Kessil

This Sunday!!!! Fragging workshop 8/20

Attending?

  • Total voters
    32
Thank you all for sharing this additional context. I was curious why some would be so outspoken about this being a terrible product while others seem to be able to manage its associated risks.

For the impact on bees alone, I would not use this product, but it does not seem to be not limited to this, and there seems to be a wider concern for both the environmental impact AND human health. The above research was a bit older, i.e., 2010 and 2018 respectively, and I did some additional (quick and dirty research) using the available AI tools. Below a summary what Chat GPT 4 brought up, which lets me conclude that the benefits (great as a coral dip) do not outweigh its risk, and I will not use this anymore, and will not recommend to others to use this. Therefore if anyone wants a 90% full bottle of this for free, send me a PM and you can pick this up in Walnut Creek:

1) Imidacloprid

Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid pesticide that is widely used in agriculture and household products to control various insects. However, it has been banned or restricted in several countries due to its harmful effects on human health and the environment. Some of the reasons for the ban are:

- Imidacloprid can contaminate groundwater and drinking water sources, posing a risk of exposure to humans and wildlife¹².
- Imidacloprid can cause developmental and neurological problems in humans, especially in fetuses and children. It has been linked to autism, congenital heart defects, brain malformations, memory loss and tremors¹³.
- Imidacloprid can harm pollinators such as bees and butterflies, which are essential for crop production and biodiversity. It can affect their behavior, reproduction, immunity and survival⁴ .

Some of the countries that have banned or limited the use of imidacloprid are:

- The European Union: In 2018, the EU banned the outdoor use of three neonicotinoids, including imidacloprid, to protect bees and other pollinators⁴.
- Canada: In 2021, Canada announced a final re-evaluation decision for imidacloprid, which cancelled certain uses of the pesticide to address environmental risks. It also imposed additional risk mitigation measures for other uses².
- California: In 2022, California proposed a bill to ban residential outdoor use of neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid, citing concerns over drinking water contamination and human health harms¹³.

(1) Alarming research on pesticide warrants curbs on its use. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2...cides-with-cure-thats-worse-than-the-disease/.
(2) Re-evaluation Decision for Imidacloprid (Human Health and Environment .... https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...midacloprid-human-health-and-environment.html.
(3) Should California ban the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid? Here .... https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...-imidacloprid-here-are-arguments-pro-and-con/.
(4) Neonicotinoid pesticides can stay in the US market, EPA says. https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/Neonicotinoid-pesticides-stay-US-market/98/web/2020/02.

2) Cyfluthrin

Cyfluthrin is a synthetic insecticide that belongs to the pyrethroid class of chemicals. It is used to control various pests in agriculture and household settings. However, it has been banned or restricted in several countries due to its harmful effects on human health and the environment. Some of the reasons for the ban are:

- Cyfluthrin can contaminate groundwater and drinking water sources, posing a risk of exposure to humans and wildlife¹².
- Cyfluthrin can cause neurological problems in humans, such as nausea, headache, muscle weakness, salivation, shortness of breath and seizures. It can also affect the development of fetuses and children²³.
- Cyfluthrin can harm pollinators such as bees and butterflies, which are essential for crop production and biodiversity. It can affect their behavior, reproduction, immunity and survival¹.
- Cyfluthrin can persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain, posing a long-term risk to non-target organisms⁴.

Some of the countries that have banned or limited the use of cyfluthrin are:

- The European Union: In 2020, the EU banned the outdoor use of three pyrethroids, including cyfluthrin, to protect bees and other pollinators¹.
- Canada: In 2018, Canada proposed to phase out most uses of cyfluthrin over three to five years due to environmental concerns⁴.
- California: In 2017, California added cyfluthrin to the list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65².

(1) US EPA reapproves 13 pyrethroid insecticides - Chemical & Engineering News. https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/US-EPA-reapproves-13-pyrethroid/98/i42.
(2) Cyfluthrin - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyfluthrin.
(3) Cyfluthrin General Fact Sheet - NPIC. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/cyfluthringen.html.
(4) FAO SPECIFICATIONS AND EVALUATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Specs/cyfluthr.pdf.
 
Alexander1312 said:
Thank you all for sharing this additional context. I was curious why some would be so outspoken about this being a terrible product while others seem to be able to manage its associated risks.

For the impact on bees alone, I would not use this product, but it does not seem to be not limited to this, and there seems to be a wider concern for both the environmental impact AND human health. The above research was a bit older, i.e., 2010 and 2018 respectively, and I did some additional (quick and dirty research) using the available AI tools. Below a summary what Chat GPT 4 brought up, which lets me conclude that the benefits (great as a coral dip) do not outweigh its risk, and I will not use this anymore, and will not recommend to others to use this. Therefore if anyone wants a 90% full bottle of this for free, send me a PM and you can pick this up in Walnut Creek:

1) Imidacloprid

Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid pesticide that is widely used in agriculture and household products to control various insects. However, it has been banned or restricted in several countries due to its harmful effects on human health and the environment. Some of the reasons for the ban are:

- Imidacloprid can contaminate groundwater and drinking water sources, posing a risk of exposure to humans and wildlife¹².
- Imidacloprid can cause developmental and neurological problems in humans, especially in fetuses and children. It has been linked to autism, congenital heart defects, brain malformations, memory loss and tremors¹³.
- Imidacloprid can harm pollinators such as bees and butterflies, which are essential for crop production and biodiversity. It can affect their behavior, reproduction, immunity and survival⁴ .

Some of the countries that have banned or limited the use of imidacloprid are:

- The European Union: In 2018, the EU banned the outdoor use of three neonicotinoids, including imidacloprid, to protect bees and other pollinators⁴.
- Canada: In 2021, Canada announced a final re-evaluation decision for imidacloprid, which cancelled certain uses of the pesticide to address environmental risks. It also imposed additional risk mitigation measures for other uses².
- California: In 2022, California proposed a bill to ban residential outdoor use of neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid, citing concerns over drinking water contamination and human health harms¹³.

(1) Alarming research on pesticide warrants curbs on its use. https://calmatters.org/commentary/2...cides-with-cure-thats-worse-than-the-disease/.
(2) Re-evaluation Decision for Imidacloprid (Human Health and Environment .... https://www.canada.ca/en/health-can...midacloprid-human-health-and-environment.html.
(3) Should California ban the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid? Here .... https://geneticliteracyproject.org/...-imidacloprid-here-are-arguments-pro-and-con/.
(4) Neonicotinoid pesticides can stay in the US market, EPA says. https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/Neonicotinoid-pesticides-stay-US-market/98/web/2020/02.

2) Cyfluthrin

Cyfluthrin is a synthetic insecticide that belongs to the pyrethroid class of chemicals. It is used to control various pests in agriculture and household settings. However, it has been banned or restricted in several countries due to its harmful effects on human health and the environment. Some of the reasons for the ban are:

- Cyfluthrin can contaminate groundwater and drinking water sources, posing a risk of exposure to humans and wildlife¹².
- Cyfluthrin can cause neurological problems in humans, such as nausea, headache, muscle weakness, salivation, shortness of breath and seizures. It can also affect the development of fetuses and children²³.
- Cyfluthrin can harm pollinators such as bees and butterflies, which are essential for crop production and biodiversity. It can affect their behavior, reproduction, immunity and survival¹.
- Cyfluthrin can persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain, posing a long-term risk to non-target organisms⁴.

Some of the countries that have banned or limited the use of cyfluthrin are:

- The European Union: In 2020, the EU banned the outdoor use of three pyrethroids, including cyfluthrin, to protect bees and other pollinators¹.
- Canada: In 2018, Canada proposed to phase out most uses of cyfluthrin over three to five years due to environmental concerns⁴.
- California: In 2017, California added cyfluthrin to the list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65².

(1) US EPA reapproves 13 pyrethroid insecticides - Chemical & Engineering News. https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/US-EPA-reapproves-13-pyrethroid/98/i42.
(2) Cyfluthrin - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyfluthrin.
(3) Cyfluthrin General Fact Sheet - NPIC. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/cyfluthringen.html.
(4) FAO SPECIFICATIONS AND EVALUATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Specs/cyfluthr.pdf.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt the big-picture of the above with respect to using it as an insecticide in large quantities and concentrations and with indiscriminate spraying outdoors. Which I would not recommend anyone do. Some of the reasonable-sounding stuff that chat-gpt came up with is totally made up though, for example the part about cyfluthrin affecting the development of fetuses and children- that’s a hallucination. The reason these have been well studied, and all of the above data/references is because of the large-volume agricultural use, not coral dipping. Which are orders of magnitude different in amount and exposure.

But does this mean you are not going to dip your coral at all? Or are you just going to assume that other chemical solutions that also kill “bugs” are safer because they are undisclosed and/or unstudied?

Also, imidacloprid is a synthetic mimic of nicotine, and was specifically developed as such, works on the same receptors in animals. Nicotine is lethal for insects including bees, which is why plants make it. So if you smoke, don’t exhale. Or pee.

I’m not trying to argue that you should use Bayer insecticide. In fact I think you definitely should not use it since you are worried about it. But I’d like to see you apply the same level of concern and rigor to alternatives. Things that aren’t studied (or even disclosed) should not be more reassuring. This is why industry folks are disincentivized to do anything like real science to back up their claims and safety. If they spend $1 million to show that their product is 95% effective and would have to be dosed 10x of recommended to be potentially harmful, people interpret that as not always effective and potentially dangerous. Whereas if they just don’t do the research people defer to the marketing- “safe and effective!”
 
JVU said:
I don’t doubt the big-picture of the above with respect to using it as an insecticide in large quantities and concentrations and with indiscriminate spraying outdoors. Which I would not recommend anyone do. Some of the reasonable-sounding stuff that chat-gpt came up with is totally made up though, for example the part about cyfluthrin affecting the development of fetuses and children- that’s a hallucination. The reason these have been well studied, and all of the above data/references is because of the large-volume agricultural use, not coral dipping. Which are orders of magnitude different in amount and exposure.

But does this mean you are not going to dip your coral at all? Or are you just going to assume that other chemical solutions that also kill “bugs” are safer because they are undisclosed and/or unstudied?

Also, imidacloprid is a synthetic mimic of nicotine, and was specifically developed as such, works on the same receptors in animals. Nicotine is lethal for insects including bees, which is why plants make it. So if you smoke, don’t exhale. Or pee.

I’m not trying to argue that you should use Bayer insecticide. In fact I think you definitely should not use it since you are worried about it. But I’d like to see you apply the same level of concern and rigor to alternatives. Things that aren’t studied (or even disclosed) should not be more reassuring. This is why industry folks are disincentivized to do anything like real science to back up their claims and safety. If they spend $1 million to show that their product is 95% effective and would have to be dosed 10x of recommended to be potentially harmful, people interpret that as not always effective and potentially dangerous. Whereas if they just don’t do the research people defer to the marketing- “safe and effective!”
Click to expand...
I love this thread. This is the reason (in my mind) that this board is so important. Knowledge and science.
 
JVU said:
I don’t doubt the big-picture of the above with respect to using it as an insecticide in large quantities and concentrations and with indiscriminate spraying outdoors. Which I would not recommend anyone do. Some of the reasonable-sounding stuff that chat-gpt came up with is totally made up though, for example the part about cyfluthrin affecting the development of fetuses and children- that’s a hallucination. The reason these have been well studied, and all of the above data/references is because of the large-volume agricultural use, not coral dipping. Which are orders of magnitude different in amount and exposure.

But does this mean you are not going to dip your coral at all? Or are you just going to assume that other chemical solutions that also kill “bugs” are safer because they are undisclosed and/or unstudied?

Also, imidacloprid is a synthetic mimic of nicotine, and was specifically developed as such, works on the same receptors in animals. Nicotine is lethal for insects including bees, which is why plants make it. So if you smoke, don’t exhale. Or pee.

I’m not trying to argue that you should use Bayer insecticide. In fact I think you definitely should not use it since you are worried about it. But I’d like to see you apply the same level of concern and rigor to alternatives. Things that aren’t studied (or even disclosed) should not be more reassuring. This is why industry folks are disincentivized to do anything like real science to back up their claims and safety. If they spend $1 million to show that their product is 95% effective and would have to be dosed 10x of recommended to be potentially harmful, people interpret that as not always effective and potentially dangerous. Whereas if they just don’t do the research people defer to the marketing- “safe and effective!”
Click to expand...
Yes, agree that other products we are using might be equally harmful, or not, depending on our individual risk appetite. I will definitely inform myself better going forward before using any of these.

This one does not seem to be worth it for me even though I spend only 10 minutes looking into this.

Regarding transparency - it seems as if 98.9% of this product’s content is also undisclosed.

Again, appreciate the discussions and different viewpoints. With kids in the house and ultimately just trying to enjoy this great hobby, taking potential health risks unknowingly was not my preference.
 
It's a great idea to research the things we use outside of their intended function.

It's a really bad idea to use chatgpt for research. I use it on an almost daily basis and it hallucinate all the damn time. It's a lying sack of crap for anything serious.

It's a great tool for outlining, formatting and even coding but it is not trustworthy. Not even close. Always double check the answers
 
Alexander1312 said:
Yes, agree that other products we are using might be equally harmful, or not, depending on our individual risk appetite. I will definitely inform myself better going forward before using any of these.

This one does not seem to be worth it for me even though I spend only 10 minutes looking into this.

Regarding transparency - it seems as if 98.9% of this product’s content is also undisclosed.

Again, appreciate the discussions and different viewpoints. With kids in the house and ultimately just trying to enjoy this great hobby, taking potential health risks unknowingly was not my preference.
Click to expand...
The 98.9% “other” is biologically inert, just carrier stuff to make it so that they aren’t selling something too concentrated. You know, like almost all water with some stabilizers. Unlike our hobby, pesticides are a highly regulated industry with lots of oversight and double-checking. They would not be able to hide something relevant to this discussion in the “other” category on the labeling.
 
grizfyrfyter said:
It's a great idea to research the things we use outside of their intended function.

It's a really bad idea to use chatgpt for research. I use it on an almost daily basis and it hallucinate all the damn time. It's a lying sack of crap for anything serious.

It's a great tool for outlining, formatting and even coding but it is not trustworthy. Not even close. Always double check the answers
Click to expand...
I don’t even find it useful for coding…
 
+1 the appreciation of the deep analysis @JVU is providing. I grew up in a family of vegetable farmers. My dad passed last year with bone cancer, and I periodically think back to when he'd come home reeking of pesticides/herbicides he'd been spraying and the family joking about how he's going to start glowing. However, though I do eat a non zero amount of organics, I still eat all the types of fruits/vegetables.

I think people don't realize the orders of magnitude volumes of chemicals being discussed in the two contexts. A farmer spraying 200 acres of crops with a machine that aerosolizes a high concentrate concentration of stuff is in a drastically different situation than anyone else in the supply chain, and needs to be aware of significant impacts they can have to the ecosystem.

I don't mean that as what-about-ism, I mean the context is important and different contexts have different mitigations.

One mitigation is don't use them at all, which as JVU refers to, to be a fully coherent strategy should extend to all the chemicals people are using. Especially the hot rage of using antibiotics. It's easy to find faults in studied things, but hard to find explicit faults in unstudied things

Another mitigation is be really careful about disposal. Relating to that farmer analogy, a farmer spraying gallons of concentrate across acres, weekly, has very different implications than a reefer with a half gallon of diluted substance. What's the ideal way to dispose of that?

I assume the extreme is keep a 5 gallon jug and occasionally drive it to the hazmat drop of where they can dispose of it. I assume the less extreme version would be let it dry out in a container outside in the sun.
 
Realisticly, hydrogen peroxide is probably the safest and efficient dip for most things I can think of. Your still not going to kill eggs but it will kill inverts, not likely to kill coral and even kills algae.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top