tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post7197777590277773316..comments2023-10-25T01:54:52.399-07:00Comments on Washington Department of Ecology: New oyster permit substantially reduces toxics in Willapa Bay and Grays HarborWA Department of Ecologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17211353558094402510noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-29850074209995201272015-05-05T23:02:33.763-07:002015-05-05T23:02:33.763-07:00No matter the technicalities, thanks again to the ...No matter the technicalities, thanks again to the Seattle times , I happen to get my tires changed that day and saw the newspaper. <br /><br />These chemicals have persistent impact on the environment with unintended effects. Lakes and rivers are loaded with the stuff (based on state EMP data), and the soil is so deeply penetrated that insects can't grow so birds can't feed, and the product label is just permission for somebody to sleep at night while harming more than helping.Mike Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02375405646064588550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-49503877313314604742015-05-05T04:27:03.464-07:002015-05-05T04:27:03.464-07:00I've already criticized some of the sloppy rep...I've already criticized some of the sloppy reporting in this report. But two products can have the same "active" ingredient and be very different depending upon the "inert" ingredients that make up the other 95% of the product. <br /><br />Inerts are not regulated in the same way, (sometimes barely at all, can have secret proprietary ingredients -- that is its own discussion). A common example of an inert ingredients is the "sticker-spreader" that helps hold a poison on the leaf, often a "soap". <br /><br />Even a product with ZERO "active" ingredients can be safe on land but toxic in water. Consider dish soap. It is safe for people to spray a soap solution onto leaves to kill aphids, and unpleasant but relatively safe if someone swallows it, but highly toxic to spill that same soap into a stream or pond, because of how a soap affects oxygen uptake by aquatic animals etc. Latex paint similar.<br /><br />So an aquatic poison may be formulated in a gel that sinks to the bottom where the product is absorbed into the soil rather than diluted thru-out the entire water column.Glen Buschmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13175358422456660673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-55214451660528840532015-05-02T18:13:19.715-07:002015-05-02T18:13:19.715-07:00It is sloppy science to suggest that 1 pound of on...It is sloppy science to suggest that 1 pound of one product is equivalent to 1 pound of another product and imply that less weight is obviously less poison. A kilo of sugar is not the same as a kilo of Sarin, and an gram of carbaryl does not equal a gram of imidacloprid. Be honest and not clever.Glen Buschmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13175358422456660673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-5943636588122897292015-05-02T13:44:33.347-07:002015-05-02T13:44:33.347-07:00I can't believe this is coming from the Depart...I can't believe this is coming from the Department of Ecology... Maybe from Monsanto or another chemical manufacturer, but not a governmental unit which is designed to protect our rather fragile environment. I'm delighted to see that Taylor will not use this, but you are still promoting the use. I'm so disappointed.Tuman Homeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14649695973849210108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-90214915892683000202015-05-02T11:10:32.956-07:002015-05-02T11:10:32.956-07:00This sounds disturbingly similar to the boons gran...This sounds disturbingly similar to the boons granted to DDT...prior to discovering its ill-effects. "DDT is the single most effective agent ever developed for saving human life.” <br />- British politician Dick Taverne<br /><br />Pity that it was also horribly effective at almost wiping out the Bald Eagle population. The chemical may not (or may--who knows about long-term issues?) hurt humans, but what about the effect on other oceanic flora and fauna? <br /><br />The US Fish and Wildlife Service are saying, "Don't do this". NOAA is saying, "Don't do this". What on earth makes you think this is a good idea? Why the rush to spread a neurotoxin on our shorelines? How about remembering the the State's ecology, as well as its shoreline, belongs to all of us and not just to the few making a buck off of it.Corbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03024723646319434472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-9601690582349373082015-05-02T11:06:04.228-07:002015-05-02T11:06:04.228-07:00Hey Chase, I couldn't find your name in the Pe...Hey Chase, I couldn't find your name in the Pesticide and SPI Licensing search- I also found a lot of what you wrote here to be extremely misleading or lacking in basic understanding of pesticide designation and use. Feel free to look my name up though, Thomas Erler. Note that I have an Aquatics endorsement. You should get one if you are going to be explaining these issues to the public on behalf of DOE. It was really easy to get.tom ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00331134840000187865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-48787983657167927312015-05-02T09:54:53.981-07:002015-05-02T09:54:53.981-07:00It's not counter intuitive that the government...It's not counter intuitive that the government department responsible for protecting the environment and ecology is only concerned with protecting the wealthy, and consistently value economic interests over the health of both people and the environment. It's completely expected and the sole reason why there are so many health conscious, environmentally concerned citizens filling the void your department leaves behind. If the DOE ever aligns itself with the majority of scientific fact and the well-being of the citizens and environment you're paid to represent, you'll know...you'll stop having to write letters like this.Staciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12220942405922944955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-43326755081115572842015-05-02T09:53:40.779-07:002015-05-02T09:53:40.779-07:00It's not counter intuitive that the government...It's not counter intuitive that the government department responsible for protecting the environment and ecology is only concerned with protecting the wealthy, and consistently values economic interests over the health of both people and the environment. It's completely expected and the sole reason why there are so many health-conscious, environmentally concerned citizens filling the void your department leaves behind. If the DOE ever aligns itself with the majority of independent, scientific fact and the well-being of the citizens and environment you're paid to represent, you'll know...you'll stop having to write letters like this.Staciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12220942405922944955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-41178059292716023182015-05-02T08:43:35.380-07:002015-05-02T08:43:35.380-07:00So Protector 2F is over 21% imidacloprid and Merit...So Protector 2F is over 21% imidacloprid and Merit 2F is less than 1% imidacloprid, correct? So Protector 2F is about 40 times as potent as a nerve poison application than Merit 2F, correct? <br /><br />If that is the case and the weak Merit 2F is not safe to apply to waterways, how is the much stronger nerve poison formulation safe for application on watersays? smallbluemikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12652974568725112456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-9345930988955435292015-05-01T21:49:06.711-07:002015-05-01T21:49:06.711-07:00Having given this a quick read, I’m not especially...Having given this a quick read, I’m not especially impressed. The write-up doesn’t seem to address the toxicity of nerve agents to a wide range of invertebrates. The collateral damage is bound to be extensive. <br /><br />The frequent claim that this pesticide is ‘widely used’ is misleading and not really relevant. As I understand it, this compound is not used in aquatic applications anywhere else in the country. I also don’t see any mention of toxicity or other effects to species beyond ghost shrimp. Like fish. Like shorebirds and other birds that feed on invertebrates – alive or dead. <br /><br />A fairly straight-forward approach would be the use of artificial substrates for spat and oyster culture. Certainly Ecology and the growers could work at ways to fund and permit the construction of raised substrates / artificial reefs. <br /><br />The ‘reducing pesticide use by 95%’ section compares only the mass application rates, which is pretty much meaningless – as we know that the potency of the poison is the key variable. <br /><br />After trying to poison ghost shrimp into submission for 50 years and failing, doesn't it seem logical that other approaches need to take precedence? <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647398329355031170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-73508435684060815972015-05-01T21:07:49.227-07:002015-05-01T21:07:49.227-07:00Please explain how the products are different. I c...Please explain how the products are different. I can Google Merit 2 and find the msds but could not for Protector 2FAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11557736849835253160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-84100409073186023272015-05-01T20:42:37.780-07:002015-05-01T20:42:37.780-07:00Shame on you Dept. of Ecology. This blog post is m...Shame on you Dept. of Ecology. This blog post is misleading and factually incorrect. The ACTIVE ingredient in Merit 2F and Protector 2F is exactly the same. Yes, they are different products by trade name but the CHEMICAL...the TOXIN is the same. Why don't you show in your blog WHO Protector 2F is licensed to? The Willapa-Grays Harbor Oyster Association. The final paragraph of your blog says your job is to protect the water and environment for all of us in Washington. Clearly this isn't true...this action benefits the Oyster grower and ONLY the oyster growers. Yes...less Carbaryl is good, but replacing one toxin with another is not the answer.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12074503470861722940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-71767936126381475222015-05-01T19:46:30.361-07:002015-05-01T19:46:30.361-07:00From the Govenor who gets massive inkind donations...From the Govenor who gets massive inkind donations and money from industry to Ecology who is nothing more than a mouth piece to industry , that would be any industry that gives to the so called environmental Gov.Clean waterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07813543054346092527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-25739615284983419912015-05-01T19:45:21.005-07:002015-05-01T19:45:21.005-07:00what makes this form of imidacloprid ok to spray o...what makes this form of imidacloprid ok to spray on waterways if the same chemical is definitely supposed to be sprayed on waterways?smallbluemikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12652974568725112456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-2860116248457357412015-05-01T19:34:04.826-07:002015-05-01T19:34:04.826-07:00Wow. A very earnest (one can assume) effort to co...Wow. A very earnest (one can assume) effort to convince us that the lesser of two evils is not evil, but instead good! Unfortunately it fails the smell test. Neurotoxins are neurotoxins. Nuff said.BLGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01667934326922650828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-52248516669083767092015-05-01T19:33:17.795-07:002015-05-01T19:33:17.795-07:00Wow. A very earnest (one can assume) effort to co...Wow. A very earnest (one can assume) effort to convince us that the lesser of two evils is not evil, but instead good! Unfortunately it fails the smell test. Neurotoxins are neurotoxins. Nuff said.BLGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01667934326922650828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-40085678759258129832015-05-01T17:57:48.206-07:002015-05-01T17:57:48.206-07:00Different product for different use with EXACTLY t...Different product for different use with EXACTLY the same ingredients? So the second manufacturer, with EPA's blessing, skipped the part about "don't use in water" and that makes it OK to use in water? I am confused. Please explain.Birdloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16039949761399672923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4510056950479922035.post-7346698183360946502015-05-01T14:07:43.753-07:002015-05-01T14:07:43.753-07:00The manufacturer of the product states it shouldn&...The manufacturer of the product states it shouldn't be applied to water, you bought that product and created a new label for it yourself. The shrimp are native to that area, while the oysters are not native to that area (at least not the one which makes all of the money). This decision is based totally on greed and money and not environmental protection. I love oysters, but if if Taylor et al spray this chemical on the shrimp, I will not only stop buying oysters, but all of their products, and they have some tasty products. I hope every state in the country boycotts oysters that have been contaminated with this chemical.4 chemical free oystershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00841816452319033676noreply@blogger.com