Controversial chemical not right for Lowcountry

"Imazapyr" was cited in a June 24 article in your paper as a chemical utilized by SCE&G to clear rights of way. This at-first strange sounding name translates phonetically (and appropriately) to "I'm a zapper."

This controversial chemical is cited as extremely long-lived, toxic to animals, highly mobile in soil, indiscriminate as to varietal impact, etc. Imazapyr was used on the West Coast to destroy Spartina, which is a non-native invasive grass there. Could this chemical be linked to our "dead zones" in the marshes of Huspah Creek?

To be fair, "I'm a zapper" has its proponents and the various arguments are abstruse to the average reader. I am not a scientist, as I assume most readers are not, but in the minds of any reasonable person, questions arise that deserve answers. If the "answers" are not conclusive regarding Imazapyr, the use of this chemical should be suspended in our sensitive Lowcountry environment. It is clearly a case of guilty until proven innocent; the laws of jurisprudence should not apply when it comes to injecting massive amounts of a questionable substance into our environment.

The reasonable question to ask is not were the chemicals applied in a manner "according to laws," as Clemson states, but (and this is a big but), should a chemical of such toxicity be used at all in our Lowcountry environment? As one article states: "These antique methods (spraying poison) do not fit our modern understanding of the interconnectedness of life."

George Johnston

Dataw Island