Free: Contests & Raffles.
So they are suing over pesticides but not herbicides it looks like. So they are after the bug killing sprays, but not the chemicals that kill vegetation in clear cuts. Correct?
Herbicides are considered a pesticide per EPA definitions. Ok, good to know. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't see the proposal for any non-chemical alternatives, like slash burning. If we could get the EPA to overturn its problems with burning, maybe we could get the timber producers to stop poisoning our forests.
Quote from: JLS on September 26, 2017, 10:36:10 AMHerbicides are considered a pesticide per EPA definitions. Ok, good to know. Thanks. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wonder what they sprayed to make that womans skin fall off?Being in farming Ive been exposed to chemicals my whole life and Ive never had anything like that happen. Glyphosphate is one of the safest chemicals around,
Quote from: Sandberm on September 26, 2017, 11:41:16 AMWonder what they sprayed to make that womans skin fall off?Being in farming Ive been exposed to chemicals my whole life and Ive never had anything like that happen. Glyphosphate is one of the safest chemicals around,Yeah, except for the whole non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, birth defects, and autism thing. The concentrates for some of the chemicals sprayed on fields must be handled very carefully until they're diluted for spraying. She may have been exposed to Atrazine and it's quite possible the plane/helo was spraying a cocktail of more than one chemical. If the mixture was not diluted enough, that could also cause skin problems.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 01:21:55 PMQuote from: Sandberm on September 26, 2017, 11:41:16 AMWonder what they sprayed to make that womans skin fall off?Being in farming Ive been exposed to chemicals my whole life and Ive never had anything like that happen. Glyphosphate is one of the safest chemicals around,Yeah, except for the whole non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, birth defects, and autism thing. The concentrates for some of the chemicals sprayed on fields must be handled very carefully until they're diluted for spraying. She may have been exposed to Atrazine and it's quite possible the plane/helo was spraying a cocktail of more than one chemical. If the mixture was not diluted enough, that could also cause skin problems.By your logic all us farmers should be droping dead like flys. Thats not the case.
...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 03:22:12 PM...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.Pman,I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable in today's forestry practices. My understanding of slash burning is that the non-harvested wood that remains in a clearcut is piled into slash piles, and that after a time these piles are burned. I'm not sure how this impacts the vegetation that grows in a clearcut after the timber is harvested, which is what the spraying targets. If the cleared area is burned (the ground vegetation included), I can see how the ground vegetation is managed by burning, but if the burning is limited to the slash piles themselves, I don't see how that impacts the rest of the cut where the vegetation is growing. Am I wrong in my understanding of slash burning?
Quote from: DaveMonti on September 27, 2017, 09:28:16 AMQuote from: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 03:22:12 PM...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.Pman,I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable in today's forestry practices. My understanding of slash burning is that the non-harvested wood that remains in a clearcut is piled into slash piles, and that after a time these piles are burned. I'm not sure how this impacts the vegetation that grows in a clearcut after the timber is harvested, which is what the spraying targets. If the cleared area is burned (the ground vegetation included), I can see how the ground vegetation is managed by burning, but if the burning is limited to the slash piles themselves, I don't see how that impacts the rest of the cut where the vegetation is growing. Am I wrong in my understanding of slash burning?I may be using the wrong term, but I thought that when they burned the logged lots of the piles, it burned all of the new growth vegetation, as well. I may be talking out of my butt.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2017, 09:46:38 AMQuote from: DaveMonti on September 27, 2017, 09:28:16 AMQuote from: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 03:22:12 PM...but there also must be a way out for the timber companies to manage undergrowth, and that's where lifting the EPA no slash burning requirements comes in.Pman,I have to admit that I'm not knowledgeable in today's forestry practices. My understanding of slash burning is that the non-harvested wood that remains in a clearcut is piled into slash piles, and that after a time these piles are burned. I'm not sure how this impacts the vegetation that grows in a clearcut after the timber is harvested, which is what the spraying targets. If the cleared area is burned (the ground vegetation included), I can see how the ground vegetation is managed by burning, but if the burning is limited to the slash piles themselves, I don't see how that impacts the rest of the cut where the vegetation is growing. Am I wrong in my understanding of slash burning?I may be using the wrong term, but I thought that when they burned the logged lots of the piles, it burned all of the new growth vegetation, as well. I may be talking out of my butt.Old style burns would be the whole clear cut, fire lines were dug around the edges, and there were some piles, a guy with a drip torch would walk the cut lighting up the whole unit.Really clean unit was left after the burn, deer, and elk loved them for all the forage that grey back, plus it was easy for them to walk they.
It's not my logic. It's testing and statistics."...compared with the general population, the rates for certain diseases, including some types of cancer, appear to be higher among agricultural workers, which may be related to exposures that are common in their work environments. For example, farming communities have higher rates of leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma, as well as cancers of the skin, lip, stomach, brain, and prostate.https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet