Larry Hammond’s been kind enough to send me some scientific papers via email that I’ve been interested to read, and I really appreciated the chance to learn more here. I’m still standing by my comments, but I’ve been very happy to hear his side argued.

Still worried about the loud snoring though.
.-= Daffodil Planter´s last blog ..Daffodil Blogorama 2010 =-.

My question about whether you’d rather have your toddler accidentally drink one product over the other is hypothetical, but still proves a point. It’s obvious which product any parent would rather have their toddler get into by accident – there’s just no contest.

You are correct that I accidentally mis-represented the info about the manufacturing accident, and I apologize for that. But I AM curious as to what you make of the link between Dow employees exposed to 2,4-D and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Quoted again, from wikipedia, references on wikipedia:
“A 2000 study of 1517 former employees of Dow Chemical Company who had been exposed to the chemical in manufacturing or formulating 2,4-D found no significant increase in risk of mortality due to NHL following 2,4-D exposure, but did find an increase in risk of mortality due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.”

My email’s on my contact page, and you’re welcome to send me any information you think would be edifying.

You may be “independent” in some fashion, but you’re also clearly linked to Dow in many of your papers. A simple google search turns that up.

You didn’t answer my questions in my last response to you, by the way. I suppose the answers are pretty obvious.

However, I don’t think referring to wiki is like referring to opinion because at least in this case, the sources and references that back up the info in the wiki article are pretty thorough.

You are right that I’m certainly not a toxicologist. Thanks for making your rebuttal clearly and with scientific language, I appreciate that. I’m glad to hear that many studies have shown that dioxin may not be the problem indicated by the wiki article.

But I have a question for you. If you were storing a product in your shed and your child were to drink it in an unsupervised moment, which product is less likely to kill them? Food-grade vinegar Weed Pharm, or Weed B Gon with 2,4-D? Weed Pharm or Roundup?

And a follow-up: thinking of the folks who work in manufacturing these products, which would you say is more dangerous for the workers – food-grade Weed Pharm or 2,4-D? Think carefully on this one. I don’t think anyone’s in danger of dying in a couple hours if they are exposed to a food-grade vinegar product like this worker did when exposed to 2,4-D:

http://lists.essential.org/1998/dioxin-l/msg00929.html

The fact is, you’re paid by a company that manufactures this product to prove that it is safe, and the best conclusion you can come to for them is that it “can be used safely”. Not that it’s perfectly safe, not that you can spill it on yourself and not have to do a big scary scrubdown, and not that you could sprinkle it on your salad without getting sick – but that it can be used safely.

It seems like the reasons people would use this product in their home garden would be low cost and convenience. Looking at the possible risks that HAVE been found with 2,4-D exposure, the question becomes – why take the chance?

From wiki:

The amine salt formulations can cause irreversible eye damage (blindness); ester formulations are considered non-irritating to the eyes.

One study found that occupational exposure to 2,4-D caused male reproductive problems, including dead and malformed sperm.[4]
[edit] Cancer risk

Different organizations have taken different stances on 2,4-D’s cancer risk. On August 8, 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued a ruling which stated existing data does not support a conclusion that links human cancer to 2,4-D exposure.[5] However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified 2,4-D among the phenoxy acid herbicides MCPA and 2,4,5-T as a class 2B carcinogen – possibly carcinogenic to humans. [6] A 1995 panel of 13 scientists reviewing studies on the carcinogenicity of 2,4-D had divided opinions, but the predominant opinion was that it is possible that 2,4-D causes cancer in humans.[7]

A 1990 study of farmers in Nebraska, even when adjusting for exposure to other chemicals, found that 2,4-D exposure substantially increased the risk of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).[8] A 2000 study of 1517 former employees of Dow Chemical Company who had been exposed to the chemical in manufacturing or formulating 2,4-D found no significant increase in risk of mortality due to NHL following 2,4-D exposure, but did find an increase in risk of mortality due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. [9]

2,4-D is manufactured from chloroacetic acid and 2,4-dichlorophenol, which is itself produced by chlorination of phenol. The production process creates several contaminants including isomers, monochlorophenol, and other polychlorophenols and their acids.

The powerful defoliant and herbicide Agent Orange, used extensively throughout the Vietnam War, contained 2,4-D. The controversies associated with the use of Agent Orange were associated with a contaminant (dioxin) in the 2,4,5-T component. However, 2,4-D is still contaminated to some extent with dioxins, predominately those with 2 or 3 chlorine atoms. Another form of dioxin, 2,7-dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (DCDD), an inevitable by-product of 2,4-D manufacturing, was found to be “equipotent” to dioxin TCDD in its toxic effect on the immunity of mice. TCDD received all the publicity while the DCDD component was largely forgotten.[10][not in citation given] To this day DCDD is not regulated or monitored by the EPA and PMRA, even though DCDD levels could be at much higher levels than TCDD.[citation needed] The typical smell of 2,4-D is the break-down product 2,4-dichlorophenol which is a suspected endocrine disrupter and possible carcinogen. 2,4-D is toxic to the liver at small dosages. Increases in liver function tests, jaundice, acute hepatitis, lobular and portal inflammation indicative of a toxic reaction, as well as permanent damage leading to cirrhosis has been reported in exposed golfers [11][12][13]

Sorry, did I miss the part where Roundup IS selective? I mean to plants other than those grown from seeds genetically modified by Monsanto to be resistant to Roundup?

So what exactly is your beef with vinegar then since in that manner it behaves the same way that Roundup does?
.-= Erin´s last blog ..Get in the mood for gardening =-.