Post by: bobcat on September 26, 2017, 09:58:59 AM
http://www.monroemonitor.com/Content/News/Homepage-Rotating-Articles/Article/Environmental-group-challenges-aerial-spraying/26/538/10803
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on September 26, 2017, 10:09:13 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 10:14:57 AM
Post by: Practical Approach on September 26, 2017, 10:21:33 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 10:27:08 AM
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?
Glyphosate is an herbicide.
Post by: bobcat on September 26, 2017, 10:28:12 AM
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?
No, it's herbicides. Not sure why the word "pesticides" is used sometimes.
Post by: Practical Approach on September 26, 2017, 10:31:51 AM
Post by: JLS on September 26, 2017, 10:36:10 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Practical Approach on September 26, 2017, 10:47:23 AM
Herbicides are considered a pesticide per EPA definitions.
Ok, good to know. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Skillet on September 26, 2017, 10:49:40 AM
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. :dunno:
Clearcutting (with appropriate stream setbacks) and burning is best IMHO, but until Monsanto figures out a way to patent fire and sell licenses for it back to foresters, I think we're stuck with chemical control. K street has way too much influence here, IMHO.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 26, 2017, 11:01:17 AM
Yes, although pesticide is commonly used interchangeably with insecticide, in the regulatory world pesticide is used globally for all chemicals used to kill unwanted life forms - herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, rodenticide etc. My Washington State weed control license was officially a "Pesticide Applicator's License with Agricultural Weeds Endorsement". No need to use 2 words when 7 will do!Herbicides are considered a pesticide per EPA definitions.
Ok, good to know. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on September 26, 2017, 11:24:22 AM
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. :dunno:
I don't see that slash burning is the issue. Perhaps I'm wrong. The spray seems to be used to kill everything in the cut to give the seedlings an advantage when planted.
Post by: Sandberm on September 26, 2017, 11:41:16 AM
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,
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 01:21:55 PM
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,
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.
Post by: singleshot12 on September 26, 2017, 02:42:48 PM
People who think that Glyphosphate etc. is safe and doesn't have a lasting negative effect on the environment has been reading the wrong literature :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 26, 2017, 03:22:12 PM
Post by: heronblu on September 26, 2017, 03:50:49 PM
Post by: pd on September 26, 2017, 05:47:43 PM
I, too, think the ban on burning is silly. There is a place for burning off the hillside after timber harvesting. Burning is completely natural, and when done in conjunction with rain you can really prevent the airborne pollutants. The same is true for burning grass fields. Bring it back!
That said, please don't agitate for a wholesale ban on herbicides. (The others are correct, our federal government lumps herbicides as pesticides. Silly.) There is a time and place for everything. DDT also has its place.
Let me give an analogy. Everybody seems to hate MSG these days, but it is naturally and frequently occurring, and we ingest it everyday (it is the base of good flavors). No, I don't use commercial MSG, but I don't want to ban it, either. The same is true for herbicides.
Post by: Sandberm on September 26, 2017, 06:37:34 PM
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,
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.
Post by: DaveMonti on September 26, 2017, 10:43:58 PM
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?
The article states that the group has posted a petition asking for alternatives to aerial spraying. There is no mention of a lawsuit and no mention of abandoning the pesticides being used. It is a petition to seek alternatives to aerial spraying.
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2017, 05:59:17 AM
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,
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.
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.
Even though no one set of risk factors explains these higher cancer rates, the range of environmental exposures in the farming community is of concern. Farmers, farm workers, and farm family members may be exposed to substances such as pesticides, engine exhausts, solvents, dusts, animal viruses, fertilizers, fuels, and specific microbes that may account for these elevated cancer rates. However, human studies reported to date have not allowed researchers to sort out which of these factors may be linked to which cancer types."
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/ahs-fact-sheet
Post by: DaveMonti on September 27, 2017, 09:28:16 AM
...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?
Post by: Stein on September 27, 2017, 09:35:11 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 27, 2017, 09:46:38 AM
...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.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on September 27, 2017, 10:17:41 AM
...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.
Post by: DaveMonti on September 27, 2017, 10:24:53 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.
I wish there was some way to clean up the cuts now. Seems every cut has 2 feet of slash on top of the ground, which ends up being leg breakers when the vegetation grows and hides it all. Those blacktails seem to get through it pretty well, but it takes me 30 minutes to go 50 yards!
Post by: singleshot12 on September 29, 2017, 11:05:23 AM
...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.
Well the EPA needs to re-think and change their laws then. A little smoke is a helluva lot better and more natural than man made life killing poisons. But like everything else things are too political and common sense and what's good for the environment is out the door.
Post by: Humptulips on September 29, 2017, 06:53:40 PM
Aerial spraying is probably the cheapest way for them to go.
IMO piling and burning the piles doesn't help much. Still a lot of stuff to wade through.
Also seems to me like the deer don't use the brushy areas much. It's harder for them to get around in the stuff too.
Post by: konradcountry on October 05, 2017, 09:30:54 PM
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
What they are talking about is an increased risk of various conditions for farm workers, not a direct connection to Glyphosate. It isn't like tobacco smoke where there was a clear correlation with users. Farm workers are exposed to all kinds of chemicals which includes herbicides and pesticides not available to the public.
I'm all for organic farming but Glyphosate has been studied heavily around the world. It uses a pathway that doesn't exist in people or animals. There are state workers that spray it all day and it has been on the market for decades.
Now if they are spraying pesticides or other chemicals of a plane then that is a different issue.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 24, 2017, 10:25:18 PM
New findings about prevalence of glyphosphate...