# Interesting article on runoff



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09 ... index.html


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

I've skimmed the full paper and this looks to be some really solid work on first glance. FINALLY, research is coming out on the indirect effects of some of our most prevalent land stewardship practices.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

What crossed my mind is, if it does that to frogs what does it do to us?


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

I heard about parasite infection causing deformities long ago. However, that is good they figured out how it is caused.

Man, I really wish we had free range meat again. Not only does factory farming cause respiratory issues for nearby communities, it also SEVERELY pollutes the water and makes it dangerous for residents.


----------



## Mantellaprince20 (Aug 25, 2004)

not to mention that the parasites aren't the only affect the frogs are experiencing. Do some research on tyrone hayes work with endocrine disrupting herbicides like atrazine to see how run off destroys frog populations . The only way we can make a difference is if we voice our opinion. Its gotta start somewhere 

ed parker


----------



## MonopolyBag (Jun 3, 2007)

Isn't the parasite thing old news?


----------



## Mantellaprince20 (Aug 25, 2004)

yes, the parasites have been known to be the agent for deformation for years, but the reason why the parasites were infecting more frogs was unknown. Now we know,


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

This was hypothesized a number of years ago as there appeared to be a strong link see 
http://www.asm.org/news/?bid=16533 

and Johnson, P.T.J., et al., 2002. Parasite (Ribeiroia ondatrae) infection linked to amphibian malformations in the western United States, Ecological Monographs, 72, 151–158.

There just hadn't been a conclusive study to "prove" it. 

Ed


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Ed said:


> This was hypothesized a number of years ago as there appeared to be a strong link see
> http://www.asm.org/news/?bid=16533
> 
> and Johnson, P.T.J., et al., 2002. Parasite (Ribeiroia ondatrae) infection linked to amphibian malformations in the western United States, Ecological Monographs, 72, 151–158.
> ...


Which prompts me to hop on my soap box for a minute. To put a new medicine or drug treatment on the market, there is a process to attempt to prove that the product is safe before it is approved. But when it comes to approving pesticides and managing our public lands, anything goes unless someone can "prove" it is harmful (and by that time there is usually so much money at stake that it's nearly impossible to rectify). That's messed up.


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I would be nice, but our drug testing processes are 50 years old and are holding back progress. I agree with the general idea that pesticides should go through some trial to prove they are safe, but only if they can avoid bureaucracy that makes that process take 10 years.


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

kyle1745 said:


> I would be nice, but our drug testing processes are 50 years old and are holding back progress. I agree with the general idea that pesticides should go through some trial to prove they are safe, but only if they can avoid bureaucracy that makes that process take 10 years.


Yeah, I didn't intend that as a defence of drug approval policy. I just think it is nuts that we let people die of terminal diseases because there's no proof that new drugs are safe while we let all kinds of things happen to the environment because there isn't incontrovertible proof that it is damaging. Off road vehicle use on public lands, for example, is out of control. Instead of regulating and increasing off road use incrementally as it could be determined that levels of use were within acceptable limits of damage, they just followed an "anything goes" policy that has led to widespread damage to public resources but requires a ridiculous level of "proof" of damage to reverse because such a huge constituency has gotten use to not having any rules. If you look through the EPA registration sheets for pesticides, it makes you sick. Time after time you will see things like "Affects on amphibians - not tested but no reason to assume significant harm". And, of course, we have a system where the people who are trying to make a profit on these products are the ones who are trusted to provide test results proving they are safe. With the current rate we are screwing up our natural resources, I think we need to reverse our default on environmental practices from the current "presumed safe until proven otherwise".


----------



## roxrgneiss (Sep 30, 2007)

I think this a great topic - it touches on a global issue that is in serious need of progressive change - poor practices regarding stewardship of our land. Though I fear that poor mining practices are some of the worst and most overlooked. It really is unfortunate that protecting our environment isn't worth some dollar amount to interest capitalists; we might actually see more positive causes taken up in America. Forgive my doom and gloom outlook, but I feel that some kind of action should be taken as we discover new problems concerning the use of nature for our benefit. It really makes me sad to think about.  

I wonder what it would take to see a true national/global involvement in making efforts toward serious environmental awaresness and protection.

On the up side, work is being done to produce a mixture of clay minerals, with high surface area, designed to help contain phosphates of fertilizer runoff. I wish I could link the studies, but this is still in the research phase. Perhaps, if a time does come when watershed areas that are at risk from such pollutants are required by law to be treated, there will be some applicable solutions to implement. :wink: 

Mike


----------



## Mantellaprince20 (Aug 25, 2004)

It is just too bad that phosphates aren't the only problems associated with agriculture.  There have been a few studies on the affects that many of these herbicides and pesticides have on the developement of frogs. Atrazine (look up Tyrone Hayes) is a very commonly used pesticide in the US and at less than .1ppb it causes sex reversals in amphibian tadpoles and causes adult males to grow oocysts and damages their testes . THis is just one herbicide, which is also pretty commonly found in our drinking water, with an EPA regulation for that at about 3ppb. Other than causing eutrophic conditions, there are far worse consequences of our agricultural processes . I agree though, awareness is the first step in the battle .

Ed Parker


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Mantellaprince20 said:


> It is just too bad that phosphates aren't the only problems associated with agriculture.  There have been a few studies on the affects that many of these herbicides and pesticides have on the developement of frogs. Atrazine (look up Tyrone Hayes) is a very commonly used pesticide in the US and at less than .1ppb it causes sex reversals in amphibian tadpoles and causes adult males to grow oocysts and damages their testes . THis is just one herbicide, which is also pretty commonly found in our drinking water, with an EPA regulation for that at about 3ppb. Other than causing eutrophic conditions, there are far worse consequences of our agricultural processes . I agree though, awareness is the first step in the battle .
> 
> Ed Parker


Relative to atrazine: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-6253.htm

And an excerpt from the above linked document:


> "In accordance with the consent decree, EPA conducted an extensive
> review of open literature and registrant-submitted studies concerning
> the potential effects of atrazine on amphibian gonadal development.
> After a thorough assessment of all of these studies, EPA concluded
> ...


Two observations regarding this. These amphibian studies have only been mandated *after* atrazine was developed into a billion dollar market. Had adequate studies been conducted prior to approval, then effects would have been better understood and the product (and its market) could have been developed and regulated without jeopardizing a huge revenue stream, and we might have seen less drastic amphibian declines over the past 3 decades.

Second, notice that the company who holds the register is the one charged with conducting the studies regarding amphibian effects. It is a bit like charging someone with murder and then have the accused present their own prosecution. "Gee your honor. I tried my best, but the glove just doesn't fit!"


----------



## Mantellaprince20 (Aug 25, 2004)

actually though, the person who performed the studies is a professor in Santa Barbara, who has worked with endocrine disruptors, and if you read his papers from this research, his results do not benefit the company . But I agree, they do only do the research once the crap has hit the fan. The EPA came down on the manufacturers of Atrazine which is why they hired Tyrone Hayes to conduct the research. You will find in his studies that at ecologically relevant doses, atrazine actually does affect the gender structure of amphibian populations. I have about 5 articles from him, where he is an instigator of conservation more so than a corporate puppet . If you are interested in reading his research, pm me . They are quite interesting. Anyway, it is nice to see a step being taken forward to determine the effects of all this toxic runoff and what it actually does to the wildlife. Now imagine in these 3rd world tropical countries that don't have strict regulations on the pesticides they can still use, such as DDT, and determine how this is effecting the wildlife there. It is heartbreaking to think about 

ed parker+


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Mantellaprince20 said:


> actually though, the person who performed the studies is a professor in Santa Barbara, who has worked with endocrine disruptors, and if you read his papers from this research, his results do not benefit the company . But I agree, they do only do the research once the crap has hit the fan. The EPA came down on the manufacturers of Atrazine which is why they hired Tyrone Hayes to conduct the research. You will find in his studies that at ecologically relevant doses, atrazine actually does affect the gender structure of amphibian populations. I have about 5 articles from him, where he is an instigator of conservation more so than a corporate puppet . If you are interested in reading his research, pm me . They are quite interesting. Anyway, it is nice to see a step being taken forward to determine the effects of all this toxic runoff and what it actually does to the wildlife. Now imagine in these 3rd world tropical countries that don't have strict regulations on the pesticides they can still use, such as DDT, and determine how this is effecting the wildlife there. It is heartbreaking to think about
> 
> ed parker+


I'm very familiar with Dr. Hayes' work. But if you read carefully, you will see that what has happened is that EPA has reviewed Hayes' findings and determined that they leave too many questions to make a ruling. So they have instructed Syngenta and other registrants of atrazine to perform studies to clarify these questions. Now if the companies then hire unbiased scientists that have no dog in the fight to conduct the studies *and* they don't try to interfere with release of the results, then there would be no problem. But when there are billions of dollars at stake, we'd have to be smoking crack to think nobody will attempt to influence the process. A better process would be to make all pesticide manufacturers pay into a fund that EPA uses to hire independent researchers to investigate these products thoroughly *before *they are registered. Get the companies completely out of the process and don't even let them know who is conducting the studies until the results are ready for peer review.

The Tyrone Hayes experience has been fraught with controversy. Here are some snippets you can easily find on the web. 

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:46352

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2003/Syngenta-Tyrone-Hayes31oct03.htm

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pubs/rachel-carson-syndrome-leapard-frogs-atrazine-accusations.htm

As for DDT, I think this is a perfect example of where the system failed. It's use is on the upswing because of its effectiveness in fighting malaria and endorsement of use by WHO. From my understanding, DDT is one of the safest pesticides ever developed. Of course the direct effects of DDT don't even account for potential effects on other species that depend on insects for food. But it was our gross abuse of this "wonder product" that caused an enormous ecological disaster. Had there been sufficient testing up front for the compound, perhaps there would have been better regulations and guidelines in place to allow humans to reap the benefits of its use without destroying the world around us. Instead, they waited until large birds at the top of the food chain were collapsing all over the place and there was no denying that the problem was that we had dumped HUGE amounts of this toxin into their environment.

And so much of this crap is used for what? So we can grow a perfectly flat, green, mat of grass that has all the visual appeal of a piece of astroturf and provides almost no wildlife habitat value?


----------

