Council spraying glyphosate in upperthorpe 16/4

The acute LD50 toxicity from glyphosate is listed as >5000mg/kg of body weight so for a 15 kg dog it would take 75g of glyphosate to cause a 50% chance of lethal toxicity.

 

The standard dosing for weeds is 360g/l using 3L per hectare resulting in about 11mg/sq m. So to ingest a toxic dose, a dog would need to lick freshly sprayed glyphosate from about 6800 sq m.

 

There is basically very, very low toxicity risk from inhalation or absorption.

 

Dude- pet owners just want some signs up so they can decide if they want their pets consuming does of poison.

 

And they're also savvy enough to know that sheffield homes/council workmen could well be using well over the 'standard' dose.

Weed killer is too expensive to waste by dosing too heavily. Most of the weed killer instructions say pets can use areas once the initial spray is dry, just not grazing animals. I rarely use weed killer but in some cases it is needed. I have pets and grazing animals so I always read instructions carefully. I advise people to look if the facts for themselves if they don't feel their pets are safe.

Dude- pet owners just want some signs up so they can decide if they want their pets consuming does of poison.

 

And they're also savvy enough to know that sheffield homes/council workmen could well be using well over the 'standard' dose.

 

^^^What he says

 

I choose where my dog goes and whether she stands in wet weedkiller when she's in my garden which she will then wash off her feet later and ingest (and I choose that she doesn't) and I'd like the same option for public spaces. That's all. I'm not trying to demonise anybody or stop them from using chemicals.

Dude- pet owners just want some signs up so they can decide if they want their pets consuming does of poison.

 

And they're also savvy enough to know that sheffield homes/council workmen could well be using well over the 'standard' dose.

 

Dude, I am a pet owner and I'm also capable of making rational reactions to situations on the basis of actual risks.

 

Even at 1000 fold more concentrated it would take a dog ages to ingest anywhere near a toxic dose. There really is no rational requirement for warning signs so I can understand why there aren't any.

Edited April 17, 2014 by biotechpete

Dude, I am a pet owner and I'm also capable of making rational reactions to situations on the basis of actual risks.

 

Even at 1000 fold more concentrated it would take a dog ages to ingest anywhere near a toxic dose. There really is no rational requirement for warning signs so I can understand why there aren't any.

 

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Personally, I don't want my pet near land sprayed with chemicals.

 

I don't trust council workmen to use toxic chemicals according to guidelines, I don't trust those guidelines to be necessarily accurate.

 

Also, it's not really about the level required to give a 50% chance of lethal toxicity- a lot of owners don't want their pets ingesting toxins at a dose sufficient to harm them.

 

I'm too aware of past gross misuses and mistakes concerning chemicals, that have caused thousands of human deaths either immediately, or, long and drawn out decades later.

 

A sign is basically card on a stick- hand written if printings too expensive!

 

It's not much to ask, and, as well as giving citizens the choice of whether their pet ingests the chemicals, it also, rarely in this age, gives people the impression that their elected representatives care that citizens have the choice.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

Personally, I don't want my pet near land sprayed with chemicals.

 

I don't trust council workmen to use toxic chemicals according to guidelines, I don't trust those guidelines to be necessarily accurate.

 

Also, it's not really about the level required to give a 50% chance of lethal toxicity- a lot of owners don't want their pets ingesting toxins at a dose sufficient to harm them.

 

I'm too aware of past gross misuses and mistakes concerning chemicals, that have caused thousands of human deaths either immediately, or, long and drawn out decades later.

 

A sign is basically card on a stick- hand written if printings too expensive!

 

It's not much to ask, and, as well as giving citizens the choice of whether their pet ingests the chemicals, it also, rarely in this age, gives people the impression that their elected representatives care that citizens have the choice.

All I'm trying to do is to explain to anyone reading the forum what the real risk is. It isn't about opinions. I'm sorry if you don't like chemicals or having your irrational fears about them challenged but that isn't a reason for the council or anyone else to adopt expensive or unnecessary working practices to appease you. You can easily avoid places sprayed with glyphosate by keeping your pet on private land.

 

We are talking in this thread about glyphosate specifically. This is a chemical which has been in very wide use for 40+ years, almost all crops are sprayed with glyphosate with no known problems related to chronic exposure. The acute toxicity of solid lumps of glyphosate is almost half that of table salt ie it's more or less harmless. There is no actual risk to your pet or anyone else's.

All I'm trying to do is to explain to anyone reading the forum what the real risk is. It isn't about opinions. I'm sorry if you don't like chemicals or having your irrational fears about them challenged but that isn't a reason for the council or anyone else to adopt expensive or unnecessary working practices to appease you.

 

Relax dude- it's only a conversation

 

I notice the above contains both a personal insult and a strawman, so I'll not bother responding.

 

You can easily avoid places sprayed with glyphosate by keeping your pet on private land.

Thank you for your kind advice

 

 

 

We are talking in this thread about glyphosate specifically. This is a chemical which has been in very wide use for 40+ years, almost all crops are sprayed with glyphosate with no known problems related to chronic exposure. The acute toxicity of solid lumps of glyphosate is almost half that of table salt ie it's more or less harmless. There is no actual risk to your pet or anyone else's.

Though, in addition to glyphosate salts, commercial formulations of glyphosate contain additives such as surfactants. Laboratory toxicology studies have suggested that other ingredients in combination with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone

 

(Bradberry SM, Proudfoote AT, Vale JA (2004). "Glyphosate poisoning". Toxicol Rev 23 (3): 159–67. doi:10.2165/00139709-200423030-00003. PMID 15862083.)

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2014 at 22:20 ----------

 

And, like I mentioned before, a sign can be as inexpensive as a bit of card, a stick and a marker pen, so I don't think it'd break the councils bank

Edited April 17, 2014 by onewheeldave

^^^What he says

 

I choose where my dog goes and whether she stands in wet weedkiller when she's in my garden which she will then wash off her feet later and ingest (and I choose that she doesn't) and I'd like the same option for public spaces. That's all. I'm not trying to demonise anybody or stop them from using chemicals.

 

Glyphosate is an enyzme inhibitor. It works by preventing an enzyme in the chloroplasts from working properly. That, in turn, prevents the production of vital amino acids. Then the plant dies.

 

If your dog/ cat/ other pet doesn't contain chloroplasts, then they will be pretty much safe. Even if they choose to Riverdance in the sprayed grass.

 

So, I suggest that you check your pet for greenness before letting them loose. If they aren't green, you can relax:)

Glyphosate is an enyzme inhibitor. It works by preventing an enzyme in the chloroplasts from working properly. That, in turn, prevents the production of vital amino acids. Then the plant dies.

 

If your dog/ cat/ other pet doesn't contain chloroplasts, then they will be pretty much safe. Even if they choose to Riverdance in the sprayed grass.

 

So, I suggest that you check your pet for greenness before letting them loose. If they aren't green, you can relax:)

 

That's one of the things it does. It clearly does several other things as well, because, as biotechpete has pointed out, at certain levels toxicity occurs (in things other than plants, such as animals) and, at higher levels, death occurs).

 

Plus, as previously mentioned, glyphosate is not used alone, it's a mixture of several other chemicals as well- we can't really discuss their toxicity here, as we don't have the ingredients- past occurences with weedkiller/pesticides/agricultural chemical concoctions etc, do little to inspire confidence.

 

And that's assuming the science boffins have got their facts right on this one- given the appalling record of safety assurances by scientists when it comes to manufactured industrial chemicals, it's an assumption that some would consider overly-optimistic

 

Still, a temporary sign, which I reckon could be constructed and erected for under, say 50 pence, would enable people like biotechpete, to freely allow their pets to romp in, and consume, the lovely safe Glyphosate, while allowing paranoid, conspiracy theory nutjobs like me, to keep my pet the hell away from it

 

And, like I said before, such a sign would give, at least the impression, to the public, that their elected council respects them sufficiently, that it provides the info necessary for them to make that choice.