In Conan O’Brien’s acceptance of the 26th Mark Twain Prize he said: “Accepting an award named after Mark Twain is a responsibility. One cannot invoke Twain without understanding who he was and what he stood for.”
….
“Twain wrote, ‘Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time and your government when it deserves it.”
Please ask our environmental organizations to provide basic information on what pesticides Our [toxic!] national parks are spraying.
How many of you remember my gold spotted oak borer post (https://www.puravidaaquatic.com/wordpress/dirt/) where I criticized California’s use of carbaryl in our oak forests?
A federal judge ruled late Wednesday that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) must finish assessing the impact of five pesticides on endangered and threatened species, and that the agency had violated federal law with its “unreasonable” delay in completing the required analyses.
The five chemicals include the weed killers atrazine and simazine, and the insecticides chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and carbaryl.
End quote:
Carbaryl
The lawsuit above was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity. Thank goodness there are still some people who are thinking in the world.
And why does the _Canadian_ Sierra Club have a big section on pesticides? The US Sierra Club strategically has a page (supposedly) but the link is broken and has been for over a year even though I’ve notified them of it many times. I would never think that they are taking mega donations from the pesticide manufacturers.
91% of the 1,800 animals and plants supposedly protected by the Endangered Species Act were found to be _likely_ harmed by carbaryl. _91%_ but hey it breaks down quickly. Well _not_. …. So it’s okay.
Well _not_.
It is not just Trump. Somehow it started in California under Biden. And I know many of you don’t want to hear that, but the pesticide industry has both sides in its pocket, as well as our national park bureaucracy, and a few of our big environmental organizations as well.
Carbaryl, and many other pesticides that aren’t even on this current lawsuit are just not good for our oak forests or Our Toxic National Parks.
The best to you all!
If you have received this as a forward and would like to continue receiving it please email me “vidaaquatic@gmail.com”
And if you would like to donate as little as $5 to the cause, you can Zelle it to vidaaquatic@gmail.com. thank you very much. Bob
Too much of our paternalistic manipulation of mother nature causes more problems than it solves. The term invasive has become a political football often used to promote profit over nature.
The logging industry screams bloody murder over invasive insects because it damages their profit not that it’s bad for nature or the birds that would have been able to eat those “invasive” insects
Please look at this link that my very good friend Kimberly sent me!
While I work on pesticides because that is the way I feel that I can use my abilities to the best, this essay is very much my world view. open.substack.com/pub/charleseisenstein/p/greatness-after-the-bulldozer?r=12682v&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email ‘No country can be “great” when that greatness comes at the expense of others.’
And in my opinion that is exactly what is happening with the pesticide industry. The collateral damage to our children and endangered animals from our orgy of chemical pesticide use cannot contribute ultimately to greatness. www.puravidaaquatic.com/www.puravidaaquatics.com/ 310-429-8477
This is one of the most fun and awesome YouTubes I have seen lately! I am a microbiologist and have always laughed about how when humans developed glass and grinding and ultimately lenses how some of us looked inward at tiny tiny things, while others looked outward at the stars. But they both derived initially from the ability to see things through that brand new technology of lenses.
Scientists have progressed far beyond the initial glass or water lenses; scanning tunneling electron microscopes to the amazing satellite instruments studying the stars.
So much of this depended on passionate, honest, probity people
We need #ChemFreeZones (Unfortunately they are not profitable for big business and therefore not politically profitable either)
Big Oil Use in the Production of Chemical Pesticides
How much oil is burned or wasted in the production of chemical pesticides?
There are several factors involved in the manufacturing process. The production of pesticides typically involves multiple stages, each requiring energy inputs, often derived from fossil fuels like oil.
1. Energy Requirements for Pesticide Production: Estimates: Research indicates that producing one pound of synthetic pesticide can require anywhere from 3 to 10 pounds of oil equivalent when considering all stages of production. This includes not only direct energy consumption but also indirect energy costs associated with raw material extraction and processing.
For example: Extraction and Processing: The extraction of raw materials (like petrochemicals) requires energy. Synthesis: The chemical reactions involved in synthesizing pesticides are often energy-intensive. Formulation and Packaging: Additional energy is consumed during formulation and packaging processes.
Energy Losses in Production: The concept of “energy loss” refers to the inefficiencies inherent in any industrial process. In pesticide manufacturing, a significant portion of the energy input does not contribute directly to the final product but is lost as heat or used in auxiliary processes.
Taking into account these factors, it can be concluded that for every pound of pesticide produced, there may be an oil consumption ratio ranging from 3:1 up to 10:1 or even higher depending on specific production methods and efficiencies employed by different manufacturers.
We put half a _million tons_ of pesticides on this country just last year. And this use is increasing. Especially in our national parks.
Is the sierra club really fighting Big Oil?
A fantastic article from the chaparral institute. Please remember that the lumber industry uses pesticides to increase productivity! chaparralwisdom.org/2025/01/29/state-of-the-chaparral-2025/ Even in so-called wilderness areas!
We need #ChemFreeZones (Unfortunately they are not profitable for big business and therefore not politically profitable either) www.puravidaaquatic.com/www.puravidaaquatics.com/ 310-429-8477
I decided to start out this particular OTNP post with a small public service announcement. This has fortunately not happened to me but I think everybody here would gain a lot from knowing about what can happen if _you_ dial the wrong phone number scam.
You only have to listen to the first couple of minutes to get the point, but the whole thing is very interesting.
I have been posting on X a lot as @VidaAquatic and so many people say that the climate is terrible the world’s ending there’s nothing to do. I wish to encourage all of those people to work towards accomplishing a goal. A goal to hold our pseudo-environmental groups accountable
Even if one believes that there really is nothing to be done, please support anything trying to accomplish something. One would have _nothing_ to lose.
Why in the world wouldn’t anybody want to acquire the information from our national parks of the pesticide use there. There is _no_ downside to data unless your goal is to actually hide, lie, and manipulate for your own end. https://chng.it/9Dj4vKwbK5
Petition simply asking for our environmental organizations to provide basic information on what the parks are spraying.
Remember when computer programs were sooooo buggy? So people started joking that all the weird behavior was not a bug but was actually a “feature”? Today: pesticides are not dangerous toxins in our food at all😲 They are not poisoning our native animals😲 …. They are just added nutrients for everyone to enjoy!
America’s CDC to this day claims that mosquitoes are the cause of the microencephaly brain damage in Brazil a while back.
But the 3711 pregnant women in Columbia _with Zika!_ with _no_ microencephaly cases completely eliminates the possibility that the Brazilian brain damaged children could be from zika. Colombia: 3,177 pregnant women with Zika; no microcephaly
I commented to my hiking friend at the time several years ago: what do they do if they have a mosquito infestation? They spray more insecticides everywhere –“it is probably the pesticides.”
The next morning I read that I was wrong, _as usual_😀.
Actually they weren’t spraying insecticides all over the place, this particular State in Brazil had been adding a Monsanto linked pesticide _to_ their freaking drinking water!
Here is a graphic that was in a document produced by the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (the analog of our CDC) please look at it! The red dots are micro encephaly (brain damage). Large is _Thousands_, medium is hundreds, and small is tens of cases.
The entire country and all the pregnant women are exposed to zika and mosquitoes (orange) everyday and the only place there is micro encephaly is where they were _adding a chemical mosquito toxin to the freakin drinking water_.
A while back the article/study referring to the Monsanto linked insecticide pyroproxifen came out. To be fair, the company that makes pyroproxifen is only associated with Monsanto. Pyroproxifen is reportedly not produced by Monsanto itself.
Some Neuroscientists admit to how much we don’t know about human brain development. And what kinds of chemicals other than prescribed drugs might affect it. But there are also breakdown products of pesticides. Virtually none of the pesticides produced today are adequately studied with respect to how they break down in the environment.
As I started thinking about possible breakdown products, it suddenly dawned on me that the insecticide in Brazil was likely added to chlorinated water. That started me thinking about chlorination byproducts of insecticides.
It could be that the chlorinated byproducts of pyroproxifen are more toxic to humans then the original pyroproxifen. I will bet that none of the 20,000 plus pesticides approved in the US have been studied in _chlorinated_ tap water systems. Sigh! Scientific research labs generally use pure water in studies to avoid adding contamination unknowns, but that research water is not chlorinated. So no one may ever have studied the pesticides with chlorinated tap water. And now I’m starting to wonder about UV filters on certain aquatic systems.
This entire story really, really, bothers me because I feel, that with all the ADHD, autism and neurological diseases we have today, that we have poisoned an entire generation of kids. And the pain and suffering that our unthinking behavior generates is REAL … Children of thalidomide, but hidden.
I regularly tell people that birds have a better memory than we give them credit for and that they can remember the good hotel rooms and the bad ones.
Let’s give our birds some #ChemFreeZones in our toxic national parks #_OTNP for their migrations. Let’s give all our wild animals _and even ourselves_ safe zones #ChemFreeZones to live.
I am afraid that these examples will become even more common as our use of insecticides and herbicides — and the GMOs that drive higher and higher use of these toxins, explodes.
We spray five times what we sprayed 20 years ago. There are hundreds of new chemicals and new products patented every year. We cannot continue to try and ban individual chemicals. We must create safe zones.
And the sergeant in Hill Street Blues used to tell everybody at the end of his meeting to “be safe out there”.
If you have received this as a forward and would like to continue receiving it please email me “vidaaquatic@gmail.com”
And if you would like to donate as little as $5 to the cause, you can Zelle it to vidaaquatic@gmail.com. thank you very much. Bob
abcbirds.org/
American bird conservancy
Much better than audubon in my opinion.
Less Than Awesome NGOs.
sierra club.
Absolutely corrupt imo. They rehide public data, hide contributors, and advertise one thing but do another. The FOIA data that they hide would benefit the environment in so many ways. Ask yourself why.
audubon
Completely negligent on reporting events and situations impacting bird health. Also re-hide environmentally important public FOIA information. Nothing but advertising about how much they do.
wwf
Definitely _not_ “helping wildlife worldwide”
The Wilderness Society
Definitely not helping native rangeland wilderness.
tnc the nature conservancy
Also corrupt and a scam. Refuse to acknowledge pesticide use on “their” “conserved” land. Many reports of reselling donated land for profit.
Useful government sites
CDPR California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pretty darn good. Databases of pesticide use by county.
Good morning.
It is a beautiful day!
For me. But not so much for predators in our national forests. The center for biological diversity just had to sue to try and block cyanide bombs in our _national_ forests. These lethal cyanide spraying devices target wolves, coyotes, and other beneficial predators in our _national_ forests. You have an absolute right to complain! https://x.com/CenterForBioDiv/status/1851730863127405008?t=aQmjIFml1LxpnmX6syeT7g&s=19
Lets petition our pseudo environmental organizations to provide basic information on what the parks are spraying these days. https://chng.it/9Dj4vKwbK5
Very few people that I talk to think that we should be spraying many tons of glyphosate, 24D, and other herbicides and insecticides in our _wilderness areas_, particularly our national parks. And yet because our environmental clubs actually promote these ideas, there is very little (if any) push back.
Some of our environmental groups could at least actively pursue programs to reduce or minimize the toxicity being used in our national parks
Even more telling how our environmental groups have become pesticide enablers.
If they encouraged chemical alternatives at all they would joyfully advertise it!
There are no anti-pesticide programs that I know of that are used by the nps and focus specifically on non-chemical methods. Our environmental groups that could be and in my opinion absolutely should be a vocal avenue for non-chemical methods of control are not only silent but have actually become pesticide enablers
Even the use of the word invasive has become a tool used by the pesticide industry to promote toxins in our national parks. In many cases this is simply political manipulation. Our national parks designate invasives as;
“non-native species that causes harm to the environment, economy, or human, animal, or plant health”
Sounds good initially. After a bit of thinking I am not sure I really like that “economy”, nor then do I become fond of animal, or plant, because that would certainly include agriculture and ranching.
I’m not sure our national parks should be promoting Commercial interests such as agriculture and ranching on wilderness lands.
And the parks have no public documents on the specifics of controlling “invasives”. It is completely up to the pesticide companies’ sales people, their PR departments, and the park’s Integrated Pest Management departments.
The pesticide companies coordinate with the park’s Integrated Pest Management departments as to which invasive species to control and which to ignore. GMO organisms in our national parks would technically be listed as “invasive” but in reality be politically protected.
I believe this is actually happening in Sequoia for the timber industry.
I think our Parks need a much more objective definition of “invasive”.
Half a million tons of pesticides were used on the US last year. That half million tons — and that’s not pounds, and it’s not barrels, it is tons — took up to 5 million tons of oil to produce it. People that are worried about the environment and climate change and ignoring pesticide use, be sure to keep hanging on to your confirmational bias. Don’t at all rethink what you’ve been sold.
Frank A. Von Hippel is an expert in ecotoxicology: the study of how pollutants impact human health and the environment at large. A professor at Northern Arizona University, he did the above interview with Joe Rogan four years ago. But due to a very good friend, I have just seen it.
He points out that DDT is at toxic levels in many arctic animals. The reason; the behavior of our atmosphere. He refers to it as a distillation, a “global distillation”. Annual atmospheric distillation events would be capable of moving pesticides from the equator (or our farm belts) ultimately to the Pole. Poisoning penguins at one and polar bears at the other.
So a chemical moving into the atmosphere at the equator could move a few hundred miles toward the pole before it was carried back to the ground by precipitation. The cycle would repeat and over time chemicals would move poleward ending up in the Arctic or Antarctic.
Since I was completely unaware that polar bears have toxic levels of DDT in them (Seals and other animals do as well) I want to vehemently express my concerns that the latest greatest toxins our chemical industry is developing are also being driven there.
I am completely unaware of the sierra club in all their polar bear advertisements discussing this. Hmmmmm so I went to their main website and searched for “global” and “distillation”. I got a bunch of hits for just the word global. Okay; so I put it in quotes.
With all the writers working for our big environmental clubs it is interesting to me that any environmental group would have _no_ articles referencing this issue. But to give the sierra club some credit, maybe they just have an incredibly poorly designed search function.
Penguins? audubon?
Birds are having an awful time these days. audubon regularly advertises on the plight of them. On X recently I asked if they were willing to work on pesticide reduction in our national parks. 🥴Those _toxic_ national parks in the middle of our country that are along significant migration routes of birds?
No response! What an amazing surprise.
If you have received this as a forward and would like to continue receiving it please email me “vidaaquatic@gmail.com”
And if you would like to donate as little as $5 to the cause, you can Zelle it to vidaaquatic@gmail.com. thank you very much. Bob
So a recent post on x stated that glyphosate broke down very quickly in the environment and when I said give me some data he claimed between 7 and 60 days. And provided the following link.
Pesticide breakdown times are given in half lives. So when somebody tells you it will be gone and then gives you the half-life time they are either deliberately misleading you or very very foolish. The half-life is the time it takes half the material to degrade. There is still a significant amount of the material left.
It doesn’t matter how much you spray, half will be gone in the half life time. One way of thinking about this is that if you spray one acre half of that will be gone in let’s say 7 days. But if you spray 4 acres the increase in amount doesn’t matter each of those four acres acts the same and for each of them half will be gone in 7 days. It’s just that four times more degrades in that time because you applied four times as much.
I think we all can agree that a half life time for glyphosate of only 7 days is laughable. This would mean that in six half lives (0.5 * 0.5 [6 times] = .016) 98.4% would be gone. And six times seven is 42 days
So _if_ the half life for glyphosate is 7 days then 98.4% of all glyphosate used is gone 42 days (a month and a half) after it’s use. This is not even remotely possible given current scientific data on environmental levels.
So then let’s go with the other extreme — 60 days. In 2 months * 6 (a year) 98% would be gone. One year! This is far closer but not really reasonable either. It would not allow the significant buildup in the environment that we see today.
The pesticide companies flat out lie to you. It is untenable that all the glyphosate that’s used, 98% is gone in a year. There would be no buildup in our environment. There would be no toxic levels in groundwater, in soils, the ocean, and our own bodies. It’s not mathematically or scientifically reasonable. And I don’t think anybody really thinks that 2 months for half of it to go away is “quick.”
This guy’s own article (linked above) that he provided to “prove” his point that it breaks down quickly states that:
“So it may quickly wash out of sandy soils or last for more than a year in soils with a high clay content. Even when bound to soil particles, it may dissolve back into soil water later on, for example, in the presence of phosphates.”
“Or last for more than a year” in certain soils. Now we’re starting to get somewhere. Because of glyphosates chemical structure, it can migrate on and off any clay in the soil and this makes much more sense scientifically.
This is all the same story as DDT and Carbaryl propaganda, where the pesticide companies and their paid salesman (I will not dignify them by calling them scientists) published (OK, advertised) that DDT would break down in as little as 14 days. Really! They did!😄 But we now know that the half-life for DDT is far, far longer than that. The current estimate for the half-life of DDT in soil is between 2 and 30 years!
And again, 30 years is just a half life, so only half of it is gone in the worst case scenario of 30 years.
But it may be this worst case scenario as it is still all over our ocean floors and continues to poison our Marine biology here in California.
Our environmental groups have fallen flat on their face. We cannot get our politicians to be responsible. We cannot get our legal system to be responsible. We must create safe zones for ourselves, our children, and our native animals.
