B
bach2yoga
Guest
OK--I don't mean this as a slam against golfing, as I know that it provides jobs -- though I personally think I'd be bored stiff golfing, not active enough for me. Maybe when I'm old...
Joe Arsenault, a Pinelands landscaping expert and native plants nursery man, referenced a book in a speech he gave--it explained the American fascination with green lawns. It turns out that the root (or rhizome, ha!) is a result of our fascination with golf! He also discussed how most of these grasses were actually wetlands plants--and we plant them in our front yard, and hence need to keep them watered to keep them alive, whereas if we were to plant plants native to our area and soil type we would find a much decreased need for watering--which would certain put less of a drain (ha again!) on our water resources.
Did you know that the state of NJ has over 256 golf courses?
Here's a GIS map that you'll need the free ArcExplorer to read--I'll post that stuff on a separately.
Golf Courses (Statewide) njgolf.zip
(615 KB, 1495 KB unzipped) (I'm not sure if the zip file is showing up as a link or not, if not I'll give the URL in the GIS post)
This data represents the fairway, green and tee areas of all the golf courses in New Jersey. It was created by selecting all recreation polygons from the 1995/97 NJDEP land use/land cover (LU/LC) file. There are 256 courses identified and 553 polygons (Many courses show as discontinuous polygons because fairways/green/tee zones are separated by tracts of wetland, forest or other land covers. The purpose of the file is to determine course acreage to assist in estimating the amount of pesticide, fertilizer, and herbicide used on an annual basis. Therefore substantial (1 acre or more) tracts of forest or wetlands are not included in a course's polygons, although these areas may be owned by the Golf Course.
WAYS TO FIGHT RECKLESS USE OF PESTICIDES Date: 26 Oct 2003 From: "Peter Montague" {Peter@rachel.org} By Michele Landsberg, Toronto Star, Oct. 25, 2003 When Canada's federal environment watchdog announced recently that she was "appalled" by the government's feeble and slipshod job of regulating pesticides, at least one Canadian teenager must have been paying close attention. Jean-Dominic Levesque Rene is 17, and has been "watchdogging" pesticides since he was a kid of 11 in the cancer ward at Ste. Justine hospital, near his home in ÃŽle Bizard, Que. Unlike most other children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Jean-Dominic was thinking hard about why he got cancer. He began talking to the other youngsters in the ward, and sticking pins into a map of Quebec, marking all the young cancer patients' homes. He felt strongly that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was linked to pesticide exposure. What he discovered was that all the kids lived near a concentration of golf courses. And most greens are drenched with many times more pesticides than are farms. Jean-Dominic promised the other children - some of whom have died - that he would campaign relentlessly against pesticide spraying. He has kept his promise, and will soon play a starring role in a new documentary film to be made by WHEN, the Women's Healthy Environment Network, the small but incredibly devoted group that already helped produce the award-winning Exposure: Environmental Links To Breast Cancer. Incredibly, there has been no previous film about children's vulnerability to pesticides, although there is a mountain of research suggesting widespread harm caused by the harmless-sounding POPs, or persistent organic pollutants. These POPs come from industrial chemicals and pesticides. No living thing on Earth can escape their silent and invisible occupation. Unlike medical drugs, these toxins are mostly not tested for toxicity before they are used, massively, in the environment. No problem. Children are, involuntarily, ideally designed for the job. They have "greater uptake," in the words of a huge report by the Children's Health Project (a joint effort of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Ontario College of Family Physicians). They are closer to the ground, crawling and scampering about in close proximity to the chemicals sifting into the soil, carpets and furniture. They explore the world by putting things in their mouths. Mmmm, Atrazine! They breathe in and out more rapidly. Their little lungs have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so they absorb more contaminants, relatively, per inhalation. Their skin absorbs more poisons than adult skin. And conscientious parents try their best to offer toddlers a wide range of fruits and vegetables - some of the foods most highly vulnerable to pesticides. So, wouldn't you know, the testing by all these little bodies, before and after birth, is beginning to show some results. According to the U.S. Center for Children's Health and the Environment, childhood brain cancer has increased 21 per cent in the modern industrial era. The rate of hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis linked to pesticide exposure, has doubled in the last few decades. The incidence of non- Hodgkin's lymphoma has tripled. Children of parents who use home pesticides have seven times the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Acute lymphocytic leukemia in children has increased 21 per cent. (These are mostly U.S. figures, but Canada seems to have similar patterns.) Many scientists believe there are persuasive links between POPs and all these dreadful afflictions. Feeling sick, helpless and ready to reach for the channel changer? That's how I usually feel after plowing through this alarming research. But avoidance and wilful oblivion never protected anyone's children from harm. Getting active, to prod our sluggish governments and negligent industries into tougher safeguards, can not only help to shift the picture, but makes you feel a heck of a lot better about your role as a parent and citizen. Most of the industrialized world, after all, has given lip service to what's called the Precautionary Principle - don't wait for nailed-down absolute proof of harm before you stop using a dangerous toxin. Judging by the record, we here in Canada are blithely living by the Insane Recklessness Principle. You can help change that. You can support organic farmers and markets. You can let dandelions grow on your lawn. (Kids like them.) You can spend an evening checking out some lively Web sites: Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.ca), the Canadian Environmental Law Association (http://www.cela.ca) or two terrifically helpful children- specific U.S. sites, Children's Environmental Health Network (http://www.cehn.org) or the Center for Children's Health and the Environment (http://www.childenvironment.org). The last two sites will send you regular emails on how to protect your children from toxins. Here's another thought: Women's Healthy Environments Network (http://www.whenvironments.ca), phone 416-928-0880, needs volunteers to help fund its documentary film, If You Love Our Children: Children's Health And The Environment.
Joe Arsenault, a Pinelands landscaping expert and native plants nursery man, referenced a book in a speech he gave--it explained the American fascination with green lawns. It turns out that the root (or rhizome, ha!) is a result of our fascination with golf! He also discussed how most of these grasses were actually wetlands plants--and we plant them in our front yard, and hence need to keep them watered to keep them alive, whereas if we were to plant plants native to our area and soil type we would find a much decreased need for watering--which would certain put less of a drain (ha again!) on our water resources.
Did you know that the state of NJ has over 256 golf courses?
Here's a GIS map that you'll need the free ArcExplorer to read--I'll post that stuff on a separately.
Golf Courses (Statewide) njgolf.zip
(615 KB, 1495 KB unzipped) (I'm not sure if the zip file is showing up as a link or not, if not I'll give the URL in the GIS post)
This data represents the fairway, green and tee areas of all the golf courses in New Jersey. It was created by selecting all recreation polygons from the 1995/97 NJDEP land use/land cover (LU/LC) file. There are 256 courses identified and 553 polygons (Many courses show as discontinuous polygons because fairways/green/tee zones are separated by tracts of wetland, forest or other land covers. The purpose of the file is to determine course acreage to assist in estimating the amount of pesticide, fertilizer, and herbicide used on an annual basis. Therefore substantial (1 acre or more) tracts of forest or wetlands are not included in a course's polygons, although these areas may be owned by the Golf Course.
WAYS TO FIGHT RECKLESS USE OF PESTICIDES Date: 26 Oct 2003 From: "Peter Montague" {Peter@rachel.org} By Michele Landsberg, Toronto Star, Oct. 25, 2003 When Canada's federal environment watchdog announced recently that she was "appalled" by the government's feeble and slipshod job of regulating pesticides, at least one Canadian teenager must have been paying close attention. Jean-Dominic Levesque Rene is 17, and has been "watchdogging" pesticides since he was a kid of 11 in the cancer ward at Ste. Justine hospital, near his home in ÃŽle Bizard, Que. Unlike most other children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Jean-Dominic was thinking hard about why he got cancer. He began talking to the other youngsters in the ward, and sticking pins into a map of Quebec, marking all the young cancer patients' homes. He felt strongly that non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was linked to pesticide exposure. What he discovered was that all the kids lived near a concentration of golf courses. And most greens are drenched with many times more pesticides than are farms. Jean-Dominic promised the other children - some of whom have died - that he would campaign relentlessly against pesticide spraying. He has kept his promise, and will soon play a starring role in a new documentary film to be made by WHEN, the Women's Healthy Environment Network, the small but incredibly devoted group that already helped produce the award-winning Exposure: Environmental Links To Breast Cancer. Incredibly, there has been no previous film about children's vulnerability to pesticides, although there is a mountain of research suggesting widespread harm caused by the harmless-sounding POPs, or persistent organic pollutants. These POPs come from industrial chemicals and pesticides. No living thing on Earth can escape their silent and invisible occupation. Unlike medical drugs, these toxins are mostly not tested for toxicity before they are used, massively, in the environment. No problem. Children are, involuntarily, ideally designed for the job. They have "greater uptake," in the words of a huge report by the Children's Health Project (a joint effort of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Ontario College of Family Physicians). They are closer to the ground, crawling and scampering about in close proximity to the chemicals sifting into the soil, carpets and furniture. They explore the world by putting things in their mouths. Mmmm, Atrazine! They breathe in and out more rapidly. Their little lungs have a higher surface area to volume ratio, so they absorb more contaminants, relatively, per inhalation. Their skin absorbs more poisons than adult skin. And conscientious parents try their best to offer toddlers a wide range of fruits and vegetables - some of the foods most highly vulnerable to pesticides. So, wouldn't you know, the testing by all these little bodies, before and after birth, is beginning to show some results. According to the U.S. Center for Children's Health and the Environment, childhood brain cancer has increased 21 per cent in the modern industrial era. The rate of hypospadias, a birth defect of the penis linked to pesticide exposure, has doubled in the last few decades. The incidence of non- Hodgkin's lymphoma has tripled. Children of parents who use home pesticides have seven times the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Acute lymphocytic leukemia in children has increased 21 per cent. (These are mostly U.S. figures, but Canada seems to have similar patterns.) Many scientists believe there are persuasive links between POPs and all these dreadful afflictions. Feeling sick, helpless and ready to reach for the channel changer? That's how I usually feel after plowing through this alarming research. But avoidance and wilful oblivion never protected anyone's children from harm. Getting active, to prod our sluggish governments and negligent industries into tougher safeguards, can not only help to shift the picture, but makes you feel a heck of a lot better about your role as a parent and citizen. Most of the industrialized world, after all, has given lip service to what's called the Precautionary Principle - don't wait for nailed-down absolute proof of harm before you stop using a dangerous toxin. Judging by the record, we here in Canada are blithely living by the Insane Recklessness Principle. You can help change that. You can support organic farmers and markets. You can let dandelions grow on your lawn. (Kids like them.) You can spend an evening checking out some lively Web sites: Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.ca), the Canadian Environmental Law Association (http://www.cela.ca) or two terrifically helpful children- specific U.S. sites, Children's Environmental Health Network (http://www.cehn.org) or the Center for Children's Health and the Environment (http://www.childenvironment.org). The last two sites will send you regular emails on how to protect your children from toxins. Here's another thought: Women's Healthy Environments Network (http://www.whenvironments.ca), phone 416-928-0880, needs volunteers to help fund its documentary film, If You Love Our Children: Children's Health And The Environment.