Sad About News That Herbicide Will be Dumped Into the Lake

[ishoot308]

They also said this was safe not that long ago....

[rsmlp]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

They also said this was safe not that long ago....

I mean no disrespect but this is an unfair analogy. Over fifty years ago smoking was a known killer. Clearly, some chemical treatments are safer than others. Obviously it's a dilemma but a choice must be made and neither is optimal. Perhaps it's a matter of balance?

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by rsmlp

I mean no disrespect but this is an unfair analogy. Over fifty years ago smoking was a known killer. Clearly, some chemical treatments are safer than others. Obviously it's a dilemma but a choice must be made and neither is optimal. Perhaps it's a matter of balance?

No disrespect taken and I do understand what you are saying. My point was a little tongue in cheek as many things from yesteryear that were thought to be safe or "the best choice" are now found to be extremely unsafe. Here is just a small list of what our government said was safe but was eventually pulled from the shelves due to serious side effects up to and including death!

http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/...ourceID=005528

All one has to do is look at the TV ads by by the likes of James Sokolove and friends and look at all the lawsuits at the pharmaceutical companies and their drugs that had FDA approval just a few years ago and we now find they caused serious harm.

Why is this any different?? The local Government says its the best choice in 2017....what will they say in 2030??

I have nothing better to offer concerning the eradication of invasive weeds but that does not mean I shouldn't be concerned and simply trust all those knowledgeable government studies and highly educated people, these are the same people who approved the drugs in the link above.

Is it possible and OK for someone to remain highly skeptical without offering a better solution because that is where I am at, the solution is simply above my pay grade...I offer nothing but skepticism and doubt.

Dan

[8gv]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

No disrespect taken and I do understand what you are saying. My point was a little tongue in cheek as many things from yesteryear that were thought to be safe or "the best choice" are now found to be extremely unsafe. Here is just a small list of what our government said was safe but was eventually pulled from the shelves due to serious side effects up to and including death!

http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/...ourceID=005528

All one has to do is look at the TV ads by by the likes of James Sokolove and friends and look at all the lawsuits at the pharmaceutical companies and their drugs that had FDA approval just a few years ago and we now find they caused serious harm.

Why is this any different?? The local Government says its the best choice in 2017....what will they say in 2030??

I have nothing better to offer concerning the eradication of invasive weeds but that does not mean I shouldn't be concerned and simply trust all those knowledgeable government studies and highly educated people, these are the same people who approved the drugs in the link above.

Is it possible and OK for someone to remain highly skeptical without offering a better solution because that is where I am at, the solution is simply above my pay grade...I offer nothing but skepticism and doubt.

Dan

Well put.

The drug thalidomide comes to mind.

[SAB1]

IMO I think we all as humans overthink things a bit. Sure there is alot of info out on bad consequences of things impacting lives but I think we in general know more about them now than what was was known years ago. Sometimes the benefits out way the costs. If the lake chokes up with milfoil in the shallow water bays and coves in the lake where is your property value going? Lots of decisions are made because of economics. Look at ethanol in gas. Many studies have shown that the costs to the environment are worse than when we burned regular gas without it, never mind the impact it has on engines that weren't designed to run it. Bottled water. Pretty much unregulated in terms of measuring its quality but everyone drinks it even though municipal tap water is regulated and likely better.

[WJT2]

I simply went to Google and typed in "getting rid of Milfoil" brought up some interesting web sites and lots of information. Give it a look

[Descant]

Back to the original post and headline.
2, 4-D is not just dumped into the lake. Improper concentration is ineffective. Unfortunately almost any product can be misused, so there is a huge difference between a certified, DES monitored application, and your neighbor buying something and just throwing it off the end of the dock. Yes, people do that.

The time frames, e g. don't swim for three days, are basically the time it takes for a follow up water test to get a "non-detect" reading. I don't know of any instances where water was ingested prematurely causing illness, but there is no reason not to be cautious.

For the misconceptions about Agent Orange, I asked Amy Smagula, DES Limnologist, to clarify:
"In short, Agent Orange was a product that was used as a defoliant in the Vietnam War era. The name came from the fact that the chemical mix was stored in blue barrels with an orange stripe. Agent orange was a mix of two products, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. In the making of the 2,4,5-T, a byproduct was formed, which was a dioxin, known to cause cancer and other disorders. That dioxin was strictly associated with 2,4,5-T, NOT 2,4-D. A lot of people don't know the history or the facts associate with Agent Orange, and thus there are a lot of misconceptions about it. Simply put, 2,4-D is not Agent Orange, it was a component of it, and it was not the problem component. 2,4,5-T was the problem component, with its dioxin byproduct, and 2,4,5-T has been banned from production and use for decades."

I have been a member of the NH Exotic Aquatic Weeds and Species Committee since 2003. There have been many controlled studies over the years on various eradication and control methods for invasives like variable milfoil. The best control is prevention, like the lake host program, "Clean, drain and dry"and strong weed watcher groups who can quickly spot new plants and mark them so trained divers can remove them before they spread.

[Meredith_Resident]

Originally Posted by Descant

Back to the original post and headline.
2, 4-D is not just dumped into the lake. Improper concentration is ineffective. Unfortunately almost any product can be misused, so there is a huge difference between a certified, DES monitored application, and your neighbor buying something and just throwing it off the end of the dock. Yes, people do that.

The time frames, e g. don't swim for three days, are basically the time it takes for a follow up water test to get a "non-detect" reading. I don't know of any instances where water was ingested prematurely causing illness, but there is no reason not to be cautious.

For the misconceptions about Agent Orange, I asked Amy Smagula, DES Limnologist, to clarify:
"In short, Agent Orange was a product that was used as a defoliant in the Vietnam War era. The name came from the fact that the chemical mix was stored in blue barrels with an orange stripe. Agent orange was a mix of two products, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. In the making of the 2,4,5-T, a byproduct was formed, which was a dioxin, known to cause cancer and other disorders. That dioxin was strictly associated with 2,4,5-T, NOT 2,4-D. A lot of people don't know the history or the facts associate with Agent Orange, and thus there are a lot of misconceptions about it. Simply put, 2,4-D is not Agent Orange, it was a component of it, and it was not the problem component. 2,4,5-T was the problem component, with its dioxin byproduct, and 2,4,5-T has been banned from production and use for decades."

I have been a member of the NH Exotic Aquatic Weeds and Species Committee since 2003. There have been many controlled studies over the years on various eradication and control methods for invasives like variable milfoil. The best control is prevention, like the lake host program, "Clean, drain and dry"and strong weed watcher groups who can quickly spot new plants and mark them so trained divers can remove them before they spread.

Thank you.

Sent from my LGUS997 using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Meredith_Resident]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFiU3NxddMg

[Descant]

Depends on what you're harvesting. A cutter/harvester was used on Winni many years ago for variable milfoil., When you cut the plants off and don't go 14 inches into the silt to get the roots, the plants quickly grow back. The pieces that you break off float away, sink and re-root spreading the infestation., Other plants with different characteristics may respond differently.

[WJT2]

That Aquatic Plant Harvester is the type being used in Alton Bay (as I remember) back in the 70's/80's . The one in the video seems more complex but the drum on the stern that could be lowered into the water looks the same. So if this drum were designed to drop to the bottom and also have long tines to get below the bottom and break and collect the root system it may be a big help.Does anyone else remember the work being done in Alton Bay? Ok all you New England Educated engineers living on the Lake lets get going!

[SAB1]

Hmm. Im not to sure Winni would be friendly to that machine. To many rocks. That thing would fine on a shallow muddy/sandy bottom.

[Descant]

Milfoil mostly thrives on deep silt, not so much o a clean sandy bottom. We have difficulty with untrained divers, hence the requirement to get training before pulling. There is still the problem with breakage, so I think the harvester pictured may be suitable for some plants, but not milfoil. There are plants, some native, not "exotic", that can create a need for removal in large quantities.

[noreast]

I agree with Ishoot 100%, I don't want to sound like a weeny but if you aren't skeptical of just about anything, you truly aren't paying attention to history. I don't have any answers either. I've seen pictures of pontoons that have been eaten by herbicide applications That are not covered by insurance or warranty. But I don't know if it was this stuff. probably repeated use as well, Just one more caution. It sucks that this is where we're at but we are, Maybe this is the best action.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by noreast

I agree with Ishoot 100%, I don't want to sound like a weeny but if you aren't skeptical of just about anything, you truly aren't paying attention to history. I don't have any answers either. I've seen pictures of pontoons that have been eaten by herbicide applications That are not covered by insurance or warranty. But I don't know if it was this stuff. probably repeated use as well, Just one more caution. It sucks that this is where we're at but we are, Maybe this is the best action.

Intriguing. I'd be interested in learning more. Conditions, which herbicide, etc.
Certified, approved 2, 4-D applications are pelletized so it sinks before diluting into the water near the bottom, and then is absorbed into the plant. I can only envision limited circumstances where the application would be in water so shallow that the pontoons would be close to any concentration. Perhaps not properly applied? Or some other herbicide? "Herbicides" is a wide spectrum. Nevertheless anything we can learn is helpful.

[noreast]

I can't find the thread or the article that was attached. I believe it was cooper with a chemical compound that created electrolysis. It was also in a more stagnant area so probably no comparison to Winni, but I'd never heard anything like it before.

[SIKSUKR]

The harvester is the worst thing to use on millfoil as it will only spread it more unless every piece that is cut is collected.

[Meredith_Resident]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

No disrespect taken and I do understand what you are saying. My point was a little tongue in cheek as many things from yesteryear that were thought to be safe or "the best choice" are now found to be extremely unsafe. Here is just a small list of what our government said was safe but was eventually pulled from the shelves due to serious side effects up to and including death!

http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/...ourceID=005528

All one has to do is look at the TV ads by by the likes of James Sokolove and friends and look at all the lawsuits at the pharmaceutical companies and their drugs that had FDA approval just a few years ago and we now find they caused serious harm.

Why is this any different?? The local Government says its the best choice in 2017....what will they say in 2030??

I have nothing better to offer concerning the eradication of invasive weeds but that does not mean I shouldn't be concerned and simply trust all those knowledgeable government studies and highly educated people, these are the same people who approved the drugs in the link above.

Is it possible and OK for someone to remain highly skeptical without offering a better solution because that is where I am at, the solution is simply above my pay grade...I offer nothing but skepticism and doubt.

Dan

I hate Big Pharma. But that's a rant for another day ;-) hahaha

Sent from my LGUS997 using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Biggd]

Does the bass with two heads have any correlation to weed control? I thought I just got lucky and got a two for one catch.