July 2006: Tasmanian Government ignores spray drift mitigation and risk assessments. It's business as usual.
See: This is a Perversion
Spray Drift - General Comments
Spray drift across countries
Pesticide drift in the atmosphere
High volatility chemicals and spray drift
Extensive drift - low volatility chemicals
A 10 kilometre no-spray zone is insufficient
Use of helicopters further increases spray drift
Spray drift from aerial applications by the 'forest' industry in Tasmania
Spray drift and vapour transport over KILOMETRES. Cotton regions of New South Wales.
Pesticide Transport in Rainwater
'Toxic Wind'. Tracing a pesticide from Mississippi to the Great Lakes
Tracing ground-applied pesticides
Yea, Victoria. 1988
When agricultural chemicals are sprayed over crops (including tree canopies) they can drift many times the distance of the notional 'exclusion' or 'no spray'
zone. Volatile chemicals such as 24-D have been known to drift a staggering 60 kilometres from source.
The extent of spray drift is affected by many factors, from the way the chemical is formulated to the prevailing weather. Guidlelines are issued to sprayers
yet these dangerous chemicals are applied under far from optimum conditions as a rule in Tasmania. "Why? Usually because the pilot is under commercial
pressure to follow the grower's instructions. If he refuses, someone else will get the job. And the grower wants the crop sprayed immediately a bug is detected -
waiting 24 hours for the wind to ease might see half his crop ruined. The real problem again lies with the legislation, which does not place any responsibility for
drift on the farmer who commissions a spray job."
(Reference: Radio National, Ockam's Razor
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s32.htm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mariann Lloyd-Smith: Mainly because once you get into the air, you're going to get drift. Certainly in New South Wales they looked at some
of the drift factors for a chemical called endosulphan, and they were looking at saying about 14 to 15 kilometres away from the place of
application you could expect to find these chemicals. Now that's a very, very modest estimate, and in some of the international work,
there's been suggestions that some chemicals, once they're in the atmosphere, will move across continents, and certainly atrazine is
one of those chemicals. So just because it's sprayed on one place, it certainly doesn't stay there, and it can move across the country,
across a council area, across a farm, across a region. So it is very worrying to see these being aerially sprayed....."
(Reference: Australian Broadcasting Commission's 'Earthbeat',24 July 2004 - 'Chemical Concern'. Speaker - Marian Lloyd-Smith from the Australian
Toxics Network)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s1160341.htm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“..The appearance and subsequent behaviour of pesticides in the atmosphere are complex processes and the concentrations found depend on several variables
such as their volatility, photostability, method of application and extent of use. Whilst volatility of pesticides can be linked to their Henry's Law constant this is
very much a simplification since it is also influenced by the surfaces treated, e.g. soil or leaves, and by the extent to which aerosols are formed during the
application. The disappearance of pesticides from the atmosphere is due to hydrolysis, indirect photolysis via OH· radicals and to deposition in rain. Pesticides
which are resistant to hydrolysis and photolysis can be transported over great distances, for example, organochlorine insecticides have been detected in the
Arctic regions…”
Reference:
Pure & Applied Chemistry - Volume 71 Issue 7 Page 1359 - July 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“… the infamous defoliant 24-D has drifted a staggering 60 kilometres from the source…"
Reference:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s32.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Formulations with low volatility can drift [even] further than volatile formulations under certain conditions ie low humidity, high winds, inversion conditions -
water evaporates from droplets leaving herbicide particles which have negligible mass, allowing them to float for tens of kilometres. "
Reference:
‘Chemical Industry News’ Quarterly Newsletter of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Victoria. Issue Number 43. Spring 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A no-spray zone with a 10-kilometre radius is considered a reasonable distance by doctors experienced in the field. Nevertheless, farmers can and do claim
damage from spray drift 15 to 20 kilometres away causing holes in their crops and death to farm animals. .."
Reference:
NSW Legislative Council Hansard Full Day Transcript. Tuesday 22 March 2005
NOXIOUS WEEDS AMENDMENT BILL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The practice of aerial spraying was identified as hazardous by a Federal House of Representatives Committee in 1982. It was further identified as hazardous,
particularly when using helicopters, by a Federal Senate Committee in 1990. The Senate Committee noted that no notice appeared to have been taken of the
previous findings. The 1990 Senate Committee recommended that if their recommendations were not adopted in full then the practice should be phased out or
banned.
… the sections of relevance to the Tasmanian situation relate to submissions regarding Buffer Zones and the Use of Helicopters on pages 214 and 215 of the
report.
… Page 215.
Use of Helicopters
# A submission to the Committee recommended that the use of fixed wing aircraft should be banned and that only helicopters should be used for aerial
spraying.
# Other evidence provided to the Committee suggested that there was a greater likelihood of spray drift problems from the use of helicopters than from
fixed wing aircraft currently in use. When asked why helicopters were not used in the cotton industry, Mr Ralph Schulze, Rural Director, Australian
Cotton Foundation, stated:
# The cost of flying and the fact that there is a down-draught. There has been work done at the Queensland Agricultural College on this particular subject.
The loss to the atmosphere, behind a helicopter, for the type of spraying we want to do can be beyond the level of acceptance. In discussing this issue,
Mr James Watt, a member of the AAAA, explained that down-draught from helicopters could not be controlled to the same extent as it was from fixed
wing aircraft. Mr Watt observed:
In agricultural flying the only way that helicopters can do the job properly is to fly as fast as they can forward and in effect behave much the same as a fixed
wing aircraft.
With respect to buffer zones no submissions were made to suggest that they are not required. The inclusion of buffer zones around areas to be sprayed by
aircraft was supported by representatives of agriculture and by the NSW State Pollution Control Commission....."
Reference: 'Environmental Problems Georges Bay'.Dr Marcus Scammell. 2004.Tasmania
http://www.tfic.com.au/scammell_report_07.04.htm
Quoting from the Federal House of Representatives Committee of 1982 and the Report of the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary
Chemicals in Australia, July 1990, ISBN 0644 11869 5, p. 215
"Davies, Cook and Barton (1994) undertook an extensive survey of Tasmanian streams downstream of plantations and downstream of food crops, between
1989 and 1992. They took a total of 174 water samples to assess contamination downstream of plantations and 118 samples to assess contamination downstream
of food crops (predominantly peas). Their figures suggest that about 1 tonne of triazine herbicides (e.g. atrazine or simazine) treats approximately 600 ha
of plantation, with an equivalent amount treating every 300 ha of food crops. The application method for plantations is via aerial spraying compared with
ground-based (eg tractor) methods for food crops. Despite the fact that twice the tonnage of herbicides are applied per hectare of food crop, none of the 118
stream samples were at concentrations reported to have adverse impacts on biota. In streams within plantations, they found 20% of water samples were
contaminated at concentrations reported to cause sub-lethal impacts on biota and that contamination of streams correlated with rainfall and with the day of
application for plantations only".
As cited from: A Case Study - St Helens. 'Community Monitoring in St Helens, Environmental and human health problems, Georges Bay, Tasmania'
aerial_spray.pdf
"..There is community and government concern over the detection of pesticides, particularly endosulfan, in rivers and cattle in the cotton-growing regions of
New South Wales. For contamination to occur, the pesticide needs to be transported from the site of application to the receptor site. The pathways by which
such transport can occur were investigated in the recently completed research and development program 'Minimising the Impact of Pesticides in the Riverine
Environment' (Schofield et al, 1999). Within this program a modelling study (Raupach et al, 1999a,b) identified and quantified major pathways: 1. spray drift;
2. vapour transport; 3. dust transport (all airborne pathways) and 4. runoff (a waterborne pathway). The major findings included (1.) spray drift, vapour
transport and runoff are all significant pathways for transport over distances of KILOMETRES; (2) dust transport is less significant for transport over these
distances, but can be significant for shorter range on-farm transport; (3) spray drift and vapour transport both contribute low level but nearly continuous inputs
of endosulfan to the riverine environment during spray season in a large cotton-growing area, whereas runoff provides occasional but higher inputs. These
studies also have implications for transport to pastures and thence to cattle, for which airborne pathways are likely to be dominant transport routes. In
summary, the aerial transport and deposition of spray droplets and dust is a significant pathway for the movement of agricultural chemicals, with potential
adverse effects on sensitive areas such as riverine environments or grazing land to produce cattle for both domestic and international human consumption..."
Reference:
http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/technical99/tr47-99.pdf
CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 1666, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
[email protected]
Department of Land and Water Conservation, PO Box 462, Gunnedah, NSW, Australia 2380. Email: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EM/article.asp?doi=b312558k
Paper. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 2004, 6(3), 182 - 190. DOI: 10.1039/b312558k
Pesticides in rainwater in Flanders, Belgium: results from the monitoring program 1997-2001
D. Quaghebeur, B. De Smet, E. De Wulf and W. Steurbaut
In 1997 the Flemish Environmental Agency (FEA) started a monitoring program "Pesticides in Rain in Flanders, Belgium". The original purpose
of the monitoring program was to examine the possible occurrence of dichlorvos in rainwater and subsequent deposition. However, it was
thought necessary from the beginning to monitor a wide range of pesticides. During the first year some 62 pesticides and metabolites and
9 polychlorinated biphenyls, were monitored at 4 locations. Nowadays the monitoring program has grown up to more than 100 pesticides and
metabolites and 11 polychlorinated biphenyls examined at 8 different locations. Rainwater is collected continuously and samples are examined
for pesticides and PCB's on a weekly basis. In agreement with other European studies pesticides are found in rainwater samples during times
of application. Pesticides which are most frequently detected are a--endosulfan and endosulfan sulfate, ?-HCH (lindane), dichlorvos,
atrazine, diuron, DNOC, glyphosate and AMPA and isoproturon. Furthermore it was seen that most pesticides showed a deposition pattern related to
local spraying operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Scientists have tracked one pesticide from its application over Mississippi cotton fields 1,500 kilometres to the Great Lakes."
Source: Brown, Michael H. 'Toxic Wind'. Discover, vol 8, no 11, November 1987, pp 42-9. As cited in 'Chemical Crisis - One Woman's Story, Humanity's Future'
written by Diana Crumpler, 1994. Scribe Publication Pty Ltd, Newham Victoria, Australia. ISBN 0 908011 25 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Flourescent tracers indicate that even ground-applied pesticides can drift for six kilometres. This finding in no way implies that six kilometres is the drift limit; it is
merely the furthest point tested in one survey."
Source: Grier, Norma. 'Why pesticide spraying means drift.' JPR, vol 7, no 4, 1988, pp 6-9. As cited in 'Chemical Crisis,
One Woman's Story. Humanity's Future?' Diana Crumpler, 1994. Scribe Publication Pty Ltd, Newham Victoria, Australia. ISBN 0 908011 25 3.
"...in the Yea district, drift from an illegal aerial application in 1988 of a product containing the pesticides paraquat and diquat damaged vegetation over an area
of 100 square kilometres."
Source: 'Spray drift controversy: chemical not registered for aerial use.' Goulburn and Marray Valley Country News, 19 July 1988. As cited in 'Chemical Crisis,
One Woman's Story. Humanity's Future?' Diana Crumpler, 1994. Scribe Publication Pty Ltd, Newham Victoria, Australia. ISBN 0 908011 25 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------