Recently I have noticed in a few news reports that the provincial government has decided to use a chemical (named as Agent White) fir brush control. I am sad that some people still believe that using chemical herbicides (for cosmetic, pesticide, and herbicidal use) is a good idea.
The stuff is poisonous! Why on earth would you want that to get into the water supply (to kill the fishes, or we’ll just eat some Agent White marinated fish), or into the diet of animals (like moose, or smaller animals), which humans are then going to eat. These types of chemicals are fat soluble meaning they build up the higher you are in the food chain and guess who is at the top of the food chain-US!
Not only that but components of many herbicides, including Agent White, include known carcinogens (and did I mention they are just poisonous? And can cause organ failure?) If the things are so nasty why would you want to risk any exposure to that, especially when there are alternatives. Also, think of the poor person that has to apply these chemicals, sure they are probably going to be wearing a body suit and mask, but I’m sure that isn’t going to protect them 100%. And, if they have to wear a suit to lay it down, um, isn’t that a bad sign?
What about money? The herbicide will probably be pretty cheap in comparison to other methods of brush control (at first). But, it won’t last forever and then more will have to be purchased and the procedure repeats. With insects, they build up resistance, so presumably the plants (which are pretty hardy buggers) that are strongest (survival of the fittest, remember that concept from elementary school?) will survive and harsher/more concentrated chemicals will have to be used next time, which means more money. Why would a large chemical company want to sell you something that just has to be applied once? So, in the long run it probably isn’t cheaper.
Here’s a few suggestions (I’m sure there are a million more): cut the brush with machinery/man power, plant lower growing plants to out compete larger view obscuring plants, put up animal proof fences, and provide animal corridors in high risk areas. Apparently since developing the oil there is money coming into Newfoundland, so why can’t it be used to benefit the people that live here? So what if the initial cost is higher than herbicides, isn’t spending a bit of extra money (initially) better than harming the natural beauty of the province and the wonderful people who live here? Also, chemicals won’t be cheaper if the recreational fishery is affected (no salmon in the streams), and in additional health care costs.
I can’t cover every angle here. But, in my view all the signs point to: Morons in control of my tax dollars.
Rant by Me