Skip to comments.
E.P.A. Recommends Limits on Thousands of Uses of Pesticides
The Treasonous NY Times ^
| August 4, 2006
| MICHAEL JANOFSKY
Posted on 08/06/2006 12:29:31 AM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
1
posted on
08/06/2006 12:29:34 AM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
Environmental groups applauded the recommendation to cancel most uses of carbofuran, a common insecticide used on corn, rice, tobacco and other crops that has had particularly deadly effects on birds. Are corn, rice, tobacco fields filling with dead birds?
To: neverdem
Ordinarily, this would bother me, knowing how people tend to misuse products they buy.
However, seeing that Scotts Company, the fertilizer and lawn care company and pesticide manufacturer, decided it was in the best interest of their employees health to mandate no one working for them may smoke tobacco at any time, even after work hours, away from the Scotts company campus, maybe a look into the health effects of the public use of their products might be in order.
If they are really so concerned about public health, shouldn't they start at home and maybe place warnings on their legal products, as well as pay outrageous taxes to cover the ill effects society might suffer from using them?
I was taught turnabout was always fair play.
3
posted on
08/06/2006 12:42:20 AM PDT
by
DakotaRed
To: neverdem; The Red Zone
Are the cost / benefit analysis related to all of these studies?
Realistically nearly all poisons will have a unintended detrimental effects. Otherwise it wouldn't be poison.
The real question is whether the economic costs of the negatives outwiegh the costs of a cessation of use or the cost of employing (and sometimes developing) an alternative.
The other trick is to actually place a value on nature, which is not terribly easy and quite subjective.
To: neverdem
" an inadequate job of measuring effects on brain development in fetuses, infants and young children, "Yeah ! ! Where are those tests on babies and little kids? Line em up and stuff it into em in megadoses and let's see what happens.
yitbos
5
posted on
08/06/2006 12:43:43 AM PDT
by
bruinbirdman
("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"The real question is whether the economic costs of the negatives outwiegh the costs of a cessation of use "As in saving some pelican at the expense of 1,000,000+ dead people every year from malaria?
yitbos
6
posted on
08/06/2006 12:46:17 AM PDT
by
bruinbirdman
("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
To: bruinbirdman
I am curious if the reason DDT harmed birds was that it killed off most of the bugs they used to eat.
To: neverdem
What bs artists these people are. Why don't we put them on an island somewhere with nothing but preditors of all varities and see how they do. They know they are killing more and more of the population by restriction but hey isn't that their agenda. I also understand that way too friendly face on the Ford TV commercial, Bill Ford, who advertises the hybrid car is big time zero population. In other words, he wants to get rid of you and your future generations because he is a god and thinks just that he has a few bucks he can dictate. I can't stand these people.
8
posted on
08/06/2006 1:59:22 AM PDT
by
freekitty
To: neverdem; All
9
posted on
08/06/2006 2:30:23 AM PDT
by
backhoe
(I'd STILL rather hunt with Dick than Ride With Ted...)
To: neverdem
Once again the Enviro Nazis have killed off some very effective stuff. I have used Diazinon for years to keep the bugs out of the house and out of my wood piles.
Now Diazinon is banned and me and my neighbors have had one of the worst ant infestations this summer in years because the "new and improved" crap from Ortho or who ever, SUCKS!!! All the new "bug killer" stuff is junk. Hopfully we can smuggle in some good stuff from Mexico before next ant season.
10
posted on
08/06/2006 4:58:04 AM PDT
by
MaDeuce
(Do it to them, before they do it to you! (MaDuce = M2HB .50 BMG))
To: neverdem
We routinely wrote scare stories about the hazards of chemicals, employing words like cancer, and birth defects to splash a little cold water in reporters' faces... Our press reports were more or less true... Few handouts, however, can be completely honest, and ours were no exception... We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment.
- Jim Sibbison, former Environmental Protection Agency press officer
11
posted on
08/06/2006 5:56:38 AM PDT
by
sergeantdave
(Nothing happens in a vacuum until I get there - the 4th Law of Physics)
To: MaDuce
What are the health dangers of having unrestrained bird poop everywhere?
To: ClaireSolt
"The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind" - and being deposited on decks, marine markers, bouys, docks, and everywhere else where those of G*D's critters known to sailors as 'sh*tbirds' live.
Fortunately, our urban Libroid friends have the multitudinous blessings of pigeons, starlings and sparrows. After all, sailors can't be allowed to have all the fun, can they.
Bring back DDT ! ! ! ! !
And, let's give the coastal dwellers a break and bring back bounties on seals.
13
posted on
08/06/2006 9:18:03 AM PDT
by
GladesGuru
(In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
To: DakotaRed
I agree. Scott's is poisioing the world one lawn at a time. By eliminating sod webworms they kill everything.
Clover is ok..... it is not a weed.
14
posted on
08/06/2006 9:21:55 AM PDT
by
bert
(K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
To: ClaireSolt
"What are the health dangers of having unrestrained bird poop everywhere?"
It can't be good, thats all I can tell ya. Play a round of golf and your shoes are covered with those miserable Canada Goose crap. Almost makes you want to toss the shoes away.
Once again with the EPA rulings, you'll see smaller crop yields, higher prices on the market, and lower quality of foods that do make it to the market.
The EPA themselves are a terrorist organization within this country and should be dealt with as such.
15
posted on
08/06/2006 5:48:20 PM PDT
by
MaDeuce
(Do it to them, before they do it to you! (MaDuce = M2HB .50 BMG))
To: MaDuce
To: ClaireSolt
17
posted on
08/06/2006 9:52:08 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
18
posted on
08/06/2006 10:06:28 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: The Red Zone
I am curious if the reason DDT harmed birds was that it killed off most of the bugs they used to eat.
No. Birds consumed the bugs carrying low levels of the DDT. The DDT built up in the birds bodies. DDT messed up the ability of the birds to produce eggs with hard shells. The birds began producing soft shelled eggs which were inadequate to protect the developing baby birds. Several birds of prey almost went extinct, as they eat other birds which ate DDT carrying bugs.
If I remember correctly, DDT was also showing up in human breast milk.
It's hard to weigh the benefits of banning DDT. The bird populations have almost completely recovered, but there is a greater risk of malaria.
19
posted on
08/06/2006 10:08:38 PM PDT
by
mysterio
To: neverdem
The ghost of Rachel Carson is still haunting the world.
20
posted on
08/06/2006 10:10:23 PM PDT
by
COEXERJ145
(Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson