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.
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.
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.
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.
[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?
