Brian: Thanks for your comments, and attitude toward this topic.
Bill: I�ll speculate on your question based on my own technical and business theories.
Tallow-amine surfactants are probably (speculation) the most �cost-effective� wetting-agent for enhancing glyphosate�s activity and performance, yet they aren't suitable (safe) for use in aquatic sites. Therefore, the various manufacturers of aquatic glyphosate formulations use the void/space left by omitting the tallow-amine surfactant to increase the formulated product�s a.i.-content, and let the end-user decide which aquatic-approved surfactant to employ � as well as its tank-mix ratio, since various means of applications (aerial, ground-boom, hand-gun, etc) may require more or less surfactant relative to the herbicide in order to accomplish the task at hand. In general, a �quality surfactant� is more expensive than the formulated glyphosate product on a v/v basis. For those who choose to use dishwashing detergent, instead of a commercial surfactant, be aware that dish-soap is primarily �detergent� with surfactant added for wetting-purposes. Furthermore, dish soaps contain anionic surfactant, instead of a non-ionic surfactant that herbicide-labels specify. Also, the foam created by dish-soap make refilling the mix-tank a pain � if not risky � since the product-laden foam usually billows out of the mix-tank�s opening long before it is refilled with water. Again, a �quality surfactant� will generally produce much less foam than dish soap, and whatever foam is created during the tank-refilling process usually breaks down quickly due to integrated defoaming-agents.
Canyoncreek: I fully respect your concerns when viewing such �information�. However, just because such �news� appears on the internet doesn�t mean that it�s factually-based "scientific information".
As I grow older, I�ve become much more skeptical of many things. Ranked at the top of my list of skeptical things are: smiling politicians, wealthy lawyers, weathermen,
gas-pains after eating Mexican food and "news media� � especially web-sites that masquerade as �news media�. For the later, I always question the website�s driving motivation for "enlightening" the masses; AND where the site derives its funding.
The below excerpt came from the home-page of the site that you referenced in your post (
adding my own emphasis on key words and phrases).
In September 2013, EcoWatch became a Certified B Corporation and joined more than 1,300 companies that leverage the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. In May of 2014, EcoWatch became a member of 1% for the Planet, an alliance of businesses that are financially committed to creating a healthy planet.Last time I checked, a �business� must somehow turn a profit � or otherwise cease to exist (except for Amazon, but that�s another story). In the case of EcoWatch, it�s safe to assume that this entity is funded by the �alliance of businesses�, who are graciously seeking to save mankind from himself � undoubtedly for a profit. That said, let�s now take a tangent.
It is far easier to scare the populace about something of which they know little or nothing about than it is to educate them on a highly technical topic that requires years of higher education to properly understand.
HOWEVER!
What if scaring the populace through misleading information and skewed or meaningless �statistics� were to shift the public�s perceptions, financial resources, consumption-demand and political-allegiances in the �alliance�s� favor? Sounds like a well contrived business model to me!
I have no intention of debating allegations that appear on such websites, especially when they fail to reference peer-reviewed data or "studies".
BTW, the term �researchers� is flaunted by such sites when referencing their so-called �studies�; which brings up one more inductee on my list of skeptical things.
�Researchers� are either contracted or employed � by someone � to do their bidding, whatever it may be. As a student of statistics, I can design a �study�, and �interpret� the data to insinuate almost anything - especially if I want something to appear as a �suspected causal-agent�.
In true circles of science, is up to the critical peer-review process to determine if my research methodology and data-interpretations are technically correct and worthy of endorsement. Without peer-reviews, a so-called �study� is nothing but propaganda-fodder.
I�m done here. I�ve got an early-morning swim-meet tomorrow � for my son, not me.
G�nite all!
