🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990May15.011934.9875@vlsi-mentor.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@vlsi-mentor.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>In article <9843@imagen.UUCP> isaak@imagen.UUCP (Mark Isaak) writes:
>>in article <1990May7.232404.10806@vlsi-mentor.jpl.nasa.gov>, dave@vlsi-mentor.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) says:
>>> There's no such thing as a good pesticide, IMO.

I would like to hear you tell that to a farmer with a field ravaged by insects
in a country where pesticides are not as available as in the US.

>>Then you'd better stop eating.  A lot of plants produce pesticides
>>naturally. 

>Ok...I stand corrected. I still don't feel right about artificial
>chemicals on the food I eat. Sorry.

How's that for a rational approach to life?  Exactly how do you define 
"artificial" Dave?  Why are "artificial" chemicals necessarily bad?  How
can you classify pesticides as a group as dangerous anyway? For example,
some are sticky goo that kills insects by plugging their breathing pores.
Perhaps you could explain how this could be toxic to humans.  To act 
intelligently can't you see that you have to look at details and understand
the science involved?  Isn't it irrational to do otherwise?

>>I'd recommend you do a little research on the effects of Malation, rather
>>than respond on the basis of gut-level fear.

>Sure, OK. This is like saying "I recommend you do a little research
>into how a truck can destroy a car before you respond on the basis of
>gut-level fear and swerve the car to avoid it".

There's a big difference here.  You understand quite well how cars and trucks
interact and you understand the dangers involved.  Exactly how do you think
malathion is harmful? Do you think it's a food chain concentration problem
like DDT? Do you think it's carcinogenic? Do you think it causes neurological
problems in the short term? Do you think it diminishes immunity in the short 
short term? Do you think bacterial growth in the bait when inhaled is a
health problem?  I think you get the picture.  If you say "yes" to any of these,
I would like to know why you think this is true.  Was it arrived at by
a rational process or irrational fears?

>DO I even have a choice in doing this? 

If you can prove it is dangerous to a judge, you bet you can.  In fact,
some convincing information directed directly at the folks doing the spraying
might even do some good.  You really don't think they are out to hurt 
people do you?

>Say I did research into 
>Malathion effects, and I found that it was bad...how could I stop
>the spraying? I don't have time to do this research before those
>'copters fly overhead.                      

Others have done research already showing malathion to be safe.  If you
have counter evidence, that's one thing, but nobody releases pesticides
without testing them.  Imagine the potential for lawsuits! Not to mention
non-suit legal consequences!  Chemical companies have enormous facilities
for testing every product they produce and for the most part they work very
well.  Are they perfect? Of course not, but you and others act as though
chemical companies have no idea what these products will do and are using
people as guinea pigs for untested chemicals.  It's just not true.

>Better yet, let's wait until some deformed babies are born before
>we make a final decision. The only way to be sure is experimental
>data, right?

Why would you expect to see deformed babies as a result of malathion? 
How much testing is enough for you?  It seems as though radical 
environmentalists are always out to delay any such project for "just a 
few more years" while it is under further study.  What happens in the
mean time?  Destroyed crops? Rural unemployment? 

>>> 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?

>>If you're worried about long-term exposure, you should support the use
>>of Malation.  You only have to worry about the Malation for a year or
>>two until this outbreak is eradicated.  If we don't eradicate the med fly,
>>individual farmers will be using pesticides to control it perpetually.

>I sure as hell won't be buying their fruit. 

So what will you eat?  What will the farmers eat when they cannot produce
food anymore (or perhaps food that anyone would eat if others did as you
suggest you would)?  It sounds like a "let 'em eat cake" position to me.

>There's got to be another solution. 

OK...what is yours? All I hear from you is complaints about how upset you are
about the choices being made.  If you don't have any better ideas, isn't
this just a waste of electrons?

Brian Yoder

-- 
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder                 | answers *byoder();                            |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-