Tuesday, March 2, 2010

1080 in distilled water - still potent, 10 years after added

"1080 solutions prepared in distilled water and stored at room temperature for 10 years showed no significant breakdown; moreover, solutions of 1080 prepared in stagnant algal-laden water did not lose biocidal properties during 12 months (McIlroy 1981a). More research on 1080 persistence in aquatic environments seems needed."
Paper - Contaminant Hazard Reviews 1 - 35 Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre.

This reference was requested by proponents of 1080, on this blog.

Department of Conservation employeee, Ian Gill, has said he will provide the evidence that 1080 - monoflurouactetate - is present in the tea we buy off supermarket shelves. He has said he will provide this evidence this week. DoC, and their apologists, continue to assert that 1080 is present in tea. So it was good of Ian to offer to provide this evidence, as we have been unable to find it. Thanks Ian, much appreciated.

61 comments:

  1. Clyde – this really demonstrates how little research effort you put into your DVD. Fluoroacetate was measured in common tea brands at between 10-380 parts per billion which is 1000 times more toxic than parts per trillion. The doctor in your DVD should have considered this when making his comments about trace levels. The detection of fluoroacetate in tea leaves was done by Vartiainen and Kauranen,1984, and is available in “Naturally-Produced Organohalogens” by A Grimvall and W de Leer, published by Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995, printed in the Netherlands. It’s listed on Google Books.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Ian, I'll check it out. Even if it is fact, it doesn't mean thatt Dr Scanlon, and Dr. Weaver are wrong in their recommendations.

    Just a though, where does tea come from? The main producers are...China, Japan, Java, India, Ceylon, Sumatra and Formosa - strangely, not Australia, South America or South Africa (the countries where 1080 occurs naturally in plants). Perhaps DoC could add these other countries as places where 1080 occurs naturally in plants?

    The following sentences are on the DoC website....

    "Sodium monofluoroacetate, or 1080, is a chemical reproduction of a naturally-occurring, biodegradable toxin that plants use to discourage browsing animals. It is found in Australian, South American and South African plants. Low concentrations are also found naturally in tea and New Zealand pūhā."

    However, Dr Sean Olgilvie, while doing the research on 1080 in Puha and Watercress, stated in their recommendations...

    "Consideration should be given to conduct further research to ascertain whether 1080
    occurs naturally in puha, and if so, at what levels over time and under differing
    conditions i.e. weather/season/grazing pressure. This research should also be
    expanded to include a survey of 1080 in other NZ plant species." (2009)

    But this doesn't stop DoC adding the "assumption" that 1080 occurs naturally in Puha, to their website as fact!!

    I think it's worth testing tea off the super market shelves, and see if it still contains 10-380 PPB. That's pretty high concentrations, given that Dr. Forunda, while doing her PHD, recommended a safe drinking water level of 0.6 PPB.
    Any sponsors out there? Clyde Graf.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clyde – the tea samples used by Vartiainen and Kauranen were bought from ordinary shops.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If that's the case Ian, it has no bearing on what is in your cup of tea. I think this is another deceptive ploy by DoC to try to deceive the public into believing that 1080 is safe. By the time the tea is diluted into your water and milk, should you take milk, it would be a 1000 times diluted, and be undetectable. This is just pedantic stuff. What's the point of DoC even raising the issue? Simple - misleading the public, yet again! Clyde Graf.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, Clyde you raised the issue. It's odd that you seem to be able to grasp the concept of dilution and risk when it suits you. Your DVD deliberately promotes worry and fear linking vague unidentified health effects to assumptions about trace quantities of fluoroacetate. However, we do know that millions of people worldwide happily suck-down traces of fluoroacetate in their tea. At the very least this demonstrates that the toxin is not cumulative otherwise tea drinkers would stand out as having a much shorter lifespan than the norm.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We didn't raise the issue - it is the Department of Conservation, and Forest & Bird that continue to raise it! The DoC website states it in a way to try to anull peoples concerns. As I have just pointed out - the traces in peoples tea, once diluted in water, if it does exist at all, would be undetectable! The traces in the environment - are detectable! Clyde Graf.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Ian sounds like you are trying to justify dropping 3gm per ha of 1080 x 375,000 ha (Ni 95,000 - SI 280,000ha) = 1,125,000grms of 1080 over the country in 2009 to drinking tea. Thats enough 1080 to kill 40,500,000 possums when there is only 30,000,000 possums (Landcare 2009). I'd much rather take the risk of drinking tea than 1080 laced from water catchments. When is DoC going to stop using the public for their 1080 experiments, our health is more important than your arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Clyde - a traditional teapot brew can deliver fluoroacetate in measurable parts per trillion per cup. Your DVD expresses a fixated horror at the thought of trace levels like this being consumed. Now, where exactly are the traces in the environment that you are concerned about and what levels are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  9. What ever the case may be, I guess you could start with Mt Taranaki, where DoC have just finished dropping 70 tons of poisonous bait, for about the 3rd time!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Clyde, the baits are scattered over a massive area of 33,000 hectares at Mt Taranaki. The first operation there was 14-years ago the second was seven years ago. That's a gap of seven years between operations. There is no long-term environmental contamination, but, currently there is a temporary transitory period where bait is present. Where's the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, I've found some other interesting information from the scientific world recently. From Landcare scientist Charles Eason, "1080 is not safe. I have never and will never say that." 1080 is classed as a "super poison" by the US EPA.

    And on the issue of 1080 being naturally-occurring, plants produce fluoroacetic acid, but manufactured 1080 is sodium monofluoroacetate. Mr Eason stated in April 2002 that "Anyone comparing 1080 poison with the naturally-occurring substance is stupid."

    On the website www.scienceclarified.com it says the following "In the modern world humans are responsible for many of the toxic chemicals that are now being dispersed into the environment. In some cases, human actions cause toxic damage by emitting large quantities of chemicals that also occur naturally. Release of these chemicals as the result of human actions only increases the severity of problems that may already exist because of the natural presence of these chemicals."

    Sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) was patented as an insecticide in Great Britain in 1927. However it was considered too dangerous to use.

    I'm happy to provide citations. The Graf boys can put them in one of their informative blog posts if you want to read more.

    Kathy

    ReplyDelete
  12. can't wait till u turn your attention to some badies that really are on our supermarket shelves:

    2,4 -D
    2,4,5-T
    Captafol
    Roundup
    Paraquat
    DBCP
    Benlate
    Amitrole
    Captan
    Propoxur
    Atrazine
    Endosulfan
    Carbaryl
    Grazon
    Propham
    Fenitrothion
    Diphenylamine
    Lindane
    Malathion

    ReplyDelete
  13. " Compound 1080 is a highly toxic chemical that will certainly kill humans if they
    are exposed to even minute amounts, but this is true of many substances. It is fairly clear from
    the literature the aerial 1080 in the concentrations in which it is usually applied does not
    constitute a major risk to humans from water contamination."

    Whiting OKeefe

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The manufactured compound '1080' is chemically identical to naturally occuring monofluoroacetate and exhibits identical sympmtoms of poisoning in animals (Eason et al 1999)

    Sean Weaver
    Journal of Rural and Remote Environmental Health 2003

    ReplyDelete
  15. Take it up with Dr. Charles Eason, the toxicologist, he said it!

    ReplyDelete
  16. and your American creationist scientist mate definetly said this:

    " Compound 1080 is a highly toxic chemical that will certainly kill humans if they
    are exposed to even minute amounts, but this is true of many substances. It is fairly clear from
    the literature the aerial 1080 in the concentrations in which it is usually applied does not
    constitute a major risk to humans from water contamination."

    Whiting OKeefe

    ReplyDelete
  17. We've got you, trying to say the deadly poison 1080 is safe, and we've got others saying it's not - who should we believe?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just go back to the basics, spreading 10,000kgs super toxin in one year over our land and streams/rivers does not pass the smell test. Where does all of the chemical go, where do the toxic carcasses go...watch poisoning in paradise and make up your own mind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. well nobody knows your Charles Eason ..but Charles Easton the toxocologist who authored the report 'Technical Review of Sodium Monofluoroacetate (1080) Toxicology" in 2002 for the AHB answers all your questions in the the above publication. Click on me and have a read ..a free massage from Clydey boy for anyone who can find this quote "Anyone comparing 1080 poison with the naturally-occurring substance is stupid."

    who's stupid??

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, I've found some other interesting information from the scientific world recently. From Landcare scientist Charles Eason:

    Manufactured 1080 for use in toxic baits is chemically and toxicologically identical to the fluoroacetate found
    in poisonous plants1,2.
    Monofluoroacetate occurs naturally in some 40 plant species in Australia3–6. Monofluoroacetate has also been
    identified as the toxic agent in many other poisonous plants native to Brazil1 and South and West Africa7. The
    highest monofluoroacetate concentration so far reported from a living source is 8.0 mg/g in the seeds of a
    South African plant7. The mechanism of toxicity for naturally occurring fluoroacetate and for 1080 in bait is
    the same. Both forms are equally poisonous1.
    The ability of plants to synthesise monofluoroacetate is more widespread than generally supposed, since
    monofluoroacetate occurs in very low concentrations in tea leaves8 and guar gum9, a common constituent of foodstuffs.
    Plants containing high concentrations are hazardous. Plants containing very low concentrations (e.g. tea leaves)
    are not considered hazardous.

    ReplyDelete
  21. hi Kathy ( happy to provide citations) Von Graff

    please citate this quote that you've used:
    "Anyone comparing 1080 poison with the naturally-occurring substance is stupid."

    ReplyDelete
  22. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    Arthur Schopenhauer
    German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
    You pro 1080 lunatics are following the rules, just perfectly!

    ReplyDelete
  23. hi Kathy ( happy to provide citations) Von Graff

    please citate this quote that you've used:
    "Anyone comparing 1080 poison with the naturally-occurring substance is stupid."

    ReplyDelete
  24. she/he can't because Eason never said that. It's a typical Graff 'pluck numbers/quotes/German philosophers out of my ass' trick.

    I mean look at the organic honey blow-up, and whatever happened to the DoC Poisoning Paradise critique... etc,etc

    ReplyDelete
  25. 2,4 -D
    2,4,5-T
    Captafol
    Roundup
    Paraquat
    DBCP
    Benlate
    Amitrole
    Captan
    Propoxur
    Atrazine
    Endosulfan
    Carbaryl
    Grazon
    Propham
    Fenitrothion
    Diphenylamine
    Lindane
    Malathion

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1080 poison
    1080 toxin
    1080 super toxin
    Fluoroacetate
    Sodium Fluoroacetate
    Sodium Monofluoroacetate
    FCH2CO2Na
    Colourless
    Odourless
    Fluoroacetic acid
    carboxylic acid
    trifuoroacetic acid
    Disrupts krebs cycle
    Bye kidneys
    bye heart
    bye brain
    Death
    Death
    Death
    Bye native birds
    Bye native insects
    PCE

    ReplyDelete
  27. Aquatic toxicology
    Fish are relatively resistant to 1080. In an experiment conducted in the 1940s, fingerling bream and bass
    (species unidentified) survived indefinitely, with no signs of toxicity, in water containing 370 mg 1080/L68. In
    New Zealand, fingerling trout were subjected to 1080 concentrations of 500 mg/L and 1000 mg/L without any
    visible effect. Feeding pellets containing a total of about 4 mg of 1080 (two fingerling trout and five adult trout)
    or about 8 mg of 1080 (two adult trout) also had no visible effect 51.
    Recent studies in the USA established a NOEC* for bluegill sunfish of 970 mg/L. Based on the results of this
    study and criteria established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1080 would be classified as
    practically non-toxic to bluegill sunfish, a standard test species used in toxicology studies. In trout the NOEC
    was 13 mg/L, which the US EPA classifies as slightly toxic to rainbow trout. The third test estimated the acute
    toxicity of 1080 to the small freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna. The NOEC was 130 mg/L, making 1080
    practically non-toxic to Daphnia magna by US EPA classification standards29.
    Since the concentrations of 1080 described above are many times higher than the residue concentrations only
    very rarely found in water after 1080 use, adverse effects on aquatic animals are unlikely (see Table 3). In
    practice these data would only be of value in risk assessment relating to a large amount of 1080 bait or stock
    solutions being deliberately or accidentally tipped into a waterway.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The problem is, these aren't studies. They are merely observations. This is the sort of thing you would expect from a crowd funded by an organisation with predetermined ambitions. It is very typical of what we see in the studies used to support 1080. It's mostly, guesswork, and certainly doesn't dismiss risk. Clyde Graf.

    ReplyDelete
  29. observations and references to studies. Observations and references made by a toxologist Charles Easton an expert who you and Katy(happy to citate) quote when his cherry picked remarks can be twisted to support your agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cherry-picking seems to be popular with all of us whether pro- or anti-1080. I guess we can all find plenty of evidence to prove our own point of view.

    By the way, the name IS Charles Eason (not Easton), and he is a toxicologist (not a toxologist). I hope you don't mind me pointing out your errors.

    I was interested in what Mr Eason wrote about animal welfare in this article entitled Product stewardship, animal welfare and regulatory toxicology constraints on vertebrate pesticides at: http://www.nzpps.org/journal/50/nzpp_502060.pdf


    "International perceptions of the possum control methods used in New Zealand may
    have significant implications for trade. There is a delicate balance between reducing Tb
    to sustain exports and killing possums in an acceptable manner. Current and future
    control methods will be judged by increasingly critical home and overseas trading
    partners and consumers (Williams 1994). The Ministry for Agriculture (MAF) has
    continued to emphasise the need to ‘reinforce national and international recognition of
    New Zealand’s healthy and humane image’ with regard to the treatment of animals
    (MAF 1993; 1995). These intentions form the basis for setting the strategic directions
    for MAF to the year 2000, but little research is being done to evaluate how humane
    vertebrate pest control techniques are."

    There is currently a bill relating to humane treatment of animals before parliament. I hope the government will think carefully about the way we are currently inhumanely killing off so many non-target animals in our environment.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 2,4 -D
    2,4,5-T
    Captafol
    Roundup
    Paraquat
    DBCP
    Benlate
    Amitrole
    Captan
    Propoxur
    Atrazine
    Endosulfan
    Carbaryl
    Grazon
    Propham
    Fenitrothion
    Diphenylamine
    Lindane
    Malathion

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1080 poison
    1080 toxin
    1080 super toxin
    Fluoroacetate
    Sodium Fluoroacetate
    Sodium Monofluoroacetate
    FCH2CO2Na
    Colourless
    Odourless
    Fluoroacetic acid
    carboxylic acid
    trifuoroacetic acid
    Disrupts krebs cycle
    Bye kidneys
    bye heart
    bye BCT brain
    Death
    Death
    Death
    Bye native birds
    Bye native insects
    PCE

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ronald Eisler of the US National Biological Service has written a variety of books and reports about the use of different poisons but not all of them are available free online. One of his reports for the Patuxent Environmental Science Center is called SODIUM MONOFLUOROACETATE (1080) HAZARDS TO FISH, WILDLIFE, AND INVERTEBRATES: A SYNOPTIC REVIEW.

    In it he states:

    The use of 1080 as a rodenticide was disallowed by the EPA in 1985 for three reasons:

    (1) lack of emergency treatment, namely a viable medical antidote;
    (2) high acute toxicity to nontarget mammals and birds; and
    (3) a significant reduction in populations of nontarget organisms and fatalities to endangered species.

    The documentary Poisoning Paradise scrolls through some of the database of New Zealand's native bird fatalities from 1080 poison, but there wouldn't be time to show them all, and the database only records those retrieved.

    The US now only uses 1080 in tiny amounts and in tightly controlled situations. I guess they concluded it is unacceptable to kill non- target and endangered animals a bit earlier than New Zealand's governmental authorities have.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No ...actually we now lead the world in species conservation and research into toxins to controll pests. Now in NZ unlike the rest of the world we don't have native land mammals (except the bat...almost extinct from rat predation)

    All our pests are mammals and if you're seriously into species conservation you'll know very well that the only good mammal is a dead mammal. (there are no 'non-target mammals')
    In America their endangered species ARE mammals.

    This continued reliance on totally irrelevant American studies is a little ludicrous ...try '1080 Impact on Taonga Species' Lincoln Uni. for New Zealand research in New Zealand by NewZealanders.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Government owns the 1080 factory.
    The Government imports the poison, it manufactures the bait, and it markets the product.

    The Government funds Crown Research Institutes to the tune of $500 million, per year!

    What do you think they're going to find?

    This goes part of the way to explaining why the research is so poor.

    Many of our native, forest bird species have been found dead with poison residues.
    The poison is dropped into the forest in the form of an attractive food - but not until the forest dwellers have been encouraged to eat it in the form of pre-bait (without the poison), which is dropped the week before the "cruel & deadly' ingredient is offered to them.

    It is estimated there are over 50,000 multi cellular organisms living in our environment that have yet to be formally described.
    Yet DoC thinks it can drop this broad-spectrum pesticide-insecticide hidden in yummy food and kill only possums and rats. Ass-tounding!

    ReplyDelete
  36. New Zealand's endangered and rare bird species are being hit hard by 1080.

    The average kill rate of kea in a 1080 drop is 25% and then the area is blitzed again in 2-3 years time. The results are even worse for tomtits and robins and those results come from a variety of New Zealand studies, which are summarised on Poisoning Paradise.

    Also, keeping with endangered birds and poisons which are regularly used in New Zealand pest control, have you seen what Mr Eason and others have recently concluded about brodifacoum? Actually not that recently.

    This report was from 2001 but DoC still used this poison as recently as August-September 2009 on islands around Auckland. So knowing poisons are seriously contaminating our wildlife doesn't always stop authorities using them. Read on ....

    http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/ResearchReport01.pdf

    "However, over the past two years, Charles Eason and colleagues have confirmed that brodifacoum and other second-generation anticoagulants have a unique pattern of persistence. At sub-lethal doses brodifacoum appears to bind almost indefinitely to liver tissue. Where there is sustained usage of
    brodifacoum, this persistence makes the poison very prone to transfer and accumulation in the food chain. Experimental trials demonstrated that captive pigs eating carcasses of poisoned rats or possums accumulate brodifacoum making them susceptible to secondary poisoning.

    In addition, wildlife surveys, which were conducted with DOC colleagues in areas where brodifacoum baits were currently in use, found that 29 of the 37 wild pigs sampled had brodifacoum concentrations in the liver ranging from 0.01–1.9 mg/kg. Even in areas where brodifacoum baiting had ceased at least six months previously, 12 out of 19 pigs still had residues.

    In parallel to these investigations, a disturbing pattern emerged from work being conducted for the National Vertebrate Pesticide Residue Database that is maintained by Landcare Research for DOC. Geoff Wright, who coordinates residue analysis and collates the data by species, location and pesticide, was increasingly concerned by the high incidence of brodifacoum residues in wild mammals and birds that had been found dead and sent to the toxicology laboratory at Lincoln for analyses.

    This led to a review of brodifacoum use with some restrictions being imposed by DOC on its field use. There is an urgent need to identify new toxicants to minimise potential contamination, and Landcare Research is working alongside DOC and other pest managers to develop ‘reduced harm’ strategies for cost-effective control of rats, possums and mustelids.

    While the use of alternative poisons may reduce risk, the use of any poison is not risk free and laboratory studies (see below) will help identify the better products.

    In the short term, a comparative risk assessment of all vertebrate pesticides used for conservation is being undertaken to prevent a repeat of the ‘brodifacoum residue story’."

    Look at the graph of birds affected by high levels of brodifacoum in the liver. Weka is top. Kiwi is second.

    Doesn't bode well for the kiwi in those areas, does it?????

    ReplyDelete
  37. Brodifacoum is NOT 1080
    as you know very well ..you also know that the use of Brodifacoum is confined solely to one-off operations to create predator free off shore islands or to bait stations (ground control). This is because it is well recognised as a persistant toxin. 1080 is not persistant, as your scientist C. Eason explains:
    Absorption, metabolism, and excretion studies in laboratory animals since the 1950s have shown that sub-
    lethal amounts of 1080 are excreted both unchanged and as a range of non-toxic metabolites. In laboratory
    rodents dosed with sub-lethal doses, 1080 is rapidly absorbed and distributed through the soft tissues and
    organs11,31,32. This contrasts with the action of commonly used anticoagulant rodenticides, such as BRODIFACOUM,
    which are extremely persistent. Sodium monofluoroacetate is excreted as unchanged fluoroacetate and a
    range of metabolites, including fluorocitrate. Defluorination (i.e. detoxification or breakdown) of 1080 and
    fluorocitrate has been demonstrated in animals and other living organisms

    ReplyDelete
  38. do you think Clydes confusion between one off Brodifacoum operations and 1080 is a deliberate stir-up fear strategy?

    ReplyDelete
  39. so we don't spread Brodifacoum where there are kiwis?

    ReplyDelete
  40. when was the last time you saw or heard kiwi on Rangitoto?

    ReplyDelete
  41. 1080 toxin
    Fluoroacetate
    Sodium Monofluoroacetate
    FCH2CO2Na
    Colourless
    Odourless
    Fluoroacetic acid
    Disrupts krebs cycle
    Bye rats
    Bye possums
    Bye stoats
    Hello native birds
    Hello native forests
    PCE

    ReplyDelete
  42. how is that Landcare Research is govt sponsored propaganda

    untill it supports Clyde and Kathy (happy to citate) pro hunting and pest meat industry agenda??

    ReplyDelete
  43. In 1998, 1080 was detected in Kiwi droppings. Since then, it seems DoC have stopped looking.

    "Kiwi are known to eat cereal based 1080 baits"
    Ref - DoC science & research internal report no. 121

    In the paper "Impacts of aerial application of 1080 on non-target native fauna" the authors state...
    If a species is known to eat cereal based Brodifacoum baits, the species may also eat cereal based 1080 baits.

    I don't think the birds have a preference to the type of poison they die from. They just eat the food that DoC offers them. Brodi baits look, smell and taste the same as 1080 baits.

    If you can bear to watch Poisoning Paradise you will view the pages of endemic & native birds that have tested positive for brodifacoum poison, that was released under the Official Information Act. There are plenty of Kiwi.
    Can you please explain to me why Kiwi don't eat 1080 bait (even though DoC say they do), but die in large quantities through off shore island drops?

    The only reason DoC tested birds from the islands is because they didn't think anyone would give a toss what happens off shore.
    They certainly refrain from testing Kiwi for 1080 poison residues on the mainland.
    Kiwi have been found dead after 1080 drops, but their deaths are put down to predation, or drowning...or anything else, but the truth. They don't say, maybe we should test these birds to see if they were predated on AFTER consuming 1080!

    Although this is hearsay, we have spoken to the father of a man whos son is a south island monitor. His son found 11 dead Great Spotted Kiwi after an aerial drop in the Kaharangi National Park. He then went on to explain how the Kiwi die.
    Do you really believe that Doc would release information about Kiwi deaths through their use of 1080?
    The only reason we know about the Kea at Fox is beacause it was leaked to media. This gross ecocide needs to stop.

    ReplyDelete
  44. for a little disection of thehunting and pest-meat industry attitude to kiwi click on the above video!!!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Although this is hearsay, we have spoken to the father of a man whos son is a south island uncle of a guy we met at the pub and his girl friends neighbour knew this guy who had been on a boat with Clyde and he reckons that well... if you shake the bottle just at the bottom where the worm is you can see forests full of native birds and huge huge native trees like Puriri and Rata and crazey with kea and kokako and saddle back and well...just about every bird most people don't get to see cause they're all chewed to fuckin bits by rats and stoats ..problem is that big industry and hunters want free fire on pigs and deer that get knocked over by 1080 so they pay a bunch of traitors to create fear and misinformation so they can farm our forests for meat and fur....

    is that about right Clydey boy?

    ReplyDelete
  46. you can just about about hear Clydey boy thinking up his next bullshit smoke screen response

    actually I can .....here it comes ........

    ReplyDelete
  47. What does the Ministry for the Environment think about 1080 as a serious environmental contaminant?

    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/air/epi-toxic-review-oct98.pdf

    Review of Environmental
    Performance Indicators for
    Toxic Contaminants in the
    environment – air, water
    and land.

    "For the purposes of this document which focuses on the environment, the definition of toxic contamination has been limited to chemicals or contaminants which adversely effect biological or human systems.

    Toxic contaminants are a now a major category of stress on the ‘natural’ environment largely as a consequence of human activity. It is important to understand that toxic contaminants are not necessarily static in the environment but can move through various states, phases or media and through various trophic levels in an ecosystem. If a contaminant is short-lived it may be broken down before its toxicity can be realised, or if a toxic contaminant is not mobile it is unlikely to be taken up by organisms. However, if the contaminant is stable and mobile it has
    a much greater chance of affecting organisms.

    In certain cases, toxic contaminants that dissolve in fats may be retained for significant periods of time by organisms. Hence toxic contaminants will be subject to bioaccumulation i.e., an increase in concentration from the environment to the organism and biomagnification i.e., the tendency of contaminants to concentrate from one link in a food chain to the next.

    ..........

    3.6 WHAT ARE NEW ZEALAND’S PRIORITY TOXIC
    CONTAMINANTS?
    Identifying the specific prioritisation for toxic contaminants must take into account the toxicity to biological systems, effects on human health, persistence and accumulation, as discussed in previous sections. In addition, their prevalence and usage in New Zealand must be considered.

    There are a number of chemical compounds (specifically manufactured pesticides) which have not been imported or used in New Zealand in large amounts (e.g., Toxaphene and Mirex).

    In contrast, Substance 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) is widely used in New Zealand but is used in only limited amounts in other countries and so does not feature on many existing priority or emission lists used by overseas agencies.

    Page 19
    3.6.6.2 Substance 1080
    This compound has had widespread use in New Zealand for the control of possum. Due to 1080’s high public profile and extensive use throughout New Zealand, this chemical warrants its inclusion on any priority list.


    3.7 DEVELOPING A NEW ZEALAND PRIORITY LIST
    It is necessary to prioritise chemicals to ensure that the monitoring of toxic contaminants in New Zealand is focused to provide information on those contaminants which potentially have the most significant effect on ecosystem or human health."

    So 1080 is considered to be one of a small number of contaminants which potentially has the most significant effect on our ecosystem or human health.

    And no, this is not Clyde speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 2,4 -D
    2,4,5-T
    Captafol
    Roundup
    Paraquat
    DBCP
    Benlate
    Amitrole
    Captan
    Propoxur
    Atrazine
    Endosulfan
    Carbaryl
    Grazon
    Propham
    Fenitrothion
    Diphenylamine
    Lindane
    Malathion

    ReplyDelete
  49. u think Clydye boy's obbseeesion with 1080 with total disregard to the evil toxic crap that is poured over our food is because he's a paid- bought- n- sold ass wipe hand puppet for the hunting and pest-meat industry?

    ReplyDelete
  50. hmmmmm.....

    it does kinda look that way....

    ReplyDelete
  51. Federated Farmers Busts 1080 Myths

    Wednesday, 10 February 2010, 12:55 pm
    Press Release: Federated Farmers

    Federated Farmers Busts 1080 Myths in its Latest Magazine

    In the lead feature of the latest edition of the National Farming Review, currently being posted to Federation members, Federated Farmers has laid down the gauntlet to anti-1080 groups.

    "1080 works but the growing mythology about it doesn't," says Don Nicolson, President of Federated Farmers.

    "The article in the summer edition of the National Farming Review was independently written by ecological journalist Dave Hansford. He makes it very clear that unless we want to kiss our economy and native fauna and flora goodbye, then 1080 is the tool to use.

    "Most importantly, he debunks the lies, half-truths and pseudo science used by 1080 opponents. It seems they are forced into making ever more outrageous claims, so by putting the facts forward, we have given our members the resources to counter with fact.

    "I think anyone who has been into a forest where 1080 is used appreciates how quickly our native ecosystems bounce back once possums, rats, weasels and other pests are removed.

    "For farming, this reduces the threat of bovine tuberculosis and the immense economic problems that come with it. By backing 1080, Federated Farmers stands together with the Department of Conservation, the Animal Health Board and Forest & Bird.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Sorry to have been so long replying - I didn't think it a particularly good article.
    Regarding the bounce back - like how from death does this actually occur?
    It doesn't in reality - one poison drop and you get some recovery after around 4 years judging on what happens in our bush but keep doing these drops and we get little if any recovery - bear in mind also that the rats,stoats etc have a similar bounce back but even they get to very low numbers like the native birds have.
    If the whole lot are left alone, like they were, we would have the vibrant birdlife of 35 years ago and the possums would be a damn nuisance BUT I would put up with them if the birds could come back - UNFORTUNATELY we cannot raise the dead. Are possums the cause of bovine TB - no but in some cases they become part of the chicken- egg effect - infected cattle/deer and infected possums if there a a good number of possums - something which is rare in our area.
    Is the poison unutterably cruel in the manner that it kills?
    Yes and it really does kill indiscriminatly.
    Has it helped lower our farmer herd TB ? Hard to tell really as we seem to have the same general areas of persistent infection regardless of how much 1080 is used and how empty the bush is. We even have persistently infected herds surrounded by uninfected herds.
    Is movement control useful in controlling TB spread?
    Yes it has been very effective and with some more tightening can do even better.
    What are the most common reasons for reinfection with TB in NZ dairy and deer herds for the last few years? According to Penny Fairbrother, scientist working for the AHB for the last 6 years it is the anergic problem.
    What is that? animals that fail to react to the current TB test and remain infectious - undetectable and infectious.
    Could be up to 15% of a herd. Amazingly this is not widely advertised and neither is the fact that most infections over recent years can now be traced by DNA testing to outside areas.
    Why then are we doing 1080 drops to stop TB infection? Habit perhaps? No possums, no TB in herds but drop 1080 anyway.
    It does not make even the slightest sense, is a huge waste of money, is totally offensive to those living and working downstream of drops, apart from the devastation that inevitably follows in the name of farmers, to help farmers increase their exports.
    Well I am a farmer and TB is not an export problem but 1080 residue most certainly is. Of course we must be vigilant and prevent the spread of and eradicate where possible TB but remember everyone in NZ is allowed to eat TB lesioned meat, we don't export it, we pasteurise our milk so no problem there.
    Can heat remove 1080? I am afraid not.
    We have any amount of short term studies regarding the acute effects of 1080 and basically it is well known how the long drawn out and painful death occurs when the animal or bird has eaten a lethal dose. WE HAVE VERY FEW LONG TERM STUDIES OF CONTINUED LOW DOSES EXPOSURE OF 1080 AND WHAT THAT EFFECT MAY BE.
    On the DOC intranet site it is noted that one of the effects is that it is a teratogen - alters embryo & foetus. It is recognised both in California and Australia as having an effect on male fertility. It is known to alter organs size, increase the heart, shrink the testes.tHESE ARE THE HUMAN EFFECTS NOT JUST RATS.
    How much more do we need to know?
    We don't need it, we don't want it and it is time the promoters of the poison took a good hard look at themselves - if they don't like it and they all say that, then stop using it. There really are many other ways of doing everything but first we must clearly understand that blanket poisoning has to stop - the use of such a cruel poison has to stop - the people of New Zealand deserve better.

    ReplyDelete
  53. if Fonterra thought there was a problem they would close down 1080 yesterday!!!

    ReplyDelete
  54. dear Mary Molloy....
    as a farmer you have no credibility to comment on New Zealand ,or our environment.You nd your fellow farmers are participating in the slow motion rape of our country and our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Just a Kiwi girl! What a stupid name for some one who supports DOC and its 1080 drops that kill :KIWI: Let alone every other type of native bird in our National Parks. If you believe 1080 doesnt kill native birds you must be on drugs and in la la land! Try some 1080 your self Kiwi girl and see how you go.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I am gay!

    I'm not only gay, but I love 1080. 1080 is the answer to our country's pest problems. Embrace 1080.

    love BCT xxx

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, I'd like to see some of you - who think dropping four tonnes of pure 1080 per annum over our country is good for either our environment or our clean green image, if you're so smart and smug about how safe it is go and try some for yourselves.
    Charles Eason stated in public at the Wellington Regional Council 1080 briefing in March 2002 "Anyone comparing Compound 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) with naturally occurring fluoroacetate is stupid." Mr Eason also showed us that a mere pencil dot of 1080 powder is enough to kill a human being.

    I walked through a forestry block two days after a 1080 drop because I believed what the GWRC told me, that 1080 was a "safe poison." I soon found out that they were wrong! and I suffered its effects for three years afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  58. New Zealand native flora and fauna are in danger of dissapearing if we don't control the pest introduced by early settlers. Native species are easy prey for hungry cats, rats, possums, stoats, weasels, etc. Shame on you for allowing this to happen to your country, to your taonga. Shame on you for not doing anything to stop the carnage. Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Shame on the previous poster for assuming that not agreeing with 1080 means the graf boys are 'allowing' carnage to happen to your country. If you bothered to read further, you would see that these guys and many others believe in controlling pests, but not using aerial drops of one of the world's most hazardous poisons to do it. Other methods have been proven to be cost-effective.

    ReplyDelete