I've used phosmet, an organophosphate insecticide, and I don't like to use it. You can know it's around in the warehouse, still in the original sealed packages, just by smelling it. A feeling of dry mouth and eyes usually follows.
And it's not because it's a dangerous substance - most pesticides with very few exceptions are dangerous - but because it is very hard to handle.
Phosmet is usually sold as a fine powder, and as it is the case of most soluble powders, it disperses in air easily. I always ask for liquid insecticides, but these are not always available.
Masks are not particularly useful: cotton masks are of little to no use, filters are compromised by facial hair[1] and air supply masks are crazy expensive.
If farmers respect the required safety intervals, harm to consumers is considerably minimized. The main hazard comes to people that come in contact with larger concentrations of pesticides: manufacturers, sellers and farmers.
Now I just open the package carefully underwater, if the sprayer is full enough and the package is to be completely emptied. This minimizes dispersion considerably.
[1] http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/463742O/facial-hair-and-r...
EPA has this little chapter on organophosphates. Seems like this class of pesticides is well known to be toxic to humans.
We will need to significantly change our laws to fix this.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
If so, it appears to be neither original research nor a systematic review. I think it's worth being sceptical (especially given the wording of the Guardian article).
If you live in a developed country where people aren't repeatedly killing themselves through acute exposure the relevant section of the link above appears to be:
"The US EPA concluded in 2016 that the existing epidemiologic literature provided “sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required to cause acetylcholinesterase inhibition” [11]. Such chronic, low-level exposures are often overlooked or dismissed as benign because neither the pregnant woman nor the fetus shows clinically visible signs or symptoms. Furthermore, the developmental deficits do not manifest until months or years later. Indeed, the scientific consensus is that AChE inhibition is uninformative with regard to neurodevelopmental effects in children and that the toxic effects from chronic, low-level exposure occur at concentrations too low to inhibit cholinesterase [1,9]. The evidence thus indicates that OP pesticides can interfere with brain development at levels previously thought to be safe or inconsequential."
The following paragraphs rely on this conclusion or speculate. I think it's worth reviewing those references, which I have not yet done. They are:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-... https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx266 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2013.09.003
They might as well be ArXiv. Except I don't think ArXiv charges $1500 an article.
So roughly 35% of deaths from pesticides are suicides.
On the other hand in 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.
I wonder if you could get from that some kind of safety estimate, of how easy it is to die from a thing accidentally in realtion of how easy it is to die intentionally.... Probably not.
[1] https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/Maps/autism_cluster.h...
The headline is quite hard to argue with ("think of the children!") but it would be interesting to know how much it would cost to use alternatives, and how much harm is being done by the current level of use.
For comparative example, lead abatement is not a fallacious "think of the children" argument- actual children are routinely poisoned by lead.
> between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime".
In the case of organophosphates, I am open to the idea that that there could be a big win by changing regulations. But without knowing the magnitude of the harm and cost, we really have no basis for prioritization. For example perhaps the time and money we'd spend changing these laws in the US would be better spent on removing lead to prevent even more poisoning of children. Or perhaps we should stop what we're doing and redirect all of our resources to removing organophosphates. Depending on even the order of magnitude of the effect, I hope you'd accept that different magnitudes of responses would be warranted.
> in this case it doesn't really seem like a logical fallacy, if we are literally poisoning the children.
This is precisely the "think of the children" fallacy. The fallacy doesn't refer to claiming children will be harmed when in reality they won't; that would be a factual error, not a logical fallacy. (And to be clear, I'm not making the claim that children won't be harmed by this family of chemicals). The fallacy refers to making an emotional argument based imagery of harm to children, instead of making a logical argument.
In the other hand spiders and bats are the perfect insecticide without any bad side effect for plants. Its numbers would increase filling the gap, at least partially.
And probably the physical nature of the powder makes it fundamentally different.
Edit: The suggestion that children learn a basic trade, while getting exercise, and providing economic benefit, seems very unpopular. Please suggest a better solution for these problems - maybe you think adults would benefit more from this?
Not all produce have a insect-resistant type however. So pesticides are still needed to protect certain plants.
So, GMO good (or allows for significant benefits), current products kind-of pretty bad. My 2c.
Living next door to this and trying to grow things that aren't corn or soy is "fun", let me tell you.
The one rare GMO plant engineered to require less poison spraying nearly always does that by producing the poison itself, and having it in large amounts on every tissue. I wouldn't want to eat that stuff pretending that it's an improvement, thank you.
There exist some odd research GMO that resist bugs or require less herbicides due to some effect that does not involve producing poison. I haven't heard of any that left the lab, but I imagine it's possible there is some commercial crop of something like that somewhere.
When you look at Roundup, GMOs are designed to resist pesticide, not the actual pest.
Breeding poisonous crops has its own obvious disadvantages. Is it better to spray poison on your food that can be washed off, or is it better for the food to be naturally suffused with poison?
But we all know that Rattlesnake venom is 100% organic and all natural. So I'm personally not sure if the distinction between "synthetic" and "organic" is very appropriate. Nature can certainly mass-produce poisons that can be detrimental to humans.
The Pesticide problem is rather simple: we want to spray a poison onto our plants that kills insects, but doesn't harm humans (or the plants). Whether you use an "organic" pesticide or "synthetic" one, the fact remains that you are consistently spraying poisons. And these poisons haven't been very well tested for long-term low-level exposure levels. Be it organic or synthetic.
My brother & I have read up on it quite a bit, and think that it's a combo of genetics triggered by environmental sources. There is a similar gene that is related to ADD, Bi-polar & Schizophrenia. Which we all have the first 2 of the 3.
My father, & his father were both mechanics, with my father's brother who showed the most signs of being possible autistic as well.
It does appear to skip around. I've a younger son also who was born way early in my life at 19. He doesn't show much signs of it. My younger brother doesn't either nor younger half sister.
It's a strong correleation for me personally that it's definitely genetic but seems to vary on some triggering factor in gestation or the tech environment of today's constant barrage of stimulation. The rise in diagnosis correlates to mass farming also on large scales. But also correlation doesn't mean causation.
I'd agree it's genetic, but with multifaceted triggers which is like cancer that could cause or trigger either.
I've also considered it's just our evolutionary path to a more tech geared world. I would be curious to see the rates of autism in 3rd world or outside untainted tribes.
Some reading, - https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2018/suspect-mole...
Given that it is on a spectrum and a slow learning process of coping occurs underdiagnosis is likely - especially among women and girls.
I suspect the case in Silicon valley is a higher degree of traits converging and the social masking being less imbued in addition to concentration. Although if pollution was a provoking factor it would.
Tech is a pretty good setting although people with autism and they may thrive there I think it is way too fast for evolutionary impacts short of massive selective pressure - like the Black Death or pretreatment endemic malaria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready
The crops are designed to withstand Roundup, while weeds are not, so farmers can use Roundup to control weeds with crops that would normally be killed by the herbicide.
Drift from 2,4d will wipe out plants (like your garden, or my vineyard, or like, endangered native plants) many kilometres away.
It is important to know what is done and where the GMO is used: In some container or open air or open water.
(I'm sort of in biotech.) This is one way to look at it. But I'm pretty sure one of the mechanisms that allow the plants to survive being covered in certain pesticides also allows them to effectively decontaminate / degrade the pesticide.
A plant engineered to express an enzyme capable of degrading organophosphates [0] could allow for both the plant to be protected from exposure to the toxin & even after harvesting still express low levels of the enzyme which should clean the plant.
That's the idea at least... From experience, it's not nearly that simple. E.g., the degradation products are also somewhat toxic.
If this is the case then non GMOs sounds more appealing.
And in fact, the effort to breed naturally pest-resistant crops keeps running into the problem that pest-resistant crops are also human-resistant. It's all the same thing from the plant's perspective.
We're talking about replacing pesticides. Monsanto is in the business of selling herbicides and pesticides, so of course they're not going to use the tech to neuter their profits. If anything they are benefiting from the negative press and comments like your own as it discourage the public from supporting the necessary government research. I doubt this will come from private corporations as the profit motive just isn't there.
Maybe you mean "RoundUp Ready?"
The actual real world of GMO, the stuff that is actually marketed and sold -- it's like 90% about herbicide resistance, nothing else.
In theory, GMOs don't need pesticides. I'm asking about practice. Most other comments support my skepticism.
> Bt corn is a variant of maize that has been genetically altered to express one or more proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis[8] including Delta endotoxins. The protein is poisonous to certain insect pests. Spores of the bacillus are widely used in organic gardening[9], although GM corn is not considered organic. The European corn borer causes about a billion dollars in damage to corn crops each year.[10]
> In 2018 a study found that Bt-corn protected nearby fields of non-Bt corn and nearby vegetable crops, reducing the use of pesticides on those crops. Data from 1976-1996 (before Bt corn was widespread) was compared to data after it was adopted (1996-2016). They examined levels of the European corn borer and corn earworm. Their larvae eat a variety of crops, including peppers and green beans. Between 1992 and 2016, the amount of insecticide applied to New Jersey pepper fields decreased by 85 percent. Another factor was the introduction of more effective pesticides that were applied less often.[18]
I know many organic farmers who follow practices similar to mine as well. The organic name is really more of an indicator of intent for a lot of people - you can get away with a lot of things and still be certified, but most of the growers I know actually do make a strong effort to find another way. So, the organic label does actually carry some weight with me despite the fact that it can be abused.
There is a big difference between organic and conventional pesticides.
Rotenone is a powerful insecticide that was used to control insects (LD50: 132 mg/kg). Despite the high toxicity of Rotenone to aquatic life and some links to Parkinson disease the compound is still allowed in organic farming as it is a naturally occurring compound
My point was that organic farmers don’t use organophosphates, which was a response to “Organophosphates are like the primary insecticide used worldwide. How do you replace it? I don't see anywhere where they propose an alternative.”
My mother has a lot of those and they keep crumbling and she has to have them changed. She swallowed a few of them. She also suffer from neurological diseases and fibromyalgia.
That those are in fact made of mercury is blowing my mind right now.
I'll advise her to get her mercury levels checked out.
Quoting:
> The debate over the safety and efficacy of amalgam has raged since time immemorial. In recent times, it has reached such a feverish pitch that it seems to drown out all sounds of reason. Amalgam has served the dental profession for more than 165 years. Incidents of true allergy to mercury have been rare and attempts to link its usage with diseases like multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease have not been significantly proven, although there may be some association between amalgam restorations and oral lichenoid lesions.
> Marshall, in his review on dental amalgam, summed it up appropriately: “if some reported values of Hg release are extrapolated to clinical life times, the entire restoration could lose its Hg in short time. For example, a 500 mg amalgam restoration contains approximately 200–250 mg of Hg, and the entire quantity of Hg would be lost in 10,000 days if the Hg was released at the rate of 25 ?g/day. This estimate of release is of the order of magnitude reported in some studies of vapour release”.
The real crux of the issue is that there are safer effective alternatives. So even if we call the risk "low," it is a needless risk. It only a matter of "when" not "if" these filings are against safety regulations.
The anti-dentites won.
edit: internet searching about on this apparently shows that the price difference should not be that much??? Two different dentists want me to pay about $250+ more per tooth for non-amalgam fillings. Madness!
How do I know it was the amalgam fillings? Because that was my only exposure, and because it turned out my jaw bones were very damaged - exactly were there had been amalgam fillings. It was discovered not by x-ray, several OPGs never showed anything. But when I was to get an injection into the buccal mucosa the needle went right into the bone (that's really not supposed to happen, you can't penetrate bone with a small needle used for a mucosa injection). The doctor checked and this happened in all the places where I had had amalgam fillings. He then injected DMPS in those places. A year later, and after the jaw bones had been very active (but in a positive way) the needle didn't go in anywhere any more. To this day there is (decreasing) activity in my jaw bones, and I still take chelators that have an effect right there (jaw bone).
But please, go ahead and downvote anyone who says something about amalgam fillings. I actually have a background in medical topics, from anatomy, physiology to (of course) bio chemistry, and I read quite a few studies. The lead situation was so bad that politicians actually went to action to do something about it, worldwide. Mercury is far more toxic than lead (and, according to some LD study I once found on PubMed, together about a thousand times more toxic than either lead or mercury alone). Yes, pieces of amalgam are not the problem, they go right through. And as others have said, insertion and even more so removal - with a drill creating heat which creates vapor (no matter how much you cool with water, by then the vapor already exists) - are the worst parts. I had had a few fillings removed while I was a student. Only recently, two decades later, did I connect the dots, why back then I had a huge "almost asthma" allergy almost overnight, as well as huge problems finding sleep, strange thoughts, and big problems with some joints that didn't seem to have any observable reason. The removal was without protection, the removal of the last fillings a few years ago, when I hoped I had found the problem (I did not know, amalgam removal and chelation was an experiment because I could not find anything else, and boy was I proven correct), was with good protective measures that I think worked (I didn't get worse then I already was at the time).
Here is something to consider: What happened when I started DMPS chelation was something that according to doctors doing that kind of treatment is not uncommon, so much so that I was told that might happen before it happened. The initial values went down quickly and linearly - but after a few DMPS treatments my symptoms suddenly jumped. Turned out that the amount of excreted mercury had also jumped (tripled). From then on my body became "active". All kinds of crazy stuff happened, for a long time (it's still not quite over in the jaw area). It seems that the body is overwhelmed at some point and is no longer able to excrete everything. Maybe the spikes of insertion and/or removal of amalgam fillings contribute, too much at once. After the first year I took chelators because it still helped, but it was no longer necessary for excretion, my body had become pretty active. Maybe somebody whose body can deal with the spikes, or who never experiences them, has less trouble continuously getting rid of the mercury that is released from the fillings.
Sooo many questions, and I made soooo many interesting observations. Too bad it's impossible to talk about it, even anonymously on the Internet, because for some reason this topic raises the emotions of sooo many people. That the subject is present on so many websites of the esoteric kind is because it's next to impossible to talk about it in normal circles. My insurance always paid every little thing, even the most stupid and ridiculous and useless stuff - but when I finally send them a bill that mentioned "mercury" and "DMPS" (chelator) they suddenly refused. IT was a trigger word. They had paid for dozens of doctors (that one year when everything escalated, I went to many doctors with the many issues I had, from gastroenterologist to psychologist), now, the one thing that actually worked, and which was very cheap(!), they refused. It's insane. Same here - somebody mentions the trigger words (mercury, amalgam), the comment is voted down immediately. By whom actually? Are there so many prominent toxicologists reading this?
I don't think so. Even a normal MD would not know much about it. I've actually seen this: When I go to a talk from a doctor specialized in lung disease and someone in the audience asks about something not the lung the doctor is very careful not to say anything, because it's not their specialty. Strange, everybody (including non-doctors) has a strong opinion when it comes to the subject of chronic mercury poisoning through amalgam fillings.
Insecticides are also pesticides.
I have my Ontario sprayer's license in my wallet. I had to take a day long course on this topic to get it. Own a hobby farm.
Thanks.