******************************************************************************************************************************

CANARY CORNER

Toxic Tales

Contrary to industry claims, many “canaries” can trace their serious

health conditions directly to pesticide exposure. A few examples…

From Connie E.: Knows Many of the Chemically Injured

People and animals, both domestic and wild, are dying from the drift from farms, golf courses, lawn treatments. A friend of mine went into cardiac arrest and had a miscarriage when her neighbor sprayed his trees with Dursban. I am in contact with families who have lost their homes, contents and health from termite or ant treatments with Dursban and other organophosphate (nerve agents). One young girl in her thirties was a recent college grad and was into her first real job and apartment, when it was sprayed for fleas. She was rushed to the hospital with respiratory, GI and cardiac problems. This happened 5 years ago and her life immediately changed. She is now permanently disabled, can't work, can't find a place to live and has lost most of her personal belongings from having to leave them behind. I know teachers, doctors, lawyers, social workers, children who have been permanently disabled by this legal assault.

From Carmela G.: Misconceptions About “Protecting” From Pollen

I attended several of the city's public consultations on pesticides this week. I was very upset to hear representatives from the pesticide industry repeatedly claim that pesticide spraying benefits asthmatics and people who are allergic to pollen. I urge you not to let their ridiculous claims sway you. These claims are completely false. A number of households in my neighborhood have their lawns sprayed with pesticides. Pesticide spraying does not alleviate my allergy or asthma symptoms. In fact, I have more trouble breathing and I break out in hives for several days after pesticides are sprayed. Then, just as I am starting to regain control of my asthma, I see the pesticide truck in my neighborhood again. I cannot express how much I dread seeing those trucks, knowing that I will get sick again.

I have suffered from allergies and asthma my whole life. I am allergic to tree, grass and ragweed pollen. My allergist gives me very good tips on minimizing my exposure to pollen and controlling my allergy symptoms. Claiming that we need to use pesticides to "kill" pollen is a sure sign that an individual is not educated about asthma and allergies. First, winds blow pollen from miles away, so spraying lawns will not eliminate pollen. Besides, trees, grass, flowers, and insects are an integral part of our ecosystem. Second, the first frost kills ragweed, so there is no justification for spraying pesticides at this time of year to "deal with" ragweed pollen. Third, the Canadian Asthma Consensus Guidelines, allergists, respirologists, respiratory therapists, emergency room physicians, and certified asthma educators have never recommended using pesticides to "manage" allergy and asthma symptoms. Exposing an allergic individual to the chemicals in pesticides does not cause the person's immune system to stop the allergic reaction. In fact, these chemicals irritate the delicate lining of the lungs and aggravate the immune system's response.

Unfortunately, there are thousands of people in Ottawa with allergies and asthma, some of whom are too ill to speak for themselves. I know what it is like to be incapacitated by asthma and to not be able to speak in defense of your health. I am worried for my health and for the health of other people in this city. I do not want myself or others to become ill because some people think that it is necessary to spray chemicals on grass and plants to "beautify" them. Our need to breathe easy is more important than the "look" of a patch of grass. This is a public health issue because these chemicals make people sick. The city has already banned the cosmetic use of pesticides on city property because of health concerns. I hope that Ottawa City Council will continue to protect our health and safety by extending this ban on lawns and gardens.

************************************************************************************************************************

***************************************************************************************************************

Do Fragrance Chemicals Play a Role in Breast Cancer?

www.fpinva.org/Editorials/cancer.htm

Synthetic musk compounds have been in use since the 1920s. These compounds are in the soaps we use to clean our bodies, the toiletries we use, the detergents used on our clothes, and hundreds of other scented products that we use and encounter on a daily basis. Millions of pounds of these chemicals are used each year. They contaminate waterways and aquatic wildlife. They contaminate our bodies.Despite their decades of use, there is only limited information their effects on the human body and the environment. It has been known since the early 1990s that nitromusk compounds were present in human fat tissue and mother's milk. By the mid-1990s, there was evidence of polycyclic musk bioaccumulation as well. The implications were not fully known, but it was a cause for concern. Further investigation was recommended. A decade later, the implications still are not known and the research is still limited. The available research raises even more concerns. There should be a public outcry for more answers, unfortunately the public does not know.

Any chemical that accumulates in body tissue should be of concern. There is ample evidence that both nitromusks and polycyclic musk accumulate in human fat tissue and are found in breast milk. This means that these materials are found in breast tissue. The evidence does not stop there. Of further concern is that musk zylene was carcinogenic in animal studies.There is evidence that musk ketone increases the carcinogenic effects of other materials. A German study took human breast cancer cells and exposed them to synthetic musks. It was found that musk xylene and its breakdown products, musk ketone, and the polycyclic musk AHTN caused an increased growth of the breast cancer cells. Further study suggests these materials have estrogenic effects.

An animal study done in 1998 found that musk xylene bioaccumulated in tissue, was found in milk, crossed the placental barrier and was found in offspring. Perhaps the most interesting finding of the study was, "Female tissue levels were 3.7-6.8 times higher. This unexplained sex difference was unrelated to lipid content and was absent in offspring." In a recently published article it was found that musk xylene and musk tibetene had carcinogenic activity. As the evidence mounts, one has to wonder what role fragrance chemicals may play in breast cancer.

*************************************************************************************************************************

Labeling Loophole Leaves Toxic Chemicals Unlisted

http://www.nbc11.com/morenews/3682213/detail.html

NBC11.com: POSTED: 8:53 pm PDT August 25, 2004,

UPDATED: 9:14 pm PDT August 25, 2004

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- If you use cosmetics and household cleaners, you may be unknowingly exposed to toxic chemicals, according to a new report by a consumer watchdog group. After extensive testing, the National Environmental Trust found many of the products people use every day -- like household cleaners and cosmetics – contain chemicals associated with cancer, reproductive harm and nervous system damage, NBC11's Marianne Favro reported. And because of a labeling loophole the chemicals don't have to be listed on the product. The bottom line to American consumers is that they can have complete confidence that the products they use are safe, Favro said. "We tested household liquid cleaners and found there were a lot of ingredients not listed on the label," said Tom Natan, of the National Environmental Trust. "These include toxic chemicals like glycols, which we know from animal studies can cause fetal damage. We also know repeated exposure can cause brain damage."

The government insists that companies list, in detail, the active ingredients -- those that play a role in the products function. But on some household cleaners the manufacturer doesn't need to specify the inert or inactive ingredients that serve no purpose in cleaning. The NET claims toxins are often found in the inactive ingredients, including those used in cosmetics like the Revlon Moondrops lipstick. Natan says phthalates are found in lipstick, which is not listed on the label because they're a part of the fragrance. "The manufacturer does not make the fragrance, so it's just listed as 'fragrance' on the label and not phthalates," Natan said. "Phthalates are reproductive toxins and you don't really want them in lipsticks because some of the lipstick is going to get consumed.

GOOD NEWS: ACTION TAKEN BY SOME STATES!

New Jersey Sues TruGreen ChemLawn

February 9, 2006 The New Jersey Attorney General's Office and Division of Consumer Affairs have filed suit against TruGreen Limited Partnership, alleging that the company violated the state's Consumer Fraud Act by performing unauthorized lawn treatments in addition to other infractions. The state's charges echo complaints filed with ConsumersAffairs.Com by consumers around the nation.

**"TruGreen came on my property and put an application on after I cancelled," said Michele of Alpharetta, Ga. "When I called to complain, the woman I spoke to said I cancelled after the application was applied. She basically called me a liar. They forwarded my account to a collections agency which is now harrassing me."

**"After being told never to contact us again, they sent a truck and a workman who sprayed our bushes without our knowledge," said Raymond of Tallahassee, Fla. "I immediately called TruGreen and the woman I spoke with acknowledged that we had indeed canceled our contract a full year before."

The state's complaint alleges that TruGreen engaged in unconscionable commercial practices, made false promises and misrepresentations, and knowingly omitted material facts. The state is seeking restitution for customers and civil penalties. Between 2000 and 2005, Consumer Affairs received 68 complaints from TruGreen customers. "We allege that this lawn care company misled customers about its prices and charged customers for lawn treatments they did not request or authorize," said Attorney General Zulima Farber. "We are prepared to take legal action whenever necessary to ensure that New Jersey consumers get a fair and honest deal." TruGreen, which does business as TruGreen ChemLawn, is alleged to have:

• Provided lawn treatment applications not authorized by consumers;

• Renewed agreements for applications without the consumer's knowledge or consent;

• Billed consumers for unauthorized applications;

• Charged consumers for applications that were advertised or represented as being free;

• Quoted a price above the company's regular price and then offered a "discount price" that in fact was equal to the company's regular price;

• Sent to collection agencies the accounts of consumers who received unauthorized treatment applications or unauthorized service renewals;

• Failed to suspend collection efforts after being informed by a consumer that a bill was unjustified;

• Failed to honor consumers' requests to cancel treatment applications;

• Failed to respond to consumer complaints and inquiries;

• Misrepresented the actual price of treatment applications;

• Failed to notify customers of scheduled application dates as promised; and

• Failed to honor consumers' requests for credits or refunds for unauthorized applications as promised.

"We allege that TruGreen simply did what it wanted to do regardless of what consumers wanted. We expect companies to be responsive when a consumer contacts them and instructs that service be discontinued, billing disputes be resolved or problems be addressed. It is unconscionable that consumers who allegedly never authorized lawn treatments were hounded by collection agencies for payment," Ricketts said.

******************************************************************************************

New York - State Sues EPA for Files on Household Pollutants

By Danny Hakim - The New York Times, Wednesday 15 February 2006

Albany - As New York and other states grapple with the gradually tightening requirements of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is refusing to turn over records detailing the levels of smog-causing compounds found in common household and industrial products like paints and varnishes. Such volatile organic compounds are not only significant contributors to smog, but they have also been linked to a variety of health problems, including the rising asthma rates in cities like New York and Los Angeles. After trying for two years to obtain the records, New York State sued the EPA on Tuesday, saying that the agency has violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying the state's repeated requests for the records.

State officials say they need the records to draw up a plan to comply with strict new rules on smog-forming pollution being phased in under the Clean Air Act. The records are submitted to the EPA by manufacturers of paint products. New York and California, as well as some other states on the East Coast, have stricter regulations on volatile organic compounds because they have worse summertime smog problems than other states. In refusing to turn over the records, the EPA appears to be siding with paint manufacturers, which have been battling in court to prevent state attempts to regulate their products.

And the paint companies have been aided in the past by at least one influential friend, Senator George V. Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who personally appealed to the EPA on behalf of Sherwin-Williams, based in Cleveland. A letter he wrote in October 2004 asked the agency to heed the industry's objections to allowing some states to tighten their regulations of volatile organic compounds. Now states are having trouble determining even what the levels of such pollutants are. Companies like Sherwin-Williams are stating that the information about the pollutants in their products, which they submitted to the EPA, is proprietary and represents trade secrets, an assertion that the agency has supported, according to New York's court filing. New York officials say the information should be made public, arguing that the agency, despite a request under the Freedom of Information Act, has not made a sincere effort to determine, as required by law, whether companies were making valid claims that the data was a trade secret.

One of the few documents that New York has received from the EPA indicates that paint producers are often using a loophole in the regulatory system to pay their way out of reducing the pollutant levels of their products. Sherwin-Williams paid more than $5 million in 2002 to avoid fully reducing its levels of volatile organic compounds to required limits, according to the document. The amount was more than 15 times the noncompliance fee paid by any competitor.

In a statement on Tuesday, New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, said that "the state is entitled by law to this critical information so it can effectively implement its clean air programs to preserve public health." He added, "The EPA has no grounds on which to deny such a request." Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, is suing on behalf of the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, a branch of Gov. George E. Pataki's administration. An EPA spokesman, John R. Millett, said in a statement on Tuesday that the agency's intent "is to provide New York with all the information it is entitled to. The agency is looking into the matter in order to provide the state a final response to its request."

Conway G. Ivy, a senior vice president at Sherwin-Williams, said a great majority of his company's products complied with the regulations on volatile organic compounds, though not the specialty products like paints used on roads or for industrial maintenance. "Our customer base indicates they would prefer the performance of these noncomplying products," he said. The stalemate is the latest in a series pitting states, including those like New York and California, which have Republican governors, against the environmental policies of the Bush administration. In one battle, automakers, with the support of the EPA, are suing both New York and California over state plans to aggressively regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from cars and trucks. The Bush administration has rejected such state moves. Last year, Mr. Pataki and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California wrote a letter to President Bush asking him to preserve their ability to set stricter environmental rules.

The new lawsuit comes as the Bush administration has come under criticism for restricting the flow of information on issues related to smog-forming pollutants and global warming emissions. Last month, a top NASA scientist said that Bush administration officials were trying to censor his views on climate change. Last year, the administration delayed the release of a report on the gas mileage of cars and trucks until after the voting on the energy bill.

S. William Becker, executive director of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, an association of state and local air quality regulators, said the disclosure that 75 companies like Sherwin-Williams were paying fees in lieu of at least some of their required pollutant reductions was troubling. "What EPA is doing is allowing the industry to buy their way out of federal regulations," he said. He added that states would be forced to regulate similar pollutants from the small businesses that cannot afford such fees, like bakeries and auto body repair shops.

*************************************************************************************************************************

Experts Refute Anti-Bacterial Soap Claims

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/ap_on_he_me/fda_antibacterial&printer=1

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer, Thu Oct 20, 5:45 PM ET

Popular antibacterial soaps and washes offer no more protection than regular soap and water, a federal advisory panel said Thursday, telling companies to prove their products are better if they expect to continue making claims to the public. The independent expert panel, which advises the Food and Drug Administration, said by an 11-1 vote that it saw no added benefits to antibacterials when compared with soapy handwashing. Panelists also said soaps that use synthetic chemicals — as do many products which claim to eliminate 99 percent of germs they encounter — could contribute to the growth of bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

Those risks, coupled with a lack of demonstrated benefits compared with soap and water, raised the prospect of new limits on an industry that has grown astronomically in the past decade. The experts did not vote to recommend that the FDA take any specific regulatory action against antibacterials, but did urge the agency to study the products' risks versus benefits. "There's no evidence they are a good value," Dr. Alastair Wood, chairman of the Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee, said after the meeting. Panelist Dr. Mary E. Tinetti said unless antibacterials can show some added benefit, "I think we're seeing a lot of sentiment against (antibacterials) being marketed to the consumer." Still, committee members said such products reduce infections as well as soap and water do. The experts also wondered whether antibacterials may provide added benefit to some people who are particularly at risk for certain illnesses.

The FDA is not bound by the decisions of its advisory panels, but often follows their advice. The agency has the authority to add warning labels to or restrict the marketing of such soaps and related items, but it has given no indication any such actions are imminent. Representatives of the soap industry say antibacterials are safe and more effective than regular soap, although they provided little data to support that assertion. The industry contends that killing germs is better than washing them off. "The importance of controlling bacteria in the home is no different than the professional setting," said Elizabeth Anderson, associate general counsel for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. "We feel strongly that consumers must continue to have the choice to use these products." Industry representatives said they would provide more data to the FDA showing the products are safe and effective.

FDA officials and panelists raised concerns about whether the antibacterials contribute to the growth of drug-resistant bacteria, and said the agency has not found any medical studies that definitively linked specific antibacterial products to reduced rates of infection. Both kinds of soaps reduced infections in households, but neither one worked better than the other, experts told the panel. Antibacterial products kill most of the bacteria they encounter. Regular soap helps separate bacteria from the skin so the bacteria wash down the drain or transfer to a towel.

Dr. Stuart B. Levy, president of the Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics, said laboratory studies have suggested the soaps sometimes leave behind bacteria that have a better ability to flush threatening substances — from antibacterial soap chemicals to antibiotics intended to cure infections. "What we're seeing is evolution in action," he said of the process. He advocated restricting antibacterial products from consumer use, leaving them for hospitals and homes with very sick people, where he says they are needed most. "Bacteria are not going to be destroyed," he said. "They've seen dinosaurs come and go. They will be happy to see us come and go. Any attempt to sterilize our home is fraught with failure."

Levy said overuse of antibiotics is the main cause of bacteria's developing resistance to them. He acknowledged that a yearlong study showed that homes using antibacterial soaps did not show an increase in resistant bacteria in significant numbers, but he argued the soaps will still contribute to resistance over a longer period. Panelists also distinguished alcohol-based hand cleansers from antibacterial soaps and washes. The cleansers are particularly useful in situations where there is no soap and water.

On the Net:

Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee: http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/accalendar/2005/cder12541dd10202105.html

Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association: http://www.ctfa.org/

WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?

SAFER SUBSTITUTES FOR BLEACH & ANTI-BACTERIAL PRODUCTS

Because sanitizing is the toughest challenge for using natural cleaning practices, we decided to surf

the Web for acceptable less-toxic options. Here’s a few of the sites and some of the info we found.

Natural Non-toxic Disinfectants for Cleaning & Sterilizing

http://www.motherearthnews.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6842&#80882

Hydrogen Peroxide

Food grade hydrogen peroxide and other oxidizing agents are often used in commercial poultry operations. Hydrogen peroxide is a strong anti-bacterial, viral, fungal agent, active against bacteria, bacterial spores, viruses, and fungi at quite low concentrations. It is the only germicidal agent composed only of water and oxygen. Like ozone, it kills disease organisms by oxidation, which can be best described as a controlled burning process. Hydrogen peroxide when used in its diluted form is considered one of the worlds safest all natural effective sanitizers. When hydrogen peroxide reacts with organic material it breaks down into oxygen and water, which makes it eco-friendly. Stabilized food grade hydrogen peroxide is safe, readily available, inexpensive and has many other uses.

Use a 10% solution of food grade hydrogen peroxide to nine parts tepid water to disinfect. Make enough solution to immerse [the watering container] completely, thoroughly scrub and allow to dry in the sun if possible. The UV rays of sunlight are a natural sanitizer as well.

***************************************************************************************

Non-Chlorine Sanitizer Options for the Wineries

dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/472/1/200418.doc

Recently, hydrogen peroxide has been approved by the EPA as a sanitizer. A maximum concentration of 1,100 ppm is permitted and has been shown to be effective at higher concentrations against bio-films that develop in food processing plants. In combination with peracetic acid, this combination provides a broad spectrum of activity against bacteria, yeast and mold. Hydrogen peroxide breaks down to water and oxygen without the generation of any undesirable by-products. However, hydrogen peroxide degrades quickly, especially when exposed to ultraviolet light. Sanitizer solutions containing hydrogen peroxide must be made fresh and used within a short period of time.

*********************************************************************************************

Non-Toxic Sanitizing of Your Hot Tub

http://www.thesolar.biz/Sanitizing_Hot_Tubs.htm

What is the solution?

To maintain the natural integrity of a soaking tub, we recommend using only sanitizers that kill bacteria without harming people. We've found only one substance that meets this requirement oxygen, in the form of oxygen ions (O1), also referred to as unpaired oxygen. This substance is elegantly simple to use and very effective. An interesting fact: it is several thousand times more potent than either chlorine or bromine.

Unpaired oxygen is found in both hydrogen peroxide and ozone. Both do an excellent job of killing bacteria, but most importantly, they leave no harmful residue. They both kill bacteria by releasing oxygen ions (O1) into the water. When the reaction is completed, oxygen atoms (O1) have joined together to form stable oxygen molecules (O2). The process is quick, safe, and sensible.

Hydrogen peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a truly amazing and wonderful sanitizer. For the soaking tub, it should be used in a high-strength 27% solution (not the 3% variety that comes in the brown bottles). When poured into a soaking tub, hydrogen peroxide immediately disassociates into water (H20) and oxygen ions (01). These ions are so unstable that they quickly attach to anything within reach, destroying bacteria on contact. Within several hours the reaction is completed, leaving stable oxygen (O2) and water (H2O). Beautiful!

How to use it

To sanitize a soaking tub, hydrogen peroxide is thoroughly mixed into the water at 1/4 to 1/2 cup per 100 gallons. CAUTION: Concentrated hydrogen peroxide is a powerful oxidizer which can cause skin burns when poured directly from the bottle. Care must be taken to follow all indicated precautions on the bottle.

Maintenance dose

Hydrogen peroxide is also safe to use while people are in the tub (our white blood cells secrete it to kill invaders). To control bacteria, pour in 1/8 cup H2O2 per 100 gallons of water a few minutes before getting in.

Where to get hydrogen peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide is available at most spa stores, under the category of oxidizers or shock treatments. Since it is sold as a cleaning agent, most spa stores are unaware of its value as a sanitizer. Several brands don’t even indicate the contents on the bottle. (A Federal MSDS Report can be requested from any manufacturer for a list of ingredients and potential health hazards.) These three brands are certified to contain 27% hydrogen peroxide:

1. Clear Comfort Clarifier

2. Soft Swim-C (Soft Swim-B is only 15%)

3. Baqua-Shock

******************************************************************************************************************************

Vinegar and Hydrogen Peroxide as Disinfectants

http://my.execpc.com/~mjstouff/articles/vinegar.html

(This item suggests the use of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide together – one of two I found. Other sites indicated vinegar alone may not be trustworthy to kill chlamydia, and the peroxide will. NOTE: I suggest using only the 10 % or 3 % grades for safety, not the stronger stuff recommended above for the hot tub. LG)

by Judy Stouffer, B.S., M.S., SFO, (Judy@m-net.arbornet.com )

Ecology Commission, St. Joseph Fraternity,

You can make your kitchen a cleaner, safer place and fight bacteria, without exposing yourself and your family to toxic chemicals that also damage the environment. You can use a simple safe disinfecting spray that is more effective than any of the commercial cleaners in killing bacteria. As a bonus, it is inexpensive!

Susan Sumner, a food scientist at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, worked out the recipe for just such a sanitizing combo. All you need is three percent hydrogen peroxide, the same strength available at the drug store for gargling or disinfecting wounds, and plain white or apple cidar vinegar, and a pair of brand new clean sprayers, like the kind you use to dampen laundry before ironing. If you're cleaning vegetables or fruit, just spritz them well first with both the vinegar and the hydrogen peroxide, and then rinse them off under running water.

It doesn't matter which you use first - you can spray with the vinegar then the hydrogen peroxide, or with the hydrogen peroxide followed by the vinegar. You won't get any lingering taste of vinegar or hydrogen peroxide, and neither is toxic to you if a small amount remains on the produce. As a bonus: The paired sprays work exceptionally well in sanitizing counters and other food preparation surfaces -- including wood cutting boards. In tests run at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, pairing the two mists killed virtually all Salmonella, Shigella, or E. coli bacteria on heavily contaminated food and surfaces when used in this fashion, making this spray combination more effective at killing these potentially lethal bacteria than chlorine bleach or any commercially available kitchen cleaner.

The best results came from using one mist right after the other - it is 10 times more effective than using either spray by itself and more effective than mixing the vinegar and hydrogen peroxide in one sprayer.

[References: Science News 9/29/96; Science News 8/8/98].

LOOKING AHEAD!

Cutting Lawn in Summer...

http://experts.about.com/q/725/4068717.htm

Volunteer Floracist: Kenneth Joergensen, Date: 7/18/2005

Question: Hi Kenneth...I live in RI and lately it's been hot and humid. My lawn has been looking pretty good, I use my sprinkler system to water it several times a week. But, after I cut my lawn, it looks burned, even though it was green before I cut it. Am I doing something wrong? Usually when I'm done cutting it, I'll put on the sprinklers and the greens up again. I've leave my mower on a medium setting, so I don't cut the grass too low. Do you think it's a watering problem or should I cut the lawn more often to avoid it looking burned out right after cutting? Thanks for your help!

Answer: What you describe is not uncommon for lawns in the NE in summer. Our lawns are not good at handling mid summer temperatures.

Water infrequently and deeply rather than frequently and shallowly, e.g. it is better to water once per week for 2 hours rather than 15 minutes daily. During these hot summer months, watering every 4-5 days is probably even ok, but don't water every 2nd day, etc. This only leads to a shallowly rooted lawn, which is more susceptible to browning.

During summer months, cut the lawn slightly taller than normal. Try to use a ruler next time you mow. Make sure the grass is at least 2.5-3.5" tall after mowing. Keep it mowed at this length. Make sure mower blade is sharpened and alternate cutting directions from time to time (e.g. north/south one month.. next month switch to east/west direction).

Finally, fertilize once in spring (late May) and then do not fertilize again until early September. Then complete your fertilization with a 3rd and last application in late October. Do not fertilize too early in spring or during hot summer months. If you follow above, you should have a very nice lawn. P.S. you can green up the lawn temporarily (2-3 weeks) with ironite in summer. Browning due to hot weather is very common on cool season lawns such as those in RI.

*************************************************************************************************************************

TIP TALKS SPRING ISSUE, 2006

MEMBERSHIPS/DONATIONS

WELCOME! Alan Ahlstrom, Annie Boyd, Libby H. Edgerly, Marnie Lacouture, Peggy Munson,

Tysh McGrail, Jean Williams

RENEWALS: Wendy Hamilton, Dana & George Houghton, Kate Lacouture, Ann Morrill,

IF YOUR MEMBERSHIP IS UP FOR RENEWAL OR YOU WISH TO GIVE TIP SOME CHEER

AND SUPPORT, CONSIDER USING OUR NEW ONLINE CREDIT CARD OPTION! JUST GO TO: http://www.toxicsinfo.org/subscribe.htm

(Old-fashioned checks to Toxics Information Project are also gratefully accepted )

TOXICS INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP)

P.O. Box 40572, Providence, RI 02940

Telephone (401) 351-9193,

E-Mail: TIPTALKS@toxicinfo.org

Web: www.toxicsinfo.org