The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Technical Writing · Exposition & Argumentation · Non-fiction Creative Essays · Grammar and Usage of Standard English · The Structure of English · Analysis of Shakespeare
Analysis of Literary Language · Advanced Professional Papers · The History of the English Language · First Internship: Tutoring in a Writing Workshop · Second Internship: Advanced Instruction: Tutoring Writing
Visual Literacy Seminar (A First Course in Methodology) · Theories of Communication & Technology (A Second Course in Methodology) · Language in Society (A Third Course in Methodology) · The Writer's Guild
UMBC'S Conservative Newspaper: "The Retriever's Right Eye" · UMBC'S University Newspaper: "The Retriever Weekly" · Introduction to Journalism · Feature Writing
Science Writing Paper 1 · Science Writing Paper 2 · Science Writing Paper 3
Observation Journal · Gender Language in Science Writing · The Status Quo of Science: A Presentation
Weekly Responses to Reading Assignments and Responses to Peer Responses
Culminating assignment has two parts:
1) A 20 page scientific article for a fictitious online science publication, “Ethical Behavior and Scientific Honesty in Environmental Decisions.”
2) A 3-5 page print adaptation of the article for a third grade reader.
Online science article option two:
1) Pursuing an environmental topic, you will use Refuge and Silent Spring as the primary texts to write a science article for a well-educated, concerned reader.
2) The article on some ethical aspect of environmental issues, should be informative and persuasive and may be argument as well.
3) As the publication is online, consider the wide, multicultural audience you will address as well as the visual expectations, layout, and specifications of an online publication.
4) You are required to use a minimum of 12 sources, including the course texts.
5) Use APA citation form for your annotated bibliography.
Print adaptation:
1) The 3-5 page adaptation, on the same topic, for a third grade print publication will pay special attention to the shifts in audience, purpose, content, and form.
To: ENGL383
From: Christopher Paul
Subject: Online Environmental Science Article
Date: November 25, 2003
Background:
Mankind continually attempts to control nature with technology without fully understanding the complexities of her ecosystems or understanding nature itself. We continually attempt to enforce our whim on nature through the use of pesticides, water flow control projects such as dams, canals and gates and continually we end up redoing the entire effort because of our limited understanding of nature. We continue to enforce, control, subdue, and push nature to succumb to our wishes only to find that nature has a mind of her own and she will not be enslaved. Nature only wishes for freedom in her own affairs. One has to look no further than their own front or backyard to observe the constant battle we wage against nature to remove dandelions from our manicured lawns. Most times we take the easy way out and dump down chemicals, when there are manual and organic alternatives which are environmentally friendly and in harmony with nature.
Subject:
The topic of the paper is to demonstrate how a gender war is being waged between technology (representing the masculine) versus nature (representing the feminine) and that is a conflict of one entity (Technology) attempting to assert its will upon another entity (Nature) through the examination of the battle of mankind versus the dandelion within our own backyards.
Purpose:
The purpose of this paper is to introduce to a community that enjoys dabbling in science a viewpoint which can be supported by the use of critical thinking, logic, and science that demonstrates an oppression of wills is being waged against nature and that when observed from the position of being a gender war, the problem and the solution becomes apparently clear.
Problem Statement:
Why is it that in this country every season, we must go out and remove every dandelion that exists on our property? What is the problem we have with allowing nature to do what she wants to do without our interference? Why must man attempt to control nature through the use of technology without considering nature's desire and right to equality and freedom within her own affairs and that she may not desire succumb to a Master/Servant relationship as man would like to exert upon her?
Proposed Solution:
My proposed solution is to present alternatives to dandelion control for those who still feel compelled to remove dandelions or to accept a new approach to gardening called, "You're on your own."
Recommended Solution:
Resolution to solving the problem would be an ongoing process which would entail getting the word out at the grassroots level and building from there. This would be done by displaying the information on my web site and would be accessible through most popular search engines.
Scope:
The scope of task will take four weeks in research, composition, composing, image selection, statistical analysis and editing.
· Hours of research = 40
· Cost: $90 x 40hrs. = $3600
· There will be no surveying or collection of samples.
· Images will currently include three.
· All editing will be done by the author
Methods:
The primary research methods will consist of utilizing articles, journals, and web sites. There will be no secondary research methods.
The targeted audience of paper four is a college educated audience which may not have a background within the sciences or technology. This is an audience that enjoys dabbling in science and technology as a hobbyist, but is not necessarily interested in pursuing a degree within the sciences. Many times this audience has a distain for mathematics which prevents them from pursuing degrees in the sciences.
Many times they already have formal technical backgrounds from high school, trade schools, two year colleges, or related work experience and are accustomed to a "hands-on" approach with the world. This audience enjoys thinking, will not tolerate being talked down to, but on the other hand, if the article is too esoterically written, the reader will just click away to some other article which requires less thought. The premise of my article is highly esoteric so the challenge for me as the author will be in refraining from alienating my audience either by speaking above their heads or talking down to them.
Background/Introduction:
Mankind continually attempts to control nature with technology without fully understanding the complexities of her ecosystems or understanding nature itself. We continually attempt to enforce our whim on nature through the use of pesticides, water flow control projects such as dams, canals and gates and continually we end up redoing the entire effort because of our limited understanding of nature. We continue to enforce, control, subdue, and push nature to succumb to our wishes only to find that nature has a mind of her own and she will not be enslaved. Nature only wishes for freedom in her own affairs. One has to look no further than their own backyard to observe the constant war we wage against nature to remove dandelions from our finely manicured lawns. Most times we take the easy way out and dump down some chemicals thereby slaying the enemy weed. In the not so famous words of my college history teacher, Robert Johnson, “It’s like trying to fight a war against Communist China; they’ll bleed all over you just by their sheer number of people.” And so year after year, every spring we go out and lay down the chemicals to kill the dandelions, only for them to return next year. You can’t possibly annihilate them all as their demon seed is carried by the wind, on animal fur, bird’s feathers, even by us on our clothes. There will always be more of them than there are of us. This is nature’s grand scheme of things; to ensure that her creation, the dandelion, continues to survive and prosper. Nature is quite wise in her affairs. She does not allow plants, insects or animals to exist without a purpose; otherwise a species would already be extinct. When one understands this, one may ask, “So what are dandelions purposes? What can we do with them? Why is it that man insists on controlling nature, especially dandelions? Where did this obsession originate from?”
There are other environmentally friendly alternatives to dandelion population control such as manual removal and organic means that are in harmony with nature. Okay, okay, so now you’re saying to yourself, “Here we go again just the same old song from some tie-died t-shirt wearin’, long haired, hippie wanna-be, pinko faggot from the 70’s, strummin’ on his acoustic guitar singin’ anti-war protest songs and telling us how we should get behind the cause of saving stupid dandelions.” I tell you my friend; this is only the micro-focus of a much larger scale of war we wage. We wage a gender war with our masculine Technology expecting Mother Nature to succumb to our perverted wishes. The point that we miss is maybe she doesn’t want to fight. Maybe Nature just wants to co-exist peacefully with us and does not wish to be protected or to be enslaved. Maybe, just maybe, Nature just wants to have her way with her own affairs because she knows better than we do how all the interdependencies work and fuel each other.
Another question is, by using organic methods to keep the dandelion population down, is this not just an alternative form of controlling nature when in all honesty the correct thing to do would be to walk into you backyard and shout, “You’re on your own!” What is the problem with mankind’s distain for the color yellow anyway? No I don’t think it has anything to do with yellow bellied sidewinders or with a sign of cowardice. So let’s look into this further.
Where does this obsession with controlling nature begin?
As far as we can tell, the act of creating gardens extends back to the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans who each had their own characteristic garden designs, but were nothing like what we see today in geometric layout and symmetry. "The Italians are credited with having created this art form during the Renaissance period. The architects of the time saw the outdoor landscape as an extension of the building and not the other way around." (“Landscape,” 2003) "In the 17th century André le Nôtre, influenced by the Italian Renaissance, created gardens at Versailles that utilized unified compartmentalized garden beds and was marked by a ruthlessly logical extension of practices that had evolved in Italy. By the 18th century this French cultural dominance could be seen all over Europe such as Russia, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Spain." (“Landscape,” 2003; “Garden and Landscape,” 2003) Sometime afterwards, England adopted a version of the French geometric design of gardens, but placed emphasis on English grass lawns and gravel walks. Hence, it’s old Mother England who contributed to us this concept of vast spreads of highly manicured green grass lawns.
This is speculation, but the concept of these vast green lawns was probably a statement of affluence and wealth in England. It would take great financial resources and manpower to keep such stretches of green lawn dandelion free. The common man, if he was even able to afford even a small property, more than likely would have been filled with dandelions, because it would not be economically feasible for the land owner to have them removed by a laborer.
End Pre-write
Every spring mankind gears up to meet the enemy on the frontlines of our manicured lawns and begins to wage war with nature by laying down chemical compounds to slaughter the dreaded dandelion. Year after year, the dandelions return and year after year we go out to meet the enemy face to face with the same objective; to remove the dreaded yellow scourge from our manicured lawns. There are alternatives such as organic gardening, but are not these alternatives on a microcosmic level simply mankind's sick desire for power and ability to exercise control over something, mainly nature? Why can't we just get along?
Mankind continually attempts to control nature with technology without fully understanding the complexities of her ecosystems. We attempt to enforce our whim on nature through the use of pesticides and herbicides. Today, one herbicide is in fashion due to its ability to selectively eliminate one particular weed. But come tomorrow, it’s banned from use because it's harmful nature to mankind and nature was not clearly understood. We continue to enforce, control, subdue, and attempt to beat nature to succumbing to our wishes only to find that she has a mind of her own. Nature will not be enslaved and only wishes for freedom in her own affairs.
We have to look no further than their own backyards to observe the war we wage against nature to remove dandelions from our finely manicured lawns. Most times, we take the easy way out and dump down pounds of herbicides, in order to remove the yellow flowering weed. As a springtime ritual, year after year, we lay down herbicides to remove dandelions, only for them to return next year. You can’t possibly remove them all as their seed is carried by the wind, on animal fur, bird’s feathers, even by us on our clothes. There will always be more of them than there are of us. This is nature’s grand scheme of things; to ensure that her creation, the dandelion, continues to survive and prosper. Nature is quite wise in her affairs. She does not allow plants, insects or animals to exist without a purpose; otherwise a species would be extinct or would have never existed in the first place. When one comes to understand this, one may ask, “What purpose do dandelions serve? What can we do with them? Why is it that man insists on removing dandelions? Where did our obsession with removing dandelions originate?”
Other alternatives exist to dandelion removal that are environmentally friendly such as manual removal and organic means by planting grasses other than Kentucky blue grass. But is not organic methods of dandelion control still just another means of controlling nature when, in all honesty, the correct thing to do would be to walk into you backyard and shout, “You’re on your own!” What is the problem with mankind’s distain for the color yellow anyway?
Creating and nurturing gardens goes back to the Egyptian, Greek and Roman civilizations each of whom had their own characteristic garden designs. They were nothing like what we see today in geometric design, symmetry and layout. "The Italians are credited with having created this art form during the Renaissance period. The Renaissance period has also been cited by historians as the first period in time when man makes full fledged attempts to control nature. The architects of the time saw the outdoor landscape as an extension of the building, not the other way around." (“Landscape,” 2003) "In the 17th century, André le Nôtre, influenced by the Italian Renaissance, created gardens at Versailles, France, that utilized unified compartmentalized garden beds and was marked by a ruthlessly logical extension of practices that had evolved in Italy. By the 18th century, this French cultural dominance could be seen all over Europe in regions such as Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, and the Netherlands." (“Landscape,” 2003; “Garden and Landscape,” 2003) Sometime afterwards, "England adopted a version of the French geometric designing of gardens, but placed emphasis on grass lawns and gravel walks." (“Landscape,” 2003; “Garden and Landscape,” 2003) Hence, it is England who came up with the concept of vast spreads of highly manicured green grass lawns.
This next idea is speculation on the author’s part; the concept of vast green lawns was probably a statement of affluence and wealth in England. It would take great financial resources and manpower to keep such stretches of green lawn dandelion free. The common man probably built a home on top of the natural setting of the landscape filled with dandelions. It would not have been economically feasible for the landowner to have them removed by a laborer. Such a person was probably a laborer himself, a farmer, and had much better things to do other than worry about dandelions covering the lawn. His lifestyle of living in harmony with nature was based on necessity and not in a philosophical ideology. He was probably too busy farming with no time to worry about dandelions. His concerns were feeding the pigs, milking cows, and taking care of other farm chores. The last thing on his mind was dandelions. Hence back to the philosophy of, “Me? Control nature? I’m a farmer damn it, not a bloody gardener!”
Those who were more affluent could afford to hire groundkeepers. The groundkeeper was like the rest of the staff on the estate. He was given room and board and a few shillings per week for his labors. It would have been his job to maintain the grounds. His duties would have included trimming, weeding, removing trees, branches, and maintaining the flowerbeds. When he removed dandelions, it was probably on his hands and knees, removing them one at a time. This is where we probably got this idea of a perfectly green patch of grass. A question that comes to mind is, other than a dandelion being a weed, what are dandelions?
The dandelion or ‘Taraxacum officinale,’ as it is known in scientific circles is of the "Asterales order of plants and has over 20,000 cousins, many of whose names we are familiar with." (“Asterales,” 2003) "Plants such as daisies, marigolds, black-eyed Susan’s, globe thistles, strawflowers, sunflowers, which are a native plant of the United States, and even lettuce (yes, the stuff salads are made of) are all part of the same order of plants." (“Asterales,” 2003)
Dandelions are a perennial herb native to the Eurasian continent. "The fossil record estimates that this plant existed since the end of the Oligocene Epoch, some 25 to 30 million years ago." (“Asterales,” 2003) Their procreation stage is when its yellow flower changes form to the dreaded round, white bristle that looks like a fragile cotton ball and disintegrates when one blows on it. People who desire perfectly green lawns dread this stage of the dandelion's growth. The reason is the dandelion has reached its reproductive stage or its seed stage. Dandelions depend primarily on the wind carrying their seed in order to ensure the continuation of the species. According to Cowens, "The hair-like parts of the seed catch breezes in the same way boat sails or parachutes do. The seeds are very lightweight and are shaped so breezes can cause them to break away from the weed and be carried great distances." (2002, 38) Cowens continues, "When these parachutes finally land, their rough edges grab something helping the seeds to stay anchored to the soil. Each dandelion seed ball contains hundreds of seeds, and each seed can be a new plant." (2002, 38) This is why a person who so desires a dandelion free, green lawn, hates the neighbor who subscribes to the “You’re on your own!” approach to gardening and groundskeeping.
Knowing that the dandelion is a native plant to the Eurasian continent how is it that it got to the America’s? For those who subscribe to the theory that Leaf Erickson and the Vikings were the first to arrive, then it would have been carried over by them. For those who subscribe to the theory that Christopher Columbus was the first European to set foot on the continent of the Americas, then it was he and his men who accidentally brought the dandelion seed over. H. Baker gives credit to the Columbians (which would include Christopher Columbus) as having discovered the Americas and finds them responsible for accidentally transporting weeds only native on the Old World continent to the New World. (1974, 3) Regardless of who arrived in the Americas first, the dandelion seed found itself making a transcontinental trip and found itself in a new home in the Americas. Due to the nature of dandelion seeds, they can cling onto almost anything; people’s clothes, animal fur, furniture, canvas bags, just about anything on the ship. Once here in the America’s they found fertile soil and plenty of sunlight in which to grow. And grow they did. It was not until after the end of World War II that dandelion removal became fashionable. As time went on, it became an obsession.
Before the twentieth century, in order to not kill the grass, the only method to remove dandelions was physically covering the lawn on hands and knees and pulling them up by the roots. “As early as 1900, agriculturists began advocating the use of compounds such as lead arsenate for the control of unwanted vegetation.” (“Weed,” 2003) "The other method used was salts of acids to act as soil sterilants. The drawback to this method was it would kill all plant growth. The soil would be rendered useless until such time that the chemical had been leached out by rain. The problem with these methods was the chemicals used were not selective in what they killed." (Hildebrand, 1946, 466) The other problem that occurred was the chemicals would find their way into the underground water aquifers poisoning water supplies. It is only in the later half of the twentieth century that we now understand this. People were not thinking in these terms back in the earlier part of the twentieth century. What was important at that time was to remove the weeds that produced a drain on cash crops. According to W. W. Robbins, as cited by E. M. Hildebrand, “the search for a chemical that would selectively kill weeds began between the years 1890 and 1905.” (Hildebrand, 1946, 466) At this time a concentrated iron-sulfate solution was successfully used against weeds for many years in Europe and America with some success.
1938 marks the first time in American history an easy to use chemical herbicide appears on the market. “Sinox, sodium-dinitro-ortho-cresylate, a coal tar derivative in the form of a yellow dye, was first used in France in 1933. Introduced to the United States in 1938, it was used as a herbicidal spray.” (Hildebrand, 1946, 466) What made it attractive was ease of application and cost. Sinox was mixed in a concentration of “one gallon of Sinox to 120 gallons of water. To successfully remove dandelions, 80 to 100 gallons of the mixture would have to be applied to each acre of land.” (Hildebrand, 1946, 466) Hildebrand also claims that oils, such as kerosene, were also used during this time period.
In 1944, a collaborative effort creates 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) which is hailed as a monumental discovery in the control of weeds. "Credit for the original discovery of the chemical goes to Zimmerman and Hitchcock and methods of handling it in work with plants, goes to Mitchell and Hammer." (Hildebrand, 1946, 466) What is monumental about this chemical is that instead of operating on the principle of caustic action or poisoning, 2,4-D operates on the principle of growth regulation and opens the promise of a new future. In other words, “2,4-D is a synthetic plant hormone that destroys weeds by causing uncontrolled growth.” (“Weeds,” 2003)
Why is this so monumental? Man now had a way to kill more weeds at a lower cost. Previously, Sinox was mixed in gallons. With the advent of 2,4-D, one only needed 1,000 to 5,000 ppm (parts per million) to do the same job. This was a tremendous cost savings in regard to the amount of chemical necessary and in terms of application and delivery of the herbicide.
In 1946, Marth and Mitchell conducted a study to determine if there was a concentration level that would eventually become toxic to Kentucky blue grass. In their report, they describe the experiment conducted with the poison. “Early reports on the use of as 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid as a selective herbicide for killing weeds in lawns and other grassy areas have shown that such common pests as dandelions can be readily cleared by spraying the infested area with a mixture of this chemical.” (Marth and Mitchell, 1946, 77-78) Marth and Mitchell continue to say, “the presence of numerous weed seeds in the soil, as well as those that may be blown in from bordering areas, constitute a continual threat of re-infestation. Of further concern may be the possible accumulative effect of the chemical on lawn grasses that may result from repeated use of the herbicide in a given area.” (Marth and Mitchell, 1946, 77-78)
Interesting to note is the fact that Marth and Mitchell in their studies only focused on the possibility of accidentally killing the Kentucky blue grass. The killing of animals, insects, and the affect on humans due to improper use of the 2,4-D, or repeated usage of the chemical seeping into drinking water were not concerns at the time. All that is important is killing the dandelions. Marth and Mitchell's choice of words are also interesting to note. Examining the passage, “constitutes a continual threat,” we find there is a war mentality alluded to in their choice of words. A war waged against the dandelion. In their discussion of determining safe concentrations and duration between application periods, Marth and Mitchell state, "Older plantain plants were completely eradicated by a single application of the 1,000 ppm spray."(Marth and Mitchell, 1946, 77-78) The word "eradicate" is synonymous with the word “annihilate.” Both words are associated with acts of war. Later in the paper, Marth and Mitchell use the word “eradicate” again, citing the results they viewed from continued application of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Because 2,4-D was found to be an inexpensive form of dandelion control, it became widely available on the open market in 1946. It was offered in 30 different preparations and methods of application ranging from powders, to liquids, to pastes, to tablets, and also in aerosol canisters.
In 1962, Rachel Carson speculated on the possible cause and effect of 2,4-D on the environment in her publication, “Silent Spring.” Carson states on pages 77 and 78, that controversy existed as to whether 2,4-D, was toxic or not. During the early 60’s, evidence was inconclusive, but Carson did cite the observed effects of animals and humans who came into contact with the herbicide. “People spraying their lawns with 2,4-D who have become very wet with the spray occasionally develop severe neuritis and even paralysis. Although such incidents are uncommon, medical authorities advise caution in the use of such compounds.”(Carson, 1962, 76) “2,4-D had had been shown experimentally to disturb the basic physiological process of respiration in the cell, and to imitate X-rays in damaging chromosomes. Studies during this time period also indicted that 2,4-D may be the cause of the disturbance of reproduction cycles in birds far below the levels that would cause death.” (Carson, 1962, 76)
According to Carson, studies confirmed that animals, both wild herbivores and livestock were sometimes strangely attracted to a plant that was sprayed with 2,4-D, even though it was not their natural food. Apparently it was the wilting of the plant that was making the plant attractive. Carson further explains, “the peculiar behavior exhibited by livestock appeared to lie in the changes the chemical brought about in the metabolism of the plant. It was noted that there was a temporarily marked increase in sugar content, making the plant more attractive to animals” (1962, 77) Experiments ten years previous to her writing, showed that after a plant was treated with the chemical, there was a sharp increase in the nitrate content. It was suspected that the same effect was occurring in the weeds which caused cattle to eat them with relish. The increase in nitrates caused the microorganisms in the cattle’s digestive system to change the nitrates into highly toxic nitrates. This in turn, would produce a fatal chain of events. The nitrates, according to Carson, would act on the blood pigment to form a chocolate-brown substance in which the oxygen is so firmly held that it could not take part in respiration. The oxygen is then prevented from being transferred by the lungs to the tissues. The result is death by anoxia, a lack of oxygen. (1962, 77)
Once it was determined what effects the 2,4-D was having on animals it was only natural to then consider humans. Studies conducted at the University of Wisconsin Agricultural Station issued a warning that, “plants killed by 2,4-D may contain large amounts of nitrate,” so the hazard was extended to human beings as well as animals which was cited as also probable cause for a mysterious increase in ‘silo deaths.’”¹ (1962, 77) Quoting C. J. Briejèr, as cited by Carson, “Once again we are walking in nature like an elephant in the china cabinet.” Further quoting Briejèr, as cited by Carson, “We do not know whether all weeds in cash crops are harmful or whether some of them are useful.” (1962, 77)
Carson was the first to publicizes the question successfully, “What is the relation between the weed and the soil?” (1962, 77) For the first time we are beginning to see the emergence of a new era in critical thinking in relation to the environment. If 2,4-D has this effect in the food chain and the environment, then exactly how many things does 2,4-D affect and what are the chain of events that occur through the entire ecosystem?
Strangely enough, it is Buddhist Philosophy that had already considered this critical analysis, but not in relation to an ecosystem. Buddhist Philosophy considered the action of one thing in relation to the whole. What Buddhist philosophy had observed was that the action of just one person, object, or thing would have consequences across an entire range of things. Hence, the concept of conscious living or ‘mindfulness’ was born. The act of being mindful that every action one makes has a consequence no matter how large or small that act is. The correlation is nature was reacting to a substance that was introduced by man that had not existed in the environment before.
At the time, Carson's concept was an unusual view but a critical one. “Soil and living things in and upon it exist in a relation of interdependence and mutual benefit. Presumably, the weed is taking something from the soil; perhaps it is also contributing something to it.” (Carson, 1962, 77) It was found by Dutch scientists, as cited by Carson, that marigolds planted in rosebeds released an excretion from its roots that killed soil nematodes. As cited earlier, marigolds are part of the Asterales order of herbs, which makes them a cousin of the dandelion. The marigolds combated nematodes which promoted the growth of roses. Who knew? Hence a bold new way of thinking emerges from Carson. “Plants we ruthlessly eradicate may perform a necessary function for the health of the soil. One useful function of plants - now stigmatized as ‘weeds’ - is to serve as an indicator of soil condition. This useful function is lost when chemical weed killers are used.” (Carson, 1962, 79) Carson continues to say, “There is a need to preserve some natural plant communities. We need these as a standard against which we can measure the changes our own activities bring about,” (1962, 79) confirming things exist in nature because they have a purpose. If something has been removed by nature, then it no longer serves a purpose, hence evolution has taken place. Darwin had already suggested this in his “Origin of the Species, almost 100 years prior.
Another problem with continued use of chemicals is toxicity buildup in the soil and the water aquifers. Carson hints to this in the treatment of crabgrass and it is worth noting as it does apply across the board when considering toxicity buildup. Carson on pages 80 and 81 states, “Instead of treating the basic condition, suburbanites - advised by nurserymen who in turn have been advised by the chemical manufacturers - continue to apply astonishing amounts of crabgrass killers to their laws each year.” (1962, 80) This can also be read as weed killers, because some suburbanites are not sure what particular weeds they have, they just know they have an array of weeds and want them all gone. In this case, the nurserymen send the customer on their way with an all-purpose weed killer that contains all kinds of chemicals to target a wide range of common weeds. Carson indicates these all-purpose weed killers have no description of what is actually contained in them but she reveals they contain poisons such as mercury, arsenic, and chlordane. Most of us with even a minute science background recognize these deadly names and are aware of how poisonous they are. Carson continues to say, “Application at recommended rates leave tremendous amounts of these chemicals on the lawn. In some cases, 60 pounds of chlordane or 175 pounds of metallic arsenic per acre could be left which had devastating effects on bird populations at the time.” (1962, 80) Bearing this in mind, this is how Carson came up with the title to her book, “Silent Spring.” Due to the use of these chemicals and others such as DDT, bird populations were quickly being reduced to the point to there were no birds singing in the springtime in some regions of the country. The question becomes who is responsible for this, the government, commercial farmers, or could it be every man?
Some American suburbanites desire for a perfect green lawn border on obsession. Six billion dollars each year is spent on lawn care. Lawn care companies do $1.5 billion of the $6 billion spent. To lend further support to this claim, one has to look no further than the green chemical truck in our own neighborhood with the name “ChemLawn” on its side. According to TruGreen ChemLawn's web site, ChemLawn, was established in 1974, and as of 2003, ‘TruGreen ChemLawn is the world's largest provider of residential and commercial lawn and landscape services. TruGreen ChemLawn further claims they lead the lawn care industry in growth and profitability. TruGreen ChemLawn serves more than 3.5 million residential and commercial customers nationwide with 25,000 employees and over 350 service centers in 47 states. The parent company, ServiceMaster, is a Fortune 500 company with 29 consecutive years of growth in revenue and profits.’ (“TruGreen ChemLawn,” 2003) To have 25,000 employees and 350 service centers make TruGreen ChemLawn one huge company. The only way TruGreen ChemLawn could become so large was by the American consumer's desire for a green lawn. Tom Christoffel confirms this by saying, “Some homeowners are prepared to pick up the phone and call the lawn care service at the first sighting of the dreaded weed.” (1985, 565) TruGreen Chemlawn does deliver what they claim, a beautiful green lawn, but at an expense not only to the person paying for the services, but also at a cost to all Americans by laying manmade chemicals onto the soil year after year which seep down into the water aquifer. According to Christoffel's reporting, some neighbors began to question whether the pesticides being laid down by TruGreen ChemLawn were in fact, as “harmless” as TruGreen ChemLawn would like them to think. Major concern was for children who on their way home from school might play or roll on the lawns after a chemical treatment.
According to Christoffel’s 1985 article, “upwards of 1.25 billion pounds of pesticides are applied annually in the United States, only about one-half of which is devoted to agricultural use.” (1985, 565) The definition “pesticide” is a generic term that includes insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, nematocides, rodenticides, miticides and plant regulators. Even so, one-half of 1.25 billion pounds is a huge amount of poisonous chemicals being laid down by the United States population. That’s frightening!
The community of Wauconda, Illinois, located north of Chicago took a simple protective step to ensure their community’s safety. They required commercial pesticide applicators inform the community regarding such application by posting notices and providing prevalent officials with the names of the chemicals used. “There is due need for concern because many pesticides have been found to induce a wide range of toxic effects in experimental animals, including birth defects, sterility, and cancer.” (Christoffel, 1985, 565) Many of these pesticides, according to Christoffel, are highly stable, resist degradation, and accumulate in the food chain at levels more than a million-fold in excess of those found in the environment. When we consider which government agency is responsible for the environmental affairs, we need look no further than the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Environmental Protection Agency was given jurisdiction over pesticides as far as deciding whether a pesticide was to have its registration granted, suspended, or revoked and as of 1985, of the 600 pesticides that were on the market, only sixty of then had actually been tested by the EPA. Now according to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1974, the EPA had a responsibility to disclose to qualified registrars any data regarding a pesticide related to health, safety, and the environment. According to Christoffel, “given the poor quality of pesticide data at the time and the pro-industry bias of the Regan Administration EPA, there was nothing in the legislation that said the general public could have access to specific information on specific pesticides or exposure information.” (1985, 565-566) According to a study by Freundenberg in 1994, as cited by Christoffel, community groups concern with herbicidal and pesticide spraying was second only to toxic dumping in perceived danger. This of course is a danger without form if the community has no means by which to uncover what they are being exposed to.
The ordinance passed by the community of Wauconda was aimed at uncovering this information. It was not an ordinance aimed at banning any pesticides, but was for the sole purpose of determining what they were being subjected to. According to Christoffel, the ordinance of Wauconda stipulated that any commercial pesticide applicators had to register with the community with a registration fee of twenty-five dollars, and set forth the trade names of the pesticides used. There were two other provisions that the outfit had to obey in order to do business within the community. First when the pesticides were applied indoors, the company had to place a warning sign at the front entrance indicating the name of the applicator and the name of the chemical applied. When the chemicals were applied outdoors on lawns, yards, and grounds, warning signs had to be posted including the name of the applicator, date of application and the statement: “This lawn has been chemically treated. Keep children and pets off from 72 hours.” (Christoffel, 1985, 565-566) The ordinance prohibited the application of pesticides when wind velocities exceeded 10 mph and also prohibited the applicators from filling from Wauconda water sources or flushing or dumping in village sewers.
The requirements were not considered stringent and some independent lawn companies were already in compliance. ChemLawn Corporation balked at the ordinance. ChemLawn urged the pesticide trade group, The Pesticide Public Policy Foundation, to challenge the ordinance, as was stated by Christoffel. (1985, 565-566) The Foundation brought suit in Federal District Court on the grounds that the Village of Wauconda lacked the authority to regulate regarding any aspect of pesticides, and that the ordinance unconstitutionally intrudes into an area that is properly the domain of federal and state regulators.² The Pesticide Public Policy Foundation v. Village of Wauconda, Ill case had begun a grassroots movement at the local level in many counties across the country. Environmentalists began to realize that basing their elite corps in Washington was no longer an effective political approach. Local environmental groups began working as they had for years: at the local level for environmental protection in the communities where people actually experienced the assault from pesticides. The local environmental groups began by invoking community right-to-know laws. According to Christoffel, “the first municipal community right-to-know law was adopted in Philadelphia in 1981. Since that time, many communities across the country have made similar laws in order to guard themselves and their communities.” (1985, 565-566)
As of April 20, 1995, the Veterans Health Administration in VHA directive 10-95-043, “discontinued the use of herbicide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in response to veterans concerns that there was a perceived relationship between 2,4-D, dioxin, and Agent Orange.” (“Continuing,” 2000) In order to respond to those perceptions, it was determined that use of the chemical should be discontinued although it is currently registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as a widely used selective herbicide. The ban on the use of the herbicide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, according to the Department of Veteran Affairs, will remain in effect until September 30, 2005, when at that time it will come up for review. (“Continuing,” 2000) According to Dr. Amy E. Brown, coordinator of Pesticide Education and Assessment Programs at University of Maryland College Park, “Dichloropropene, in all formulations, is classified by the EPA as a restricted use herbicide in reference to all uses. The reasons cited by the EPA are acute toxicity by ingestion and inhalation, oncogenicity (the ability to cause tumors, either benign or malignant) and that it may be a probable human carcinogen.” (Brown, 2000) This does not mean that 2,4-D cannot be used as a selective herbicide. What this means is the EPA regulates 2,4-D such that it, “can only be bought and used by or under direct supervision of, a certified pesticide applicator who has received training and demonstrated competency in the use of such products.” (Brown, 2000) This means that 2,4-D is still being used, but it’s now under restricted use.
In essence, we’re slowly killing ourselves in order to have beautiful, perfectly green lawn without yellow flowers by using manmade herbicides. One could argue that the EPA says 2,4-D is a probable human carcinogen, which then means that there does exist the possibility that it may not be a carcinogen. Now, let's interpret this as a scientist would. A scientist believes that if something is impossible it may only be improbable, therefore there is due cause to think that the improbable is probable. If it’s probable, then it’s most likely possible. So therefore if it’s possible, then it is likely. It’s almost the same thing as saying I am ninety percent certain that 2,4-D is a human carcinogen, but there is a ten percent possibility of error.
Secondly, if one travels to any major city in the United States, the report from the mayor of that city will always be, “The drinking water is fine here. We have the best tasting water in the U.S.” Then if one questions a few residents of that city, “What do you think of the mayor’s statement?” nine out of ten times the answer is, “I don’t trust the drinking water here.” It doesn’t matter what city you go to, the second biggest fear people have about the area in which they live is the drinking water. Now knowing what all these people have said about these selective herbicides targeted to kill dandelions, is it any wonder everyone is afraid to drink the water coming from their own backyard?
So what can we do if we insist on having green lawns free of dandelions? As it turns out there are non-chemical controls for dandelions. As stated earlier, there is nothing in nature that does not have a purpose and sometimes, especially with the soil, things such as weeds are an indication that there is something lacking in the soil. Most lawns are compromised of Kentucky blue grass. This grass, according to John Vivian of Mother Earth News, “immigrated from the New World via England from its origins in a cool, wet part of Europe or the Middle East.” (Vivian, 2001) According to Consumers’ Research Magazine, the problem with Kentucky blue grass is that it has a high need for potassium. “Researchers have determined that dandelions have the same nutrient requirement as Kentucky Blue grass, if not more.” (Non-chemical, 1999, 40) As you’re busy feeding the Kentucky blue grass nutrients, you’re also making the soil prime for dandelions. It is now apparent why Kentucky blue grass and dandelions co-exist. The obvious solution to the dandelion problem is to plant grasses that don’t require less potassium and that keep dandelions in check. Ecologist David Tilman, at the University of Minnesota, as quoted by Consumers’ Research Magazine suggests, “Gardeners should try to avoid the many common fertilizers that contain high levels of potassium; for many lawns, ammonium sulfate or ammonium phosphate would be better.” (“Non-chemical,” 1999, 40) Tilman also suggests, now quoted by Anne Simon Moffat, “planting the lawn with grasses that don’t have such a high need for potassium, such as a combination of bent grass, foxtail, and rescue can be kept just as lush and green as Kentucky blue grass, but will keep dandelions in check as long as potassium fertilizer isn’t added.” (Moffat, 1999, 1249)
What is still unclear is how widely acceptable this strategy of controlling weeds through nutrient limitations will be. There are other invaders that gardeners deal with, such as crabgrass, and it remains to be seen whether potassium limitation will help to control other lawn invaders. Therefore, no one is recommending that you go out with a rotary tiller and remove all the Kentucky blue grass on your front lawn in favor of a combination of bent grass, foxtail, and rescue. It would be nice, but quite expensive and it may not be 100 percent effective. A more logical solution would be to seed the lawn in the fall with these three grasses instead of Kentucky blue grass and then in the spring, instead of using potassium enriched fertilizers, use fertilizers high in ammonium sulfate and ammonium phosphate. This would be a gradual change, but through gradual change there is the likelihood that the need to use herbicides will also be reduced. Another way to reduce the need for herbicides would be to reduce the lawn area by means of cement, cement lawn blocks, rock gardens or a combination of other means that will reduce the amount of lawn one has. Even so, you are still subscribing to the philosophy that nature is something that must be controlled and forced to grow the way you see fit. So what other alternatives are there?
At this point, some of you are probably now ready to throw your hands up and say, “I spend two hours or more every weekend in mowing, weeding, watering, fertilizing, and seeding and you’re telling me that all these possible carcinogenic herbicides are seeping into the water table possibly poisoning us all in the end? Well what am I wasting my time for?” If this is the conclusion you're beginning to draw, you’re finally leaning towards the philosophy of the naturalist. Following the guidelines prescribed by Robert Fulghum, in his collection of essays, “All I Really Need to Know I learned in Kindergarten,” you can now open the door that exits to your backyard and shout out to the backyard, “You’re on your own!” It the one surefire method of gardening that works best. Not gardening at all and leaving nature to her own affairs. After all she’s gotten along quite well without us and once we’re gone she’ll continue to do just fine without us.
Bear in mind, there is no direct link, or a cause and effect that definitively says, “Yes, it’s the constant use of herbicides laid down in neighborhoods all over America and their seepage into the water aquifers that is one of the causes of certain types of cancers and birth defects.” The EPA has been unable to establish such a link, scientists have not been able to establish such a link, but as stated before, everyone, everywhere in the U.S. does not believe their elected officials when they say, “There’s no carcinogens in our water.” In addition, we are all in agreement that no one in their own neighborhood feels comfortable with drinking the water that comes out of the tap. Why is that? Deep down all of us have the same fear, knowing the things I do to my backyard, my neighbor probably does the same things also, and the neighbor next to him, and so on. As this increase exponentially, so does the seepage of these chemicals into the water aquifers. Most of us claim that we drew this conclusion from gut feeling. This is incorrect. We have come to this conclusion by logic and support. The problem is it's not scientific because we haven't subjected the theory to the scientific method. We’re aware from the 60’s what effect chemicals have on the environment. We know that we go out every year and lay pounds of chemicals down in order to have a beautiful lawn of green grass. We also know our neighbor is doing the same thing. We wave “Hi” to them as they maintain their piece of the good earth as we in turn maintain ours. This is not gut feeling, its deductive logic. We all have the same collective thought that part of the rise in death tolls to cancer is due in part to all the technological changes we have made since the end of World War II.
All kinds of technologies advanced because of the war effort and eventually found a useful purpose in the civilian economy. Also with these advancements came increased leisure time. With the increase of leisure time one had more time to worry about their front lawn. As was mentioned earlier it was after World War II that this new marvelous herbicide 2,4-D comes to the market and we the American public took to it hook, line and sinker. After using it for almost fifty years, we are now beginning to wonder, “Are we killing ourselves slowly in the name of having a beautiful patch of green lawn?” As was said before, we very well may be. There are many of us who also speculate that breast cancer may be directly or indirectly due to carcinogens within the drinking water, yet no scientists will either assert or refute this claim. One has to wonder when you look at a place like Long Island, New York that solely relies on its underground water aquifers for drinking water and also has the highest number of women being diagnosed with breast cancer. One has to pause for a moment and ask, "Is it possible there is a link?" Our politicians swear up and down it’s not true, as they drink bottled spring water from some other region and scientists claim they cannot establish there is a direct link at this time. We all know scientists will claim one thing today and tomorrow what they say is totally different than yesterday. That is why their beliefs are called theories and not facts. The theories change partially due to advancements in technology. Other times it can be due to one person or several people looking at a problem who see it from a totally different point of view than everyone previous. All of this is speculation. But is it not through speculation and critical inquiry that we as scientists unravel the truth?
The truth is that we are dumping tons of chemicals that are proven carcinogens in laboratory animals on our front lawns in order to remove some unsightly yellow flowers. The fact that is indisputable is all these chemicals have to go somewhere, and that somewhere is into the water table as they seep into the ground. We then tap into that same water and use it for drinking. Maybe this is wrong, but this looks like kindergarten logic. At a very early age we learn that you don’t drink the water you urinate in. That’s kindergarten logic. Are we not doing the same thing when we use herbicides on our front lawns and then drink the water from the underground water table?
The other point that was stated was the fact that there is nothing in nature that does not have a purpose; otherwise, it would no longer exist, because nature would have removed it. We know very little about the way nature functions, that includes dandelions. David Shaw, a Mississippi State weed scientist, is cited in A. S. Moffat article as having said, “We’re only beginning to understand the relationship between soil characteristics and weeds.” (Moffat, 1999, 1249) Moffat continues, “Once agriculture researchers learn more, dandelions may not be the only weeds subject to this subtle kind of control.” (1999, 1249)
Dandelions do have purposes that only a few may be aware of. Dandelions being an herb have some medicinal properties and they are also a food source. Contrary to some claims, their medicinal properties are rather minor, but still, dandelions do have medicinal properties.
“Historically and worldwide dandelion root and leaves have been used for the cleansing of the body internally. Dandelion roots are used for supporting liver and digestive function, and also as an appetite stimulant. Dandelion leaves are used for supporting healthy kidney function and balanced fluid levels.” (“Nutravida,” 2003) Several studies cite that dandelion leaves produce a mild diuretic effect in the body that eases water retention, without depleting potassium. The reason it does not deplete potassium is simple. Dandelion leaves are high in potassium.
According to Schar, “Studies have also determined that dandelion root stimulates the flow of bile thereby relieving minor constipation.” (Schar, 2003, 144) “This suggests that dandelion root can reduce the side effects of medications processed by the liver and relieve symptoms of disease which impair liver function.” (“Healing people,” 2000) Further study is required to determine whether this is true. According to S. Altshd, dandelion root stimulates liver function. “The liver is responsible for cleansing impurities out of the body, so by stimulating liver function, dandelion root is indirectly responsible for increasing the body’s ability to detoxify itself.” (Altshd, 2002)
According to Korean researchers, as cited by S. Altshd, “Dandelion has demonstrated the ability to lower blood sugar levels in diabetic dogs. The researchers found that dandelion reduced free radial damage, which may contribute to diabetes related complications.” (Altshd, 2002) In addition, many web sites selling dandelion as an herbal supplement warn diabetics on medication to consult their physicians because of these known qualities.
Dandelion may help in the treatment of cancer. Chinese folk healers treat a host of cancers with dandelion, including breast cancer. “Animal research has shown that dandelion inhibits the conversion of normal cells to cancerous cells when cancer-causing chemicals are present. Dandelion has also been shown to stop tumor formation and growth. Finally, dandelion has been shown to stimulate immune cells.” (Altshd, 2002)
As a food source, there are a host of uses for dandelion leaves and roots and some people actually go out of their way to grow them for these purposes. “Dandelion leaves contain substantial amounts of levels of vitamin C, D, and B complex as well as iron, magnesium, zinc, manganese, copper, calcium, boron, silicon, choline, and of course its high in potassium.” (Healing people,” 2000) Choline is especially important for students because it increases brain function and memory. Choline is also recommended for Alzheimer patient’s and anyone with Alzheimer’s disease in their family history. “In all, dandelions are one of the most complete food sources known to man, containing seventy-four nutrients.” (Ney, 2001) Seventy-four! This is from something that is growing wild in your backyard for free and we pay hundreds of dollars a year to wipe them out. “Dandelions contain 5 times the vitamin A contained than in the same amount of broccoli and thirteen times of that in carrots.” (Ney, 2001) Dandelions are also the richest source of beta-carotene out of all the vegetables. (Watson, 2001)
Dandelions have been considered fine dining by the French and the Italians for a long period of time. New Englanders too were known for serving them up to about 1950. This is speculation, but most likely reason dandelions fell out of favor as a food source was because of the advent of television and advertisements for weed free green lawns. In addition, an old favorite spirit of New England favorite is dandelion wine.
We have observed that there are three ways to deal with nature, specifically, dandelions. Some of us in the neighborhood chose and will continue to choose man-made chemicals as the modern technological method of dealing with dandelions, regardless of what anyone says or suggests. In the process, they will continue to poison the water table, because scientists have not proven there is a direct nor indirect link to herbicides and cancer. Until scientist can either prove or refute this claim, some people will continue to use herbicides as a method of removing dandelions from their lawns.
The second method is the organic method of lawn maintenance that is in harmony with nature. When your current lawn needs filling, seeding the lawn with grasses that do not have a high requirement for nitrogen and potassium fertilizers such as bent grass, foxtail, and rescue should be used and in time can replace the Kentucky blue grass that has the same nutrient needs as the dandelions. Depriving the dandelions of nutrients should reduce their population. Once again studies are inconclusive, but it is a better method than lying down poison by the pound.
The last method is the one method you can be sure that you’re not contributing to poisoning the water aquifers. The neighbors with the manicured lawns will loath you, but at least you know you’re doing the right thing for the entire community by not dumping possible carcinogens into the soil each year for the purpose of having a perfectly green lawn. You may even start a new reform movement in your own neighborhood called, “Dandelion Fields Forever!” So now it’s time. Pick yourself up, walk to your backdoor, open it, take a deep breath, and shout out at the top of your lungs, “You’re on your own!”
Agent Orange. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved December 11, 2003, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=4066
Asterales. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=120832
Alexander, C. (2003, March 31). Breaking the silence on DDT. Time, 161(13), p. A36. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9349596&db=aph
Altshd, S. (2002, August). Dandelions for diabetes. Prevention, 54(8), 52. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=6900246&db=aph
Baker, H.G. (1974). The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5, 1-24. Retrieved November 27, 2003, from Jstor. http://www.jstor.org
Brown, A.E. (2000, January). Restricted use pesticides: Pesticide information leaflet no. 2. Maryland Cooperative Extension. University of Maryland, College Park Press.
Cafaro, P. (2002). Rachel Carson’s environmental ethics. Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion, 6 (1), 58. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=7104717&db=aph
Carson, R. (2002). Silent Spring. (40th Anniversary Ed.). Boston. Mariner Books.
Christoffel, T. (1985, May). “Grassroots environmentalism under legal attack: dandelions, pesticides, and a neighbor’s right-to-know.” American Journal of Public Health, 75(5), 565-567.
Continuing ban on herbicide 2,4-D. (2000, September 5). VHA Directive 2000-026. Department of Veteran Affairs. Retrieved December 11, 2003, from http:// www.va.gov/publ/direc/health/direct/12000026.DOC
Cowens, J. (2002, August/September). Weeds and seeds. Teaching PreK-8, 33(1), 38. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=7705191&db=aph
DeMarinis, R. (1986). Weeds. In Nancy R. MacKenzie (Ed.) Science and Technology Today: Readings for Writers. (380-390). St. Martin’s Press.
Environmentalism: a whole new revolution. (2003, May). Citizens Centre Report, 30 (9), 38-39. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9709423&db=aph
Fulghum, R. (2003). All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten: Uncommon thoughts on common things. (15th Anniversary Ed.). Random House.
Garden and landscape design. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved November 25, 2003, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=118079
Healing people: Your source for complementary and alternative medicine. Healingpeople.com. Retrieved November 27, 2003, primary search word: dandelion. Available from http//www.healingpeople.com
Hildebrand, E. M. (1946, April 19). War on weeds. Science, 103(2677), 465-468. Retrieved November 27, 2003, from Jstor. http://www.jstor.org
Hiebert, R. (2002, July 11). Technological genocide. Report/Newsmagazine (Alberta Edition), 29(15), 60-62. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=6991476&db=aph
Kittredge, W. (1987). Owning it all. In Nancy R. MacKenzie (Ed.) Science and Technology Today: Readings for Writers. (392-399). St. Martin’s Press.
Landscape architecture. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved December 2, 2003, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=48157
Little, C.E. (1995). Books. Wilderness, Vol. 55, p. 34. Retrieved October 27, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9111112129&db=aph
MacKenzie, N. R. (1995). Controlling nature with technology. In Nancy R. MacKenzie (Ed.) Science and Technology Today: Readings for Writers (340-343). St. Martin’s Press.
Marth, P. C. & Mitchell, J. W. (1946). Period of effective weed control by the use of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Science, 104(2691), 77-79. Retrieved November 27, 2003, from Jstor. http://www.jstor.org
Michaels, D. (2003, January). Environmental health science and the legacy of popular literature. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111 (1) p. A14. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9096517&db=aph
Mitchell, C. (2003, March). Reclaiming the scared landscape: Terry Tempest Williams, Kathleen Norris, and other nature writings. Women’s Studies, 32, p. 165. Retrieved October 27, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=9243868&db=aph
The National Audubon Society Field Guide: Birds. eNature.com. National Wildlife Foundation. Retrieved October 27, 2003, from http://www.enature.com/guides/select_Birds.asp
Moffat, A.S. (1999, May). New, non-chemical pest control proposed. Science, 284(5418), 1249-1251. Retrieved November 27, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=1874670&db=aph
Ney, T. (2001, May/June). Healthy eating. Organic Gardening, 48(4), 20. Retrieved November 27, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4464722&db=aph
A non-chemical control for dandelions. (1999, June). Consumers’ Research Magazine, 82(6), 40. Retrieved November 27, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=1986033&db=aph
Nutravida: The UK’s best online vitamins, health and beauty store. Nutravida. Primary search word: dandelion. Retrieved November 27, 2003, available from AskJeeves.com.
The Pesticide Public Policy Foundation v. Village of Wauconda, Ill. No. 84 C 8110. LexisNexis Academic Law Reviews. Retrieved December 11, 2003, LexisNexis. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/form/academic/s_lawrev.html?after=0:ALL
Riley, J. E. (2003, July/August). Finding one’s place in the “family of things”: Terry Tempest Williams and geography of self. Women’s Studies, 32, 585. Retrieved October 27, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=10530050&db=aph
Ruether, R R. (1983). Toward an ecological-feminist theology of nature. In Nancy R. MacKenzie (Ed.) Science and Technology Today: Readings for Writers. (351-356). St. Martin’s Press.
Sale, K. (2003, July). An Illusion of progress. Ecologist, 33 (6), 24. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=10242384&db=aph
Schar, D. (2003, August). Tummy-soothing herbs. Prevention, 55(8), 144. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=10269648&db=aph
Turner, K., Stavros, G., Brouwer, R., Bateman, I., & Langford, I. (2003 June). Towards an integrated environmental assessment for wetlands and catchment management. Geographical Journal. 169 (2), 99-117.
Vivian, J. (2001, July). The working lawn. Mother Earth News, 186, 66-74. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4454538&db=aph
Watson, B. (2001, March). The lowly dandelion. Yankee, 65(2), 78. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=4129236&db=aph
Watson, B. (2002, September). Sounding the alarm. Smithsonian, 33 (6), 115-118. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from Academic Search Premier. http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=7238850&db=aph
Weed. In the Britannica Student Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 11, 2003, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. http://search.eb.com/ebi/article?eu=299868
Williams, J. (1990). Save the whales, screw the shrimp. In Nancy R. MacKenzie (Ed.) Science and Technology Today: Readings for Writers. (367-377). St. Martin’s Press.
Williams, T. T. (2001). Refuge: An unnatural history of family and place. New York. Vintage Books.
Xu, F., Tao, S., Dawson, R., Lu, X. (2002 April). History, development and characteristics of lake ecological models. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 14(2), 255.
1) Side note: “For the record, 2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), was one of the herbicides in “Agent Orange.” Agent Orange was a mixture of several herbicides that U.S. military forces sprayed in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange was used for the dual purpose of defoliating forest areas that might conceal Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces and destroying crops that might feed the enemy. The defoliant, sprayed from low-flying aircraft, consisted of approximately equal amounts of the unpurified butyl esters of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). Agent Orange also contained small, variable proportions of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin —commonly called “dioxin”— which is a by-product of the manufacture of 2,4,5-T and is toxic even in minute quantities. About 50 million liters (13 million gallons) of Agent Orange —containing about 170 kg (375 pounds) of dioxin — were dropped on Vietnam.
Among the Vietnamese, exposure to Agent Orange is considered to be the cause of an abnormally high incidence of miscarriages, skin diseases, cancers, birth defects, and congenital malformations (often extreme and grotesque) from the 1970s to the '90s.
Many U.S., Australian, and New Zealand servicemen who suffered long exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam later developed a number of cancers and other health disorders. Despite the difficulty of establishing conclusive proof that their claims were valid, U.S. veterans brought a class-action lawsuit against seven herbicide makers that produced Agent Orange for the U.S. military. The suit was settled out of court with the establishment of a $180,000,000 fund to compensate some 250,000 claimants and their families. Separately, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs awarded compensation to about 1,800 veterans.” (Agent Orange, 2003)
2) Outcome of the case may be found at LexisNexis Academic Law Review Database, under Get A Case, utilizing the search words Pesticide Public Policy Foundation v. Village of Wauconda, No 84 C 8110. “The court ruled in favor of the Pesticide Public Policy and found the Village of Wauconda In violation of state law. The court declared that Ordinance No. 1984-0-31, created by the Village of Wauconda, Ill to be invalid under Illinois law, and therefore was void ab initio. This Court further enjoins defendants (Village of Wauconda) from enforcing Ordinance No. 1984-0-31. Plaintiff's (Pesticide Public Policy Foundation) request that this Court declare that defendants (Village of Wauconda) are liable for the costs of compliance with Ordinance No. 1984-0-31 is denied.” (Pesticide Public Policy, 2003)
Dandelions! Everyone has them on their lawn and some don't like them and remove them. Others don't care and leave them alone. Of the people who don't like them half of this group lays down man made chemicals on their lawns that remove the dandelions. The man made chemicals put poisonous chemicals into the groundwater that make people sick. The other half of people within the dandelion haters use chemicals that are a little more costly, but are environmentally friendly and do not poison the groundwater. The third group of people is made up of naturalists who don't bother removing the dandelions. If the dandelions were to be removed, they would have become extinct a long time ago according to naturalists. The story explains the difference in the way these people think and what they do to remove dandelions. The story also explains what is a naturalist and to influence children to become naturalists.
What’s wrong with having a lawn full of yellow flowers? There’s nothing wrong unless you like a backyard of green grass without weeds. Some people call a dandelion a weed. So what is a weed? A weed is a plant that some people consider undesirable, unattractive, or troublesome, especially when it’s growing where it is not wanted, as in a garden or a backyard. Scientists call dandelions an herb. What's an herb?
People have used herbs for a long time. They have been used to make people feel better when they are sick. By doing this people don't have to use medicine made by man. Herbs are wonderful for another reason. They are made by nature. Used in the right quantities, herbs can be better for the body than medicine. Herbs are natural. This means that they are made by nature. The leaves and roots of dandelions can be used to make a drink that will help flush poisons out of the body. This means it makes you pee. Dandelions help the inside of the body to clean itself. Dandelion roots help to create bile in the body. Bile helps the body pass waste. Dandelions act as a mild laxative. A laxative aids the body in passing waste. A tablespoon of the roots or leaves can be boiled in water then mixed with a little sugar. The sugar helps to remove the bitter taste of Dandelions roots. The sugar and dandelion juice can be drunk like hot cocoa.
Some places in the world, the roots are roasted. Roasting is like baking. The dandelion roots are heated in an oven and dried out. The roots are boiled to create a hot drink similar to coffee. Some people in the world can't get coffee so they boil dandelion roots as substitute for coffee. Dandelions are a cousin of lettuce. People in many places around the world use dandelions to make salads to eat. Dandelions are also a cousin of the sunflower. Sunflower seeds are used for salads and even eaten raw.
Some people like the look of a green lawn without yellow flowers on them, which is okay too. This look comes from England some time around the American Revolution. The English have what are known as English Gardens. The English saw this in Italy and liked it so much they decided to do the same thing but a little differently. They are every beautiful. People send a great deal of time making them beautiful. They remove the weeds from flowerbeds and the grass. People trim the bushes into pretty shapes like balls and squares. Sometimes they shape the bushes into animals. They are pretty to look at, but they are not natural. Natural means that the bushes, grass flowers and plants grow the way nature meant for them to grow. Some people think this looks messy. Some people think it looks pretty. Different people like different things. This does not make a lawn without dandelions good. This does not make a lawn with dandelions bad. It just makes them different. It just depends on what you think looks pretty.
Some people use chemicals made by man. such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), to remove the dandelions or weeds form their lawns. They like to call them weeds because they don't like the yellow flowers on their grass. People on the block you live on put these chemicals onto their lawns every year. When it rains, the chemicals soak down through the soil. The rainwater goes into pockets under the ground. This water is called ground water. Other people dig into the soil to get to the underground water, This is called a well. People dig wells so they can have water to drink. The problem is chemical 2,4-D used to remove the weeds build up in the soil and the water. 2,4-D is not good for people and make them sick. It takes a long time for 2,4-D to build up in the water, but everyone on your block does the same thing it can become a problem. What do you do if you don't like dandelions on your lawn and you don't want to make people sick?
There are a few ways to remove the dandelions if you don’t like them. One way is to go out after it rains and just pull them out of the ground by the root. The root goes into the ground about five inches, which is not very deep. When it rains it makes the dandelion root loose. It’s easier to pull the dandelion out by the root when it is loose. This is why people will pull them out after it rains. Another way is to use a tool that looks like a metal fork or a snake's tongue, to pull them out. When there are a lot of dandelions this can be a lot of work. It can also take a long time to remove them if there is a lot of dandelions. Some people can't do all that work. Some people don't have time to do all that work. So what do you do when there are a lot of them?
There are chemicals at the store that cost a little more money but will not hurt the ground or make people sick from drinking the water. When these chemicals are used, people have lawns that are green without dandelions and other people are happy because chemicals don't go into the water.
Some people like the yellow flowers and think they are pretty. They think nature knows best and nature should do what she wants to do. These people think nature is like a person and should not be told how to grow. People like this let nature grow the way she wants to. They are called Naturalists. The people who like green lawns call them lazy because they don't want to remove the dandelions. Naturalists let the dandelions grow, as they want to because they think they don't know everything about nature there is to know. Sometimes you have a friend who is bossy and tells you what to do. After a while you don't like that person because they are always telling you what to do. The bossy person is not letting you grow the way you want to grow. When you don't boss people around they like you better because you're not telling them how to grow. You make more friends this way.
This is the same with nature. People get bossy with nature and tell her how to grow. Just like you nature doesn't like this. Nature then does things people don't understand because these people try to tell her how to grow. Naturalists aren't bossy to nature and let her grow, as she needs to. They make friends with nature and nature makes friends with them. If this sounds good then go out and make a friend. Don't remove the dandelions.
The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Contact Me · FAQ · Useful Links