🚀 go-pugleaf

Kurt Foster wrote:
> 
> In sci.environment Amos Keppler <asterdiscaveman@hl.telia.no> wrote:
> . Kurt Foster wrote:
> 
> . In sci.environment Freedom Fighter <liberty@once.net> wrote:
> .  [snip]
> .. Of course, even those indestructible mosquitoes probably won't have the
> .. St. Louis Encephalitis virus.  To date, the City still hasn't found a
> .. single infected mosquito.
> ..  [snip]
> ..   I'm sure that this will be a great comfort to the families of the
> .. infected *people* who've become seriosly ill, even died of the disease.
> .. Why don't you take yourself to the Great Beyond, and try to convince
> .. those recently departed that they're not really dead?
> 
> .  What's your point here? That it's quite allright to use one dangerous
> . chemical to hurt people, to exterminate an animal that might carry a
> . disease?
> .  Amazing!
> 
>   In the first place, the fact that people got Saint Louis Encephalitis is
> proof positive that the local mosquitos ARE carrying the diseae.  It's the
> only way it gets transmitted to people.  So for the previous poster to
> imply the mosquitos weren't infected, and for you to try to equivocate
> about it, is lying, pure and simple.
>   In the second place, there is no medical treatment for this disease.
> None.  There is no drug known to alleviate the symptoms, no agent known to
> kill the virus in vivo, no vaccine.  And Saint Louis Encephalitis is not
> infrequently fatal, especially to the very young and to the very old.
>   In the third place, your characterization of Malathion as a "dangerous
> chemical" is absurd.  I could drink a tumbler of the spray mixture without
> serious ill effect.  In the environment, it breaks down quickly into
> harmless reactants.  Of course, it's dangerous to mosquitos - the object
> of the spraying is to kill them.  They're the disease vectors.
>   You want "dangerous", try parathion (can easily be fatal to humans);
> arsenic (toxic, carcinogenic, persistent in the environment); or any
> number of chlorinated hydrocarbons, which are very persistent in the
> environment.
>   What would you advocate doing?  Ignoring the outbreak, and simply
> letting people die of an untreatable illness?  Not an option.  Confining
> all 12 million residents of the NYC metro area indoors till after there's
> been a hard freeze?  Not an option.  Capture or kill all the BIRDS that
> either live in or are migrating through the area, so there is no sylvatic
> reservoir of the disease?  Not an option.
>   Would I prefer the infinitesimal risk from mosquito spray to the mortal
> danger of Saint Louis Encephalitis?  You bet I would!  Just like I happily
> accept, every day, the risks from the dangerous chemicals used in the
> chlorination of tap water, preferring them to the risks of Typhoid Fever,
> Cholera, etc.  But I'm sure you cry great big tears over the extermination
> of the microscopic "creatures" that cause these illnesses.

 What we shouldn't be doing is compounding the problem to N'th degree by
making people even sicker, using chemicals and chemical cocktails.
Diseases are just making people sick. The ever increasing presence of
man made chemicals like environmental estrogenes are *changing* us on a
genetic level. Do you (and all the other quacks) really believe that we
can surround ourselves with poisons in our daily existence and come away
unscatched?

 Read this and the links, I implore thee...

 http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/cocktail.html

 Amos


-- 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<  My virtual, wilderness community address is:		      >
<  http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6010/	      >
<	   My address at midnight:              	      >
������������� http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/ �����������
		Feel the heat of Firewind
   http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/firewind.html

  �We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well
 that Death will tremble to take us�!
  			Charles Bukowski