Cemeteries -- Their Importance to Social and Cultural Values

“Show me your cemeteries and I will tell you what kind of people you have.”

-- Benjamin Franklin

Cemeteries are more than places of remembrance: they are outdoor museums. These sites present a collection of unique artifacts that have remained in their original context.

Cemeteries are among the most valuable of historic resources in that they are reminders of various settlement patterns, such as villages, rural communities, urban centers, and even ghost towns. They can reveal information about historic events, religions, lifestyles, and genealogy. And, of course, names on grave markers serve as a directory of early residents and reflect the ethnic diversity and unique population of an area.

It is clear that cemeteries are dynamic, reflecting changing cultural institutions, social values, and regional ethnic identity. All cemeteries encode social and cultural values reflecting specific choices; therefore they provide insight into how people lived.

“Cemeteries and their symbols guide us into the past. They are not just where the dead reside, nor are they static snapshots of older views 

and attitudes about death.”

– Illinois Historic Cemetery Preservation Handbook

Citizens must hold reverence for these sacred places. Increased urbanization, along with a dilution of respect and reverence for cemeteries, has resulted in their destruction by development, neglect, abandonment, and vandalism. All burials, whether of people rich or poor, famous or unknown, deserve respect and protection. It behooves a community to hold dear these places where past residents find their final rest.

When cemeteries are ignored and allowed to deteriorate, and markers are damaged or destroyed, society loses important information about the past. Ultimately, an important part of ourselves is lost. Preservation efforts are more successful and vandalism decreases when adults and children become familiar with the information learned from cemeteries.

A Serious Consideration Perhaps Overlooked

Lawn care is the most time-consuming, and, if not done carefully, potentially destructive maintenance activity in historic cemeteries. Could some maintenance practices actually be harmful not only to the grounds but also to humans who walk these areas?

Physical damage when moving can be devastating. Mowing between tight spots with a large riding mower deck is destined to cause some damage. Best practices include using a smaller, push mower between particularly sensitive features, and outfitting riding mower decks with protective bumpers. Low-cost options include using fire hose padding or a foam swimming “noodle.” Additional damage is caused by riding over low stones or coping, especially when the blade height is set low.

As a time-saving measure, herbicides are sometimes used around the base of features to remove unwanted grass and weeds. In most cases, the use of herbicides for this purpose is not recommended, as salts within the herbicide can wick into the stone (especially soft stones) and cause spalling and deterioration.

The removal of vegetation also exposes soil around the base of the grave marker, which, in a heavy rain, can cause soil splashing that may result in staining. Herbicides and fertilizers can corrode metal fences, plaques and statuary. In addition, the overuse of these products often results in unsightly messes in the landscape – the beautiful aesthetics of cemeteries.

Herbicides also present the problem of drift. Drift is the uncontrolled movement away from its target area. Drift can occur in two ways; particle drift or vapor drift. When small spray droplets move long distances due to wind, it is called particle drift. Vapor drift is when a pesticide volatilizes or evaporates into the atmosphere and moves off site and damages non-target plants.

The most important thing to remember is that the applicator is responsible for pesticide drift, even if environmental conditions are the cause. And despite what you may think, it does not take much chemical to cause damage onto a nearby crop. For example, grapes can be damaged by 2,4-D at up to 100 times less than the labeled rate for controlling weeds!

To minimize particle drift, it is recommended to use air induction nozzles, and/or low pressure nozzles, in addition to spraying in low winds. It is suggested to use amines instead of esters in warm temperatures for this reason.

Herbicide residues may persist in the soil and affect susceptible crops for one or more years following application. Herbicide injury symptoms on sensitive plants can occur from exposure to low soil concentrations. Herbicide carryover can cause crop injury ranging from minimal to complete crop loss or plant kill. Injury problems have typically arisen where normal breakdown of herbicides has been inhibited by factors such as drought and pH.

In addition, one other consideration must be addressed with herbicide use. Chemical Trespass and Involuntary Exposure Chemical trespass means that chemicals have moved from the target area onto someone else's property. This creates the potential for involuntary exposure and concern about residues on a neighboring lawn, garden, or a child's or a pet's play area.

Misuse of herbicides can have very costly effects. In 2015, nearly half of 167-year-old Salt Lake City Cemetery (41 acres) was damaged when a city employee accidentally sprayed much of the landscape with the wrong kind of herbicide. The extensive repairs cost the city between $250,000 and $600,000.

Most importantly, health risks with herbicide application are real concerns. Several organizations have evaluated cancer risks associated with common herbicides like glyphosate in recent years. These assessments consider epidemiological, toxicology and genotoxicity studies. The potential carcinogenic properties of glyphosate are the subject of widespread scientific debate.

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that “Glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans”. The IARC’s study aimed to identify hazards that can result in cancer outcomes but did not consider the risk of exposure to doses that are likely to occur in the environment. Put another way, the IARC asked “Can glyphosate cause cancer under any circumstance?”

Based on this criteria, other probable human carcinogens included red meat, late-night work shifts and indoor emissions from burning wood. In 2016, the EPA evaluated the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate and concluded that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant to human health risk assessments.”

In contrast, the EPA assessment accounted for the likelihood of exposure in order to quantify carcinogenic risks. Based on review of epidemiological studies, the EPA found no evidence of association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes but indicated more data was needed to determine association between glyphosate exposure and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

And …

Researchers from the University of Washington evaluated existing studies into the chemical -- found in weed killers including Monsanto's popular Roundup -- and concluded that it significantly increases the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a cancer of the immune system. Glyphosate raises the cancer risk of those exposed to it by 41%, a new analysis says.

"All of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides) are associated with an increased risk of NHL," the authors wrote in a study published in the journal Mutation Research.

Moreover, the chemical has triggered multiple lawsuits from people who believe that exposure to the herbicide caused their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In 2017, CNN reported that more than 800 people were suing Monsanto; by the following year, that figure was in the thousands.

One high-profile case against Monsanto was that of Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper diagnosed with terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014. In August 2018, a judge ordered Monsanto to pay Johnson $289 million in damages, an award subsequently reduced to approximately $78 million after Monsanto appealed.

The proper, safe maintenance of cemeteries is costly but necessary. It is evident that preserving these historic places is a challenge we must face. Why? No one can deny their importance to the people … all the people. A most sacred trust is achieved when a community strives to preserve these beautiful areas. They are living environments that lift our humanity in their natural grace and simplicity.