Wow. That's interesting and good news. I'd like to see them win, but I'm sure an army of lawyers can argue that they are not responsible for the applicators' behavior. And I'll wager that we are in a new-ish era with EPA, esp wrt the CO2 endangerment finding, leavened with the mountaintop mining continuance (who's paying more wins, of course).

Dan

Shades of the 1970s.....maybe this time the public will listen.

but I'm sure an army of lawyers can argue that they are not responsible for the applicators' behavior.

And they might have a point. From the Atrazine label:

Groundwater protection: Atrazine can travel (seep or leach) through soil and can enter groundwaer which may be used as drinking water. Atrazine has been found in groundwater. Users are advised not to apply atrazine to sand and loamy sand soils where the water table (groundwater) is close to the surface and where these soils are very permeable, i.e., well-drained. Your local agricultural agencies can provide further information on the type of soil in your area and the location of groundwater.

I mean geez, if you know that your product can cause a problem, you tell people what the potential problem is, you tell them how to use it safely and what they can do to avoid using it unsafely, and tell them where to get even more information on how to use it safely, but they choose to use it in an unsafe manor, what else can you do? Anything is dangerous if used incorrectly.

And where the heck is the outrage over this little gem:

As the Huffington Post Investigative Fund reported in a series of articles last fall, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency failed to notify the public that atrazine had been found at levels above the federal safety limit in drinking water in at least four states.

Holy cow! The people who buy the product misuse that product, (causing the precise problem that the company warns against) the government knows about it and sweeps it under the rug, and then it's the manufacturer who lands in the hot water?

Wow.

But isn't the point that chemicals that can contaminate water supplies need to be taken out of circulation and something else substituted that's safer?

There are always accidents, such as Chernobyl, and all the finger-pointing in the world at the plant operators won't undo the damage, with chemicals as well as operators of nuclear power plants.

Is a high degree of risk by those who use a product always acceptable in the name of profits? And shall we blame the user rather than the producer and pusher of that product?

Lawsuits ARE won, even when information and warnings are freely distributed by producers and purveyors of products. Medical drugs. Cigarettes. If I put up a warning sign above my pool advising people it's too shallow to dive in but someone dives in it anyway and breaks his neck, that person has a right to sue me and often wins.

How about....it's about time that the chemical companies came up with formulas that aren't harmful even if they do get into things such as our ground water!!!
Bet they aren't even researching that!

But isn't the point that chemicals that can contaminate water supplies need to be taken out of circulation and something else substituted that's safer?

In sane societies, yes.

But we have allowed corporate rule and pulling the chemical will harm profits.

Dan

But isn't the point that chemicals that can contaminate water supplies need to be taken out of circulation and something else substituted that's safer?

Now this right here is something I can rally behind and I agree with 1000%.

I would be all for yanking the registration on this and a lot of other products. However, suing these companies to pay for the clean up of a misused product that is currently legal to manufacture and sell, but is known to carry inherent risks is not the way to go about things. It's like suing Anheuser Busch to pay for damages caused by drunk drivers.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this one goes. It doesn't appear that the cities want to stop the use of Atrazine but just want the company to pay for cleaning up their water supplies.

And yes, I don't understand why someone doesn't sue liquor companies for making liquor available to pregnant women -- it causes fetal alcohol syndrome and is devastating to human beings. There's no cure for this brain and nervous system damage that could have been easily stopped. And that doesn't include drunk drivers who cause death and mayhem. I don't think the liquor companies will ever be put out of business for safety's sake though -- too many people think they have a right to drink, drive, and get pregnant if they wish, and nobody should tell them No, no matter what the consequences are. And it sounds too much like Carrie Nation's moralizing about the "evils of liquor, destroying our happy homes"...