Amine 400 2 4D Weed Killer

Big Dave, no problems. I too wasn't trying to argue, just make some points. However, you are referring to a "dioxin", which is NOT in 2,4-D.

2,4-D is labeled as a general use pesticide in the US. However, the controversies associated with the use of Agent Orange were associated with a contaminant (dioxin) in the 2,4,5-T component of the defoliant, NOT 2,4-D.

2,4-D is actually an active ingredient in over 1,500 chemicals. So, in agreement with you, yes 2,4,5-T and the dioxin that derives from its maufacturing is pretty harmful stuff. And actually from the information I've been able to find, its use was terminated in the US in 1985 by the EPA.

So, the general use 2,4-D today is not the toxic stuff that some feel it is.

lorian, believe it or not, I actually read a variety of magazines. From countryside, hobby farms all the way to the more traditional corn/soybean digest. So I am certainly open to all perspectives, but I don't like when people make judgments that aren't based on facts.

I've never said that organic agriculture doesn't/can't work. But, do you honestly feel that a switch to organic ag is the right thing to do nationwide? I don't. It just doesn't seem feasible. Now I'm not saying that small scale farms couldn't adopt, many people have. And actually, on my home place I try to use a variety of approaches, including not using chemicals. However, I've yet to be convinced that if tomorrow we all switched to an organic approach, that we would be able to sustain what we produce today.

As far as looking at the history of things, in this case 2,4-D, it has been around for 60 years. In that time too many studies, tests, etc.. have been conducted. And plain old 2,4-D has been deemed a general use pesticide which is the third most widely used herbiced in the US and the most widely used around the globe. However, aside from the agent orange incident (which wasn't the cause of 2,4-d), wouldn't you think that millions of people would be experiencing the effects, if 2,4-D was toxic??

So, believe it or not, I am open to a variety of things. But everyone has different views and approaches. I welcome your view, I just hope that you are open to the perspective that chemicals that end in "cide" might not all be bad. And what they have done for the ag community alone, is amazing. I wish we could all go back 60 years and operate in that manner, but unfortunately, if we did that, it is hard to tell where we would be.

Like I said, you'll find all kinds of opinions....

Over here in MN, seems the 24D doesn't do much to the Canadian Thistles - burns off the top, but it doesn't kill the root mass, which is the real enemy.

If you have a small area, Glysophate (Roundup, etc.) works well, but you have to spot spray individual plants as it will really kill the grasses too. Let it work for a week or longer. Glysophate works by transfering into the root system, & killing the plant from the bottom up. This is what Canadian thistles need! Won't look like it is doing anything to the thistles with that huge root mass - but then all of a sudden they go brown weeks later.

Stinger is a different formulation of 24d which is specifically for Canadian thistle - works well. It is expensive, but if you follow the label & use it at the proper time - later in the year - it will be an end to the patch, and you can save future resprayings.

Tordon also.

Banvel (aka Clarity, Sterling, etc.) does a better job of killing them than 24d does. Not as good as Stinger or Tordon.

HiDep is also a reformulated 24d, don't think it works quite as well as Stinger tho.

To kill off the thistles, you have to treat them different than a normal weed. Normally you want to spray when the weed is young & tender.

Canadian thistles are a different critter. They put all of their energy into making buds, so much of their growth is nutrients flowing from their roots up to the plant top - very very hard to kill off the root mass at this time, little flows down to the root, anything you spray only burns off the green tops, roots will regrow next year.

If you spray them about when they are blooming, often times you get a _much_ better kill. This is when they switch over to restocking their root mass to prepare for next year - so most of thier juices are flowing down into the ground. This is when the sprays get translocated to the roots & kills the whole plant.

For those who are not familiar with Canadian thistle, count your blessings. They are unlike any other sissy thistle. They are the kudzu of the north! Huge, deep, root mass, you can kill off all the green you see for 2-3 years & the roots keep coming back. Cultivate them, and 4-5 sprouts come from the cut off root; and the plant will also resprout if any of it is covered with dirt.

Evil plant. They regrow by all 3 methods - seed, root runners, and bits of root sprouting & setting.

Best of luck in getting rid of it. It sure is a survivor.

--->Paul

Point of correction -
Stinger is clopyralid.

From -
http://www.dowagro.com/usag/prod/041.htm

Changes would have to be gradual, because you can't grow organically in totally dead soil. You have to rebuild it first, with manure, compost, cover crops, etc., and that takes time. But yes, over a period of several years, it could be done.

As far as nobody being harmed by this stuff, how could you possibly know? There are all kinds of mystery ailments and syndromes, and more coming along every day. We have a whole range of cancers, learning disabilities, and other problems that nobody knows the cause of. How can you say, well, it's not this, when nobody knows what causes a particular problem. Look at autism. Growing by leaps and bounds, nobody knows why. It could be 2,4D or any number of other things, or more likely, a combination of factors. Unless you know of a population exposed to this stuff that has no health problems at all, you can't really say for certain that it's not harming anybody.

The further away from natural methods we get in our food production, the more likely we are to have ill effects. I've had people tell me "Nobody I know has been hurt by such-and-such", then later tell me about family members who died of cancer, kids who became autistic, others developing fibromyalgia, migraines, sleep disorders, mood disorders, a whole host of problems, with no idea what caused them. But they're sure it couldn't be the poisons in our food and environment.

Just because somebody doesn't have immediate, recognizable symptoms, doesn't mean nothing happened. Damage can accumulate over time, then when person gets sick, it's just chalked up to "one of those things".

Dancingbear,

You honestly feel that we could convert our entire world of agriculture over to organic?? Wow, I would love to see that happen. It never will though, it isn't feasible. If you believe it is, then that is fine. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

As far as me knowing that this "stuff" hasn't harmed anybody, do you not believe or rely on 60 years worth of data?? It is fine if you don't want to look at these studies, but they are out there.

However, there is not one single thing in this world that we can guarantee won't hurt anyone.. Is there? Nope, if I were to use your method of thought, then I could say, that televisions, radios, clothing, rubber, plastic, etc... could all cause some form of health issues..

So, how could you know for certain that none of the everyday things we all use aren't causing these effect??? You can't.. So maybe we should just wipe all of these things out.. But we wouldn't/couldn't do that would we?

There is never a way to be 100 percent sure that even the smallest things that we use everyday don't have some long term effects. So, do you hold the same views about those things?

Also, what about organic ag? Can you say 100 percent that in the long run something that is used in organic ag wouldn't have harmful side effect? Nope, you can't. So, I will just leave it at that. We can't be absolutely certain about anything. Maybe it's chemicals, tv's, cell phones, or Organic Ag?? I guess we will never know for sure will we?

That's beautiful prose.

Can't prove a negative, so of course you are 100% right.

The logical conclusion of course, is that everyone else is wrong.

Beautiful. Brings tears to the eye. Very well crafted.

All bunk of course - what you are saying is anti-science, but still - wonderful prose.

--->Paul

Rambler, my point is that when dealing with a toxin-and the weed killer is toxic, the label says so-it's short sighted to say that nobody has felt any effects. Time after time, the public has been assured that such-and-such a pesticide, (or herbicide, food additive, drug, or whatever) is safe, only to find out later it causes birth defects, brain tumors, or what ever. Even things that were in use for years. In every single case, people assumed it was safe, until the bad news began to accumulate and word got out. Sometimes, manufacturers have actively covered up ill effects. FDA has approved things that later were proven unsafe.

So being suspicious of a known toxin is unscientific? Did you read the info sheet from the manufacturer? It clearly states that there are risks.

There have been scientific studies that prove that even relatively safe herbicides and pesticides, when combined with each other, become far deadlier than they are alone. With so many different herbicides and pesticides in use, in what is supposed to be a safe manner, these chemicals get combined in the environment, and people are exposed to them. It happens all the time. We don't know yet the extent of the harm being done. Not knowing the extent doesn't mean it's safe.

....and even with all of these "poisons" we are exposed to, the average age at death keeps increasing and increasing....

__________________
This is the government the Founding Fathers warned us about.....

Yep, better living through modern chemistry.

I spray, I went through the process of obtaining an applicators license for the state of Washington. It was one of the hardest tests I've ever taken, I learned quite a bit about chemicals. The key is proper handling, proper disposal, and following the label. Most anything can be dangerous when improperly handled.

__________________
The best of men is only a man at best.

Nothing wrong with being cautious. And yup, things can be dangerous.

Gasoline is pretty dangerous, as is asperin and alcohol.

Your choice of only selecting pesticides, and your choice of words to deman them, is what bugs me a bit.

But no, I'm not saying we all can drink these things straight out of the bottle, and yes there have been issues, and will be again.

It is a matter of risk vs benefit.

Are we gaining or losing by using gasoline, or glysophate, or asperin?

The message I replied to, you had very little science, just some beautiful prose about trying to prove negatives.... That doesn't cut it in my book.

Your above comments - I hear you. Comes down to risk vs benefit. I just heard yesterday 40,000 people die a year from hosptial mistakes. Wow, that makes hospitals more dangerous than persticides. We should do something!

Am I being silly? Perhaps.

Risk vs benefit.

--->Paul

There has been a lot of talk on this post about the use of 2-4D and 2-45T used in agent orange. That wasn't what made it so deadly, it was the nerve gas that was mixed with it. I worked with a chemical engineer that witnessed agent orange being mixed and tested at a test site in Nevada. I also had occasion to work with a engineer that helped develop the Hamburger Bomb that was developed for Vietnam, and also used in Iraq. How it got its name, that it would make hamburger out of the human body that was dug in 6 feet below the surface. So if you really want to be lied too, ask our military if something is safe or what is in it.

Bob

Ah yes, the old nerve gas in the defoliant. Plus, you say they tested it in Nevada? Was that in Area 51? I guess if I was going to test a Jungle Weed Killer, I'd go to Nevada, too. Herbacide, Dioxin, nerve gas, land mines, heck, I have trouble telling them apart, too. Quick, everyone to the shelter....
Hey, Bob, thanks for the post, I'll be chuckling about it all day.

Best and most informative answer I've seen on here. Nuff said.!

__________________
* I'm supposed to respect my elders, but its getting harder and harder for me to find one. .*-

Just read this article on Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/84029/

Here's part of it........
"Today's babies are being born with over 200 synthetic chemicals in their blood -- chemicals that didn't exist when our grandparents were born. Every day of their lives they are exposed to countless others. Doctors are very careful about prescribing drugs together because of potential unexpected impacts, but we expose our babies to chemical cocktails all of the time. And we don't know what chemicals they are, we don't know how much they're being exposed to and we don't know how they'll interact. In the face of that kind of ignorance, I'll avoid what I can. Thank you very much.

Industry experts also commonly say things like "we've been using this chemical for decades," as if duration implies safety. We used lead in paint and gasoline for a long time, too. We thought drinking alcohol and smoking during pregnancy was OK for a long time. The fact of the matter is that our understanding of toxicology and genetics and science in general grows every year. So, as irritating and confusing as it may be, what may have been considered safe last year, may be found to be unsafe this year. It's called progress and it compels us to be adaptive and to use foresight, which means envisioning potential future problems and then mitigating them. It's that instinctual caution creeping in again. Some call it basic common sense. If there's an inkling of avoidable risk, we can act now instead of waiting decades for the science to ring clear as a bell such as with lead or tobacco. How many people are harmed during the scientific lag time? We need to learn from history instead of repeating it."

To me, THAT'S "enuf said".

Where did I "only select pesticides"? Was it this part, "Time after time, the public has been assured that such-and-such a pesticide, (or herbicide, food additive, drug, or whatever) is safe, only to find out later it causes birth defects, brain tumors, or what ever" where I mentioned 4 other things besides pesticides, and implied that there are many other hazardous things around?

What do you mean when you say I "deman" pesticides? I'm sure that was probably a typo, but I don't know what you meant to say.

I don't spray my fields with gasoline and then graze livestock on them. I'm not aware of anybody that does.

Alcohol is indeed dangerous. And most people who use it are well aware of that, and choose to drink it. It's not generally something hidden in the food they eat, the air they breathe, and it's not really likely to be a contaminant in the food supply. I've never heard of anybody spraying fields with alcohol, either.

Aspirin has a pretty long safety record, though like any other drug, it does have a toxic level. You are probably aware that I'm speaking of things like Vioxx, Thalidomide, Bextra, Fosamax, and many others that you hear about almost daily these days. Again, not something you'd spray a field with.

I don't use glysophate. I've found that my life does just fine without it.
I plant a pretty good sized garden every year, and it's completely organic. I don't use herbicides and pesticides. I use mulch and compost. I weed. I cut. I dig up. I'm not sure how I'd cope with Canadian thistle, after reading about it, I'm very glad I don't have it. Spiny amaranth is enough of a PITA, thank you.

Now, I'm not growing a large commercial field crop. If I were, I still don't think I'd use it. I'd rather figure out a way to grow what I need to grow using organic methods. It is being done, here and there. There really are people who grow organic field crops for the organic market. Obviously, it's possible.

As far as the hospital mistakes, yes, they are a huge hazard. I worked in hospitals for many years. You're right, we should do something. Oh wait! WE ARE ALREADY! Things ARE being done to reduce medical mistakes. It's one of the main things hospital and other medical facility administrators spend a lot of time on. There are more precautions being implemented every day. That's why, when you are having any kind of procedure done, people kinda get in line and you answer the same questions repeatedly. What are you having done, what body part is it being done to, etc. So if you have anything done medically, don't get mad as these folks, they're just trying to make sure they don't cut off the wrong part, or make some other grievous error. Public awareness of medical mistakes is a GOOD thing. If a patient or a family member of a patient knows about this hazard, they're more likely to ask questions, watch what's going on, and alert somebody if they think an error has been made. Peoples lives have been saved by that very thing.

Do you think people are just idiots to be alarmed about things like a patient getting the wrong foot amputated? What if it was your foot?

Public awareness of the hazards of toxic chemicals is also a good thing. People may think twice about whether they really need to use so many chemicals. They may be more careful with the ones they do choose to use. They may read the precautions more carefully, or decide not to use them where the kids are going to play, or where the animals graze. They may decide not to throw the empty (or partially empty) containers in the nearest creek bed. (Yes, people really are careless enough to do that)

While many users of these chemicals do their best to be safe and responsible, not everybody does. And I'd still like to know, if you're not supposed to get this stuff in the water, how can you apply it to the ground, or to plants sticking out of the ground, and NOT get it in the water? Anything you use outdoors like that ends up in the water, eventually. I've seen instructions that say to only use during dry weather, but how often does weather change unexpectedly? Maybe you live someplace where it's nice and predictable, but I've spent a great deal of my life in areas where the weather does all kinds of weird things, often with very little warning.

So since there's nothing wrong with being cautious, why are you trying to make it sound stupid?

Thank you for this article, it makes the point very well. A couple of years ago, a friend sent me a list of which plastics were bad to use in contact with food, (including the one that's been in the news lately that's used for baby bottles) but I hadn't heard anything else about it until just recently. I checked my plastic travel mugs and other items, got rid of some, increased my use of pyrex and ceramic items instead of plastic. Some of the folks I tried to share the info with just thought I was being paranoid. Now, they're concerned, since they saw it on TV.

It just isn't that simple. We were told butter was bad, switch to margerine. Now we know transfats are harmful. I wonder about the effects of plastic containers. A switch to ceramics sounds like a reasonable fix. However, it hasn't been too long ago and we were getting warnings about the common use of lead glazes on dishes and mugs. Who knows?
Cultivate when you can. Use a herbacide that breaks down quickly and has a low toxicity level when you have to. Eat less processed foods. Get off the booze and tobacco. Use a condom. Drink plenty of water. Get lots of sleep. Educate yourself on the toxins in your community. But most importantly, don't let your horses eat the Canadian Thistles that have been sprayed with 2,4D. Personally I wouldn't eat meat from horses unless they've been off herbacides at least 3 weeks. But that's just me.