Comments on: Let us Spray. Or Not? Roanoke Wants to Know http://www.fragmentsfromfloyd.com/environment/let-us-spray-or-not-roanoke-wants-to-know/ Photos and Front Porch Musing from Floyd County Virginia Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:25:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Lynn http://www.fragmentsfromfloyd.com/environment/let-us-spray-or-not-roanoke-wants-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-5053 Lynn Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:20:47 +0000 http://www.fragmentsfromfloyd.com/2008/11/17/let-us-spray-or-not-roanoke-wants-to-know/#comment-5053 Kenite is a fosamine-based herbicide. Fosamine studies are consistent with glyphosate studies. No risk to birds, mammals unless you bath in it. Fosamine also has no risk to insects and bees, unless improperly sprayed (drowning of nests). Direct application of herbicides to skin can result in a development of allergies for an extended period. Fosamine can upset delicately balanced ecosystems in waterways. But that too is highly unlikely as the chemical penetrates foliage extremely slowly and can be washed away and diluted before harm is done. Risk to fish is studied here: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Frr/Frr039.pdf Kenite is a fosamine-based herbicide. Fosamine studies are consistent with glyphosate studies. No risk to birds, mammals unless you bath in it. Fosamine also has no risk to insects and bees, unless improperly sprayed (drowning of nests). Direct application of herbicides to skin can result in a development of allergies for an extended period.

Fosamine can upset delicately balanced ecosystems in waterways. But that too is highly unlikely as the chemical penetrates foliage extremely slowly and can be washed away and diluted before harm is done.

Risk to fish is studied here:

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Frr/Frr039.pdf

]]> By: Lynn http://www.fragmentsfromfloyd.com/environment/let-us-spray-or-not-roanoke-wants-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-5052 Lynn Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:59:47 +0000 http://www.fragmentsfromfloyd.com/2008/11/17/let-us-spray-or-not-roanoke-wants-to-know/#comment-5052 Arguing against spraying has to be made separately from health risks (except allergies). There are three approaches that are valid: Personal property rights; forest fire risk and allergy notification and exposure minimisation. The first risk of spraying is the fire risk left behind. In Indian Valley, we had a large tree come down and dislodge a live wire which dropped and ignited sprayed and dry foliage under the wires. Despite high winds, the good volunteers of Indian Valley were able to prevent the field fire from reaching our home. Had we not been home to see the event occur, we would surely have lost our home. Spraying is cheap, but sprayers seem to have no desire to come back and clean out the tinder dry fire hazard that is left behind. Secondly, personal property rights are frequently and indiscriminately violated in spraying programs. In Huntersville, NC, Duke subcontractors sprayed so indiscriminately, they cost us thousands of dollars in landscape repairs after they targeted a small pruned dogwood and ended up killing all our low-lying foliage and boxwoods as well. We had been assured that if we kept the dogwood below 5 ft, we would be fine. Thirdly, a single intense exposure to glyphosate can trigger allergic reactions for quite sometime. The programs are so extensive over the course of a day, that people with allergies have a hard time finding allergy-free places to retreat to while the roundup settles out of the air. The spraying schedules need to be publically announced well ahead of time and strictly adhered to. They also need to work in very small geographic areas at a time, avoiding following long powerline routes. The studies concerning Glyphosate are pretty solid that birds, mammals and humans suffer no risk from the chemical, except for the occasional allergic reaction. So presenting the correlation data from organic websites will not help. AEP undoubtedly is already armed with real data from very extensive glyphosate studies. Demanding follow-up mulching of dry tinder to prevent forest fires is critical. They may not want to spend money on dead tree removal. Demanding spraying be performed in a small grid pattern to help allergy sufferers is also important. Demanding a payout system for damage to incidental foliage will also limit indiscriminate spraying. Arguing against spraying has to be made separately from health risks (except allergies). There are three approaches that are valid: Personal property rights; forest fire risk and allergy notification and exposure minimisation.

The first risk of spraying is the fire risk left behind. In Indian Valley, we had a large tree come down and dislodge a live wire which dropped and ignited sprayed and dry foliage under the wires. Despite high winds, the good volunteers of Indian Valley were able to prevent the field fire from reaching our home. Had we not been home to see the event occur, we would surely have lost our home.

Spraying is cheap, but sprayers seem to have no desire to come back and clean out the tinder dry fire hazard that is left behind.

Secondly, personal property rights are frequently and indiscriminately violated in spraying programs. In Huntersville, NC, Duke subcontractors sprayed so indiscriminately, they cost us thousands of dollars in landscape repairs after they targeted a small pruned dogwood and ended up killing all our low-lying foliage and boxwoods as well. We had been assured that if we kept the dogwood below 5 ft, we would be fine.

Thirdly, a single intense exposure to glyphosate can trigger allergic reactions for quite sometime. The programs are so extensive over the course of a day, that people with allergies have a hard time finding allergy-free places to retreat to while the roundup settles out of the air. The spraying schedules need to be publically announced well ahead of time and strictly adhered to. They also need to work in very small geographic areas at a time, avoiding following long powerline routes.

The studies concerning Glyphosate are pretty solid that birds, mammals and humans suffer no risk from the chemical, except for the occasional allergic reaction. So presenting the correlation data from organic websites will not help. AEP undoubtedly is already armed with real data from very extensive glyphosate studies.

Demanding follow-up mulching of dry tinder to prevent forest fires is critical. They may not want to spend money on dead tree removal. Demanding spraying be performed in a small grid pattern to help allergy sufferers is also important. Demanding a payout system for damage to incidental foliage will also limit indiscriminate spraying.

]]>