LETTER: Thank You George Barringer!
To the Editor:
Thank you George Barringer! Thank you for your professional assessment on using Flurodone to control weeds in a public drinking water supply! My background is forestry. I am not a chemist. But my intuition, along with plain common sense, has put me in agreement with you and the Groton Water Commissioners.
I am a big proponent for controlling invasive plants. Maybe SONAR/fluridone was O.K. to put in Lost Lake & Knops Pond. Those ponds sustain high use by humans primarily for scenic and recreational qualities. But Baddacook is a major drinking water source. I agree with George - the benefits of treating this pond for invasive aquatic weeds in this situation do not significantly outweigh the risks.
Depending entirely on what website you read - SONAR/Flurodone sure does sound "safe" for humans at prescribed levels of application to water. But I also found other information supporting George's thoughts. I gleaned some particularly informative information from an article I found, titled Seven Reasons to Avoid Herbicides in Glenmore Lake, March 11, 2008, by Howard Horowitz. This lake is in Florida, but here are a few points from his article:
Flurodone can persist in lake sediments for years.
A breakdown of the product is n-methyl-formamide, a known carcinogen.
Although watermilfoil is highly sensitive at low concentrations of the herbicide, the chemical must remain in the water for 30 - 90 days to be effective - so unless drinking water is shut down for months, herbicide residue will enter the system.
Chlorine used for water treatment can react with residues to create new hazardous organic compounds - which the EPA's own regulatory document admits that this and other 'synergistic effects' are a data gap.
Beyond the possible effects on humans, there are other things (from various sources, including Howard Horowitz's article) to consider:
Fluridone is not very selective and beneficial native plants may be killed along with the target species.
Most floating aquatic weeds are only partially affected by Flurodone and the weed problem will require occasional 'booster' applications.
Killed vegetation simply decays in the lake bottom, causing more nutrient overload and reduced dissolved oxygen in the bottom habitat zone.
There is a lack of thorough studies of the effects of Fluridone on amphibians.
On a more positive note, and closer to our state of Massachusetts, Horowitz lists some alternatives to herbicides:
Manual/mechanical - My own note to insert here: our town uses an aquatic weed harvestor, and although harvesters & rotovators do make an immediate observable reduction of weeds - they also cause fragments to break off, which can spread populations.
SolarBee, a solar-powered device that circulates horizontally to reduce algae & weeds (I do believe I have heard mention of this by someone at a meeting)
Euhrychiopsis weevils - a native insect that feeds on watermilfoil. It is commercially produced by Envirosciences Inc. in conjunction with scientists at Middlebury College in VT. I have heard about this beetle elsewhere - have we tried it in Groton yet?
We all are allowed some choices in our lives. We can choose to eat organic produce when available - or not. We can choose to smoke cigarettes - or not. We can take the elevator - or the stairs. These are our own choices, or our own vices, that affect our own health, our own lives. It could be that there are far worse things already in Baddacook that threaten our health than the risks Fluridone would pose. But we should not be making a decision for others to deliberately add something to the water they drink if we can't prove it is positively completely safe with no long term health effects!
Susan Black (Yeager)
Burntmeadow Rd.
