> Douglas,
>
> > What makes a given medicine more or less effective and therefore more or
> less valuable, is precisely the degree of selectivity built into it, in
> relation to the human organism. If itīs as toxic to a human being as it is
> to the disease organism, itīs worthless. In other words, penicillan (as
> well as other beta lactams) is effective....
> >
> Penicillins were a very fortunate find. Most antibiotics (and many other
> drugs) have a higher mammalian toxicity, yet are still used
> because the benefits often outweigh the costs.
ALL of them depend on differences that exist between human and a pathogen's
metabolism. In any case, the principle is the same: Less toxicity to cells,
human tissues and organism, more specificity directed toward disease oorganism
or pest. Evidently you missed the preventative aspects discussed.
> > Unfortunately, commercial pesticides in general tend to be non
> > selective, and are highly toxic to most if not all forms of life.
> >
> This was true only of the very earliest pesticides such as lead
> arsenate. Even the much vilified DDT is vastly more toxic to insects than
> to mammals. If it wasn't so resistant to microbial attack it would be very
> safe.
"Vastly more toxic to insects than to mammals"? It's carcinogenic to humans.
"If it wasn't so resistant to microbial attack it would be very safe". Dale,
I sometimes wonder what world you live in. You can be unreal on occasions.
> The trend in pesticide development for the last decade or two has been
> toward highly selective chemicals that are significantly
> less toxic than table salt to humans.
The substances you call "significantly" less toxic do a lot of harm and far
safer alternatives are available, that work on the basis of different
principle, at bottom.
> > Not only that, but the tecnology is simply unnecessary - there are far
> better and less toxic methods available, whose effectiveness has been
> clearly demonstrated.
> >
> Why don't you give some examples?
Sugar cane fields near to where I write now were all crop dusted by air with
toxic agrochemicals prior to 25 years ago for the sugar cane borer (same as
corn borer). At that time the use of trichograma was implemented. It did the
job, and a major industry converted for good (i.e. to date)..
> I have been working on biological control (mostly in the seed and seedling
> disease context) for most of my professional life. I have plots in the
> field right now. Without exception these have been far less efficacious
> than chemical controls.
I'm really sorry you havenīt been able to make biological control work for
you. Perhaps the environment youīre in is already gravely unbalanced or you
are in the wrong line of work. Have you considered becoming employed by a
manufacturer of toxic agrochemicals?
> > On the other hand, commercial pesticides can be easily patented,
> packaged and distributed. They are better than biological means of pest
> control for making money for a few,
> The same is true for many biological agents.
Some biological agents are indeed manufactured primarily due to a desire for
financial gain.
> The big problem is that most don't work well enough to convince anyone to
> pay for them.
I guess the increasingly large numbers of manufacturers (including many
traditional ones) of pesticides that incorporate biological materials and the
farmers that use them donīt know that.
> I realize that you are talking about more than "agents" that can be sprayed
> or scattered on, and I am all for use of cultural practices.
True. Iīm talking more about the use of beneficial organisms, companion
planting / intercropping, being aware of life cycles, establishing a self
sustaining soil environment and microecology.
> Many of these have costs too (eg, soil erosion from cultivation).
The practices I've mentioned require less cultivation (i.e. living mulches),
in general.
> > In short, I feel your analogy is rather unaccurate.
> >
> I believe Steve's analogy is right on target. Everything a farmer does has
> a cost, either economic or environmental.
Yes, that is so. But that was also MYpoint - that when you NEED to take
medicine (which implies that you've been living under improper conditions in
the first place), you'd best take the medicine that is most specific to the
pest or pathogen and least so to the human organism (which has also got to eat
that food crop), while you develope methodoloogies that will make that
unnecessary.
I think you just like being adversarial. Do you box?
> > Toxic agrochemicals are as doomed as the tobacco industry, and itīs just a
> matter of time. However, itīs up to all of us to keep pointing this out.
> Doing any less will only lengthen the time it will take to make to
> transition and will contribute to untold needless deaths and suffering.
> >
> You are overstating the danger. If pesticides are so dangerous, how come
> tests on various mammals are negative or immeasurably slight? If you think
> the toxicological consensus regarding risk estimation is wrong, please
> explain why.
Dale, you're placing the burden of proof on the consumer. Others here have
pointed out that issues of long term effects are not beeing considered
sufficiently. And the facts are that not enough funding is being directed to
the development and promotion of less (or better yet NON) toxic alternatives,
due to what are primarily economically based motives, when the issue is
rightfully one one of public health, the environment and the proper role of
government.
It sounds to me like you've swallowed a number of unhealthy assumptions, which
include: If what we what is for people to consume products and services and
if the majority of them do that and hold up well enough and are still able to
perform a social / economic function of their own, then everythingīs just fine
as long as that's happening.
This ignores those who DONĻT hold up well enough (i.e. children, the old and
ill, more sensitive individuals etc.), and presupposes a "natural" decline
that is in reality the result of a steady deterioration of the human organism
due to continued contact with the products you seem to like so much, that
eventually kill EVERYBODY off - but thatīs OK because is fits the statistical
norm. In short, your frame of reference is too limited.
Sometimes, I kind of wonder why someone with your perspective (or lack of
vision) is on this list. I guess itīs to make SOMEBODY do the grunt work and
gather data to prove a point that many have accepted much more intuitively. I
much prefer to spend my time attempting to construct the kind of environment
that is conducive to the qualities I myself want prevelent, in myself, in
others and in my surroundings, to the extent that economic pressures permit.
> We should continue to improve methods of risk estimation. But in the final
> analysis, decisions about pesticide registration will still to be made in
> the light of the risk-benefit calculation, and IMO, this is appropriate.
>
> Dale Wilson
This is true, but that requires clearly defined goals that are difficult to
promulgate when so many lack knowledge of what's possible. Things are not all
that relative. Thatīs not how things came to be. Somebody's got to go ahead
and do it, and my responses to this tack will be limited by that fact. Weīre
not all on salary or subject to policies someone else made.
--Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Petronilo Lopez No. 73 (Street Address) Apdo. Postal No. 61 (Mailing Address) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked) U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked) Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".