Lawn Care Forum banner

A question about Daconil

22K views 15 replies 7 participants last post by  tremor 
#1 ·
We have been having a discussion around the local mower parts house and can't find a good answer.
Why was daconil banned from residential use?
Any help would be appriciated.
Shawn
 
#3 ·
.Daconil causes CANCER

Daconil lost its turf label still good on shrubs. The maintain reason it is on its way out is because it causes cancer big time. Hope all you unlicensed guy read this post. Pesticides are poison. You got to know your onions or pay the piper
 
#6 ·
OSC

Wear your PPE. Remember " Theshold Limit Value" it is on every label by law. Read and under stand the label and the MSDS. Yes I am sorry to tell you Casual Contact can and will cause Cancer. That is what Threshold limit value is about. Spray safe live long.
 
#7 ·
We still use Daconil,on the golf course,its an excellent contact fungicide.As for Caner causing,can you be more specifc? I use all the PPE+wear a tyvelk suit on top of it.Id think the regualr golfer would have cancer by now,since they walk on,and play the greens not long after they are sprayed.It does have a warning label,so its toxicity is much higher than those with cauiton labels.
 
#8 ·
Originally posted by John DiMartino
It does have a warning label,so its toxicity is much higher than those with cauiton labels.
 
#9 ·
Can we substantiate the claim that chlorothalanil is a proven carcinogen? Where?
Most contact fungicides will lose their labels soon. For political reasons, not scientific or medical reasons. Since something like 90+% of all fungicides for turf & ornamental use get sprayed on golf courses, there isn't much point in attempting to pay for the toxoicological testing requirements mandated by the post-Clinton-era EPA.
It is therefor cheaper to drop residential use from the label. It's the money. Not the science.

Steve
 
#10 ·
There doesn't appear to be any documented cases of HUMAN carconogenic relationship. Only Rats, which have to consume rediculous quantities to exhibit symptoms. If I'm wrong, I guess skin cancer is my fate!
Seriously, PPE is allways the way to go!
___Steve_______________________________________

No. 183: Chlorothalonil

1996, 145 pages [E, with summaries in F, S] ISBN 92 4 157183 7 Sw.fr. 35.-/US $31.50; in developing countries: Sw.fr. 24.50 Order no. 1160183

Evaluates the risks to human health and the environment posed by exposure to chlorothalonil, a fungicide widely used in agriculture to protect pome and stone fruit, citrus, currants, berries, bananas, tomatoes, green vegetables, coffee, peanuts, potatoes, onions, and cereals.
Chlorothalonil, which has a broad spectrum of activity, is also used on turf, lawns, and ornamental plants, and in wood preservatives and anti-fouling paints. Particular attention is given to crop residue studies.

The most extensive section evaluates the results of toxicity studies conducted in laboratory mammals and in vitro test systems. Studies show that chlorothalonil has low acute oral and dermal toxicity; the main effects of repeated oral dosing are on the stomach and kidney. The evaluation gives particular attention to several feeding studies which demonstrated a rapid onset of toxic effects on the forestomach and kidney, and a rapid induction of forestomach and renal tumours in rodents, but not in other species, including the dog. Most studies failed to demonstrate mutagenicity; the limited data available indicate that the compound is not teratogenic and shows no reproductive toxicity.

Data on effects on human health are confined to case reports of contact dermatitis following occupational or accidental exposure. In interpreting the relevance of experimental findings to human health, particularly the evidence of carcinogenic potential in rodent models, the report notes important species differences in metabolic pathways and postulates that chlorothalonil probably exerts its carcinogenic effects in rodents via a non-genotoxic mechanism. Concerning effects on other organisms in the laboratory and field, the report cites evidence that chlorothalonil is highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates in laboratory studies, but is not phytotoxic and should not pose a risk to wild mammals.
 
#12 ·
Hey John,

Coffee, Soda/Pop, Cleaning fluids, you name it. In high doses, every element on earth can be made toxic. Sunshine causes cancer. Those 11 members will probably get skin cancer from exposure to the sun long before you can spray them down enough to affect them. Even Oxygen in pure form will kill us.

I think it was in September that a thread was going on titled " Does anyone run an organic lawn care business?" You can use the "SEARCH" button in the upper right corner to find the thread.

It rattled some cages and the posts started to make increasingly radical claims regarding environmental toxicity caused by synthetics in our industry. I about lost it, and researched the matter as thoroughly as I could. This is the only credible reference I could find with respect to the carcinogenic effects of any of the CURRENTLY REGISTERED FUNGICIDES that you can use.

www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00113.html

It's not new news that Mancozeb can be converted to a carcinogen when heated (so don't cook unwashed vegetables!), but it is rather benign when used on ornamentals since we don't cook or consume them.

Nor is it news that some of the older (now not in use) fungicides contained active ingredients that were pretty rough. Mercury is known to cause significant brain damage, yet it was once commonly used on cultivated turf. But we don't use these products any more. Can't, they're all banned.

Don't get me wrong. There are thousands of liberal websites out there that have unsubstantiated claims referencing all sorts of self proclaimed experts. They blame pesticides (or some other man made compunds) whenever a human disease pops up that modern medicine can't pinpoint a cause for. Possible genetic health issues are a real stickler because we'll allways look to the environment to blame. Who wants to admit that their parents gave them a ticked gene that they might also have given to their own kids? Pretty tough stuff for most people to accept. It's much easier to place blame elsewhere than it is to accept it.

Who can blame people for having these fears? Asbestos, Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, etc. The list of nasty industrial chemicals that have caused human health issues is long. So why should the liberals believe us now? Industry did lie for a long time, rather than accept responsibilty. So we don't look real credible ourselves in some eyes.

I nearly beat the subject to death because for the entire time that modern Ag Chemicals have been around, Human life expectancy has INCREASED dramatically. Not because we use pesticides. But because we CAN & DO use them to produce more fruits & vegetables. Which has improved our health. Also, it is the same companies utilizing the same technologies, that have brought the world improved medications. Bayer, Monsanto, Aventis, etc.

That said, the most ignorant liberals (ignorant of the scientific and medical truth - not political savvy) will play on the strong human emotion of fear. Not fear of science. Fear of the unknown. Fear of dying. And which of the Golf course members will tolerate US educating THEM, when the course pays guys like us to groom the grounds? It would belittle some of our "customers" to listen to what we have to say. Remember, it is them who have made the bucks to be in the position they are in. This places our "customers" in the position of not comitting much of an opinion to these matters. So the politicians don't listen because it is a non-issue. If the voters don't care - the politicians don't act. Even if the truth is being slayed. It is still political suicide in many parts of the country to NOT endorse laws that are crafted to "protect the environment", even if the outcome is just a few new government jobs and no real impact on the environment. I call it "feel good legislation" but personally, I don't feel good about it at all. I feel sick about it whenever the liberals pass a new law. How many do we need anyway?

So we become the victims of the lies. If you try to educate too many of the members, you may hit one who limits your career goals. If the lawn care applicators try to educate their customers, they may get nervous enough to cancel the service. And who among us are comfortable and educated enough to even approach the subject with conviction? Not enough yet. So we leave the subject alone. If we ignore it, it might go away. Right? Don't bet on it.

I may know the truth. But I don't have the answer to our industries biggest challenge. That challenge is ignorance. If the public remains ignorant we lose, I do know that much. The real challenge is: How do we get the truth out without limiting our careers? It would cost a lot of money to lauch a successful campaign to teach the truth to all who need to know. Who's gonna pay for it?
Supporting companies who are active in RISE helps. Getting involved in local and national trade organizations is helpful too, but they don't seem to collect enough revenue to offer much educational support. Trade shows are not the educational resource I'm thinking about here. But maybe that's our fault. If dues were high enough to support such efforts, we'd probably all drop out!

Perhaps the best we can do is educate ourselves a little bit every day, and fight the good fight whenever our turn is up. Thats how I've done it all along & it doesn't hurt much.

Time for me to get off the stump for today. But thanks for listening!

Steve
 
#14 ·
John,
Some of the guys around here have added Blue Dawn dishwashing detergent to the mancozeb. A little Ferrous Sulphate won't hurt either, although it is normally used to knock down moss. Some of the low mosses look like algae.
Aerate, Aerate, Aerate!
Steve
 
#16 ·
I wish I knew. It seems that at one of the municipal courses the chemical buget was shot. The super wanted to use a wetting agent but had run out. He took the soap from a shop sink & added it to a tank mix to lower surface tension. Then he noticed the algea dying.
I can't vouch for the validity of the story. But I can recall the various members of the New York Metropolitan Superintendents Assoc. all raving over how it has worked.
Where I have followed the stories, the greens have all been older native soil push ups that have been top dressed with sand.
They've all used the Dawn in conjunction with Mancozeb at least.
Most have tried other detergents with no success and have gone back to the Blue Dawn.
Most of the really high powered Agronomy professors that I've bounced this off have shugged &/or laughed. I suppose it's not a big enough issue to attract the financial attention of the research coomunity. I do have a friend who is a very accomplished chemist (20+ patents), and I'll mention it to him & see if he can tell us why Dawn would work over others.
If nothing else, it is a bit funny.
Steve
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top