with the
chemicals. Dogs and children will also track chemicals indoors
where prolonged exposure will occur. 
     People spread 2,4-D around homes and gardens to kill broad
leaf weeds, crabgrass, and dandelions. Farmers use it on tomatoes
to cause all fruit to ripen at the same time for machine
harvesting, and utility companies use it to clear brush around
roads and under hydro lines. It is used heavily on lawns, corn, and
rice to kill weeds. From 1962 to 1971 it was spread as Agent Orange
by U.S. Airmen. Thousands have filed lawsuits against the U.S.
government and companies that supplied Agent Orange because of
cancers and birth defects in their children. Vets who handled Agent
Orange are 70% more likely to father children with birth defects
than vets who did not handle Agent Orange. 
     Farmers who use this dangerous substance are getting the same
type of cancer ( Non Hodgkin's Lymphomas ) as dogs who roll around
on herbicide treated lawns. The occurrence of such cancers has been
slowly rising  for several decades tracking the emergence of the
modern lifestyle in which the dandelion free lawn has come to
symbolize the good life.

Sources:

Howard M. Haynes and others " Case control Study of Canine
Malignant Lymphoma: Positive Association with Dog Owners use of
2,4-D"Journal of the National Cancer Institute Volume 83
September 4 1991 Pages 1226-1231

Sheila K. and others " Agriculture Herbicide use and Risk of
Lymphoma
and Soft Tissue Sarcoma," Journal of the American Medical
Association.
Vol 256 Sept 5 1986 Pages 1141 - 1147

Ann Aschengrau and others " Paternal Military service in Vietnam
and
the risk of Late Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes" American Journal of
Public Health Vol 80 October 1990 Pages 1218-1224

A. Blair "Herbicides and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: New evidence from
a study of Saskatchewan farmers" Journal of the National Cancer
Institute Volume 82 1990 pages 544-545

Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson "The association between soft
tissue Sarcomas and Exposure to Phenoxyacetic acids" Cancer
Volume 62 August 1 1988 pages 652-656

Kenneth Cantor and others "Distribution of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas
in the Untied States Between 1950 and 1975," Cancer Research
Volume 40 August 1980 pages 2645-2652.


PESTICIDE USE IS GROWING

     Between 1950 and 1980 there has been a twelve fold increase in
the use of pesticides. On corn the increase in the use of
insecticides has been a thousand fold. Today the fastest growing
area of pesticide use is lawn care. North Americans spend almost
800 million dollars spreading 75,000,000 pounds of pesticide on
their lawns every year. The industry is growing at 9% a year,
doubling in size every 8 years.
     The growth of pesticide use has not reduced crop losses.
Between 1950 and 1980 with a twelve fold increase in pesticide use
crop losses to insects have increased from 7% to 13%. Clearly
insecticides are not effective. Scientific evidence only indicates
that wide spread use of any insecticide leads to an eventual
increase in the population of the target population. This is
probably due to the fact that pesticides kill the predators and
after an initial population decrease, the target population become
immune.
     Despite proof that in the long term pesticides do not work
more than one billion pounds of pesticides, 660 million pounds of
herbicides, 132 million pounds of fungicides, 268 million pounds of
insecticides, and 70 million pounds of related chemicals are used
each year in North America alone. There are roughly four pounds of
pesticides spread for each man women and child in North America
each year.
     The effect these chemicals have on our population is becoming
apparent. We must keep in mind that before 1950 there was no
significant use of pesticides. Since that time the increased
incidence of cancer has occurred as outlined in the following
chart. 
CANCER TYPE         PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN INCIDENCE
1950-1987
Colon                    +24.9%
Larynx                   +57.3%
Testicles                +97.3%
Bladder                  +52.5%
Childhood (all types)    +28.4%
Leukaemia                +2.6%
Lung                     +257%  
Skin                     +283%  
Breast                   +258%  
Prostate                 +97%
Kidney                   +101%  
lymphoma                 +153%  
Average                  +42%

Sources: 

U.S. National Cancer Institute ; Tyler Miller Environmental Science
Third Edition Belmont Ca. Wadsworth 1991 Pages 313-317

"Lawn care pesticides. Risks remain uncertain while prohibited
safety claims continue". U.S. Accounting office Free Upon request
phone orders accepted 1-202-512-6000 Ask for document # RCED-90-134

Devra Lee Davis and others "Agricultural Exposures and Cancer
trends in Developed countries," Environmental Health Perspecives
Vol 100 1992 pages 39-44

PESTICIDES AND IMMUNITY

     Between 1950 and 1980 nearly 500 important insect pests have
developed genetic resistance to common pesticides. It is estimated
that by the year 2000 virtually all major insect pests will show
some form of genetic resistance. In addition to insects, genetic
resistance has developed in 80 species of weeds treated with weed
killers, 70 species of fungus treated with fungicide, and 10
species of rats treated with rat poisons. Genetic resistance cannot
be stopped, it is the nature of all species. Unfortunately this is
a double edged sword. A fundamental requirement of genetic change
is the death or failure to reproduce in a majority of the
population.
     A recent study in the British Medical Journal concluded that
men in western countries today have sperm counts less than half as
high as their grandfathers had at the same age. In addition the
increase in cancer of the testicles has increased 4 fold in the
last 40 years; and various birth defects to the male reproductive
system have increased 4 fold during the same time period. As we
pointed out earlier a fundamental requirement of genetic change is
the death or failure to reproduce in a majority of the population.
This process is clearly under way. The only question is what is
causing this change?
CHEMICALS THAT MIMIC NATURAL ESTROGENS
     Evidence is mounting that these changes are caused by exposure
of males very early in life to chemicals that act like estrogens.
Synthetic chemicals that mimic estrogens include contraceptives,
D.E.S. which was fed to beef cattle from the 50's to the 70's, and
pesticides.  We now live in an environment that can be viewed as a
virtual sea of estrogens. 
     Chlorinated hydrocarbons, ie pesticides, mimic hormones and
interfere with the endocrine system of wildlife and humans. Studies
link them to breast cancer in women and testicular cancer in their
sons. Thus breast cancer, testicular cancer, and defects in the
male reproductive system including diminished sperm count all seem
linked.
     Diminished sperm count is a serious matter. Many animals
produce up to 1,400 times as much sperm as is needed for fertility.
In contrast the average human produces only 2 to 4 times as much
sperm as is needed to fertilize a human egg.

Sources:

E Carlsen and others, "Evidence for decreasing quality of semen
during past 50 years." British Medical Journal Vol 305 1992 pages
609-613

A.Giwercman and others "The human testis-an organ at risk?"
International Journal of Andrology? Vol 15 1992 pages 373-375.

R Sharpe and others "Are Estrogens involved in falling sperm counts
and disorders of the male reproductive tract" The Lancet Vol 341
May 1993 pages 1392-1395.

R.Sharpe "Are oestrogens involved in falling sperm counts..." The
Lancet Volume 341 May 29 1993.

"Estrogen chemicals lower sperm count"  Chemical and Engineering
News June 7 1993 pages 28.

Plus 12 other research paper on the same topic indicating the same
conclusion.

PESTICIDES POSE A THREAT TO OUR WATER

     Since 1980 researchers have found agricultural chemicals in
ground water supplies that serve hundreds of millions of people.
Recent studies in Eastern Ontario have shown that over 75% of wells
are polluted with a herbicide used on corn. Residents in Iowa; 27%
of which drink water contaminated with pesticides have a higher
than normal risk of developing leukaemia, lymphoma and other
cancers. 
     Water quality in our rivers is increasing on a number of
fronts, for instance bacterial and lead levels are decreasing
because of a ban on leaded gasoline and improved sewage treatment.
Unfortunately increased usage of fertilizer on suburban lawns is
causing other problems.  One study looked at 24 measures of water
quality taken at 380 water sampling stations across the country
from 1974-1981. 
     Of the 34 chemicals widely used by the lawn care industry 35%
were detected in ground water. Of these:
62% are toxic to fish.                       35% are toxic to bees.
29% cause cancer.                            35% Cause birth
defects.
21% interfere with reproduction.             39% cause liver
damage.
59% are toxic to the nervous System.         42% cause kidney
damage
85% lead to sensitivity in individuals.      32% are toxic to
birds.

THE LAWN CARE INDUSTRY IS UNREGULATED

     The business is largely unregulated. Investigations have found
that the lawn care industry regularly makes false claims such as:
*Our products are non toxic
*The only way to get sick from 2,4-D would be to lay in it for a
few days
*The safety issue is blown out of proportion. Such a small amount
of chemicals is not dangerous.
*It is safe to use, will not harm bees, birds, or other beneficial
insects.
*lawn care products are safe for the environment.
     Of the 34 major lawn care chemicals now in use, not one has
been fully tested.  Lawn care companies in Ontario are required by
law to tell employees what they are spraying. You can ask to see
these documents. In all commercial lawn poisons there is an active
ingredient and an inert ingredient. The inert ingredients can be a
variety of carcinogenic substances. Often these substances are more
dangerous than the active ingredient used to kill weeds. 
     Companies that treat hazardous waste are allowed to "recycle"
hazardous waste into lawn care products. It is unclear which is
more dangerous the active pesticide ingredient or the "recycled"
hazardous waste.

Source:

New York office of the Attorney General. Ask for "The secret
Hazards of Pesticides Inert Ingredients" by Susan Jaffe, Free
copies of report from  the Office of Public Information NY State
Department of Law, 120 Broadway N.Y. N.Y. 10271.

"Lawn care pesticides. Risks remain uncertain while prohibited
safety claims continue". U.S. Accounting office Free Upon request
phone orders accepted 1-202-512-6000 Ask for document # RCED-90-134


IS THERE ANY GOOD NEWS?

     On Aug 19 1993 a superior court judge opened the door for
municipalities to outlaw pesticide spraying, ruling that the
municipality of Hudson was legal in passing a bylaw to that effect.
Lawn care companies argued that pesticide regulations were a matter
of provincial jurisdiction and in the absence of a provincial code
restricting pesticide use Hudson could not introduce it's own law.

      In an 11 page decision delivered in Valleyfield Quebec the
Judge decided the town council acted in response to a
PUBLIC HEALTH MENACE under Quebec's Cities and Towns
Act. The mayor of the town was concerned about the towns water
supply and he noted the pesticide applicators rarely "went by the
book" in applying pesticides. Ontario has a similarly worded act
that allows municipalities to rule on matters that are of concern
to the health and well being of residents. Force their hand.

Source:
      The Montreal Gazette Friday August 20 1993 Page 1

-- 
           0    >:<   Factoid: the average car Kills 32 moths, 67 flies, 
        _ /=_        9 Bees, and 2 Monarch Butterflies/ hr. But who really
......(_)>(_)........cares, Now watch that sucker swallow a moth.
Hah he's probably a vegatarian.


From ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA Sun Jun  5 04:45:53 EDT 1994
Article: 34095 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ken Toews)
Subject: Re: Pesticide FAQ
Message-ID: <Cqq2KI.Dtv@freenet.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca (Usenet News Admin)
Reply-To: ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ken Toews)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
References: <3204.320.uupcb@yob.com> <CqH0uv.Ao3@freenet.carleton.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 14:21:54 GMT
Lines: 70



In a previous article, daniel.mascheck@yob.com (Daniel Mascheck) says:

>KT.An addicted lawn is a lawn without a healty biologically
>.active soil. Pesticides like 2,4-D and MCPA destroy the life giving
>.property of soils making harmful fertilizers like urea necessary.
>.a viscous and very profitable circle. Your lawn has become addicted
>.to drugs.
>
>I checked some of the facts and so called statistics you place on the 
>net, and.....many are grossly flawed or taken out of context.
>I think you need to look up some of the Data From Dr. Ames from 
>Berkley. Look up the trend of chemical useage vs % increase in cancer!
>You'll find that all have remained the same taking into effect the 
>increase in population, except one (lung cancer) which has steadily 
>climbed with smoking. Chemical useage has tripled and cancer is 
>flat. Your stats Stink! 


Doctor Ames of Berkley, come on, I quote only studies published in peer
reviewed scientific journal and medical journals. I would like to quote
from a more popular journal for your benefiet.

Reference the January 1994 Scientific America. Tim Beadsley " A War not
won-trends in Cancer Epidemiology" Pages 130 to 138. " The U.S. is losing
its war on cancer...the age adjusted cancer death rate continues to rise
slowly year after year, despite $25 billion spent to find a cure"
I would appreciate any published references that contradict that
statement. And please save the rantings of Doctor Ames unless his paper
has been published in a peer reviewed journal.


> >Many products
such as celery, peanuts have naturally occuring 
>carcinagens. Not from being sprayed!!! Many plants have toxins stronger 
>than man can invent!! Many we copy! .

Arguing by analogy is clever but rarely leads to an understanding of the
nature of the problem. 
Low levels of naturally occuring carcinogens in damaged produce does not
justify the widespread use of toxins that are not naturally occuring, 
that frequently break down into toxins more damaging than the origional
pesticide and which the consumer does not know the contents of.

I would highly reccomend that every gardener contact the New York State
Department of Law and ask for the "THE SECRET HAZARDS OF PESTICIDES: INERT
INGREDIENTS." Attorney General G Oliver Koppell is not a granola chewing
hippies, as some would to characterize people who are concerned about
hazardous chemical use.

The Book is free. I live in Canada and they mailed it acrosss the border
no charge. God Bless America.



>
>If we use your logic, we can ban almost every modern device from 
>cars(kill plenty of folks) to my 486, I'm not planning on giving up!!
>.
If you want to argue the relative merits of cars and 486s I suggest you
log on to talk. environment or rec.auto.

All my Love Ken... 

-- 
           0    >:<   Factoid: the average car Kills 32 moths, 67 flies, 
        _ /=_        9 Bees, and 2 Monarch Butterflies/ hr. But who really
......(_)>(_)........cares, Now watch that sucker swallow a moth.
Hah he's probably a vegatarian.


From ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA Sun Jun  5 04:56:31 EDT 1994
Article: 34133 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ken Toews)
Subject: Re: Pesticide FAQ
Message-ID: <CqqE2w.MLG@freenet.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca (Usenet News Admin)
Reply-To: ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ken Toews)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
References: <Cqq2KI.Dtv@freenet.carleton.ca> <3204.320.uupcb@yob.com> <CqH0uv.Ao3@freenet.carleton.ca>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 18:30:32 GMT
Lines: 69



>
>In a previous article, daniel.mascheck@yob.com (Daniel Mascheck) says:
>
>>
>>I checked some of the facts and so called statistics you place on the 
>>net, and.....many are grossly flawed or taken out of context.
>>I think you need to look up some of the Data From Dr. Ames from 
>>Berkley. Look up the trend of chemical useage vs % increase in cancer!
>>You'll find that all have remained the same taking into effect the 
>>increase in population, except one (lung cancer) which has steadily 
>>climbed with smoking. Chemical useage has tripled and cancer is 
>>flat. Your stats Stink! 
>
Dr Bruce Ames most famous publicaton that popularized the notion that
cancer rates are not increasing and what cancer we did get was caused
by peanut butter was first
published as "Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards" in Science Vol 236
April 17 1987.

The great thing about peer review is that other intelligent people look at
your work and respond.

This happend to Dr Ames, He and his theory that Peanut butter and brocolli
were causing the epidemic of cancer were refuted by at least 15 serious
papers. His theories are not regarded as credible

If you are going to quote Dr Ames research you had better read what other
scientist think of his resarch otherwise you will sound silly.

Consider reading

Samuel Epstein, and others, Carcinogenic Risk Estimation. Science Vol 240
May 1988 Pages 1043-1045

Devra Lee Davis "Paleolithic Diet, Evolution and Carcinogens Science
December 18 1987

Fredrica Perera and Paolo Boffetta "Perspectives on Comparing Risks of
Environmental Carcinogens" Journal of the National Cancer Institute Volume
80 No 16 pages 1282-1293

If after reading all that you dont see a conection between Chemicals
produced by man, chemicals that never existed on this planet before we
started playing chemistry and cancer read:

Mortality and Toxics along the Mississippi River by Ben Goldman. The
farther down the mississippi the higher the incidence of pollution and the
incidence of cancers.

FACTS FOR GARDENERS

1: PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER

2: PESTICIDE EXPOSURE IS CUMULATIVE

3: PESTICIDES ARE NOT NEEDED.

Anyone who would like to have copies of studies that support these
contentions please email me I would be happy to respond
All my love Ken


-- 
           0    >:<   Factoid: the average car Kills 32 moths, 67 flies, 
        _ /=_        9 Bees, and 2 Monarch Butterflies/ hr. But who really
......(_)>(_)........cares, Now watch that sucker swallow a moth.
Hah he's probably a vegatarian.


From dschmitz@magellan.teq.stortek.com Sun Jun  5 05:09:18 EDT 1994
Article: 34034 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!csn!server!ren!dschmitz
From: dschmitz@magellan.teq.stortek.com (Dave Schmitz)
Subject: Re: Synthetic pesticides
Message-ID: <CqoHsv.L1q@stortek.com>
Sender: usenet@stortek.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: ren.teq.stortek.com
Reply-To: dschmitz@magellan.teq.stortek.com
Organization: STK
References: <CqGnwy.M29@freenet.carleton.ca>
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 17:55:42 GMT
Lines: 34

Quoting from earlier posts . . .

> >>>number of deaths due to cancer has risen astronomically in our
> >>>post war industrial age.  I don't think this is a coincidence.

> women getting older. The National academy of sciences estimates that 3% of
> all cancers are caused by pesticides. Gardeners use pesticides, and the
> debate is very relevant here.

> Pesticides pose a very serious health risk. Cancer is becoming more
> prevalent.

I grew up in a farm state, and in going back on visits, it is striking
how many farmers have come down with prostate trouble.  Does anyone
know of a connection?

Also, there are songbirds, whoops, _were_ songbirds, that I don't hear
any more.

As an interesting aside, y'all remember the Newsweek issue about pollution,
the one that had an article about the chemical plants on the lower
Mississippi, the one that had a back cover advertisement for herbicides
for a beautiful green lawn ?

Dave
                  o s
Disclaimer under c n tr   ion:  No one can have my opinyns   ///////
                       uct                         opinuyns  ///////
                                                   opiniuns  ///////
                                                   views.






From nicmad!klebba%astroatc.uucp@spool.cs.wisc.edu Sun Jun  5 05:10:09 EDT 1994
Article: 34422 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!daffy!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!usenet
From: Bob Klebba <nicmad!klebba%astroatc.uucp@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Synthetic pesticides
Message-ID: <1994Jun3.182519.21373@nicmad.uucp>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 3 Jun 94 13: 27:51 GMT
Sender: usenet@nicmad.uucp
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac2_14
Organization: Nicolet Instrument Corporation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d24
References: <CqoHsv.L1q@stortek.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 18:25:19 GMT
Lines: 16

In article <CqoHsv.L1q@stortek.com> Dave Schmitz,
dschmitz@magellan.teq.stortek.com writes:
> I grew up in a farm state, and in going back on visits, it is striking
> how many farmers have come down with prostate trouble.  Does anyone
> know of a connection?

I live in an agricultural area of an agricultural state.  I don't know about
prostate cancer, but I can tell you that when I go to the coop, I see a lot of
farmers with loss of pigmentation on the hands and forearms.  I know that most
of them are more careful nowadays with their chemicals, but it's pretty
obvious that they haven't always been.

Robert Klebba  USDA zone 4
Nicolet Instrument Corp.
Madison, WI, USA
"Submit to Barney"


From ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA Sun Jun  5 05:11:17 EDT 1994
Article: 34225 of rec.gardens
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!gatech!psuvax1!news.ecn.bgu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar367
From: ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ken Toews)
Subject: Re: Synthetic pesticides
Message-ID: <Cqrwx8.AAs@freenet.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@freenet.carleton.ca (Usenet News Admin)
Reply-To: ar367@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ken Toews)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
References: <CqoHsv.L1q@stortek.com> <CqGnwy.M29@freenet.carleton.ca>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 14:15:08 GMT
Lines: 265



In a previous article, dschmitz@magellan.teq.stortek.com (Dave Schmitz) says:

>Quoting from earlier posts . . .
>
>> >>>number of deaths due to cancer has risen astronomically in our
>> >>>post war industrial age.  I don't think this is a coincidence.
>
>> women getting older. The National academy of sciences estimates that 3% of
>> all cancers are caused by pesticides. Gardeners use pesticides, and the
>> debate is very relevant here.
>
>> Pesticides pose a very serious health risk. Cancer is becoming more
>> prevalent.
>
>I grew up in a farm state, and in going back on visits, it is striking
>how many farmers have come down with prostate trouble.  Does anyone
>know of a connection?
>
>Also, there are songbirds, whoops, _were_ songbirds, that I don't hear
>any more.
>
>As an interesting aside, y'all remember the Newsweek issue about pollution,
>the one that had an article about the chemical plants on the lower
>Mississippi, the one that had a back cover advertisement for herbicides
>for a beautiful green lawn ?
>
>Dave
>                  o s
>Disclaimer under c n tr   ion:  No one can have my opinyns   ///////
>                       uct                         opinuyns  ///////
>                                                   opiniuns  ///////
>                                                   views.
>
>
>
>
>

Your right about prostate cancer and the lower mississipi. 

For interesting reading about the lower mississippi and the pollution
there read

Ben Goldman, Mortality and Toxics along the mississippi,
Washington D.C. Greenpeace 1988

As for prostate cancer
     There have been over 200 independent studies that link 2,4-D
with various diseases. 2,4-D is found in 1,500 over the counter
weed killers.  The National Cancer Institute has linked pesticide
exposures to lymphatic cancers. Their study was based on 948
farmers who had cancer and an equal number who did not. Exposed
individuals were 600% more likely to contract cancer than people
who did not contact the pesticide. Farmers who used protective
equipment, such as respirators, gloves, and a change of clothing
after contact were able to reduce the risk by only 20%.
     Hazleton laboratories found that 10% of rats exposed to 2,4-D
developed brain tumours. 2,4-D is contaminated with dioxins during
manufacture. Dioxins are the most potent poison known to man. 
     The Veterans Legal Services Project of Washington D.C.
reviewed 285 different published studies of human exposure to
phenoxy herbicides and dioxins. They found that they caused
specific cancers, skin and liver disorders, reproductive and
developmental disorders, low sperm counts, spontaneous abortions in
the wives of the affected individuals, increased birth defects,
including skin, nerve, heart, kidney, and cleft lips and palate.
The study went on to say there was "sound scientific evidence" of
an association between the 2-4,D and a whole host of other diseases
including cancer of the kidney, testicles, stomach, colon,
>>>>prostate<<<<<, liver, psychological effects, immune system
disorders, gastrointestinal ulcers, and altered lipid metabolism.
     Another common chemical used for lawn care is M.C.P.A. (4-
CHLOR-2METHYLPHENOXY ACIDIC ACID). This is an organic acid that is
closely related to 2,4-D. The chemical industry will create a
compound similar to a pesticide that is found to be dangerous. It
takes years for the new chemical to be proven as dangerous as the
old chemical.  
     The two most common weed killers used around the home are 2,4-
D and diazanon. Diazanon is known to be a hazard to songbirds.
SOURCES: 

A. Blair, " Herbicides and non-Hodgkins lymphoma New evidence from
a study of Saskatchewan farmers" Journal of the National Cancer
Institute Volume 82 1990 Pages 544-545

Olav Axelson and others, " Herbicide Exposure and Tumour Mortality"
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health Volume 6
March 1980 pages 73-79

Mikael Eriksson and others," Exposure to Dioxins as a risk factor
for Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Population based case control study"
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Volume 82 March 22 1991
pages 486-490

National Veterans Legal Services Project "Human Health Effects
Associated with exposure to Herbicides and or their associated
Contaminants - Chlorinated Dioxins" (Washington D.C. National
Veterans Legal Services Project, 2001 S Street N.W. Washington D.C.A recent study in the British Medical Journal concluded that
men in western countries today have sperm counts less than half as
high as their grandfathers had at the same age. In addition the
increase in cancer of the testicles has increased 4 fold in the
last 40 years; and various birth defects to the male reproductive
system have increased 4 fold during the same time period. 
     Evidence is mounting that these changes are caused by exposure
of males very early in life to chemicals that act like estrogens.
Synthetic chemicals that mimic estrogens include contraceptives,
D.E.S. which was fed to beef cattle from the 50's to the 70's, and
pesticides.  We now live in an environment that can be viewed as a
virtual sea of estrogens. 
     Chlorinated hydrocarbons, ie pesticides, mimic hormones and
interfere with the endocrine system of wildlife and humans. Studies
link them to breast cancer in women and testicular cancer in their
sons and prostate cancer in older men. Thus breast cancer,
testicular cancer, and defects in the male reproductive system
including diminished sperm count all seem linked.
     Diminished sperm count is a serious matter. Many animals
produce up to 1,400 times as much sperm as is needed for fertility.
In contrast the average human produces only 2 to 4 times as much
sperm as is needed to fertilize a human egg.
Sources:
E Carlsen and others, "Evidence for decreasing quality of semen
during past 50 years." British Medical Journal Vol 305 1992 pages
609-613

A.Giwercman and others "The human testis-an organ at risk?"
International Journal of Andrology? Vol 15 1992 pages 373-375.

R Sharpe and others "Are Estrogens involved in falling sperm counts
and disorders of the male reproductive tract" The Lancet Vol 341
May 1993 pages 1392-1395.

R.Sharpe "Are oestrogens involved in falling sperm counts..." The
Lancet Volume 341 May 29 1993.

"Estrogen chemicals lower sperm count"  Chemical and Engineering
News June 7 1993 pages 28.

Plus 12 other research paper on the same topic indicating the same
conclusion.

New York office of the Attorney General. Ask for "The secret
Hazards of Pesticides Inert Ingredients" by Susan Jaffe, Michael
Surgan and Timothy P. Urban. Free copies of this report are
available from  the Office of Public Information NY State
Department of Law, 120 Broadway N.Y. N.Y. 10271.

"Lawn care pesticides. Risks remain uncertain while prohibited
safety claims continue". U.S. Accounting office Free Upon request
phone orders accepted 1-202-512-6000 Ask for document # RCED-90-134

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT SCIENCES

June 21 1993

Dear Council

RE: TOXIC PROPERTIES OF PESTICIDES USED ON CITY PARKS AND PROPERTY

In reply to the clerks letter and report of June 11 1993 I have
prepared comments on the toxic threat of pesticides listed in the
report. For the most part the information was gathered from BASIC
GUIDE TO PESTICIDES, S BRIGGS 1992.  In some instances I will list
other authoritative sources that include additional information.

INSECTICIDES

ACEPHATES: (Orthene) mutagen,carcinogen, fetotoxic, and feminizes
rats, kills birds.
BASCILLUS THURINGIENSIS: (Dipel) no problems other than use
promotes genetic tolerance in pests
BENDIOCARB (Trumpet) causes cataracts in people and kills birds
CARBARYL (Sevin) mutagen, carcinogen, potent at causing birth
defects
CHLOROPYRIFOS (Dursban) fetotoxic, delayed nerve damage
(demylenation) causing loss of use of limbs, kills birds, causes
multiple sclerosis and atopy (allergy). Arch.Env.Health, 48,89,1993
DIAZINON mutagen, nerve tonic, allergic dermatitis, damages immune
system. Kills songbirds and Canada Geese. Banned for lawn
application in the USA.

*
*
- Comment added by london@sunSITE.unc.edu, 4-18-95:
- It has been pointed out to me that diazinon has been banned for use on 
- sod farms and golf courses in the USA but continues to be available in
- granular and liquid formulations for residential use there.
*
*

DIAZINON G mutagen, nerve tonic, allergic dermatitis, damages
immune system. Kills songs birds and Canada geese, Banned in USA
DICHLORVOS D.D.V.P. carcinogen, mutagen, birth defects, testicular
atrophy
DIMETHOATE (Lagon) carcinogen, mutagen, birth defects, testicular
atrophy.
KINOPRENE (Enstar) (E,E)- 3,7,11-trimethyl-2,4-dodecornoate No
information available.
MALATHION mutagen,birth defects, delayed nerve damage
MINERAL OIL (Dormant Oil) implicated in human cancer (IARC)
POT. SALTS OF FATTY ACIDS (Soap) safe

MITICIDES

DIENOCHLOR (Pentac) chronic studies not available.
FENBUTATINOXIDE (Vendex) chronic studies not available however many
related biotin pesticides cause birth defects.

HERBICIDES

2,4-D - causes cancer in humans and dogs, birth defects.
2,4-D MECOPROP - mutation, birth defects (Mecoprop)
2,4-D MECOPROP DICAMBA (dicamba) birth defects, mutation (dicamba)
British J.Ind.Med.50,340,1993
FENOXAPROP ( Acclaim ) birth defects
GLYPHOSATE: (Round up) carcinogen, mutagen. May contain
contaminants such as dioxane a carcinogen or POEA implicated in
fatal poisonings.

FUNGICIDES

ANILANZINE: (Dyrene) chronic toxicity unreported
BENOMYL (Benlate) carcinogen, birth defects, reduced sperm
CHLORONEB (Terraneb) Kidney, liver and blood damage
CHLOROTHALONIL (Daconil) carcinogen, eye and skin damage.
IPRODIONE  WP (Rovral) chronic toxicity unreported
PCNB: (Quintozene) mutagen, toxic to fish and birds.
SULPHUR: safe
THIOPHANATE METHYL: (Easeout) decrease body weight of newborn
THIRAM: mutagen, carcinogen, birth defects.
TRIFORINE: (Funginex) carcinogen IARC sci. Publ. 1980

               GROWTH REGULATORS

DAMINOZIDE: (B - nine) (Alar) cancer of blood cells
MALEIC HYDRAZIDE: (Maintain) cancer IARC 1974

Finally, I wish to strongly urge the use of diazinon and
chloropyrophos be discontinued. Song bird populations are beginning
to decline to tragic levels in part due to these pesticides. The
impact chloropyophos on multiple sclerosis and atopy ( allergy
mainly asthma ) means that it may create human suffering when used
in public locations.

Sincerely

(Signed)

J.E. Cummins
Assoc.Prof(Genetics)


End of document from J.E.Cummins















-- 
           0    >:<   Factoid: the average car Kills 32 moths, 67 flies, 
        _ /=_        9 Bees, and 2 Monarch Butterflies/ hr. But who really
......(_)>(_)........cares, Now watch that sucker swallow a moth.
Hah he's probably a vegatarian.


Newsgroups: rec.gardens
From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London)
Subject: Re: RoundUp (tm)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 16:53:17 GMT

From thread in rec.gardens:

>>This is confused.  Roundup (glyphosate) blocks an enzyme that appears
>>only in plants.  It has low toxicity for animals, and has not
>>been shown to be carcinogenic or mutagenic.  Moreover, it is not
>>persistent; it is inactivated in soil in a short time, by binding
>>to clay and bacterial breakdown.  One can plant in Roundup-treated
>>soil without waiting a year.  It is used as a pre-planting
>>herbicide in agriculture.

>This is exactly correct.  Roundup is a post-emergent herbicide.  It soaks
>into the plant through the leaves (or needles) and inhibits the
>some rather important bio-chemical processes.  It is non-selective, and will
>kill any plant.  It is least effective on plants with waxy leaves (or
>needles) only because of the wetting agents used.  The leaf coating
>reduces absorption of the glyphosphate.  If you up the concentration,
>the plant will die.
>It binds with the soil and becomes inert.
>You can plant in roundup areas immediately.
>Incidentally, the patent for glyphosphate has recently expired, and several
>clone products have appeared. CIL Clear-It-2 is glyphosphate based
>as well. (CIL is now owned by ICI)

[from previous threads on Roundup (tm)]:

Article 5620 (4 more) in rec.gardens:
From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
ubject: Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 5 Mar 92 17:14:37 GMT

karen@synopsys.com (Karen Vahtra) writes:
> I have about 1,000 square feet of ivy that needs killing along the back fence  of my 
> property.   

I agree with the folks who suggested Roundup (or Kleenup, or some other
brand of glyphosate).  It is a non-selective herbicide, meaning that it
kills almost anything it touches, but it has VERY low toxicity to anything
that doesn't photosynthesize (like birds, insects, mammals...)

Glyphosate is sprayed on the leaves, but is translocated to the roots,
killing them too.  You'll have to wait until the plants are beginning to
show some new growth (almost any herbicide works better on actively 
growing plants) -- you might even want to fertilize and water your ivy
to get it growing well before you kill it!  Spray the leaves with the
recommended concentration of glyphosate, then wait.  As soon as the leaves
start dying back (maybe 10 days?), you can assume that enough has hit the 
roots that you can cut out the top growth and remove it.  At this point, 
I'd leave the soil bare for about a month and continue to water -- that
way you can spot any new ivy shoots that might have accidentally survived
the first dose, and hit'em again.  After a month you can replant with
whatever.

When I spray with glyphosate, I wear gloves and a long sleeved shirt and
long pants because some of the "inert" ingredients in most formulations
can give you a skin rash.  I wear a mask, too, since I'm asthmatic, and
just about any particulates can set me coughing.  Even a bandana over my
nose is enough.  I also mix up a bucket of water and a shovel full of soil,
and keep it handy.  Why?  Glyphosate binds so tightly to soil particles 
that you can save any plant that gets hit accidentally by throwing some
muddy water on it immediately.

You can replant an area that has been treated with glyphosate immediately,
since it does irreversibly bind to soil particles.  And it breaks down 
to glycine (an amino acid) and phosphate (fertilizer component) in the
soil fairly quickly -- how fast depends on which soil microorganisms you
have in abundance.

Glyphosate can also be applied with a paintbrush or cloth glove over a 
rubber glove if you're worried about spray drift.  Just takes longer.

Kay Klier     Biology Dept  UNI

PS  I'm pretty cautious about herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.
The only herbicides I will use are glyphosate or boiling water (or hoes, 
etc.)  I don't have the toxicity information immediately at hand, but
you can poison yourself with aspirin 5x more easily than with glyphosate. 

Article 5682 (6 more) in rec.gardens:
From: aab@cichlid.com (Andy Burgess)
ubject: Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 7 Mar 92 17:37:31 GMT

In article <1992Mar5.111437.2700@iscsvax.uni.edu> klier@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>PS  I'm pretty cautious about herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.
>The only herbicides I will use are glyphosate or boiling water (or hoes, 
>etc.)  I don't have the toxicity information immediately at hand, but
>you can poison yourself with aspirin 5x more easily than with glyphosate. 

Ingesting Roundup has killed people. I seems that the surfactant is more
toxic than the glyphosate itself. There was a lengthy article posted here
many months ago. I'll try to dig it up and repost.
Andy

Article 5683 (5 more) in rec.gardens:
From: aab@cichlid.com (Andy Burgess)
ubject: Roundup Toxicity, was Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 7 Mar 92 17:46:02 GMT
Reply-To: aab@cichlid.com (Andy Burgess)


Here is the previously posted article on Roundup.
Andy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
>From: brokaw@flamingo.weeg.uiowa.edu (Pete Brokaw)
>Newsgroups: rec.gardens
>Subject: Re: Is Roundup safe? (LONG reply)
>Message-ID: <5793@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
>Date: 29 Apr 91 20:58:41 GMT
>References: <2800028@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> <48034@ut-emx.uucp>
>Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
>Organization: Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
...
I recently asked a friend the same questions and she gave me copies of some 
magazine articles.  One deals primarily with the issue of "inert" ingredients
in chemical concoctions like Roundup.  This was printed in the "Journal of
Pesticide Reform."

A second article was very anti-Roundup but had very little in the way of facts,
relying on anecdotal accounts. (e.g., "A twenty-eight-year-old laborer who had
sprayed weeds with the recommended dosage of Roundup developed an itchy rash,
nausea, and swelling of the limbs and joints."  No evidence was provided to
back up this or the other claims made.)

The third article came from the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides (NCAP).  Written in 1987, it defines Roundup and lists 8 problems
that "warrent concern when [it] is considered for use."

At the time, I was looking for good reasons NOT to use Roundup (my last 
alternative to elminating creeping charlie--I decided to let it grow and start
calling it "ground ivy" :-).  

Here are some excerpts from 2 articles.  If people are interested, I can 
post the complete articles at a later date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From NCAP's handout entitled "ROUNDUP". Written by Mary H. O'Brien, September
16, 1987.

Roundup is a post-emergence herbicide that kills annual and perennial
broadleaf plants and grasses.  Roundup is widely used on sites where
nonselective vegitation removal is wanted by some people...  Its "active
ingredient," glyphosate, also appears in Rodeo, a formulation designed for
use in aquatic settings.  Produced by Monsanto, glyphosate is a farily new
herbicide, first registered for use in 1974.

Glyphosate is primarily absorbed by plant foliage, but may be taken up by
roots in soils that minimize adsorption to soil particles.  It apparently
kills plants by inhibiting synthesis of an essential amino acid, thereby
resulting in a reduction of protein synthesis and an inhibition of growth.
Glyphosate is readily translocated within the plant, inhibiting sprouting in
perennial species.

The following ... problems warrant concern when Roundup is considered for
use:

 1. PERSISTENCE.  Although the claim is often made that Roundup is
inactivated rapidly in soil, it is more accurate to say that it is usually
absorbed to soil components.  A sandy loam trated with glyphosate at
recommended application rates (e.g., 2, 5, and 10 ug/g soil) was found to
drastically reduce nitrogen fixation, growth, and nodulation of subterranean
clover/Rhizobium trifolium/ planted 120 days after glyphosate treatment.
Glyphosate clearly remains active in soils that do not adsorb it readily.

Damage to vine maple and bigleaf maple was found to increase during the
second year following treatment with glyphosate, indicating that glyphosate
persists for extended periods in plants.

 2. PHYTOTOXICITY.  Because glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide, any
desired vegetation must be completely protected from glyphosate drive, mist,
or drip.  As Monsanto notes in its Rounup label guide, "...minute quantities
of this herbicide can cause severe damage or destruction to the crop, plants,
or other areas on which treatment was not intended."

 3. TOXICITY OF 'INERT' INGREDIENTS.  [see next article -ed]

 4. TESTING. [The article explains that testing on glyphosate by itself is
inadequate since the inert ingredients are very important to making Roundup
work.  Most test results are "unpublished and developed by Monsanto or
laboratories hired by Monsanto."

[  
   Other points are made about lack of cancer testing and links to "human
   damage" including "conjunctivitis (inflammation oft he eyelid and eyeball
   mucous membrane), dermatitis (inflammation of the skin), and severe flu-like
   symptoms following exposure to glyphosate.  Of 143 pesticides reported for
   causing human illness in California in 1986, glyphosate was fourth in the
   number of incidents reported."  No further details on this statistic are
   given. -ed
]

A "Roundup Information Packet" containing a series of articles on Roundup is
available for $10.50 postpaid from NCAP; P.O. Box 1393; Eugene OR 97440.  A
file of these and additional glyphsate/Roundup articles is maintained at
NCAP; these can be copied at 10 cents/page.

[
   These prices may not be current considering the article is nearly four
   years old.  -ed
]
[ five years now -andy ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Roundup, Vision, POEA, and 1,4-Dioxane: Why Full Formulations Are the
Problem." Written by Mary O'Brien--a staff scientist for NCAP.  Vol. 9, No. 4
of the Journal of Pesticide Reform.

When a letter by four Japanese emergency medicine professionals appeared in
the February 6, 1988 issue of the American medical journal, The Lancet, a
Washington toxicology conultant, David Monroe, took note.  The Japanese
authors were noting that an "inert ingredient" in the herbicide Roundup
(rather than the identified "active" ingredient, glyphosate) accounts for the
acute toxicity they had found in patients poisoned (some fatally) by Roundup
(JPR 8(1):30).  Symptoms included gastrointestinal ("GI" -ed) pain and
vomiting, swelling of the lungs and pneumonia, reduction of blood pressure,
clouding of consciousness, and red blood cell destruction.

The so-called "inert ingredient," polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA), actually
refers to a family of chemicals.  It is added to Roundup and Vision herbicide
formulations  as a surfactant, an ingredient that will help evenly spread
the active ingredient, glyphosate, on target plants.

The Japanese researchers noted that the acute lethal dose of POEA is less
than one-third (i.e., POEA is three times as toxic) that of Roundup, and that
POEA belongs to a class of surfactants that have been reported to cause
adverse GI and central nervous system effects and damage to red blood cells.

As POEA does not appear on the Roundup label (supposedly protected, as an
inert, from public disclosure under the U.S. pesticide law...), Monroe first
learned of its presense in Roundup through the Lancet letter. 

Monroe recalled a U.S. EPA memorandum that discussed the presence of
1,4-dioxane in two polyalkoxylated polyamine products ... manufactured by
the Henkel Corporation.  Knowing that POEA is a polyalkoxylated amine, Monroe
suspected that 1,4-dioxane might be present as a contaminant of POEA.

[ the article now describes the side effects of 1,4-dioxane, which include
  liver and kidney damage, and cancer in laboratory animals.  "The liver and
  kidney damage can occur regardless of the route of 1,4-dioxane exposure
  (inhalation, oral ingestion, and/or skin application)."   This section
  concludes with this statement: 'The International Agency for Research on
  Cancer indicates that evidence is "sufficient" to know that 1,4-dioxane
  causes cancer in animals and the U.S EPA regards 1,4-dioxane as a probable
  human carcinogen.' 

  Researchers in British Columbia went on to test Vision (Canada's version of
  Roundup) checking for 1,4-dioxane contamination.  From a 250ml sample, the
  CANTEST lab detected 350 parts per million 1,4-dioxane using a purge and  
  trap method.  That level is equivalent to .35 percent.  

  Now quoting again from the article: ]

A 1982 EPA memo ... also discussed 1,4-dioxane as being present in
dichloroethyl ether.  The 1982 EPA memo ... had been prompted by concern that
1,4-dioxane had been found in dichloroethyl ether at 0.42 percent and 0.55
percent.  Under "comments/recommendations" in the memo, the EPA noted that
the manufacturer of the contaminated dichloroethyl ether "reported that its
employees and cutomers were being notified of the presence of 1,4-dioxane in
dichloroethyl ether.  In addition, the company reported that its current
safety precautions inclue 'body-protective clothing and boots, eye
protection, and monitoring of air levels of dichloroethyl ether.'"

Users of Roundup and Vision are not informed that the formulation contains
either POEA or 1,4-dioxane.  Roundup is widely used by homeowners wearing no
particular protective clothing, and the label merely states, "Avoid contact
with eyes, skin, and clothing because of possible (eye and skin) irritation."

The presence of 1,4-dioxane in Vision (and presumably in Roundup) is a
classic example of the following:

 1. Full formulations, "inert" ingredients, and contaminants, not merely the
so-called "active" ingredient, can cause cancer and other adverse chronic
effects; their exemption from testing for chronic toxicity is indefensible.

 2. The current classification by the EPA of POEA as a "List 3" inert
ingredient  ("inert of unknown toxicity"), subject neither to listing on the
label nor toxicological testing requirements, is indefensible.

 3. Estimating the toxicity of glyphosate alone is meaningless when a full
formulation (e.g., Roundup, Vision) containing POEA, 1,4-dioxane, and other
unlisted ingredients and contaminants is the mixture to which people and the
environment will be exposed.

What you don't know can hurt you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Pete Brokaw, Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
>brokaw@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu  319-335-5453

>Disclaimer: I am not associated with Monsanto, or NCAP. I am merely an
>interested party to this discussion.

-- 
From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
ubject: Re: Killing Ivy
Date: 9 Mar 92 00:38:51 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

aab@cichlid.com (Andy Burgess) writes:
> klier@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>>PS  I'm pretty cautious about herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, etc.
>>The only herbicides I will use are glyphosate or boiling water (or hoes, 
>>etc.)  I don't have the toxicity information immediately at hand, but
>>you can poison yourself with aspirin 5x more easily than with glyphosate. 
> 
> Ingesting Roundup has killed people. I seems that the surfactant is more
> toxic than the glyphosate itself. There was a lengthy article posted here
> many months ago. I'll try to dig it up and repost.

True.  The toxicity info I gave was for _glyphosate_, not Roundup.  That's
why I wear gloves when working with the commercial formulations.

Kay

Article 6061 in rec.gardens:
From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
Subject: Re: Roundup continued
Date: 23 Mar 92 01:07:59 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

brianb@sprintcom (Brian Bailey) writes:
> The discussion on round-up was a very interesting thread which just
> seemed to stop without conclusion. If the active ingredient is harmless
> which Kay says she can get, then is it commercially available to us
> phlebes. If not is round-up worth the risk, or are there other viable
> alternatives that are less toxic and still work.

Straight glyphosate is available for investigational use, at about 
$20/gram for 96% purity.  The "pure" stuff I used was part of a 
research study -- and we had some left over, so I got permission
to use it up on a natural area that needed selective weed control.

I don't know of any broad-spectrum herbicide that is any safer than
glyphosate.  The various commercial formulations add adjuvants and
surfactants that increase the herbicidal activity.  These are not
considered to be "active" ingredients, so they do not have to be
on the label.  This is a major problem, IMHO, with current labeling
laws.

I did a quick search of the last five years of the AGRICOLA data base
(National Ag. Library), without turning up any information on human
toxicity of glyphosate or glyphosate preparations -- other than the
mention of skin irritation.   This correlates to the information in the
1990 herbicide handbooks that are on my reference shelf.

I believe someone mentioned the possibility of dioxin contamination -- 
can you please give us a citation, because I'm not turning anything up
on that.  

When dealing with any chemical or mixture of chemicals, you have to 
assess the risk on the basis of knowledge and (more often than not)
on gut feeling.   Any chemical -- including pure water -- is hazardous
when taken in quantity.  The Ames test for probable carcinogens
is OK, but not perfect.  The various animal tests are likewise OK,
but not perfect -- there's just too much variation in toxic threshholds
from one species to another.   

The best we can do is gather all the data we can, then take a deep
breath and try to make a good decision.

Barring startling new data turning up, I believe that the amount of
Roundup or other glyphosate preparations I've used are a negligible
risk to me and the environment, especially when compared to other
risks that I take all the time without thinking about them:
driving a car, eating peanut butter sandwiches, visiting cities,
breathing exhaust fumes, sitting in the sun, drinking tap water....

Yes, I try to be careful in how I handle and apply it.  If I spray,
I use a coarse spray to minimize drift, and wear a mask and long sleeves
and wash up afterwards.  If I'm using a wipe applicator (gloves or
"stamp licker", I've got a couple of pairs of gloves on of different
materials (usually latex and vinyl) to prevent skin contact.
Should I accidentally spill some on my pant legs (and I haven't yet),
I doubt very much if I'd tear my clothes off and run screaming for
the nearest source of water: instead I'd dump some muddy water on the
spot, and change my jeans when I got back to wherever I stashed my 
pack.  

These are choices I've made after evaluating all the information
I have available to me, and weighing the possible risks against the
other choices: an impossible amount of hand labor, or using other
chemicals of possibly greater toxicity.  Each of us must decide
these things for ourselves.  Life is never risk-free.

Kay Klier    Biology Dept   UNI



