Ban Cosmetic Lawn Chemical Use!!

One guy went to jail for not keeping his lawn up to snuff.

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/lawn-order/

Just trying to add a bit of levity. Although they aren't toxic, they are hideous.

mem said:
I like the idea of half lives that live forever. I think I'll write a song about it.
Yahooyahoo, since when did lawn signs become (physically) toxic? Not connecting those dots

Pesticides on your lawn = Bad for our health

Brown lawn or full of weeds = Bad for the neighborhood. Someone will complain that their house value is being hindered.

Fake lawn = Bad because it is not natural and well it looks fake.

Just dirt = Bad because without any plants dirt will run off and make a mess during heavy storm plus weeds will take over any how (see above)

Replace lawn with flower or plant garden = Bad because it requires a lot of water during summer months otherwise it will be bad for neighborhood since it will look like an unkempt, unruly yard.

Replace lawn with concrete surface = Bad and it breaks the local ordinances.

So what other options are there? Just wondering, becuase it seems to me that no matter which way you go, someone will complain and will create a post about it!

I think the goal is an acceptable lawn but without the use of pesticides and fertilizers.

pmartinezv said:
Pesticides on your lawn = Bad for our health
Brown lawn or full of weeds = Bad for the neighborhood. Someone will complain that their house value is being hindered.
Fake lawn = Bad because it is not natural and well it looks fake.
Just dirt = Bad because without any plants dirt will run off and make a mess during heavy storm plus weeds will take over any how (see above)
Replace lawn with flower or plant garden = Bad because it requires a lot of water during summer months otherwise it will be bad for neighborhood since it will look like an unkempt, unruly yard.
Replace lawn with concrete surface = Bad and it breaks the local ordinances.


So what other options are there? Just wondering, becuase it seems to me that no matter which way you go, someone will complain and will create a post about it!

http://eartheasy.com/grow_lawn_alternatives.htm

Bram - Thanks for that link. I think clover is the way to go, it improves the soil and feeds honeybees.

Hey, if the chemicals (or anything, really) were only able to harm the property holder I would say spray away. It is your business and your business alone how many arms, legs and eyeballs your descendants have. The minute YOUR chemicals cross MY property lines, however, your I call BS on your "right" to pollute my home.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-risk-higher-near-pesticide-treated-fields/

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/more-evidence-linking-pesticide-exposure-autism

FWIW, and unless I'm missing something quite glaring, neither of those studies seems to have any relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.

ctrzaska said:
FWIW, and unless I'm missing something quite glaring, neither of those studies seems to have any relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.

If pesticide use in fields near pregnant women is linked to autism, then why would pesticide use in a yard next door to a pregnant person not be relevant? A suburban lawn might not use the same amount as a commercial farm, but the neighbor's are closer so the overall exposure could still be significant.

ctrzaska said:
FWIW, and unless I'm missing something quite glaring, neither of those studies seems to have any relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Maybe you are crisscrossing threads? This one is about pesticides.

pmartinezv said:
Pesticides on your lawn = Bad for our health
Brown lawn or full of weeds = Bad for the neighborhood. Someone will complain that their house value is being hindered.
Fake lawn = Bad because it is not natural and well it looks fake.
Just dirt = Bad because without any plants dirt will run off and make a mess during heavy storm plus weeds will take over any how (see above)
Replace lawn with flower or plant garden = Bad because it requires a lot of water during summer months otherwise it will be bad for neighborhood since it will look like an unkempt, unruly yard.
Replace lawn with concrete surface = Bad and it breaks the local ordinances.


So what other options are there? Just wondering, becuase it seems to me that no matter which way you go, someone will complain and will create a post about it!

If it is green and can be cut with a lawnmower, then it is grass and is fine.

If it is brown during periods of drought, you are being an environmentally responsible citizen and are not wasting water on a plant that is naturally drought tolerant.

tjohn said:

pmartinezv said:
Pesticides on your lawn = Bad for our health
Brown lawn or full of weeds = Bad for the neighborhood. Someone will complain that their house value is being hindered.
Fake lawn = Bad because it is not natural and well it looks fake.
Just dirt = Bad because without any plants dirt will run off and make a mess during heavy storm plus weeds will take over any how (see above)
Replace lawn with flower or plant garden = Bad because it requires a lot of water during summer months otherwise it will be bad for neighborhood since it will look like an unkempt, unruly yard.
Replace lawn with concrete surface = Bad and it breaks the local ordinances.


So what other options are there? Just wondering, becuase it seems to me that no matter which way you go, someone will complain and will create a post about it!

If it is green and can be cut with a lawnmower, then it is grass and is fine.
If it is brown during periods of drought, you are being an environmentally responsible citizen and are not wasting water on a plant that is naturally drought tolerant.

Totally agree. However we have seen more than one post about people complaining about unkept yards in their neighborhood. Just pointing out that no matter what you choose, someone will have a problem with it.

To me unkempt is not mowed and littered with trash, but I suppose to some, unkempt means it isn't like a green at Baltusrol.

tjohn said:
To me unkempt is not mowed and littered with trash, but I suppose to some, unkempt means it isn't like a green at Baltusrol.

I can assure you that if your lawn was filled with dandelions that are dispersing their seeds some of your neighbors will complain about your "unkept" yard because you are spreading your weed seeds to theirs. This is a complaint I have heard multiple times around here. I have even heard of people complaining about the clover because they are affraid it will spread to their lawns.

So long as your dandiolions are mowed to a reasonable length I doubt you will receive a ticket from code enforcement, no matter how much your neighbors complain.

A field full of dandelions is beautiful. As is clover. And many other thjngs that "invade" lawns.

bramzzoinks said:
A field full of dandelions is beautiful. As is clover. And many other thjngs that "invade" lawns.

Clover, yes. Dandelions, not so much. IMO.

We just need TV to make dandelion salads the next big thing.

mem said:

ctrzaska said:
FWIW, and unless I'm missing something quite glaring, neither of those studies seems to have any relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Maybe you are crisscrossing threads? This one is about pesticides.

And tiny residential lawns. I was unaware of the burgeoning commercial agriculture industry in Maplewood to which he study directly and exclusively refers.

I came across what looks like a legitimate research that links Roundup with autism. Seems breakdown products of roundup disrupt gut bacteria which leads to some kind of imbalance in substances inside the body that have a negative effect on e nervous system, brain, or something to that affect

Here is the link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-triggers-autism-in-children-mit-scientist/5433023

Wow, a senior MIT scientist!

Stephanie Seneff is an American activist and computer scientist who currently works as a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

ctrzaska said:

mem said:

ctrzaska said:
FWIW, and unless I'm missing something quite glaring, neither of those studies seems to have any relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand.

Maybe you are crisscrossing threads? This one is about pesticides.

And tiny residential lawns. I was unaware of the burgeoning commercial agriculture industry in Maplewood to which he study directly and exclusively refers.

Well now you are aware. You're welcome!

I live in golf island, and I wonder what chemicals those tractors are blowing in those big foggy clouds they spray at 5 am. When I tried to start a beehive all the bees died at once, it bordered the golf course.

My husband called them and got a lot of gibberish about environmentally friendly treatments blah blah blah but it wasn't very friendly to my bees.

Correlation is not causation.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/01/26/mit-states-that-half-of-all-children-may-be-autistic-by-2025/

Others, such as Skeptoid writer and PhD physicist Eric Hall, take a more measured approach, and instead focus on the studies which prompted the glyphosate concerns. According to Hall, Seneff is making an error known as the “correlation/causation error,” in which causality is inaccurately concluded when there exists only the fact that two separate items—in this case, the increased use of glyphosate and the increased incidence of autism—may be observed but are not, in fact, directly related.

Seneff’s pronouncements focus specifically on the glyphosate issue. As we know, there are other potential tributaries which may be feeding the rise in autism and also causing age-related neurological conditions, such as Alzheimer’s. These may include contents of vaccines, aluminum cooking ware as well as other potential sources for chemical consumption.

Of course, this piece also includes this gem:

Some individuals, such as M.D. and radio host Rima Laibow have speculated on the intentionality behind this ostensible chemical siege against our gray matter. Laibow believes that the impetus may be to create an entire class of autistic individuals who will be suited only for certain types of work.This harks back, eerily, to Aldous Huxley’s classic Brave New World, in which individuals were preprogrammed from “conception” for eventual placement in one of five groups, designated as Alpha, Beta, and so on down to Epsilon, based on their programmed brain power. In Huxley’s dystopian world, this class delineation by intellectual ability enabled society to function more smoothly.

With the agricultural use of chemicals, there is at least the argument that it improves crop yield. Of course, there are some significant concerns about the sustainability of some of our agricultural practices along with significant concerns about the collateral damage of agricultural chemicals and genetically engineered crops, but I digress.

The heavy residential use of chemicals is a little strange. These chemicals can't possibly be entirely harmless and the pursuit of the Stepford Wives lawn hardly seems worth it.

Maplewood could petition the State to have an ordinance which prohibits residents from using lawn chemicals for purely cosmetic purposes! It can be done! This was done in Ontario, Canada. The ordinance could be modeled the same way. Who wants to run with this one?

Here is an example from Maine. http://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/documents2/municipal%20ordinances/Ogunquit_Ordinance_1-1-15.pdf Common Maplewood! You could be the start of a State wide phenomenon! Do it!

Another example, http://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2015/10/08/montgomery-lawn-pesticide-ban-passes-draws-wide-attention/ 

Here is info on Ontarios ban. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/pesticides/highlights-of-ontarios-cosmetic-pesticide-ban/