<div dir="ltr">Wayne and all,<div><br></div><div style>This is an excellent point. When the author I mentioned (Rick Relyea) gave a talk at my university, he explained that standard toxicology tests generally run for five days (one work week) with animals under near-ideal conditions. Running tests a little bit longer, or adding stressors or other interacting factors, could show "sublethal" levels of certain compounds to in fact be "lethal." Another noteworthy point he made was that the cited half-life of compounds on labels apply to a particular set of conditions, so if herbicides are applied under extreme temperatures or otherwise different conditions, they may remain active in the environment longer than expected. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Wayne Tyson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:landrest@cox.net" target="_blank">landrest@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial">Lauren and all:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">"Sublethal" is a dangerous word. What is sublethal?
What does it mean? Does it mean that the organisms affected die immediately, in
a few hours or days, or, say, 80 years later? That'll be five years
for me. That'll be 80 years for your newborn. </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">It is not necessary or desirable to kill all (or 99
percent of) weeds on any restoration project, but a good one will certainly
cut their populations down significantly over the period of a few years as the
restored vegetation becomes more and more mature. Healthy ecosystems resist
invasions and work against weeds, and indigenous plants and other organisms keep
them in check. </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">WT</font></div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px;BORDER-LEFT:#000000 2px solid;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px"><div class="im">
<div style="FONT:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#e4e4e4;FONT:10pt arial"><b>From:</b>
<a title="smith659@indiana.edu" href="mailto:smith659@indiana.edu" target="_blank">Lauren
Smith</a> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="apwg@lists.plantconservation.org" href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:17
PM</div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [APWG] Heavy use of
herbicide Roundup linked tohealth dangers:study</div>
<div><br></div>
</div><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">In addition to the sources that Gena sent, you might all be
interested in Rick Relyea's work on non-target effects of Roundup on
amphibians. <a href="http://www.pitt.edu/~relyea/Site/Welcome.html" target="_blank">http://www.pitt.edu/~relyea/Site/Welcome.html</a>
The Roundup tab has information about one particular study, but he has
other interesting work in his publication list on how sublethal levels of
herbicides can alter interactions amongst predators and prey or competitors.
<div><br></div></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Gena Fleming <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:genafleming@gmail.com" target="_blank">genafleming@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT:1ex;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid">Well,
this is quite a conundrum, isn't it? I guess we'll never know for
sure, but it's an interesting puzzle. The following may or may
not be deemed relevant to the discussion.<br><br>This correspondence by
Michael Surgan is a good (and brief) discussion of the problems posed by the
presence of "inert" ingredients in pesticide formulations:<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281320/#b1-ehp0113-a0657c" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281320/#b1-ehp0113-a0657c</a></p><br>In
his reference section, he cites but does not provide a link to the New York
lawsuit filed against Monsanto, so I will provide it here:<br><a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fraud.pdf" target="_blank">http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fraud.pdf</a><br><br>Note
that a similar lawsuit against Monsanto's false claim of Roundup being
nontoxic and biodegradable was also successfully pursued in
France.<br><br>The article Surgan references by Richard et al. that explores
the toxicity of some of the adjuvants in Roundup formulations is a
worthwhile read; the abstract doesn't take too much time:<br><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/</a><br><br>Surgan's
link to the EPA Reregistration Eligibility Document on Glyphosate doesn't
work. Here's an EPA fact sheet for that document:<a href="http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf" target="_blank">
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf</a> <br>... with
the relevant excerpt being (and bold emphasis is mine):<br><b><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:rgb(153,0,0)"><span></span></span><br></b>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Due to the presence of a <b>toxic inert
ingredient</b>, some glyphosate end-use products must be labeled, "Toxic to
fish," if they may be applied directly to aquatic
environments.</i></p><i></i>
<p></p><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:rgb(51,51,255)"><i><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:rgb(255,255,255)"><span><br></span></span></i><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:rgb(255,255,255)"><span>The fact that the EPA feels
comfortable using terms such as "toxic inert ingredient" is enough to keep
my head in a spin.<br><br>best regards,<br><br>Gena
Fleming</span></span><i><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR:rgb(255,255,255)"><span></span></span></i></span><br><br><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Wayne Tyson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:landrest@cox.net" target="_blank">landrest@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT:1ex;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid">
<div><u></u>
<div lang="EN-US" bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="blue">
<div><font face="Arial">A <i>possibility,</i> sure, but not a
<i>probability. </i>Certainly the "soils" were disturbed; they were cut
slopes, creating ideal conditions for colonization by weedy plants.
Yes, the "invasives" could have altered soil properties (one of the ways
is soil-building), and in fact, it could have been the dead invasives that
harbored the residues that killed the emerging native seedlings.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Conjecture can be useful, but useless in the
absence of a stated theoretical foundation or actual evidence. What is
needed is good science that can confirm or reject the conjectures.
</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">WT</font></div>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px;BORDER-LEFT:#000000 2px solid;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px">
<div>
<div>
<div>----<br></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div>_______________________________________________
<div><br>PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br><a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
<br>Disclaimer<br>Any
requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion
of the individual posting the
message.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>PCA's
Alien Plant Working Group mailing list<br><a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
<br>Disclaimer<br>Any
requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of
the individual posting the message.<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">
<div><br></div>-- <br>Lauren Smith<br>PhD Candidate<br>Reynolds
Lab<br>Department of Biology, Indiana University </div>
</div></div><p>
</p><hr><div class="im">
<p></p><br>_______________________________________________<br>PCA's Alien
Plant Working Group mailing
list<br><a href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org" target="_blank">http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</a><br>
<br>Disclaimer<br>Any
requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of
the individual posting the message.
</div><p>
</p><hr>
<p></p><a></a>
<p align="left" color="#000000"></p><div class="im">No virus found in this
message.<br>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br></div>Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus
Database: 3162/5807 - Release Date: 05/07/13<p></p><p></p><p></p></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Lauren Smith<br>PhD Candidate<br>Reynolds Lab<br>Department of Biology, Indiana University
</div>