🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2005@inews.intel.com> bverreau@mipos2.UUCP (stargazer) writes:
>Millions of people are not getting sprayed.  The spraying is done in the wee
>hours of the morning.  The only thing left after the spray settles are sticky
>droplets with a low concentration of malathion on exposed surfaces.  You
>could lick off the roof of your car without ingesting a significant amount.

However, in the summer time, people tend to leave their windows open.

Also, we have enough chemical by-products in the air in the LA basin. Why 
add more?

>If you don't believe that there are such things as reasonably non-toxic
>pesticides, I don't suppose I can convince you otherwise.  All commercially
>grown produce has traces of pesticides, even after washing, and life goes on.

There's no such thing as a good pesticide, IMO. Perhaps you should ask 
the medfly if the pesticide is non-toxic? :) 

>That's the usual way we measure harmful levels of substances.  If humans
>couldn't tolerated any amount of any toxic substance, everyone who has
>eaten fish would be dying from mercury poisoning.

There is another factor that is often overlooked and difficult to determine.

How much of a small amount of any substance contributes to long-term health
problems? How many exposures of this "small amount" are required to produce
adverse health effects?

>The organic/non-organic debate is a whole other issue, but it's reasonable
>to assume that the majority of consumers are going to continue their current
>buying habits, namely, getting whatever looks good and sells cheap. 

This is my issue. What if I want to live a holistic life? I guess I gotta
move, right?  

>Life is full of risks.  Compared to most of the risks we assume on a daily
>basis (whether voluntarily or not), the malathion hazard is trivial.

Is this a justification for adding more risks?
-- 
----
Dave Hayes --- 'I *like* Chick Corea's _Light Years_ Album, dammit!'     
dave@vlsi-mentor.jpl.nasa.gov  
dave%vlsi-mentor@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov