nazgul@apollo.uucp (Kee Hinckley) (09/30/86)
In article <1572@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > My understanding is that, except in cases where *no substitute at all exists*, > all pesticides must degrade rapidly in the environment, and that no new > pesticide would be approved unless it met this critera. Is this incorrect? I believe that is the intention. The problem lies in the defintion of 'no substitute' (eg. no one has bothered to try developing one), in occasional extensions or exceptions, and in the use of old pesticides which would not pass if they were tested under the new rules. I'm really not qualified to go in to any detail. My main experience has been with the stuff they use on blueberries (Guthion) (to kill fruit flies of all things, not that you would ever notice them in a blueberry) and the herbicides used on weeds in the blueberry crops. (Carefully applied by a bunch of teenagers who enjoy getting in squirt fights with herbicide.) I know that there is a big fight in Maine now over the sprays they use on Apple trees. It turns out that the chemicals arn't safe and do linger, but the Apple growers are trying to invoke the 'no substitute' clause. Anyway. I tend to distrust the regulations of pesticides, particularly those with grandfather clauses. For more facts we'd better post to net.bio or some such (and knock motss and singles out of the header). Nuff said. -kee -- ...{mit-eddie,yale,uw-beaver,decvax!wanginst}!apollo!nazgul Apollo Computer, Chelmsford MA. (617) 256-6600 x7587 or 499B Boston Rd, Groton MA. (617) 448-2863 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.