Cool. Now find me a recipe for 2,4,D that doesn't stink. 2,4,D is banned in
my area, now, so I can't spread what I've got in case my environut neighbor
snitches on me.
And what works better on grubs, carbaryl or DDT?
Simple, maybe, but I can't use it because its odor gives it away.
All we're allowed now is glyphosate. It works, but you need to be REALLY
precise with delivery or you kill your grass, which is probably what the
And a darn good one, too.
That I can spread. It's probably not illegal. Yet. I get grubs just about
every year unless we spray.
In my experience milky spore works fine, but it does take a
few years to give good contol. After that, you don't need to add any
more as it feeds on the grubs.
I have not applied any more for about five years. No grub
I've heard on the radio, that DDT is a lot more effective,
and a lot less toxic to humans than what the government
says. Certainly, a trace of DDT is a lot less dangerous than
malaria, and other insect bourne diseases.
Actually, I don't think the government has ever said DDT *IS* toxic to
humans. I recall there were people who were EATING DDT to prove its benign
For example, the toxicity secion of the Wikipedia article on DDT lists
several situations. In most, some weasel word is used:
* "might cause preterm birth"
* "studies suggest..."
* "some evidence to suggest..."
* "exposure is associated..."
* "may affect thyroid levels..."
But why was DDT banned? As I recall, laboratory rats, when force-fed five
pounds of DDT per day, developed distended bellies and became lethargic.
There was some evidence that the Star-faced mole (who doesn't REALLY have a
face) developed teats when DDT was used in its environment.
Pic of Star-faced mole:
It was banned largely because of a book written by Rachel Carson
called Silent Spring. This might be a good example of PR overwhelming
science. Some commentary here from Junk Science:
DDT was banned because it was effective at reducing malaria-related deaths.
In the part of the world where people die from malaria, it is more humane to
let nature run its course than to get in the way and have all of those
people breed uncontrollably and end up starving themselves to death (which
they do anyway).
DDT is still used around the world. It was banned in the U.S. by the first
of the EPA, out of spite, when the court cases against its use were lost. These
cases were brought after some idiot of a wench used anecdotal evidence and
shear BS in a book detailing the horrors of DDT. Pure, unadulterated crap.
Sort of like the drivel being peddled by Al Gore and his gang of envirofrauds,
The good that DDT was doing was immense, provable, and demonstrable. The
allegations against DDT in the book were apocryphal, unscientific, and
insupportable. Millions, literally, have died because of reliance on
"feel-good" environmental action.
Absolutely. The amount of CO2 in the air is roughly in the same ratio as the
chalk outline of a football referee's body after he was stabbed eleven times
by irate fans responding to three consecutive bad calls against the home
team is to the entire field, end zones included. The amount of CO2 being
added to the atmosphere is likewise equivalent to the increasing size of his
blood stain as the bastard bleeds out.
One of the tenets of "Quality Control Thinking" is this: "I don't care what
you BELIEVE. The only thing that counts is what you can PROVE." The "good"
of additional CO2 - from machines that drive industry - is provable to a
middling-quick child. The "belief" that something's amiss is pure
What I remember back then, the birds were getting DDT in
their system from the insects, and the rest of the food
chain up to people were getting dosed with DDT. I'd rather
have less mosqitos, and take my chances with the food chain.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.