Colorado Springs’ ( Colorado ) Proposed Ban – Certified Applicators & Warning Signs – Colorado’s Municipal Prohibitions – The Failure Of Prohibition In Durango – 2,4-D Is Scientifically-Safe – Screeching From Pesticide-Hating Fanatics – 2016 09 05

 

clip_image002

 

 

 

 

The Screeching-Monkey

 Pesticide-Hating Fanatics

 In City Of Colorado Springs

 Are Totally Wrong !

 

 

 

September 5th, 2016

 

The Gazette

 

City Of Colorado Springs

 

State Of Colorado

 

Selected And Adapted Excerpts

 

 

 

Certified Applicators And Warning Signs

 

 

Screeching-Monkey Fanatics are upset with the city’s use of herbicides known as 2,4-D and glyphosate in parks in the City of Colorado Springs.

 

Colorado Springs is a municipality in the State of Colorado, with a population of over 415,000.

 

Mr Kurt Schroeder, Colorado Springs’ Park Operations and Development Manager, said MANY OF THE CITY’S PARKS ARE SPRAYED ONCE OR TWICE ANNUALLY WITH HERBICIDES LIKE 2,4-D OR ROUNDUP [ glyphosate ].

 

According to Mr Schroeder 

 

[ 2,4-D and glyphosate are ] NOT RESTRICTED chemicals or anything out of the ordinary.

 

It’s the same chemical that you or I could walk into a store and buy off the shelf.

 

Colorado Springs typically contracts herbicide application jobs out to one of several local CERTIFIED APPLICATORS registered with the state to ensure that the pest control products are handled safely, Mr Schroeder said.

 

According to Mr Schroeder 

 

By going to a CERTIFIED APPLICATOR, we’re confident that we’re taking all of the steps necessary to ensure that it ( the herbicide ) is APPLIED APPROPRIATELY, and THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR PARK USERS IS PROTECTED.

 

The application in Shooks Run Park was done by TruGreen Lawn Care, a CERTIFIED APPLICATOR based in Memphis, Tennessee.

 

CERTIFIED APPLICATORS are required to POST WARNING SIGNS specifying the type of chemical used at the time of the application, but there’s no rule stipulating how long the signs must remain up.

 

The name of the pesticide was written on the back of the WARNING SIGNS, which are five inches long by four inches wide under state requirement.

 

According to Mr Ryan Petitti, TruGreen’s Regional Technical Manager for Colorado  

 

It’s a little difficult on commercial properties because you have so many people on and off the prop after we’re there.

 

Typically, we’d like to see them [ the WARNING SIGNS ] on the property for 24 hours.

 

After we’re there, it’s out of our hands, unfortunately.

 

Under TruGreen’s policy, their CERTIFIED APPLICATORS also avoided spraying within three feet of Shooks Run Creek, which runs through the park, Mr Petitti said.

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION FOR SIGN-POSTING    SIGN-POSTING was adopted by the Professional Lawn Care Industry almost 30 years ago, NOT as a health and safety issue, but as an APPEASEMENT issue.  In 1987 and 1988, the Professional Lawn Care Industry in both the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario VOLUNTARILY ADOPTED SIGN-POSTING POLICIES.  For years, Anti-Pesticide & Environmental-Terrorist Organizations had DEMANDED, through COERCION, INTIMIDATION, and TERRORISM, that SIGN-POSTING with NO scientific justification !  Moreover, Anti-Pesticide & Environmental-Terrorist Organizations had also DEMANDED signs which prominently displayed the IMAGE OF A SKULL, again, with NO scientific justification !  As an alternative to the IMAGE OF A SKULL, a sign with the internationally recognizable symbol of DO NOT WALK was proposed by Mr William H Gathercole, which was finally accepted by Government Officials and the Professional Lawn Care Industry.  Unfortunately, SIGN-POSTING was READILY AGREED TO by the Professional Lawn Care Industry in the MISTAKEN BELIEF that it would somehow APPEASE the Anti-Pesticide Activists.  As we all know, Anti-Pesticide & Environmental-Terrorist Organizations were / are NEVER EVER APPEASED.  However, the practice of SIGN-POSTING, however NEEDLESS it may be, MAY be considered as a courtesy to the Professional Lawn Care customer and neighbors, and an opportunity for some LIMITED advertising.  Sadly, SIGN-POSTING has been the FIRST STEP TOWARDS PROHIBITION against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Force-Of-Nature-Quebec-Prohibition-2010-02-00-Permitted-Active-Ingredients-History-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Force-Of-Nature-VICTORY-AGAINST-TERRORISTS-United-Kingdom-2010-12-15-Pre-Notification-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Force-Of-Nature-Golf-2010-07-00-Collision-Course-Re-Entry-Intervals-Sign-Posting-Pre-Notification-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

 

 

Colorado’s Municipal Prohibitions

 

 

Over the past few years, other municipalities in the State of Colorado have RECKLESSLY AND ARBITRARILY SELF-IMPOSED FANATICAL-PROHIBITION against pest control products ON CITY PROPERTY.

 

CITY OF BOULDER    In 2011, Boulder decided to STOP USING ROUNDUP in public spaces due to its toxicity.

 

CITY OF DURANGO    Under Durango’s organically managed [ pesticide-free ] parks FANATICAL-PROHIBITION, natural alternatives [ ?!?! ] to the pesticides and chemical fertilizers must be used at city parks.

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    THE FAILURE OF PROHIBITION IN DURANGO    In the City of Durango, Colorado, anti-pesticide prohibition is inflicting stunningly exorbitant maintenance costs.  And despite these costs, Durango has also been inflicted with garbage dump green spaces.  Can municipalities like Durango, afford the hardship and cost of this #@!!% pesticide ban nonsense ?!?!  When it comes to pesticide bans, municipal officials can learn a lot from the experience of those jurisdictions that have suffered the hardship and cost of this #@!!% nonsense !   http://wp.me/P1jq40-43V   Organic pesticide-free maintenance is promoted by enviro-vermin with unverifiable success stories !  It is a dismal failure !   http://wp.me/P1jq40-3yl   Green alternative pesticides, as well as organic fertilizers, are often owned and distributed by the very same enviro-vermin who conspire to impose anti-pesticide prohibition.  The question of anti-pesticide prohibition revolves less around health and environment concerns, and more around the sale of products and services that are sold at stunningly exorbitant costs.   Anti-pesticide prohibition is a sales strategy used to keep people from purchasing conventional products that are not sold and distributed by supposed independent consultants like Paul Tukey and Chip Osborne.   http://wp.me/P1jq40-3AG  

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/05/01/durango-pesticide-ban-city-needs-100000-dollars-for-organic-parks-more-exorbitant-costs-chip-charles-osborne-2013-01-22/

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/08/20/durango-colorado-pesticide-ban-the-costs-for-maintaining-durangos-parks-will-increase-from-34550-to-237450-annually-weed-pulling-by-hand-green-alternative-pesticides-org/

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/08/25/durango-colorado-pesticide-ban-pesticide-free-parks-are-abysmal-failures-failure-of-organic-pesticide-free-maintenance-anti-pesticide-prohibition-rejected-2012-08-24/

 

 

CITY OF MANITOU SPRINGS    Manitou Springs is considering adopting Durango’s FANATICAL-PROHIBITION.

 

 

 

2,4-D Is Scientifically-Safe

 

 

According to the National Pesticide Information Center, 2,4-D is a herbicide that CONTROLS BROAD-LEAVED WEEDS but is HARMLESS TO MOST GRASSES.

 

2,4-D is considered a GENERAL USE PRODUCT by the Environmental Protection Agency [ EPA ], meaning it’s available to the public in a variety of name-brand weed killers.

 

According to Mr Michael Rigirozzi, a Pesticide Enforcement Specialist with the Colorado Department of Agriculture 

 

Once 2,4-D spray has DRIED on leaves and grasses where it has been applied, THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE ARE GENERALLY BELIEVED TO BE MINIMAL.

 

There are a few folks that could have SENSITIVITIES to it, but that’s FAIRLY RARE.

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    DISLODGEABLE RESIDUES    In August 1984, according to Dr Gerald R Stephenson ( with Dr Mark K Sears and Dean G Thompson )    In field studies    less than 5 per cent of [ 2,4-D Herbicide ] originally applied could be dislodged with a cheese-cloth wipe at day 0.  DISAPPEARANCE OF DISLODGEABLE RESIDUES WAS VERY RAPID.  Less than 0.01 per cent of the applied chemical was dislodgeable after 1 day in turf that received 18 mm of rainfall 1 hour after spraying.  Residues in turfgrass that received no rainfall required 7 days to dissipate to the same level.  In a study in which the clippings were not removed, the disappearance of dislodgeable residues, when the turf was mowed at 3, 7, and 11 days after application, was nearly as rapid as in unmowed turf.

 

 

According to the National Pesticide Information Center, the half-life of 2,4-D is typically 1 to 14 days, meaning it can take up to two weeks for half of the original amount to break down.

 

The jury is still out on the long-term effects of 2,4-D.  [ WRONG ! ]

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    THE SHORT AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF USING 2,4-D ARE NOT OF CONCERN    2,4-D has a 70-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD regarding long-term risk to health.  In 2005, United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) concluded its seventeen-year comprehensive review and assessment of 2,4-D.  Over the course of 17 years, The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data developed and submitted to EPA more than 300 Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP ) toxicology, environmental and residue studies which EPA scientists reviewed to assess the safety of 2,4-D.  It reported in its 304 page Re-Registration Eligibility Decision For 2,4-D ( « RED » ) that the short and long-term effects of using 2,4-D were « not of concern » when users followed product label instructions.

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Reference-24-D-2005-06-00-Re-Registration-Eligibility-Decision-For-24-D-EPA.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Reference-24-D-2005-09-25-24-D-Verdict-No-Risk-When-Used-Appropriately-EPA-Golfdom.pdf

 

 

2,4-D was one of two ingredients in Agent Orange, a chemical used by the U.S. military in herbicidal warfare during the Vietnam War.  [ So What ?!?! ]

 

The second chemical ingredient, 2,4,5-T, produced harmful by-product known as dioxin, which eventually lead to the EPA’s ban on Agent Orange.  [ ?!?! ]

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    2-4-D IS NOT AGENT ORANGE    It is unfathomable that pesticide-hating fanatics concoct imaginary danger about conventional pest control products like 2,4-D.  They scam and deceive the public by blurting out hollow and despicably-alarmist expressions like « Agent Orange » !  This is WRONG !  The issues concerning Agent Orange are irrelevant, except for those pesticide-hating fanatics who wish to spread fear and terror !  The most infamous herbicide combination used in the Vietnam War ( 1955 – 1975 ) was Herbicide Orange, otherwise known as Agent Orange.  This product contained a 50 : 50 mixture of n-butyl esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T.  Herbicide Orange was never a registered product in either the United States or Canada.  However, 2,4-D is currently federally legal as a registered herbicide for the control of broad-leaved weeds in turf, as well as agriculture.  The controversy surrounding the use of Herbicide Orange was associated with a contaminant in the 2,4,5-T component, and NOT 2,4-D.  At the time, 2,4,5-T was contaminated with a dioxin named TCDD.  Studies showed that this dioxin, and NOT necessarily Herbicide Orange, increased the risk of various types of cancer and birth defects.  Consequently, Herbicide Orange was suspended for use by the United States Department of Defense.  2,4,5-T was later entirely withdrawn from the market, but NOT 2,4-D.  Pesticide-hating fanatics have often concocted an association with dioxins and cancer because of Herbicide Orange.  [ WRONG ! ]  Nonetheless, there has NEVER been any credible evidence indicating that the Herbicide Orange herbicide mixture ( 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T with by-product dioxins ) was harmful.  Since the Vietnam War, 2,4-D has been often falsely and maliciously associated with dioxins and cancer because of Herbicide Orange.  Nonetheless, since 1983, 2,4-D can be considered free of all dioxins.  Pesticide-hating fanatics have argued that the Herbicide-Orange-2,4-D affair has proven that the professional lawn care industry uses dangerous products like 2,4-D.  Despite the opposite claims of pesticide-hating fanatics, NO regulatory body in the world classifies 2,4-D as a human carcinogen.  In 2007, the United States environmental protection agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada issued a ruling that 2,4-D is NOT cancer-causing in humans.  Moreover, there is NO credible evidence that even the Agent Orange defoliant mixture ( 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T with by-product dioxins ) ever harmed anyone or anything except the Viet Cong who had less jungle foliage to hide behind.  2,4-D is probably the most studied and best understood of any chemical    not just pesticide    in existence.  2,4-D DOES NOT contain harmful dioxins.  2,4-D is NOT Herbicide Orange.  2,4-D is scientifically safe !  It is a myth to believe that the prohibition against pest control products, like 2,4-D in the urban landscape will somehow improve health and the environment.

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/agent-orange/

 

 

Some studies have hinted at a link between 2,4-D exposure and a type of CANCER known as Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.  [ ?!?! ]

 

The EPA said in 2004 that 2,4-D could not be classified with regard to its ability to cause cancer [ ?!?! ], CITING LACK OF RESEARCH [ ?!?! ], according to the National Pesticide Information Center.

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    DATA DO NOT SUPPORT LINKS TO CANCER, ACCORDING TO U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA )    On August 8th, 2007, the EPA issued the following statement   This notice announces EPA’s Decision NOT TO INITIATE A SPECIAL REVIEW for 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP.  Based on extensive scientific review of many epidemiology and animal studies, the Agency finds that the weight of the evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT a conclusion that 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP are likely human CARCINOGENS.  The Agency has determined that the existing data DO NOT SUPPORT a conclusion that links human CANCER to 2,4-D exposure.  This conclusion applies to 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP because they were considered for Special Review based solely on their similarity to 2,4-D.  In addition, because they are used significantly less than 2,4-D, their contribution to exposure is minimal relative to 2,4-D.  Because the Agency has determined that the existing data DO NOT SUPPORT a conclusion that links human CANCER to 2,4-D exposure, the Agency is not initiating a Special Review of 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP.  This decision was first proposed on March 23rd, 1988 ( 53 FR 9590 ).

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Reference-24-D-2007-08-08-Decision-Not-to-Initiate-Special-Review-For-24-D-EPA.pdf

 

 

On June 22nd, 2015, IARC DID issue the results of a hazard study against 2,4-D that arbitrarily classified it as « probably carcinogenic », based upon INADEQUATE EVIDENCE in humans and LIMITED EVIDENCE in experimental animals.  [ In other words, according to IARC, 2,4-D WILL NOT cause cancer. ]

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    IARC HAZARD STUDY AGAINST 2,4-D IS DISTORTED, BIASED, & UNBALANCED PESTICDE-HATING FANATICISM !    IARC has NOT classified 2,4-D Herbicide as « carcinogenic to humans ».  Additionally, national government regulators world-wide have concluded that 2,4-D is scientifically-safe, and yet only IARC irresponsibly alleges it MAY cause cancer.  Seemingly, IARC operates under the hypocritical assumption that its allegations do not need to be true, they just need to be probable.  Nonetheless, IARC has NOT classified 2,4-D as « carcinogenic to humans ».  In other words, according to IARC, 2,4-D WILL NOT cause cancer.  Unfortunately, IARC is implying that its « limited evidence » is somehow being withheld from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ), Health Canada, and EVERY other science-based national regulatory agency in the world.  Why do science-based national regulatory agencies around the world conclude that 2,4-D is scientifically safe while only IARC irresponsibly alleges it « probably » causes cancer ?!?!  Scientific research shows that, as reported through EPA’s and Health Canada’s vast toxicology database, NO harm will occur when pest control products like 2,4-D are applied properly.  All of these products have been evaluated for their carcinogenic potential.   http://wp.me/p1jq40-6yf   Even Canadian Cancer Society’s own web-sites state, repeatedly, that scientific research does NOT provide a conclusive link between pest control products and cancer.  http://wp.me/P1jq40-4qC   Pesticides causing cancer is a myth !   http://wp.me/p1jq40-2nl   The pesticide-hating IARC has been discredited since it is NOT a science-based government regulatory agency, and IARC DOES NOT evaluate risk. 

 

 

 

Screeching From Pesticide-Hating Fanatics In Colorado Springs

 

 

Pesticide-Hating Fanatic Nicole Rosa, who lives near the Shooks Run Park, noticed several small yellow WARNING SIGNS reading WARNING : PESTICIDES APPLIED in the grassy stretch between East Willamette Avenue and East Cache La Poudre Street on the morning of August 25th, 2016.

 

Four hours later, all of the WARNING SIGNS had been removed except one.

 

According to Fanatic Rosa, who has taken her dog on daily walks at the park for 11 years 

 

I don’t really appreciate my park being POISONED [ ?!?! ] without any kind of advance notice.

 

An on-line petition that Fanatic Rosa since started to ask the city’s department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services to USE NON-TOXIC ALTERNATIVES [ ?!?! ] to pesticides and herbicides has garnered more than 170 signatures.

 

Pesticide-Hating Fanatic Betty Ball, coordinator for the Boulder-based non-profit Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center’s Citizens for Pesticide Reform campaign, said 2,4-D is UNSAFE TO USE [ WRONG ! ], especially in public spaces such as parks.

 

Green alternatives pesticides, such as corn gluten meal and vinegar, are just as effective in killing broad-leaved weeds, Fanatic Ball said.  [ WRONG ! ]

 

According to Fanatic Ball 

 

That’s the problem with most things like this, there hasn’t been enough research to prove that they’re unsafe.  [ WRONG ! ]

 

The city or county should have to prove that it’s safe. [ WRONG ! ]

 

The public shouldn’t have to prove that it’s dangerous.  [ WRONG ! ]

 

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    GREEN ALTERNATIVE PESTICIDES DO NOT WORK    There is NO such thing as NON-TOXIC ALTERNATIVES to conventional pest control products.  Overall, green alternative pesticides are ineffective, inadequate, inferior, high-risk, more toxic, and stunningly expensive !  In many cases, green alternative pesticides are questionably higher in toxicity, and pose higher environmental risks.  Green alternative pesticides and even organic fertilizers often contain living pathogenic organisms, fermented materials, or metals that may be deemed unsafe for children, adults, and the environment.  Conventional pest control products are absolutely necessary.  Fortunately, conventional pest control products are safe, effective, economical, and low-risk.

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/myth-busting-prohibition/

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/green-alternatives-bogus-dismal-failures/

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/12/06/green-alternatives-what-is-green-chemistry-by-definition-alternatives-are-inferior-20

 

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION    PESTICIDES ARE SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE    EPA, Health Canada, and other science-based national regulatory agencies have clearly demonstrated that pest control products used in the Urban Landscape are LESS TOXIC THAN Aspirin, baking soda, caffeine, cannabis, nicotine, table salt, and Tylenol.  Additionally, these products are NO MORE TOXIC THAN ethanol ( an edible beverage constituent in beer, wine, and other intoxicating beverages ), mouthwash ( Listerine ), and Vitamin C.  These pest control products are scientifically-safe, practically non-toxic, will cause NO harm, will NOT cause cancer, and will NOT cause irreversible damage if consumed orally.  The probable lethal dose for a person ingesting the concentrated form of many of these products is ONE LITRE, the volume of an entire milk carton.  By comparison, drinking SIX LITRES of water, a fluid that is seemingly harmless, can lead to water poisoning or dilutional hyponatremia, which is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions.  In essence, water is only FIVE TIMES SAFER than many of these products.  Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and will NOT CAUSE HARM TO PEOPLE, ANIMALS, OR THE ENVIRONMENT.  

 

Links Concerning Conventional Pest Control Products 

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2014/03/01/pesticides-are-scientifically-safe-safe-to-use-less-lethal-to-humans-than-caffeine-2014-02-27/

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/children-are-not-at-risk/

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/06/25/pesticides-evaluated-as-acceptable-for-continued-registration-by-health-canada-2013-03-31/

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/10/11/posters-there-is-a-real-trend-against-pesticide-bans-victories-against-terrorists-our-children-are-safe-when-pesticide-bans-are-stopped-2012-10-11/

 

 

 

 

clip_image004

 

 

 

 

Uncategorized
https://wp.me/p1jq40-9Rq