i noticed it is the active ingredient in SHORE KLEAR and you can also by it at tractor supply under a different name and cheaper but i don't want to kill my fish.... i have trout.

Yeah, it should be OK. I used it a week ago and got it at TSC. What are you trying to kill? Some plants need a surfactant like Cide Kick.

I was trying to murder some yellow water primrose and, without the Cide Kick, it came back pretty quickly.

Ditto with what Dave said. I've had trout and had no problems with it. These types of herbicides break down quickly when in contact with organic matter.

There are several brands labeled for aquatic use.

The way your question is worded it sounds like you may be asking if any glyphosate product is ok. Shore Klear and other aquatic approved products will be fine. However, I wouldn't spray Round Up or other terrestrial products in the pond.

I hate to go backwards here, but what plants are you trying to kill?

Also, there may be knock offs with the same ingrediant but you need to check the % of active ingrediant on the label.

Which brings us to Glyphosate. Not exactly the best pond treatment. Just is not made for underwater plants. More or less for the shore. You need to add other things to it just to make it effective for marginals. Off to work, Coontail, cattails and bulrushes on the menu today. And no gly for me.

I know I'll probably catch hell for this but I've used Round up on shoreline plants with no problems but I did add a surfactant. The resident heron kills more frogs and fish than anything I can apply!

I haven't applied anything this year and I've got hundreds of dead tadpoles in the biggest pond. It's either the smallmouth of 5 to 7 inches smacking them but not eating them as they are too big to swallow, or the bluegills on the beds don't tolerate them in the area. The dead tadpoles are the most numerous in the area where the bluegills are bedding, but the smallies like to hang out in the area too for some reason. They bgs are all males so it can't be because of bluegill fry.

i have a couple issues but for the purpose of this thread, the stuff i want to kill is growing at the edge of the pond maybe a little in the water but mostly on the edge of land right at the water line... it looks like really tall thick grass, like cut-weed. about knee to waist tall.
also...
i also have a massive growth of underwater plants that are getting out of control and i think they are either large leaf pond weed or clasping leaf pond weed. they have a little stem unlike the rest of the foliage that sticks up out of the water a little bit. stem kinda looks like the bud of a wheat plant, only green. didn't know if i should look into chemicals for this or what, since i have delicate trout. thanks. matt.

Matt, can you post a pic or two of your vegetation? That would probably help guide a more on-point answer in your direction.

I second the pics. Try and get at least one close up of the plant.

Hey, there are uses for a lot of stuff, I just try to use the right product for the right application.

If I have material I want gone fast and it is out of the water and above soil I use a roundup blend. Mainly Rounduppromax. It comes almost 50% gly. I combine that with Scythe, which is acid, Pelargonic and fatty. I'll go 2 oz RPM and 4 oz Scythe per gal. I get death action within minutes. I prefer the overkill method, as I hate respraying. The Scythe just makes the gly nasty effective, way faster acting and lethal in almost everything it gets on. It ain't Agent Orange, but it's a nasty good blend. Best thing is customer is visually impressed. It works well and fast for this hurry up I want results world.

Bear in mind I will not get near water, no marginals, no shorelines where overspray may hit water. Even the warning labels say that. Gly will breakdown on soil, in the air, but when it gets in water it might just hang around and accumulate. I tend to experiment in some aspects of my business, but with herbicides I follow all warnings.

Short answer, I would not use gly on marginals or shoreline plants. It tends to bond with soil molecules, then is supposed to dissipate from there. In water, it does not, and can cause contamination. Trout, as well as most fishes have a lot of fatty tissues, which are like chemical sponges. They will soak up and store contminants, mercury, selenium, maybe even gly. Might not kill them, might kill whatever eats them.

We have a posted limit of how much Striped Bass you should eat per month out fo the Sacramento Delta. It's ounces. The toxic brew dumped into the water is the culprit, including mercury.

As far as your water plants, if you could take a live sample, still green, and lay it flat on a white sheet of paper 8 1/2 X 11, it helps a lot for the photo identification.

Glyphosate dissapes very very quickly in soil. Just use a formulation that is registered for use around ponds like Rodeo. Formulations contain surfactants (a lot like soaps) that are meant to help the glyphosate to stick to and penetrate leaf surfaces. Some of these are toxic to aquatic organisms. Glyphosate is the most widely used and most extensively tested (for safety) herbicide on earth. Just use the appropriate formulation.

I meant to write "dissipates"

Supposedly Rodeo does not have the nasties Roundup does. However I am not very trusting of the big chemical companies. The same ones that said Agent Purple is harmless, Agent Orange is harmless, got busted falsifying lab results. Misrepresented Roundup and glyphosate both. DDT, dioxin, the list goes on and on. Even the supposed breakdown in soil varies wildly. From 3 day to 140 days to years. Same as in ponds, it can go away in days, or still be there in a year. They even had a lab pushing through all of the big companies pesticides. 262 companies used Craven labs, who blantantly falsified lab results to make the pesticides look safe. And yes Monsanto and Roundup were one of them. I don't use Rodeo. I don't put gly in water, near water or anywhere I might have groundwater. That's just me. They are going to ban 2,4-D. Even different countries, regions and here States have different banned stuff. There are over 100 banned pesticides and herbicides here in the US. Chemicals that were widely used, declared safe. Excuse my skepticism.

Check to see if the products contain dicamba or/ 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid. I mention this because cold water fish, specifically trout, are somewhat affected by this chemical. Nasty stuff those benzoic acids, causes burns and loss of appetite but that is of course at higher concentrations. Fortunately it usually just breaks down to water and CO2.

As with all herbicides, everyone throws a fuss because of bio-accumulation (as PF mentioned).

Hmmm... must be an echo in here again.

Except for the time it hung around 141 days in Iowa. Or over 2 years in a Swedish forest. Even 2,4-D tested side by side dissipated faster. And let's not forget Monsanto got sued and lost a false advertising suit stating Roundup was biodegradable. And left clean soil. Oops. Or the EU stated gly was dangerous for the environment and toxic for aquatic organisms. You leave the US corporate proganda machine things are much different. And when a major corporation like Monsanto loses a false advertising suit, how can people still sit there and say, it leaves the soil clean? Quickly?

Links please.

Does wikipedia count? :P

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-v-AGNYnov96.htm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4114.cfm

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/productivity/roundup/ibt_craven_bkg.pdf

http://emmaberry.org/?tag=roundup


Sometimes people are spoonfed and even when that spoonful of Roundup is proven one big lie after another, they still have that propaganda stuck in thier heads. Believe what you want.

"Roundup can be used where kids and pets'll play and breaks down into natural material." This ad depicts a person with his head in the ground and a pet dog standing in an area which has been treated with Roundup.

One of my favorite commercials back in the day. Stuff kills plants dead on contact yet person is laying in treated area and Fido is loving it also. Good stuff. And I thought cigarette commercials were bad. Don't see many of them any longer.

And people wonder why this late in my career I am getting away from herbicides as much as I can. I'd say 80% of my customers flat out state, no chemicals.

Now be nice Pond froggy. It wasn't that I didn't believe you. Being a scientist at heart I never take anything at face value and I wanted to read what you have.

Got to hit the hay. I'm interested in reading the links though.

Later!

Everybody has to make a buck. Look at the sources in the links above. Some sell fear. To each, their own...

Great attitude, everybody has to make a buck? Those sites are not selling fear, they are merely reporting scientific findings and court records. Records of law. You go to the local chain store and see who is still there making that buck. Monsanto, Dow, BASF. All the corporate chemical makers. They overcome piddly fines, retests, i's all a drop of toxic waste into the profit bucket for them.

And who is paying that buck? The consumer, up front and then the environment long term. The waterways and oceans are in the worst shape they have been in the Earth's millions of years history. The farmlands are getting drenched in toxic soup and eventually the weeds just adapt and you need more. The corporations collectively thank you and your who cares everyone has to make a buck attitude. And our future generations will be shaking thier heads in disappointment, how could we let this happen?

Example #2. Everybody has to make a buck. That should be BP's coporate logo. They sold everyone on how safe deep water oil was. Even worse, there are plenty of reserves out there without needing to do it. Sound familiar? It's all about selling the public, hope they buy off on it, and they make the buck.

But then, reality check. Hey this was not safe after all. Pretty hard to deal with that massive leak a mile underwater. You guys said it was safe. California was just opened up for the same thing after decades of fighting it. So the corportaions that just had to make a buck, sell us some rosy scenario and everyone buys off on it and poof, it blows up in our faces, just not thiers. Completely destroys the environment, the worst oil spill, and ecological disaster in our history. Even the Exxon Valdez was way up in Alaska. But this is in our backyard.

So they guys making a buck say oops, we are sorry. We were just trying to make a buck. Thought it was all good. Sorry we killed countless animals and fish. Sorry we destroyed thousands upon thousands of peoples livelyhoods, who made thier buck in the Gulf. Sorry we ruined the environment, sorry we killed your wetlands, ruined your pristine beaches. We are so sorry, because now we won;t be making as many bucks, that you said we could, because you trusted us.

Now, those teller of tall tales will be out of luck, maybe forever selling deepwater drilling. They lied. They got cauight lying and industry experts say, that show is over. California already cancelled that party. The rest of the industry and the world may wake up because it is costing them bucks. Can I see that little blonde girl in the BP commercial running through a flowery field thanking them for making the world a better place?

You are much more likely to get food poisoning from organic produce vs. trdaitional produce due to application of under-processed manure. Does this mean that organic produce should be avoided? What does off-shore drillig have to do with using glyphosate around a pond? Are all corporate scientists corrupt? Why do we live longer now than ever before? Life is so easy that we can worry about negligable risks. I worry most when I am driving. Maybe we should ban all satellite communications so folks won't text while driving?

The one part of the chemical industry that always ticked me off was the lawn care crap. People spend billions on these chemicals to have a better lawn than their neighbor and this garbage is going into the ground water.
About all you can say for my lawn is it has some green in it but no pesticides. It's really personal to me cause of the affects of agent orange on me and my oldest daughter.

I'm stepping off the soap box now.

Coukd you please furnish me the data or studies or the risks of organic produuce vs. nonorganic? Any link or URL would be fine.

The offshore deepwater drilling is the same corporate doubletalk, exactly the same. They even have to find corrupt scientists who are easy to payoff to influence false data. The correlations are everywhere, making a buck, corporate greed, total disregard of the environment, misinfromation, disinformation and outright propaganda.

Why do we live longer? What does that have to do with chemicals and oil spills destroying our planet?

Corporations count on people's apathy. They count on you and Alfred E Neuman. The risk is long term irrevesible damage for our future generations. I find that important, you don't.

Driving can be risky. I am more concerned with driver's under the influence. And yet corporations who make a buck selling alcohol based drinks spew there propaganda constantly, drink and be merry. Booze is fun, just don't be irresponsible and kill innocents driving. Our health care costs are highly influenced on smoking, driking and fast food diets, but they have to make a buck, peddling death.

I have no tolerence for drivers not paying attention to the road. You pull them over and ticket them. Second offense you triple it, third offense you yank that driving priveledge.

100% correct. Why? Because corporations say so. They need to make a buck. And the propaganda that is spoonfed the public is just amazing. You have to have a lawn, it has to be the greenest in the neighborhood. You have to dump billions of pounds or tonnage to get those artificial or enhanced lawns. And that runoff, blends with the pesticides, the herbicides, the toxins and other chemicals right into the water we live with.

I did not move into a neighborhood because I believe lawns are a social obligation for corporate greed. They required a lawn, I bought same exact house no HOA and ripped out the lawn I had to get out and put in natural rock, and landscaping, both water conserving and organic. People stop and say I have the best yard in the neighborhood. And yet, I conserve the most water, and have zero chemical runoff. I walk my own path.

There are countless individuals, entire communities that got misled by Agent Orange and Purple lies. But they had to make a buck, and said, hey it's safe. Then when people get hurt, or die, oops, we sort of knew but, we had to make a buck. I served with guys who got blistered ears and any exposed skin applying the stuff. Hey, it's all good, they told us so. Advance snake oil salesmanship 101.

I am truly sympathetic to you and your daughter's problems. So much so I get on my soapbox and rant on about it. I do care.

Is gly safe around ponds with fish? I would not risk it if I did not have to.

I only use herbicides as a last resort. I have shifted my business to as green as I can get. I use a Lake Mower, I use a Weed Shear. I use mechanical and biological control whenever I can.

I even have a customer that always coppered algae, and I said, if I can get the same results without using that and we can keep it in reserve will you be happy? She said yes, and that copper algaecide sits on the shelf in her garage.

Sometimes in my business I have zero alternatives. I may cut all the material I can mecahnically and try to only spray once, to minimize my chemical contamination. But I do beleive all chemicals contaminate to some degree. I'll leave it at that and let the topic get back to the start, I am concerned down the road everything they say is safe ends up being unsafe.

This paper seems balanced:

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:1MrI0c6oxtkJ:scholar.google.com/+organic+manure+%22food+poisoning%22&hl=en&as_sdt=80000000&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2010

Rememeber that organic agriculture was a main cause of the dust bowl of the 1930s.

It is dangerous to live in a free society where we make individual choices. I prefer to live with these dangers rather than have the government protect me.

If you have a lawn (spayed or not), you are maintaining a wildlife desert. We have chosen to develop 90% of our farm as wildlife habitat, which we can do by practicing high-intensity farming practices on 10% of the land. This seems preferable to me compared with disrupting all the land with low-intensity farming practices. The animals agree based on their numbers and diversity. They spend little time on my unsprayed lawn.

The dust bowl was caused mainly by inorganic or improper farming techniques. Raping the natural lands, tearing out the native grasses and destroying the fragile topsoil that took ten of thousands of years to make. To say the dust bowl was caused by organic agriculture is patently false. It was caused by farmers destroying native habitat to make a buck.

Let me know when the government protects you. Our free society has been totally usurped by big corporations and thier neverending appetite to make more bucks. The government did not protect us, it protected them, bought and paid for by the campaign contributions and lobbyists. I could debate this forever and a day with you, but your brainwashing is so thorough I have lost all hope at your redemption. I have spent my entire life watching everything around me evaporate, the value of the dollar, my quality of life, the environment. I care, you don't. I get it. Some people are pawns, other knights.

I am going to test out some Avenger Weed Killer. Some say it outperforms gly side by side. I know some organic gardners that swear by it, and still reamin certified using it.

RAH, I agree with you on wanting to live in a free society with limited government, but there are variables in every situation with no perfect answer.
Much of the dust bowl was due to ignorant farming practices plowing up everything, leaving no trees for wind breaks and many years of drought plus no access to the large aquifier under their feet, I really wouldn't call it organic farming.

Also I disagree that a lawn is a wildlife desert, the deer and birds make use of the grass, clover, bugs and worms it provide in a small area, but using pesticides is infringing on my freedom to drink safe water from my well.

There is a middle ground where we do need some government regulation to regulate the unscrupulous people who would do us harm (that includes government).
I try to live by the idea that I am free to do what ever I please as long that it does not cause harm to or infringe on anyone elses rights and freedoms, and I think that you probably live that way also.

I skimmed through the so called balanced paper. It pretty much says what I said. People have genrally lost faith in what they are being told and sold. Organic produce sales are increasing 20% annually. #1 reason: poeple are afraid of pesticide and herbicide residue. I wonder why? It also concludes that organic produce contains less of those residues. But over all the produce tested, alot was still there, because the contamination is so pervasive. Thanks for the link. I missed the part about inorganic produce was safer.

The government is taking away everything. Even my ability to plant ponds. Private property owner's ability to plant thier own ponds. My cusotmers generally want to do thier own deal, want the government to leave them alone and don't want herbicides and pesticides. I'm with them.

Real life example, tomorrow I need to knock down or eradicate cottonwood and willows. I could spray the crap out of them and get chemicals everywhere. I prefer to chainsaw them down to the lowest trunk possible. Then get some triclopyr and paint it on the stumps. Am I using a chemical herbicide? Yes. But I am trying to minimize the footprint I leave. I am not some homeowner DIY spraying whatever I get at the local Home Depot on anything and everything. I am a professional that must make decisions daily, and also meet my customer desires. The very large majority are no chemicals, no herbicides, no pesticides. For the same reason your link said, people have lost thier trust.

I agree people have lost faith in God and have replaced it with neopaganism. I certainly do not advocate indescrimiate use of pesticides. We use very few and apply them very infrequently to our crops. We use the best tools available whatever their source. This a balance between effectiveness and environmental sterwardship. With regards to the dust bowl, there were only organic methods back then, no chemicals. Use of glyphosate in combination with herbicide-tolerant crops is responsible for huge increases in conservation tillage which has saved untold tons of topsoil and provided wildlife with winter forage. Glyphosate has also replaced less environmentally freindly herbicides like atrazine which does end up in ground water. Don't confuse social issues where people love to hate big government and business, with scientific issues. Just because less than 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution does not make the theory wrong. Its just a consiquence of human nature. Closing your eyes when you lose control of your car won't keep you from getting hurt when you slam into that semi. People buy pet rocks too.

I love you RAH. I wish you were here as I would raise my glass and toast to you. Thanks for making this forum a better place.

I couldn't do without glyphosate. There are so many invasive Asiatic flora around here, it is consuming the open land at an alarming rate. Oriental hedges have invaded the woodlands and have overtaken 3/4 of my in-laws land. Chinese tallow, kudzu, bamboo, the list goes on. Gly is no more than a complex salt. Insecticides are now very low dose nerve agents dangerous to only targeted insects. I understand about pollution, and govt agencies rubber stamping products without proper testing. I also understand about them dragging their feet on the clearing of life saving drugs that have been in use effectively in other parts of the world for years. Just do your research and act accordingly.
I have found out that gly will supress most noxious plants at 1/10 the recommended dosage. Monsanto, et al, trying to make an extra (billion)bucks.

I am also a user, in moderation.

most people think if they dont get immediate results, increase the dosage....when actually all that is needed is a decent surfactant, which brings up a whole nother story.....my neighbor who is fairly knowledgeable about such things (as is pond frog BTW) found that several premium surfactants which cost mucho $$ are merely pine sol w/ some fatty acids.

many of the over the counter things like ortho weed-b-gone have the right stuff but at low percentages, but adding a good surfactant to them in the sprayer makes them stick and effective. regular dish soap is no good, but probably better than nothin.

Wow! Not sure how this thread turned so political-philosophical but, I'm interested in the science and practical application stuff as a rank amateur trying to get rid of some bad plants.

I won't do anything that I think might harm my water and my fish 'cause that's what I'm doing all of the work for.

So, we've been using the "cut-and-paint" method with good results. We just make sure that it's not likely to rain for a couple of days and the wind is not blowing towards the water. The cut-and-paint is really hardly any extra trouble because you're going to have to cut it down after it dies anyway. Saves on chemicals and gives immediate aesthetic results too. Also feels a lot safer around my water.

This was a great thread, we had an awesome discussion. It brought out some different point of views, and was thoughtprovoking. What more could you ask for from a forum. I also use gly, tri, 2,4-D, you name it. I almost have to. But at the same time I try like hell to be responsible and not load down the environment with chemicals. Mainly I try to be a good pond manager and not contaminate my customers ponds, home and groundwater.

It means a lot to me because I truly care about them and the environment. The problem is too many DIY people are misled, or are not caring, maybe both. Maybe they don't know how to use herbicides. And the corporations love them to burn through gallons of product when they only need ounces. I love my customers. I know they don't know that much about ponds, and I try to help them learn and solve thier problems at the same time. The one thing I say to everyone I talk to, please feel free to ask. I am truly blessed to be employed in a profession I love. I am passionate about my ponds. There is a reason I have a waiting list by referrals only.

I guess that I assume it goes without saying that labels come with pesticides and it is illegal to use the products in other ways. These labels are written by those "evil" corporations and approved by those "incompetent" regulators. Both groups of people (lets not forget that people make decisions, not governments and corporations) get in trouble when consumers use these pesticides in stupid ways. I am in the field of transgenic plants, and government regulations are so onerous that only multinational corporations have the resources to bring these varieties to market. The crazy regulations are looking for minute risks that are higher for traditionally bred crops than they are for transgenic crops. These regulations and the fear instilled by advocacy groups (like Green Peace that benefit financially from scaring people) are keeping more environmentally friendly agricultural practices from being used. They need no scientific evidence, just rhetoric. Don't think that the only propaganda comes from governments and corporations. Green Peace etc. need new scary issues to get donations. Use your brain and make your own decisions based on facts, not claims (including mine).

I also appreciate this forum because it is visited by thoughtful folks who speak their mind, and they seem to have a connection with the land and water which gives them a realistic perspective.

I agree with Pond Frog to use the cut and paint option when you can, such as on trees and larger brush stumps. Vines and those damn hedges that sprout a plant from every root hair are exceptions.
I hope to kill some, then have a 'controlled'(scary) burn, but we just finally got some much needed rain.

Another trick is to wear a rubber glove inside of a cotton glove and use the moistened cotton glove to apply a strong solution to undesirable plants. For seedling willows this works well in August in our neck of the woods. Just grab the shoot near the bottom and pull the moist glove up over the leaves. For woody brush, timing is quite important. I think that late summer to early fall is typically good, but species-specific directions should be in the label or available from extention publications. I have desirable plants all around my pond and wetlands, so we never broadcast. Although some crown vetch infested areas may cause me to break out the clorpyralid.

Ah Ha! Another "Glove of Death" user!!

In case you could not tell, I get a bit fired up when I hear folks blaming everyone else for the pervasive environmental degradation that is occuring, while not doing their individual part in making the land that they own as environmentally friendly as reasonable. A relative, that will go unamed, ranted and raved about the wetland destruction in Lousiana due to the gulf oil leak. At the same time they have mowed out and drained their woods so they can keep it like a city park. IMO, everyone has the right to steward their land as they please (as long as they are not negatively impacting others land) but don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. My philosophy is lead by example.

Good to see someone has issues that fire them up RAH. Forum rants are great. But I do blame certain entities, and I have seen the environment get degraded in my years to a point of no return. Just stand in the herbicide/pesticide isle in any Home Depot/Lowe's for an hour or so and talk to the people who DIY with these products. It's a disaster that is encouraged.

Tomorrow I get back to operation willow/cottonwood removal. Again, I have a customer with great intentions, but with 10 years of hacking away with a DIY toy chainsaw, I have a shoreline of trees, some with 20 inch stumps. And the seedlings are countless. What has occured with his weekend warrior efforts is a bunch of small multitrunked willows and a multitude of newer trees, and some large trunked trees. He just lost the battle and got overrun. So I get the commercial or pro saw out with a small bar about 18" here. I knock everything down, and then recut down to the ground. Even his previous hack jobs. Some are so bad I can't even get a cut under them, they will have to be dealt with seperately, same as those in two feet or more of water. After gathering up bucked up limbs and trunks and making them future burn piles I get Bayer Brush Killer plus. It's about 7% Triclopyr. Pretty nasty stuff, but it may stick around soil for 60-180 days. It just degrades immediately in water. But I very carefully paint it on with a bulk pack throwaway 2" brush. First coat soaks right in, second coat runs slightly. Always on a fresh cut, within minutes. I do not plan on ever cutting these trees again.

As far as gly, I try to add or make my own formulas. I try to go with any Monsanto Roundup gly, either promax or weed and grass concentrate, which is over 50% gly, and has unlisted surfactants. Normally they are fatty acids. I'll add my own surfactant just for good measure, and Scythe, normally 2-2-4 oz per gallon. Although the gly is the active ingrediant, I want improved droplet depostion and adhesion, plus cellular disruption inside the plant and increased permeability for the gly to work it's magic. I'd rather overload on the stickies and fatty acids then the gly. So I least I care enough to try and put the chemicals on with the lowest saturation of the potential contamination risks.

And one more interesting link for all of us Gly users and lovers. Or Monsanto fans. And yes, it could be propaganda, or it could be facts, but it is food for thought...

http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/behind_the_label/269751/roundup_weedkiller.html

I tried to read this but did not get far. "super weeds"? What is this guy smoking? If you use any herbicide enough, then you select for weeds resistant to this herbicide. Glyphosate could not be used on crops before transgenic plants were created; before that, other selective herbicides were used on crops. This guy seems to think that you should not use glyphosate on trangenic crops so that weeds won't become resistant to a herbicide that he doesn't want anyone to use. Am I missing something?

I only post the links for food for thought. You posted your thoughts. Thank you for participating. I agree some of his terms are amusing, but after dismissing those the actual meat of the article is scientific data which speaks for itself. I don't get thrown off course by terms, but rather attempt to glean what I can by moving along. I don't consider that site or that author alarmist. Maybe slanted, but they are far from the extremists trying to ban everything. I do not even bother posting those links. Like I said, I just post the links for correlated reading on the topic. I don't say right or wrong, that is up to the reader, to judge.

You guys should look up the articles "Junk Science".

I am a scientist and familiar with "Junk Science". As a scientist, I don't consider much of his science (junk or otherwise). No data or experiments - no kinowledge of objective interpretation. There are lots and lot of scientific journals and even some of these occasionally let a clearly biased paper through. The rest of this stuff is like the news - no accountability for false reporting. Just throw rocks and move on quickly to the next victim. It is a good business - just make something up and sell it to a public looking for something to blaim. Ever see the saleries of the top dogs at these organizations? See how much they pay "victims" of the "villians" to go on tour? Talk about mercenaries...

I don't think it is supposed to be science - but a critique by a scientist of the junk science that is being produced for political purposes. I see tons of junk science all the time in multiple disciplines. The AFS (American Fisheries Society) recently cautioned about the lack of proper peer review and politics creeping into science.

It's the same as a court cases' expert witnesses. You pay enough you get what you want to hear. Both the extremists and the corporations fnd thier paid spokesman, I mean scientists. Even if they have to blatantly lie and falsify results. I think junk science is being kind. Where is the actual truth? Most of the time somewhere in the middle. Sometimes, rarely the product is so bad even the most corrupt are afraid to say it's OK. DDT, dioxin laden herbicides come to mind. But they never made it public, they just quietly told the government, er uh, you might want to discontinue using this product. But we bought so much of this toxic crap, now what? Hey use it in the local government and public sector, they don't know any better. That is not propaganda, that is actual history.

Funny that you mention DDT. Please do some research and see if you can estimate how many human lives DDT has saved and continues to save in 3rd-world countries (malaria). Given the choice, my guess is that you might put up with the environmental risks if your life was in the balance. (2004 scientific paper on DDT: http://www.jpshouse.com/DDT.pdf)

By the way, "consensus science" is not science, even if it is a consensus among scientists. Science is based on evidence. There was a time when most scientists believed that the sun rotated around the earth, and that maggots spontaneously generated from dead animals. The folks that found that mad cow disease is caused by a prion (misfolded protein) were also ridiculed for a while. One scientist can overturn the consensus with a single well constructed experiment if it can be repeated in other labs. There are dishonest people in any field, but if you rely on replicated scientific data, its hard to get fooled. The rest is faith. Faith is just fine. We all have faith in something (I hope); just don't call it science.

With regards to organic food, I prefer to have mine grown as far from animal waste as possible to avoid pathogens. I have no problem with others making a different choice, but notice that there are no health claims on organic food. This is because the USDA has the responsibility to enforce truth in labeling. This is why they came up with a set of rules for organic production. Prior to these rules, the consumer could not tell what they were getting when they purchased food labeled as organic (it is also funny that organic producers use mostly inorganic pesticides like copper compounds that never dissapate in the soil). Organic food, like kosher food, ensures that the food was produced in a certain manner, but does not provide any provable health benefit. Lots of folks keep trying to show these benefits, but so far, they have not had any luck.

Fire ants are toxic. I bet Rachel Carson was never attacked by a swarm of them.

Yes, good ol DDT, we should bring that back. The stuff it did not kill it was absorbed into and killed whatever ate it. Very similar to gly, the most widespread herbicide, DDT was the most widespread pesticide. People even had DDT shampoos for lice. But like anything else that kills organisms, the killer potential remained hidden, but deadly. And no, this is not propaganda, but proven science from world expert chemists. Duke has had extensive studies on DDT and it's destructive abilities. It kills everything, and then some more. Does not take much either. Did DDT save lives? Or did it kills millions? Could or is something safer being used? Please don't try to defend DDT, you lose credibility.

Why do you make the assumption all organic produce is contamniated? It's not animal waste that gets in it, it is gly, and many other everywhere pesticides and herbicides, that are now just about in everything. And yes, organic produce contains less than nonorganic. I have manures in my raspberry patch only. Everything else is compost only. Earthworms, red worms and nitecrawlers. I trust my home grown produce to feed my family because I know what happens with it. I hand pick off insects. I don't use fertilizers, or herbicides either. I even have a french drain to seperate my yard's water from neighbor's.

Let's all sing the praises of DDT! We want to bring it back! DDT for all!

PF you should check on DDT first RAH is correct. Check the science not the politics.

TPF, you need some? I just happen to have about a 5# bag in the barn. Or is it a 10# bag?

Unfortunately we'll never be able to separate politics and science, look at the global warming debate, it always comes down to money.
I don't know the all the facts about DDT but too many times something is pushed because of the large profits to be made instead of restrained use were it is the only answer to save human lives.
Human nature is never gonna change, be ready for the coming crisis.

Someone has been sipping the organic C2H5OH...

I'm not a big fan of Ethanol, just another subsidized gimmic.

Not refering to you

DDT has been proven deadly, not by junk science but by world renowned chemists and biologists both. One of the major problems is it really is not water soluble. In fact, and again, this is fact it is water insoluble. But the real killer is it is fat soluble. And it destroys at a cellular level. It attacks the plasma membrane of a cell, and causes it to go haywire. Even better with the properties, it is subject to biomagnification. It sticks around in everything that it comes in contact with, and then get passed along when the higher organisms eat it. The higher up the food chain, the more you get. And fish, who are loaded with fat cells just soak it up. So do people. It collects in real neat places, like adrenal glands, testicles, liver, kidneys and woman's breast, and human breast milk. Again, not scare tactics but proven university findings. And if you want a historical context, DDT is what started all of the overreaction to everything else. Sorry guys but anything that causes cellular leakage can also lead to cells going haywire. There could even be a link to breast cancer. DDT is one of the worst chemical concoctions ever foisted on the unknowing public. But at a time it was also thought to be a wonder pesticide. Kind of like gly today.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. However, banning DDT was a great boon for multinational pesticide companies because its patent had run out and was dirt cheap. The same thing is true for glyphosate. It is no longer patented and its price is falling like a rock. If it gets banned, companies can sell patented materials for much higher prices to fill the gap. However, the regulatory agencies learned from their huge mistake in banning DDT, so it is unlikely that glyphosate will get banned.

Thank you RAH. If only someone could have spoken for the many millions dead from malaria.

What is true is that is cirriculum at every university here in the US. Ivy League schools, Duke, Ohio State. Not exactly junk science. Is it true, it is fact. DDT is a maligant pesticide that can stick around in water for decades. Any pond person with any kind of conscience would know this.

Americans were ingesting this daily. Residue from produce, contaminated water supplies, meat and fish. If anyone disputes this ask any Freshman taking chemistry or biology, or ask the local university. And yes, it did accumulate until saturation. Undisputed fact by world experts.

I heard the malaria comment how many times now? It was the wrong or is the wrong chemical to use because of it's staying power and environmentally destructive abilities. How many Americans are dying from Malaria today with DDT banned? It was scientic ignorance that put the poison out there and then the same old we have to make a buck, screw the environment and people's health for now. Cigarette companies made trillions and still are dealing death. Used to be chic to smoke. All the movie stars did, tv commericials were about as misleading as you can get to bring in new addiction victims. Cancer sticks, laden with toxics and addictive chemicals. But hey, they have to make a buck. Luckily for Americans all these buck makers are taking thier act to third world countries. Have some DDT, then smoke a few packs, Maybe that 2 year old chain smoker got a double dose from Mom's breast milk and that three pack a day habit. My grandma was a 4 pack a day Pall Mall smoker. She paid the ultimate price for someone has to make a buck. Now the worm has turned, commercials show the grim reaper giving out free samples. And the corporations keep making those bucks.

Anyone want to make a friendly wager what I say about DDT is fact? I'm up for that.

DDT is persistent but not as persistent as copper fungicides commonly used on "organic" farms, nor as stable as table salt. Malaria was excluded from th US by wiping out mosquitoes and draing swamps and wetlands. Destroying any animal's habitat is a very effective way to devastate a population. Scientific evidence is data, not rhetoric. Read our history books and those of England and see how they agree (or not) considering the revolutionary war. I sat in these ecology courses and heard how wolves controlled rabbit populations and created the cycling of both populations. Then I read the scientific papers showing that wolves have vitually no impact on rabbit populations. Diseases cycle through the rabbit populations when densities are great enough which affects wolf populations. There are lots of popular myths taught in our schools including our universities. This is not science. Science is data, not opinion. But heck, neopaganism is a popular faith, so enjoy. You have lots of company!

After all my years in the industry, I can actually say that this DDT rant is maybe right up there at the very top for its incorrect information presented in such a well thought out manner. One joy of the internet is bad information can be published and rapidly spread.