Another waste of taxpayer’s time and money. You can tell just by looking around this city most people including the city don’t do anything about the weeds anyways.

This will just give my neighbor another excuse to leave those big beautiful purple thistles that he has growing all over his back yard!

Might as well have the city look worse than it already is.

If the ban goes ahead, the City’s motto can be: We have no civic pride and it shows!

So what would be the point of all the hanging baskets and banners along Central St if the base of every lamp post had weeds all around it?

HabsFans Peoples’ eyes would be focused on the banners and flowers instead of the weeds.

Central street is the province’s jurisdiction anyway, not the city’s.

I agree with acrider54…the last thing PG needs to do is make the city look even uglier by letting weeds grow in. Even at UNBC they are going for the ‘natural’ look and the grounds of the university look absolutely horrible; dead, patchy grass everywhere. I understand the desire to limit the use of pesticides, but at this point in Prince George’s development, we need all the chemical help we can get to clean this place up.

It’s impractical for use on large areas and it will kill grass, but a direct squirt of white vinegar (the stuff sold for household cleaning jobs) at the base of weeds (dandelions, thistles etc) will kill them within a few days. I have been doing this during dry weather for years and it works very well. A syringe will work best.

What are other cities doing for weed control?

“The issue has been on the radar for Prince George City Council for several years. In 2008 a presentation was made to Council calling for an all out ban, the call was repeated in 2009, and the most recent presentation was made in April of this year.”

I gather from the above that the presentations were politely listened to and then promptly ignored.

Way to go! It sounds all to familiar!

Science should always trump emotion.

“despite the intensity of arguments in favour of a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides and a general misunderstanding of the risks associated with chemicals, there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a province-wide ban on pesticides for cosmetic use”.

This is funny, pesticides deal with insects, herbicides with plants. About as much reason as that money sucking electric car.

“Science should always trump emotion”

Some of the bans include pesticides and products such as Round Up and Weed and Feed.

The science of the day thought agent orange was safe to use around a military base in the maritimes(and in Vietnam), turns out they were wrong:( The Americans are currently back in Vietnam trying to clean up as it is still causing problems some 40 years later.

The use of PCB in transformers was widespread not too long ago until science proved otherwise.

BPA in plastics is another example of something once thought to be safe .

Google “24D” for another weed killer thought to be safe for everything except weeds.

Just because current research claims something is safe does not necessarily mean it is correct.

ls: “Just because current research claims something is safe does not necessarily mean it is correct. “

A perfect example of an emotional argument.

ls: “The science of the day thought agent orange was safe to use around a military base in the maritimes(and in Vietnam), turns out they were wrong:( The Americans are currently back in Vietnam trying to clean up as it is still causing problems some 40 years later.”

This argument can go both ways.

How many people staunchly held onto the belief that the world was flat, despite science telling them the world was round?

I think there are even people today who still believe the world is flat. ;-)

emotional?

4 example of how the best science of the day was wrong in a big way.

Need a couple more.

thalidomide will really help your morning sickness……aren’t those birth defects cute!

dioxins are safe to release into the water… OOPS

Another thing to factor in is who is funding the research. Do you really trust something that is fully funded by Dow Chemical?

Incorrect seamutt. Pesticides encompass all pest-killing products. Herbicides are plant pesticides, insecticides are insect pesticides. There’s fungicides, rodenticides, you name it.

Having been a trained and certified pesticide applicator and weed control worker for years, I can tell you there are many great alternatives. This article names a few. Propane torch treatment is a great one for the sidewalks.

I’m guessing most of the commenters here don’t have a clue what they are talking about even though they claim to be on the side of ‘science’.

BTW. I quit that line of work. My health wasn’t worth it.

Also, can’t express how happy I am to see Weed and Feed off the shelves!

I think the city should review the flouride in the water situation while they’re at it. Let’s get rid of all the unnecessary toxins.

“Also, can’t express how happy I am to see Weed and Feed off the shelves!”

Yeah, I suspect that many people when asked would say that they are not in favour of such products like weed and feed, however the stuff flew off the shelves every spring.

Talk is cheap, and I suspect that once the sanctimonius get off their computers sipping coffee out of disposable Timmies and Starbuk’s cups their actions are somewhat different.

“Pesticides encompass all pest-killing products”

Pests, eh? Can we get some for this forum …. ;-)

2,-D IS INDISPUTABLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE AND CAUSES NO HARM. RESPONSE TO LONESOME SPARROW. Scientific research shows, as reported through EPA’s and Health Canada’s VAST TOXICOLOGY DATABASE, that NO harm will occur when pest control products like 2,4-D are used according to label directions. The toxicity of 2,4-D is not very high when compared to TABLE SALT. ( See information on web-page http://wp.me/P1jq40-1J8 ) Despite the opposite claims of activists like LONSESOME SPARROW, NO regulatory body in the world classifies 2,4-D as a human carcinogen. 2,4-D has been used for the control of broad-leaved weeds in the Urban Landscape SINCE 1946. 2,4-D has a 65-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD regarding long-term risk to health. 2,4-D is probably THE MOST studied and best understood of ANY chemical … not just pesticide … in existence. Nonetheless, Anti-Pesticide Activists like LONESOME SPARRROW COULD NEVER BE BOTHERED to use the EXTENSIVE TOXICOLOGY DATABASE that is available from either Health Canada or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evidently, these activists prefer to attempt PROFITING from Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION with their own organizations or businesses, at the expense of the Professional Lawn Care Industry. 2,4-D is SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and will CAUSE NO HARM. http://wp.me/P1jq40-1J8 WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G http://pesticidetruths.com/

“So what would be the point of all the hanging baskets and banners along Central St if the base of every lamp post had weeds all around it?”

I guess no one took defensive driving lessons ……

Hanging baskets do not present a driving hazard, so should not be looked at.

If you can clearly see the weeds at the base of the standards, you are looking too close, you should be looking into the distance, just below the horizon.

You should be looking at the general location/frequency of the light standards, however, to make you aware of escape routes in case you have to leave the roadbed to avoid a crash.

Never claimed to be an activist but if random websites are being quoted….

“According to Beyond Pesticides, 2,4-D has been linked to “non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental effects, as well as water contamination and toxicity to aquatic organisms”

If you care to read posts again what I was questioning was that current scientific information might be wrong. JB helped me prove the point, at one time all scientific studies pointed to a flat earth and we know how that one turned out.

I too used to weed and feed every spring and had a running battle with dandelions, till one day thought how futile it was, learned to accept a few weeds. By watering, mulching, topdressing and occasional application of fertilizer the lawn stays healthy.

BTW I always take websites that have “truths” embedded in the title with a grain of salt

“Pests, eh? Can we get some for this forum …. ;-)”, Carefull what you wish for Gus.

Pesticides are banned here in Ottawa and it’s still an absolutely gorgeous environment.

The dandelions are still here, but the city keeps up with the mowing in the Spring and you don’t really notice them. Even then, I don’t think it really matters. The big thing to me is the fact that the trees are lush, the pathways are maintained, flowers are planted, garbage is actually picked up and there aren’t piles of dirt and gravel all over the place. The other thing I noticed out here is the fact that virtually EVERY pet owner out here cleans up after their dog when taking it for a walk.

It’s so much more than just having grass, it’s the overall approach to the appearance of the city and the fact that people want to see it kept clean.

I don’t care what the city uses to control weeds. If they use herbicide, steam, vinigar, or a propane torch – Just do something! Compared even to Quesnel we look like a second rate town.

As for yet another George Orwell style of self righteous dictatorship invading yet another aspect of our lives by pulling herbicide off the shelves without so much as a vote on the matter; why would that bother me?!

“Pesticides are banned here in Ottawa and it’s still an absolutely gorgeous environment” .. now you know where a large percetage of our tax dollars go. I am sure Ottawa, our nations capital, gets a far bigger chunk of the change than any other city in Canada.

Heaven forbid if people have emotions Johnnyboy. We don’t all want to be automatons, this explains a lot. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Thanks once again for completely missing the point, But.

“Now you know where a large percetage of our tax dollars go. I am sure Ottawa, our nations capital, gets a far bigger chunk of the change than any other city in Canada”

I’m sure that would hold true when it comes to downtown and the areas under control of the NCC (National Capital Commission), but I doubt it is the case for the outlying areas. I would imagine the fact that property taxes are 30%-40% higher than what you would pay in PG could have something to do with it . . .

We must keep acting to clean up and keep clean our environment (air, soil, water and food) as science identifies chemicals which were pronounced safe by eminent health authorities for decades until they had to eat crow and pronounce that they were in fact not! Lead in paint and gasoline, asbestos, DDT, tobacco smoke…there is a very long list! Obviously governments hate to ban things to the degree that they can no longer be sold in stores – it interferes with business and so-called free enterprise!

They say that they leave it up to the consumer but consumers are not always suffiently informed to make safe choices, relying on governments to protect them instead!

People who do not bring emotions into discussions are seen as ideal citizens by many governments! They just obey, don’t ask questions, don’t insist on their personal rights, thereby allowing the status quo to persist until things finally come crashing down.

Everything government does is just fine! Way to go! Sheeple they are called!

Faxman, I couldn’t agree more abou the fluoride: It’s useless and harmful!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNdelK1GTm4

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) does not support fluoridation of drinking water for the following reasons.

1) The decline in caries in communities that are fluoridated has been highly significant — but so has the decline that has occurred in non-fluoridated communities. There has, in fact, been a general decline in dental caries throughout the Western world, and the decline in fluoridated cities has not exceeded that in non-fluoridated
communities. For example, BC drinking water is 95% non-fluoridated, whereas drinking water in Alberta is 75% fluoridated; yet the two provinces have similar rates of caries. Furthermore, Europe is 98% non-fluoridated, but global European dental health is generally equivalent to or better than that in North America.

Whatever the reason for the decline in dental caries, it can not be concluded that it is the result of drinking water fluoridation.

2) The incidence of toxic effects in humans from fluoridation may well have been underestimated. The most serious potential association is with osteosarcoma in boys, which appears to have been loosely associated with age of exposure to fluoride. It is true that the CDC has (as has the original researcher) acknowledged that current data are tentative, but a further larger-scale study is pending from the Harvard School of Dentistry. At the very least, such data are grounds for caution.

3) Animal studies have shown a wide range of adverse effects associated with fluoride. It has been shown to be a potential immunotoxin, embryotoxin, neurotoxin and harmful to bony tissues, including both dental and ordinary bone. In addition, it can damage (inhibit) thyroid function in several species, including humans. Its effect on ecosystem balance has been little researched, but is unlikely to be positive.

4) The intake of fluoride from drinking water is uncontrolled, and can lead to dental fluorosis in children who are inclined to drink large amounts of water. Both natural and artificially fluoridated water can cause this effect, which is, of course, simply a visible representation of an effect on the entire bony skeleton. The cost of repairing teeth damaged by fluorosis is not trivial; moderate to severe effects can require $15,000 or more in dental fees.

It seems clear that a) fluoridation is unlikely to be the cause of the decline in caries in Europe and North America b) the potential for adverse effects is real, and c) current evidence points in the direction of caution. Over the last decade, recommendations with respect to acceptable fluoride exposure have steadily declined, and cautions have increased. Any dental benefit that may accrue from fluoride exposure is fully achieved by controlled topical application of fluoride compounds by trained dental professionals, not by fluoride ingestion. On the basis of this “weight of evidence” we believe that fluoridation of drinking water is scientifically untenable, and should not be part of a public health initiative or program.