• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

DEAD Fish Lambda-Cyhalothrin

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

JohnBA

Junior Member
An exterminator recently sprayed around our residence with Lambda-Cyhalothrin. Prior to doing so, we were not warned of the extreme danger posed to aquatic life from this insecticide. After application however this information was brought to light by our own research.

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/lambda_cyhalothrin.pdf
PAGE 81 section 5.1

Pyrethroid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many additional sources site the same information.

The problem is this, the exterminator sprayed no more then 3' away from an obvious aquatic environment. Lucky for us at the time containing no fish. After speaking with the manufacture "Syngenta". We have came to the conclusion that there is no possible way to ensure a 100% removal of this chemical from the incidentally over sprayed surfaces. Thus the equipment is no longer safe for aquatic usage and we are out around $25000-30000 to replace it.


Needless to say we feel that the exterminator failed to inform us of its toxicity to aquatic life prior to application. Additionally we feel they are accountable for not take the proper measures to ensure no incidental contact was made with the aquatic equipment.

We understand that the burden of proof is upon us. We are in the process of sending samples away to a testing laboratory to confirm that in fact Lambda-Cyhalothrin did come in contact with the aquatic surfaces.

From a legal stand point, are we merited to file a civil lawsuit for damages incurred? If so do we stand a reasonable chance to win a settlement? Would it be advisable of us to seek legal representation "we are based out of Ohio".

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Best regards,
John
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
An exterminator recently sprayed around our residence with Lambda-Cyhalothrin. Prior to doing so, we were not warned of the extreme danger posed to aquatic life from this insecticide. After application however this information was brought to light by our own research.

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/lambda_cyhalothrin.pdf
PAGE 81 section 5.1

Pyrethroid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many additional sources site the same information.

The problem is this, the exterminator sprayed no more then 3' away from an obvious aquatic environment. Lucky for us at the time containing no fish. After speaking with the manufacture "Syngenta". We have came to the conclusion that there is no possible way to ensure a 100% removal of this chemical from the incidentally over sprayed surfaces. Thus the equipment is no longer safe for aquatic usage and we are out around $25000-30000 to replace it.


Needless to say we feel that the exterminator failed to inform us of its toxicity to aquatic life prior to application. Additionally we feel they are accountable for not take the proper measures to ensure no incidental contact was made with the aquatic equipment.

We understand that the burden of proof is upon us. We are in the process of sending samples away to a testing laboratory to confirm that in fact Lambda-Cyhalothrin did come in contact with the aquatic surfaces.

From a legal stand point, are we merited to file a civil lawsuit for damages incurred? If so do we stand a reasonable chance to win a settlement? Would it be advisable of us to seek legal representation "we are based out of Ohio".

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Best regards,
John
What "surfaces" do you think can't be cleaned?

Furthermore, as a person who has $25,000 to $30,000 worth of aquatic equipment, it just doesn't pass the "smell test" when you say that you aren't aware that poison could cause a problem.
 

xylene

Senior Member
Who is "we" that came to the conclusion you have 30K of damages?

The PDF you cite shows Lambda-Cyhalothrin decomposes readily in water to the point of undetectability even at far greater than the applied use concentrations...

So basically, at 3', your equipment had no meaningful contact that would not break down... and there weren't any aquatic forms involved anyway...

That's your whole claim?
 

JohnBA

Junior Member
xylene
Who is "we" that came to the conclusion you have 30K of damages?

-The system that was incidentally sprayed originally cost around $28500 to build. Its an out door koi pond built by a local aquarium company. So if the entire system is to be replaced it would cost around 30K.

and there weren't any aquatic forms involved anyway...

The system is currently empty. We were planing on filing it within a week or two.

At present no aquatic life forms have died because of this incident. We would like to keep it this way. It would be rather irresponsible of us to subject any life form to a safety testing experiment or a possibly preventable death.

If lab testing proves that Lambda-Cyhalothrin is present, then the system is no longer aquatic safe. No water is currently present in the system, thus virtually all the Lambda-Cyhalothrin has bounded to the available organic solids.

xylene you are correct that Lambda-Cyhalothrin is hydrophobic and readily bonds to organic solids. However its also well known for its high toxicity to aquatic animals. Even if 99% of all the available Lambda-Cyhalothrin were to bond with the organic solids in the pond it still would be at a concentration toxic to aquatic life.

Zigner
What "surfaces" do you think can't be cleaned?

There is no possible way to ensure with 100% certainty that all the Lambda-Cyhalothrin is removed. Even a minuscule amount of less then .0017 mg is enough to kill the all aquatic life in the system. After speaking with the manufacture we conservatively estimated that around 1.2 mg of Lambda-Cyhalothrin were incidentally over sprayed into the system. Keep in mind that a concentration of just 2 parts per trillion is toxic to aquatic life. Our main concern is a large artificial rock structure that is made of fiberglass. It likely experienced the highest level of over spray. With its rock like and porous type construction there is no good way to clean it.

Zigner
it just doesn't pass the "smell test" when you say that you aren't aware that poison could cause a problem.

Regardless of our knowledge of toxicity. The exterminator holds some liability as they were the applicators and did not take the proper precautions to ensure no incidentally over spray occurred and came in contact with an evident fish pond. We were not even informed of its toxicity to common house hold pets. Likely because it possess little if any risk to them.

Best regards,

John
 

JustAPal00

Senior Member
xylene
Who is "we" that came to the conclusion you have 30K of damages?

-The system that was incidentally sprayed originally cost around $28500 to build. Its an out door koi pond built by a local aquarium company. So if the entire system is to be replaced it would cost around 30K.

and there weren't any aquatic forms involved anyway...

The system is currently empty. We were planing on filing it within a week or two.

At present no aquatic life forms have died because of this incident. We would like to keep it this way. It would be rather irresponsible of us to subject any life form to a safety testing experiment or a possibly preventable death.

If lab testing proves that Lambda-Cyhalothrin is present, then the system is no longer aquatic safe. No water is currently present in the system, thus virtually all the Lambda-Cyhalothrin has bounded to the available organic solids.

xylene you are correct that Lambda-Cyhalothrin is hydrophobic and readily bonds to organic solids. However its also well known for its high toxicity to aquatic animals. Even if 99% of all the available Lambda-Cyhalothrin were to bond with the organic solids in the pond it still would be at a concentration toxic to aquatic life.

Zigner
What "surfaces" do you think can't be cleaned?

There is no possible way to ensure with 100% certainty that all the Lambda-Cyhalothrin is removed. Even a minuscule amount of less then .0017 mg is enough to kill the all aquatic life in the system. After speaking with the manufacture we conservatively estimated that around 1.2 mg of Lambda-Cyhalothrin were incidentally over sprayed into the system. Keep in mind that a concentration of just 2 parts per trillion is toxic to aquatic life. Our main concern is a large artificial rock structure that is made of fiberglass. It likely experienced the highest level of over spray. With its rock like and porous type construction there is no good way to clean it.

Zigner
it just doesn't pass the "smell test" when you say that you aren't aware that poison could cause a problem.

Regardless of our knowledge of toxicity. The exterminator holds some liability as they were the applicators and did not take the proper precautions to ensure no incidentally over spray occurred and came in contact with an evident fish pond. We were not even informed of its toxicity to common house hold pets. Likely because it possess little if any risk to them.

Best regards,

John
Are you kidding??? Fill it with water and put a dozen goldfish in it for a while. If they die you're out a couple bucks. Then you can sue for the replacement of the pond. As it stands you'll get laughed out of court if you bring this suit!
 

JohnBA

Junior Member
Are you kidding??? Fill it with water and put a dozen goldfish in it for a while. If they die you're out a couple bucks. Then you can sue for the replacement of the pond. As it stands you'll get laughed out of court if you bring this suit!
JustAPal00,

You certainly have a valid and logical argument. However we do hold reservations about subjecting any form of life to an experiment that could possibly result in their death.

Is laboratory testing not enough to confirm the Lambda-Cyhalothrin is present? With this we can safely deduce that the system is no longer suitable for aquatic life.

Additionally to this point, I do not feel as if any one on this form has been receptive of my postings. I was merely asking for legal advice. If you do not intend on giving it in a respectful manor without snide remarks, please do not reply.

Best regards,
John
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
JustAPal00,

You certainly have a valid and logical argument. However we do hold reservations about subjecting any form of life to an experiment that could possibly result in their death.

Is laboratory testing not enough to confirm the Lambda-Cyhalothrin is present? With this we can safely deduce that the system is no longer suitable for aquatic life.

Additionally to this point, I do not feel as if any one on this form has been receptive of my postings. I was merely asking for legal advice. If you do not intend on giving it in a respectful manor without snide remarks, please do not reply.

Best regards,
John
John -

You have been receiving advice. Accurate advice. You have no case.
 

JustAPal00

Senior Member
I guess the OP's only concerned about the life forms he LIKES.
I think the OP is trying to get some cash for the old koy pond that is now empty in the back yard. It was probably built some time ago and is no longer used, that's why it's empty. OP, you have been given "legal advice". Your claim sounds like nothing more than a money grab. That is why no one has been "receptive" of your postings. It seems as if most if not all of us feel you have no legal claim here. So here is your free legal advice, Drop it!
 

CJane

Senior Member
I can't help but think that if I had a $30K koi pond in my back yard, I would be the one warning the exterminator about getting the poison near it, not expecting the exterminator to have an obligation to tell me that the POISON that he's spraying around my house might KILL things.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top