PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS – WATER QUALITY – PESTICIDE BANS DO NOT IMPROVE WATER QUALITY

 

 

 

 

 

MYTH About Water

 

 

Pest control products used in the Urban Landscape DO NOT enter our lakes and rivers through surface run-off and storm sewers

 

Non-Expert Anti-Pesticide Activists ALLEGE that the PROHIBITION of pest control products in the Urban Landscape will somehow lead to lower concentrations of herbicide in our stream water.

 

This is WRONG !

 

It is a MYTH to believe that ANY PROHIBITION protects our stream water.

 

This allegation is FALSE, MISLEADING, and CONTRADICTS OVER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF RESEARCH.

 

Pest control products used in the Urban Landscape DO NOT enter our lakes and rivers through surface run-off and storm sewers.

 

Moreover, the PROHIBITION of pest control products in the Urban Landscape will NOT improve the water quality of our streams and rivers.

 

It is a MYTH to believe that ANY PROHIBITION protects the environment.

 

Non-Expert Anti-Pesticide Activists ALLEGE that PROHIBITION of pest control products in the Urban Landscape somehow leads to lower concentrations of herbicide in stream water. 

 

The PROHIBITION of pest control products in the Urban Landscape does NOT, and WILL NOT, improve the water quality of our streams and rivers.

 

PROHIBITION does NOT protect the environment.

 

 

 

Province of Ontario

 

 

On the issue of the Province of Ontario, the 2009 PROHIBITION of pest control products DEFINITELY DID NOT improve water quality in streams and rivers.

 

For more than ten years, well BEFORE the 2009 PROHIBITION, there were CONSISTENTLY LOW LEVELS of pest control products in Ontario streams.

 

ALMOST UNDETECTABLE LEVELS of pest control products were found in Ontario streams EVEN BEFORE the 2009 PROHIBITION.

 

Both before and after the 2009 PROHIBITION, the presence of pest control products were measured in the PARTS PER TRILLION RANGE and WELL BELOW water quality guidelines.

 

In fact, previous studies have shown that, for more than ten years, there have been CONSISTENTLY LOW LEVELS of pest control products in Ontario streams.

 

The 2009 Ontario PROHIBITION did NOT protect the environment.

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — WATER QUALITY — 2011 08 21 — ONTARIO — FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS, PARTS PER TRILLION — HEPWORTH ( Report )

 

https://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Water-Quality-2011-08-21-Ontario-For-More-Than-Ten-Years-PARTS-PER-TRILLION-Hepworth-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — WATER QUALITY — 2011 08 04 — WISDOM OF HEPWORTH — LEVELS BEFORE BAN WERE ALMOST UNDETECTABLE ( Report )

 

https://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Water-Quality-2011-08-04-Wisdom-of-Hepworth-Levels-Before-Ban-Were-ALMOST-UNDETECTABLE-pdf.pdf

 

 

 

Scientific Consensus

 

 

ONE SINGLE report from the Government of Ontario DOES NOT represent a CONSENSUS on the effects of pest control products on the environment.

 

Science works by consensus.

 

If someone believes the consensus is wrong, experiments need to be conducted, and the results must be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

Others will need to repeat the experiment and expand the findings and conclusions.

 

Slowly, the scientific consensus changes. 

 

The ONE SINGLE report from the Government of Ontario DID NONE OF THESE THINGS.

 

 

 

Contradicting Twenty-Five Years of Research

 

 

Non-Expert Anti-Pesticide Activists ALLEGE that the PROHIBITION of pest control products in the Urban Landscape somehow leads to lower concentrations of herbicide in stream water.   

 

This is WRONG !

 

This allegation is FALSE, MISLEADING, and CONTRADICTS OVER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF RESEARCH on the issue of water quality and the use of pest control products for turfgrass maintenance.

 

ALL water studies reaffirm that Health Canada is doing a GOOD JOB of assessing the products since the levels detected in streams DO NOT POSE A RISK TO PEOPLE, PLANTS OR ANIMALS.

 

 

 

Twenty-Five Years of Research

 

 

It is common knowledge within the LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY that pest control products and fertilizers used for the maintenance of turfgrass areas ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS SERIOUS CONTAMINANTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

 

Researchers have shown that A HEALTHY, DENSE, AND PROPERLY-MAINTAINED TURFGRASS COVER will help RETAIN pest control products and fertilizers, acting like a GIANT SPONGE. 

 

The leaves, the thatch, and the roots, as well as the soil medium, all interact to intercept most pest control product and fertilizer inputs.

 

Turfgrass is a great system for degrading pest control products and other applied organic materials.

 

The overall fate of pest control products and fertilizers used in the turfgrass environment has been estimated in DOZENS OF RESEARCH REPORTS examining RUN-OFF and LEACHING.

 

Here are some examples of the scientific conclusions from these reports  ―

 

●   A healthy, dense, and properly-maintained turf cover significantly REDUCES the potential for run-off losses of pest control products and fertilizers

 

●   Losses to surface run-off of pest control products and fertilizers applied to turfgrass DOES NOT APPEAR TO POSE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD

 

●   Natural precipitation events DOES NOT produce detectable run-off

 

●   Pest control products DO NOT move in water, either off-site with run-off or down through the soil profile

 

●   Even under highly-exaggerated storm conditions, NO MORE THAN 5 PER CENT of the water ever runs-off from the turfgrass environment

 

●   When turf is mature, healthy, dense, and properly-maintained, surface movement of water, nutrients, or pest control products is VERY LIMITED, regardless of concentration

 

●   Turf, as a system, has a high level of microbial activity which, combined with the large amount of surface organic matter. creates a unique environment that minimizes the possibility of substantial downward movement of pest control products

 

●   In the worst case events, transport is limited to LESS THAN 2 PER CENT of pest control products and less than 5 per cent of fertilizers

 

●   Healthy, dense, and properly-maintained turf cover allows LESS THAN 1 PER CENT of the nitrogen fertilizer applied to leach to a root-zone depth of four feet

 

●   Dietary risks with pest control products like 2,4-D from water and food are NOT OF CONCERN  ―  NO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS ARE EXPECTED from these products

 

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — WATER QUALITY — 2011 08 09 — MYTH-BUSTING — MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RUN-OFF & LEACHING ( Report )

 

https://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Water-Quality-2011-08-09-Myth-BUSTING-Misconceptions-About-Run-Off-Leaching-pdf.pdf

 

 

 

Golf Course Pesticide & Fertilizer Run-Off

 

 

Hollow-tine cultivation can help reduce the loss of applied pest control products and fertilizers.

 

Research at the Agricultural Research Service Soil and Water Management Research Unit in Saint Paul, Minnesota, indicates that there are management practices that can be used as a preventive measure to protect water resources around a golf facility.

 

63 days after turfgrass cultivation and within 39 hours of an application of pest control product, scientists measured a 10 per cent reduction in RUN-OFF volume and a 15 to 24 per cent reduction in pesticide transport in RUN-OFF from plots receiving hollow-tine cultivation compared to those receiving solid-tine cultivation.

 

Hollow-tine cultivation reduced surface-water concentrations of pest control products to levels below those that are harmful to sensitive aquatic organisms.

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — WATER QUALITY — 2012 10 01 — UPDATE — GOLF COURSE PESTICIDE & FERTILIZER RUN-OFF — HOLLOW-TINE AERATION ( CULTIVATION ) REDUCES RUN-OFF FROM PESTICIDES & FERTILIZER ( Reports )

 

https://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Water-Quality-2012-10-01-UPDATE-2012-10-01-Golf-Course-Pesticide-Fertilizer-Run-Off-pdf.pdf

 

https://pesticidetruths.com/2012/10/03/water-quality-golf-course-pesticide-fertilizer-run-off-hollow-tine-aeration-cultivation-reduces-run-off-from-pesticides-fertilizers/

 

 

 

Detectable Limits

 

 

Moreover, the mere ability to measure or detect the presence of a pest control product or fertilizer ingredient in the environment is NOT an indication that the substance poses any health risk, especially at the trace levels at which we can now detect them, which is in parts per trillion.

 

Furthermore, most pest control products used in the Urban Landscape have a SHORT HALF-LIFE in the environment  ―  for example, 2,4-D Herbicide has a relatively short half-life in water of 1 to 2 weeks.

 

Even at ALMOST UNDETECTABLE LEVELS, pest control products are SHORT-LIVED.

 

 

 

Acceptable for Use

 

 

Pest control products are ACCEPTABLE FOR CONTINUED USE IN CANADA because  …

 

●   Pest control products are APPROVED for use by Health Canada

 

●   Health-Canada-Approved pest control products MEET STRICT HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS

 

●   Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE

 

●   Health-Canada-Approved pest control products provide a reasonable certainty that NO HARM will occur from their use

 

●   Overall, when they are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment

 

 

 

Residue Levels In Lakes And Streams

 

 

According to Ted Chudleigh, many studies have dealt with pesticide residue levels in lakes and streams in Ontario.

 

HOME-OWNER use of pesticides account FOR LESS THAN FIVE PER CENT of all pesticides used in Canada, with farms, forests and golf courses making up the rest.

 

A study by the Ontario Ministry Of The Environment found residue levels in urban water-ways were higher than those in rural streams, yet THE VAST MAJORITY OF PESTICIDES ARE USED IN RURAL AREAS.

 

In these rural areas, pesticides are largely used by licensed, trained applicators who don’t produce high residue levels because the product is properly mixed and applied.

 

Chudleigh said the Humber River had been tested in an area that was straddled by a golf course, with one sample taken upstream of the course and another downstream.

 

Each of the samples was taken following a significant rainfall.

 

The rain would ensure some erosion or drainage from the surrounding land would enter the stream. 

 

According to Ted Chudleigh  ―

 

One would expect the downstream sample would have a higher residue level because of the run-off from the golf course ( a legal user of pesticides ).

 

But this was not so.

 

The upstream sample had significantly higher residue levels than the downstream sample.

 

The only reason for this to be true would be because the upstream sample was taken with HOME-OWNER RUN-OFF.

 

The home-owners upstream had « overdosed » their lawns by using excess product which was washed into the stream.

 

Ted Chudleigh is Member of the Provincial Government ( MPP ) in the Government of Ontario. 

 

Ted Chudleigh’s Private Member’s Bill 88 would have AMENDED the Pesticides Act to ALLOW PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE BUSINESSES to apply some currently-banned products to lawns and gardens.

 

 

FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF CHUDLEIGH — 2012 09 00 — ONTARIO PESTICIDE BAN NOT WORKING ( Reports )

 

https://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Force-Of-Nature-The-Wisdom-of-Chudleigh-2012-09-00-Ontario-Pesticide-Ban-Not-Working-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

https://pesticidetruths.com/2012/10/13/ontario-pesticide-ban-ted-chudleighs-bill-88-ban-does-not-work-in-the-hands-of-only-licensed-applicators-conservative-party-will-amend-the-ban-health-canada-lakes-st/

 

 

 

 

Water Quality

The NORAHG Library of Force Of Nature Reports

 

 

Force Of Nature — Water Quality — 2012 10 01 — UPDATE — 2012 10 01 — Golf Course Pesticide & Fertilizer Run-Off — pdf

Force Of Nature — Water Quality — 2011 08 21 — Ontario — For More Than Ten Years, PARTS PER TRILLION — Hepworth — pdf — 300 dpi

Force Of Nature — Water Quality — 2011 08 09 — Myth-BUSTING — Misconceptions About Run-Off & Leaching — pdf

Force Of Nature — Water Quality — 2011 08 04 — Wisdom of Hepworth — Levels Before Ban Were ALMOST UNDETECTABLE — pdf

Force Of Nature — Water Quality — 2011 01 24 — UPDATE — Survey Shows FEW Pesticides — North Dakota — pdf — 300 dpi

 

 

 

Water Quality

The NORAHG Library of References

 

 

Reference — Water — 2012 10 01 — ARS Scientists Tee Up To Tackle Golf Course Pesticide Runoff

Reference — Water — 2012 05 17 — Domestic Herbicides Detected In Water — Health Canada

Reference — Water — 2012 05 09 — Reducing Pesticide & Nutrient Run-Off — U of Minnesota

Reference — Water — 2012 03 30 — Long-Term Diet — Leachate Study — Michigan State U

Reference — Water — 2011 12 01 — Detection Limits Can Influence The Interpretation Of Pesticide Monitoring Data In Canadian Surface Waters

Reference — Water — 2011 11 04 — Nitrogen Fertilizers' Impact on Lawn Soils — American Society of Agronomy

Reference — Water — 2011 06 13 — National Pesticides Monitoring and Surveillance Network — Environment Canada

Reference — Water — 2011 05 00 — Presence & Levels of Priority Pesticides — Environment Canada

Reference — Water — 2011 04 13 — Frequently-Asked Questions — Health Canada

Reference — Water — 2011 03 00 — Presence & Levels of Priority Pesticides — Environment Canada

Reference — Water — 2011 01 24 — Water Survey Shows Few Pesticides in North Dakota

Reference — Water — 2010 11 00 — Urban Stream Pesticides — Enviro-Lunatic Report — Ontario

Reference — Water — 2010 04 08 — Role of Turfgrass — Storm Water Run-Off

Reference — Water — 2010 00 00 — Environmental and Workplace Health — Health Canada

Reference — Water — 2009 07 06 — 2,4-D Amine 600 Herbicide — Label

Reference — Water — 2009 01 00 — Reducing Pesticide and Nutrient Runoff from Fairways — USGA

Reference — Water — 2009 00 00 — Filter Strips — University of Massachusetts

Reference — Water — 2009 00 00 — Fate of Pesticides — University of Georgia

Reference — Water — 2008 08 05 — dicamba — Re-Evaluation Decision Document — 1

Reference — Water — 2008 08 05 — dicamba — Re-Evaluation Decision Document — 2

Reference — Water — 2008 06 16 — 2,4-D — Re-evaluation decision — PMRA — 1

Reference — Water — 2008 06 16 — 2,4-D — Re-evaluation decision — PMRA — 2

Reference — Water — 2007 03 00 — Buffer Strips, Runoff, and Leachate — USGA

Reference — Water — 2007 00 00 — Canadian Water Quality Guidelines — Imidacloprid — Env Can

Reference — Water — 2006 08 16 — 2,4-D — Lawn and Turf Uses of 2,4-D — PMRA

Reference — Water — 2005 06 15 — Managing Golf Course Roughs to Reduce Runoff — USGA

Reference — Water — 2005 01 00 — Best Management Practices — USGA

Reference — Water — 2005 00 00 — Weed & Feed — Enviro-Lunatic Report — Beyond Pesticides

Reference — Water — 2005 00 00 — A Study of Golf Courses in Canada — FOE

Reference — Water — 2004 09 00 — Best Management Practices — USGA

Reference — Water — 2002 10 15 — Modeling Pesticide Runoff from Turf

Reference — Water — 2001 00 00 — Calibration of Computer Model Scenarios

Reference — Water — 2000 08 00 — Pesticide Management Practices on Golf Courses — New Jersey

Reference — Water — 1997 00 00 — Quantifying the effect of turf on pesticide fate — Branham

Reference — Water — 1996 03 00 — Loss of Nitrogen and Pesticides from Turf

Reference — Water — 1995 01 00 — Potential Groundwater Contamination — USGA

Reference — Water — 1995 00 00 — Potential movement of certain pesticides

Reference — Water — 1994 05 00 — The Role of Turfgrasses in Environmental Protection — Beard & Green

Reference — Water — 1990 02 00 — Environmental Fate Of Pesticides — Watschke

Reference — Water — 1989 08 00 — Runoff & Leachate — Penn State

Reference — Water — 1989 00 00 — Fertilizers, pesticides, lawn care and water quality — Penn State

Reference — Water — 1988 00 00 — Surface runoff in turf — Watschke

Reference — Water — 1986-2006 — Ontario Drinking Water Inspection — Enviro-Lunatic Report

Reference — Water — 1986 00 00 — Future of turfgrass management and underground water quality — Watschke