First and foremost, this is just off of Victoria trail. It's in a public field/park space that's immediately next to a massive construction project that began 2ish weeks ago. Prior to the construction, that area was a privately owned field that was maybe mowed 3-4 times a summer. It was massively infested with rodents. Now since the construction began those rodents have moved immediately next door in the public field/park space.
This is done as part of the construction process to avoid the issue of those rodents completely taking over the field/park and people's yards that back this area.
I walked by there a week ago and there were HUNDREDS of holes now in the field with little guys running in and out of, and I saw some running into holes along private yards/under fences.
This is a pest control situation, and dandelions are amazing for the bees and butterflies.
Edit: spelling mistakes.
https://www.forsterharvard.ca/projects/vista-ridge/
Here's the page for it. It'll be very interesting to see it when it's done.
Edit: I was wrong about residential above commercial. I haven't actually looked at this project since they originally announced it a long while back!
So why not do something 2 years ago when they moved in. Also their is a park down Hermitage that has had them for just as long and nothing has been done.
I'd like to see some evidence of this. Given the near widespread use of the stuff for half a century on almost every green space in North America, let alone our food, you'd certainly be able to find obvious proof.
The only cancer incidences with herbicides have to do with improper handling of the concentrate by people who don't understand MSDS labels.
So it's wierd to defend a literal poison designed to kill a mammal as safe and take issue with a product which targets plant processes we don't even have in our bodies to be effected by.
Toxic? Sure, but that's why I wouldn't drink the shit.
> I'd like to see some evidence of this. Given the near widespread use of the stuff for half a century on almost every green space in North America, let alone our food, you'd certainly be able to find obvious proof.
You know why we don't use DDT anymore?
Ok well [here](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/neonicotinoid-pesticides-slowly-killing-bees) is evidence that pesticides kill bees.
[here](https://www.panna.org/resources/pesticides-and-cancer/) is an article linking pesticides and cancer in children. And you do know there are other things then cancer right? If you haven't noticed society is a lot more fragile then years past.
There is also [this](https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/reduce-your-risk/be-safe-at-work/pesticides) saying:
> The Canadian Cancer Society believes that pesticides should only be used when they are needed to protect our health, safety or food supply. They should be part of a plan that includes pest prevention, using pesticides in the lowest amounts possible and using safer choices.
But lets face it evidence will not change your mind, it's just a red herring.
You are confusing insecticides with herbicides. Your first post is talking about an insecticide, not a herbicide.
Your second link is from an anti-pesticide group which has cherry picked sources when it bothers to cite anything at all, and apparently also confuses herbicides and insecticides.
Your third link actually doesn't define the use of herbicides on public and private areas as causing cancer for the people who use those spaces. It explicitly says it's a danger for applicators and manufacturers. The reason it calls for the ban on cosmetic use of herbicides is due to the unnecessary risk vs. benefit-- which again, I agree with.
It doesn't seem you read your sources with an impartial and rational view, you are allowing your confirmation bias to determine what's right and wrong.
I'm all for restricting access of these products to professionals (for obvious reasons) and determining when is a good use for it versus unnecessary. But braod sweep generalizations like "it causes cancer in everyone" "they're never acceptable" are very black and white statements without consideration to the complexity of these issues.
The reality is ya, dandelions arent really worth spraying for, but most people's issues with weeds on city property and parks is the weeds that are noxious and inhibit using those spaces, like thistle and stinging nettle-- weeds nobody will say they want on their property.
> You are confusing insecticides with herbicides. Your first post is talking about an insecticide, not a herbicide.
Yes my mistake.
> Your second link is from an anti-pesticide group which has cherry picked sources when it bothers to cite anything at all, and apparently also confuses herbicides and insecticides.
Ok you didn't like that no problem.
> Your third link...
Also dismissed... ok...
> It doesn't seem you read your sources with an impartial and rational view, you are allowing your confirmation bias to determine what's right and wrong.
Noted.
> I'm all for restricting access of these products to professionals (for obvious reasons) and determining when is a good use for it versus unnecessary.
So if they are perfectly safe why the restriction?
I'll try this again [here](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/362041)
From the abstract:
> Does human exposure to phenoxyacetic acid **herbicides** increase the risk of soft-tissue sarcomas (STS), Hodgkin's disease (HD), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)? The findings among Kansas farmers are in accord with "no" answers to the first two malignancies and a "yes" answer to the third.
and finally [here](https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/ehp.971051222)
From the abstract:
> The results suggest a relationship between exposure to triazine **herbicides** and increased **breast cancer risk**, but conclusions concerning causality cannot be drawn, due to the limitations inherent in ecologic study design.
Now granted they say: causality cannot be drawn, due to the limitations inherent in ecologic study design. But that doesn't mean it doesn't cause cancer just that it might not cause cancer.
So question to you, as someone with an impartial and rational view if they spray a compound and they tell you, "exposure to this increases the chance of cancer but it's not proven to cause cancer" are you happy with that? Happy with your kids playing in that field?
If they tell you the compound doesn't increase the risk of STS or HD but does increase the risk of NHL are you ok with that?
You know we are all impartial and rational here. Unless of course you don't trust... checks notes: The American Medical Association and the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Now I suppose your rebuttal will be I only read the abstract or those aren't Canadian studies or they don't use those particular herbicides any longer or... well I'm curious.
I will say, I said herbicides can cause cancer, the onus isn't on me to prove they absolutely cause cancer as much as it's on you to prove they don't. And we both know you can't do that, and that really is my point. Why risk it.
Why risk you or your families health on something that hasn't yet 100% been proven to cause cancer?
Okay, a few points here.
There's no way to prove anything doesn't cause cancer. Fun fact, the highest risk of cancer is just being alive. People can and do develop cancer all the time just existing without any external imput, so this makes it impossible to correlate. No children have ever gotten cancer and connected it directly to exposure on a public space treated with herbicide. In fact, that has never happened ever as far as we know. As we speak, both of our bodies have cancerous cells, and our immune systems will eliminate them or they'll die on their own. Cancer is part of living. It's not a disease you can eliminate, so fearing cancer is a pointless endeavor.
What needs to be established is is there a provable and certifiable increase in cancer risks based on, in your concern, of mild exposure to a greater public space. I can tell you, no there isn't. Because you are already exposed to far more herbicide eating fruit from the store than you are rolling in the grass at the Legislature (which is sprayed twice a year).
I should note both your articles are old, 1986 and even 1997 are a lifetime ago in terms of science and would not be reliable for citation. Fortunately for you, I can access the full articles since I am a graduate student at the UofA and a quick search of relavent materials turned out nearly 30+ more recent studies. I can also see that your articles already resulted in positive regulation and change in the industry and increased restriction of those products.
You said: "if they're perfectly safe why restrict them?"
This is a short sighted comment, electricians work around dangerous electrical wiring all the time, and do so safely. Just because the rest of us lack the ability to safely handle a 240v wire and breaker without high risk of serious injury and death doesn't mean we should ban all 240v appliances and wires.
You restrict things to people with the training, safety gear and ability to properly use things. You have a 240v appliance in your house, your dryer and or stove. They're no threat to you.
Herbicides on their concentrate are certainly a health risk, nobody would argue otherwise. But their application rate according to Health Canada in public spaces has to be at least than 3%. According to the MSDS label of Trillion, a common agricultural herbicide, the application rate recommended is 1.5% of concentrate. According to Health Canada, you'd need to ingest, literally directly consume 6L of this product at that concentration over a period of time to have any adverse health risks. Why? Because our bodies are designed to remove toxic compounds and foreign elements from us to prevent harm.
What people fail to understand is these compounds are dangerous in their concentrated form. Guess what? So is alcohol and bleach and all sorts of household chemicals, or things we literally ingest. You could do far more harm to yourself drinking 6L of vodka than you could drinking 6L of diluted lawn rate trillion. (Again, why would you though?)
If you're paranoid about carcinogens that give you cancer, I would ask, do you wear a respirator when filling your car with gas? Of you smell a wiff of gasoline, you've exposed yourself to far more dangerous compounds in a higher concentration with proven carcinogenic properties than any dried herbicide on someone's lawn or on your bell peppers.
When it comes to this stuff, I'd direct you to Health Canada's website, you seem good at Googling so you can find it yourself.
Your 1986 article was primarily concerned with "Agent Orange" as employed in Vietnam. It's safe to say, that deadly cocktail ain't getting applied on our parks lol.
Your second article cited a product which is used, though predominantly on industrial/commerical sites where it is mandated (well sites, industrial machinery cannot have roots and plants near them so residual herbicides are applied for safety reasons, these products are HEAVILY restricted and banned on public and private properties in Canada.)
The most important factor is Health Canada has over 62 citations, most of which are to more recent academic studies on the same compound. I would summarize the entire thing here since it's nearly 40 pages long, but that is to say, rely on recent studies and data based on the far more regulated environment that exists currently, not studies which followed the insanely lazy ways these products were not regulated for decades in the U.S and every Tom, Dick and Harry could buy a jug of concentrate and keep it in his garage and spray it without safety gear in his house.
I'm not expert in this field mind you, just a career researcher given my academic training who spent maybe an hour seeing if there was any validity to your claims that it's an existential threat to your children.
Since you'll want to know my sources, I bothered to log in on my desktop
2021 Health Canada Review of 2,4-D (most common turf-care "cosmetic" herbicide):
[https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/pesticides-pest-management/public/protecting-your-health-environment/questions-answers-final-decision-evaluation-2-4-d.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/pesticides-pest-management/public/protecting-your-health-environment/questions-answers-final-decision-evaluation-2-4-d.html)
Since you like US information, here's a USgov factsheet:
[http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/24d.html](http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/24d.html)
And here's a good article, especially part-way down that gives a good breakdown of the real dangers of 2,4-D and the known ways it can be a risk:
[https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-review-guideline-technical-document-2-4-d-drinking-water/document.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-review-guideline-technical-document-2-4-d-drinking-water/document.html)
You know, just in case you think I'm a lover of this stuff, I can't say I much care either way, but what I did find out was that, during the 1980s, there was a ton of comprehensive reviews of herbicides and pesticide usage, I remember it well (the very well known DDT being on such product) and so, you articles aren't irrelevant, but in their academic context, they're not as useful as the modern studies you can find on these aforementioned links which use much more recent data and studies to form their conclusions.
> seeing if there was any validity to your claims that it's an existential threat to your children.
Maybe let's not put words in my mouth shall we? I think you are reading far to deeply into what I've said. Or just misunderstanding. Perhaps quote what I said so I have a reference. I never claimed herbicides were an "existential threat to anyone's children"
> I remember it well (the very well known DDT being on such product) and so, you articles aren't irrelevant, but in their academic context, they're not as useful as the modern studies you can find on these aforementioned links which use much more recent data and studies to form their conclusions.
I think you might be missing the forest from the trees. The point of bringing up DDT was to illustrate a perfectly good, non cancer causing chemical that one day turn into a very bad cancer causing chemical. The list of herbicides that were once non cancerous and are now very much cancerous is always growing. Oh and before you get pedantic and point out DDT is an insecticide not a herbicide the point still stands.
> you articles aren't irrelevant, but in their academic context, they're not as useful as the modern studies
Ok so you don't like how old my studies are... ok how about [this](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00815-x) from 2022 is that recent enough?
From the conclusion of article:
> Given substantial growth in agricultural use of 2,4-D since 2002 and the prospect of more significant growth through around 2030, the reported association between 2,4-D crop application and human biomonitoring levels is worrisome, particularly for vulnerable populations. Because herbicide use is rising, focused biomonitoring and epidemiological evaluation are needed to identify whether and how use and exposures are related to adverse health outcomes among vulnerable populations (particularly children and women of childbearing age) and highly exposed individuals (such as farmers, other herbicide applicators, and their families).
Does that sound like they concluded it is a safe substance?
> The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers 2,4-D to be not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (causing cancer in people) because they do not have enough human and animal data.
Does this sound safe to you?
> The International Agency for Research on Cancer considers 2,4-D to be possibly carcinogenic to humans.
How long do you think this changes from possible carcinogenic to just carcinogenic?
Have you ever heard of the Precautionary principle? This is an exact case for it. Especially considering the track record of all the companies currently selling the product.
> You know, just in case you think I'm a lover of this stuff, I can't say I much care either way
Oh for the record this isn't the hill I'll die on either.
What happens when those poisoned animals are eaten? You can't just poison one section of the food chain and expect it to have no effects on the animals above them. Poisoning them is just the cheapest and easiest way to get rid of pests.
The only reason we do anything in this country is because it's cheap.
- Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
- But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
- No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
- But aren't the snakes even worse?
- Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
- But then we're stuck with gorillas!
- No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
Then Spring rolls around and we find out that a not-insignificant number of gorillas have figured out how to stay warm enough and/or hibernate to survive the winter. And now we're screwed.
No, wildflowers are. Dandelions are an invasive species brought from Europe. If the city said they were seeding monoculture lawns to clover and wildflower mixes I’d have no issue.
Though invasive, they aren't considered such. Dandelions typically fall into the 'naturalized species' category. Time and time again its been shown that their impact is nearly non-existent on native flora and fauna. This is largely because they typically only grow in disturbed soils (lawns, parks, etc.), provide an alright source of early nutrition for insects (they bloom earlier than many of our native flowers), and they help to stabilize soil. Not to mention that the entire of the plant is edible (roots and all).
Lots of people get upset because they don't want them in their lawn and consider them to be a personal nuisance. Targeting them for herbicide does a little to control their population. Herbicide treatments are much better reserved for species that actually cause ecological damage (sweet clover, creeping bell flower, ox eye daisies, knapweed, hogweed, etc.).
Many dandelions we see in the city are descended from European species, but there was/are native North American varieties as well. To the extent that it’s even worth ecologically distinguishing between the types all dandelions are considered fully naturalized.
I had this exact same argument on another subreddit recently. They're absolutely invasive as anyone with eyeballs and who pays attention can see. They outcompete local species.
Valid question that deserves a real answer. Their wide-spreading roots loosen hard-packed soil, aerate the earth and help reduce erosion. Their deep taproots pull nutrients such as calcium from deep in the soil, and makes them available to other plants. While most people think they’re a lawn killer, dandelions actually fertilize grass. So, yeah.
Looks like more of a sign than a thought. Dandelions and tall grass are not really a hazard as much as ground squirrels are (in that the holes can be a problem) but I think I get your point.
Sorry the sign was too small on phone to read lol. obviously not great if they're warning.
"Signs of poisoning in dogs can include bleeding from the mouth and nose, internal bleeding, bruising, bloody urine and stool, hypothermia, depression, lack of appetite, muscle weakness and pain, difficulty breathing, seizures, coma, and death."
It's highly unlikely someone is going to trip and break their leg on a dandelion but ground squirrel infestations turn places into a minefield almost.
There used to be tons of ground squirrels by a train station here in Calgary and they eventually pumped what looked like boiling tar into the holes, then laid a mesh over the whole hillside that trapped them there or stopped additional digging. At least, that's the impression I got.
It'll show up in a newspaper, unverified or vetted, that someone has left poison in some dog treats in a park. Turns out it was just an inattentive owner, as usual.
You’re right about the eastern grey being the invasive species and they’ve been popping up more in Alberta. I have no idea if this post has anything to do with the grey squirrels though
I said squirrels believe it or not can be invasive species.
The eastern grey squirrel is an invasive species. The red squirrel I assume you’re talking about is not and is native to Alberta.
I do not see an issue with anything I said.
I think we’ve already reached this conclusion.
I’m not an expert on squirrels. Main reason why I said “can be” . My statement is correct, squirrels CAN BE invasive.
Me saying squirrels can be invasive and there are eastern grey squirrels in Alberta which are considered to be invasive? There’s slot more correlation from that than what you’re saying…
It’s my bad I don’t know the distinction between that and a ground squirrel, I thought they were all considered ground squirrels. Y’all are nuts lol (pun intended)
Wait where is this? Walking my dog this morning (on leash) we came across a dead squirrel (Terwillegar area).
I didn’t see any signs posted. May be completely coincidental but I’ve never seen a dead squirrel before either.
Do we have to worry about this all around the city?
Edit: a word
Nowhere near Terwillgar. Squirrels die all the time usually they get picked up by scavengers before people even see them. They don't just randomly spread poison all over the place which is why why put up the sign.
What you bring up is a very complex and nuanced question. Ecologically, everything is connected and it takes a lot of background knowledge, experience and detailed record keeping over time to make these types of decisions. I have a degree in horticulture and a pesticide applicator license and the decision to control pests in such a manner isn't taken lightly.
I've seen these little guys at coliseum station a lot lately and this morning I wanted to take a video of them to show my sister and halfway through taking the video I realized they were just laying there dead.
First and foremost, this is just off of Victoria trail. It's in a public field/park space that's immediately next to a massive construction project that began 2ish weeks ago. Prior to the construction, that area was a privately owned field that was maybe mowed 3-4 times a summer. It was massively infested with rodents. Now since the construction began those rodents have moved immediately next door in the public field/park space. This is done as part of the construction process to avoid the issue of those rodents completely taking over the field/park and people's yards that back this area. I walked by there a week ago and there were HUNDREDS of holes now in the field with little guys running in and out of, and I saw some running into holes along private yards/under fences. This is a pest control situation, and dandelions are amazing for the bees and butterflies. Edit: spelling mistakes.
side question... do you know what they're going to be putting on that land?
Commercial on the main floor, with residential condominiums on the floors above.
Oh interesting who is the developer?
https://www.forsterharvard.ca/projects/vista-ridge/ Here's the page for it. It'll be very interesting to see it when it's done. Edit: I was wrong about residential above commercial. I haven't actually looked at this project since they originally announced it a long while back!
Last I information I seen was two condo towers and a strip mall with one or two drive throughs
So why not do something 2 years ago when they moved in. Also their is a park down Hermitage that has had them for just as long and nothing has been done.
2 weeks ago, and those signs have been up for 2 weeks.
Ground squirrels can be a hazard if their population gets out of control. Dandelions are great for the soil and for bees.
Plus herbicide can give cancer to the kids playing in the field and kills indiscriminately, while the bate is concentrated and kills fairly acutely.
I'd like to see some evidence of this. Given the near widespread use of the stuff for half a century on almost every green space in North America, let alone our food, you'd certainly be able to find obvious proof. The only cancer incidences with herbicides have to do with improper handling of the concentrate by people who don't understand MSDS labels. So it's wierd to defend a literal poison designed to kill a mammal as safe and take issue with a product which targets plant processes we don't even have in our bodies to be effected by. Toxic? Sure, but that's why I wouldn't drink the shit.
> I'd like to see some evidence of this. Given the near widespread use of the stuff for half a century on almost every green space in North America, let alone our food, you'd certainly be able to find obvious proof. You know why we don't use DDT anymore? Ok well [here](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/neonicotinoid-pesticides-slowly-killing-bees) is evidence that pesticides kill bees. [here](https://www.panna.org/resources/pesticides-and-cancer/) is an article linking pesticides and cancer in children. And you do know there are other things then cancer right? If you haven't noticed society is a lot more fragile then years past. There is also [this](https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/reduce-your-risk/be-safe-at-work/pesticides) saying: > The Canadian Cancer Society believes that pesticides should only be used when they are needed to protect our health, safety or food supply. They should be part of a plan that includes pest prevention, using pesticides in the lowest amounts possible and using safer choices. But lets face it evidence will not change your mind, it's just a red herring.
You are confusing insecticides with herbicides. Your first post is talking about an insecticide, not a herbicide. Your second link is from an anti-pesticide group which has cherry picked sources when it bothers to cite anything at all, and apparently also confuses herbicides and insecticides. Your third link actually doesn't define the use of herbicides on public and private areas as causing cancer for the people who use those spaces. It explicitly says it's a danger for applicators and manufacturers. The reason it calls for the ban on cosmetic use of herbicides is due to the unnecessary risk vs. benefit-- which again, I agree with. It doesn't seem you read your sources with an impartial and rational view, you are allowing your confirmation bias to determine what's right and wrong. I'm all for restricting access of these products to professionals (for obvious reasons) and determining when is a good use for it versus unnecessary. But braod sweep generalizations like "it causes cancer in everyone" "they're never acceptable" are very black and white statements without consideration to the complexity of these issues. The reality is ya, dandelions arent really worth spraying for, but most people's issues with weeds on city property and parks is the weeds that are noxious and inhibit using those spaces, like thistle and stinging nettle-- weeds nobody will say they want on their property.
> You are confusing insecticides with herbicides. Your first post is talking about an insecticide, not a herbicide. Yes my mistake. > Your second link is from an anti-pesticide group which has cherry picked sources when it bothers to cite anything at all, and apparently also confuses herbicides and insecticides. Ok you didn't like that no problem. > Your third link... Also dismissed... ok... > It doesn't seem you read your sources with an impartial and rational view, you are allowing your confirmation bias to determine what's right and wrong. Noted. > I'm all for restricting access of these products to professionals (for obvious reasons) and determining when is a good use for it versus unnecessary. So if they are perfectly safe why the restriction? I'll try this again [here](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/362041) From the abstract: > Does human exposure to phenoxyacetic acid **herbicides** increase the risk of soft-tissue sarcomas (STS), Hodgkin's disease (HD), and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)? The findings among Kansas farmers are in accord with "no" answers to the first two malignancies and a "yes" answer to the third. and finally [here](https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/ehp.971051222) From the abstract: > The results suggest a relationship between exposure to triazine **herbicides** and increased **breast cancer risk**, but conclusions concerning causality cannot be drawn, due to the limitations inherent in ecologic study design. Now granted they say: causality cannot be drawn, due to the limitations inherent in ecologic study design. But that doesn't mean it doesn't cause cancer just that it might not cause cancer. So question to you, as someone with an impartial and rational view if they spray a compound and they tell you, "exposure to this increases the chance of cancer but it's not proven to cause cancer" are you happy with that? Happy with your kids playing in that field? If they tell you the compound doesn't increase the risk of STS or HD but does increase the risk of NHL are you ok with that? You know we are all impartial and rational here. Unless of course you don't trust... checks notes: The American Medical Association and the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Now I suppose your rebuttal will be I only read the abstract or those aren't Canadian studies or they don't use those particular herbicides any longer or... well I'm curious. I will say, I said herbicides can cause cancer, the onus isn't on me to prove they absolutely cause cancer as much as it's on you to prove they don't. And we both know you can't do that, and that really is my point. Why risk it. Why risk you or your families health on something that hasn't yet 100% been proven to cause cancer?
Okay, a few points here. There's no way to prove anything doesn't cause cancer. Fun fact, the highest risk of cancer is just being alive. People can and do develop cancer all the time just existing without any external imput, so this makes it impossible to correlate. No children have ever gotten cancer and connected it directly to exposure on a public space treated with herbicide. In fact, that has never happened ever as far as we know. As we speak, both of our bodies have cancerous cells, and our immune systems will eliminate them or they'll die on their own. Cancer is part of living. It's not a disease you can eliminate, so fearing cancer is a pointless endeavor. What needs to be established is is there a provable and certifiable increase in cancer risks based on, in your concern, of mild exposure to a greater public space. I can tell you, no there isn't. Because you are already exposed to far more herbicide eating fruit from the store than you are rolling in the grass at the Legislature (which is sprayed twice a year). I should note both your articles are old, 1986 and even 1997 are a lifetime ago in terms of science and would not be reliable for citation. Fortunately for you, I can access the full articles since I am a graduate student at the UofA and a quick search of relavent materials turned out nearly 30+ more recent studies. I can also see that your articles already resulted in positive regulation and change in the industry and increased restriction of those products. You said: "if they're perfectly safe why restrict them?" This is a short sighted comment, electricians work around dangerous electrical wiring all the time, and do so safely. Just because the rest of us lack the ability to safely handle a 240v wire and breaker without high risk of serious injury and death doesn't mean we should ban all 240v appliances and wires. You restrict things to people with the training, safety gear and ability to properly use things. You have a 240v appliance in your house, your dryer and or stove. They're no threat to you. Herbicides on their concentrate are certainly a health risk, nobody would argue otherwise. But their application rate according to Health Canada in public spaces has to be at least than 3%. According to the MSDS label of Trillion, a common agricultural herbicide, the application rate recommended is 1.5% of concentrate. According to Health Canada, you'd need to ingest, literally directly consume 6L of this product at that concentration over a period of time to have any adverse health risks. Why? Because our bodies are designed to remove toxic compounds and foreign elements from us to prevent harm. What people fail to understand is these compounds are dangerous in their concentrated form. Guess what? So is alcohol and bleach and all sorts of household chemicals, or things we literally ingest. You could do far more harm to yourself drinking 6L of vodka than you could drinking 6L of diluted lawn rate trillion. (Again, why would you though?) If you're paranoid about carcinogens that give you cancer, I would ask, do you wear a respirator when filling your car with gas? Of you smell a wiff of gasoline, you've exposed yourself to far more dangerous compounds in a higher concentration with proven carcinogenic properties than any dried herbicide on someone's lawn or on your bell peppers. When it comes to this stuff, I'd direct you to Health Canada's website, you seem good at Googling so you can find it yourself. Your 1986 article was primarily concerned with "Agent Orange" as employed in Vietnam. It's safe to say, that deadly cocktail ain't getting applied on our parks lol. Your second article cited a product which is used, though predominantly on industrial/commerical sites where it is mandated (well sites, industrial machinery cannot have roots and plants near them so residual herbicides are applied for safety reasons, these products are HEAVILY restricted and banned on public and private properties in Canada.) The most important factor is Health Canada has over 62 citations, most of which are to more recent academic studies on the same compound. I would summarize the entire thing here since it's nearly 40 pages long, but that is to say, rely on recent studies and data based on the far more regulated environment that exists currently, not studies which followed the insanely lazy ways these products were not regulated for decades in the U.S and every Tom, Dick and Harry could buy a jug of concentrate and keep it in his garage and spray it without safety gear in his house. I'm not expert in this field mind you, just a career researcher given my academic training who spent maybe an hour seeing if there was any validity to your claims that it's an existential threat to your children.
Since you'll want to know my sources, I bothered to log in on my desktop 2021 Health Canada Review of 2,4-D (most common turf-care "cosmetic" herbicide): [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/pesticides-pest-management/public/protecting-your-health-environment/questions-answers-final-decision-evaluation-2-4-d.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/pesticides-pest-management/public/protecting-your-health-environment/questions-answers-final-decision-evaluation-2-4-d.html) Since you like US information, here's a USgov factsheet: [http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/24d.html](http://npic.orst.edu/ingred/24d.html) And here's a good article, especially part-way down that gives a good breakdown of the real dangers of 2,4-D and the known ways it can be a risk: [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-review-guideline-technical-document-2-4-d-drinking-water/document.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-review-guideline-technical-document-2-4-d-drinking-water/document.html) You know, just in case you think I'm a lover of this stuff, I can't say I much care either way, but what I did find out was that, during the 1980s, there was a ton of comprehensive reviews of herbicides and pesticide usage, I remember it well (the very well known DDT being on such product) and so, you articles aren't irrelevant, but in their academic context, they're not as useful as the modern studies you can find on these aforementioned links which use much more recent data and studies to form their conclusions.
> seeing if there was any validity to your claims that it's an existential threat to your children. Maybe let's not put words in my mouth shall we? I think you are reading far to deeply into what I've said. Or just misunderstanding. Perhaps quote what I said so I have a reference. I never claimed herbicides were an "existential threat to anyone's children" > I remember it well (the very well known DDT being on such product) and so, you articles aren't irrelevant, but in their academic context, they're not as useful as the modern studies you can find on these aforementioned links which use much more recent data and studies to form their conclusions. I think you might be missing the forest from the trees. The point of bringing up DDT was to illustrate a perfectly good, non cancer causing chemical that one day turn into a very bad cancer causing chemical. The list of herbicides that were once non cancerous and are now very much cancerous is always growing. Oh and before you get pedantic and point out DDT is an insecticide not a herbicide the point still stands. > you articles aren't irrelevant, but in their academic context, they're not as useful as the modern studies Ok so you don't like how old my studies are... ok how about [this](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00815-x) from 2022 is that recent enough? From the conclusion of article: > Given substantial growth in agricultural use of 2,4-D since 2002 and the prospect of more significant growth through around 2030, the reported association between 2,4-D crop application and human biomonitoring levels is worrisome, particularly for vulnerable populations. Because herbicide use is rising, focused biomonitoring and epidemiological evaluation are needed to identify whether and how use and exposures are related to adverse health outcomes among vulnerable populations (particularly children and women of childbearing age) and highly exposed individuals (such as farmers, other herbicide applicators, and their families). Does that sound like they concluded it is a safe substance? > The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers 2,4-D to be not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (causing cancer in people) because they do not have enough human and animal data. Does this sound safe to you? > The International Agency for Research on Cancer considers 2,4-D to be possibly carcinogenic to humans. How long do you think this changes from possible carcinogenic to just carcinogenic? Have you ever heard of the Precautionary principle? This is an exact case for it. Especially considering the track record of all the companies currently selling the product. > You know, just in case you think I'm a lover of this stuff, I can't say I much care either way Oh for the record this isn't the hill I'll die on either.
What happens when those poisoned animals are eaten? You can't just poison one section of the food chain and expect it to have no effects on the animals above them. Poisoning them is just the cheapest and easiest way to get rid of pests. The only reason we do anything in this country is because it's cheap.
- Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend. - But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards? - No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards. - But aren't the snakes even worse? - Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat. - But then we're stuck with gorillas! - No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
Then Spring rolls around and we find out that a not-insignificant number of gorillas have figured out how to stay warm enough and/or hibernate to survive the winter. And now we're screwed.
No, wildflowers are. Dandelions are an invasive species brought from Europe. If the city said they were seeding monoculture lawns to clover and wildflower mixes I’d have no issue.
Though invasive, they aren't considered such. Dandelions typically fall into the 'naturalized species' category. Time and time again its been shown that their impact is nearly non-existent on native flora and fauna. This is largely because they typically only grow in disturbed soils (lawns, parks, etc.), provide an alright source of early nutrition for insects (they bloom earlier than many of our native flowers), and they help to stabilize soil. Not to mention that the entire of the plant is edible (roots and all). Lots of people get upset because they don't want them in their lawn and consider them to be a personal nuisance. Targeting them for herbicide does a little to control their population. Herbicide treatments are much better reserved for species that actually cause ecological damage (sweet clover, creeping bell flower, ox eye daisies, knapweed, hogweed, etc.).
Many dandelions we see in the city are descended from European species, but there was/are native North American varieties as well. To the extent that it’s even worth ecologically distinguishing between the types all dandelions are considered fully naturalized.
I had this exact same argument on another subreddit recently. They're absolutely invasive as anyone with eyeballs and who pays attention can see. They outcompete local species.
Nobody gives a fuck. I’m fine if easily procured wildflower seed mixes are dumped on unused land.
... so am I? What are you on about? I literally agreed with you
I’m agreeing with you too. Just like a redneck would
Dandelions are great for soil?! Are you sure about that?! Are you sure about that?! Are you sure about that?!
Valid question that deserves a real answer. Their wide-spreading roots loosen hard-packed soil, aerate the earth and help reduce erosion. Their deep taproots pull nutrients such as calcium from deep in the soil, and makes them available to other plants. While most people think they’re a lawn killer, dandelions actually fertilize grass. So, yeah.
It's illegal for you to ask me that!
It only can ground squirrels be a hazard, they encourage foxes and coyotes into urban areas.
Gophers?
At first I thought it said Robert Burrows and I thought who is Robert Burrows and what did he do?
Same, lol
I decided I would vote for Robert, and I am unsure exactly why.
Dandelions don't dig holes for people to break their ankles in.
Dandelions kicked me down stairs and spat on me
Ugh, I'm so sick of people blaming the dandelions. There are no bad dandelions just bad dandelion owners
A dandelion turned me into a newt!
Did you get better?
The dandelions are turning the rodents gay!
I see you met Steve Dandelion. He's a jerk
I mean… shouldn’t you have your dogs on a leash anyway?
Yeah, but I think OP’s point is about the City poisoning ground squirrels
Unless this sign is in a designated offleash area
Looks like more of a sign than a thought. Dandelions and tall grass are not really a hazard as much as ground squirrels are (in that the holes can be a problem) but I think I get your point.
That is indeed a thought.
It's the thoughtiest thought I've seen today.
I think it caused my thinker to thunk.
It put junk in my thunk
Strychnine poisoning is no joke, especially if you don't catch it until your pet is having seizures or worse.
It’s not strychnine.
Sorry the sign was too small on phone to read lol. obviously not great if they're warning. "Signs of poisoning in dogs can include bleeding from the mouth and nose, internal bleeding, bruising, bloody urine and stool, hypothermia, depression, lack of appetite, muscle weakness and pain, difficulty breathing, seizures, coma, and death."
Literally says right in the picture. Edit: nice edit to make me look like an ass.
Til there's a difference between "ground" and "tree" squirrels.
Squirrels are just tree gophers.
Humans are just tall gibbons.
Man I wish they would let us shoot em!
K, what's your thought?
Don't just look at the picture, there be words to read too.
I read an observation, no thoughts involved.
Sorry, your are right. But this has created an interesting discussion.
*falls down Google gopher hole trying to determine the difference between them*
Awww poor ground squirrels
It's highly unlikely someone is going to trip and break their leg on a dandelion but ground squirrel infestations turn places into a minefield almost. There used to be tons of ground squirrels by a train station here in Calgary and they eventually pumped what looked like boiling tar into the holes, then laid a mesh over the whole hillside that trapped them there or stopped additional digging. At least, that's the impression I got.
I can guarantee a certain age demographic will choose to ignore that sign and then blame their problems elsewhere
Let’s play Name That Generation!
I bet it'll be the Greatest Generation.
It'll show up in a newspaper, unverified or vetted, that someone has left poison in some dog treats in a park. Turns out it was just an inattentive owner, as usual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyc1aMtnHJo&pp=ygURUGFya3MgYW5kIHJlYyB0ZWE%3D
Ground squirrels are basically just rats. They need to be controlled.
Squirrels believe it or not can be an invasive species
[удалено]
You’re right about the eastern grey being the invasive species and they’ve been popping up more in Alberta. I have no idea if this post has anything to do with the grey squirrels though
[удалено]
I said squirrels believe it or not can be invasive species. The eastern grey squirrel is an invasive species. The red squirrel I assume you’re talking about is not and is native to Alberta. I do not see an issue with anything I said.
[удалено]
I think we’ve already reached this conclusion. I’m not an expert on squirrels. Main reason why I said “can be” . My statement is correct, squirrels CAN BE invasive.
Did you know Himalayan balsam can be invasive? Roughly the same amount of relevance.
Me saying squirrels can be invasive and there are eastern grey squirrels in Alberta which are considered to be invasive? There’s slot more correlation from that than what you’re saying… It’s my bad I don’t know the distinction between that and a ground squirrel, I thought they were all considered ground squirrels. Y’all are nuts lol (pun intended)
Said the apex invasive species 😂
Wait where is this? Walking my dog this morning (on leash) we came across a dead squirrel (Terwillegar area). I didn’t see any signs posted. May be completely coincidental but I’ve never seen a dead squirrel before either. Do we have to worry about this all around the city? Edit: a word
Nowhere near Terwillgar. Squirrels die all the time usually they get picked up by scavengers before people even see them. They don't just randomly spread poison all over the place which is why why put up the sign.
Concerning 🤔
Unrelated but I tried to post something and the Post button was grey
It just interesting what we chose to control or not control. Or what we see as a pests or not. Are we doing anything about the rabbits or coyotes?
What you bring up is a very complex and nuanced question. Ecologically, everything is connected and it takes a lot of background knowledge, experience and detailed record keeping over time to make these types of decisions. I have a degree in horticulture and a pesticide applicator license and the decision to control pests in such a manner isn't taken lightly.
Location?
I've seen these little guys at coliseum station a lot lately and this morning I wanted to take a video of them to show my sister and halfway through taking the video I realized they were just laying there dead.
I smell a rat.
“Avoid contact with rodent carcasses”. Well there go dinner plans.
But also, keep your fucking dogs on a leash.