Why is Agent Orange Back on the Shelf?

There are variations on it.

One other thing is, the controls on it is a lot more tighter. Farmers and Commercial sprayers are licensed to spray this. Now your average consumers are not.

Also your comment of:

"So do you want your children/grandchildren playing on your driveway that you just sprayed RoundUp 365 on?"

Of course with that statement, you are eating pesticide-free and herbicide-free fruit and vegetables.

Bon Appétit

When we were kids, we called that extra protein. That is why bikers do not like windscreens.

I was raised on a farm that fortunately thanks to my dad had quite a bit of a diversified education. That Iike to share, and is also linked to the main topic.

Back in the 60'S, We had a cherry orchard, and the 70's we rented the Picker Cabins to a world renown entomology scientist by the name of Ron Prokoby that used these out buildings as a laboratory called Prokopy Bio-Experimental Farm ^{(second page about 10 lines down (page 570))} that had international scientist all around the world that came to study. There is a number of side stories on this what I experienced.

One of which, as we were harvesting nearby, I enjoyed showing up on their doorstep, of which they (mostly Ron as an educator) loved giving me a tour of the laboratory. Showing how they monitor the heartbeat of a fruit fly and such. Of course my dad was against me intruding on their important work.

Ron was quite a Euell Gibbons type of naturalist also. I recall one time my dad sprayed the oats with 24-D, to knock down the Milk Weed which really upset Ron,…. Ron was really looking forward to the milk weed crop,…. Because as any naturalist knows,…. Most parts are edible. true story.

Ron and dad stayed pretty close touch, and once in a while visited each other, about (2) years ago, I decided to find him and was disappointed that Ron passed away.

Here are some more links to Ron Prokby.

http://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/papaj/Pdfs/Prokopy%20tribute.pdf

http://www.umassmag.com/Winter_2005/Ron_Prokopy__1935_2004_812.html

http://umassfruitnotes.com/v69n2/692AFNinHonorofRJProkopy.pdf

Like pesticides, I use chemicals very sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. So I don't consider it a problem - for me.

I guess if more people did that you wouldn't be griping.

Both have their uses, if used according to directions and, as you say, sparingly. I am of the same mind. There are times/places where the proper use of chemicals is preferred.

Unfortunately, we have a consumer use ban on most here, but some are still available in the local hardware/gardening stores. It appears that formulations have been changed just enough to get by the definition of "pesticide" which includes herbicides.

'...I use chemicals very sparingly...'

.

Hmmm. I know 'sparingly' is a relative term, but my guess is that 100% of the physical material you use is comprised of chemicals. That seems like a stretch for 'sparing'. Perhaps you are a minimalist to a degree that I haven't considered.

.

:-)

.

Sorry, AH, I have to take this rare opportunity to razz you a little....you are usually far more exacting in your choice of words.

I use chemicals daily...... matter of fact,... I drinking some "Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Citric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Monopotassium Phosphate, Sodium Chloride, Gum Arabic, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Natural and Artificial Flavors, Calcium Chloride, Ester Gum" as we speak.

Well, June is Clearly Defined Realms of Doubt and Uncertainty Month.

I am a card carrying member.

"So do you want your children/grandchildren playing on your driveway that you just sprayed RoundUp 365 on?"

Sure. Why not?

You are aware of the concentration level differences and other ingredients involved between true agent orange and common weedkillers right?

I would be very cautious with any chemical especially when it is freshly applied.

Years ago one of my friends (Frog) developed liver cancer from mowing his grass and spreading weed & feed fertilizer wearing flip-flops.

He was very lucky in that they found it in time but they had to remove roughly 40% of his liver then subjected him to two rounds of chemotherapy. (YUK)

The removed tissue was saturated with all of the compounds contained in the fertilizer he had been using so there was no doubt as to what caused the issue.

There is a very valid reason the application instructions contain warnings on the type of clothing, gloves, and/or respirator required as well as the time to wait before contact is allowed.

My friend went through hell for over a year.

I know it's one thing if I'm stupid but to risk my friends or family members health is quite another.

In a word, Yes. But...

"Diquat dibromide is acutely toxic when it is absorbed through the skin and the possibility for poisoning increases with repeated exposure (35)."

From here:

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/diquat-ext.html#38

It can also last for up to 4 years in the top 1 inch of soil.

I found this to be true after trying to lay an additional row of sod grass along the 1' wide border of a mulched planting bed that had been sprayed for weeds for about 10 years.

Sod did beautifully everywhere except for the row that was laid where the 4" deep layer of mulch had been raked back. Dead in 4 days.

The first link provided in OP is for Weed-B-Gon, with 0.12% 2,4-D.

"So do you want your children/grandchildren playing on your driveway that you just sprayed RoundUp 365 on?" Of course not... nor any other pesticide or herbicide. Neither would I want them to play on the driveway right after I washed the car.

According to the MSDS for Roundup365, if you drink it, it is "Not expected to produce significant adverse effects when recommended use instructions are followed."

MSDS Roundup 365

the consumer version is a pre-mix,.... i.e., it's already diluted. What the farmer or contract sprayer gets is a concentrate.

'Zackly!

These OTC consumer packages are a far cry from Agent Orange (which was applied "...at an average concentration of 13 times the recommended U.S. Department of Agriculture application rate for domestic use." in South Vietnam between 1962 and 1971).

Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

Well, if one wants to ban something I think it should be .......... water

It is on the same thinking.

Exactly. The LD50 in humans is around 18 gallons; one may drown in rather less, though.

"... According to the MSDS for Roundup365, if you drink it, it is "Not expected to produce significant adverse effects when recommended use instructions are followed."...."

.

I doubt drinking it is within the recommended use instructions. There are a great many highly toxic substances for which drinking would not be expected to produce adverse effects...as long as you follow good advice and don't actually drink any.

.

I do recall a video of one Monsanto executive being offered a glass of roundup to drink immediately after making a similar claim (about consumption not being expected to produce adverse effects). He would not drink it, of course.

One of the seminars I went to for pesticide applicators while as the Environmental Manager for PADOT, the sales person drank the concentrated form of Round Up. Same as the concentration we used on the highway shoulders. It probably wasn't the greatest tasting thing in the would because he chased it down with a coke. In fact I haven't seen him around for a while.

I have a neighbour that was inundated with poison sumac. He had close to a hlaf acre of it and most very close to my property. That was a good place to use Roundup (my opinion). He did try to physically remove the sumac and it damn near killed him. I suspect poison ivy, poison oak, stinging nettles, would all be areas to use Roundup.

By the way, the sumac keeps coming back on this steep and rocky terrain. Round is applied almost every year to control it. Perhaps a higher dosage is needed?? We keep all kids away from the site for a couple of weeks after application.

For roundup to be effective, you have to follow the directions.

And roundup is for broadleaf control.

Whatever part of the spray that lands on the leaves get neutralized doing it's job of killing that plant.

The overspray that lands on the ground around the plant and soaks in can last 3 years according to the Tech Sheet.

Dogs who walk on it, barefoot kids, and, for instance, anyone planting flowers a week later digging barehanded in the dirt will be exposed to the still active defoliant.

In water, when you use if for killing hydrilla or duckweed or hyacinths, it can settle into the oxygen free silt in the bottom of the lake and last forever. Bass making beds in Florida lakes sprayed with Diquat by the Florida Hyacinth Control Agency will get chemical burns on their bellies that look like road rash.

Manatees that eat freshly sprayed hyacinths will experience chemical burns in their mouths and lungs and usually die from pneumonia.

http://whales7.tripod.com/policies/wiegman.html

Well, lets get into genetics, shall we. When I believe it was Monsanto the developed Round-up ready corn, this was a huge step for supplying the world with food.

even with that being said.....Monsanta is evil.... they have an army of attorneys waiting in their wings on a fleet of Vespa's ready and waiting.

And there are quite a few posts here on CR4 about GMO.

even with that being said.....Monsanto is evil.... they have an army of attorneys waiting in their wings on a fleet of Vespa's ready and waiting. ^{(Music fade in)}

Yes, they were actually able to confiscate the entire profits from farmers acros the street from GMO/Reward crops when the GMO plants accidently polinated the crops across the street that weren't GMO, their case being he didn't pay for GMO seeds and he couldn't prove what was theirs without spraying all his crops with diquat, lol.

One very determined Canadian farmer (with some very deep pockets) took them all the way to the supreme court. The Court ruled that indeed Monsanto did own the GMO crops on his side of the road but they didn't own the rest of it. He sued them to remove their crops from his side of the road and won.

However, American farmers are screwed big time by the Supreme Court. (Justice

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2014/jan/13/supreme_court_denies_farmers_protection_monsanto

(His Honor Clarence Thomas used to be a Monsanto lawyer.)

This is interesting...from the 1993 Re-assessment of Glyphosate:

"The data indicate that chemical

and photochemical decomposition is not a significant pathway of degradation of glyphosate in soil and water. However, glyphosate is readily degraded by soil microbes to aminomethyl phosphonic acid (AMPA), which is degraded to CO2, although at a slower rate than parent glyphosate. Even though glyphosate is highly water soluble it appears that parent glyphosate and AMPA have a low potential to move to ground-water due to their strong adsorptive characteristics demonstrated in the laboratory and field studies. However, glyphosate does have the potential to contaminate surface waters due to its aquatic use patterns and erosion via transport of residues adsorbed to soil particles suspended in runoff water. If glyphosate were to reach surface water it would be resistant to

hydrolysis and aqueous photolysis"

Apparently, all glysophate residue in the top 6" of soil eventually ends up being CO2.

The real fact sheet for Roundup other wise known as Glyphosate:

Http:// www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf.

fact one last 60 days in soil

fact two dissapates rapidly in water

fact three biodegradable

fact four not a but concentrated in aquatic and or terrestrial organisms.

Acute effects on humans if used in high concentration congestion to lungs

Chronic: if used in high concentration no link to cancer or any other know aliments.

Not sure what fact sheet you are using but it's not for Roundup.

2,4-D

Topic was roundup not 2,4D two different products

"Topic was roundup not 2,4D two different products"

Original topic was about 2,4-D being on the shelf in local chain hardware store.

Reating compression must not be your thing you don't even know what your wrote read your last sentence.

In fact this whole chain of comments was about roundup.

http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/aadap/06_Diquat/06_MSDSs/MSDS%2010-969_Diquat.pdf

Everything you ever wanted to know about Glyphosate:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Flistserv.vt.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwa.cgi%3FA3%3Dind1503%26L%3DAAPSE%26E%3Dbase64%26P%3D12138877%26B%3D--------------090005010909090900000705%26T%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%3B%2520name%3D%2522IARC-3-20-2015.pdf%2522%26N%3DIARC-3-20-2015.pdf%26attachment%3Dq&ei=HYOgVcWjDcOx-wGmnZXgCQ&usg=AFQjCNHUHtZBMJ-TSEvByIED4ITRHt4Wzg&sig2=bxYUO0oYc_XKpYOqxM3TYQ&bvm=bv.97653015,d.cWw

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-417300_1-Sep-93.pdf

http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-knew-of-glyphosate-roundup-cancer-link-35-years-ago/5449462?print=1

There are other herbicides that are stronger for sumac they are a lot more time consuming you have to cut the plant then apply the herbicide by hand with a rag to the stem. It's a bud inhibitor so no new leaves will sprout. Another issue is all the protective gear you need to wear. Gloves, masks, protective clothing, etc., but it does work very well about 97% mortality rate on sumacs. I'll have to look it up its been a while since I've had to use it.

I recall my dad using Simazine in the 60's and you had to be careful around trees.

Thanks for the advice. Once the Sumac has been cut down to small size, all that comes up is small shoots and is most like broadleaf. Roundup does work well under such a situation. It is very difficult to get at the roots of sumac that spread very wide, thus it keeps returning. As for residual in the soil, it does not affect any new plant growth and is most often used on farms to control the weeds before crops are planted. The new crops will not be affected by the residual in the soil should it persist. If one is really concerned about the residual, sprinkling the ground with activated carbon should contain it. Bacteria will be encouraged with any food source and will shorten the life span of Roundup in the environment. Generally, the residual will be knocked by more than half in a couple of weeks. My neighbour would sooner use roundup but if the sumac creates an issue he said he will hire a pro to look at the problem. I am satisfied. Thanks again.

Their called suckers, they come up from the leader roots. Silver leaf poplar does the same also.

Sorry for the delay. Father's Day BBQ. Best herbicide which will kill the plant and prevent suckers is Garlon 3A with water solution. For a large area of sumac cut down with a brush hog and apply solution to the bark at the base. You will then need to wait a few weeks to see when the shoots start coming up spray again with Garon 3A repeat several times. Then the following spring do the same thing by your third year it should be completed no more shoots should be coming up.

Like I said it's very labor intensive and will take multiple years but it's the only way to completely kill it off.

Hmmm....you do know one application lasts in the surface soil for 1000 days?

http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/2,4-DTech.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/healthcare/handbook/Chap12.pdf

New supermarket mag article..

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer/

I used a herbicide based on bull urine on the edge of my drive way, It killed one side of a tree 16' from the driveway. Oh, and it got rid of the weeds....

Nitrogen. Fresh chicken poop will have a very similar effect.

No bull?

Nope, no bull... just bull byproduct.

YES,.... Ammonia is applied to fields for nitrogen.

And where is a good source of ammonia.

Anybody who has house dogs,..... their lawn is really spotty.

So they did not create enough chaos and havoc with the uses of Agent Orange during the late 1960's and early 1970's?

Wow.

In my community, we have a group of what I call "radical" people who want to stop a landfill expansion, at any cost. They want to send a letter to our county reps asking to ban the landfill from accepting items like: acetone, tungsten, ammonia, cyanide, asbestos, carbon monoxide, chlorine, chromium, fuel oils, gasoline, kerosene, tin, etc.

Sure, it would be a wonderful world if we could keep these things out of our landfills, but how would you dispose of household items and if someone does throw an apple core (cyanide in the seeds) in the trash, how would they police it?

There are a lot worse things that get thrown in the trash and wind up at a landfill. I would think it would be much more beneficiary to emphasize the dangerous items such as PCB's, sludge, low level radioactive materials, etc. Unfortunately, there are too many people watching CSI and they are now "experts" who know what is dangerous for us.

With landfills, it is the leachate that can be a problem. Google it, it is a gray area, no one gets specific, only that the chemicals you mentioned, combine under heat and pressure to form other compounds.

One more thing.... Even if you dispose items such as asbestos and the like in a land fill. That asbestos is still your responsibility.

"Unfortunately, there are too many people watching CSI and they are now "experts" who know what is dangerous for us."

My wife is one of those people. Just enough self righteousness and insufficient knowledge to be dangerous or at least a major hindrance to life in general.

Did you know that cheese and butter are just a few molecules different than some types of plastics? Therefore eating cheese or butter is just the same as if you were eating plastic.

That's my wifes general life logic based on the sound science that she continually gets from facebook and like social media places.

The first plastics had milk as an an ingredient. Casein, which is a milk protein. Used in paints and glue. So,....Don't eat to much cheese, or you'll become irregular. ;)

The problem is, some people need to complain, because they have not done their research.

You mean facebook comments may not be scientifically accurate reference points to base personal life changing concerns and belief systems on?????

You know I will have to unfriend you now.

But first you have to friend me before you unfriend me

Carbohydrates/sugars contain carbon and the atmosphere is mainly nitrogen.....cyanide is a carbon bonded to a nitrogen....

.

"OMG! Don't breathe! You have food in your mouth!"

"Don't resist, I'm only smothering you to save you from the nitrogen in the air. Cyanide is dangerous!"

.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/448337

I had a typo on that post, it's not "big roater" but pig roaster

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Sophormoric knowledge not being the least of which.

At the same time, we already have plenty of laws in place regarding what can go into the "normal" landfill. It is totally illegal to put known EPA hazardous materials into a general landfill, and at least in Texas beyond the Federal Statutes, the material is further classified as Sold Waste I, Solid Waste II, or Solid Waste III, as best os as I can recall. Asbestos cannot be placed into a municipal landfill due to the hazard (even if bagged) of breaking it open, breaking it down, dispersal in air, and the effect of workers. If anyone has no regard for fellow humans beings, then by all means, pollute.

What goes on underground is no giant secret once "the cocktail" of ingedients is "released" within the confines of any landfill: (a) vapor equilibrium, (b) leaching to the water table (if not completely sealed by clay and a liner), and (c) low temperature organic chemistry, and biochemistry.

There will be a time when we look back at landfills and remember precisely what a barbaric and unsanitary practice this was, along with being that of a wastrel society. For every waste material there is either fuel value, mineral value, or metallic content to be recovered and re-used. Much is already done, not enough, but economics does come into play.

I lean in favor of a more intensive sorting of solid waste, vapor capture and recovery (at least of the energy contained), and then a general plasma incineration, with recovery of the metals, black glass (for pavements), and fuel burn off in a gas turbine to drive the process (and have net output to the grid). This is not cost effective at this time in smaller communities, possibly not even in mid-sized ones, but in large cities such as NYC where fleets of garbage barges used to carry away garbage/solid waste to dump in the ocean, this has been considerably reduced by just such a system, as I have been informed. If someone knows information to the contrary, please correct me.

I happened to be walking through the warehouse of a company I worked at and noticed a pallet with four 100Lb. bags of Diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic female growth hormone, used in this case, for a supplement to cattle feed. I was vaguely aware that it was very potent in this pure form. I asked the shipping boss about it. He said it was going in the dumpster, as it was outdated. I asked him not to put it in the dumpster until I talked to the chief chemist in charge of the synthesis process.

By the time I had the opportunity to talk to the chemist, the pallet had gone to the landfill. The chemist remarked that the DES could not be broken down, only diluted and then only with alcohol.

To make a long story short, there is a landfill, containing four hundred pounds of highly concentrated Diethylstilbestrol. The landfill was closed shortly after this event.

Consequently, but not necessarily (to my knowledge) due to this, the surrounding communities closed their municipal wells and now get water from alternate sources.

Just reading this thread: Both hamstrings started cramping, had to go eat something salty. Then I broke out in a chemical acne (not really). PCB's cause chemical acne all by themselves, chemically they act as hormonal mimics within the human body, thus creating all manner of havoc. Nevermind the ones that contain dioxin that went into dumps like Love Canal and others.

I spent all day out in my un-air-conditioned shop building a die punch assembly for low volume small parts stamping using a low pressure (6-ton) press. It works sort of OK, but next time I use harder wood for the platens, more metal, and I set the location of the register pins first, then the die and punch location last. Doh!!!!

Does anyone recall cattle feed contamination back in the 70's.

PCB's are again very stable, in the link above, PBB's, and would lay dormant in ones fat cells. Nursing mother actually poisoned their babies because it resided in the milk fat. Also they become active when you use up your fat.

I remember hearing about it. Just another milestone on the journey, some might say,.

Actually, if we took all our solid waste going into dumps and turned it into Methanol we wouldn't need to pump any more oil!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biello-turning-trash-into-biofuel/

Here in CA and I believe the rest of the US, landfills are given a Class which designates what can be accepted. The landfill in our area is a Class III landfill. They are not allowed to accept certain items. They are also not allowed to accept "hazardous waste". The regulatory agency (in our case the County), can make conditions to their operating permit, which states what is not allowed, in addition to the items not acceptable per Class III designation.

One of the concerns of the residents of our community is that we don't want certain "acceptable" waste to be allowed at the landfill. Things like sludge, "cleaned" non-hazardous waste (waste that was hazardous, but is coated so it is now "clean", etc.

My comment was that this group thinks that the county will be responsive to their list of demands, which includes a list of over 100 items. Some should not be accepted and are not allowed in a Class III landfill, while other things cannot be enforced. For instance, how would you keep a resident from throwing an apple core (cyanide) into their trash? Or someone who is remodeling his home and he has pre 1978 paint on a scrap piece of wood or drywall - he's going to throw it into the trash or the dumpster.

This group wants to also add a condition where if they find a trace of any of these banned items, then the landfill will be fined $1/2M per incident.

When the County gets this request, they're going to send it to one of their experts and our community will look foolish. When it's time to make reasonable demands, we may not be taken seriously.

Asbestos can be accepted at a landfill (except Class I). Asbestos is also naturally occurring near us in Santa Barbara County and in many parts of the western US.

CA seems to be different in a lot of ways.

Check the demographics for landfill sites, anywhere.

Check the hydrogeological data for landfill sites, anywhere.

There doesn't appear to be a scientific correlation that would determine a land fill site if the environment were concerned, only a political one.

Ahhhh, I think you just reinforced my post....

Here in So Cal, we have landfills in places like Agoura (right next to $MM homes), Simi Valley (right near Wood Ranch), a recently closed one in Puente Hills (near Hacienda Heights horse property and $M homes), Granada Hills (near $MM homes), Castaic (near Hasley Canyon's $MM horse properties) and Glendale/Eagle Rock near $M homes).

Even where I grew up, there was a landfill/dump between Glenview and Northbrook, IL - close to $MM homes.

I think in highly populated areas, the landfills can show up in any community - socio economic demographics don't matter. I do believe that in rural, lightly populated areas, they care more about who's going to fight them the hardest - of course the low income people, right?

What is your source for potable water? The reason I mentioned hydro geology is for aquifer flow direction and the accompanying leachate plumes from less than adequate liners.

Good question. Our water supply is miles uphill from the landfill, so our community is okay.

The landfill is not more than 1/2 mile from a river. Most of the year, only a small flow of water flows down the river. As it flows to the ocean, it's used by farmers for their crops. I'd say that most of it flows to the ocean. Also, the majority of the water comes from the water treatment plant (treated sewage), unless we have runoff from a rain (very little of that in the last five years).

Most of us have come to the conclusion that we're not going to be able to stop the expansion, so we want to get as much as we can from them. Tighter regulations, fees, etc. The radical group still believes they can close the landfill. Their means of battling the County and the landfill owners is questionable and their lack of understanding the political process is making a mess of things. So much so, that they're not threatening our work with the County.

Half that stuff would eat right through the plastic underlayment under the trash dump site. There should be a drop-off place for those kinds of solvents, etc.

Read the paragraph titled: Environmental Fate

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/diquatdi.htm

Where in the world did you learn to do research. You seriously need to do a better job and stop the BS.

Yes 2,4 D is an ingredient in Agent Orange but so we're other ingredients including 2,4,5 T and dioxin. Which are the chemicals banned and are the chemicals that cause cancer, and are not found in any know herbicides used now in the US.

2,4 D has very low acute and no chronic effects on humans or other aquatic and terrestrial organisms.

Dioxin is a very stable compound, that does not break down very easily

One of the reasons the Agent series was so effect it did go away. Unlike Roundup and the new types of herbicides which break down in water and only last 60 days in soils.

I think there was some confusion (due to just being uninformed) with some of the responses here.

From this tech sheet:

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/2,4-DTech.pdf

(Note ***lines marked by asteriks***

Mode of Action:Target Organisms

2,4-D is used on a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic broadleaf weeds. It has little effect on grasses.•12

***It appears to work by causing uncontrolled cell division in vascular tissue. 12***

Abnormal increases in cell wall plasticity, biosynthesis of proteins, and production of ethylene occur in plant tissues following exposure, and these processes are responsible for uncontrolled cell division.3,12The ester forms of 2,4-D penetrate foliage, whereas plant roots absorb the salt forms.•12 2,4-D appears to be similar in action to other auxin-type herbicides.12

Non-target Organisms:

***The modes of toxicity to animals from the acid, ester and salt forms of 2,4-D are similar.***

The primary exception is that the •salt and acid forms can be extreme eye irritants.3 2,4-D is actively secreted by the proximal tubules of the kidney, and toxicity appears to result when renal clearance capacity is exceeded.3

Dose-dependent toxic effects include damage to the eye, thyroid, kidney, adrenals, and ovaries or testes.3 In addition, researchers have observed neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and developmental toxicity.3

Chlorophenoxy herbicides exhibit a variety of mechanisms of toxicity, including dose-dependent cell membrane damage leading to central nervous system toxicity,13 interference with cellular metabo-lism involving acetyl-coenzyme A (CoA),13 and uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation due to either the disrupted CoA activity or cellular membrane damage.13

2,4 D kills by "initiating uncontrolled cell division..." in both plants and exposed animals.

So if my wife gets some on her butt when she sits where I just sprayed 2,4-D....?

"Honeeeey, does this dress make my butt look big?"

There is no correct answer to that question.

Just make sure the grandkids aren't out there eating dirt.

Nice cut and paste job. To bad your poor research didn't include the LD 50. To be affected with most of what you list above you would have to ingest 5000 mg/kg of 2,4 D.

Example: LD50 of Caffeine is 127 mg/kg or 118 cups of coffee

LD50 of Lead 450 mg/kg

Bakerjohn, I learned to do research from (The) Watson & Crick who were my Genetics Z364 profs at IU Bloomington back in the Fall of 1969.

EPA Technical Factsheets 2,4 -D

www.epa.gov/ogwdw/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/24-d.pdf

2,4 D half life on land less than 1 day to several weeks. It is readily biodegradable.

water half life 10 to 50 days, if exposed to UV light 2 to 4 days.

No evidence of bioconcentration.

According to EPA 24 D is not classified as a human carcinogen

EPA "There is no evidence that would implicate 2,4 Das a cause of cancer"

WHO "feels that the effects of 2,4-D are so minor that this herbicide is not listed as a priority for future evaluation"

Minor effects on humans have only been seen in high exposure from agricultural and lawn care work.

Further information can be gathered by contacting EPA.

I think the first word in that toxicology tech sheet is "Acute".

"Acute: EPA has found 2,4-D to potentially cause nervous system damage from short-term exposures at levels above the MCL. Drinking water levels of 2,4-D which are considered "safe" for short-term exposures: For a 10-kg (22 lb.) child consuming 1 liter of water per day, a one-day exposure of 1 mg/L, or a ten-day exposure to 0.3 mg/L. Chronic: 2,4-D has the potential to cause damage to the nervous system, kidneys and liver from long-term exposure at levels above the MCL."

If you actual learned to comprehend what you were reading you would know what that means and what they are referring to they were referring to excessive exposure like working with it. Under normal usuage you would near reach that level. Like the average person using it on their lawn, plus you have to understand the chemical you are using on your lawn is a deluded version of the industrial version used in agricultural. If you go for your Pesticide License you might learn all about these things or maybe actually read and comprehend the instructions on the container.