The details below present what was dumped into the Bowl prior to town’s people becoming educated about these chemicals and compounds.
I have been out of town and mostly out of Internet range for a good portion of this past summer and early fall.
I have returned to have Stockbridge citizens asking me what I think of Jim Balfanz’s letter to The Berkshire Edge in which he referred to me as lacking “credibility.” According to Balfanz my “credibility” is in question because in a letter I wrote to this publication regarding Stockbridge Bowl Association’s lawsuits against the town of Stockbridge, Conservation Commission and its individual members I used the words “think Agent Orange.” I was “generally” referring to defoliant chemicals and their components as being toxic to humans.
Credible or not the mention was to give readers an idea of what “defoliants” are. Agent Orange is familiar to most and as you will see below some of its components were, in fact, put into Stockbridge Bowl.
In response to this accusation by Balfanz I enlisted a meticulous researcher who sits on our Conservation Commission – one Thomas Labelle. His email can be found below in italics). The details below present what was dumped into the Bowl prior to town’s people becoming educated about these chemicals and compounds:
Here is the list of the herbicides used in the Bowl between 1960 and 1977. A total of 38,800 pounds of granular pesticide and 21,753 gallons of liquid pesticide were used during these years.
A total of 38,800 pounds of granular pesticide and 21,753 gallons
of liquid pesticide were used during these years.
Breakdown of individual chemicals used:
Breakdown of individual chemicals used:
Year Chemicals Used Amount Applied
Notice that in 1972, 1974, and 1976 a cocktail of poisons was used unlike in earlier years where reliance was placed on one pesticideo nly. This is more dangerous because the chemicals can interact in unpredictable ways, producing new and unexpected compounds.
There are two active ingredients in Agent Orange: 2,4-D which was used in Stockbridge Bowl, and 2,4,5-T which is the chemical that made Agent Orange so deadly to humans. This latter chemical, 2,4,5-T, contains traces of 2,3,7,8-tetracholorodibenzo-p-dioxin, a compound known to cause a broad range of cancers in humans. This chemical, however, WAS NOT used in Stockbridge Bowl. So, Balfanz was correct in saying Agent Orange was not used in the Bowl, though it could be said that a component of Agent Orange was used for 2 years.
I would acknowledge that your statement was not entirely accurate, but then given the assortment of chemicals actually used and the amounts that should be frightening enough.
In these days of “Google” and in order to re-establish some semblance of my credibility discredited by Balfanz, I encourage anyone reading the above list of chemicals to “Google” them individually and decide for themselves if my disparaged credibility is still in question.
Get the latest news and happenings delivered straight to your inbox.
Get the latest news and happenings delivered straight to your inbox.
Get the latest news and happenings delivered straight to your inbox.
Get the latest news and happenings delivered straight to your inbox.
SHIFTING FOCUS: ORGANIZING FOR AN ECOSOCIALIST FUTURE
Close Encounters with Music presents PICTURES AT AN EXHIBITION A Gallery Stroll concert
Crossroads: Change in Rural America Opening Reception
Website by Web Publisher PRO © 2022 The Berkshire Edge, LLC. All rights reserved. Read our Terms of Use