The context of the paper is set out at the start - 'normal use' normal use would not include putting it ON plants. It would be putting it around the plants. Everything else must be taken in exactly that context to make any sense to the reader. So pulling out the odd line and changing the context just becomes totally misleading.
We can only give advice, the report would not exist if the substance was not considered to be a toxin btw.
I really hate arguing about these reports and papers, it is my job to understand them and I've been doing it successfully for a very long time.
The message in the report, is 'heck we don't know yet, so don't take a risk with food plants'. That is the message I would give to Songbird.
It may or may not be harmful according to this report, it is quite obvious they don't know one way or the other, I wouldn't want to be the one that finds out for them. I would rather pull up a few strawberry plants than suffer from some unknown incurable illness a few years down the line..
Sorry Gemma, I didn't think I was changing the context of the bits I quoted. I didn't want to argue - I was just putting forward what I considered to be a reasoned and valid point of view. (No, it's not my job, but I too am used to reading and understanding such things, being a Cambridge science graduate.)
Well, in the end the decision is Songbird's. I know what I would do... but I've been around a long time.
Since 2019 I've lived in east Clare, in the west of Ireland.
It's the safe distance part that defines it for me Liriodendron. Songbird states that the chemical was placed around the planters. This doesn't sound to me (and here it is personal interpretation) as a safe distance. It is not defined in the report exactly what a safe distance is, but I would not assume that it means next to where the food is being grown, rather some distance away.
It is not like I haven't made mistakes myself, I grew veg on an area that had seen a shed fire in the past last year. Half way through I considered which chemicals may have been in there and those I knew that definitely were in the shed and scrapped the lot.
It isn't too late to remove the soil surrounding the beds, empty them and get strawberries going again.
Hi all, thanks for your replies. I am going to start by scraping it off and see how that goes. I do have a few strawberry plants that I didn't use it on, so all is not lost even if I do end up scrapping the possibly contaminated plants.
My bigger concern is that I put it on some potatoes I had just planted (after 6 weeks of careful chitting!) so this might have been more of an issue.
If nothing else it has been a lesson learned and a reminder why I am pro organic gardening!
Posts
These reports need to be interpreted in 'context'
The context of the paper is set out at the start - 'normal use' normal use would not include putting it ON plants. It would be putting it around the plants. Everything else must be taken in exactly that context to make any sense to the reader. So pulling out the odd line and changing the context just becomes totally misleading.
We can only give advice, the report would not exist if the substance was not considered to be a toxin btw.
I really hate arguing about these reports and papers, it is my job to understand them and I've been doing it successfully for a very long time.
The message in the report, is 'heck we don't know yet, so don't take a risk with food plants'. That is the message I would give to Songbird.
It may or may not be harmful according to this report, it is quite obvious they don't know one way or the other, I wouldn't want to be the one that finds out for them. I would rather pull up a few strawberry plants than suffer from some unknown incurable illness a few years down the line..
Sorry Gemma, I didn't think I was changing the context of the bits I quoted. I didn't want to argue - I was just putting forward what I considered to be a reasoned and valid point of view. (No, it's not my job, but I too am used to reading and understanding such things, being a Cambridge science graduate.)
Well, in the end the decision is Songbird's. I know what I would do... but I've been around a long time.
It's the safe distance part that defines it for me Liriodendron. Songbird states that the chemical was placed around the planters. This doesn't sound to me (and here it is personal interpretation) as a safe distance. It is not defined in the report exactly what a safe distance is, but I would not assume that it means next to where the food is being grown, rather some distance away.
It is not like I haven't made mistakes myself, I grew veg on an area that had seen a shed fire in the past last year. Half way through I considered which chemicals may have been in there and those I knew that definitely were in the shed and scrapped the lot.
It isn't too late to remove the soil surrounding the beds, empty them and get strawberries going again.
Hi all, thanks for your replies. I am going to start by scraping it off and see how that goes. I do have a few strawberry plants that I didn't use it on, so all is not lost even if I do end up scrapping the possibly contaminated plants.
My bigger concern is that I put it on some potatoes I had just planted (after 6 weeks of careful chitting!) so this might have been more of an issue.
If nothing else it has been a lesson learned and a reminder why I am pro organic gardening!
thanks again for your advice.
get a gun
oooohhhh Simon, watch your back.
They're a dedicated lot those cat lover /denialists.