this is so scary-------Many years ago I used chemicals--my roses were outside the bedroom window and the stench would come inside----plus the first thing you want to do is smell a rose and who wants to get a smell of chemicals----so I stopped using them.
The healthy roses have survived --the rest are no longer here-----

Thanks for this information

Florence

Plus Sevin/Carbaryl is lethal to honeybees. It has the potential to wipe out an entire hive because it functions like a nesting site poison (Carbaryl/Sevin is commonly used for ant poisons). Sevin thus has the same lethal potential to a hive especially if sprayed on blooms.

This just another validation for me that we need to be careful when using chemicals

This is only scary IF you allow it to be scary. Read and follow the directions for application on the label; wear a respirator, as well as protective clothing - long pants, long sleeved shirt, hat, etc., and don't spray on windy days. When in the sun, wear sunscreen. Above all, use your God-given common sense. Skin cancer is just as prevalent for golfers, beach-goers, and other outdoor activities. Generally, it's not the chemical that causes the problem, it's the abuse of the chemical and failure to follow directions that causes the problem.

I had two skin cancer operations on my left cheek (face) in 2003 because of severe sunburns as a teenager. It started eating a hole in my face. So, you do not want this to happen to you! Plus, you get a nice long 3" - 4" scar.
Take skin cancer warnings seriously!

Reading and following the label does absolutely nothing to protect you from your neighbor who isn't reading and following the label.

Remember also that a pesticide applicator exposes him or herself to much more pesticide than do most people, including home gardeners. As a former pesticide applicator this has direct implications for me, which I will certainly bear in mind.

Years ago (when I was in my 20's and I'm now 50) I learned from a dermatologist that one of the signs to watch for with regards to skin cancer is areas on your skin that are persistently itchy, even without any obvious indication of anything. (I'm not talking here about a patch of dry skin, or excema, or something such as that, but rather of a discrete spot on the skin that had no apparent problem at all and then starts to persistently itch, and then maybe weep or bleed when you scratch the spot.) After getting badly burned on my forearms (to the point where there were blisters from the sunburn) the summer I was 30 years old I now have a couple of such spots on my forearms (where the blisters were) when my arms get enough sun to tan (& I tan easily).

I no longer work regularly with pesticides, and while I still enjoy being out in the garden during the summer I avoid going outside until mid-afternoon, and even then I stay in the shade whenever possible. I also make a point of asking my doctor to examine my skin (all over) when I have my annual physical. I also wear a hat when I'm outside (now that I'm mostly bald on the top of my head).

In my 20's I worked in an azalea/rhododendron production nursery (a three-generation family wholesale nursery operation now out of business), and exposed myself to a lot of pesticide and sunlight. The pesticides I was exposed to were largely the low acute toxcity sorts, but those are the ones mentioned in the cited study above (such as Sevin). Having said that, I worked with several men in their 50's, 60's, or 70's (& the nursery owner was in his 80's), who had done the same (or worse) for far longer than I did.

Working with pesticides, even nasty ones, isn't an automatic death sentence (through cancer or any other disease). It does raise your risk of getting cancer, but it does not guarantee that you will.

(That's not a recommendation that you ignore precautions - only a reminder that having worked with such stuff in your past does not automatically mean you'll get sick with cancer in your future. As with smoking, the less of it you do the less likely you are to get sick with lung cancer, and as with asbestos, the less of it you expose yourself to the less likely you are to die of brown lung.)

What immediately struck me was something that was acknowledged in the linked article--the people studied are those that spend a lot of time in the sun. Sun exposure has been shown to be the primary cause of these cancers.

I don't spray and believe it can cause other significant health problems. The "science" as described in this article has some major flaws--dosage data being approximated, for one. The authors even admit that the results can be explained by increased sun exposure experienced by farm workers.

My tiger repellant works great. I haven't been attacked by a tiger yet.

YORK ROSE,

Your exactly right with your explanation below. I had no health insurance at the time and medical doctors and hospitals turned me down for treatment until I had health insurance, by then the cancer had eaten a hole in my cheek.
----------------------------------------------------------

"Years ago (when I was in my 20's and I'm now 50) I learned from a dermatologist that one of the signs to watch for with regards to skin cancer is areas on your skin that are persistently itchy, even without any obvious indication of anything. (I'm not talking here about a patch of dry skin, or excema, or something such as that, but rather of a discrete spot on the skin that had no apparent problem at all and then starts to persistently itch, and then maybe weep or bleed when you scratch the spot.)"

I've been much more careful in the sun. I used to be a sun worshiper and since I tanned easily, I never worried. But then when I moved to Georgia, I didn't realize how much stronger the sun is here. I began to get a lot of brown spots on my face and arms. I've been doing chemical peels to remove them, with success. And my skin looks and feels a lot better.

But, because of that, and my new fear of the sun, I never go out without 85 SPF sunscreen on my face and arms and a hat and sunglasses. Because of the peels, my skin is more sun sensitive, but I also want to prevent more damage.

So yes, avoid chemicals if you can and be careful. But don't forget about the Suns rays which are radioactive and not only will age your skin, can give you skin cancer.

Skin cancer in our low desert climate is a known hazard so nearly all of my makeup, lotions and even my haircare products have some type of sunscreen in them. If the heat doesn't getcha first...

One thing I was reading about Sevin/carbaryl is that spider mite problems appear to increase substantionally in gardens where carbaryl is used. Spider mites are a major summer pest here and they show up when it gets too hot to use chemical treatment so most of us control them with strong jets of water 2-3 times a week. Doesn't matter in that case whether the chemical is used properly or not, I don't need any more spider mites coming through here.

Interesting article in your link, however after reading it this study was done on farm wokers who obviously are spraying acres and acres of land and who are also exposed to hours of the sun's rays. I hardly think there is the same danger when the average homeowner follows directions on the label and sprays a few buses in his own garden.
I learned pratically everything I know about tea roses from my neighbor who was almost 90 at the time and he was a huge believer in spraying to have beautiful roses...and no he didn't die of cancer. He died at 95 (3 days short of 96 to be exact) when his heart just quit.
Sure some chemicals can be dangerous, but when used carefully and properly these chemicals can be your best friend to have a beatiful and successful rose garden.

moroseaz, I can confirm via anecdote what you have read before. When I was in my very early 20's I grew some raspberries that one summer suffered a bit more than I wanted from spider mites. (I was living in the Philadelphia area at the time, a climate with a humid summer and July/Aug. daily high temps. regularly of at least 85, when not 90+.) These raspberries were suffering from spider mites and so unthinkingly (& stupid young me, without reading the label) I decided to spray them with Sevin wettable powder, figuring since it was a broad spectrum pesticide it would solve the problem, right?

It was a few weeks before I realized why the spider mite problem only seemed to get worse.....................................

Live & learn........................................ :)

(Sevin does a wonderful job of killing spider mite predators!)

Scottys - you wrote "I learned pratically everything I know about tea roses from my neighbor who was almost 90 at the time and he was a huge believer in spraying to have beautiful roses."

I don't know where you are, but I don't think you necessarily need to spray to have beautiful roses. It's counterproductive anyway - you want to have something beautiful to enjoy but you need to wear hazmat suits and keep away from your food so where is the beauty?

Just get rid of the roses that need spraying. In some states those same roses will grow wonderfully. Out in the east, maybe not, so don't try. Your life won't be any poorer. I grow a few teas and I don't spray any of them.

Knockout is the standard at this point, but right after that come several teas, a polyantha, and a few Buck roses, all of which do well w/out spraying. I have 2 HTs that blackspot and I keep debating whether to jettison them but so far haven't. Otherwise, you can have pink, white, apricot, yellow, and singles or multi-petaled plants.

And at the end of the day, if you can't grow any roses at all, I guess I'd just grow something else. After all, I can't grow pineapples in NY so I don't try.

You don't need a hazmat suit to spray fungicide for heaven's sake. And why would you need to stay away from food?

I'm really tired of the judgmental attitudes here. I would never tell someone they need to spray or do anything for their roses they didn't wish to do. All I ask is that you give those of us who choose to spray fungicide the same respect. We aren't axe murderers. We like to grow roses beyond Knockouts and we don't want to see them defoliate with black spot. That's all.

Gee, I didn't see any judgemental attitudes here.... just some genuine concerns. No, you don't need a hazmat suit, but you do need to cover up, wear eye protection, and a respirator. Frankly, for me, it's too much work, and wayyyyy too hot!

I personally don't grow anything any more that needs that much extra help. There was a time that I did, and I enjoyed the fruits of my labor. I got tired of it. I really get a thrill out of growing roses that like my climate, and other trees, plants and shrubs that marvel me with their health whether I tend to them or not.

Hmmmm....I might need to stay away from food a little more though:) Tee hee!

Sandy

It's not just this thread. There are other threads where statements were made that spraying roses was from 'the dark ages'. I use organic fertilizers, I don't use insecticide, but I have to use fungicide to keep roses. Even Knockouts get black spot in this area. So when I read comments like that it just gets to me.

I also don't see the need to scare people with articles like this. Plus it ignores the exposure to sun factor in skin cancer, which is a HUGE problem. Many new rose growers may get frustrated and stop growing roses because of black spot. I almost did until I discovered that spraying works. And if you do it correctly it's not dangerous and it doesn't destroy the environment. But here on GW, I have to read that you need a hazmat suit (I don't think that remark was made in jest), it gives you skin cancer, it gives you hypothyroid, it kills bees, it kills earth worms. And none of that is true.

I just want people to post responsibly and to have respect for other posters who don't live in areas where blackspot is nonexistent. We want to grow roses too.

In case the reader is not familar with the journal's credentials:

"Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. EHP's mission is to serve as a forum for the discussion of the interrelationships between the environment and human health by publishing in a balanced and objective manner the best peer-reviewed research and most current and credible news of the field. With an impact factor of 6.12, EHP is the top monthly journal in public, environmental, and occupational health and the second-ranked monthly journal in environmental sciences."

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/static/information.action

---------------------------------------

If you would like to read the actual scientific paper (28 pages), click the link "download PDF" located on the upper right side of the web page available at:

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.0901518

Please look at the credentials of the authors, and keep in mind that the paper is a reviewed one. It had to be approved by peer scientists and by the editor.

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

I appreciate your intelligence, Henry. :)

Warm regards, as always,

Debbie

If it was reviewed, why didn't anyone think to link sun exposure to increased skin cancer? People here thought of it soon enough.

It's similar to papers by the EPA in New York state that use mega doses of a product and say it can cause cancer, when the amount they cite is 100X what a normal person would use.

Information can always be skewed to fit an agenda. People can take this for what it's worth. But you'd be better off using sun screen than avoiding spraying if you are worried about skin cancer.

The statement was made: "If it was reviewed, why didn't anyone think to link sun exposure to increased skin cancer? People here thought of it soon enough."

H. Kuska comment: Please read the complete paper.

This March 2010 reviewed scientific paper illustrates an alternate approach (independent of sun exposure) that is used to study if chemicals have skin cancer promoting potential:

http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Studies-glyphosate-induced-carcinogenicity-in/20045496.html

The abstract is very technical, in the full paper the following appears in the conclusion section:

"This study validates and consolidates the results of carcinogenicity data, showing that glyphosate has tumor promoting properties in mouse skin."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for abstract above

Let's just say we agree to disagree. There are those who feel spraying is from the dark ages/it will cause cancer/need respirators to apply/ not necessary etc and that is perfectly ok. Then there are those(like me) who rely on traditional insecticides and fungicides for a beautiful and rewarding rose growing experience.
Let's not get attitudes with each other or try to convince each other that one method is better over the other by posting scare tactic articles and comments.
If I wanted to, I could probably find thousands of documented cases where those with skin cancer have never gardened or sprayed in their entire lives so the "spraying and skin cancer link" in a very weak link at that.

Some may feel that a chemical is safe if the government allows it to be sold. To those readers, the following recent post may be of interest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404827.html

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

Guess what? A lot of stuff we use everyday is dangerous if we use it incorrectly or over use it. I'm not going to compare my self to a farm worker who sprays every day all day long or uses 30 gallons of fungicide a day. I also don't overuse household chemicals inside, but I do use them.

Cigarettes are legal, but we know they cause cancer. Cell phones might cause cancer. Drinking may cause cancer, or it may prevent it, who knows. Sun exposure can certainly cause cancer. Each person should make their decisions for themselves.

Scotty, ummm, I hope you won't mind me saying that a surefire proof is that certain insecticides and certain herbicides can make people sick. My border collie is a frisbee playing dog. I had let her play frisbee about 3 days after a light rain when the lawn people had sprayed grubkiller on the lawn. According to the lawn people, a dog can be let out into the yard just a few hours later. Well after 3 days I let Eluane play frisbee in the grass. She had non-stop diarrhea right away for 2 weeks and it took an entire month for her stools to get back to normal.

Also vapor is very easily carried by the wind. And if one has to wear a mask and goggles one does indeed need to wonder what effect it has on living creatures around us. Just food for thought, that's all...

Alot of the chemicals people are using today will be banned in the future. Watch and see.

What about cigarette smoking and sun bathing. Will that be banned too?

Buford, thank you for pointing out the need for fungicides for proper control of blackspot. Since this is a nationwide forum, I think some people who live in areas where it is little or no problem have no idea of the immense damage it causes. It always amazes me when I read someone's "natural" solution of using water sprays to control insects such as aphids. Only we who have prevalent blackspot problems because of wet, humid summers can appreciate how ridiculous this advice is. Wetting the foliage will only dislodge the aphids for about 1 day and in the process spreads the blackspot spores all over and magnifies the problem. As far as spraying and skin cancer, I will stand my my original position and say its a very weak link.
Serensyh, sorry about your dog... I really love animals myself. However, you should wait a least a week or more to let your dog play on a chemically treated lawn because after all they do groom their own coats and ingest the chemicals...chemicals that are clearly not meant to be ingested by anything but the lawn pests themselves.

I think I am going to use Wettable sulfur this year on my roses...no bug killers though.

I don't understand the attitude that's it's okay to poison the environment just to have beautiful roses. That is just plain selfish and terrible. I'd sooner stop growing them. The same for fruit and veggies. And if something is so noxious that a dog can't be exposed to it for a week without suffering ill effects, you have to be crazy to use it.

Modern insecticides are nonselective, killing or injuring beneficial insects and animals, and persisting in the environment, upsetting the ecological balance. All chemical pesticides upset the eco balance so significantly that crop yields eventually diminish.

The National Audubon Society says, 'Between 80 and 90 percent of pesticides used in homes and gardens do no good at all. More often, they do harm. These chemicals are a hazard to wildlife, pets, and humans. None of them are totally safe. And they often cause more problems than they solve.'

Here is a link that might be useful: Pesticides

Petra, I could not agree more. Mankind is very arrogant..destroying what God created..or Mother Nature..whatever your belief is. I have enjoyed learning to use less and less chemicals. I enjoy the sound of life in my garden..bees buzzing and birds chirping. It's awesome and very Zen like

petra, the original post included fungicides as well as insecticides. And I'm not discounting the report of the dog getting ill from the lawn chemicals, but it's an anecdotal incident. I don't put that stuff on my lawn or use insecticides, but I do use fungicides. They don't harm bugs or other living things (except of course blackspot spores). I don't think we need to be extreme and say 'all chemicals are bad' simply because they are chemicals. I can guarantee you that fungicides work and that is why people use them. I certainly wouldn't waste my time spraying if it did not work.

Like I posted above, I am mainly referring to pesticides and insecticides. However, several fungicides that used to be considered safe have since been banned or severely restricted. So whatever one is using now could be declared unsafe in the future. People just don't seem to care that whatever chemicals they use in their gardens don't stay in their gardens but affect everything and everyone around them as well.

1. Sun. Everybody needs to get some sun exposure in order absorb enough vitamin D. This is a medical fact if you want to avoid serious osteoporosis. Don't overdo it but don't be afraid of it , and wear a good pair of sunglasses to protect your eyes.

2.The newest sprays are far less dangerous than the old ones and one uses a very little amount of them. We consume far more of the sane when we buy veggies and fruit in the supermarket than when we spray them in the garden in an entire year. This is also a fact. The most reliable chemist on the forum, Mark Rivers once posted and exact calculation about the proportion of propiconazole or tebucazonazole and alike used for food preservation as opposed to garden spraying of the same substances and the comparison was frightening; nevertheless I believe him without any doubt.

3. Although this debate comes up every year on the forum ad nauseam, needles to say, mostly people living in the west coast are the most judgmental (my utmost respect to the exceptions), since they live in a blessed climate and they lecturing those who live in less fortunate parts of the US while most of the rose breeders still hybridize modern roses in California.

4. Organics. Not all organics are good, some are straight deadly. Just think about Cyanide, Arsenic, Strychnine, Digitalis and so on.

I think a much more complex, multifaceted and deeper approach is needed from the 'greenies". To repeat talking points is easy but that that does not make it true it just makes the repetition irritable.

I say this despite the fact that because of my health I plant more and more no-spray roses, especially climbers. To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not worried about the hazard of the chemicals I used but I because my back problems I cannot carry the equipment I used to push-roll any longer. When I sprayed (and I still have to spray some roses) I use eye protection, chemical gloves and long sleeve blouse or sweater. We have to use use far more serious protection for the organic product, the winter spraying of lime sulfur; then we use a serious respirator. Isn't it ironic?

New pesticides are not necessarily safer in the long run than the old "kill on contact" type. They may not show their "bad side" for many years such as in the skin cancer study.

Maneb type fungicides were among those found to be skin cancer promoting chemicals. I am surprised to see that some are still using it on their roses because of their previous association with Parkinson's, see:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090421091705.htm

"Ritz noted that this is the first epidemiological study to provide strong evidence that maneb and paraquat act synergistically to become neurotoxic and strongly increase the risk of Parkinson's disease in humans."

Please note: "Of particular concern, Ritz said, and consistent with other theories regarding the progression of Parkinson's pathology, is that the data "suggests that the critical window of exposure to toxicants may have occurred years before the onset of motor symptoms when a diagnosis of Parkinson's is made."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

In addition to "real world" studies, scientists study the effects on test animals.

Here is a recent (2010) study of manganese on rat's brain:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYR-4YDKJYM-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F22%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1300756667&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0amp;_userid=10&md5=a591c72bf32cbe54fee9d7db00a1b204

------------------------------------

The following very recent scientific paper summarizes the science:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t643pq765436l708/

Here is a link that might be useful: link for first paper above

The following is a quote from a 2005 EPA document: "There are no current labeled uses for residential applications of maneb on residential areas or home gardens."

See: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/maneb_fact.pdf

The most recent information concerning Maneb and the EPA (that I could find) is:

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/reregistration/maneb/

Here is a link that might be useful: The most recent information concerning Maneb and the EPA (that I could find) is:

Henry,

Maneb is still available for home use, sold under the Hi-Yield brand in 9oz WP formulations. My garden center stocks it (at least they did last summer) and I'm sure you can order it online if you are having problems finding it locally.
If you or anyone who has blackspot problems travels to Canada, stop in a garden center while you are there and pick up some Folpet WP under the Laters brand. Unfortunately it is not available in the USA but this fungicide is fantastic. Two years ago I discovered it and I begin spraying in June and continue weekly through the end of August and the usual blackspot that plagues NY in the humid summer months was virtually (if not completely) not present in my garden.

"Hi-Yield Maneb has been discontinued and the registration is due to expire 6/30/2011." The quote is from:

http://ipmguidelines.org/TreesAndShrubs/content/CH03/default-4-1.asp#_Toc255382387

The registration status of all products is listed at:

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC32909

There are so many that are canceled that it may be easier to look at the six not canceled (and it appears from my earlier link that the Drexel products are on their last legs):

http://www.pesticideinfo.org/List_Products.jsp?Rec_Id=PC32909&Chem_Name=Maneb&PC_Code=014505

---------------------------------------------

Why is the product still being sold by one or more dealers? It is my impression that the existing stock can often be sold in cases like this.

I do believe all chemicals have an effect on us one way or the other. They will cause harm if one is not careful. This applies to many things, not just rose chemicals. Rose chemicals have to be respected and applied properly, which I feel 99.9% of the people on this forum who use them, do so.

Unfortunately, many average homeowners are not careful, and that also applies big time to the so called "services" here in Florida. A great number of people settling here freak out at the sight of a bug, which incidentally, aren't any worse or more prevalent than anywhere else. I think I had more in Upstate N.Y. They don't care if it's a good bug or bad bug, but ohmygoodness it's a bug!!! So... we get these yahoos spraying irresponsibly, who are licensed to do so, on windy days with no protection whatsoever being worn.

I'm not surprised that someone might get skin cancer when they are spraying all day long with absolutely nothing on to cover them up.

When I used to spray I deckled out in long sleeves, long pants, eye goggles, nitrile gloves, and a respirator. I immediately took a shower afterwards. I removed my spray clothing in the garage, and they went in the washer, by themselves, on a long hot wash cycle. I don't feel I had a whole lot of exposure, if any,but my core temperature sure reached dangerous ranges from the heat in the middle of summer with all that stuff on. I don't do it anymore because it wasn't fun, and I don't do things that cause me misery any more. That said, I have no problem with someone else that responsibly wants to spray fungicides on their roses.

Sandy

I just wear gloves and my sun/safety glasses. I wear a hat, but that's for the sun. I don't spray myself and I'm very careful to spray the roses, not just the air. I don't feel long sleeves or a respirator are necessary for me.

You know what I did do that is natural and wholesome and made me very very sick? A few weeks ago we used our chipper/shredder on a lot of old clippings and prunings so I could make compost out of it. The stuff was very dry, and even though we had dust masks on, I must have inhaled some dust. The next few days I came down with a very nasty cough and sore throat. I went to the doctor and she said I had hypersensitivity pneumonitis and I needed steroids to clear up the inflammation. I can guarantee you that the next time I use the chipper, I will wear a respirator.

Regarding Folpet, the following 2 recent scientific reviewed papers may be of interest.

http://www.biomedsearch.com/searchlist.html?query_txt=Cytotoxicity+folpet+canal&s.x=26&s.y=18

Here is a link that might be useful: link that gives 2 links

Commercial fungicides may have undisclosed ingredients. Often they are to enhance the "spreader sticker" behavior of the product.

Unfortunately, the undisclosed ingredients may make it more difficult to use the product safely. I wonder if this is not the reason for the following scientifically observed Folpet behavior:

http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Folpet-permeation-through-nitrile-gloves/12909534.html

Here is a link that might be useful: glove protection scientific article