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.
I think there will be a time in the future when we'll look back and think how crazy people were in 2018 pumping all kinds of known toxins into the environment. It will probably be the same incredulity we have when we look at people using radium toothpaste in 1920 or the mad hatters working with mercury the whole day and going crazy.
People spend a lot of time talking about what happens to humans when exposed to organophosphates. Humans aren’t even meant to be the target of these chemicals. What about the long term consequences to the environment that is actually the intended target? How much are we losing by applying these chemicals year after year after year.
I mean, its sorta why GMOs exist. To reduce the need of pesticides that are sprayed on farms. I've always considered GMOs to be the lesser evil when compared to standard pesticide usage.
Not all produce have a insect-resistant type however. So pesticides are still needed to protect certain plants.
They could be replaced, but the question becomes which one would be better (or worse). Additionally there are other ways to tackle this problem. Ensure usage is not allowed near residential areas, give warning or make sure everyone dusts only on particular dates. Lots of ways to solve this. Banning things that sound bad won't help. We'll end up banning everything. The concerns are valid, raising awareness is always good, but a solid plan is needed before we change the way we do agriculture.
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:
PLOS One is also extremely lax when it comes to peer review. They've gotten into trouble for publishing spurious articles using unscientific methodology before because of their lack of quality control.
They might as well be ArXiv. Except I don't think ArXiv charges $1500 an article.
> However, 200,000 people still die each year from pesticide poisonings, according to UN estimates, about 99% of them in the developing world. A further 110,000 suicides using pesticides take place each year.
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.
The autism link appears very dubious and casts doubt on everything else - it doesn't map to organophosphate usage in the timeline and frankly it shows heavy signs of being genetic. Not to mention if the effects are that strong organic fanatics should show significant differences in performance - but that doesn't seem to be the case.
While I doubt that even the still used organophosphates are healthy to be exposed to this has smells of poor science.
As someone with a son diagnosed officially by a professional, myself & older brother believe we are both on the spectrum but not as much as my son. He is verbal, but has quirks commonly called stimming. He hums a lot and will flap his arms when being visually or audibly stimulated.
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.
It would help if they could explain why there aren't more autism clusters[1] in California's central valley if they want to make a stronger case. In the central valley you have 10x the exposure to organophosphate pesticides given the agricultural activity. So an a per-capita basis I would expect that to show up in the clusters.
Anyone know of a QUALY-based analysis of the costs and benefits of using these fertilizers?
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.
You reference the logical fallacy of "think of the children", but in this case it doesn't really seem like a logical fallacy, if we are literally poisoning the children.
For comparative example, lead abatement is not a fallacious "think of the children" argument- actual children are routinely poisoned by lead.
There are different grades of quality in diatomaceous earth, some are safer, other not so. Is a "fosil stone", so is not unlimited. Diatom skeletons are tiny silica boxes, and breathing silica dust regularly leads to silicose. Would also change the soil structure and increase the damage in the machines needed for harvest.
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.
The strongest association with AD and PD is obesity. Now, in itself obesity is often the results of lifestyle habits. So, is one of those habits the culprit? Or is does more body fat leads to more bio-accumulated toxins?
Let's "kill 2 birds with one stone" and also fight the obesity crisis by having children pick weeds. Call it a "Synergy class between botany science and physical education".
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?
chicob|7 years ago
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...
dragontamer|7 years ago
EPA has this little chapter on organophosphates. Seems like this class of pesticides is well known to be toxic to humans.
maxxxxx|7 years ago
torpfactory|7 years ago
empath75|7 years ago
jugg1es|7 years ago
dragontamer|7 years ago
Not all produce have a insect-resistant type however. So pesticides are still needed to protect certain plants.
John_KZ|7 years ago
chabes|7 years ago
bluntfang|7 years ago
jbob2000|7 years ago
adreamingsoul|7 years ago
sambe|7 years ago
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
amyjess|7 years ago
They might as well be ArXiv. Except I don't think ArXiv charges $1500 an article.
scotty79|7 years ago
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.
Nasrudith|7 years ago
molotovbliss|7 years ago
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...
- https://www.wired.com/2001/12/aspergers/
ChuckMcM|7 years ago
[1] https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/Maps/autism_cluster.h...
theptip|7 years ago
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.
ip26|7 years ago
For comparative example, lead abatement is not a fallacious "think of the children" argument- actual children are routinely poisoned by lead.
mitchtbaum|7 years ago
pvaldes|7 years ago
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.
gwbas1c|7 years ago
And probably the physical nature of the powder makes it fundamentally different.
leptoniscool|7 years ago
Amygaz|7 years ago
stephengillie|7 years ago
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?
gwbas1c|7 years ago