06/13/09 - This letter was sent to the Town Council and copied to the Block Island Times:

When I read in the Block Island Times (May 23, 2009) that the Town Council had rejected the use of 2,4-D for the control of broadleaf weeds in the newly constructed Heinz athletic field due to the implied threat that this herbicide constituted a threat to public health and safety, I was somewhat mystified. 2,4-D is a selective phenoxy herbicide that controls weeds without damaging particular crops. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It has a 63-year legacy of safe, efficient and effective use for weed control on turfgrass.

As an extension agent with the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service for 30 years, one of my responsibilities was participating in training professional groundskeepers and golf course superintendents in preparation for a test to become a licensed pesticide applicator. This license is necessary for commercial/professional personnel to purchase restricted pesticides and apply both restricted and unrestricted (which includes 2,4-D) pesticides, usually on a contract basis. This test was administered by the state of Connecticut Environmental Protection Administration. Similar licensing programs are administered in all states. At no point was there any information provided that alluded to the health concerns comparable to that presented at the council meeting, particularly that 2,4-D has any relationship to the health effects of the infamous Agent Orange and its threat to human health.

In a report — Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data — two italicized statements stand out: 

• “The phenoxy herbicides are low in toxicity to humans and animals (1,9). No scientifically documented health risks, either acute or chronic, exist from the approved uses of the phenoxy herbicides.”

• According to one recent expert review (Dost 2003), “2,4-D is possibly the most researched of all pesticides, and the data have been examined by an unusual number of advisory committees and work groups.”

Pesticides are possibly one of the most regulated industries next to that of pharmaceuticals. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs evaluates which ingredients and which pesticide products can be registered in the United States. The EPA evaluates the potential effects of pesticides on human health and the environment, conducts risk assessments, and works with companies to develop label instructions that ensure safety. EPA offices also oversee the import and export and work with other federal agencies (Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture) to monitor and regulate the pesticide residues in food.”

Federal regulatory agencies that are involved in the registered use of pesticides include:

Food and Drug Administration

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

U. S. Department of Agriculture

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Department of Transportation

Environmental Health Information Service

• National Institutes of Health

• National Toxicology Program

The one precaution on the label that relates to people or pets and treated turfgrass with 2,4-D is, “Do not allow people (other than the applicator) or pets on treatment area during application. People and pets may enter treated area after spray has dried.” Further, the use of this herbicide is used only when a weed problem develops. This use of 2,4-D ensures a continued cover of turfgrass. If infestation is light, spot applications can by used only where weeds have become a problem.

The purpose of using 2,4-D to maintain turfgrass weed-free is not only for aesthetic purposes, but also to provide a playing field with a uniform surface that will help to ensure competitive play — versus a surface inundated by an abundance of weeds.

A management program for an athletic field includes a modest fertilizer program to promote turfgrass growth, control of weeds, timely mowing and over-seeding when bare spots develop, such as in the goal areas of a soccer field. Without these tools Heinz Field will deteriorate to a second-class, “sand lot” field.

I don’t think that this is what the proponents of Heinz Field had in mind. As taxpayers who have just invested over $600,000 in the construction of the field and the continued grounds maintenance such as mowing, I find it troubling that the Town Council can be swayed to make a decision based on innuendo rather than fact. It is indeed unfortunate that any mention of pesticides turns a segment of the population into a frenzy.

Pesticides are poisons that can cause injury if not used according to the label. However, any case where injury occurs, it is most often associated with accidents. “We” have been killing 40,000 people per year with our automobiles but we keep on taking the risk by driving. Let one case of pesticide misuse happen, regardless of how minor, and the media headlines it from Presque Isle, Maine to San Diego and from Seattle to Key West.

With the information that I have provided I would hope that the council might reconsider its decision to reject the use of 2,4-D for the control of broadleaf weeds on Heinz Field.

Frederick H. Nelson

Beach Avenue

To: the Editor—

One important issue raised by the proposed Ballard’s Inn upward expansion and rebuild is the potential negative effect on the public’s access to the beach, ocean and view. Clearly, in times past, building a hotel on a beach was an accepted practice. The sea was clean, the fish ran strong and the concern for the preservation of the environment had not yet become an indispensable norm.

During the 20th century, only a few weak laws protected the public against the potential adverse effects of over-development on the coastline. As the century waned, however, we began to understand our survival on this Earth depends on a more careful stewardship. Public access to our beaches is part of this stewardship, and through our right of public access, we protect the environment by curtailing private development in sensitive parts of our ecosystem.

The upward expansion of the Ballard’s Inn runs counter to environmental protection by diminishing the public’s right of access to the beach. Currently, this hotel already blocks access by virtue of its physical location, and an increase in size would only promote the impression the beach in front of the Ballard’s Inn is private. In fact, this beach is described by Ballard’s own website as a “private beach.”

Technically, of course, they only mean the beach within their property line, but the photos and text of their website do not distinguish the difference.

In my opinion, a reasonable-minded person would conclude they sell the whole beach as their own private paradise. (For anyone who believes this untrue, I have a beach to sell you on Block Island). I would further submit past experience and current use has shown a desire for maximized private benefit at the public’s expense.

It should be noted that in the not too distant past, Ballard’s was forced to conform to its access obligations through a removal of structures blocking access. Actions speak louder than words, and the proposed expansion is further evidence of a private takeover of a public beach at the expense of the public good.

The town of New Shoreham’s unique and historical nature is worth preserving, and we all agree the coastline hotels increase the island’s economic strength and vitality. This does not mean, however, that those who are the beneficiaries of past privileges can overreach for more of what is no longer available today. This goes for any private business, whether a hotel, a marina, or even a LNG terminal.

The proposed Ballard’s Inn upward expansion and rebuild does not conform to the spirit of pubic access, and it will further diminish the public’s access right essential to protect Ballard’s beach. A reasonable solution is to preserve what it was yesterday, and what it remains today: a hotel built before the day when we realized public access is essential to our environment’s future well-being.

The right of public access necessitates a reduction, not an expansion, of our footprint on the coastline. It is an agreement to all walk down the same path to the beaches together, which are owned by all of us, and in so doing, keep with Block Island’s basic user instruction, “stay off the dunes, pick up your garbage, and yes, all the beaches are public.”

Charles W. McMellon Jr.

West Side Road