Ann-OH
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 2020
posted
What do you think of the insecticide programs being run by the CDC in several eastern states?
I know in CT they are concerned because the spray can be dangerous if it gets into the water system. The CDC says that won't happen because the grass will absorb the spray. Hmmmm.....
t9im
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 25489
posted
Personally I think they should spray with DDT. Instead of the Plum Island conspiracy theory maybe the tick population has exploded due to this no longer in use.
-------------------- Tim Posts: 1111 | From Glastonbury, CT | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
I am listening to the tail end of the 2 day webinar on Prevention (LDA/EPA) as I write this.
3 counties in Maryland- one in NY and one in CT are the "test" areas.
Paul Meade just did a run down on that study- I caught most of it but my brain is kinda of fried right now. I was so close to considering supporting it till I heard him speak. He blew it.
A few points stick out from my previous reading and his talk.
1. If you participate, they (CDC, health departments, Yale, and many unknown places and people) will have access to your private medical records to "confirm" if you actually got Lyme.
The Yale connection (well-hidden) was made by clicking on something on their website- no ... it was by checking out the 800 phone number I believe. Sorry- I did that a while back when the news first came out- but Yale is involved.
In my opinion, the idiots having access to our personal medical records is NOT good for patients or their doctors.
Especially considering the horrible record Yale, et al has with "undiagnosing" Lyme in patients who have already been diagnosed previously by their doctors.
Doing the undiagnosing skews the study results- kind of like basing studies and vaccines on results from undependable Lyme tests.
The toads in CT seem to make undiagnosing people (even dead people they've gone after in a shameless attack) a "sport" there, especially in the hands of Feder, Shapiro, Matt Carrter, et al.
As we all know, there is a proven track record of horrible results when the officials in CT and Maryland touch anything Lyme-related.
2. The pesticide is quite toxic. This is an "experiment"- and there is no known data on known or unknown problems associated with using it this way.
I am concerned about these people, the Chesapeake Bay, our watersheds, our pets, and families. They are literally the guinea pigs here.
My question is why not use a safer product- like one of the natural ones?
IF this current pesticide were to work or show positive results- what "person" in the real world that cares anything about our environment or themselves will WANT to use that method?
They need to get real, not just get tax-payer money.
3. A CDC dude spoke a little while ago (heaven help us all) saying he needs the data from this study to do the "numbers" to see if it is cost-effective.
Hello?
I see a five year wait for this study to be totally done and published... and in the meantime we are wasting valuable time on a possibility.
4. The people in the study will not know if chemicals were sprayed on their yards or if it was water.
If they use other protection while outside in the spayed areas - it will alter the study results. If they don't- it will put them at more risk for TBD's.
I'll go over my two days of notes later to see what I have, but the above info alone was enough to make me run, not walk, to the nearest exit.
posted
They've done a lot of damage with pesticide studies over the years---think the little kids running behind the DDT-spraying trucks.
IMO, they know where they can stick their study (like we believe they have any desire to prevent Lyme. Yeah right.) Lyme patients should boycott all studies by these guys until they redo the guidelines.
just don
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1129
posted
Okay, so what pesticide spray are they using???What active ingredient?? What family is that??
Wonder whats wrong with spraying 'Tempo',,,that is the least harmful I can think o???. Safe for everything EXCEPT food, its utensils and its prep surfaces.
Because, I suspect, they havent tested it that way!!
-------------------- just don Posts: 4548 | From Middle of midwest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ann-OH
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 2020
posted
Here is some info on the chemical the CDC plans to use in its study on eliminating ticks on lawns in three E. Coast states.
IUPAC name[hide]2-Methyl-3-phenylphenyl)methyl (1S,3S)-3-[(Z)-2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl]- 2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1-carboxylate Identifiers CAS number 82657-04-3 Y PubChem 10938769 ChemSpider 9114004 Y UNII 6B66JED0KN Y ChEMBL CHEMBL44019 Y SMILES [show] Cc1c(cccc1c2ccccc2)COC(=O)C3C(C3(C)C)C=C(C(F)(F)F)Cl.Cc1c(cccc1c2ccccc2)COC(=O)C3C(C3(C)C)C=C(C(F)(F)F)Cl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cl\C(=C/[C@@H]3[C@H](C(=O)OCc2cccc(c1ccccc1)c2C)C3(C)C)C(F)(F)F
InChI [show] InChI=1S/C23H22ClF3O2/c1-14-16(10-7-11-17(14)15-8-5-4-6-9-15)13-29-21(28)20-18(22(20,2)3)12-19(24)23(25,26)27/h4-12,18,20H,13H2,1-3H3/b19-12-/t18-,20-/m1/s1 Y Key: OMFRMAHOUUJSGP-JHEGMOCKSA-N Y -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- InChI=1/2C23H22ClF3O2/c2*1-14-16(10-7-11-17(14)15-8-5-4-6-9-15)13-29-21(28)20-18(22(20,2)3)12-19(24)23(25,26)27/h2*4-12,18,20H,13H2,1-3H3/b2*19-12-/t2*18-,20-/m10/s1 Key: OXCDWLBJSLVWHB-LKRLXIKPBY
Properties Molecular formula C23H22ClF3O2 Molar mass 422.87 g mol−1 Solubility in water 0.1 mg/L Y(what is this?) (verify) Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 �C, 100 kPa) Infobox references
Bifenthrin is a pyrethroid insecticide that affects the nervous system of insects. It was discovered and developed by FMC Corporation. Products containing bifenthrin include Talstar, Maxxthor, Capture, Brigade, Bifenthrine, Ortho Home Defense Max, Bifen IT, Bifen L/P, and Scotts LawnPro Step 3.
Toxicology and regulation
It is highly toxic to fish, since it, like most pyrethroids, is also an ATPase inhibitor. Aquatic vertebrates are much more sensitive to ATPase inhibitors than terrestrial vertebrates due to their high dependence on ATP synthesis in the gills to maintain osmotic balance.
The EPA has classified bifenthrin as a class C carcinogen, a possible human carcinogen.[1] Based on risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to bifenthrin residues.[citation needed]
Bifenthrin was included in a biocide ban proposed by the Swedish Chemicals Agency[2] and approved by the European Parliament in 2009.[3] Pesticides containing bifenthrin have been withdrawn from use in the European Union.[4]
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic