Topic: aminopyralid & gardeners question time

[Robert_Brenchley]

I think the real question is, why were Dow allowed to sell a chemical which is so persistent, and so easily disseminated onto peoples' gardens? It looks to me like yet another example of where lax regulation gets us.

[1066]

The broad bean test works well (thanks to Eristic for devising that one), and the seedlings will grow distorted if the poison is present.

Thanks Eristic!

[hellohelenhere]

I agree, Robert. The agro industry gets away with stuff like that, but we 'civilians' can't even buy isopropyl alcohol in the chemist any more, in case a wino drinks it. Herbs that could cause liver damage only if you ate several *pounds* of them per day... banned. Persistent herbicide - sprayed all over the countryside with nothing but some small print to protect us...  ???

Strangely enough, in the States, you CAN buy isopropanol, but you CAN'T buy codeine! Quick, rush to the chemist for your codeine fix...

[littlebabybird]

helen you can get isopropanol un most craft shops and most cake decorating shops
lbb

[asbean]

Just listened to the programme:

"The villians in all this were farmers who didn't read ... " say the BBC, setting the scene nicely

"How long is this problem going to last ..."  The Dow biologist didn't answer this question

"Simply ask the farmer ... " by the tone of his voice this must have been the 1,000th time he's said this

"The RHS say the perception is worse than the real problem ..." says the BBC.  so why are we all worried?

BBC bowing and cowtowing to Dow.

[hellohelenhere]

Thank, lbb - you can buy it in HiFi accessory shops too, a teeny little bottle of about 30ml for about a fiver! As my husband is American, I stock up when we're over there, as it's about a quid a litre! Everybody over there has a bottle of it under their sink, doesn't seem to have lead to rampant alcoholism. It's been banned in *chemists* here, only. I suppose it's still on sale where it is 'not for human contact' or something, and at that price, not much of a bargain for the hardened wino... :D

[Melbourne12]

If you can find a spare bed where you don't need to grow anything, spread the three bags over the bed, dig it in, and then turn it regularly over a period of several months so the bacteria in the soil can break down the chemicals.  Then it should be safe.

Can we stop spreading this Dow propaganda once and for all. There is no evidence that it breaks down biologically and observations indicate otherwise. The highly soluble poison is readily and immediately absorbed by any nearby plant and the rest is washed away into the surrounding watershed. If the plants that absorb the poison are not harmed they simply hold the poison within the plant tissue to be released back to the soil when the plant dies.

The broad bean test works well (thanks to Eristic for devising that one), and the seedlings will grow distorted if the poison is present.

If you spread Dow's toxic chemicals on your ground and dig it in, your ground may well be safe within a few weeks but your neighbour might not be able to grow potatoes for several years.

Bad science!

I think it's a great shame that after Ceres did so much good work in analysing the problem in the first place, and Dow responded very positively by withdrawing the product, many of A4A community have fallen into the trap of silly name calling and ludicrous exaggeration.

[Baccy Man]

you can buy it in HiFi accessory shops too, a teeny little bottle of about 30ml for about a fiver!

I suggest you shop around more isopropanol is available considerably cheaper than that.
http://www.ecfibreglasssupplies.co.uk/store/-c-21_465.html

[hellohelenhere]

Thanks baccyman, I take your point that it can be got much cheaper - although in that case, you'd have to add VAT and then £5.75 for postage! :D
But it's very hard to find on the high street, except in very small quantity, as a HiFi/electronics cleaning agent.
Anyway, I have several litres of it, so that should last me a good long while.  That's quite a lot of cleaning and sticky-label-removing for me to be getting on with... :)

[hellohelenhere]

Besides which, I only mentioned isopropanol to make the comparison - harmless things being strictly controlled, agro-chemicals with very destructive capabilities being sprayed all over the place. Bit inconsistent?
I don't know if that was 'bad science' or not, earlier - I don't know enough about it. But I'm certainly suspicious of hand-waving reassurances from the makers of the chemical. Reminds me of John Selwyn-Gummer and his hamburger... (as the BSE/ Creutzfeld-Jacob crisis loomed, for those of you that don't remember).
I take a bit more persuasion, personally. No doubt they're putting as positive a spin on it as they can possibly manage. They might say that 'it breaks down in the soil in x period of time' but forget to mention that this is only if y and z criteria are met, or that it breaks down *by a certain percentage*, or some other modifier they can easily omit. It might well linger in plants which themselves are unaffected, I don't know, I'm not an organic chemist.
I do know I don't want to take risks. If the problem is downplayed and belittled, it only makes me more suspicious.
Yes, it is a problem, if we can't put horse manure on the ground without a risk of contaminating it.

[Eristic]

Bad science!

I see. Using sacrificial beans as a means of testing for the presence of bean toxins is bad science. Using keen observations instead of carefully reading papers produced by the poison manufacturer is bad science.

I am proud to be a bad scientist. I question everything. I push the boundaries so that I know exactly where the boundaries are. I discuss my observations here.

Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to discuss as to where I'm flawed or carry out their own experiments (scientific or otherwise)  but I'm sick of seeing extracts and summaries from papers paid for by Dow. While Dow probably employs some of the best scientists in the world they are not in the business of telling the truth to the public.

What I want to know is what the hell the RHS was doing all that time, why they did nothing, why they are still doing nothing and why did they not suspend their trials for 2007-2008 even though their trial ground showed signs of contamination?

I also want to know why the NVS failed to notify the public of this threat in spite of claiming later that they knew all about it the year previously?

[Melbourne12]

Bad science!

I see. Using sacrificial beans as a means of testing for the presence of bean toxins is bad science. Using keen observations instead of carefully reading papers produced by the poison manufacturer is bad science.

I am proud to be a bad scientist. I question everything. I push the boundaries so that I know exactly where the boundaries are. I discuss my observations here.

Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to discuss as to where I'm flawed or carry out their own experiments (scientific or otherwise)  but I'm sick of seeing extracts and summaries from papers paid for by Dow. While Dow probably employs some of the best scientists in the world they are not in the business of telling the truth to the public.

What I want to know is what the hell the RHS was doing all that time, why they did nothing, why they are still doing nothing and why did they not suspend their trials for 2007-2008 even though their trial ground showed signs of contamination?

I also want to know why the NVS failed to notify the public of this threat in spite of claiming later that they knew all about it the year previously?

I'm sure your bean test is truly wonderful :)

But your arguments are "Bad Science" nonetheless.  You say, "There is no evidence that it breaks down biologically and observations indicate otherwise."  What observations?  If you really think that Dow's work is flawed methodologically, or is simply a downright lie, then this isn't a matter of discussion.  It's a matter that is readily provable.  There is no need to debate matters of fact.

But of course, at the heart of most "Bad Science" is a political argument.  This is nothing to do with the chemistry of aminopyralid, and everything to do with making a mountain out of a molehill.

The aminopyralid problem is really not that important in the scheme of things.  I realise that it's sad if you happen to be one of the people affected.  It's annoying and frustrating to lose your plants.  But every day, products are withdrawn from sale after they perform dangerously.  It's commonplace.  I saw a product recall for a hairdryer in a hardware store the other day.  But even if I'd been the person whose hair had been set on fire, I wouldn't be ranting on about how evil the manufacturer and retailer were and calling their morality into question.

[Melbourne12]

...
I don't know if that was 'bad science' or not, earlier - I don't know enough about it. But I'm certainly suspicious of hand-waving reassurances from the makers of the chemical. Reminds me of John Selwyn-Gummer and his hamburger... (as the BSE/ Creutzfeld-Jacob crisis loomed, for those of you that don't remember).
...

What a wonderful example.  Or, as Jim Callaghan didn’t say, “Crisis? What crisis?”

The BSE/Variant CJD scare was rather scandalous, was it not?  The story was that the prions that triggered the condition were present in all BSE infected meat, which had been widely sold.  If you consumed such meat variant CJD would follow after around 14 years.  Given that teenagers were (and are) especially fond of cheap burgers, an epidemic of dreadful deaths of 30 year olds was predicted.  Thousands upon thousands would die, leaving young families orphaned.  The flower of a generation would perish.  And this epidemic would peak around 2000 to 2005, even if we stopped eating beef on the bone, and slaughtered the majority of the herd right at that moment.  Which we did, at terrible human as well as financial cost.

And all this was talked up by the anti-American (anti McDonalds) brigade, the evangelical veggies, the anti-globalisers, and every loony tunes luddite and angry loser in the country.

Well, it didn’t happen, did it?  The epidemiology was wrong.  The numbers of deaths have been minuscule (dreadful though even a small number are).

It all happened long before Ben Goldacre, but it was Bad Science in the classic mould.

[hellohelenhere]

How it did or didn't pan out isn't the question - at the time of JSG's stunt in defence of the meat industry, nobody knew how bad it was going to be. It still isn't known how long it might remain latent in an individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeld-Jacob_Disease#New_concerns_on_incidence_and_prevalence

Eating a hamburger to 'prove' that it's 'safe' is what I call bad science!

[saddad]

I'm a Luddite and proud...  ;D

[hellohelenhere]

And I'm a loony-tune, and a, what was it, angry loser - if that's what being cynical of the claims of giant chemical corporations makes me. Particularly when they have a thingy-up to talk their way out of.

So, Melbourne - could you explain to us 'bad scientists', how aminopyralid is broken down in the soil and how long it takes?

[hellohelenhere]

By the way, I think 'The aminopyralid problem is really not that important in the scheme of things '  is a rather tactless comment in the circumstances. If you'd rendered your allotment useless by covering it in manure - yes, it really would be THAT important.

[hellohelenhere]

Ooh, here's a nice bit of science, from the US Environmental Protection Agency:

'Under aerobic conditions, degradation of aminopyralid in five different soils resulted in
the production of CO2 and non-extractable residues. Half-lives ranged from 31.5 to
533.2 days in 5 soils.'

So, up to three years to break down, according to those stats.
There's a link to the EPA pdf sheet, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aminopyralid

[Melbourne12]

How it did or didn't pan out isn't the question - at the time of JSG's stunt in defence of the meat industry, nobody knew how bad it was going to be. It still isn't known how long it might remain latent in an individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeld-Jacob_Disease#New_concerns_on_incidence_and_prevalence

Eating a hamburger to 'prove' that it's 'safe' is what I call bad science!

 ;D  Well, I can certainly agree with your final point.  And I'm sure that if anything ever united the entire nation since WWII, it was an instinctive dislike of John Gummer.

But how it panned out is and was the question.  Based upon entirely laboratory-based or even theoretical studies, a mechanism for the transmission of Variant CJD from BSE was proposed and believed.  There was no hard evidence for it.  Based upon the theory, fantastical mathematical models were built to show catastrophic outcomes.  The press seized upon the scare and it became a political frisbee, with any number of lobby groups competing to see who could throw it highest and furthest.

And the money spent on averting this threat was enough to run the NHS at that time for two full years.  So scares like this aren’t just a victimless bit of entertainment.

Like all good scare stories, including the aminopyralid one that is the subject of this thread, it had a basis of truth.  Feeding sheep protein to cows had indeed caused the outbreaks of BSE.  By presenting this emotively, it was easy to characterise the animal feed industry as a sort of evil Frankenstein, eager to destroy the world through immoral application of technology.

I was aware of the die-hards who claim that the only thing wrong with the original research was the latency between consuming the BSE prions  and the onset of vCJD.  But I wasn’t aware of this article, which your Wikipedia entry links to http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/03/bse.medicalresearch

“Doctors and scientists have warned that a second wave of CJD cases could sweep Britain over the next two to three decades. The initial outbreak of the fatal brain illness peaked several years ago but could break out again, they argue.

The prediction comes as officials consider ending some of the research projects that were set up to improve understanding of CJD - Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - and the closely related illness in cows, BSE.”

Well, well, well.  It’s a mere coincidence, I’m sure, that “research budgets threatened” and “revival of end of mankind scare” share the same story.

[hellohelenhere]

Further to my last post, in the interests of fair reporting, they also say this:

'Two field dissipation studies were performed (in California and Mississippi). The results
indicate that aminopyralid is likely to be non-persistent and relatively immobile in the
field. Half-lives of 32 and 20 days were determined, with minimal leaching below the 15
to 30 cm soil depth. '

But I'm definitely out of my depth, there - don't know what a 'field dissipation study' is! :)