Hawaii residents want pesticide alert!!

[MarkP]

I am not suggesting that we bring DDT back but it should be noted that DDT was effective against mosquitoes and that in some parts of the world less DDT means more malaria. FWIW.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

DDT was effective against mosquitoes

During WW2 the military dosed Oahu with DDT to get rid of the mosquitoes and the tropical diseases still prevalent in the 1940's. A friend of mine who grew up on the island in the 1950's & '60's said he never had a single mosquito bite as a child.

Here's a story about the Dengue outbreak on Oahu in 2001, and the suggestion to bring back DDT:

Alan S. Lloyd is one of them. The retired Hawaiian Electric Co. engineer remembers the DDT spraying for the dengue fever epidemic as a child in Honolulu during World War II, and he believes it's time to once again bring out "the ultimate tool.''

A growing number of tropical-disease scientists are advocating the judicious use of DDT, Lloyd points out.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/articl...ln02a.html

Portion of Hawaii’s drinking water that comes from underground wells : 9/10
Gallons of raw sewage that leak into the ground from Hawaii cesspools each day : 53,000,000 - Harper's Index

[Rob Tucker]

DDT is till in limited use to control mosquitoes. Even with DDT there is a cost/benefit analysis...

"In September 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared its support for the indoor use of DDT in African countries where malaria remains a major health problem, citing that benefits of the pesticide outweigh the health and environmental risks. The WHO position is consistent with the Stockholm Convention on POPs, which bans DDT for all uses except for malaria control.

DDT is one of 12 pesticides recommended by the WHO for indoor residual spray programs. It is up to individual countries to decide whether or not to use DDT. EPA works with other agencies and countries to advise them on how DDT programs are developed and monitored, with the goal that DDT be used only within the context of programs referred to as Integrated Vector Management. Exit IVM is a decison-making process for use of resources to yield the best possible results in vector control, and that it be kept out of agricultural sectors."

[kalakoa]

benefits of the pesticide outweigh the health and environmental risks

I wonder how that compares with Dengue or Zika, here in our supposedly "first-world" State.

[knieft]

Over a decade ago, from our friends at the NYT, sounds somewhat familiar...

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/scien...5tier.html

I think, on the whole, the environmental "revolution" was a real step forward. Just seems weird that propaganda works better than the "truth".

Cheers,
Kirt

[TomK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW

I’m still not seeing any evidence that Roundup is harmful, if you have reputable links please post.

How have I lost the ability to use the scientific method? By asking for evidence? Dismissing non-evidence?

---

The problem comes when you dismiss studies without providing evidence that they are wrong. You don't need to do this every time, some claims are clearly nonsense and it's simple to show how they are wrong. That's not the case with spraying pesticides in public areas. In that case, I would like to see the studies that have been made before just dismissing any study you don't like because it's not "scientific".

My suggestion to you, Paul, is to provide the counter-evidence from reputable and peer-reviewed studies. What I find quite annoying is that you don't do that and simply insult people instead.

That's not how science works and would rather you didn't do that because it makes my job and many others much harder.

[glinda]

"There is no evidence."

Sometimes it's not the scientific study.. the evidence.. that's one way or the other.. in support of or not.. but how politicians then interpret the evidence so as to bolster conclusions that support their interests.

Often times those that would like a more conservative approach towards regulations of herbicides and pesticides look to the EU rather than the US regulatory practices for rational guidance on how to approach the subject. Unfortunately they too are run by politicians that are afflicted with the same malady of self interests as our's are.

Apparently such is the case with the EU's recent recertification of Roundup as described in "Pesticides and public health: an analysis of the regulatory approach to assessing the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the European Union" which was recently published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Its introductory abstract reads:

The present paper scrutinises the European authorities’ assessment of the carcinogenic hazard posed by glyphosate based on Regulation (EC) 1272/2008. We use the authorities’ own criteria as a benchmark to analyse their weight of evidence (WoE) approach. Therefore, our analysis goes beyond the comparison of the assessments made by the European Food Safety Authority and the International Agency for Research on Cancer published by others. We show that not classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen by the European authorities, including the European Chemicals Agency, appears to be not consistent with, and in some instances, a direct violation of the applicable guidance and guideline documents. In particular, we criticise an arbitrary attenuation by the authorities of the power of statistical analyses; their disregard of existing dose–response relationships; their unjustified claim that the doses used in the mouse carcinogenicity studies were too high and their contention that the carcinogenic effects were not reproducible by focusing on quantitative and neglecting qualitative reproducibility. Further aspects incorrectly used were historical control data, multisite responses and progression of lesions to malignancy. Contrary to the authorities’ evaluations, proper application of statistical methods and WoE criteria inevitably leads to the conclusion that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’ (corresponding to category 1B in the European Union).

The above quoted paper can be read in its entirety here:

http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2018/0...09776.full

Alls to say I believe we mold the 'facts' to fit our desired conclusions way more than there is no evidence to support opposing conclusions. The hard part, for me, of all this is we all are being used as guinea pigs in an experiment that, if it is proven to be unsafe, there is no turning back, no erasing what has already been done. This stuff is being applied all over the world, in the wild, and effecting all forms of life, the plants, animals, insects etc. And, with the whole Roundup Ready GMO crops thing going on it just increases how much of the stuff we're being exposed to.

Considering all that, why would anyone resist further, and broader, research into the matter? Why would anyone do anything other than encourage the exploration of the possible dangers as well as development of alternatives? Even if they themselves are not interested in the alternatives, why would they be other than supportive of those that are?

[My 2 cents]

When you have conflicting reports/studies/evidence and one side is based on "irrational fears based on nothing" and the other based on corporate profits, you have to form your own "opinion" as to which is the truth. People tend to believe what they want to believe, and mostly they will regard believers of the opposite as nuts. Sometimes they even get angry or rude about it.

"Safe when used as directed". So if the directions say to wear protective masks and clothing, this is a statement from the manufacturer that it is NOT SAFE to use the product unprotected. The farmer will be protected, the people next door will not. Unless they have some notice, which is much of what the bill is about. Why the resistance to this? The only reason given in the article is cost. Is that enough?

[geochem]

why should I, as a consumer, and every farmer pay for your paranoia? There has been millions of dollars expended on research and there is still no clear identification of a link between roundup and cancer. There is abundant data that compounds in commonly consumed products pose a far higher risk of cancer than does pesticide residues in food products.

If you want to exercise your paranoia over chemicals, that's fine - if you are afraid of ag chemicals, then relocate away from the areas in which they are legally used. You don't have a right to impose your paranoia on the rest of the community.

[My 2 cents]

This isn't about pesticide residues in food products, it's about airborne particles drifting off the farm and affecting other people. Please explain to me how it can be dangerous to for farmers to apply pesticides without protection but it's just fine for the neighbors to be in contact with those same chemicals. If the farmer can keep the chemicals on his own property there is no problem. When they drift onto others there is a problem.