Alternatives to Spraying Roadsides & Utility Lines with Toxic Pesticides

It has been brought to my attention that I am thus far extremely guilty of NOT providing any alternative solutions to the problem I am calling attention to. In this post, I will share some alternative ways to maintain public roads and utility lines without the consistent use of toxic chemical pesticides.

1. Asplundh and other arborists can leave some or all of the mulch on-site to suppress weeds. It only takes 2" of mulch to suppress weed seeds in a landscape bed. Asplundh and other roadside-cleanup contractors remove tons of brush and often turn it to mulch on-site in order to condense it for transportation. This mulch gets disposed of in various ways, but instead could be left on-site to suppress weeds in areas that threaten to grow too brushy. This is especially the case for brush from allelopathic species such as black walnut trees. If used even lightly, the Juglone toxin in the mulch of the black walnut wood will stop virtually anything from growing.

2. Individuals and communities already have the power to maintain their own roadways, however there are no incentives for them to do so. Tax breaks or other incentives could be given to property owners who maintain their own roadsides and eliminate invasive species on their properties. This way, communities who want to switch to No-Spray could see real benefits for doing so. "Show me the incentive, and I'll show you the outcome." -Charlie Munger

   
   

3. Put powerlines underground. This is no cheap fix, but this is the way of the future. When my electricity is out, I can still use my landline. This is because telephone lines run underground now, rather than above ground via telephone pole as they did throughout history. An investment into underground electric lines would pay off in time since they will prevent week-long power outages that require out-of-state restoration teams, as well as the existing costly maintenance techniques. No longer would they need to attach chainsaws to helicopters and stop traffic to maintain 50 ft high powerlines. Also, what an attractive world it might be without power lines tainting every single scenic view. Citizens does not need a "No Spray List" because all of their lines run underground. I admit that there are many reasons this has not occurred on a large scale yet, but it seems that the benefits of such change could justify the means.

These are only the first three of hundreds of examples to come, of ways that we can transition away from the frequent use of toxic pesticides on our public spaces.

Is a Multi-Million Dollar Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Study Needed in Order to Take Certain Actions for Your Health?

With modern advances in science, humanity has overcome health problems that have debilitated us and cut our lives short throughout history. This is the golden age of Science and Medicine, right? However, we must not overlook the outside forces that have shaped and manipulated science in the past or present.

When John Snow discovered the most likely cause of Cholera in 1854 using data and maps, he was met with years of scrutiny before his findings were adopted as common knowledge decades later. The term for this public reluctance to accept new information that clashes with existing doctrines is called the Semmelweiss Reflex.

If we aim to learn from history, we must remember to maintain an open mind about who or what could be stopping valuable medical information from being scientifically-proven and integrated into the medical literature.

One well-known example of this would be Monsanto's suppression of data that show RoundUp causes cancer. Before this was proven, and before the cover-ups revealed to the public, RoundUp was on the market for about 50 years, stationed at the ready to severely damage our health. Only recently -- after decades of illness, suffering, and death -- has justice and validation been brought to those who were affected. Due to the timing, not all those who were affected ended up living to see their justice.

Empowered by advances in technology and with entirely too much control over our government and legislation, Monsanto and companies like it continue to profit from products that pose health risks to both humans and the environment. Pesticides are well-known to be among the most poisonous substances, and as a result they are used in a significant chunk of suicides in the U.S.A.

Along with the fact that pesticide companies are not required to disclose any of the "Inert Ingredients" in their products, this all points to a gaping opportunity for already-suspect companies to take further advantage -- perhaps in even sneakier ways than before.

It would be frivolous and non-logical to suggest that nothing is wrong with pesticides that are currently on the market, especially when the public is not entitled to see all of the ingredients.

In this same line of reasoning, we can deduce that data on other topics remain suppressed or untested due to being unprofitable. For example, it is common knowledge now that toxins in our environment cause us inflammation and illness, such as BPA and PFAS, yet there remains little research into detoxicants that might help clear the body of such toxins. This may be due to the fact that none of the existing detoxicants would be profitable to test and sell on the market. These include things like Holy Basil, Ginger, Milk Thistle, Cilantro, Garlic, and much more.

Medications such as Activated Charcoal and Cholestyramine are currently used to detoxify the gastrointestinal tract after a toxic exposure or poisoning, however Cholestyramine is mainly used to reduce cholesterol and move blockages in the bile ducts. Despite its effectiveness in off-label use to detoxify the body from certain toxins, since no randomized, double-blind, placebo-control clinical study exists yet to prove or disprove the hypothesis, Cholestyramine still has a fair amount of skepticism in the medical community for its detoxifying properties.

Of course I only encourage skepticism and questioning everything within the context of science and medicine. However, it is not scientific to claim with certainty that Cholestyramine does not work as a detoxicant, because that hypothesis has not yet been disproven. It is only reasonable to show a certain amount of skepticism for new products or new off-label uses for medications. When it comes to addressing new-age illnesses, however, we are not in the wrong -- nor are we unintelligent -- to suggest that an existing treatment is helping to reduce our pain and suffering.

It should be a natural next step after hundreds or thousands of claims, to put the hypotheses to the test rather than to shut them down immediately. Given the nature of the funding for these medical studies, treatments that would result in no or low profit for the pharmaceutical companies producing them will rarely receive the funding needed to formally prove their efficacy.

I am sick now. I am in pain now. Why would I wait 10, 20, 50 years for an expensive, patented medication when thousands of my fellow Lyme Disease / Multiple Chemical Sensitivity sufferers (along with their doctors) claim that these existing treatments work. There would be no logical reason for us to not shop around and try existing medicines or historical remedies on a health problem that was created and perpetuated by large corporations that only see us as dollar signs.

Try that detox. Attempt to get Cholestyramine from an open-minded doctor. Try anything that will cause no harm but creates hope for healing. Do not let the cynicism of others stop you from seeking answers in this age of blindness.

Most importantly, let everyone else know what worked for you!

A Closer Look Into Who Advocates for Common Pesticide Use

It should go without saying that when I finally posted about "Stop the Spray" in our town's Facebook group, I received some amount of pushback.

This user manages to accomplish a trifecta of condescension, presumption, and a lack of research. Without looking into how "Stop the Spray" started, he mentions the testing processes that pesticide products undergo before entering the market. He diminishes human health as a simple "drawback" to the use of these pesticides, as if this was a fair tradeoff for an attempt at eradicating invasives and managing foliage on public roadways -- a flawed Utilitarian approach at best.

It only took one accidental glance for me to realize that this individual has a history of working in farm sales and currently works for the Farm Bureau Federation, a lobbying group based out of Washington D.C.

It makes perfect sense that his agenda would include maximizing corporate profit over human health. Without any anonymity, regret, or embarrassment, he comments on a "Stop the Spray" post in an attempt to sway opinions toward accepting commonplace pesticide use, when his agenda is shockingly obvious. This man makes money by at least partially advocating for harmful environmental practices such as spraying pesticides on our food and public roadways.

I can't comment on this user's education level, however he certainly assumes mine when he comments about how I need to research into pesticides.

Much of my reading and writing in University was about pesticide use in monocultures across our country. Ever since then, my passion for the topic has only deepened, considering the personal toll that pesticide use takes on my health. I have continued to research this topic, especially after establishing my landscape business in 2018, where it became imperative for me to persuade my clients against spraying, since that would make it impossible for me to work in their landscapes.

The importance of my research into pesticides only increased when I discovered that others in the county experience the same illness that I do, which requires showering to remove the toxins.

I am happy for this user. I am jealous of this user. He does not need to care about the human health consequences of pesticide products because clearly -- as far as he knows -- his health remains unaffected by them thus far. That in itself is a privilege he does not realize that he possesses -- the "crown" he wears that he cannot see.

There will always be opposition to our "Stop the Spray" movement. It is vital that we identify the agendas of those who do.