BajaNomad - Agent Orange makes a reprise on the border?

Agent Orange makes a reprise on the border?

Woooosh - 3-24-2009 at 12:25 PM

I'm sure they have much better herbicides these days without the toxic effects on people or the environment....

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6335446.html

The U.S. Border Patrol plans to poison the plant life along a 1.1-mile stretch of the Rio Grande riverbank as soon as Wednesday to get rid of the hiding places used by smugglers, robbers and illegal immigrants.

If successful, the $2.1 million pilot project could later be duplicated along as many as 130 miles of river in the patrol’s Laredo Sector, as well as other parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Although Border Patrol and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials say the chemical is safe for animals, detractors say the experiment is reminiscent of the Vietnam War-era Agent Orange chemical program and raises questions about long-term effects.

“We don’t believe that is even moral,” said Jay Johnson-Castro Sr., executive director of the Rio Grande International Study Center, located at Laredo Community College, adjacent to the planned test area.

“It is unprecedented that they’d do it in a populated area,” he said of spraying the edge of the Rio Grande as it weaves between the cities of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

Border Patrol agent Roque Sarinana said the pilot project aims to find the most efficient way to keep agents safer and better protect the nation’s border. “We are trying to improve our mobility and visibility up and down the river,” Sarinana said.

Criminals have grown adept at using the dense foliage to elude capture, he said.

“They can come over almost undetected,” he said.

Should the Border Patrol project prove efficient, cane removal could become part of its arsenal of tools that have been used along various parts of the U.S.-Mexico border, including walls, fencing and look-out towers.

Members of the Laredo City Council have raised concerns about the spraying program and called on Mexico President Felipe Calderon to intervene.

Mexican officials are raising concerns the herbicide could threaten the water supply for Nuevo Laredo.

A U.S. government outline of the project indicates the Border Patrol is going to test three methods to rid the 1.1-mile bank of river of carrizo cane, which has thick stalks that form tight, isolated trails that can be dark and all but invisible from higher up on the bank.

One method calls for the cane to be cut by hand and the stumps painted with the herbicide, Imazapyr.

Another involves using mechanical equipment to dig the cane out by the roots. It is unclear if herbicides would be necessary in this scenario.

The third and most controversial removal method calls for helicopters spraying Imazapyr directly on the cane — repeatedly — until all plant life in the area is poisoned.

The Border Patrol said that after using the herbicide, it plans to make the river’s edges green again by planting native plants.

Johnson-Castro said he has no issue with removing the cane, a non-native plant brought by the Spaniards centuries ago. The challenge, he said, is how it is done.

“We are saying it is one hell of a big deal,” he said.

Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas said he believes federal officials when they say testing shows the chemical is not dangerous, but that he also realizes opponents of the project have concerns to evaluate.

“It is a complicated situation because we have to think about protecting our border,” said Salinas, a retired FBI agent. “But let’s do it in a sensible, reasonable way to make sure humans won’t be harmed, nor the vegetation, nor the animals, nor the environment.”

[Edited on 3-24-2009 by Woooosh]

toneart - 3-24-2009 at 12:35 PM

This idea is unthinkable, except for the idiot mindset that thinks (?) that way.
:fire:

Maybe Lou Dodds would like it. :barf:

Woooosh - 3-24-2009 at 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
This idea is unthinkable, except for the idiot mindset that thinks (?) that way.
:fire:

Maybe Lou Dodds would like it. :barf:

I think you have your marooons confused- Sen Chris Dodd-D of CT (whose wife once served on the board of an AIG company and he snuck the AIG bonuses into law) and Lou Dobbs who is trying to be the anti-Rush on CNN. Easy mistake to make IMHO.

Woooosh - 3-24-2009 at 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
This idea is unthinkable, except for the idiot mindset that thinks (?) that way.
:fire:

Maybe Lou Dodds would like it. :barf:

Wasn't it just a few years ago in California that Mexican workers out picking produce in the fields were sprayed routinely with pesticides from crop duster aircraft?

woody with a view - 3-24-2009 at 12:52 PM

whatever happened to napalm? i've heard it smells particularly pleasant......

toneart - 3-24-2009 at 12:59 PM

Yes, it is easy getting my marooons confused. There are too many on my score card. The Dodds reference was because of his obsession with illegal immigration. I have said for years on this board that "market conditions" will eventually take care of the illegal immigrant situation. When the jobs dry up, they will repatriate to their respective countries. That is now happening.

And yes, Mexican workers were dusted with pesticides in California, much to the detriment of their health. Cesaer Chavez mercively stepped in with his huelgas. That wasn't the only thing the UFW was protesting, but that was a biggie.

toneart - 3-24-2009 at 01:01 PM

I realize that this topic is around drug smuggling, but the immigration issue was brought up. To some it is one and the same.

nancyinpdx - 3-24-2009 at 03:09 PM

I think the U.S. is one of the most immoral countries... I hope they do not get away with this. The ones wanting to use it should be forced to permanently relocate with their families to the areas it would be used, so they can prove how 'safe' they believe it is.

Woooosh - 3-24-2009 at 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nancyinpdx
I think the U.S. is one of the most immoral countries... I hope they do not get away with this. The ones wanting to use it should be forced to permanently relocate with their families to the areas it would be used, so they can prove how 'safe' they believe it is.

You're talking about alcohol right?

Bajahowodd - 3-24-2009 at 04:48 PM

I think that what we are currently doing on the Mexican Border is folly. With the exception of the Israeli fencing off of Gaza, there is really no place in the world that has become as fortified as ours with Mexico. Maybe we should consider statehood for Mexico. After all, much of the U.S. Southwest was once part of Mexico. After all, much of that same area has a rich historic cultural connection. Of course, I'm being looney. Americans would never consider the annexation of Mexico, and the overwhelming, if somewhat misplaced national pride of Mexicans would be equally against such an idea. That being said, When the Gadsden Purchase was made in the 19th century, land that basically allowed for the straight border from New Mexico to San Diego, Mexico offered to throw in Baja, and the U.S. declined the offer.

CaboRon - 3-24-2009 at 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by woody in ob
whatever happened to napalm? i've heard it smells particularly pleasant......

Only in the Morning :lol:

Woooosh - 3-24-2009 at 06:47 PM

Quote:

Mexico offered to throw in Baja, and the U.S. declined the offer.

I think it still would.

nancyinpdx - 3-25-2009 at 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh

Quote:

You're talking about alcohol right?

but of course... it could be made from fermented agent orange contaminated plants... yum!

oldlady - 3-25-2009 at 06:13 AM

The harmful ingredients in Agent Orange are dioxins. Evidently this stuff doesn't have those. It's been commonly used in the US for over 20 years, in populated areas. It is a herbicide and not a pesticide.
While I wouldn't want to drink a lot of the stuff, there is also no evidence that it is a carcinogen. Anyone hiding in the canes where the spray may itch a lot.
If nothing else, the professional environmentalists have come a long way as watchdogs on these sorts of things, in 20 years, if there were significant problems you'd like to believe they would have rung the alarm bells by now.

CaboRon - 3-25-2009 at 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh

Quote:

Mexico offered to throw in Baja, and the U.S. declined the offer.

I think it still would.

Damm, there go my dreams of a monorail from Las Vegas to Cabo San Lucas :lol:

with a stop at Disneyland , of course. :bounce:

k-rico - 3-25-2009 at 07:17 AM

"The third and most controversial removal method calls for helicopters spraying Imazapyr directly on the cane — repeatedly — until all plant life in the area is poisoned."

Imazapyr - Identification, toxicity, use, water pollution potential, ecological toxicity and regulatory information

toxic to almost every plant

[Edited on 3-25-2009 by k-rico]

I'm A Zapper

motoged - 3-25-2009 at 09:21 AM

Instead of spraying I'm A Zapper all over the place, why don't they just pave a mile-long strip along the entire border and turn it into a parking lot, set up more big box stores selling cheap plastic crap and let the American dream weave its web?...light: :light:

YIKES!

tigerdog - 3-25-2009 at 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by k-rico
"The third and most controversial removal method calls for helicopters spraying Imazapyr directly on the cane — repeatedly — until all plant life in the area is poisoned."

Imazapyr - Identification, toxicity, use, water pollution potential, ecological toxicity and regulatory information

toxic to almost every plant

Great links, k-rico, thanks. That second one is alarming, especially in how it gets into the ground water. Obviously, from reading those papers, not enough research has been done on this.

I'm old enough to remember how our government denied for years that Agent Orange was dangerous, and what a fight it was to force an admission that it might have harmed our troops in Vietnam. I also remember how long DDT was used in the USA and what a fight it took to get an admission that it was bad for us in spite of reams of evidence that it was dangerous. There are people who STILL think it was a mistake to ban DDT.

So, the fact that "in 20 years, if there were significant problems you'd like to believe they would have rung the alarm bells by now", as old lady says, doesn't give me much confidence. I'm afraid you have more faith in our government than I do, old lady.

I seriously recommend everyone read the info in that second link you posted (http://www.akaction.org/PDFs/Imazapyr_facts.pdf ). The fact that they're fixin' to spray that stuff along a major body of water (even though that poor river is already majorly polluted) should give us all pause.

oldlady - 3-25-2009 at 01:33 PM

I have little to no faith in our government. My point was that this is not another version of the dioxin laden Agent Orange. However, if there is something significantly wrong with this stuff, where have all the environmental activists been on the issue for the last 20 years that it has been commonly used?
Several of you know a lot more about enviornmental chemistry than I do. Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that only now, when it is going to be used to facilitate the possible reduction of border violations, we are suddenly aware of its existence?

[Edited on 3-25-2009 by oldlady]

Woooosh - 3-25-2009 at 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon

Quote:

Originally posted by Woooosh

Quote:

Mexico offered to throw in Baja, and the U.S. declined the offer.

I think it still would.

Damm, there go my dreams of a monorail from Las Vegas to Cabo San Lucas :lol:

with a stop at Disneyland , of course. :bounce:

The Vegas to LA rail connection is desperatley needed. No "It's a small third world" mexican attraction with mariachis though.

[Edited on 3-25-2009 by Woooosh]

Nonsense

Dave - 3-25-2009 at 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
With the exception of the Israeli fencing off of Gaza, there is really no place in the world that has become as fortified as ours with Mexico.

How about the 38th parallel? Or China's, Russia's border?

There is really no comparison with the U.S. and any of these States. They defend their borders. Mostly shoot to kill. The U.S. pats you on the back and sends you home to try again.

Mango - 3-25-2009 at 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon

Quote:

Originally posted by woody in ob
whatever happened to napalm? i've heard it smells particularly pleasant......

Only in the Morning :lol:

Dang, beat me to it. Too bad the updraft ruins the surf break though!

tigerdog - 3-26-2009 at 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady
I have little to no faith in our government. My point was that this is not another version of the dioxin laden Agent Orange. However, if there is something significantly wrong with this stuff, where have all the environmental activists been on the issue for the last 20 years that it has been commonly used?
Several of you know a lot more about enviornmental chemistry than I do. Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that only now, when it is going to be used to facilitate the possible reduction of border violations, we are suddenly aware of its existence?

Of course you're right oldlady, and I didn't mean to imply that you actually have faith in our government (I'm an old lady myself). I do have to wonder where the environmental activists have been on this, since it appears from the literature I've been looking at that little research has actually been done on the long term effects of using I'm A Zapper (gawd, now I'm never going to be able to think of it as anything else, thanks a lot motoged

)

I see where a lawsuit was filed against Humboldt County and the state of California in 2007 "for not allowing adequate public input before using toxic sprays on the Eel River to eradicate invasive weeds."

This article said: "Imazapyr (trade name Habitat) was only approved for aquatic applications in California a year ago. Imazapyr is a non-selective herbicide and therefore likely to kill many untargeted plant species, which would further impact the ecology of the region. In humans, imazapyr is an irritant and causes rashes, swelling and redness of the skin and eyes. It also breakdowns (sic) slowly and is very persistent in soil and water. The U.S. Geological Survey says little is known about how the chemical moves through surface or ground water."
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=190

My point is, since the chemical companies and our guv'mint can't be trusted to look out for our health and the health of the planet, maybe we shouldn't be using toxic chemicals when no one seems to know what the long term effects of them are.

Let's see, how long did it take for us all to learn that asbestos (which seemed like a good product at the time) causes cancer? :?:

I also wonder how many other products there are out there that have been in routine use, and which we will only find out about when something happens to bring it to the attention of the general public?

Guess I'm just getting cynical in my old age. Sigh.

[Edited on 3-26-2009 by tigerdog]

oldlady - 3-26-2009 at 03:52 AM

Careful with the phrasing, tigerdog, ain't anything wrong with a healthy dose of cynicism.
I like the idea of whacking it down and digging it up; but someone will chastise me for endagering some inscet by destroying their habitat.

tigerdog - 3-27-2009 at 01:03 AM

:lol:

A Burning Issue

MrBillM - 3-29-2009 at 04:53 PM

Personally, I think the Napalm idea has some merit.

Quick, effective and entertaining.

All we are asking is Give it a chance.

nancyinpdx - 3-29-2009 at 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldlady
Careful with the phrasing, tigerdog, ain't anything wrong with a healthy dose of cynicism.
I like the idea of whacking it down and digging it up; but someone will chastise me for endagering some inscet by destroying their habitat.

Me agrees with ye

BajaBruno - 3-30-2009 at 11:17 AM

The article K-Rico linked to is not science, it is hyperbole. It is an entirely unsubstantiated article with no references that was written by a rabid anti-chemical group based on another article which is much more balanced. The source article is here: http://www.pesticide.org/imazapyr.pdf

While the article I linked is also written by an anti-chemical group and should be evaluated accordingly, it is at least referenced and the references can be checked for accuracy.

Dear Old Lady is correct, in my opinion, that responsible environmentalists have been much more active in monitoring chemical testing and limiting the uses of the more problematic toxins. The fact of modern society is that we need chemicals, unless we want to return to the lifestyle of the Nineteenth Century. Some may be OK with that, but then, you'd have to turn off your computer, wouldn't you?