CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – HERBICIDE ORANGE ( A.K.A. AGENT ORANGE )

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

Herbicide Orange (1)

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Herbicide Orange

 

2,4-D Is NOT Agent Orange

 

 

It is UNFATHOMABLE that Anti-Pesticide Lunatic-Activists CONCOCT IMAGINARY DANGER with conventional pest control products.

 

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 Anti-Pesticide Lunatic-Activists 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2,4,5-T was later entirely withdrawn from the market, but NOT 2,4-D.

 

Anti-Pesticide Lunatic-Activists 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 this time, 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.

 

Anti-Pesticide Lunatic-Activists 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 Anti-Pesticide Lunatic-Activists, 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 any thing 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 in the Urban Landscape will somehow improve health and the environment.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

Military Herbicides And World War II

 

 

During World War II, British researchers were looking for alternatives to sulphuric acid for selectively controlling weeds in cereals. 

 

In fact, their research objective was to not only improve food production, but also to destroy cultivated crops.

 

After all, this research was being conducted during a war with Germany. 

 

There was also a fear that Germany would develop such a compound first, and use it as a military herbicide against Britain.

 

Researchers synthesized and tested 1-naphthylacetic acid and MCPA as weed killers. 

 

They became the forerunners of 2,4-D. 

 

All three products were considered for use as military herbicides during World War II. 

 

It was theorized that if these products could kill weeds, they could perhaps also kill crops.

 

A plan was proposed that military herbicides could be sprayed on German crops by using aircraft. 

 

However, the Royal Air Force decided that it preferred to use its aircraft for high density bombing of German towns.

 

Years later, the U.S. military began testing 2,4-D at vastly increased rates in combination with other herbicides. 

 

Successful demonstrations led to studies on the technical feasibility of defoliating jungle vegetation in Vietnam.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

Military Herbicide Usage In The Vietnam Conflict

 

 

From January 1962 through February 1971, an estimated one-hundred and seven million pounds of herbicides were aerially-sprayed on six million acres of South Vietnam. 

 

At first, the U.S. military called this project Operation HADES, but later changed the name to Operation RANCH HAND. 

 

It was estimated that eight to ten per cent of the total land area of South Vietnam was sprayed under Operation RANCH HAND.

 

The herbicide products used in the Vietnam conflict were referred to as MILITARY HERBICIDES. 

 

These herbicides represented a new technique for modern warfare. 

 

This technique was called TERRITORY DENIAL by rapid defoliation. 

 

In other words, the U.S. military was spraying herbicides for the purpose of depriving the enemy of vegetation as a strategic advantage.

 

Military herbicides were used for two distinct purposes 

 

1.   A defensive role with forests as the target, and

 

2.   An offensive role with cultivated crops as the target.

 

The defensive role of military herbicides used in the Vietnam conflict was FOREST DEFOLIATION. 

 

Defoliation was considered satisfactory when two conditions occurred 

 

1.   Leaves dropped completely over a period of one to three months, and

 

2.   Vegetation remained defoliated for a period of four to twelve months, or longer.

 

Spray operations for defensive purposes represented the largest overall usage of herbicides. 

 

Sixty-eight to eighty-two per cent of all acres treated by the U.S. military were in-land forests, and ten to eighteen per cent were mangrove forests. 

 

It was estimated that thirty-six per cent of all mangrove forests, and ten per cent of all in-land forests, were sprayed with herbicides.

 

The offensive role of military herbicides used in the Vietnam conflict was FOOD CROP DENIAL or ANTI-CROP. 

 

Eight to fourteen per cent of all acres treated were cultivated crops. 

 

It was estimated that three per cent of the cultivated lands were sprayed with herbicides.

 

There were four principal herbicides used in Operation RANCH HAND 

 

1.   2,4-D

 

2.   2,4,5-T

 

3.   picloram

 

4.   cacodylic acid

 

Of course, 2,4-D had to be used as much greater concentration preparations than for the suppression of lawn weeds AND in combination with other products to be effective as a military tool.

 

Had 2,4-D been used as it currently is for lawns, it would have had no further effect than providing Vietnam with gorgeous lawns.

 

There were four specific products used by the U.S. military in South Vietnam that were comprised of 2,4-D.

 

Products with a combination of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T were manufactured as water-insoluble ester formulations. 

 

They were found in products identified by military code-names. 

 

Examples of these code-names included Herbicide Orange, Herbicide Orange II, and Herbicide Purple. 2,4,5-T was also used without combining it with 2,4-D. 

 

There were two such products which were known as code-name Herbicide Pink, and Trinoxol.

 

2,4-D was also utilized in combination with other products.  2,4-D and picloram were used in one combination product, with the code-name Herbicide White.

 

Finally, cacodylic acid was used alone in one product, with the code-name Herbicide Blue.

 

Nowhere in military records is the code-name AGENT Orange found. 

 

The term AGENT ORANGE appears to have been created by the media and environmental activists.

 

It is obvious that Herbicide Orange was one of many products used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam conflict. 

 

In fact, documents show that sixteen different products were used. 

 

Most of these products were herbicides. 

 

However, there were at least two exceptions. 

 

Malathion was used for insect control. 

 

Code-name CS was used for anti-personnel purposes.

 

Review the accompanying table entitled    A Summary Of Sixteen Products Sprayed By The U.S. Military In The Vietnam Conflict.

 

All herbicides were shipped to the U.S. military in 55-gallon drums to Saigon or Da Nang. 

 

Each herbicide drum was identified by a three-inch colour-coded band around the centre. 

 

The colours used were blue, green, orange, pink, purple, and white. 

 

This lead to these herbicides being nicknamed the RAINBOW HERBICIDES.

 

Painting the drums helped support personnel to identify the product easily.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

The 2,4-D Combination Products

 

Used In The Vietnam Conflict

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

Code-Name HERBICIDE ORANGE

 

 

This herbicide was used for forest defoliation. 

 

Ninety per cent of Herbicide Orange was sprayed on almost three million acres of in-land and mangrove forests. 

 

It was also sprayed on cultivated crops. 

 

Crop destruction missions accounted for eight per cent of all Herbicide Orange applied. 

 

It was first manufactured in late 1964, and arrived in Vietnam in early 1965. 

 

Herbicide Orange replaced all uses of Herbicide Green, Herbicide Pink, and Herbicide Purple. 

 

It was most heavily used from 1967 through 1969. 

 

From August 1965 through February 1971, Orange and Orange II were utilized in forty-eight per cent of all herbicide missions for forest defoliation. 

 

Ninety-six per cent of all 2,4,5-T applications involved the use of Orange. 

 

Herbicide Orange was comprised of a 50 : 50 mixture of n-butyl esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. 

 

It was soluble in diesel fuel, and insoluble in water.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

Code-Name HERBICIDE ORANGE II

 

 

Also called Super Orange

 

This herbicide was also used for forest defoliation or sprayed on cultivated crops. 

 

From August 1965 through February 1971, Orange and Orange II were utilized in forty-eight per cent of all herbicide missions for forest defoliation. 

 

The ester used in Orange II was different from the original Orange. 

 

Herbicide Orange II was comprised of a 50 : 50 mixture of n-butyl ester of 2,4-D and issoctyl ester of 2,4,5-T. 

 

It was soluble in diesel fuel, and insoluble in water.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

Code-Name HERBICIDE PURPLE

 

 

Again, this herbicide was used for forest defoliation or on cultivated crops. 

 

Ninety per cent of all purple use was for forest defoliation. 

 

Herbicide Purple was comprised of a 50 : 50 mixture of n-butyl ester of 2,4-D, and n-butyl and iso-butyl esters of 2,4,5-T. 

 

It was soluble in diesel fuel, and insoluble in water. 

 

Herbicide Purple was sprayed on a limited basis until 1965, when it was replaced by Herbicide Orange. 

 

Herbicide Purple was originally the first of the Rainbow Herbicides. 

 

In 1959, Herbicide Purple was used in the first large-scale military defoliation test at Fort Drum, in the State of New York. 

 

Its success attracted the interest of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

 

Consequently, in 1961, the military was asked to evaluate the technical feasibility of defoliating jungle vegetation in Vietnam.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

Code-Name HERBICIDE WHITE

 

 

This herbicide was used only for forest defoliation. 

 

Conifers, such as pine trees, were especially susceptible to Herbicide White, whereas other woody plants were more resistant. 

 

After treatment, the leaves of many woody plants dropped too slowly, over a period of several months. 

 

Herbicide White was used in twenty-one per cent of all missions. 

 

This was the only military herbicide that contained some form of 2,4-D amine. 

 

It was comprised of a 4 : 1 mixture of triisopropanolamine salts of 2,4-D and picloram. 

 

It was not sprayed on cultivated crops because of the long persistence of picloram in the soil. 

 

It was soluble in water, but insoluble in diesel fuel. 

 

Herbicide White was the preferred product for spraying near active rubber plantations.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

A Summary Of Sixteen Products Sprayed By The U.S. Military In The Vietnam Conflict

 

 

Code-Name Herbicide Blue.  Used for food crop denial.  From August 1965 through February 1971, forty-nine per cent of Blue was sprayed by helicopters on cultivated crops, such as cereals or grains.  It was also used to control grasses around U.S. military base perimeters.  Blue was comprised of cacodylic acid, and NO 2,4-D.  It was liquid concentrate manufactured with sixty per cent water.  Earlier, from 1961 through 1965, it was formulated as a powder.  Known as one of the RAINBOW HERBICIDES.

 

Code-Name Herbicide Green.  It was used for forest defoliation in limited quantities from 1962 through 1964, until it was replaced by Herbicide Orange.  Herbicide Green was comprised of 2,4-5-T, and NO 2,4-D.  The exact mixture is unknown.  It was known as one of the RAINBOW HERBICIDES.

 

Code-Name Herbicide Orange.  It was used for forest defoliation.  Herbicide Orange was comprised of a 50:50 mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T ( both n-butyl esters ).  In 1965, it replaced all uses of Herbicide Green, Herbicide Pink, and Herbicide Purple.  Known as one of the RAINBOW HERBICIDES.

 

Code-Name Herbicide Orange II.  It was also called Super Orange.  It was used for forest defoliation, mostly in 1968 and 1969.  Herbicide Orange II was comprised of a 50 : 50 mixture of n-butyl ester of 2,4-D and issoctyl ester of 2,4,5-T.  It was known as one of the RAINBOW HERBICIDES.

 

Code-Name Herbicide Pink.  Used mostly for forest defoliation on a limited basis until 1965, when it was replaced by Orange.  Pink was comprised of a 60 : 40 mixture of n-butyl ester of 2,4,5-T and iso-butyl ester of 2,4,5-T.  It contained NO 2,4-D.  It was known as one of the RAINBOW HERBICIDES.

 

Code-Name Herbicide Purple.  It was used mostly for forest defoliation on a limited basis until 1965, when it was replaced by Herbicide Orange.  Purple was comprised of a 50 : 50 mixture of n-butyl ester of 2,4-D, and n-butyl and iso-butyl esters of 2,4,5-T.  Known as one of the RAINBOW HERBICIDES.

 

Code-Name Herbicide White.  It was used for conifer defoliation.  Herbicide White was comprised of a 4 : 1 mixture of triisopropanolamine salts of 2,4-D and picloram.  It was known as one of the RAINBOW HERBICIDES.

 

Code-Name CS.  This product was used as an irritant for anti-personnel purposes, from 1964 through 1970.  CS was comprised of the active ingredient known as o-chlorobenzalmalonitrile.

 

Bromacil.  Small quantities were tested in Vietnam from 1962 through 1964.

 

Dalapon.  Small quantities were tested in Vietnam from 1962 through 1964.

 

Diquat.  Small quantities were tested in Vietnam from 1962 through 1964.

 

Diuron.  Small quantities were tested in Vietnam from 1962 through 1964.

 

Malathion.  Used for insect control from 1967 through 1972.

 

Monuron.  Small quantities were tested in Vietnam from 1962 through 1964.

 

Tandex.  This herbicide was comprised of the active ingredient known as karbutilate.  Small quantities were tested in Vietnam from 1962 through 1964.

 

Trinoxol.  This herbicide was comprised of 2,4-5-T, and no 2,4-D.  The exact mixture is unknown.  Small quantities were tested in Vietnam from 1962 through 1964.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

Attitude Of U.S. Military Concerning Rubber Plantations in Vietnam

 

 

It is interesting to note that the U.S. military was concerned about herbicide sprays accidentally drifting on active rubber plantations. 

 

On March 23, 1968, General A. R. Brownfield sent a message to all senior U.S. advisors in the four corps tactical zones in South Vietnam. 

 

During helicopter spraying, a buffer distance of two kilometers, or more, was required from any active rubber plantations. 

 

Moreover, no spray operations were allowed when ground temperatures exceeded 30 degrees Celsius ( 85 degrees Fahrenheit ), and when wind speeds exceeded 10 miles per hour.

 

However, drift was not the only problem associated with herbicide sprays in South Vietnam. 

 

Beginning in late 1969, a series of events occurred very quickly which consequently sealed the fates of both Operation RANCH HAND and Herbicide Orange.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

The End Of Military Herbicide Usage In South Vietnam  ―  October, 1969

 

 

The U.S. government ordered a partial curtailment on the use of Herbicide Orange in South Vietnam. 

 

This was the result of a report released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

 

The report concerned a study performed by Bionetics Research. 

 

The study linked 2,4,5-T with the malformation of offspring and stillbirths in mice.

 

Herbicide Orange was comprised of a 50:50 mixture of n-butyl esters of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. 

 

In Vietnam, ninety-six per cent of all 2,4,5-T applications involved the use of Herbicide Orange. 

 

Its curtailment meant that only areas remote from population were to be targeted. 

 

Normal use of Herbicide White and Herbicide Blue could continue. 

 

However, large scale substitution of Herbicide Blue for Herbicide Orange was not permitted.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

The End Of Military Herbicide Usage In South Vietnam  ―  April, 1970

 

 

The U.S. government announced the suspension of certain uses of 2,4,5-T. 

 

This announcement was in response to studies suggesting that 2,4,5-T was the cause of health problems. 

 

Subsequent studies were more specific. 

 

The portion of 2,4,5-T that was a concern was an impurity named TCDD. 

 

TCDD was classified as a dioxin.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

The End Of Military Herbicide Usage In South Vietnam  ―  February, 1971

 

 

The Surgeon General prohibited 2,4,5-T for home use in the United States. 

 

Almost simultaneously, the U.S. Department of Defense ended Operation RANCH HAND in South Vietnam.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

The End Of Military Herbicide Usage In South Vietnam  ―  Finally, In 1979 

 

 

The Environmental Protection Agency discontinued the use of 2,4,5-T in the United States.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

TCDD Sprayed During The Vietnam Conflict

 

 

During the implementation of Project RANCH HAND, from January 1962 through February 1971, it was estimated that three hundred and sixty-eight pounds of TCDD were disseminated on six million acres in South Vietnam.

 

Oddly enough, approximately forty per cent of the TCDD disseminated in Vietnam originated from Herbicide Green, Herbicide Pink, and Herbicide Purple. 

 

This contradicts the impression that Herbicide Orange alone was the source of TCDD. 

 

In fact, Herbicide Orange contained an estimated 1.98 parts per million of TCDD. 

 

In comparison, Herbicide Green and Herbicide Pink were estimated to contain 65.6 parts per million of TCDD. 

 

Herbicide Purple had 32.8 parts per million TCDD.

 

Despite the fact that TCDD was not found specifically in 2,4-D, dioxins are often associated with 2,4-D because of Herbicide Orange. 

 

It should now be abundantly clear that there are immense differences between the military herbicides used in Vietnam decades ago, and the herbicides used by the turf maintenance industry today.

 

For a summary of these differences, review the table in the next segment.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

A Comparison Between Turf And Military Herbicides

 

 

A comparison between turf and military herbicides

 

 

 

Item

 

2,4-D in today’s

turf herbicides

2,4-D in U.S.

military herbicides

 

 

Period of time used

 

 

Modern day

 

From 1965

through 1971

 

Registration

status

 

 

Registered

in Canada and U.S.

 

Not registered

in Canada and U.S.

 

Locations

used

 

Residential lawns,

parks, sports fields,

and golf courses

across Canada

 

 

In-land forests,

mangrove forests,

and cultivated crops

in South Vietnam

 

Companion

herbicides

 

 

Mecoprop

and/or dicamba

 

2,4,5-T, cacodylic

acid, and picloram

 

Modes of

action

 

 

Selective

broad-leaved weed

control in turf

 

 

Non-selective

total vegetation control

 

Expected

results

 

 

Weed-free appearance

without injuring turf

 

Forest defoliation,

and food crop denial

 

 

Examples of

commercial

products

manufactured

with 2,4-D

 

 

Product names:

Killex,

Par III,

Tri-Kil,

Trimec

 

 

Code-names:

Herbicide Orange.

Herbicide Orange II.

Herbicide Purple.

Herbicide White

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

A Comparison Between Turf And Military Herbicides  ( continued )

 

 

A comparison between turf and military herbicides

(continued)

 

 

 

Item

 

2,4-D in today’s

turf herbicides

2,4-D in U.S.

military herbicides

 

 

Typical

rates of

application

 

 

0.5 to 1.0 pound

of actual 2,4-D

per acre

 

6 to 12  pounds

of actual 2,4-D

per acre

 

Description of

formulations

 

 

Amine

 

n-butyl ester

(except Herbicide White)

 

Solubility

in water

 

 

Soluble in water

 

 

Insoluble in water

(except Herbicide White)

 

 

Solubility

in diesel fuel

 

 

Insoluble in diesel fuel

 

Soluble in diesel fuel

(except Herbicide White)

 

Application

equipment

 

 

Tractors or

utility vehicles

 

Aircraft

 

Possibility

of drift

 

 

Risk of drift is low

 

Risk of drift is high

(except Herbicide White)

 

 

Presence

of dioxin

impurities

 

 

None detectable.

Modern-day detection

methods are at less than

1 part per trillion

 

 

Dioxin was found in

detectable quantities,

from 1.98 to 65.60

parts per million

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

History Of Herbicide Orange ( a.k.a. Agent Orange )

 

References

 

 

There is no lack of information concerning 2,4-D and Herbicide Orange. 

 

One of the most fascinating documents on the subject is the one written by officers of the United States Air Force called  ―  The Toxicology, Environmental Fate, And Human Risk of Herbicide Orange And Its Associated Dioxin. 

 

It was prepared for The Surgeon General shortly before Herbicide Orange was discontinued in the U.S. 

 

An equally interesting book was written a short time later by Celia Kirby entitled  ―  The Hormone Weedkillers  –  A Short History Of Their Discovery And Development .

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Herbicide Orange

 

The Force Of Nature Library of Reports

 

 

 

Force Of Nature — Herbicide Orange — 2011 07 27 — 2,4-D Is NOT Agent Orange — Ross — Coquitlam, BC — RESPONSE — pdf

Force Of Nature — Herbicide Orange — 2011 07 00 — UNMASKED — Absolutely Not — Weapons of Terror — pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Herbicide Orange

 

The Pesticide Truths Library of Reports & Video Recordings

 

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — HERBICIDE ORANGE — 2013 09 22 — AGENT ORANGE SAFE IN VIETNAM — ELIZABETH MAY LOSES FAMILY FARM — 2,4-D HUMAN STUDIES ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/09/22/youtube-pesticide-free-failure-agent-orange-safe-in-vietnam-elizabeth-may-loses-family-farm-24-d-human-studies/

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — HERBICIDE ORANGE — 2010 00 00 — AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE  :  REAL OR PERCEIVED — OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY FORESTRY  — MICHAEL NEWTON — 2,4-D IS SAFE — POSTED 2013 09 07 ( Video Recording, 33-30 )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/09/27/video-agent-orange-osu-forestry-2010-michael-newton-24-d-is-safe/

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

Herbicide Orange (3)

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Discover What Anti-Pesticide And Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists Are Doing And Saying About Subversively Imposing Their Life-Style Choices Against Our Society

 

 

Read  …  Force Of Nature and Pesticide Truths  ―  The Whole Truth From An Independent Perspective.

 

Go to The Pesticide Truths Web-Site ( Archive Of Reports )  …

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/

 

Communities and businesses are being HARMED and DESTROYED and RAPED by PROHIBITIONS against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape, and by other ACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM.

 

We are living in the 9|11 Era of Anti Pesticide and Environmental Terrorism where at least ONE SUBVERSIVE ACT OF TERROR is perpetrated EVERY SINGLE DAY by these terrorist.

 

We are living in the DARK AGE OF ANTI PESTICIDE TERRORISM where sound science is trumped by FAKE SCIENTISTS, JUNK SCIENCE and UNVERIFIABLE SECRET EVIDENCE through FABRICATION, INNUENDO, and INTERNET RUMOR  ―  scientific research PROVES that pest control products CAUSE NO HARM and can be USED SAFELY.

 

An informed public is better able to protect itself and its communities and businesses from so-called activists who are THE LEAST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE ANY ADVICE about pest control products or the environment.

 

NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm the Green space industry, and the well-being of our communities.

 

NORAHG morally represents the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of people associated with turf and ornamental plant maintenance who are OPPOSED to Anti Pesticide PROHIBITION and the CLOSURE or ABANDONMENT of green spaces under the RIDICULOUS PRETEXT of somehow « saving » the environment.   http://wp.me/P1jq40-2bo  

 

NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON-PROFIT NON-PARTISAN organization that does not accept money from corporations or governments or trade associations, and represents NO VESTED INTERESTS WHATSOEVER.

 

NORAHG is dedicated to reporting PESTICIDE FREE FAILURES, as well as  the work of RESPECTED and HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.   http://wp.me/p1jq40-5DD  

 

NORAHG responds on behalf of the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of the public that DOES NOT WANT PESTICIDE BANS, and SUPPORT those who work in the Professional Lawn Care Industry.   http://wp.me/P1jq40-2bo  

 

NORAHG is opposed to Pesticide-Free jurisdictions that have DOOMED children to SUFFER INJURIES since Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION inevitably leads to public and residential green spaces that become DANGEROUS AND PEST-INFESTED GARBAGE DUMPS.   http://wp.me/P1jq40-44g   http://wp.me/P1jq40-4z3  

 

NORAHG is concerned that, without pest control products, CHILDREN ARE AT HIGHER RISK OF SUFFERING INJURIES with the creation of HAZARDOUS SLIPPING AND TRIPPING CONDITIONS in sports turf.   http://wp.me/P1jq40-2ha  

 

NORAHG pledges to deliver comprehensive reports that are worthy of peoples’ time and of peoples’ concern, reports that might ordinarily never have breached the parapet.

 

NORAHG was the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991.  Mr. Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder.

 

Force Of Nature was launched by NORAHG for CONTINUOUS transmission on the Internet on January 1st, 2009   ―   however, the VERY FIRST Stand-Alone FORCE OF NATURE Report was issued on September 19th, 2008.

 

On March 15th, 2010, Uncle Adolph independently launched The Pesticide Truths, an easy-to-use Web-Site that collects relevant reports of information right-off-the-press.   http://pesticidetruths.com/  

 

Pesticide Truths and Force Of Nature, in some ways, are like Google for everything concerning the SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES of Anti-Pesticide and Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists.

 

For The Complete Library of reports from FORCE OF NATURE, and PESTICIDE TRUTHS, go to the following archives  …

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-2rr

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Check us out on our no-frills Facebook  …

 

 

facebook.com/norah.gfon

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Here is more information about 2,4-D HERBICIDE  …

 

 

CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT  –  2,4-D HERBICIDE  –  EVALUATIONS & ASSESSMENTS ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-1J8

 

 

CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT  –  2,4-D HERBICIDE  –  HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES WITH 2,4-D  –  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA )  –  CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS  –  PART 1 OF 3  –  2012 11 00 ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/04/24/cancer-classification-with-descriptors-part-1-of-3-environmental-protection-agency-epa-24-d-to-deltamethrin-2012-11-00/

 

 

CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT  –  2,4-D HERBICIDE  –  THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA  –  REVISED WEB-SITE  –  MYTHS VERSUS FACTS  –  UPDATE  –  2012 09 00 ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Force-Of-Nature-24-D-Herbicide-2012-09-00-UPDATE-The-Industry-Task-Force-II-On-24-D-Research-Data-Revised-Web-Site-pdf.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/09/11/24-d-herbicide-the-industry-task-force-ii-on-24-d-research-data-improved-24-d-web-site-myths-versus-facts-2012-09-00/

 

 

CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT  –  2,4-D HERBICIDE  –  THE VON STACKELBERG STUDY  –  IMPLAUSIBLE CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES  –  2012 02 01 ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Force-Of-Nature-24-D-Herbicide-2012-02-01-UPDATE-Implausible-Carcinogenic-Outcomes-Von-Stackelberg-Study-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/02/28/24-d-herbicide-highly-implausible-carcinogenic-outcomes-with-24-d-the-von-stackelberg-study-2012-02-01/

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

Background Information From An Independent Perspective

 

More information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site  …

 

 

THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE  –  ARCHIVE OF REPORTS ( Home Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/

 

 

PESTICIDE BANS ARE A FARCE ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/05/25/pesticide-bans-are-a-farce-killex-for-sale-to-everyone-2012-05-25/

 

 

BEE-KEEPERS ARE KILLING BEES, AND NOT INSECTICIDES

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/bee-colony-collapse-disorder/

 

 

REAL TRENDS AGAINST PESTICIDE BANS ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/victories-against-terrorists/

 

 

ENEMIES LIST IN THE 9|11 ERA OF ANTI-PESTICIDE TERRORISM ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/09/13/on-the-anniversary-of-911-do-anti-pesticide-basterds-celebrate-the-success-of-their-terrorist-colleagues-the-architects-of-anti-pesticide-prohibition-enemies-lists-2013-09-11/

 

 

CARNAGE CREATED BY CATASTROPHIC ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION  –  MAIN WEB-PAGE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/carnage-caused-by-catastrophic-anti-pesticide-prohibition-main-web-page/

 

 

THE EXORBITANT COST OF PESTICIDE BANS ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/carnage-leading-to-stunningly-exhorbitant-costs/

 

 

ATTACKS AGAINST GOLF FACILITIES ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/03/25/the-golf-industry-collision-course-examples-of-attacks-against-golf-facilities-2013-03-25/

 

 

MYTHS ABOUT BANNING PESTICIDES  –  LEADING SCIENTIFIC HEALTH AND POLICY EXPERTS ( White Paper )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/11/15/the-myths-about-banning-pesticides-part-2-white-paper-report-on-pesticide-bans-2012-11-15-reports/

 

 

2,4-D HERBICIDE ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/24-d/

 

 

COMPLAINT CHANNELS  –  COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATICS ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/complaint-channels/

 

 

PESTICIDE LINKS ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/pesticide-qa-links/

 

 

THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & REFERENCES ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/table-of-contents/

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

Herbicide Orange (4)

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――