Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
Date: Jul 17 1996
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment

Oz wrote:

> Sigh. I doubt anyone is fooled by your wriggling around on this very
> simple question. It's not a trick question. You are smart enough to know
> what I mean and I don't really see why you persist in deliberately
> avoiding answering it. It makes you look very shifty and dishonest.
> Perhaps if I rephrased it? Sigh.

Oz, there was no indication in the original post,
that what you really meant by  your original question was this:

>"Could you please give an example of a pesticide properly applied and
>currently registered for use in the UK or US where current usage is
>responsible for profound damage to wildlife outside it's area of
>application and that is not due to the intended effect on the target
>pests."


As you are probably aware, all these added clauses pretty much
exclude the examples given as answers to your original question.

You have substituted 'chemical' with 'pesticide' and
'legally distributed' with 'properly applied
and currently registered for use in the UK/US'.

And you have added 'outside area of application' and
'not due to the intended effect'

So this question is certainly more difficult.

Oz, a pesticide which fulfills these criteria, would be severely
facing deregistration, wouldn't it? So this means we would have to
find an example where very strong economic interests makes
deregistration unusually prolonged:

As you haven't added the clause _agricultural_  (yet :-),
I'd say: Tributyltin.

Tributyltin is currently registered in UK/US
as a component of antifouling paint (molluscicide, algicide)
for vessels (it was banned in 1987 in the UK for use on
small vessels <25 m, but is still registered for use on
larger ships).

You have explained previously, that 'profound' means
'generally accepted within the scientific community'.

Well, tributyltin is well known to cause damage (reproductive
and developmental effects) to ocean wildlife (Mollusca),
(this is exactly why it was banned for use on small vessels),
also the damage occurs far from the application area,
and is not due to the intended effect on target pests.

Tributyltin is _extremely_ toxic to ocean wildlife,
LC50 for several algae, molluscae, crustaceae and fish
is of the order of magnitude: 1 ppb.
The larvae and embryos are not surprisingly
more susceptible than adults.

Tributyltin is bioaccumulative, with a factor 10,000 to 100,000
for molluscs, and is adsorbed to sediment, where microbial
degradation is slow, and from where tributyltin will
be released many years to come, and many years after this compound
has met the final ban (which has until know been delayed for
10 years by those in power to do so...)

The reproductive and developmental effects of tributyltin
are even more extreme than the lethal effects:

Very well studied is the NOEC (No observable effect concentration)
for the mollusc Nucella lapillus --
the effect of tributyltin: _females_ grow penises!

NOEC for this effect is
_less_ than  0.005 ppb (5 ppt or 5 nanogram/liter).

The same effect has been studied in the mollusc Buccinum undatum.
The females of this species have been shown to have grown penises
in almost all catches made from the Channel and far into
the open North sea.
Particularly severe female penis effects have been found in
the Channel, which is very busily navigated. Along the
coastal ship route Texel-Elbe, however, no penises on female
Buccinum could be observed ... because
in this area we now find only dead, empty shells .....


Kind regards,

Torsten Brinch

--
How do you know but ev'ry Bird that cuts the airy way,
Is an immense world of delight, clos'd by your senses five?

                                                   (William Blake)

Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Jul 18 1996
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment

In article <4sjh88$cag@news.uni-c.dk>, Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni-
c.dk> writes
>
>Oz wrote:
>
>> Sigh. I doubt anyone is fooled by your wriggling around on this very
>> simple question. It's not a trick question. You are smart enough to know
>> what I mean and I don't really see why you persist in deliberately
>> avoiding answering it. It makes you look very shifty and dishonest.
>> Perhaps if I rephrased it? Sigh.
>
>Oz, there was no indication in the original post,
>that what you really meant by  your original question was this:
>
>>"Could you please give an example of a pesticide properly applied and
>>currently registered for use in the UK or US where current usage is
>>responsible for profound damage to wildlife outside it's area of
>>application and that is not due to the intended effect on the target
>>pests."

Oh, I don't know. The inference was pretty clear, I would have thought.
If Nudds hadn't been so devious then in sci.agric this would either have
been subsequently clarified or inferred. We aren't in a courtroom, you
know.

>As you are probably aware, all these added clauses pretty much
>exclude the examples given as answers to your original question.

Well, bearing in mind that it was posed because of the continual
discussion on DDT on the thread implying that all chemicals were equally
dangerous it was pretty obvious by inference. Basically I was trying to
find out what we could all agree on so that the rather circular argument
could have a bit more structure. Mr Nudds being prone to deliberate
misinterpretation (although I wasn't aware of that at the time) the
thread was getting rather tangled.

I have never denied that DDT has had deleterious effects and I suported
it's removal from the UK at the time. The same goes for the other OC's
where in some cases the burden is severe. Actually I didn't think too
many posters were in much disagreement here although there was some
argument for limited use.


>You have substituted 'chemical' with 'pesticide' and
>'legally distributed' with 'properly applied
>and currently registered for use in the UK/US'.

Well, it would be nice to exclude a large chunk of products so we could
concentrate on the ones currently causing proven serious environmental
damage. I suspect that areas of the Great Lakes, the lower reaches of
the Rhine, some estuaries elsewhere and industrial dump sites all over
are seriously contaminated. Here we are not talking about ppb's and
unobservable effects from almost unmeasurable levels pf pesticides, but
real life clinical and wildlife effects. Now this IS a real problem and
a discussion on this would be rather interesting, rather than having
childish semantic fights with Nudds. I was trying to set out the
boundaries so we could concentrate on the essentials. Not least because
it seems to me that in Europe we concentrate on pesticides causing no
(or negligeable) damage when there are serious pollution problems that
may be causing damage beyond the sites of direct contamination.

>And you have added 'outside area of application' and
>'not due to the intended effect'

Getting into legal mode (:-). Anyway I may well killfile Nudds as others
have suggested. His input has been deleterious to the discussion and he
has added nothing of import that others would not have brought up more
clearly and relevantly.

>So this question is certainly more difficult.

It wasn't meant to be a difficult question, but to allow the main
problem to be addressed.


>Oz, a pesticide which fulfills these criteria, would be severely
>facing deregistration, wouldn't it? So this means we would have to
>find an example where very strong economic interests makes
>deregistration unusually prolonged:
>
>As you haven't added the clause _agricultural_  (yet :-),
>I'd say: Tributyltin.
>
>Tributyltin is currently registered in UK/US
>as a component of antifouling paint (molluscicide, algicide)
>for vessels (it was banned in 1987 in the UK for use on
>small vessels <25 m, but is still registered for use on
>larger ships).

Ok, well done. Maybe you can find one or two more oddities. However
perhaps we can agree that such products are facing deregulation, severe
restriction (which usually drastically reduces any impact) and are
(presumably) under threat of a complete ban. Just out of interest in how
many European countries has this product been so banned????

-------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
Date: Jul 19 1996
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment

Oz wrote:
: In article <4sjh88$cag@news.uni-c.dk>, Torsten Brinch <iaotb@inet.uni-
: c.dk> writes
>>Tributyltin is currently registered in UK/US
>>as a component of antifouling paint (molluscicide, algicide)
>>for vessels (it was banned in 1987 in the UK for use on
>>small vessels <25 m, but is still registered for use on
>>larger ships).

>Ok, well done. Maybe you can find one or two more oddities. However
>perhaps we can agree that such products are facing deregulation, severe
>restriction (which usually drastically reduces any impact) and are
>(presumably) under threat of a complete ban. Just out of interest in how
>many European countries has this product been so banned????

I think UK and France _were_ the first to 'restrict' the use of
tributyltin in anti-fouling paint (in 1987?) -- It was reported
in 1986 that it had caused damage to oysters in those two countries,
and that Nucella lapillus started to disappear along the coasts of
south-west England.

The international Marine Environmental Committee was persuaded
in 1990 to make the restriction global.
This was implemented in 1991 in Denmark, but as  a partial ban
(still allowed for ships >25 m) it is NOT really a _ban_,
just a delay technique.

Banning tributyltin altogether in anti-fouling paint is, I believe,
an EU issue this year (the biocide directive), I don't know how far
it has made it through the system. The paint producers (the next largest
is in Denmark) want to be able to use tributyltin for another 10 years,
it takes TIME to find the substitutes :-)

AFAIK one substitute is in use already, Irgarol 1051, a herbicide from
the triazine family (atrazine belongs to this family too).
Irgarol 1051 is persistent, but does not have the same broad
action spectrum as tributyltin. Irgarol affects _algae_,
with a NOEL at 1-2 ppb, but is ineffective towards other pests on ships.

A useful compound like tributyltin will probably not
disappear with the eventual global ban in antifouling paint.
It may still be available for other uses.
In Denmark it has already had a _glorious_ time in  the
last 10 years as a land-based pesticide.

It is an EXCELLENT  home-use algicide, ROOFS and
HOUSES ought to be CLEAN, and it is SO EASY to BRUSH ON.
After APPLICATION you JUST FLUSH it  with the garden hose,
it is BEST, NATURALLY, to flush it down the drain
where it can do NO HARM, and the treated surfaces
will STAY CLEAN for MANY WEEKS ;-)

Cough. One of my fits.

As I said, it has sold rather well from the supermarkets
for use as a home algicide and it is also used for wood impregnation.

But as a component of anti-fouling ship paint:
surely it does face severe restriction, maybe it will be gone,
shall we say: in 2010?

ONLY 50 years since we started to use it on ships....
ONLY 25 years since we discovered the damage done...

Kind regards,

Torsten Brinch

--
Drive your cart and your plow over the bones of the dead.

                                                (William Blake>

Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
From: Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Date: Jul 24 1996
Newsgroups: sci.environment

In article <aquilla.1188184777I@emba-news.emba.uvm.edu>, Tracy Aquilla
<aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu> writes

>Would you mind citing a research article published in a peer-reviewed
>scientific journal which supports the assertion that tributyltin use has
>directly resulted in pollution that has had a significant negative impact on
>some specific species of wildlife? Thanks. (Sorry, I just have this thing
>for evidence I can verify.)

I can't give you references but the work was done in the UK several (5?
10?) years ago. It was indeed peer reviewed and there was no doubt that
in recreational marinas, and the immediate environs, that very
significant damage was being done to shellfish. The main reason appeared
to be due to improper usage by recreational boatpeople and the high
density of boats treated (heavily) and then just left in the marina for
99% of the year crammed side by side.

In the end I believe the manufacturers withdrew the products and co-
operated with the ban, accepting the evidence. For commercial ships,
rarely in port and using properly trained contractors to apply the
product the ban was waived for a while. Apparently there are still no
realistic alternatives. IMHO the commercial ships pose no danger to the
environment since they are mostly at sea.

-------------------------------
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
Date: Jul 27 1996
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.agriculture

Tracy Aquilla wrote:
> In Article <4sjh88$cag@news.uni-c.dk>, iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
> wrote:
>Would you mind citing a research article published in a peer-reviewed
>scientific journal which supports the assertion that tributyltin use has
>directly resulted in pollution that has had a significant negative impact on
>some specific species of wildlife? Thanks. (Sorry, I just have this thing
>for evidence I can verify.)

I suppose this one will do. You don't have to _read_ the article --
'recovery' should be enough to tell you, that significant negative
impact has occurred.

The article presents data from 1993 and 1994 --
it reviews and references articles describing
the sad state of the British coasts in the late 80ties.

  Evans, S.M. Evans, P.M. & Leksono, T.
  "Widespread Recovery of Dogwhelks, Nucella lapillus (L.),
  from Tributyltin Contamination in the North Sea and Clyde Sea."
  Marine pollution bulletin, 32,3 (1996)

Improvement. Damage persists in bays and estuaries, though.
Not only in Britain. No reason for complacency.


Kind regards,

Torsten Brinch

--
The ocean belongs to everyone.
Who decides the contaminant levels?

                              (1984 NOAH poster)

Subject: Re: Pesticides and Reproduction
From: iaotb@inet.uni-c.dk (Torsten Brinch)
Date: Jul 30 1996
Newsgroups: sci.agriculture,sci.environment

Paul Savage wrote:
>You're
>probably right and I have no objection to the phase-out of trialkyltin
>salts, assuming there's a good replacement for it in anti-fouling paints.

Good. I'm afraid nothing as 'good' as trialkyltin compunds
is available. I have mentioned Ciba Geigy's Irgarol substitute,
but it only kills algae, not everything else. I have no objection to
the use of trialkyltin ship paints, if there's a good replacement
for healthy coastal/estuarian wildlife :-)


>By the way, I understand that tributyltin oxide (Bu3Sn-O-SnBu3) is used as
>a stabiliser in some transparent plastics. Is there any call to stop this
>use?

AFAIK, the organotin compounds used as PVC stabilisers are di-
and monoorganotin compounds? Wouldn't it be extremely
care- and ruthless to use bis(tributyltin)oxid for this purpose?
Maybe it is not even technologically attractive...

According to Craig (1986) the consumption of di- and
monoorganotin compounds was (then) at 27,000 tons globally,
triorganotin compounds 8,000 tons. I have no data more recent.
Craig estimated, that a major part of the di- and mono-organotin
compounds went into PVC.

A call for ending _this_ use. Nah, not directly, but there
is (as you probably know) a call for stopping the use of _PVC_,
and one of the reasons _is_ the content of additives,
including the organotin compounds.


Kind regards,

Torsten Brinch

--
In seed time learn, in harvest teach, in winter enjoy.

                                  (William Blake)