Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Many countries have severely limited aerial application of pesticides and other products because of environmental and public health hazards like spray drift; most notably, the European Union banned it outright with a few highly restricted exceptions in 2009, [2] effectively ending the practice in all member states.
The Monterey County Weekly, in October 2007, reported that according to CDFA spokesman Jay Van Rein, the first two aerial applications over the Monterey Peninsula cost $3.7 million, with $3.1 million of that used to buy the spray products. [8] The November 2007 application was described as costing $2.7 million. [9]
Aerial application (crop dusting) of pesticides over a soybean field in the U.S. Pesticides are widely used by farmers to control plant pests and enhance production, but chemical pesticides can also cause water quality problems. Pesticides may appear in surface water due to: direct application (e.g. aerial spraying or broadcasting over water ...
Ultra-low volume (ULV) application of pesticides has been defined as spraying at a Volume Application Rate (VAR) of less than 5 L/ha for field crops or less than 50 L/ha for tree/bush crops. VARs of 0.25 – 2 L/ha are typical for aerial ULV application to forest or migratory pests.
He also said that “Mexico’s offer of 120,000 acre-feet from the San Juan River is a mere drop in the bucket relative to the 1.75 million acre-feet Mexico is required to deliver to Texas ...
Aerial spraying has been controversial since the 1960s, due to environmental concerns about pesticide drift (raised for example by Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring). It is now often subject to restrictions, for example spraying pesticide is generally banned in Sweden, although exceptions can be made such as for an area plagued by mosquitoes ...
Many countries have severely limited aerial application of pesticides and other products because of environmental and public health hazards like spray drift; most notably, the European Union banned it outright with a few highly restricted exceptions in 2009, [16] effectively ending the practice in all member states.
Lourdes Matsumoto, a lawyer and advocate who works with victims of sexual violence, and two groups that support abortion rights sued the state to challenge the law soon after it was passed.