Maplewood could ban non-organic cosmetic lawn chemicals
Jackson_Fusion said:
ctrzaska said:
Ah the old big bad Monsanto argument. Love it. Anyhoo, if you get a moment, please pop over a few peer-reviewed studies conclusively tying pesticides and herbicides in local lawn use to cancer. Would love to read them.
Why are you so hung up on scientific data and facts? The ability to feel validated by using the force of law to control the actions of your neighbors regardless of fact is its own justification for so many things.
In other words- you will get nothing, or you will get a crackpot link from some group that put together a phony study (see the study that stampeded Ontario as an example- you know, the Ontario where over half of residents want the ban to go away now that the facts are in).
You need to focus on what's important- telling the unenlightned what is good for them not through force of argument, but by threatening them with criminal sanctions.
Is the argument from you two that run-off contaminated by pesticides have no negative effects at all, or that they do but cancer is not one of them?
dave23 said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
ctrzaska said:
Ah the old big bad Monsanto argument. Love it. Anyhoo, if you get a moment, please pop over a few peer-reviewed studies conclusively tying pesticides and herbicides in local lawn use to cancer. Would love to read them.
Why are you so hung up on scientific data and facts? The ability to feel validated by using the force of law to control the actions of your neighbors regardless of fact is its own justification for so many things.
In other words- you will get nothing, or you will get a crackpot link from some group that put together a phony study (see the study that stampeded Ontario as an example- you know, the Ontario where over half of residents want the ban to go away now that the facts are in).
You need to focus on what's important- telling the unenlightned what is good for them not through force of argument, but by threatening them with criminal sanctions.
Is the argument from you two that run-off contaminated by pesticides have no negative effects at all, or that they do but cancer is not one of them?
I'm not the one arguing for criminal sanctions for using a legal product in a lawful manner, so if you are, perhaps we can turn that question back to you.
Are you arguing that there is currently run off in Maplewood of pesticides used lawfully and properly that have negative impacts outweighing their positive ones, impacts including causing cancer?
May I see your data?
No, I'm not. You guys just got a little hyped up by the "big bad Monsanto argument" and was wondering whether you considered pesticide runoff completely benign. (Maybe the out is "local lawn use." I doubt there are studies linking pesticide use in MSO to cancer.)
dave23 said:
No, I'm not. You guys just got a little hyped up by the "big bad Monsanto argument" and was wondering whether you considered pesticide runoff completely benign. (Maybe the out is "local lawn use." I doubt there are studies linking pesticide use in MSO to cancer.)
I didn't say anything about Monsanto, though I have used Roundup to massacre a shockingly large and powerful poison ivy vine- seriously, like little shop of horrors big. Made short work of it.
This is of course not a "all none" argument. Was someone arguing that unlimited pesticide runoff of all flavors is benign? No one was that I noticed. Why? Because it's a ridiculous proposition.
It's the mirror image of what is being discussed here: banning all lawn chemicals regardless of data suggesting any contamination, never mind danger of that contamination.
If reasonable people think unlimited use of chemicals is absurd, surely the same reasonable people must believe that wholesale banning of all chemicals is equal absurd.
Jackson_Fusion said:
dave23 said:
No, I'm not. You guys just got a little hyped up by the "big bad Monsanto argument" and was wondering whether you considered pesticide runoff completely benign. (Maybe the out is "local lawn use." I doubt there are studies linking pesticide use in MSO to cancer.)
I didn't say anything about Monsanto, though I have used Roundup to massacre a shockingly large and powerful poison ivy vine- seriously, like little shop of horrors big. Made short work of it.
This is of course not a "all none" argument. Was someone arguing that unlimited pesticide runoff of all flavors is benign? No one was that I noticed. Why? Because it's a ridiculous proposition.
It's the mirror image of what is being discussed here: banning all lawn chemicals regardless of data suggesting any contamination, never mind danger of that contamination.
If reasonable people think unlimited use of chemicals is absurd, surely the same reasonable people must believe that wholesale banning of all chemicals is equal absurd.
I could see your point were it valid. But I didn't say anything about unlimited use or runoff. I was just wondering if you thought that runoff was harmful.
dave23 said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
dave23 said:
No, I'm not. You guys just got a little hyped up by the "big bad Monsanto argument" and was wondering whether you considered pesticide runoff completely benign. (Maybe the out is "local lawn use." I doubt there are studies linking pesticide use in MSO to cancer.)
I didn't say anything about Monsanto, though I have used Roundup to massacre a shockingly large and powerful poison ivy vine- seriously, like little shop of horrors big. Made short work of it.
This is of course not a "all none" argument. Was someone arguing that unlimited pesticide runoff of all flavors is benign? No one was that I noticed. Why? Because it's a ridiculous proposition.
It's the mirror image of what is being discussed here: banning all lawn chemicals regardless of data suggesting any contamination, never mind danger of that contamination.
If reasonable people think unlimited use of chemicals is absurd, surely the same reasonable people must believe that wholesale banning of all chemicals is equal absurd.
I could see your point were it valid. But I didn't say anything about unlimited use or runoff. I was just wondering if you thought that runoff was harmful.
That's a bit tedious, yes? You asked if "you guys" consider pesticide runoff benign. If it's benign, why would it be limited? And how will that which has not been used run off?
Your proposition was made to suggest a position far from any expressed by me or anyone else, but it was nevertheless useful to illustrate the absurdity of the opposite: let's ban everything non natural.
If it's absurd to have no limit, it's likewise absurd to have complete prohibition.
Jackson_Fusion said:That's a bit tedious, yes? You asked if "you guys" consider pesticide runoff benign. If it's benign, why would it be limited? And how will that which has not been used run off?
Your proposition was made to suggest a position far from any expressed by me or anyone else, but it was nevertheless useful to illustrate the absurdity of the opposite: let's ban everything non natural.
If it's absurd to have no limit, it's likewise absurd to have complete prohibition.
It was a yes/no question. No need to tie yourself in presumptuous logic knots.
dave23 said:
Jackson_Fusion said:
That's a bit tedious, yes? You asked if "you guys" consider pesticide runoff benign. If it's benign, why would it be limited? And how will that which has not been used run off?
Your proposition was made to suggest a position far from any expressed by me or anyone else, but it was nevertheless useful to illustrate the absurdity of the opposite: let's ban everything non natural.
If it's absurd to have no limit, it's likewise absurd to have complete prohibition.
It was a yes/no question. No need to tie yourself in presumptuous logic knots.
If you'd read closely enough you'd see I answered your question. Don't expect people to only answer your interrogatories, such as they are, in the manner you demand.
Or shall I asked if you've stopped sniffing glue, yes or no?
Presumptuous indeed!
Could you return the gesture and reply to mine? Carefully, carefully! We don't want another improperly added & attributed "Monsanto" in there.
Oh, I wasn't being presumptuous. You were just following up on the the comment that included "Monsanto." (Not added, certainly.) You quoted it, and were quite gleeful in your sarcastic echo of that post. I read it closely, but got a bit nauseous by the twists designed to avoid the point. Or maybe it was the pesticides.
And why would I stop sniffing glue?
You've asked no fewer than 10 questions, so you could go on forever saying I didn't answer "it." But if we go back to your first two, asked in tandem:
Are you arguing that there is currently run off in Maplewood of pesticides used lawfully and properly that have negative impacts outweighing their positive ones, impacts including causing cancer?
No, I'm not.
May I see your data?
My, that was quick. You didn't even bother to wait for an answer. The word "presumptuous" remains apt.
dave23 said:
Oh, I wasn't being presumptuous. You were just following up on the the comment that included "Monsanto." (Not added, certainly.) You quoted it, and were quite gleeful in your sarcastic echo of that post. I read it closely, but got a bit nauseous by the twists designed to avoid the point. Or maybe it was the pesticides.
And why would I stop sniffing glue?
You've asked no fewer than 10 questions, so you could go on forever saying I didn't answer "it." But if we go back to your first two, asked in tandem:
Are you arguing that there is currently run off in Maplewood of pesticides used lawfully and properly that have negative impacts outweighing their positive ones, impacts including causing cancer?
No, I'm not.
May I see your data?
My, that was quick. You didn't even bother to wait for an answer. The word "presumptuous" remains apt.
High five for answering the only non rhetorical question of the (not) 10! But details details, we're in agreement it seems!
Surely if you are not arguing for the position as stated, you either haven't formed an opinion on the issue OR you believe there is no issue that needs addressing.
Forgive me but I do presume you to be a reasoning being, who, as such, given either implication of your response, must be against criminalizing all lawn care products, and we are in agreement.
That may change if the case is the former rather than latter, and if the former, should you come upon something that sways you towards supporting the ban, please share! I'm always willing to be be moved by a compelling & forthright argument.
But for now- compatriots!
Two is almost twice as many as one, both of which were among the non-rhetorical questions. And I answered them both after getting back from Maplewood Hobby with my fresh batch of glue.
I've not formed an opinion on the possible ban. But I have formed an opinion on the knee-jerk, eye-rolling nays. (I used Roundup and don't have cancer!)
how does the TC feel about me urinating in my backyard. yeah or nay.
Robert_Casotto said:
how does the TC feel about me urinating in my backyard. yeah or nay.
They strongly encourage it.
dave23 said:
Two is almost twice as many as one, both of which were among the non-rhetorical questions. And I answered them both after getting back from Maplewood Hobby with my fresh batch of glue.
I've not formed an opinion on the possible ban. But I have formed an opinion on the knee-jerk, eye-rolling nays. (I used Roundup and don't have cancer!)
That's terrific news! I rejoice in your prudent use of lawn chemicals and continued good health.
And as you say, you find yourself standing at Chesterton's fence, and make the only conclusion you can at this time. I respect that.
Not really a proper application of Chesterton's fence (since I do understand the reasoning behind using pesticides and the reasoning behind wanting their ban), but I'll let it slide.
dave23 said:
Not really a proper application of Chesterton's fence (since I do understand the reasoning behind using pesticides and the reasoning behind wanting their ban), but I'll let it slide.
You have, then, an understanding of why the fence should be removed and the implications and rightness of doing so? That is difficult to square with your earlier declaration that you didn't know if or why it should be removed.
Regardless, your final choice shows wisdom, my comrade.
Incorrect. I don't have an opinion about whether or not it should be removed because I've not attained enough information on the subject. But I do think Robert should piss on it.
dave23 said:
Incorrect. I don't have an opinion about whether or not it should be removed because I've not attained enough information on the subject. But I do think Robert should piss on it.
So again, joyously, we find ourselves shoulder to shoulder opposing a ban, pending further information, which we await with eager hearts.
I do however take a more radical view on Robert- why stop with urine? This ban thing goes through the roses are going to need something.
For those serious about this initiative, see http://www.nj.gov/dep/enforcement/advisories-pesticides.htm the one about organic land care certification.
And for you fools... http://ecowatch.com/2016/04/04/hugh-grant-monsanto/
And this one too! http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/25/maryland-ban-neonicotinoids/
It is very difficult to definitively determine a link to cancer as we are exposed to so many chemicals in our lives (unless you work in a dye factory and everyone exposed gets bladder cancer). I read an amazing book about the water pollution in Tom's River, NJ - and how statistically difficult it was to prove all the cases of cancer were linked to the factory there. They were able to sue for childhood cancers.
Also the way the laws work in the USA chemicals can be released to the public before they are proven to be safe - we are the guinea pigs.
One of my DIY neighbors basically fertilized their sidewalk (covered with little orange pellets) and then their kids were out playing on the sidewalk in bare feet - riding their skateboards on their bellies and putting their hands on the orange pellets. If the pesticide ban can't necessarily be enforced...hopefully it can raise some awareness.
Another neighbor has lawn service and they ride a machine that sprays tons of liquid fertilizer (and who knows what else) all over the yard. Again if the ban can raise awareness maybe they will start to think more about where those chemicals end up (leaching into ground water...washing down storm drains). It seems crazy that our little river in Maplewood eventually ends up as someones drinking water.
I love to watch birds and butterflies myself - they can't read the little white warning signs (man those are a bummer).
This article is a good read http://www.menshealth.com/health/lawn-chemical-hazards
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested more than 9,000 people about 9 years ago, and the scientists found pesticides— or the products created when the body breaks them down—in everyone they tested, according to a summary by the Pesticide Action Network, a group advocating alternatives to pesticides. Among people whose blood and urine were tested, 13 different pesticides were found in the average person's body. At least half the people tested had 18 pesticides in their bodies. Concentrations generally rose the younger the person was.The levels varied greatly, and the CDC stresses that measurable amounts of pesticides does not mean you will become sick. More research and more time are needed to determine the true threat. But meanwhile, many researchers say, we're gambling our health on what we don't know.For instance, we can find out what Chemical A does to rats. But what about the combination of Chemicals A, B, H, and X? On humans? Over 12 years? We can't know for certain."While the government develops separate safety levels for each chemical, this study shows that in the real world we are exposed to multiple chemicals simultaneously," says Margaret Reeves, Ph.D., a senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network. "The synergistic effects of multiple exposures are unknown, but a growing body of research suggests that even at very low levels, the combination of these chemicals can be harmful to our health."
tourn said:
And for you fools... http://ecowatch.com/2016/04/04/hugh-grant-monsanto/
You really should read what you post before you post it. You might also want to read the studies behind what you post. It could be educational for you. Or not.
Anyhoo, how's that effort going back in your own community? Swimmingly, I assume? Folks just lining up behind you?
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
What would your proposal ban, specifically? How are those chemicals used today in Maplewood, specifically? What level of contamination, exactly, currently exists, and where, and what are the proven, documented dangers, scientifically supported, of those contaminations? What are the ramifications to both property maintainence and pest control to your specific proposals?
Do me a solid and cut and paste the following after your response, or lack of: "that's what I thought".
"Common sense" to many means "this is what I think, based on instinct". Reasonable people then go about proving or disproving their gut inclination.
Unreasonable people move to restrict the actions, under penalty of law, of their neighbors, based on their feelings.