I find it noteworthy that the Sacramento City Council would be asking a number of tough questions about the effectiveness of the spraying and also questioning whether we in fact know enough about the environmental and health effects of the use of these chemicals.
Councilmember Rob Fong told the Sacramento Bee:
“They’re telling us it’s OK to use these chemicals because we don’t know yet whether anything bad can happen as a result. I’m just not comfortable with that.”
One reason I find this so interesting has been the lack of interest on the part of the Davis City Council to ask similar tough questions. Last year when the Davis City Council took up this issue, only one councilmember, Lamar Heystek, sought to oppose aerial spraying in urban areas. His motions died for the lack of second. It now appears that the Sacramento City Council has shown action where the Davis City Coucnil accepted the official findings of the experts.
However, when pressed by Councilmember Fong, Sacramento County’s Public Health Officer, Dr. Trochet and Dave Brown, manager of the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, were forced to acknowledge the chemicals are possible carcinogens and that they have no idea of the long-term effects because they have not done long term studies.
As I wrote last year, I am not a doctor or a scientist, so I do not know whether spraying presents a health and/ or environmental hazard. However, as always, I am concerned about the process. Particularly the lack of local control and the lack of clear scientific evidence that would dispel or confirm some of the concerns raised by activists and environmentalists.
The first problem I have with the process is that the mosquito abatement district operates outside of direct local control. Sacramento City Attorney Eileen Teichert for example has determined that the city lacks the legal authority to opt out of aerial spraying. However, the city could appeal a spraying decision to the state or file a lawsuit. The lack of local control by elected officials who have had their power usurped by an unelected bureaucratic body remains a very disturbing feature of this issue.
Second, unlike the case with the Sacramento City Council, I do not believe that the City of Davis asked tough questions and drew up satisfactory answers to two crucial questions.
The first question is the long term health effects. We do not have good answers to this question because long term studies have not been performed.
The second key question is one that we should have at least some data on–how effective is the spraying at reducing the adult mosquito population and reducing the spread of the West Nile Virus.
However, there are two different answers to this question depending on who you ask.
“David Brown, who heads the Sacramento-Yolo district, said he’s convinced aerial spraying has greatly reduced the number of infected adult mosquitoes. That in turn has reduced the public health risk, he said.”
However, according to a number of activists and environmentalists, ”
Jack Milton, a UC Davis professor and local activist with Stop West Nile Spraying Now, suggests that the evidence is much weaker than they are letting on. In response to questions in August of 2005, the experts presented evidence. However, this evidence amounted to something considerably less than actual scientific study.
“It turns out that this paper is essentially an administrative report of how one district spent its money as WNv infections grew. It is not a study in any way, shape, or form about efficacy of adulticiding. They had ramped up all vector control activities, and there was no way in what they did to measure the efficacy of adulticiding at all. There was no comparative study, there was no model, there was nothing in there to allow anybody to draw any such conclusions.”
Jack Milton concludes from this response:
“I suggest that if this is one of their two best pieces of evidence (the other one was a study, not in a peer-reviewed journal, which scholars at the University of Colorado have thoroughly criticized), they have essentially no evidence whatsoever.”
It is not clear to me then that we have compelling evidence of the effectiveness of the spraying program. It is also not clear to me whether we know enough about the long term health effects of spraying urban areas.
That leaves us with one final question–how serious is the West Nile Virus threat that we are willing to take potential health risks with uncertain benefits.
According to Jack Milton,
“The disease is a rare and mild one for most people, and it is headed into chronic endemicity now, which will mean fewer and fewer cases in upcoming years, with some small fluctuations from year to year — a dampened sine wave, if you will. Vector control and public health officials have sensationalized the issue and have engaged in fear tactics in order to peddle their snake oil. They have largely ignored the risks to people and the environment of the spray, and they have not even attempted to measure the effect of applying this poison in the way they are. At the same time they have exaggerated the risks of WNv, and their methods and statements have been very inconsistent.”
It may be that these things are perfectly safe and we have nothing to worry about, but what concerns me most is that the Sacramento City Council is being much more aggressive with asking these questions at this time than the Davis City Council. Four of the five members of the Davis City Council seemed relatively unconcerned a year ago about any questions regarding spraying. A motion by Councilmember Heystek died for a lack of a second. Meanwhile the Sacramento City Council has taken the lead on this issue.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
What also needs to be pointed out is Davis is still functioning on its distant past reputation of being “green”. Sacramento Council unanimously voted to become a sustainable City. Are they there yet? No but the decision in itself means Sac. will be examining many aspects of governance and how that relates to health.
The lack of process in district decisions is important, but even more egregious is the total lack of accountability. There is no public recourse against any action the district chooses to take. The Board and Manager are not subject to recall and do not report directly to any elected body. They essentially sit in an ivory tower free of scrutiny and accountability.
WNV has the media spotlight and the media has created an atmosphere of fear. The consequences of WNV are not just death for a very very small number, but long term neurological consequences for some. Still this number is infinitesimally small, but the consequences serious and not to be dismissed. That acknowledged if we were hearing daily about every child that is rushed to the ER with respiratory issues I think there would mass hysteria and calls for clean air immediately including cessation of aerial/truck spraying.
We are only hearing a fraction of the story from the media while being pounded daily with terror messages about epidemics and death from WNV. Interestingly the epidemic proportions of the disease are in the bird not human population, but we are not told that. We are also not told that the term epidemic is used to describe a greater than expected number of human cases. This can be one case. For anyone wanting to challenge this fact I suggest they talk with those connected to the CDC as I did.
Many other communities across the country have refused to use unproven and ineffective methods of adulticiding (pesticides for control of adult mosquitoes) for WNV mosquito control and instead focus exclusively on controlling the larva. Dr. Trochet of the Sac. County Health Dept. is a walking pesticide commercial. She is so ignorant of studies and effects of pesticides that when she speaks in public on this issue it is complete fantasy yet this is the person that local media and government officials are turning to for health implications. Her statements are so ignorant and groundless that she should be replaced for dereliction of duty. Incompetent does not describe her lack of preparation. She talks with certainty on what studies exist or don’t exist with little or no basis in reality.
The problem is media driven fear and frenzy with a local district that is unaccountable. Other districts in the state are publicly accountable to a far greater extent, but our local Sac-Yolo district was created under ancient state law and is not accountable to the public.
What also needs to be pointed out is Davis is still functioning on its distant past reputation of being “green”. Sacramento Council unanimously voted to become a sustainable City. Are they there yet? No but the decision in itself means Sac. will be examining many aspects of governance and how that relates to health.
The lack of process in district decisions is important, but even more egregious is the total lack of accountability. There is no public recourse against any action the district chooses to take. The Board and Manager are not subject to recall and do not report directly to any elected body. They essentially sit in an ivory tower free of scrutiny and accountability.
WNV has the media spotlight and the media has created an atmosphere of fear. The consequences of WNV are not just death for a very very small number, but long term neurological consequences for some. Still this number is infinitesimally small, but the consequences serious and not to be dismissed. That acknowledged if we were hearing daily about every child that is rushed to the ER with respiratory issues I think there would mass hysteria and calls for clean air immediately including cessation of aerial/truck spraying.
We are only hearing a fraction of the story from the media while being pounded daily with terror messages about epidemics and death from WNV. Interestingly the epidemic proportions of the disease are in the bird not human population, but we are not told that. We are also not told that the term epidemic is used to describe a greater than expected number of human cases. This can be one case. For anyone wanting to challenge this fact I suggest they talk with those connected to the CDC as I did.
Many other communities across the country have refused to use unproven and ineffective methods of adulticiding (pesticides for control of adult mosquitoes) for WNV mosquito control and instead focus exclusively on controlling the larva. Dr. Trochet of the Sac. County Health Dept. is a walking pesticide commercial. She is so ignorant of studies and effects of pesticides that when she speaks in public on this issue it is complete fantasy yet this is the person that local media and government officials are turning to for health implications. Her statements are so ignorant and groundless that she should be replaced for dereliction of duty. Incompetent does not describe her lack of preparation. She talks with certainty on what studies exist or don’t exist with little or no basis in reality.
The problem is media driven fear and frenzy with a local district that is unaccountable. Other districts in the state are publicly accountable to a far greater extent, but our local Sac-Yolo district was created under ancient state law and is not accountable to the public.
What also needs to be pointed out is Davis is still functioning on its distant past reputation of being “green”. Sacramento Council unanimously voted to become a sustainable City. Are they there yet? No but the decision in itself means Sac. will be examining many aspects of governance and how that relates to health.
The lack of process in district decisions is important, but even more egregious is the total lack of accountability. There is no public recourse against any action the district chooses to take. The Board and Manager are not subject to recall and do not report directly to any elected body. They essentially sit in an ivory tower free of scrutiny and accountability.
WNV has the media spotlight and the media has created an atmosphere of fear. The consequences of WNV are not just death for a very very small number, but long term neurological consequences for some. Still this number is infinitesimally small, but the consequences serious and not to be dismissed. That acknowledged if we were hearing daily about every child that is rushed to the ER with respiratory issues I think there would mass hysteria and calls for clean air immediately including cessation of aerial/truck spraying.
We are only hearing a fraction of the story from the media while being pounded daily with terror messages about epidemics and death from WNV. Interestingly the epidemic proportions of the disease are in the bird not human population, but we are not told that. We are also not told that the term epidemic is used to describe a greater than expected number of human cases. This can be one case. For anyone wanting to challenge this fact I suggest they talk with those connected to the CDC as I did.
Many other communities across the country have refused to use unproven and ineffective methods of adulticiding (pesticides for control of adult mosquitoes) for WNV mosquito control and instead focus exclusively on controlling the larva. Dr. Trochet of the Sac. County Health Dept. is a walking pesticide commercial. She is so ignorant of studies and effects of pesticides that when she speaks in public on this issue it is complete fantasy yet this is the person that local media and government officials are turning to for health implications. Her statements are so ignorant and groundless that she should be replaced for dereliction of duty. Incompetent does not describe her lack of preparation. She talks with certainty on what studies exist or don’t exist with little or no basis in reality.
The problem is media driven fear and frenzy with a local district that is unaccountable. Other districts in the state are publicly accountable to a far greater extent, but our local Sac-Yolo district was created under ancient state law and is not accountable to the public.
What also needs to be pointed out is Davis is still functioning on its distant past reputation of being “green”. Sacramento Council unanimously voted to become a sustainable City. Are they there yet? No but the decision in itself means Sac. will be examining many aspects of governance and how that relates to health.
The lack of process in district decisions is important, but even more egregious is the total lack of accountability. There is no public recourse against any action the district chooses to take. The Board and Manager are not subject to recall and do not report directly to any elected body. They essentially sit in an ivory tower free of scrutiny and accountability.
WNV has the media spotlight and the media has created an atmosphere of fear. The consequences of WNV are not just death for a very very small number, but long term neurological consequences for some. Still this number is infinitesimally small, but the consequences serious and not to be dismissed. That acknowledged if we were hearing daily about every child that is rushed to the ER with respiratory issues I think there would mass hysteria and calls for clean air immediately including cessation of aerial/truck spraying.
We are only hearing a fraction of the story from the media while being pounded daily with terror messages about epidemics and death from WNV. Interestingly the epidemic proportions of the disease are in the bird not human population, but we are not told that. We are also not told that the term epidemic is used to describe a greater than expected number of human cases. This can be one case. For anyone wanting to challenge this fact I suggest they talk with those connected to the CDC as I did.
Many other communities across the country have refused to use unproven and ineffective methods of adulticiding (pesticides for control of adult mosquitoes) for WNV mosquito control and instead focus exclusively on controlling the larva. Dr. Trochet of the Sac. County Health Dept. is a walking pesticide commercial. She is so ignorant of studies and effects of pesticides that when she speaks in public on this issue it is complete fantasy yet this is the person that local media and government officials are turning to for health implications. Her statements are so ignorant and groundless that she should be replaced for dereliction of duty. Incompetent does not describe her lack of preparation. She talks with certainty on what studies exist or don’t exist with little or no basis in reality.
The problem is media driven fear and frenzy with a local district that is unaccountable. Other districts in the state are publicly accountable to a far greater extent, but our local Sac-Yolo district was created under ancient state law and is not accountable to the public.
Of all places, Davis should be coming up with a rational decision on this. What do the UCD experts (not the activists) think about this? Spraying is happening all over the state for WNV – they just sprayed large urban areas of West San Jose. I would like to see UCD stand up and state an opinion.
Of all places, Davis should be coming up with a rational decision on this. What do the UCD experts (not the activists) think about this? Spraying is happening all over the state for WNV – they just sprayed large urban areas of West San Jose. I would like to see UCD stand up and state an opinion.
Of all places, Davis should be coming up with a rational decision on this. What do the UCD experts (not the activists) think about this? Spraying is happening all over the state for WNV – they just sprayed large urban areas of West San Jose. I would like to see UCD stand up and state an opinion.
Of all places, Davis should be coming up with a rational decision on this. What do the UCD experts (not the activists) think about this? Spraying is happening all over the state for WNV – they just sprayed large urban areas of West San Jose. I would like to see UCD stand up and state an opinion.
Burt said…
Jack Milton, a UC Davis professor and local activist with Stop West Nile Spraying Now, suggests that the evidence is much weaker than they are letting on.
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/research/profiles/milton
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/clinicians/epi.htm#agent
Draw your own conclusions. Site #1, Jack Milton’s UCD Profile.( A Math Professor ?????). site #2, The CDC’s site on West Nile Virus.
My conclusion. I will go with spraying.
Burt said…
Jack Milton, a UC Davis professor and local activist with Stop West Nile Spraying Now, suggests that the evidence is much weaker than they are letting on.
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/research/profiles/milton
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/clinicians/epi.htm#agent
Draw your own conclusions. Site #1, Jack Milton’s UCD Profile.( A Math Professor ?????). site #2, The CDC’s site on West Nile Virus.
My conclusion. I will go with spraying.
Burt said…
Jack Milton, a UC Davis professor and local activist with Stop West Nile Spraying Now, suggests that the evidence is much weaker than they are letting on.
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/research/profiles/milton
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/clinicians/epi.htm#agent
Draw your own conclusions. Site #1, Jack Milton’s UCD Profile.( A Math Professor ?????). site #2, The CDC’s site on West Nile Virus.
My conclusion. I will go with spraying.
Burt said…
Jack Milton, a UC Davis professor and local activist with Stop West Nile Spraying Now, suggests that the evidence is much weaker than they are letting on.
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/research/profiles/milton
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/clinicians/epi.htm#agent
Draw your own conclusions. Site #1, Jack Milton’s UCD Profile.( A Math Professor ?????). site #2, The CDC’s site on West Nile Virus.
My conclusion. I will go with spraying.
What exactly is the relevant evidence sought here?
Despite all the talk about uncertainties, accountability, Sacramento City Council, etc., the bottom line salient questions are:
1. What would the rate of WNV illnesses/deaths associated with versus the illnesses/deaths associated with spraying.
2. What would they be without the spraying?
If one considers the spraying in relation to its effectiveness in reducing mosquito populations which we know carry the disease versus its relative risk to the human population (which we also know is low: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5227a1.htm), then that is the relevant data.
I’ll put my money on the spraying.
What exactly is the relevant evidence sought here?
Despite all the talk about uncertainties, accountability, Sacramento City Council, etc., the bottom line salient questions are:
1. What would the rate of WNV illnesses/deaths associated with versus the illnesses/deaths associated with spraying.
2. What would they be without the spraying?
If one considers the spraying in relation to its effectiveness in reducing mosquito populations which we know carry the disease versus its relative risk to the human population (which we also know is low: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5227a1.htm), then that is the relevant data.
I’ll put my money on the spraying.
What exactly is the relevant evidence sought here?
Despite all the talk about uncertainties, accountability, Sacramento City Council, etc., the bottom line salient questions are:
1. What would the rate of WNV illnesses/deaths associated with versus the illnesses/deaths associated with spraying.
2. What would they be without the spraying?
If one considers the spraying in relation to its effectiveness in reducing mosquito populations which we know carry the disease versus its relative risk to the human population (which we also know is low: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5227a1.htm), then that is the relevant data.
I’ll put my money on the spraying.
What exactly is the relevant evidence sought here?
Despite all the talk about uncertainties, accountability, Sacramento City Council, etc., the bottom line salient questions are:
1. What would the rate of WNV illnesses/deaths associated with versus the illnesses/deaths associated with spraying.
2. What would they be without the spraying?
If one considers the spraying in relation to its effectiveness in reducing mosquito populations which we know carry the disease versus its relative risk to the human population (which we also know is low: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5227a1.htm), then that is the relevant data.
I’ll put my money on the spraying.
Correction: Question 1. should read:
“1. What would the rate of WNV illnesses/deaths be with spraying.”
The editing window on this software does some funny things.
Correction: Question 1. should read:
“1. What would the rate of WNV illnesses/deaths be with spraying.”
The editing window on this software does some funny things.
Correction: Question 1. should read:
“1. What would the rate of WNV illnesses/deaths be with spraying.”
The editing window on this software does some funny things.
Correction: Question 1. should read:
“1. What would the rate of WNV illnesses/deaths be with spraying.”
The editing window on this software does some funny things.
This is another area where Sue Greenwald has abondoned people she should be supporting. She also abandoned us on the profligate Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan in her first term. So it appears she is a no growth one trick pony. I hope she doesn’t try to claim going forward that she is an environmentalist.
While I agree with Stephen Jay Gould eloquent teachings that mosquitoes are the one group of organisms that we would be better off driving into extinction because of the vast number of human deaths they have caused over the last million years, Sue could have at least investigated whether spraying was the best way to go. Especially after Lamar came on board. Instead she chose not to step up and left Lamar twisting in the wind. Maybe now this will come back to bite her as it should.
This is another area where Sue Greenwald has abondoned people she should be supporting. She also abandoned us on the profligate Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan in her first term. So it appears she is a no growth one trick pony. I hope she doesn’t try to claim going forward that she is an environmentalist.
While I agree with Stephen Jay Gould eloquent teachings that mosquitoes are the one group of organisms that we would be better off driving into extinction because of the vast number of human deaths they have caused over the last million years, Sue could have at least investigated whether spraying was the best way to go. Especially after Lamar came on board. Instead she chose not to step up and left Lamar twisting in the wind. Maybe now this will come back to bite her as it should.
This is another area where Sue Greenwald has abondoned people she should be supporting. She also abandoned us on the profligate Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan in her first term. So it appears she is a no growth one trick pony. I hope she doesn’t try to claim going forward that she is an environmentalist.
While I agree with Stephen Jay Gould eloquent teachings that mosquitoes are the one group of organisms that we would be better off driving into extinction because of the vast number of human deaths they have caused over the last million years, Sue could have at least investigated whether spraying was the best way to go. Especially after Lamar came on board. Instead she chose not to step up and left Lamar twisting in the wind. Maybe now this will come back to bite her as it should.
This is another area where Sue Greenwald has abondoned people she should be supporting. She also abandoned us on the profligate Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan in her first term. So it appears she is a no growth one trick pony. I hope she doesn’t try to claim going forward that she is an environmentalist.
While I agree with Stephen Jay Gould eloquent teachings that mosquitoes are the one group of organisms that we would be better off driving into extinction because of the vast number of human deaths they have caused over the last million years, Sue could have at least investigated whether spraying was the best way to go. Especially after Lamar came on board. Instead she chose not to step up and left Lamar twisting in the wind. Maybe now this will come back to bite her as it should.
Oh yeah, remember all the people who dropped dead after the spraying in 2005. Not.
The spraying is safe. West Nile virus is not. End of story.
Oh yeah, remember all the people who dropped dead after the spraying in 2005. Not.
The spraying is safe. West Nile virus is not. End of story.
Oh yeah, remember all the people who dropped dead after the spraying in 2005. Not.
The spraying is safe. West Nile virus is not. End of story.
Oh yeah, remember all the people who dropped dead after the spraying in 2005. Not.
The spraying is safe. West Nile virus is not. End of story.
With all due respect Anonymous 9:15, you completely missed the point. LONG TERM. How many dropped dead in 2005 from spraying has NOTHING to do with the long term health affects. And you just don’t get that. We do not know. I repeat. We do not know, what that impact is going to be. Don’t you want to KNOW that before you expose yourself or your child to this stuff?
With all due respect Anonymous 9:15, you completely missed the point. LONG TERM. How many dropped dead in 2005 from spraying has NOTHING to do with the long term health affects. And you just don’t get that. We do not know. I repeat. We do not know, what that impact is going to be. Don’t you want to KNOW that before you expose yourself or your child to this stuff?
With all due respect Anonymous 9:15, you completely missed the point. LONG TERM. How many dropped dead in 2005 from spraying has NOTHING to do with the long term health affects. And you just don’t get that. We do not know. I repeat. We do not know, what that impact is going to be. Don’t you want to KNOW that before you expose yourself or your child to this stuff?
With all due respect Anonymous 9:15, you completely missed the point. LONG TERM. How many dropped dead in 2005 from spraying has NOTHING to do with the long term health affects. And you just don’t get that. We do not know. I repeat. We do not know, what that impact is going to be. Don’t you want to KNOW that before you expose yourself or your child to this stuff?
To anonymous 9:15:
“Spraying is safe….” Where is your evidence? Of course, no one dropped dead after last year’s spraying. No one is saying the district is spraying us with accute levels of toxins. We are talking about long-term effects. Many pesticides have been shown to have serious, long-terms effects in response to low levels of exposure. There have been no studies done on the long-term effects to exposure to these particular chemicals. Piperonyl butoxide is classified by the US EPA as a possible cancer-causing agent that attacks the liver.
Are you willing to gamble on this? It is not uncommon for scientists to find that chemical that were once considered to be safe are not.
Furthermore, in an article in the Bee this morning, mosquito abatement officials are quoted as admitting that aerial spraying is the LEAST effective tool that they have. “It’s a last-ditch thing.” stated Dave Tamayo, the president of the mosquito abatement board.
Our council should be following Sacramento’s lead and seriously questioning aerial spraying.
To anonymous 9:15:
“Spraying is safe….” Where is your evidence? Of course, no one dropped dead after last year’s spraying. No one is saying the district is spraying us with accute levels of toxins. We are talking about long-term effects. Many pesticides have been shown to have serious, long-terms effects in response to low levels of exposure. There have been no studies done on the long-term effects to exposure to these particular chemicals. Piperonyl butoxide is classified by the US EPA as a possible cancer-causing agent that attacks the liver.
Are you willing to gamble on this? It is not uncommon for scientists to find that chemical that were once considered to be safe are not.
Furthermore, in an article in the Bee this morning, mosquito abatement officials are quoted as admitting that aerial spraying is the LEAST effective tool that they have. “It’s a last-ditch thing.” stated Dave Tamayo, the president of the mosquito abatement board.
Our council should be following Sacramento’s lead and seriously questioning aerial spraying.
To anonymous 9:15:
“Spraying is safe….” Where is your evidence? Of course, no one dropped dead after last year’s spraying. No one is saying the district is spraying us with accute levels of toxins. We are talking about long-term effects. Many pesticides have been shown to have serious, long-terms effects in response to low levels of exposure. There have been no studies done on the long-term effects to exposure to these particular chemicals. Piperonyl butoxide is classified by the US EPA as a possible cancer-causing agent that attacks the liver.
Are you willing to gamble on this? It is not uncommon for scientists to find that chemical that were once considered to be safe are not.
Furthermore, in an article in the Bee this morning, mosquito abatement officials are quoted as admitting that aerial spraying is the LEAST effective tool that they have. “It’s a last-ditch thing.” stated Dave Tamayo, the president of the mosquito abatement board.
Our council should be following Sacramento’s lead and seriously questioning aerial spraying.
To anonymous 9:15:
“Spraying is safe….” Where is your evidence? Of course, no one dropped dead after last year’s spraying. No one is saying the district is spraying us with accute levels of toxins. We are talking about long-term effects. Many pesticides have been shown to have serious, long-terms effects in response to low levels of exposure. There have been no studies done on the long-term effects to exposure to these particular chemicals. Piperonyl butoxide is classified by the US EPA as a possible cancer-causing agent that attacks the liver.
Are you willing to gamble on this? It is not uncommon for scientists to find that chemical that were once considered to be safe are not.
Furthermore, in an article in the Bee this morning, mosquito abatement officials are quoted as admitting that aerial spraying is the LEAST effective tool that they have. “It’s a last-ditch thing.” stated Dave Tamayo, the president of the mosquito abatement board.
Our council should be following Sacramento’s lead and seriously questioning aerial spraying.
It would be interesting for someone to answer if occasional and intermittent low dose sprayings over the long term is the same as “long term low levels of exposure”. Typically, I would interpret long term low levels of exposure as “low levels but consistent and frequent”.
It would be interesting for someone to answer if occasional and intermittent low dose sprayings over the long term is the same as “long term low levels of exposure”. Typically, I would interpret long term low levels of exposure as “low levels but consistent and frequent”.
It would be interesting for someone to answer if occasional and intermittent low dose sprayings over the long term is the same as “long term low levels of exposure”. Typically, I would interpret long term low levels of exposure as “low levels but consistent and frequent”.
It would be interesting for someone to answer if occasional and intermittent low dose sprayings over the long term is the same as “long term low levels of exposure”. Typically, I would interpret long term low levels of exposure as “low levels but consistent and frequent”.
This is unbelievable in an educated community. The questions are not what Brian asks. The questions are is spraying effective or even known to reduce transmission of WNV? NO. This is like draining the ocean because someone was bitten by a shark. If our health officials were saying spraying is dangerous then there would be no debate. Well health officials in other parts of the country have done just that. They have said no spray because of adverse health implications. They have recognized that pesticides cause respiratory illness and exacerbation of other conditions. Other localities places have places to report pesticide health effects after spraying and get the word out to Drs. about the symptoms and effects spraying may have. This is not done here so we have no local data or even route for getting such. It is not a WNV death and illness vs death from spraying question. It is a question of chronic and cumulative UNKNOWN effects and not just to humans but a disruption of the entire eco system that actually seems to prolong the rate at which WNV stays prevalent in an area. There are exponential drops in most places that do not spray and flat curves in places that continue to spray. CDC does not recommend spraying, in fact they caution against it and say only when a last resort. Well there was no need to spray. The district again sprayed on the natural downward curve for the season. There were few reported infections in Sacramento County. CDC officials who have been asked to compare and contrast spray vs. no spray were unable to show it was effective or even did anything at all. What is effective is to take the money spent and use it for greater public education and larviciding, and water management. These approaches are continually shown to reduce mosquitoes and the transmission of various vector carried diseases. Spraying is a panacea for the created hysteria and fear over WNV. Those saying spray do you even know what the infection rate is? It is not if you get a mosquito bite you die. First you need and infected mosquito, the numbers the district uses is 5 in 1000 as a “epidemic level” and only female mosquitoes. Then it is approx. 20% who even develop the slightest symptoms like a mild flu. 1 in 150 go on to develop neuro complications and then in susceptible usually elder or immune compromised individuals there is a rare death. 5 deaths in the entire state of California this year. These are the exact kinds of numbers and statistics that math professors like Jack Milton are expert at comparing, contrasting and analyzing. As well as creating mathematical models for transmission of WNV to humans (a current area of interest for Prof. Milton) Any Dr. or public health official needs to have their data interpreted and statistically analyzed by someone (possibly the researcher him/herself) with math background or it means diddle to them or the community.
The question is does spraying reduce transmission to humans? Answer from CDC., is UNKNOWN, no data or study has been done. Spraying is a fuzzy wuzzy feel good panacea to a fear hyped public that lets the officials look as if they are doing something about a created epidemic
While people are dying of many health conditions that are real and preventable. Spend the money there and improve lives and prevent needless deaths. That is a real cost benefit analysis that does not require a math degree.
In this debate no one is even aasking about cumulative and synergistic effects. Go to http://www.stopwestnilespraying now.org and look at the presentation Sac City Council saw last night. It will be posted by this afternoon.
As for the benfits of mosquitoes they can work as water filters and are a major food source for many species. We woudl see vast food webs crash with out the little pests. And spray it is not a discriminant killer it kills beneficial happy photogenic insects as well as mosquitoes.
This is unbelievable in an educated community. The questions are not what Brian asks. The questions are is spraying effective or even known to reduce transmission of WNV? NO. This is like draining the ocean because someone was bitten by a shark. If our health officials were saying spraying is dangerous then there would be no debate. Well health officials in other parts of the country have done just that. They have said no spray because of adverse health implications. They have recognized that pesticides cause respiratory illness and exacerbation of other conditions. Other localities places have places to report pesticide health effects after spraying and get the word out to Drs. about the symptoms and effects spraying may have. This is not done here so we have no local data or even route for getting such. It is not a WNV death and illness vs death from spraying question. It is a question of chronic and cumulative UNKNOWN effects and not just to humans but a disruption of the entire eco system that actually seems to prolong the rate at which WNV stays prevalent in an area. There are exponential drops in most places that do not spray and flat curves in places that continue to spray. CDC does not recommend spraying, in fact they caution against it and say only when a last resort. Well there was no need to spray. The district again sprayed on the natural downward curve for the season. There were few reported infections in Sacramento County. CDC officials who have been asked to compare and contrast spray vs. no spray were unable to show it was effective or even did anything at all. What is effective is to take the money spent and use it for greater public education and larviciding, and water management. These approaches are continually shown to reduce mosquitoes and the transmission of various vector carried diseases. Spraying is a panacea for the created hysteria and fear over WNV. Those saying spray do you even know what the infection rate is? It is not if you get a mosquito bite you die. First you need and infected mosquito, the numbers the district uses is 5 in 1000 as a “epidemic level” and only female mosquitoes. Then it is approx. 20% who even develop the slightest symptoms like a mild flu. 1 in 150 go on to develop neuro complications and then in susceptible usually elder or immune compromised individuals there is a rare death. 5 deaths in the entire state of California this year. These are the exact kinds of numbers and statistics that math professors like Jack Milton are expert at comparing, contrasting and analyzing. As well as creating mathematical models for transmission of WNV to humans (a current area of interest for Prof. Milton) Any Dr. or public health official needs to have their data interpreted and statistically analyzed by someone (possibly the researcher him/herself) with math background or it means diddle to them or the community.
The question is does spraying reduce transmission to humans? Answer from CDC., is UNKNOWN, no data or study has been done. Spraying is a fuzzy wuzzy feel good panacea to a fear hyped public that lets the officials look as if they are doing something about a created epidemic
While people are dying of many health conditions that are real and preventable. Spend the money there and improve lives and prevent needless deaths. That is a real cost benefit analysis that does not require a math degree.
In this debate no one is even aasking about cumulative and synergistic effects. Go to http://www.stopwestnilespraying now.org and look at the presentation Sac City Council saw last night. It will be posted by this afternoon.
As for the benfits of mosquitoes they can work as water filters and are a major food source for many species. We woudl see vast food webs crash with out the little pests. And spray it is not a discriminant killer it kills beneficial happy photogenic insects as well as mosquitoes.
This is unbelievable in an educated community. The questions are not what Brian asks. The questions are is spraying effective or even known to reduce transmission of WNV? NO. This is like draining the ocean because someone was bitten by a shark. If our health officials were saying spraying is dangerous then there would be no debate. Well health officials in other parts of the country have done just that. They have said no spray because of adverse health implications. They have recognized that pesticides cause respiratory illness and exacerbation of other conditions. Other localities places have places to report pesticide health effects after spraying and get the word out to Drs. about the symptoms and effects spraying may have. This is not done here so we have no local data or even route for getting such. It is not a WNV death and illness vs death from spraying question. It is a question of chronic and cumulative UNKNOWN effects and not just to humans but a disruption of the entire eco system that actually seems to prolong the rate at which WNV stays prevalent in an area. There are exponential drops in most places that do not spray and flat curves in places that continue to spray. CDC does not recommend spraying, in fact they caution against it and say only when a last resort. Well there was no need to spray. The district again sprayed on the natural downward curve for the season. There were few reported infections in Sacramento County. CDC officials who have been asked to compare and contrast spray vs. no spray were unable to show it was effective or even did anything at all. What is effective is to take the money spent and use it for greater public education and larviciding, and water management. These approaches are continually shown to reduce mosquitoes and the transmission of various vector carried diseases. Spraying is a panacea for the created hysteria and fear over WNV. Those saying spray do you even know what the infection rate is? It is not if you get a mosquito bite you die. First you need and infected mosquito, the numbers the district uses is 5 in 1000 as a “epidemic level” and only female mosquitoes. Then it is approx. 20% who even develop the slightest symptoms like a mild flu. 1 in 150 go on to develop neuro complications and then in susceptible usually elder or immune compromised individuals there is a rare death. 5 deaths in the entire state of California this year. These are the exact kinds of numbers and statistics that math professors like Jack Milton are expert at comparing, contrasting and analyzing. As well as creating mathematical models for transmission of WNV to humans (a current area of interest for Prof. Milton) Any Dr. or public health official needs to have their data interpreted and statistically analyzed by someone (possibly the researcher him/herself) with math background or it means diddle to them or the community.
The question is does spraying reduce transmission to humans? Answer from CDC., is UNKNOWN, no data or study has been done. Spraying is a fuzzy wuzzy feel good panacea to a fear hyped public that lets the officials look as if they are doing something about a created epidemic
While people are dying of many health conditions that are real and preventable. Spend the money there and improve lives and prevent needless deaths. That is a real cost benefit analysis that does not require a math degree.
In this debate no one is even aasking about cumulative and synergistic effects. Go to http://www.stopwestnilespraying now.org and look at the presentation Sac City Council saw last night. It will be posted by this afternoon.
As for the benfits of mosquitoes they can work as water filters and are a major food source for many species. We woudl see vast food webs crash with out the little pests. And spray it is not a discriminant killer it kills beneficial happy photogenic insects as well as mosquitoes.
This is unbelievable in an educated community. The questions are not what Brian asks. The questions are is spraying effective or even known to reduce transmission of WNV? NO. This is like draining the ocean because someone was bitten by a shark. If our health officials were saying spraying is dangerous then there would be no debate. Well health officials in other parts of the country have done just that. They have said no spray because of adverse health implications. They have recognized that pesticides cause respiratory illness and exacerbation of other conditions. Other localities places have places to report pesticide health effects after spraying and get the word out to Drs. about the symptoms and effects spraying may have. This is not done here so we have no local data or even route for getting such. It is not a WNV death and illness vs death from spraying question. It is a question of chronic and cumulative UNKNOWN effects and not just to humans but a disruption of the entire eco system that actually seems to prolong the rate at which WNV stays prevalent in an area. There are exponential drops in most places that do not spray and flat curves in places that continue to spray. CDC does not recommend spraying, in fact they caution against it and say only when a last resort. Well there was no need to spray. The district again sprayed on the natural downward curve for the season. There were few reported infections in Sacramento County. CDC officials who have been asked to compare and contrast spray vs. no spray were unable to show it was effective or even did anything at all. What is effective is to take the money spent and use it for greater public education and larviciding, and water management. These approaches are continually shown to reduce mosquitoes and the transmission of various vector carried diseases. Spraying is a panacea for the created hysteria and fear over WNV. Those saying spray do you even know what the infection rate is? It is not if you get a mosquito bite you die. First you need and infected mosquito, the numbers the district uses is 5 in 1000 as a “epidemic level” and only female mosquitoes. Then it is approx. 20% who even develop the slightest symptoms like a mild flu. 1 in 150 go on to develop neuro complications and then in susceptible usually elder or immune compromised individuals there is a rare death. 5 deaths in the entire state of California this year. These are the exact kinds of numbers and statistics that math professors like Jack Milton are expert at comparing, contrasting and analyzing. As well as creating mathematical models for transmission of WNV to humans (a current area of interest for Prof. Milton) Any Dr. or public health official needs to have their data interpreted and statistically analyzed by someone (possibly the researcher him/herself) with math background or it means diddle to them or the community.
The question is does spraying reduce transmission to humans? Answer from CDC., is UNKNOWN, no data or study has been done. Spraying is a fuzzy wuzzy feel good panacea to a fear hyped public that lets the officials look as if they are doing something about a created epidemic
While people are dying of many health conditions that are real and preventable. Spend the money there and improve lives and prevent needless deaths. That is a real cost benefit analysis that does not require a math degree.
In this debate no one is even aasking about cumulative and synergistic effects. Go to http://www.stopwestnilespraying now.org and look at the presentation Sac City Council saw last night. It will be posted by this afternoon.
As for the benfits of mosquitoes they can work as water filters and are a major food source for many species. We woudl see vast food webs crash with out the little pests. And spray it is not a discriminant killer it kills beneficial happy photogenic insects as well as mosquitoes.
On the far left we now have nut-job environmentalists — some of whom have been known in Davis to disrupt public meetings with their childish antics — who are allowing their ideological bias to trump science. This is the basis for their fearmongering over spraying for mosquitoes. And on the far right, we have much the same thing with kooks in the Bush Administration, who reject science whenever it doesn’t fit their religious-ideological outlook.
Thank god the crazies on the left are such a small minority of the American population. Alas, the crazies on the right are not quite so small.
Hopefully the vast majority of us in the middle will respect the neutral findings of science.
On the far left we now have nut-job environmentalists — some of whom have been known in Davis to disrupt public meetings with their childish antics — who are allowing their ideological bias to trump science. This is the basis for their fearmongering over spraying for mosquitoes. And on the far right, we have much the same thing with kooks in the Bush Administration, who reject science whenever it doesn’t fit their religious-ideological outlook.
Thank god the crazies on the left are such a small minority of the American population. Alas, the crazies on the right are not quite so small.
Hopefully the vast majority of us in the middle will respect the neutral findings of science.
On the far left we now have nut-job environmentalists — some of whom have been known in Davis to disrupt public meetings with their childish antics — who are allowing their ideological bias to trump science. This is the basis for their fearmongering over spraying for mosquitoes. And on the far right, we have much the same thing with kooks in the Bush Administration, who reject science whenever it doesn’t fit their religious-ideological outlook.
Thank god the crazies on the left are such a small minority of the American population. Alas, the crazies on the right are not quite so small.
Hopefully the vast majority of us in the middle will respect the neutral findings of science.
On the far left we now have nut-job environmentalists — some of whom have been known in Davis to disrupt public meetings with their childish antics — who are allowing their ideological bias to trump science. This is the basis for their fearmongering over spraying for mosquitoes. And on the far right, we have much the same thing with kooks in the Bush Administration, who reject science whenever it doesn’t fit their religious-ideological outlook.
Thank god the crazies on the left are such a small minority of the American population. Alas, the crazies on the right are not quite so small.
Hopefully the vast majority of us in the middle will respect the neutral findings of science.
“Hopefully the vast majority of us in the middle will respect the neutral findings of science.”
Neutral being taking funding in the form of grants from large chemical and pharm. companies. No sir, that is not a neutral finding. Questions were asked.
“Hopefully the vast majority of us in the middle will respect the neutral findings of science.”
Neutral being taking funding in the form of grants from large chemical and pharm. companies. No sir, that is not a neutral finding. Questions were asked.
“Hopefully the vast majority of us in the middle will respect the neutral findings of science.”
Neutral being taking funding in the form of grants from large chemical and pharm. companies. No sir, that is not a neutral finding. Questions were asked.
“Hopefully the vast majority of us in the middle will respect the neutral findings of science.”
Neutral being taking funding in the form of grants from large chemical and pharm. companies. No sir, that is not a neutral finding. Questions were asked.
Just another Davis resident said…
Furthermore, in an article in the Bee this morning, mosquito abatement officials are quoted as admitting that aerial spraying is the LEAST effective tool that they have. “It’s a last-ditch thing.” stated Dave Tamayo, the president of the mosquito abatement board.
We are talking about long-term effects.
8/10/07 9:45 AM
It has been talked to death. Now we are down to a last ditch thing. Don’t pretend to know everything. Go to the CDC’s web site and look at the facts.
After you have read it all go to the mirror and say to yourself.
I am willing to take the chance that my elderly parent or young child could pay for my ignorance with their life.
Just another Davis resident said…
Furthermore, in an article in the Bee this morning, mosquito abatement officials are quoted as admitting that aerial spraying is the LEAST effective tool that they have. “It’s a last-ditch thing.” stated Dave Tamayo, the president of the mosquito abatement board.
We are talking about long-term effects.
8/10/07 9:45 AM
It has been talked to death. Now we are down to a last ditch thing. Don’t pretend to know everything. Go to the CDC’s web site and look at the facts.
After you have read it all go to the mirror and say to yourself.
I am willing to take the chance that my elderly parent or young child could pay for my ignorance with their life.
Just another Davis resident said…
Furthermore, in an article in the Bee this morning, mosquito abatement officials are quoted as admitting that aerial spraying is the LEAST effective tool that they have. “It’s a last-ditch thing.” stated Dave Tamayo, the president of the mosquito abatement board.
We are talking about long-term effects.
8/10/07 9:45 AM
It has been talked to death. Now we are down to a last ditch thing. Don’t pretend to know everything. Go to the CDC’s web site and look at the facts.
After you have read it all go to the mirror and say to yourself.
I am willing to take the chance that my elderly parent or young child could pay for my ignorance with their life.
Just another Davis resident said…
Furthermore, in an article in the Bee this morning, mosquito abatement officials are quoted as admitting that aerial spraying is the LEAST effective tool that they have. “It’s a last-ditch thing.” stated Dave Tamayo, the president of the mosquito abatement board.
We are talking about long-term effects.
8/10/07 9:45 AM
It has been talked to death. Now we are down to a last ditch thing. Don’t pretend to know everything. Go to the CDC’s web site and look at the facts.
After you have read it all go to the mirror and say to yourself.
I am willing to take the chance that my elderly parent or young child could pay for my ignorance with their life.
I have doubts as to the effectiveness of spraying, questions and concerns about long term impacts on health, and believe that the risk of contraction of WNV is less than the chance of dying in an automobile accident and I drive my car and cross the street everyday.
I have doubts as to the effectiveness of spraying, questions and concerns about long term impacts on health, and believe that the risk of contraction of WNV is less than the chance of dying in an automobile accident and I drive my car and cross the street everyday.
I have doubts as to the effectiveness of spraying, questions and concerns about long term impacts on health, and believe that the risk of contraction of WNV is less than the chance of dying in an automobile accident and I drive my car and cross the street everyday.
I have doubts as to the effectiveness of spraying, questions and concerns about long term impacts on health, and believe that the risk of contraction of WNV is less than the chance of dying in an automobile accident and I drive my car and cross the street everyday.
Rich: a point of clarification, environmentalists are not necessarily leftists, they come from all ideological backgrounds, as you will discover if you try to organize them to support poverty related issues, some will, some won’t, all over the map
I know that there has been a right wing effort in the last decade or so to characterize environmentalism as the “new Marxism”, but it’s a joke
as for the actions of the Sacramento City Council, I don’t know much about this issue, but I can say that Councilmember Rob Fong is about the least credible proponent you can have, he’s probably trying to recover from his association with the Kings arena debacle
–Richard Estes
Rich: a point of clarification, environmentalists are not necessarily leftists, they come from all ideological backgrounds, as you will discover if you try to organize them to support poverty related issues, some will, some won’t, all over the map
I know that there has been a right wing effort in the last decade or so to characterize environmentalism as the “new Marxism”, but it’s a joke
as for the actions of the Sacramento City Council, I don’t know much about this issue, but I can say that Councilmember Rob Fong is about the least credible proponent you can have, he’s probably trying to recover from his association with the Kings arena debacle
–Richard Estes
Rich: a point of clarification, environmentalists are not necessarily leftists, they come from all ideological backgrounds, as you will discover if you try to organize them to support poverty related issues, some will, some won’t, all over the map
I know that there has been a right wing effort in the last decade or so to characterize environmentalism as the “new Marxism”, but it’s a joke
as for the actions of the Sacramento City Council, I don’t know much about this issue, but I can say that Councilmember Rob Fong is about the least credible proponent you can have, he’s probably trying to recover from his association with the Kings arena debacle
–Richard Estes
Rich: a point of clarification, environmentalists are not necessarily leftists, they come from all ideological backgrounds, as you will discover if you try to organize them to support poverty related issues, some will, some won’t, all over the map
I know that there has been a right wing effort in the last decade or so to characterize environmentalism as the “new Marxism”, but it’s a joke
as for the actions of the Sacramento City Council, I don’t know much about this issue, but I can say that Councilmember Rob Fong is about the least credible proponent you can have, he’s probably trying to recover from his association with the Kings arena debacle
–Richard Estes
I look in the mirror or more importantly at my child every day and almost every day I cry because I am failing as a parent to provide her a safe environment. Personal responsibility is what you should look for in the mirror. The woman quoted in the Bee her son fell asleep outside. Had he taken personal responsibility and worn protective clothing he may mot have gotten WNV. I am certainly not willing to look in the mirror and say spray my child with unproven and ineffective (by science) chemicals so that those who fail to take personal responsibility may feel like someone else is protecting them. Read the CDC information there is no evidence that spraying does diddle to reduce transmission. Go a step further and call and talk to the researchers as I have. Then look in the mirror before you go out and put on some long sleeves or choose not to go out but do not make the rest of us pay for your lack of personal responsibility with unknown and unknowable risks. I look in the mirror and cry knowing what dangers my daughter will face and health consequences because of ignorance and greed degrading her environment and taking a toll on health. Her generation is now looking at a shorter life span and far greater cancer risk than any previous generation.
Rich Rifkin if you are having problems with science then please ask a question specifically. Stop West Nile Spraying Now will answer your question with scientific fact or show you a glaring data gap. Also if you are goinig to call me a nut job environmentalist and disruptor of meeting at least get your implications correct. Whether it be WNV Target Biolab etc… any disruption to a meeting has been about the lack of public process or unfairness in public process not over environmental ideology. A little disruption when the process is unfair to public input is not necessarily bad, but sitting on your ass and letting it happen is. A great quote “The greatest sin is sitting on your ass.” Flo Kennedy. My environmental ideology is based on science or the lack of science. If you are going to call me a nut job get the label right fairnessin public process nut job with a precautionary ideology.
I look in the mirror or more importantly at my child every day and almost every day I cry because I am failing as a parent to provide her a safe environment. Personal responsibility is what you should look for in the mirror. The woman quoted in the Bee her son fell asleep outside. Had he taken personal responsibility and worn protective clothing he may mot have gotten WNV. I am certainly not willing to look in the mirror and say spray my child with unproven and ineffective (by science) chemicals so that those who fail to take personal responsibility may feel like someone else is protecting them. Read the CDC information there is no evidence that spraying does diddle to reduce transmission. Go a step further and call and talk to the researchers as I have. Then look in the mirror before you go out and put on some long sleeves or choose not to go out but do not make the rest of us pay for your lack of personal responsibility with unknown and unknowable risks. I look in the mirror and cry knowing what dangers my daughter will face and health consequences because of ignorance and greed degrading her environment and taking a toll on health. Her generation is now looking at a shorter life span and far greater cancer risk than any previous generation.
Rich Rifkin if you are having problems with science then please ask a question specifically. Stop West Nile Spraying Now will answer your question with scientific fact or show you a glaring data gap. Also if you are goinig to call me a nut job environmentalist and disruptor of meeting at least get your implications correct. Whether it be WNV Target Biolab etc… any disruption to a meeting has been about the lack of public process or unfairness in public process not over environmental ideology. A little disruption when the process is unfair to public input is not necessarily bad, but sitting on your ass and letting it happen is. A great quote “The greatest sin is sitting on your ass.” Flo Kennedy. My environmental ideology is based on science or the lack of science. If you are going to call me a nut job get the label right fairnessin public process nut job with a precautionary ideology.
I look in the mirror or more importantly at my child every day and almost every day I cry because I am failing as a parent to provide her a safe environment. Personal responsibility is what you should look for in the mirror. The woman quoted in the Bee her son fell asleep outside. Had he taken personal responsibility and worn protective clothing he may mot have gotten WNV. I am certainly not willing to look in the mirror and say spray my child with unproven and ineffective (by science) chemicals so that those who fail to take personal responsibility may feel like someone else is protecting them. Read the CDC information there is no evidence that spraying does diddle to reduce transmission. Go a step further and call and talk to the researchers as I have. Then look in the mirror before you go out and put on some long sleeves or choose not to go out but do not make the rest of us pay for your lack of personal responsibility with unknown and unknowable risks. I look in the mirror and cry knowing what dangers my daughter will face and health consequences because of ignorance and greed degrading her environment and taking a toll on health. Her generation is now looking at a shorter life span and far greater cancer risk than any previous generation.
Rich Rifkin if you are having problems with science then please ask a question specifically. Stop West Nile Spraying Now will answer your question with scientific fact or show you a glaring data gap. Also if you are goinig to call me a nut job environmentalist and disruptor of meeting at least get your implications correct. Whether it be WNV Target Biolab etc… any disruption to a meeting has been about the lack of public process or unfairness in public process not over environmental ideology. A little disruption when the process is unfair to public input is not necessarily bad, but sitting on your ass and letting it happen is. A great quote “The greatest sin is sitting on your ass.” Flo Kennedy. My environmental ideology is based on science or the lack of science. If you are going to call me a nut job get the label right fairnessin public process nut job with a precautionary ideology.
I look in the mirror or more importantly at my child every day and almost every day I cry because I am failing as a parent to provide her a safe environment. Personal responsibility is what you should look for in the mirror. The woman quoted in the Bee her son fell asleep outside. Had he taken personal responsibility and worn protective clothing he may mot have gotten WNV. I am certainly not willing to look in the mirror and say spray my child with unproven and ineffective (by science) chemicals so that those who fail to take personal responsibility may feel like someone else is protecting them. Read the CDC information there is no evidence that spraying does diddle to reduce transmission. Go a step further and call and talk to the researchers as I have. Then look in the mirror before you go out and put on some long sleeves or choose not to go out but do not make the rest of us pay for your lack of personal responsibility with unknown and unknowable risks. I look in the mirror and cry knowing what dangers my daughter will face and health consequences because of ignorance and greed degrading her environment and taking a toll on health. Her generation is now looking at a shorter life span and far greater cancer risk than any previous generation.
Rich Rifkin if you are having problems with science then please ask a question specifically. Stop West Nile Spraying Now will answer your question with scientific fact or show you a glaring data gap. Also if you are goinig to call me a nut job environmentalist and disruptor of meeting at least get your implications correct. Whether it be WNV Target Biolab etc… any disruption to a meeting has been about the lack of public process or unfairness in public process not over environmental ideology. A little disruption when the process is unfair to public input is not necessarily bad, but sitting on your ass and letting it happen is. A great quote “The greatest sin is sitting on your ass.” Flo Kennedy. My environmental ideology is based on science or the lack of science. If you are going to call me a nut job get the label right fairnessin public process nut job with a precautionary ideology.
Here is a comment from a Davis person who did contract the virus-
“People seem unwilling to support aerial spraying, and I think it’s due, in part, to people not having a clear and personalized picture of the effects of this disease,” Simmons said. “We are willing to vaccinate our children against diseases like polio, hepatitis, and measles because of the horrible effects and side effects of those diseases. We overlook the minimal risk to receive the enormous benefit of being protected from these debilitating diseases.”
In the past there were people very much against vaccinations, now most of us take them for granted. Is the risk from spraying really much different than the risk from a vaccination?
Here is a comment from a Davis person who did contract the virus-
“People seem unwilling to support aerial spraying, and I think it’s due, in part, to people not having a clear and personalized picture of the effects of this disease,” Simmons said. “We are willing to vaccinate our children against diseases like polio, hepatitis, and measles because of the horrible effects and side effects of those diseases. We overlook the minimal risk to receive the enormous benefit of being protected from these debilitating diseases.”
In the past there were people very much against vaccinations, now most of us take them for granted. Is the risk from spraying really much different than the risk from a vaccination?
Here is a comment from a Davis person who did contract the virus-
“People seem unwilling to support aerial spraying, and I think it’s due, in part, to people not having a clear and personalized picture of the effects of this disease,” Simmons said. “We are willing to vaccinate our children against diseases like polio, hepatitis, and measles because of the horrible effects and side effects of those diseases. We overlook the minimal risk to receive the enormous benefit of being protected from these debilitating diseases.”
In the past there were people very much against vaccinations, now most of us take them for granted. Is the risk from spraying really much different than the risk from a vaccination?
Here is a comment from a Davis person who did contract the virus-
“People seem unwilling to support aerial spraying, and I think it’s due, in part, to people not having a clear and personalized picture of the effects of this disease,” Simmons said. “We are willing to vaccinate our children against diseases like polio, hepatitis, and measles because of the horrible effects and side effects of those diseases. We overlook the minimal risk to receive the enormous benefit of being protected from these debilitating diseases.”
In the past there were people very much against vaccinations, now most of us take them for granted. Is the risk from spraying really much different than the risk from a vaccination?
Vaccination is used because for some vaccines there has been a demonstrated effectiveness at reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease or having a less severe case with minimal risk. Spraying is not effective even by the CDC. Many health officials around the country have said the risk from the spray is greater and will not spray for WNV. So the comparison is not logical. Spraying has not been demonstrated to have ANY impact on transmission of WNV. Many do weigh the risk benefit of vaccination and opt out of some or all vaccinations because the law allows that. There is no opt our for spraying. Vaccination does not disrupt the delicate balances in the natural environment. Vaccination does not indiscriminately kill beneficial insects. I think a better question to ask is how would the public react to a forced vaccination program for a vaccine that known risks and has not been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of the disease being vaccinated against?
If one person in favor of spraying can find ANY study or the like that suggests that spraying is effective in reducing transmission of WNV then please let the CDC and the rest know because of of last week there was none.
Vaccination is used because for some vaccines there has been a demonstrated effectiveness at reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease or having a less severe case with minimal risk. Spraying is not effective even by the CDC. Many health officials around the country have said the risk from the spray is greater and will not spray for WNV. So the comparison is not logical. Spraying has not been demonstrated to have ANY impact on transmission of WNV. Many do weigh the risk benefit of vaccination and opt out of some or all vaccinations because the law allows that. There is no opt our for spraying. Vaccination does not disrupt the delicate balances in the natural environment. Vaccination does not indiscriminately kill beneficial insects. I think a better question to ask is how would the public react to a forced vaccination program for a vaccine that known risks and has not been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of the disease being vaccinated against?
If one person in favor of spraying can find ANY study or the like that suggests that spraying is effective in reducing transmission of WNV then please let the CDC and the rest know because of of last week there was none.
Vaccination is used because for some vaccines there has been a demonstrated effectiveness at reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease or having a less severe case with minimal risk. Spraying is not effective even by the CDC. Many health officials around the country have said the risk from the spray is greater and will not spray for WNV. So the comparison is not logical. Spraying has not been demonstrated to have ANY impact on transmission of WNV. Many do weigh the risk benefit of vaccination and opt out of some or all vaccinations because the law allows that. There is no opt our for spraying. Vaccination does not disrupt the delicate balances in the natural environment. Vaccination does not indiscriminately kill beneficial insects. I think a better question to ask is how would the public react to a forced vaccination program for a vaccine that known risks and has not been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of the disease being vaccinated against?
If one person in favor of spraying can find ANY study or the like that suggests that spraying is effective in reducing transmission of WNV then please let the CDC and the rest know because of of last week there was none.
Vaccination is used because for some vaccines there has been a demonstrated effectiveness at reducing the likelihood of contracting the disease or having a less severe case with minimal risk. Spraying is not effective even by the CDC. Many health officials around the country have said the risk from the spray is greater and will not spray for WNV. So the comparison is not logical. Spraying has not been demonstrated to have ANY impact on transmission of WNV. Many do weigh the risk benefit of vaccination and opt out of some or all vaccinations because the law allows that. There is no opt our for spraying. Vaccination does not disrupt the delicate balances in the natural environment. Vaccination does not indiscriminately kill beneficial insects. I think a better question to ask is how would the public react to a forced vaccination program for a vaccine that known risks and has not been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of the disease being vaccinated against?
If one person in favor of spraying can find ANY study or the like that suggests that spraying is effective in reducing transmission of WNV then please let the CDC and the rest know because of of last week there was none.
I just read the CDC page on prevention:
“The primary prevention step recommended is the use of mosquito repellent when outdoors. Mosquitoes may bite through thin clothing, so spraying clothes with repellent containing permethrin or another EPA-registered repellent will give extra protection. These repellents are the most effective and the most studied.”
I just read the CDC page on prevention:
“The primary prevention step recommended is the use of mosquito repellent when outdoors. Mosquitoes may bite through thin clothing, so spraying clothes with repellent containing permethrin or another EPA-registered repellent will give extra protection. These repellents are the most effective and the most studied.”
I just read the CDC page on prevention:
“The primary prevention step recommended is the use of mosquito repellent when outdoors. Mosquitoes may bite through thin clothing, so spraying clothes with repellent containing permethrin or another EPA-registered repellent will give extra protection. These repellents are the most effective and the most studied.”
I just read the CDC page on prevention:
“The primary prevention step recommended is the use of mosquito repellent when outdoors. Mosquitoes may bite through thin clothing, so spraying clothes with repellent containing permethrin or another EPA-registered repellent will give extra protection. These repellents are the most effective and the most studied.”
I respect the concerns and fears of many of our citizens who have contacted me about spraying, as well concerns and fears of many citizens who have contacted me about their fear of catching West Nile of we don’t spray.
I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.
Some expressed skepticism that spraying was effective, none loved the idea of aerial spraying, but none felt that this spraying was dangerous to human health, and none felt comfortable recommending against it.
In terms of damage to other insects, the consensus was that the West Nile-related spraying was inconsequential when compared with the agricultural and garden spraying that is going on anyway. This was not to defend the agricultural and garden spraying, but to put the West Nile spraying into perspective.
The City does not have a public health department, or even a public health officer. We do have a wildlife specialist, John McNerney, and we could ask him to give us an analysis of the ecological effects of spraying.
As to the blog comments:
First, “Doug Paul Davis” refers to a motion by Lamar Heystek on the spraying, but doesn’t tell us what the motion is. It would be helpful for me if Doug could show us all that motion. I remember Lamar making a motion on the topic last year but I don’t remember exactly what it was.
Secondly, I agree with “Doug Paul Davis”’s frustration that the mosquito vector control district has total authority with no accountability to the public. There is, however, an agency that is elected and accountable which has a public health department and a public health officer, and that agency is the County. If a challenge to the mosquito abatement district were deemed appropriate by the citizens, it would be procedurally more appropriate to take it before the County Board of Supervisors.
I am not a scientist.
Personally, I don’t like spraying, I am worried about the long term health effects of covering myself with DEET, which seems like a pretty strong chemical to be dousing my skin with, and I don’t like the idea of getting West Nile.
Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.
I respect the concerns and fears of many of our citizens who have contacted me about spraying, as well concerns and fears of many citizens who have contacted me about their fear of catching West Nile of we don’t spray.
I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.
Some expressed skepticism that spraying was effective, none loved the idea of aerial spraying, but none felt that this spraying was dangerous to human health, and none felt comfortable recommending against it.
In terms of damage to other insects, the consensus was that the West Nile-related spraying was inconsequential when compared with the agricultural and garden spraying that is going on anyway. This was not to defend the agricultural and garden spraying, but to put the West Nile spraying into perspective.
The City does not have a public health department, or even a public health officer. We do have a wildlife specialist, John McNerney, and we could ask him to give us an analysis of the ecological effects of spraying.
As to the blog comments:
First, “Doug Paul Davis” refers to a motion by Lamar Heystek on the spraying, but doesn’t tell us what the motion is. It would be helpful for me if Doug could show us all that motion. I remember Lamar making a motion on the topic last year but I don’t remember exactly what it was.
Secondly, I agree with “Doug Paul Davis”’s frustration that the mosquito vector control district has total authority with no accountability to the public. There is, however, an agency that is elected and accountable which has a public health department and a public health officer, and that agency is the County. If a challenge to the mosquito abatement district were deemed appropriate by the citizens, it would be procedurally more appropriate to take it before the County Board of Supervisors.
I am not a scientist.
Personally, I don’t like spraying, I am worried about the long term health effects of covering myself with DEET, which seems like a pretty strong chemical to be dousing my skin with, and I don’t like the idea of getting West Nile.
Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.
I respect the concerns and fears of many of our citizens who have contacted me about spraying, as well concerns and fears of many citizens who have contacted me about their fear of catching West Nile of we don’t spray.
I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.
Some expressed skepticism that spraying was effective, none loved the idea of aerial spraying, but none felt that this spraying was dangerous to human health, and none felt comfortable recommending against it.
In terms of damage to other insects, the consensus was that the West Nile-related spraying was inconsequential when compared with the agricultural and garden spraying that is going on anyway. This was not to defend the agricultural and garden spraying, but to put the West Nile spraying into perspective.
The City does not have a public health department, or even a public health officer. We do have a wildlife specialist, John McNerney, and we could ask him to give us an analysis of the ecological effects of spraying.
As to the blog comments:
First, “Doug Paul Davis” refers to a motion by Lamar Heystek on the spraying, but doesn’t tell us what the motion is. It would be helpful for me if Doug could show us all that motion. I remember Lamar making a motion on the topic last year but I don’t remember exactly what it was.
Secondly, I agree with “Doug Paul Davis”’s frustration that the mosquito vector control district has total authority with no accountability to the public. There is, however, an agency that is elected and accountable which has a public health department and a public health officer, and that agency is the County. If a challenge to the mosquito abatement district were deemed appropriate by the citizens, it would be procedurally more appropriate to take it before the County Board of Supervisors.
I am not a scientist.
Personally, I don’t like spraying, I am worried about the long term health effects of covering myself with DEET, which seems like a pretty strong chemical to be dousing my skin with, and I don’t like the idea of getting West Nile.
Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.
I respect the concerns and fears of many of our citizens who have contacted me about spraying, as well concerns and fears of many citizens who have contacted me about their fear of catching West Nile of we don’t spray.
I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.
Some expressed skepticism that spraying was effective, none loved the idea of aerial spraying, but none felt that this spraying was dangerous to human health, and none felt comfortable recommending against it.
In terms of damage to other insects, the consensus was that the West Nile-related spraying was inconsequential when compared with the agricultural and garden spraying that is going on anyway. This was not to defend the agricultural and garden spraying, but to put the West Nile spraying into perspective.
The City does not have a public health department, or even a public health officer. We do have a wildlife specialist, John McNerney, and we could ask him to give us an analysis of the ecological effects of spraying.
As to the blog comments:
First, “Doug Paul Davis” refers to a motion by Lamar Heystek on the spraying, but doesn’t tell us what the motion is. It would be helpful for me if Doug could show us all that motion. I remember Lamar making a motion on the topic last year but I don’t remember exactly what it was.
Secondly, I agree with “Doug Paul Davis”’s frustration that the mosquito vector control district has total authority with no accountability to the public. There is, however, an agency that is elected and accountable which has a public health department and a public health officer, and that agency is the County. If a challenge to the mosquito abatement district were deemed appropriate by the citizens, it would be procedurally more appropriate to take it before the County Board of Supervisors.
I am not a scientist.
Personally, I don’t like spraying, I am worried about the long term health effects of covering myself with DEET, which seems like a pretty strong chemical to be dousing my skin with, and I don’t like the idea of getting West Nile.
Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.
Doesn’t the spraying kill more than mosquitos?
Are there beneficial insects that are killed as well?
Doesn’t the spraying kill more than mosquitos?
Are there beneficial insects that are killed as well?
Doesn’t the spraying kill more than mosquitos?
Are there beneficial insects that are killed as well?
Doesn’t the spraying kill more than mosquitos?
Are there beneficial insects that are killed as well?
Rich: Why do you have to resort to name calling? I find it ironic that you critique others who do this and then you resort to n’e calling. Please try not to stoop and instead debate issues without resorting to name calling.
Thank You
Rich: Why do you have to resort to name calling? I find it ironic that you critique others who do this and then you resort to n’e calling. Please try not to stoop and instead debate issues without resorting to name calling.
Thank You
Rich: Why do you have to resort to name calling? I find it ironic that you critique others who do this and then you resort to n’e calling. Please try not to stoop and instead debate issues without resorting to name calling.
Thank You
Rich: Why do you have to resort to name calling? I find it ironic that you critique others who do this and then you resort to n’e calling. Please try not to stoop and instead debate issues without resorting to name calling.
Thank You
“Rich: a point of clarification, environmentalists are not necessarily leftists, they come from all ideological backgrounds”
Richard, I understand that. I don’t think all environmentalists oppose science. I don’t think most environmentalists oppose science. I think it is a small minority, in this case on the far left, and only because the science does not support their viewpoint. At the very same time, if you follow some of the decisions of the Bush Administration, you will see that when science does not support their ideological (or in a few cases religious) perspective, they will behave the same as someone like Samantha McCarthy has over this issue: completely irrational.
That said, I am not of the belief that contemporary science is always right. New evidence comes along all the time and proves what was orthodoxy wrong. That may be the case here. However, the approach (I have seen) with regard to opposing aerial pesticide spraying (as a last measure when more direct methods are insufficient) is not at all scientific. If it were, and they had the evidence, they could change the minds of our leading experts. (Their intention seems rather to spread fear than spread new knowledge.) They quote some terribly unorthodox people with degrees — much like the Bushies will quote some kooky scientist who denies that carbon build-up is impacting our climate — while 99.9% of the people who have actually studied these issues contend that there is no scientific basis to their kooky theories.
Given the weight of scientific opinion all on one side, I am willing to trust the scientific orthodoxy. I continue to believe that when orthodoxy is incorrect, it will be proven wrong by scientific methods, not by a crazy lady screaming and yelling on the carpet in council chambers.
“Rich: a point of clarification, environmentalists are not necessarily leftists, they come from all ideological backgrounds”
Richard, I understand that. I don’t think all environmentalists oppose science. I don’t think most environmentalists oppose science. I think it is a small minority, in this case on the far left, and only because the science does not support their viewpoint. At the very same time, if you follow some of the decisions of the Bush Administration, you will see that when science does not support their ideological (or in a few cases religious) perspective, they will behave the same as someone like Samantha McCarthy has over this issue: completely irrational.
That said, I am not of the belief that contemporary science is always right. New evidence comes along all the time and proves what was orthodoxy wrong. That may be the case here. However, the approach (I have seen) with regard to opposing aerial pesticide spraying (as a last measure when more direct methods are insufficient) is not at all scientific. If it were, and they had the evidence, they could change the minds of our leading experts. (Their intention seems rather to spread fear than spread new knowledge.) They quote some terribly unorthodox people with degrees — much like the Bushies will quote some kooky scientist who denies that carbon build-up is impacting our climate — while 99.9% of the people who have actually studied these issues contend that there is no scientific basis to their kooky theories.
Given the weight of scientific opinion all on one side, I am willing to trust the scientific orthodoxy. I continue to believe that when orthodoxy is incorrect, it will be proven wrong by scientific methods, not by a crazy lady screaming and yelling on the carpet in council chambers.
“Rich: a point of clarification, environmentalists are not necessarily leftists, they come from all ideological backgrounds”
Richard, I understand that. I don’t think all environmentalists oppose science. I don’t think most environmentalists oppose science. I think it is a small minority, in this case on the far left, and only because the science does not support their viewpoint. At the very same time, if you follow some of the decisions of the Bush Administration, you will see that when science does not support their ideological (or in a few cases religious) perspective, they will behave the same as someone like Samantha McCarthy has over this issue: completely irrational.
That said, I am not of the belief that contemporary science is always right. New evidence comes along all the time and proves what was orthodoxy wrong. That may be the case here. However, the approach (I have seen) with regard to opposing aerial pesticide spraying (as a last measure when more direct methods are insufficient) is not at all scientific. If it were, and they had the evidence, they could change the minds of our leading experts. (Their intention seems rather to spread fear than spread new knowledge.) They quote some terribly unorthodox people with degrees — much like the Bushies will quote some kooky scientist who denies that carbon build-up is impacting our climate — while 99.9% of the people who have actually studied these issues contend that there is no scientific basis to their kooky theories.
Given the weight of scientific opinion all on one side, I am willing to trust the scientific orthodoxy. I continue to believe that when orthodoxy is incorrect, it will be proven wrong by scientific methods, not by a crazy lady screaming and yelling on the carpet in council chambers.
“Rich: a point of clarification, environmentalists are not necessarily leftists, they come from all ideological backgrounds”
Richard, I understand that. I don’t think all environmentalists oppose science. I don’t think most environmentalists oppose science. I think it is a small minority, in this case on the far left, and only because the science does not support their viewpoint. At the very same time, if you follow some of the decisions of the Bush Administration, you will see that when science does not support their ideological (or in a few cases religious) perspective, they will behave the same as someone like Samantha McCarthy has over this issue: completely irrational.
That said, I am not of the belief that contemporary science is always right. New evidence comes along all the time and proves what was orthodoxy wrong. That may be the case here. However, the approach (I have seen) with regard to opposing aerial pesticide spraying (as a last measure when more direct methods are insufficient) is not at all scientific. If it were, and they had the evidence, they could change the minds of our leading experts. (Their intention seems rather to spread fear than spread new knowledge.) They quote some terribly unorthodox people with degrees — much like the Bushies will quote some kooky scientist who denies that carbon build-up is impacting our climate — while 99.9% of the people who have actually studied these issues contend that there is no scientific basis to their kooky theories.
Given the weight of scientific opinion all on one side, I am willing to trust the scientific orthodoxy. I continue to believe that when orthodoxy is incorrect, it will be proven wrong by scientific methods, not by a crazy lady screaming and yelling on the carpet in council chambers.
I think it is a small minority, in this case on the far left, and only because the science does not support their viewpoint.
My experience did not confirm this connection between “the far left” and the “small minority”. Depending on their background, they could be almost anything on other issues, hard to characterize and categorize. In other words, their environmental views provided little guidance about their attitude on other issues
I think it is a small minority, in this case on the far left, and only because the science does not support their viewpoint.
My experience did not confirm this connection between “the far left” and the “small minority”. Depending on their background, they could be almost anything on other issues, hard to characterize and categorize. In other words, their environmental views provided little guidance about their attitude on other issues
I think it is a small minority, in this case on the far left, and only because the science does not support their viewpoint.
My experience did not confirm this connection between “the far left” and the “small minority”. Depending on their background, they could be almost anything on other issues, hard to characterize and categorize. In other words, their environmental views provided little guidance about their attitude on other issues
I think it is a small minority, in this case on the far left, and only because the science does not support their viewpoint.
My experience did not confirm this connection between “the far left” and the “small minority”. Depending on their background, they could be almost anything on other issues, hard to characterize and categorize. In other words, their environmental views provided little guidance about their attitude on other issues
Just because people are quiet and polite, doesn’t mean they are correct. Loudness does imply being incorrect – Quiet, well phrased language does not equal being correct.
Aren’t there some things that require noise to get people’s attention and make people listen?
Also, an analysis of statistics I believe is part of scientific method. However, I believe that Professor Milton’s educated analysis of statistics has been rejected because he is not a scientist. I would argue that he may be better at analyzing numerical information than a scientist since this is is his area of expertise.
Just because people are quiet and polite, doesn’t mean they are correct. Loudness does imply being incorrect – Quiet, well phrased language does not equal being correct.
Aren’t there some things that require noise to get people’s attention and make people listen?
Also, an analysis of statistics I believe is part of scientific method. However, I believe that Professor Milton’s educated analysis of statistics has been rejected because he is not a scientist. I would argue that he may be better at analyzing numerical information than a scientist since this is is his area of expertise.
Just because people are quiet and polite, doesn’t mean they are correct. Loudness does imply being incorrect – Quiet, well phrased language does not equal being correct.
Aren’t there some things that require noise to get people’s attention and make people listen?
Also, an analysis of statistics I believe is part of scientific method. However, I believe that Professor Milton’s educated analysis of statistics has been rejected because he is not a scientist. I would argue that he may be better at analyzing numerical information than a scientist since this is is his area of expertise.
Just because people are quiet and polite, doesn’t mean they are correct. Loudness does imply being incorrect – Quiet, well phrased language does not equal being correct.
Aren’t there some things that require noise to get people’s attention and make people listen?
Also, an analysis of statistics I believe is part of scientific method. However, I believe that Professor Milton’s educated analysis of statistics has been rejected because he is not a scientist. I would argue that he may be better at analyzing numerical information than a scientist since this is is his area of expertise.
Rich ,
You are still unwilling to cite a single example to support your point. It is now irrational to oppose actions taken without scientific basis? You have it backwards we are the ones with the science. We can back up our points with science and or gaps in the scientific record.
Where is the scientific evidence that spraying reduces transmission?
Where is the scientific evidence that spraying is w/o risk?
Where is the scientific evidence that there are no cumulative or synergistic effects from spraying?
Science says there are risks. CDC does not recommend spraying. CDC scientists when given the task were unable to demonstrate that spraying reduced transmission. By law pesticide applicators may not claim ANY pesticide is harmless. But the District is not bound by that. EPA says the spray is a possible/probable (I admit to mixing up these terms) human carcinogen.
Where is your evidence? You are hiding behind name calling and unsubstantiated assertions. It seems we are chalk full of evidence of the scientific kind and you can point to none. I said earlier ask a question we will give you science or the gaps in such science.
You seems to be making blanket assumptions and assertions that somehow this spraying is effective but where is your evidence? Do not point fingers when you are the one lacking any evidence at all. Are the other jurisdictions whose public health officials have said no to spraying because of risk and lack of evidence wrong? These officials are basing their decisions on science and are willing to stand behind it. Our district has nothing and has repeatedly failed to provide anything as have all the spray proponents.
GIVE US EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE it will make for a much better debate fact vs fact rather than facts vs unsubstantiated assertions.
Rich ,
You are still unwilling to cite a single example to support your point. It is now irrational to oppose actions taken without scientific basis? You have it backwards we are the ones with the science. We can back up our points with science and or gaps in the scientific record.
Where is the scientific evidence that spraying reduces transmission?
Where is the scientific evidence that spraying is w/o risk?
Where is the scientific evidence that there are no cumulative or synergistic effects from spraying?
Science says there are risks. CDC does not recommend spraying. CDC scientists when given the task were unable to demonstrate that spraying reduced transmission. By law pesticide applicators may not claim ANY pesticide is harmless. But the District is not bound by that. EPA says the spray is a possible/probable (I admit to mixing up these terms) human carcinogen.
Where is your evidence? You are hiding behind name calling and unsubstantiated assertions. It seems we are chalk full of evidence of the scientific kind and you can point to none. I said earlier ask a question we will give you science or the gaps in such science.
You seems to be making blanket assumptions and assertions that somehow this spraying is effective but where is your evidence? Do not point fingers when you are the one lacking any evidence at all. Are the other jurisdictions whose public health officials have said no to spraying because of risk and lack of evidence wrong? These officials are basing their decisions on science and are willing to stand behind it. Our district has nothing and has repeatedly failed to provide anything as have all the spray proponents.
GIVE US EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE it will make for a much better debate fact vs fact rather than facts vs unsubstantiated assertions.
Rich ,
You are still unwilling to cite a single example to support your point. It is now irrational to oppose actions taken without scientific basis? You have it backwards we are the ones with the science. We can back up our points with science and or gaps in the scientific record.
Where is the scientific evidence that spraying reduces transmission?
Where is the scientific evidence that spraying is w/o risk?
Where is the scientific evidence that there are no cumulative or synergistic effects from spraying?
Science says there are risks. CDC does not recommend spraying. CDC scientists when given the task were unable to demonstrate that spraying reduced transmission. By law pesticide applicators may not claim ANY pesticide is harmless. But the District is not bound by that. EPA says the spray is a possible/probable (I admit to mixing up these terms) human carcinogen.
Where is your evidence? You are hiding behind name calling and unsubstantiated assertions. It seems we are chalk full of evidence of the scientific kind and you can point to none. I said earlier ask a question we will give you science or the gaps in such science.
You seems to be making blanket assumptions and assertions that somehow this spraying is effective but where is your evidence? Do not point fingers when you are the one lacking any evidence at all. Are the other jurisdictions whose public health officials have said no to spraying because of risk and lack of evidence wrong? These officials are basing their decisions on science and are willing to stand behind it. Our district has nothing and has repeatedly failed to provide anything as have all the spray proponents.
GIVE US EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE it will make for a much better debate fact vs fact rather than facts vs unsubstantiated assertions.
Rich ,
You are still unwilling to cite a single example to support your point. It is now irrational to oppose actions taken without scientific basis? You have it backwards we are the ones with the science. We can back up our points with science and or gaps in the scientific record.
Where is the scientific evidence that spraying reduces transmission?
Where is the scientific evidence that spraying is w/o risk?
Where is the scientific evidence that there are no cumulative or synergistic effects from spraying?
Science says there are risks. CDC does not recommend spraying. CDC scientists when given the task were unable to demonstrate that spraying reduced transmission. By law pesticide applicators may not claim ANY pesticide is harmless. But the District is not bound by that. EPA says the spray is a possible/probable (I admit to mixing up these terms) human carcinogen.
Where is your evidence? You are hiding behind name calling and unsubstantiated assertions. It seems we are chalk full of evidence of the scientific kind and you can point to none. I said earlier ask a question we will give you science or the gaps in such science.
You seems to be making blanket assumptions and assertions that somehow this spraying is effective but where is your evidence? Do not point fingers when you are the one lacking any evidence at all. Are the other jurisdictions whose public health officials have said no to spraying because of risk and lack of evidence wrong? These officials are basing their decisions on science and are willing to stand behind it. Our district has nothing and has repeatedly failed to provide anything as have all the spray proponents.
GIVE US EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE it will make for a much better debate fact vs fact rather than facts vs unsubstantiated assertions.
Anonymous said…
Also, an analysis of statistics I believe is part of scientific method. However, I believe that Professor Milton’s educated analysis of statistics has been rejected because he is not a scientist. I would argue that he may be better at analyzing numerical information than a scientist since this is is his area of expertise.
8/10/07 2:57 PM
So you are saying we should do a statistical analysis of the situation.
1. We know we have a problem.
2. We have a cost per person that it would take to spray an entire area, which would keep many people from catching the virus
3. We estimate how many people would catch the virus and die from it without spraying.
4. We decide if those peoples lives are worth that much money.
Good Idea lets do that.
Anonymous said…
Also, an analysis of statistics I believe is part of scientific method. However, I believe that Professor Milton’s educated analysis of statistics has been rejected because he is not a scientist. I would argue that he may be better at analyzing numerical information than a scientist since this is is his area of expertise.
8/10/07 2:57 PM
So you are saying we should do a statistical analysis of the situation.
1. We know we have a problem.
2. We have a cost per person that it would take to spray an entire area, which would keep many people from catching the virus
3. We estimate how many people would catch the virus and die from it without spraying.
4. We decide if those peoples lives are worth that much money.
Good Idea lets do that.
Anonymous said…
Also, an analysis of statistics I believe is part of scientific method. However, I believe that Professor Milton’s educated analysis of statistics has been rejected because he is not a scientist. I would argue that he may be better at analyzing numerical information than a scientist since this is is his area of expertise.
8/10/07 2:57 PM
So you are saying we should do a statistical analysis of the situation.
1. We know we have a problem.
2. We have a cost per person that it would take to spray an entire area, which would keep many people from catching the virus
3. We estimate how many people would catch the virus and die from it without spraying.
4. We decide if those peoples lives are worth that much money.
Good Idea lets do that.
Anonymous said…
Also, an analysis of statistics I believe is part of scientific method. However, I believe that Professor Milton’s educated analysis of statistics has been rejected because he is not a scientist. I would argue that he may be better at analyzing numerical information than a scientist since this is is his area of expertise.
8/10/07 2:57 PM
So you are saying we should do a statistical analysis of the situation.
1. We know we have a problem.
2. We have a cost per person that it would take to spray an entire area, which would keep many people from catching the virus
3. We estimate how many people would catch the virus and die from it without spraying.
4. We decide if those peoples lives are worth that much money.
Good Idea lets do that.
“CDC does not recommend spraying.” I do not understand that comment because the CDC web site says this-
2. Adulticiding
Adulticiding is the application of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes. The ability to control
adult mosquitoes is an important component of any integrated mosquito management
program, and like the other components of the program, its use should be based on
surveillance data. Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique
available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the
density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to
humans.
“CDC does not recommend spraying.” I do not understand that comment because the CDC web site says this-
2. Adulticiding
Adulticiding is the application of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes. The ability to control
adult mosquitoes is an important component of any integrated mosquito management
program, and like the other components of the program, its use should be based on
surveillance data. Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique
available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the
density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to
humans.
“CDC does not recommend spraying.” I do not understand that comment because the CDC web site says this-
2. Adulticiding
Adulticiding is the application of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes. The ability to control
adult mosquitoes is an important component of any integrated mosquito management
program, and like the other components of the program, its use should be based on
surveillance data. Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique
available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the
density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to
humans.
“CDC does not recommend spraying.” I do not understand that comment because the CDC web site says this-
2. Adulticiding
Adulticiding is the application of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes. The ability to control
adult mosquitoes is an important component of any integrated mosquito management
program, and like the other components of the program, its use should be based on
surveillance data. Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique
available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the
density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to
humans.
Samantha McCarthy said…
Rich ,
You are still unwilling to cite a single example to support your point.
Myth #4: Repellents containing DEET are not safe.
Truth: Repellents containing DEET are very safe when used according to directions.
• Because DEET is so widely used, a great deal of testing has been done. When manufacturers seek registration with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for products such as DEET, laboratory testing regarding both short-term and long-term health effects must be carried out.
• There are products with different strengths (percentage of DEET) available. The longer the protection you need the higher percent of DEET needed.
• Repellent with DEET can be used for both adults and children, according to directions
This is from the CDC web site. I guess that means they are safe when used properly and it does kill mosquito
Samantha McCarthy said…
Rich ,
You are still unwilling to cite a single example to support your point.
Myth #4: Repellents containing DEET are not safe.
Truth: Repellents containing DEET are very safe when used according to directions.
• Because DEET is so widely used, a great deal of testing has been done. When manufacturers seek registration with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for products such as DEET, laboratory testing regarding both short-term and long-term health effects must be carried out.
• There are products with different strengths (percentage of DEET) available. The longer the protection you need the higher percent of DEET needed.
• Repellent with DEET can be used for both adults and children, according to directions
This is from the CDC web site. I guess that means they are safe when used properly and it does kill mosquito
Samantha McCarthy said…
Rich ,
You are still unwilling to cite a single example to support your point.
Myth #4: Repellents containing DEET are not safe.
Truth: Repellents containing DEET are very safe when used according to directions.
• Because DEET is so widely used, a great deal of testing has been done. When manufacturers seek registration with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for products such as DEET, laboratory testing regarding both short-term and long-term health effects must be carried out.
• There are products with different strengths (percentage of DEET) available. The longer the protection you need the higher percent of DEET needed.
• Repellent with DEET can be used for both adults and children, according to directions
This is from the CDC web site. I guess that means they are safe when used properly and it does kill mosquito
Samantha McCarthy said…
Rich ,
You are still unwilling to cite a single example to support your point.
Myth #4: Repellents containing DEET are not safe.
Truth: Repellents containing DEET are very safe when used according to directions.
• Because DEET is so widely used, a great deal of testing has been done. When manufacturers seek registration with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for products such as DEET, laboratory testing regarding both short-term and long-term health effects must be carried out.
• There are products with different strengths (percentage of DEET) available. The longer the protection you need the higher percent of DEET needed.
• Repellent with DEET can be used for both adults and children, according to directions
This is from the CDC web site. I guess that means they are safe when used properly and it does kill mosquito
would you folks stop . THER IS NOT EVIDENCE SPRAYING DOES AYHTING No one not even CDC says it works. FIrst you would need to show it works then if it does all of those questions are valid.
Do you not get it not everyone sprays. Those other jurisdictions are not cold hearted idiots lettign their population die because they do not spray. They are looking at evidence and choosing not to spray to protect public health. There is cold hard evidence of risk with spraying. Spraying is a panecea it is not prooven effective NEVER not a shred of eveidence,. So please stop this insanity there is an assumption being made by many that because they spray it must work. NO NO NO. If the CDC scientists chagrged with showing spraying was effective at redcusing transmission of WNV to humans could not do so why is everyone assuming that because the district sprays it works? Is CDC not a recognized authority? Are they unscientific what??/
First you must show spraying is effective before there can be a debate as to risk and that has not been shown EVER by ANOYONE of science. All other questions are moot unless and until you show spraying actually does something besides making people feel the disrrict is acting to protect them. We need fact not fictuion.
would you folks stop . THER IS NOT EVIDENCE SPRAYING DOES AYHTING No one not even CDC says it works. FIrst you would need to show it works then if it does all of those questions are valid.
Do you not get it not everyone sprays. Those other jurisdictions are not cold hearted idiots lettign their population die because they do not spray. They are looking at evidence and choosing not to spray to protect public health. There is cold hard evidence of risk with spraying. Spraying is a panecea it is not prooven effective NEVER not a shred of eveidence,. So please stop this insanity there is an assumption being made by many that because they spray it must work. NO NO NO. If the CDC scientists chagrged with showing spraying was effective at redcusing transmission of WNV to humans could not do so why is everyone assuming that because the district sprays it works? Is CDC not a recognized authority? Are they unscientific what??/
First you must show spraying is effective before there can be a debate as to risk and that has not been shown EVER by ANOYONE of science. All other questions are moot unless and until you show spraying actually does something besides making people feel the disrrict is acting to protect them. We need fact not fictuion.
would you folks stop . THER IS NOT EVIDENCE SPRAYING DOES AYHTING No one not even CDC says it works. FIrst you would need to show it works then if it does all of those questions are valid.
Do you not get it not everyone sprays. Those other jurisdictions are not cold hearted idiots lettign their population die because they do not spray. They are looking at evidence and choosing not to spray to protect public health. There is cold hard evidence of risk with spraying. Spraying is a panecea it is not prooven effective NEVER not a shred of eveidence,. So please stop this insanity there is an assumption being made by many that because they spray it must work. NO NO NO. If the CDC scientists chagrged with showing spraying was effective at redcusing transmission of WNV to humans could not do so why is everyone assuming that because the district sprays it works? Is CDC not a recognized authority? Are they unscientific what??/
First you must show spraying is effective before there can be a debate as to risk and that has not been shown EVER by ANOYONE of science. All other questions are moot unless and until you show spraying actually does something besides making people feel the disrrict is acting to protect them. We need fact not fictuion.
would you folks stop . THER IS NOT EVIDENCE SPRAYING DOES AYHTING No one not even CDC says it works. FIrst you would need to show it works then if it does all of those questions are valid.
Do you not get it not everyone sprays. Those other jurisdictions are not cold hearted idiots lettign their population die because they do not spray. They are looking at evidence and choosing not to spray to protect public health. There is cold hard evidence of risk with spraying. Spraying is a panecea it is not prooven effective NEVER not a shred of eveidence,. So please stop this insanity there is an assumption being made by many that because they spray it must work. NO NO NO. If the CDC scientists chagrged with showing spraying was effective at redcusing transmission of WNV to humans could not do so why is everyone assuming that because the district sprays it works? Is CDC not a recognized authority? Are they unscientific what??/
First you must show spraying is effective before there can be a debate as to risk and that has not been shown EVER by ANOYONE of science. All other questions are moot unless and until you show spraying actually does something besides making people feel the disrrict is acting to protect them. We need fact not fictuion.
“Is CDC not a recognized authority?”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile Virus in the United States:
Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control
2003
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/resources/
[Excerpt:]
Adulticiding is the application of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes.
The ability to control adult mosquitoes is an important component of any integrated
mosquito management program, and like the other components of the program, its use should be based on
surveillance data.
Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique
available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the
density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to
humans. In some situations, source reduction and larvicide applications are not
practical, and adulticide application is the only available control strategy.
Mosquito
adulticides typically are applied as an Ultra-Low-Volume (ULV) spray where small
amounts of insecticide are dispersed either by truck-mounted equipment or from
fixed-wing or rotary aircraft.64-68 Thermal fog applications of adulticides by ground or air
are also used in some areas, but to a much lesser degree.
Barrier treatments, typically
applied as high volume liquids with hand-held spray equipment using compounds with
residual characteristics, are common in some U.S. locations. This technique is
especially attractive to individual homeowners living near mosquito-producing habitats
where residual chemicals applied along property boundaries can provide some control
benefits.
Mosquito adulticiding differs fundamentally from techniques used to control
many other adult insects. For adult mosquito control, insecticide must drift through the
habitat in which mosquitoes are flying in order to provide optimal control benefits. The
EPA has determined that the insecticides labeled nationally for this type of application
do not pose unreasonable health risks to humans, wildlife, or the environment when
used according to the label.56
Adulticides labeled for mosquito control include several
organophosphates such as malathion and naled. Some natural pyrethrins and synthetic
pyrethroids (permethrin, resmethrin and sumithrin) also hold adulticide labels.
Insecticide selection and timing of application should be based on the distribution and
behavior of the target mosquito species.
Application of adulticides should be timed to
coincide with the activity period of the target mosquito species. Many Culex species are
nocturnal and are active in the tree canopy level. This should be taken into
consideration when planning adulticide applications. Operational experience indicates
that Cx. pipiens and Cx. quinquefasciatus may require more frequent adulticide
application to achieve desired levels of population reduction during an outbreak.
Control of adult day-active species poses additional problems because ULV adulticide
effectiveness is greatly reduced during daylight hours. Early-morning use of adulticides,
applied before temperatures rise, may provide a measure of control for these species.
“Is CDC not a recognized authority?”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile Virus in the United States:
Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control
2003
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/resources/
[Excerpt:]
Adulticiding is the application of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes.
The ability to control adult mosquitoes is an important component of any integrated
mosquito management program, and like the other components of the program, its use should be based on
surveillance data.
Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique
available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the
density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to
humans. In some situations, source reduction and larvicide applications are not
practical, and adulticide application is the only available control strategy.
Mosquito
adulticides typically are applied as an Ultra-Low-Volume (ULV) spray where small
amounts of insecticide are dispersed either by truck-mounted equipment or from
fixed-wing or rotary aircraft.64-68 Thermal fog applications of adulticides by ground or air
are also used in some areas, but to a much lesser degree.
Barrier treatments, typically
applied as high volume liquids with hand-held spray equipment using compounds with
residual characteristics, are common in some U.S. locations. This technique is
especially attractive to individual homeowners living near mosquito-producing habitats
where residual chemicals applied along property boundaries can provide some control
benefits.
Mosquito adulticiding differs fundamentally from techniques used to control
many other adult insects. For adult mosquito control, insecticide must drift through the
habitat in which mosquitoes are flying in order to provide optimal control benefits. The
EPA has determined that the insecticides labeled nationally for this type of application
do not pose unreasonable health risks to humans, wildlife, or the environment when
used according to the label.56
Adulticides labeled for mosquito control include several
organophosphates such as malathion and naled. Some natural pyrethrins and synthetic
pyrethroids (permethrin, resmethrin and sumithrin) also hold adulticide labels.
Insecticide selection and timing of application should be based on the distribution and
behavior of the target mosquito species.
Application of adulticides should be timed to
coincide with the activity period of the target mosquito species. Many Culex species are
nocturnal and are active in the tree canopy level. This should be taken into
consideration when planning adulticide applications. Operational experience indicates
that Cx. pipiens and Cx. quinquefasciatus may require more frequent adulticide
application to achieve desired levels of population reduction during an outbreak.
Control of adult day-active species poses additional problems because ULV adulticide
effectiveness is greatly reduced during daylight hours. Early-morning use of adulticides,
applied before temperatures rise, may provide a measure of control for these species.
“Is CDC not a recognized authority?”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile Virus in the United States:
Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control
2003
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/resources/
[Excerpt:]
Adulticiding is the application of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes.
The ability to control adult mosquitoes is an important component of any integrated
mosquito management program, and like the other components of the program, its use should be based on
surveillance data.
Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique
available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the
density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to
humans. In some situations, source reduction and larvicide applications are not
practical, and adulticide application is the only available control strategy.
Mosquito
adulticides typically are applied as an Ultra-Low-Volume (ULV) spray where small
amounts of insecticide are dispersed either by truck-mounted equipment or from
fixed-wing or rotary aircraft.64-68 Thermal fog applications of adulticides by ground or air
are also used in some areas, but to a much lesser degree.
Barrier treatments, typically
applied as high volume liquids with hand-held spray equipment using compounds with
residual characteristics, are common in some U.S. locations. This technique is
especially attractive to individual homeowners living near mosquito-producing habitats
where residual chemicals applied along property boundaries can provide some control
benefits.
Mosquito adulticiding differs fundamentally from techniques used to control
many other adult insects. For adult mosquito control, insecticide must drift through the
habitat in which mosquitoes are flying in order to provide optimal control benefits. The
EPA has determined that the insecticides labeled nationally for this type of application
do not pose unreasonable health risks to humans, wildlife, or the environment when
used according to the label.56
Adulticides labeled for mosquito control include several
organophosphates such as malathion and naled. Some natural pyrethrins and synthetic
pyrethroids (permethrin, resmethrin and sumithrin) also hold adulticide labels.
Insecticide selection and timing of application should be based on the distribution and
behavior of the target mosquito species.
Application of adulticides should be timed to
coincide with the activity period of the target mosquito species. Many Culex species are
nocturnal and are active in the tree canopy level. This should be taken into
consideration when planning adulticide applications. Operational experience indicates
that Cx. pipiens and Cx. quinquefasciatus may require more frequent adulticide
application to achieve desired levels of population reduction during an outbreak.
Control of adult day-active species poses additional problems because ULV adulticide
effectiveness is greatly reduced during daylight hours. Early-morning use of adulticides,
applied before temperatures rise, may provide a measure of control for these species.
“Is CDC not a recognized authority?”
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile Virus in the United States:
Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control
2003
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/resources/
[Excerpt:]
Adulticiding is the application of pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes.
The ability to control adult mosquitoes is an important component of any integrated
mosquito management program, and like the other components of the program, its use should be based on
surveillance data.
Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique
available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the
density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to
humans. In some situations, source reduction and larvicide applications are not
practical, and adulticide application is the only available control strategy.
Mosquito
adulticides typically are applied as an Ultra-Low-Volume (ULV) spray where small
amounts of insecticide are dispersed either by truck-mounted equipment or from
fixed-wing or rotary aircraft.64-68 Thermal fog applications of adulticides by ground or air
are also used in some areas, but to a much lesser degree.
Barrier treatments, typically
applied as high volume liquids with hand-held spray equipment using compounds with
residual characteristics, are common in some U.S. locations. This technique is
especially attractive to individual homeowners living near mosquito-producing habitats
where residual chemicals applied along property boundaries can provide some control
benefits.
Mosquito adulticiding differs fundamentally from techniques used to control
many other adult insects. For adult mosquito control, insecticide must drift through the
habitat in which mosquitoes are flying in order to provide optimal control benefits. The
EPA has determined that the insecticides labeled nationally for this type of application
do not pose unreasonable health risks to humans, wildlife, or the environment when
used according to the label.56
Adulticides labeled for mosquito control include several
organophosphates such as malathion and naled. Some natural pyrethrins and synthetic
pyrethroids (permethrin, resmethrin and sumithrin) also hold adulticide labels.
Insecticide selection and timing of application should be based on the distribution and
behavior of the target mosquito species.
Application of adulticides should be timed to
coincide with the activity period of the target mosquito species. Many Culex species are
nocturnal and are active in the tree canopy level. This should be taken into
consideration when planning adulticide applications. Operational experience indicates
that Cx. pipiens and Cx. quinquefasciatus may require more frequent adulticide
application to achieve desired levels of population reduction during an outbreak.
Control of adult day-active species poses additional problems because ULV adulticide
effectiveness is greatly reduced during daylight hours. Early-morning use of adulticides,
applied before temperatures rise, may provide a measure of control for these species.
“There is cold hard evidence of risk with spraying.”
No, there is not.
The only toxicity issue that has been raised repeatedly is that piperonyl butoxide is considered a ‘possible’ — not probable — carcinogen, based on some lab results. The EPA uses ‘possible’ as a very precise term, and mixing it up with ‘probable’ is not a minor mistake.
ULV applications of pyrethroids and piperonyl butoxide carry degrees of risk many times lower than the risk of serious WNV side effects or fatalities. Many times lower.
Please tell us what you mean by “infinitesimally small” risk of neurological consequences. Please identify the individuals you spoke to at the CDC, whose comments to you appear to be at odds with the CDC’s own publications.
Vector management is a basic strategy in disease control worldwide. Aerial applications of various pesticides have been done over human populations for many years. Threshold levels are established at which treatments are implemented. West Nile carries known risks; spraying carries much smaller risks at our current level of knowledge. Your concept of risk assessment appears to be that the slight unknown risk trumps the serious known risk.
“There is cold hard evidence of risk with spraying.”
No, there is not.
The only toxicity issue that has been raised repeatedly is that piperonyl butoxide is considered a ‘possible’ — not probable — carcinogen, based on some lab results. The EPA uses ‘possible’ as a very precise term, and mixing it up with ‘probable’ is not a minor mistake.
ULV applications of pyrethroids and piperonyl butoxide carry degrees of risk many times lower than the risk of serious WNV side effects or fatalities. Many times lower.
Please tell us what you mean by “infinitesimally small” risk of neurological consequences. Please identify the individuals you spoke to at the CDC, whose comments to you appear to be at odds with the CDC’s own publications.
Vector management is a basic strategy in disease control worldwide. Aerial applications of various pesticides have been done over human populations for many years. Threshold levels are established at which treatments are implemented. West Nile carries known risks; spraying carries much smaller risks at our current level of knowledge. Your concept of risk assessment appears to be that the slight unknown risk trumps the serious known risk.
“There is cold hard evidence of risk with spraying.”
No, there is not.
The only toxicity issue that has been raised repeatedly is that piperonyl butoxide is considered a ‘possible’ — not probable — carcinogen, based on some lab results. The EPA uses ‘possible’ as a very precise term, and mixing it up with ‘probable’ is not a minor mistake.
ULV applications of pyrethroids and piperonyl butoxide carry degrees of risk many times lower than the risk of serious WNV side effects or fatalities. Many times lower.
Please tell us what you mean by “infinitesimally small” risk of neurological consequences. Please identify the individuals you spoke to at the CDC, whose comments to you appear to be at odds with the CDC’s own publications.
Vector management is a basic strategy in disease control worldwide. Aerial applications of various pesticides have been done over human populations for many years. Threshold levels are established at which treatments are implemented. West Nile carries known risks; spraying carries much smaller risks at our current level of knowledge. Your concept of risk assessment appears to be that the slight unknown risk trumps the serious known risk.
“There is cold hard evidence of risk with spraying.”
No, there is not.
The only toxicity issue that has been raised repeatedly is that piperonyl butoxide is considered a ‘possible’ — not probable — carcinogen, based on some lab results. The EPA uses ‘possible’ as a very precise term, and mixing it up with ‘probable’ is not a minor mistake.
ULV applications of pyrethroids and piperonyl butoxide carry degrees of risk many times lower than the risk of serious WNV side effects or fatalities. Many times lower.
Please tell us what you mean by “infinitesimally small” risk of neurological consequences. Please identify the individuals you spoke to at the CDC, whose comments to you appear to be at odds with the CDC’s own publications.
Vector management is a basic strategy in disease control worldwide. Aerial applications of various pesticides have been done over human populations for many years. Threshold levels are established at which treatments are implemented. West Nile carries known risks; spraying carries much smaller risks at our current level of knowledge. Your concept of risk assessment appears to be that the slight unknown risk trumps the serious known risk.
Samantha McCarthy said…
Would you folks stop. THER IS NOT EVIDENCE SPRAYING DOES AYHTING
When a farmer uses pesticide sprays to protect his crop from insects, it really is not working? We just think it is working and we are confused? The repellent being used on the Mosquito’s that was tested in labs and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for short-term and long-term health effects was not really carried out. They just believed they were doing testing.
Samantha McCarthy said…
Would you folks stop. THER IS NOT EVIDENCE SPRAYING DOES AYHTING
When a farmer uses pesticide sprays to protect his crop from insects, it really is not working? We just think it is working and we are confused? The repellent being used on the Mosquito’s that was tested in labs and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for short-term and long-term health effects was not really carried out. They just believed they were doing testing.
Samantha McCarthy said…
Would you folks stop. THER IS NOT EVIDENCE SPRAYING DOES AYHTING
When a farmer uses pesticide sprays to protect his crop from insects, it really is not working? We just think it is working and we are confused? The repellent being used on the Mosquito’s that was tested in labs and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for short-term and long-term health effects was not really carried out. They just believed they were doing testing.
Samantha McCarthy said…
Would you folks stop. THER IS NOT EVIDENCE SPRAYING DOES AYHTING
When a farmer uses pesticide sprays to protect his crop from insects, it really is not working? We just think it is working and we are confused? The repellent being used on the Mosquito’s that was tested in labs and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for short-term and long-term health effects was not really carried out. They just believed they were doing testing.
Samantha, as long as you are the spokesmodel for your cause, I will rest easy at night that your cause is doomed. Thank you.
Samantha, as long as you are the spokesmodel for your cause, I will rest easy at night that your cause is doomed. Thank you.
Samantha, as long as you are the spokesmodel for your cause, I will rest easy at night that your cause is doomed. Thank you.
Samantha, as long as you are the spokesmodel for your cause, I will rest easy at night that your cause is doomed. Thank you.
I was wondering what had happened to Samantha.
I was wondering what had happened to Samantha.
I was wondering what had happened to Samantha.
I was wondering what had happened to Samantha.
Two years ago, Sue had an opportunity to take a lead on this issue when spraying for WNV first became an issue. Two years ago, Sue took a back seat to the spraying issue and told us that she supported the spraying. That was when the issue first arose and was a year before she “consulted” with her “experts”. I was disappointed in Sue and her position then and continue to be disappointed now. She is in a position to hold the District and others accountable and has not done so.
Sue Greenwald said…
I respect the concerns and fears of many of our citizens who have contacted me about spraying, as well concerns and fears of many citizens who have contacted me about their fear of catching West Nile of we don’t spray.
I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.
You should doubt your experts, as apparently they neglected to tell you that there is no credible evidence that the spraying is effective at reducing the transmission of WNV. Thus, why spray? That is the issue. Many other towns are adopting a precautionary approach to all governmental actions. Davis is falling behind the curve here. Many towns (see list on our webpage) have said NO to spraying — not just because it is ineffective but because it produces a greater risk and likelihood of effects such as asthma attacks, etc. These are real risks that health professionals, medical doctors etc., have evaluated. Last night the chief public health official for Sacramento County said that pesticides are an American way of life and that DDT does not harm humans. Obviously relying on this as expert opinion is a joke.
Sue said:
“Some expressed skepticism that spraying was effective, none loved the idea of aerial spraying, but none felt that this spraying was dangerous to human health, and none felt comfortable recommending against it.
In terms of damage to other insects, the consensus was that the West Nile-related spraying was inconsequential when compared with the agricultural and garden spraying that is going on anyway. This was not to defend the agricultural and garden spraying, but to put the West Nile spraying into perspective.”
Inconsequential? Sue, you have a heart of steel. Maybe this is true over the commercial agricultural fields where conventional agriculture has sterilized the soil and sent beneficial insect populations to oblivion, but certainly not over organic farms (recently sprayed in north Sacramento), parks, and backyard gardens that still host a wide variety of beneficial insects.
Sue also said:
“The City does not have a public health department, or even a public health officer. We do have a wildlife specialist, John McNerney, and we could ask him to give us an analysis of the ecological effects of spraying.
Why ask for a City special analysis when all you have to do is read EPA registration documents, etc. Pyrethrin and PBO will kill beneficial insects? Even the District has acknowledged negative ecological effects of the spraying, and dragonfly experts have expressed concern that spraying will make matter worse because dragonflies have a much longer reproduction cycle than mosquitoes.
As to the blog comments:
First, ‘Doug Paul Davis’ refers to a motion by Lamar Heystek on the spraying, but doesn’t tell us what the motion is. It would be helpful for me if Doug could show us all that motion. I remember Lamar making a motion on the topic last year but I don’t remember exactly what it was.’”
Sue, as mayor shouldn’t you remember the goings on of the council on important matters? Your lack of accountability, your memory, and your judgment are in serious question given what you have written here today and last week.
Sue said:
“Secondly, I agree with “Doug Paul Davis’s frustration that the mosquito vector control district has total authority with no accountability to the public. There is, however, an agency that is elected and accountable, which has a public health department and a public health officer, and that agency is the County. If a challenge to the mosquito abatement district were deemed appropriate by the citizens, it would be procedurally more appropriate to take it before the County Board of Supervisors.”
Sue, are you unaware, even after the events of the last two years, that the City appoints a member of the District Board. And sometimes actions of councils are highly symbolic, such as anti-war resolutions. They only reflect public sentiment and give the Council and citizens a tool to further persuade legislators. These changes need to be made at the state level and will require local action and support to get there.
Sue said:
“Personally, I don’t like spraying, I am worried about the long term health effects of covering myself with DEET, which seems like a pretty strong chemical to be dousing my skin with, and I don’t like the idea of getting West Nile.”
Then do what others do — stay inside at peak hours and/or wear protective clothing.
Sue said:
“Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.”
Then maybe you were talking to people who are too close to the industry, because the lack of effectiveness in preventing transmission is not a tightly held secret. The evidence is lacking and there are gaping holes in the data. And, please keep in mind that on other important issues, such as the question of whether to remove the bats downtown, experts such as those to whom you refer took political positions rather than scientific ones. It sounds to me as if your unnamed experts know that spraying is not justified scientifically but are afraid to advise you to take actions that might involve political risks. Do you doubt the CDC? Do you doubt the many other localities that have cited risk to the pesticides, or are they all wrong and only the pesticide industry supporters like Glennah Trochet are to be believed. It would be very instructive to be able to get citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers in top journals from your collection of experts that adulticiding has efficacy at slowing the transmission of WNv to humans. We await the citations with baited breath.
Two years ago, Sue had an opportunity to take a lead on this issue when spraying for WNV first became an issue. Two years ago, Sue took a back seat to the spraying issue and told us that she supported the spraying. That was when the issue first arose and was a year before she “consulted” with her “experts”. I was disappointed in Sue and her position then and continue to be disappointed now. She is in a position to hold the District and others accountable and has not done so.
Sue Greenwald said…
I respect the concerns and fears of many of our citizens who have contacted me about spraying, as well concerns and fears of many citizens who have contacted me about their fear of catching West Nile of we don’t spray.
I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.
You should doubt your experts, as apparently they neglected to tell you that there is no credible evidence that the spraying is effective at reducing the transmission of WNV. Thus, why spray? That is the issue. Many other towns are adopting a precautionary approach to all governmental actions. Davis is falling behind the curve here. Many towns (see list on our webpage) have said NO to spraying — not just because it is ineffective but because it produces a greater risk and likelihood of effects such as asthma attacks, etc. These are real risks that health professionals, medical doctors etc., have evaluated. Last night the chief public health official for Sacramento County said that pesticides are an American way of life and that DDT does not harm humans. Obviously relying on this as expert opinion is a joke.
Sue said:
“Some expressed skepticism that spraying was effective, none loved the idea of aerial spraying, but none felt that this spraying was dangerous to human health, and none felt comfortable recommending against it.
In terms of damage to other insects, the consensus was that the West Nile-related spraying was inconsequential when compared with the agricultural and garden spraying that is going on anyway. This was not to defend the agricultural and garden spraying, but to put the West Nile spraying into perspective.”
Inconsequential? Sue, you have a heart of steel. Maybe this is true over the commercial agricultural fields where conventional agriculture has sterilized the soil and sent beneficial insect populations to oblivion, but certainly not over organic farms (recently sprayed in north Sacramento), parks, and backyard gardens that still host a wide variety of beneficial insects.
Sue also said:
“The City does not have a public health department, or even a public health officer. We do have a wildlife specialist, John McNerney, and we could ask him to give us an analysis of the ecological effects of spraying.
Why ask for a City special analysis when all you have to do is read EPA registration documents, etc. Pyrethrin and PBO will kill beneficial insects? Even the District has acknowledged negative ecological effects of the spraying, and dragonfly experts have expressed concern that spraying will make matter worse because dragonflies have a much longer reproduction cycle than mosquitoes.
As to the blog comments:
First, ‘Doug Paul Davis’ refers to a motion by Lamar Heystek on the spraying, but doesn’t tell us what the motion is. It would be helpful for me if Doug could show us all that motion. I remember Lamar making a motion on the topic last year but I don’t remember exactly what it was.’”
Sue, as mayor shouldn’t you remember the goings on of the council on important matters? Your lack of accountability, your memory, and your judgment are in serious question given what you have written here today and last week.
Sue said:
“Secondly, I agree with “Doug Paul Davis’s frustration that the mosquito vector control district has total authority with no accountability to the public. There is, however, an agency that is elected and accountable, which has a public health department and a public health officer, and that agency is the County. If a challenge to the mosquito abatement district were deemed appropriate by the citizens, it would be procedurally more appropriate to take it before the County Board of Supervisors.”
Sue, are you unaware, even after the events of the last two years, that the City appoints a member of the District Board. And sometimes actions of councils are highly symbolic, such as anti-war resolutions. They only reflect public sentiment and give the Council and citizens a tool to further persuade legislators. These changes need to be made at the state level and will require local action and support to get there.
Sue said:
“Personally, I don’t like spraying, I am worried about the long term health effects of covering myself with DEET, which seems like a pretty strong chemical to be dousing my skin with, and I don’t like the idea of getting West Nile.”
Then do what others do — stay inside at peak hours and/or wear protective clothing.
Sue said:
“Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.”
Then maybe you were talking to people who are too close to the industry, because the lack of effectiveness in preventing transmission is not a tightly held secret. The evidence is lacking and there are gaping holes in the data. And, please keep in mind that on other important issues, such as the question of whether to remove the bats downtown, experts such as those to whom you refer took political positions rather than scientific ones. It sounds to me as if your unnamed experts know that spraying is not justified scientifically but are afraid to advise you to take actions that might involve political risks. Do you doubt the CDC? Do you doubt the many other localities that have cited risk to the pesticides, or are they all wrong and only the pesticide industry supporters like Glennah Trochet are to be believed. It would be very instructive to be able to get citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers in top journals from your collection of experts that adulticiding has efficacy at slowing the transmission of WNv to humans. We await the citations with baited breath.
Two years ago, Sue had an opportunity to take a lead on this issue when spraying for WNV first became an issue. Two years ago, Sue took a back seat to the spraying issue and told us that she supported the spraying. That was when the issue first arose and was a year before she “consulted” with her “experts”. I was disappointed in Sue and her position then and continue to be disappointed now. She is in a position to hold the District and others accountable and has not done so.
Sue Greenwald said…
I respect the concerns and fears of many of our citizens who have contacted me about spraying, as well concerns and fears of many citizens who have contacted me about their fear of catching West Nile of we don’t spray.
I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.
You should doubt your experts, as apparently they neglected to tell you that there is no credible evidence that the spraying is effective at reducing the transmission of WNV. Thus, why spray? That is the issue. Many other towns are adopting a precautionary approach to all governmental actions. Davis is falling behind the curve here. Many towns (see list on our webpage) have said NO to spraying — not just because it is ineffective but because it produces a greater risk and likelihood of effects such as asthma attacks, etc. These are real risks that health professionals, medical doctors etc., have evaluated. Last night the chief public health official for Sacramento County said that pesticides are an American way of life and that DDT does not harm humans. Obviously relying on this as expert opinion is a joke.
Sue said:
“Some expressed skepticism that spraying was effective, none loved the idea of aerial spraying, but none felt that this spraying was dangerous to human health, and none felt comfortable recommending against it.
In terms of damage to other insects, the consensus was that the West Nile-related spraying was inconsequential when compared with the agricultural and garden spraying that is going on anyway. This was not to defend the agricultural and garden spraying, but to put the West Nile spraying into perspective.”
Inconsequential? Sue, you have a heart of steel. Maybe this is true over the commercial agricultural fields where conventional agriculture has sterilized the soil and sent beneficial insect populations to oblivion, but certainly not over organic farms (recently sprayed in north Sacramento), parks, and backyard gardens that still host a wide variety of beneficial insects.
Sue also said:
“The City does not have a public health department, or even a public health officer. We do have a wildlife specialist, John McNerney, and we could ask him to give us an analysis of the ecological effects of spraying.
Why ask for a City special analysis when all you have to do is read EPA registration documents, etc. Pyrethrin and PBO will kill beneficial insects? Even the District has acknowledged negative ecological effects of the spraying, and dragonfly experts have expressed concern that spraying will make matter worse because dragonflies have a much longer reproduction cycle than mosquitoes.
As to the blog comments:
First, ‘Doug Paul Davis’ refers to a motion by Lamar Heystek on the spraying, but doesn’t tell us what the motion is. It would be helpful for me if Doug could show us all that motion. I remember Lamar making a motion on the topic last year but I don’t remember exactly what it was.’”
Sue, as mayor shouldn’t you remember the goings on of the council on important matters? Your lack of accountability, your memory, and your judgment are in serious question given what you have written here today and last week.
Sue said:
“Secondly, I agree with “Doug Paul Davis’s frustration that the mosquito vector control district has total authority with no accountability to the public. There is, however, an agency that is elected and accountable, which has a public health department and a public health officer, and that agency is the County. If a challenge to the mosquito abatement district were deemed appropriate by the citizens, it would be procedurally more appropriate to take it before the County Board of Supervisors.”
Sue, are you unaware, even after the events of the last two years, that the City appoints a member of the District Board. And sometimes actions of councils are highly symbolic, such as anti-war resolutions. They only reflect public sentiment and give the Council and citizens a tool to further persuade legislators. These changes need to be made at the state level and will require local action and support to get there.
Sue said:
“Personally, I don’t like spraying, I am worried about the long term health effects of covering myself with DEET, which seems like a pretty strong chemical to be dousing my skin with, and I don’t like the idea of getting West Nile.”
Then do what others do — stay inside at peak hours and/or wear protective clothing.
Sue said:
“Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.”
Then maybe you were talking to people who are too close to the industry, because the lack of effectiveness in preventing transmission is not a tightly held secret. The evidence is lacking and there are gaping holes in the data. And, please keep in mind that on other important issues, such as the question of whether to remove the bats downtown, experts such as those to whom you refer took political positions rather than scientific ones. It sounds to me as if your unnamed experts know that spraying is not justified scientifically but are afraid to advise you to take actions that might involve political risks. Do you doubt the CDC? Do you doubt the many other localities that have cited risk to the pesticides, or are they all wrong and only the pesticide industry supporters like Glennah Trochet are to be believed. It would be very instructive to be able to get citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers in top journals from your collection of experts that adulticiding has efficacy at slowing the transmission of WNv to humans. We await the citations with baited breath.
Two years ago, Sue had an opportunity to take a lead on this issue when spraying for WNV first became an issue. Two years ago, Sue took a back seat to the spraying issue and told us that she supported the spraying. That was when the issue first arose and was a year before she “consulted” with her “experts”. I was disappointed in Sue and her position then and continue to be disappointed now. She is in a position to hold the District and others accountable and has not done so.
Sue Greenwald said…
I respect the concerns and fears of many of our citizens who have contacted me about spraying, as well concerns and fears of many citizens who have contacted me about their fear of catching West Nile of we don’t spray.
I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.
You should doubt your experts, as apparently they neglected to tell you that there is no credible evidence that the spraying is effective at reducing the transmission of WNV. Thus, why spray? That is the issue. Many other towns are adopting a precautionary approach to all governmental actions. Davis is falling behind the curve here. Many towns (see list on our webpage) have said NO to spraying — not just because it is ineffective but because it produces a greater risk and likelihood of effects such as asthma attacks, etc. These are real risks that health professionals, medical doctors etc., have evaluated. Last night the chief public health official for Sacramento County said that pesticides are an American way of life and that DDT does not harm humans. Obviously relying on this as expert opinion is a joke.
Sue said:
“Some expressed skepticism that spraying was effective, none loved the idea of aerial spraying, but none felt that this spraying was dangerous to human health, and none felt comfortable recommending against it.
In terms of damage to other insects, the consensus was that the West Nile-related spraying was inconsequential when compared with the agricultural and garden spraying that is going on anyway. This was not to defend the agricultural and garden spraying, but to put the West Nile spraying into perspective.”
Inconsequential? Sue, you have a heart of steel. Maybe this is true over the commercial agricultural fields where conventional agriculture has sterilized the soil and sent beneficial insect populations to oblivion, but certainly not over organic farms (recently sprayed in north Sacramento), parks, and backyard gardens that still host a wide variety of beneficial insects.
Sue also said:
“The City does not have a public health department, or even a public health officer. We do have a wildlife specialist, John McNerney, and we could ask him to give us an analysis of the ecological effects of spraying.
Why ask for a City special analysis when all you have to do is read EPA registration documents, etc. Pyrethrin and PBO will kill beneficial insects? Even the District has acknowledged negative ecological effects of the spraying, and dragonfly experts have expressed concern that spraying will make matter worse because dragonflies have a much longer reproduction cycle than mosquitoes.
As to the blog comments:
First, ‘Doug Paul Davis’ refers to a motion by Lamar Heystek on the spraying, but doesn’t tell us what the motion is. It would be helpful for me if Doug could show us all that motion. I remember Lamar making a motion on the topic last year but I don’t remember exactly what it was.’”
Sue, as mayor shouldn’t you remember the goings on of the council on important matters? Your lack of accountability, your memory, and your judgment are in serious question given what you have written here today and last week.
Sue said:
“Secondly, I agree with “Doug Paul Davis’s frustration that the mosquito vector control district has total authority with no accountability to the public. There is, however, an agency that is elected and accountable, which has a public health department and a public health officer, and that agency is the County. If a challenge to the mosquito abatement district were deemed appropriate by the citizens, it would be procedurally more appropriate to take it before the County Board of Supervisors.”
Sue, are you unaware, even after the events of the last two years, that the City appoints a member of the District Board. And sometimes actions of councils are highly symbolic, such as anti-war resolutions. They only reflect public sentiment and give the Council and citizens a tool to further persuade legislators. These changes need to be made at the state level and will require local action and support to get there.
Sue said:
“Personally, I don’t like spraying, I am worried about the long term health effects of covering myself with DEET, which seems like a pretty strong chemical to be dousing my skin with, and I don’t like the idea of getting West Nile.”
Then do what others do — stay inside at peak hours and/or wear protective clothing.
Sue said:
“Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.”
Then maybe you were talking to people who are too close to the industry, because the lack of effectiveness in preventing transmission is not a tightly held secret. The evidence is lacking and there are gaping holes in the data. And, please keep in mind that on other important issues, such as the question of whether to remove the bats downtown, experts such as those to whom you refer took political positions rather than scientific ones. It sounds to me as if your unnamed experts know that spraying is not justified scientifically but are afraid to advise you to take actions that might involve political risks. Do you doubt the CDC? Do you doubt the many other localities that have cited risk to the pesticides, or are they all wrong and only the pesticide industry supporters like Glennah Trochet are to be believed. It would be very instructive to be able to get citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers in top journals from your collection of experts that adulticiding has efficacy at slowing the transmission of WNv to humans. We await the citations with baited breath.
“Do you doubt the CDC?”
Nope. Their guidelines are clear. See the verbatim citation from their manual, above.
Please cite your sources at CDC who contradict their own printed materials.
“Do you doubt the CDC?”
Nope. Their guidelines are clear. See the verbatim citation from their manual, above.
Please cite your sources at CDC who contradict their own printed materials.
“Do you doubt the CDC?”
Nope. Their guidelines are clear. See the verbatim citation from their manual, above.
Please cite your sources at CDC who contradict their own printed materials.
“Do you doubt the CDC?”
Nope. Their guidelines are clear. See the verbatim citation from their manual, above.
Please cite your sources at CDC who contradict their own printed materials.
“Last night the chief public health official for Sacramento County said that pesticides are an American way of life and that DDT does not harm humans. Obviously relying on this as expert opinion is a joke.”
I didn’t see that quote, nor do I know whom you are referring to. However, his opinion on DDT is the same as the one I heard from a friend of mine who is an environmental toxicologist at UC Berkeley. DDT is pretty much (though not completely) harmless to humans. Further, my friend said DDT has saved more human lives than any other chemical in history.
I recall when DDT was sprayed in Davis, just about every day in the summer when I was a child. Wherever there was a puddle of water, a little “vector control” golf cart would come along and spray it. Nobody in Davis got sick.
DDT ultimately proved to be devastating to many forms of wildlife and was wisely banned. But while it was being used, it did far more good than harm.
“Last night the chief public health official for Sacramento County said that pesticides are an American way of life and that DDT does not harm humans. Obviously relying on this as expert opinion is a joke.”
I didn’t see that quote, nor do I know whom you are referring to. However, his opinion on DDT is the same as the one I heard from a friend of mine who is an environmental toxicologist at UC Berkeley. DDT is pretty much (though not completely) harmless to humans. Further, my friend said DDT has saved more human lives than any other chemical in history.
I recall when DDT was sprayed in Davis, just about every day in the summer when I was a child. Wherever there was a puddle of water, a little “vector control” golf cart would come along and spray it. Nobody in Davis got sick.
DDT ultimately proved to be devastating to many forms of wildlife and was wisely banned. But while it was being used, it did far more good than harm.
“Last night the chief public health official for Sacramento County said that pesticides are an American way of life and that DDT does not harm humans. Obviously relying on this as expert opinion is a joke.”
I didn’t see that quote, nor do I know whom you are referring to. However, his opinion on DDT is the same as the one I heard from a friend of mine who is an environmental toxicologist at UC Berkeley. DDT is pretty much (though not completely) harmless to humans. Further, my friend said DDT has saved more human lives than any other chemical in history.
I recall when DDT was sprayed in Davis, just about every day in the summer when I was a child. Wherever there was a puddle of water, a little “vector control” golf cart would come along and spray it. Nobody in Davis got sick.
DDT ultimately proved to be devastating to many forms of wildlife and was wisely banned. But while it was being used, it did far more good than harm.
“Last night the chief public health official for Sacramento County said that pesticides are an American way of life and that DDT does not harm humans. Obviously relying on this as expert opinion is a joke.”
I didn’t see that quote, nor do I know whom you are referring to. However, his opinion on DDT is the same as the one I heard from a friend of mine who is an environmental toxicologist at UC Berkeley. DDT is pretty much (though not completely) harmless to humans. Further, my friend said DDT has saved more human lives than any other chemical in history.
I recall when DDT was sprayed in Davis, just about every day in the summer when I was a child. Wherever there was a puddle of water, a little “vector control” golf cart would come along and spray it. Nobody in Davis got sick.
DDT ultimately proved to be devastating to many forms of wildlife and was wisely banned. But while it was being used, it did far more good than harm.
The problem with DDT was biomagnification and environmental persistence, not toxicity. It has low to moderate toxicity to humans.
The problem with DDT was biomagnification and environmental persistence, not toxicity. It has low to moderate toxicity to humans.
The problem with DDT was biomagnification and environmental persistence, not toxicity. It has low to moderate toxicity to humans.
The problem with DDT was biomagnification and environmental persistence, not toxicity. It has low to moderate toxicity to humans.
Glennah Trochet made the statement at the Coucnil meeting last night. Your friend is wrong. Google DDT toxicity. It is an endocrine that disruptor that can effects the endocrine and nervous systems.
Glennah Trochet made the statement at the Coucnil meeting last night. Your friend is wrong. Google DDT toxicity. It is an endocrine that disruptor that can effects the endocrine and nervous systems.
Glennah Trochet made the statement at the Coucnil meeting last night. Your friend is wrong. Google DDT toxicity. It is an endocrine that disruptor that can effects the endocrine and nervous systems.
Glennah Trochet made the statement at the Coucnil meeting last night. Your friend is wrong. Google DDT toxicity. It is an endocrine that disruptor that can effects the endocrine and nervous systems.
Don and Samantha,
The scientists that I have consulted with are many of the very people that are your allies on most other issues. They are certainly not allied with industry in any way. They are scientists and environmentalists of the highest integrity who just don’t happen to agree with you on this one issue.
Whether to use occasional very low volume insecticide spraying and/or DEET, or to do nothing, involves cost benefit analyses that I just don’t feel qualified to make.
I am inclined to accept the advice of the public health officials, but I also double check that advice with the advice of best experts that I can find.
Don and Samantha,
The scientists that I have consulted with are many of the very people that are your allies on most other issues. They are certainly not allied with industry in any way. They are scientists and environmentalists of the highest integrity who just don’t happen to agree with you on this one issue.
Whether to use occasional very low volume insecticide spraying and/or DEET, or to do nothing, involves cost benefit analyses that I just don’t feel qualified to make.
I am inclined to accept the advice of the public health officials, but I also double check that advice with the advice of best experts that I can find.
Don and Samantha,
The scientists that I have consulted with are many of the very people that are your allies on most other issues. They are certainly not allied with industry in any way. They are scientists and environmentalists of the highest integrity who just don’t happen to agree with you on this one issue.
Whether to use occasional very low volume insecticide spraying and/or DEET, or to do nothing, involves cost benefit analyses that I just don’t feel qualified to make.
I am inclined to accept the advice of the public health officials, but I also double check that advice with the advice of best experts that I can find.
Don and Samantha,
The scientists that I have consulted with are many of the very people that are your allies on most other issues. They are certainly not allied with industry in any way. They are scientists and environmentalists of the highest integrity who just don’t happen to agree with you on this one issue.
Whether to use occasional very low volume insecticide spraying and/or DEET, or to do nothing, involves cost benefit analyses that I just don’t feel qualified to make.
I am inclined to accept the advice of the public health officials, but I also double check that advice with the advice of best experts that I can find.
I spoke with a CDC person in Ft Collins Roy Campbell (now retired). He is a physician with a public health degree from UC Berkeley. He was asked by CDC officials to evaluate adulticiding and IPM. He said there never will be a study that can do so and not be subject to attack, because of differences in ground water, different bird populations, water sources, breeding areas, weather conditions, geography, IPM versus no IPM etc.
CDC recommends: Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to humans. In some situations, source reduction and larvicide applications are not practical, and adulticide application is the only available control strategy.
I’m not getting into a critique of the district’s surveillance program now but will say that monitoring data by the time they sprayed last year showed a natural decline. Also, our district has a larvicide program. It is not saying that larviciding is not practical so they had to adulticide. Adulticiding, given the district’s approach, is to say their larviciding program failed.
The CDC webpage notes “…. reduce the risk of transmission to humans.” That is on the web page. But if you talk to them and ask them to cite one peer reviewed study that shows it ACTUALLY does reduce risk, they cannot, and we have seen no such paper. We asked for documentation, members had conversations with CDC and officials etc. They have not cited a paper or study to back up the plan. People simply begin with the assumption that killing adult mosquitoes will probably reduce transmission. There is one paper by Roger Nasci that attempts to do this and they cite it continually, but we have not been given a reference to its publication in a peer reviewed journal. Nasci now works for the CDC. See our web page for critique of his slide presentation. The district has not cited it as such either.
The CDC will not come out and say that spraying has been proven to reduce transmission of WNV to humans. It will not say it is without risk.
DEET is a potent neuro toxin that has caused severe reactions and even death. Individual can weigh for themselves whether they are comfortable using DEET. It is not recommended for very young children. It is dangerous, each can decide individually if s/he is comfortable with DEET — that is a personal choice. There are plenty of studies on the toxicity of DEET. Here are the application guidelines, and they are pretty extensive for a substance that is supposedly safe:
Recommended Application Guidelines 12,13
• Apply DEET product only when planning to be outdoors in a mosquito-infested area.
• Use the appropriate concentration of DEET. Children and adults in the general public should use 30% or less. A product with a concentration of 10% or less may be more appropriate for children under 12 years.
• Do not apply DEET to children under 2 months of age.
• When using on children, apply to your own hands and then put it on the child.
• Do not apply to children’s hands.
• Do not allow children to handle products containing DEET.
• Do not apply over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.
• Do not apply near eyes and mouth. Apply sparingly around ears.
• Reapply DEET only as directed by packaging. The effective duration depends on the concentration of DEET in product.
• Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin/and or clothing.
• Do not use on skin under clothing.
• Avoid over-application of DEET products.
• After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water.
• Wash treated clothing before wearing it again.
• Do not apply a combination product containing sunscreen and DEET.
• Do not spray aerosol or pump products in enclosed areas.
• Do not apply aerosol or pump products directly to your face. Spray your hands and then rub them carefully over the face, avoiding eyes and mouth.
We still challenge CDC or anyone to show a study and not just guidelines on the CDC page. There is currently no evidence, and even CDC officials confirm this. Having individuals take personal responsibility is better than spraying a whole population. If you do not take personal responsibility to protect yourself you may get sick. The infinitesimally small number is one in 150 that get WNv with the serious neuro complications. That is not one in 150 bites but in 1 in a 150 cases of WNV, which is almost nonexistent when you look at the cases reported vs. the population in California. An infinitesimally small part of the population will ever get seriously sick or die of WNV.
The money spent could save more lives if used for public education, water reduction, and larvidicing.
I spoke with a CDC person in Ft Collins Roy Campbell (now retired). He is a physician with a public health degree from UC Berkeley. He was asked by CDC officials to evaluate adulticiding and IPM. He said there never will be a study that can do so and not be subject to attack, because of differences in ground water, different bird populations, water sources, breeding areas, weather conditions, geography, IPM versus no IPM etc.
CDC recommends: Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to humans. In some situations, source reduction and larvicide applications are not practical, and adulticide application is the only available control strategy.
I’m not getting into a critique of the district’s surveillance program now but will say that monitoring data by the time they sprayed last year showed a natural decline. Also, our district has a larvicide program. It is not saying that larviciding is not practical so they had to adulticide. Adulticiding, given the district’s approach, is to say their larviciding program failed.
The CDC webpage notes “…. reduce the risk of transmission to humans.” That is on the web page. But if you talk to them and ask them to cite one peer reviewed study that shows it ACTUALLY does reduce risk, they cannot, and we have seen no such paper. We asked for documentation, members had conversations with CDC and officials etc. They have not cited a paper or study to back up the plan. People simply begin with the assumption that killing adult mosquitoes will probably reduce transmission. There is one paper by Roger Nasci that attempts to do this and they cite it continually, but we have not been given a reference to its publication in a peer reviewed journal. Nasci now works for the CDC. See our web page for critique of his slide presentation. The district has not cited it as such either.
The CDC will not come out and say that spraying has been proven to reduce transmission of WNV to humans. It will not say it is without risk.
DEET is a potent neuro toxin that has caused severe reactions and even death. Individual can weigh for themselves whether they are comfortable using DEET. It is not recommended for very young children. It is dangerous, each can decide individually if s/he is comfortable with DEET — that is a personal choice. There are plenty of studies on the toxicity of DEET. Here are the application guidelines, and they are pretty extensive for a substance that is supposedly safe:
Recommended Application Guidelines 12,13
• Apply DEET product only when planning to be outdoors in a mosquito-infested area.
• Use the appropriate concentration of DEET. Children and adults in the general public should use 30% or less. A product with a concentration of 10% or less may be more appropriate for children under 12 years.
• Do not apply DEET to children under 2 months of age.
• When using on children, apply to your own hands and then put it on the child.
• Do not apply to children’s hands.
• Do not allow children to handle products containing DEET.
• Do not apply over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.
• Do not apply near eyes and mouth. Apply sparingly around ears.
• Reapply DEET only as directed by packaging. The effective duration depends on the concentration of DEET in product.
• Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin/and or clothing.
• Do not use on skin under clothing.
• Avoid over-application of DEET products.
• After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water.
• Wash treated clothing before wearing it again.
• Do not apply a combination product containing sunscreen and DEET.
• Do not spray aerosol or pump products in enclosed areas.
• Do not apply aerosol or pump products directly to your face. Spray your hands and then rub them carefully over the face, avoiding eyes and mouth.
We still challenge CDC or anyone to show a study and not just guidelines on the CDC page. There is currently no evidence, and even CDC officials confirm this. Having individuals take personal responsibility is better than spraying a whole population. If you do not take personal responsibility to protect yourself you may get sick. The infinitesimally small number is one in 150 that get WNv with the serious neuro complications. That is not one in 150 bites but in 1 in a 150 cases of WNV, which is almost nonexistent when you look at the cases reported vs. the population in California. An infinitesimally small part of the population will ever get seriously sick or die of WNV.
The money spent could save more lives if used for public education, water reduction, and larvidicing.
I spoke with a CDC person in Ft Collins Roy Campbell (now retired). He is a physician with a public health degree from UC Berkeley. He was asked by CDC officials to evaluate adulticiding and IPM. He said there never will be a study that can do so and not be subject to attack, because of differences in ground water, different bird populations, water sources, breeding areas, weather conditions, geography, IPM versus no IPM etc.
CDC recommends: Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to humans. In some situations, source reduction and larvicide applications are not practical, and adulticide application is the only available control strategy.
I’m not getting into a critique of the district’s surveillance program now but will say that monitoring data by the time they sprayed last year showed a natural decline. Also, our district has a larvicide program. It is not saying that larviciding is not practical so they had to adulticide. Adulticiding, given the district’s approach, is to say their larviciding program failed.
The CDC webpage notes “…. reduce the risk of transmission to humans.” That is on the web page. But if you talk to them and ask them to cite one peer reviewed study that shows it ACTUALLY does reduce risk, they cannot, and we have seen no such paper. We asked for documentation, members had conversations with CDC and officials etc. They have not cited a paper or study to back up the plan. People simply begin with the assumption that killing adult mosquitoes will probably reduce transmission. There is one paper by Roger Nasci that attempts to do this and they cite it continually, but we have not been given a reference to its publication in a peer reviewed journal. Nasci now works for the CDC. See our web page for critique of his slide presentation. The district has not cited it as such either.
The CDC will not come out and say that spraying has been proven to reduce transmission of WNV to humans. It will not say it is without risk.
DEET is a potent neuro toxin that has caused severe reactions and even death. Individual can weigh for themselves whether they are comfortable using DEET. It is not recommended for very young children. It is dangerous, each can decide individually if s/he is comfortable with DEET — that is a personal choice. There are plenty of studies on the toxicity of DEET. Here are the application guidelines, and they are pretty extensive for a substance that is supposedly safe:
Recommended Application Guidelines 12,13
• Apply DEET product only when planning to be outdoors in a mosquito-infested area.
• Use the appropriate concentration of DEET. Children and adults in the general public should use 30% or less. A product with a concentration of 10% or less may be more appropriate for children under 12 years.
• Do not apply DEET to children under 2 months of age.
• When using on children, apply to your own hands and then put it on the child.
• Do not apply to children’s hands.
• Do not allow children to handle products containing DEET.
• Do not apply over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.
• Do not apply near eyes and mouth. Apply sparingly around ears.
• Reapply DEET only as directed by packaging. The effective duration depends on the concentration of DEET in product.
• Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin/and or clothing.
• Do not use on skin under clothing.
• Avoid over-application of DEET products.
• After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water.
• Wash treated clothing before wearing it again.
• Do not apply a combination product containing sunscreen and DEET.
• Do not spray aerosol or pump products in enclosed areas.
• Do not apply aerosol or pump products directly to your face. Spray your hands and then rub them carefully over the face, avoiding eyes and mouth.
We still challenge CDC or anyone to show a study and not just guidelines on the CDC page. There is currently no evidence, and even CDC officials confirm this. Having individuals take personal responsibility is better than spraying a whole population. If you do not take personal responsibility to protect yourself you may get sick. The infinitesimally small number is one in 150 that get WNv with the serious neuro complications. That is not one in 150 bites but in 1 in a 150 cases of WNV, which is almost nonexistent when you look at the cases reported vs. the population in California. An infinitesimally small part of the population will ever get seriously sick or die of WNV.
The money spent could save more lives if used for public education, water reduction, and larvidicing.
I spoke with a CDC person in Ft Collins Roy Campbell (now retired). He is a physician with a public health degree from UC Berkeley. He was asked by CDC officials to evaluate adulticiding and IPM. He said there never will be a study that can do so and not be subject to attack, because of differences in ground water, different bird populations, water sources, breeding areas, weather conditions, geography, IPM versus no IPM etc.
CDC recommends: Mosquito adulticiding may be the only practical control technique available in situations where surveillance data indicate that is necessary to reduce the density of adult mosquito populations quickly to lower the risk of WNV transmission to humans. In some situations, source reduction and larvicide applications are not practical, and adulticide application is the only available control strategy.
I’m not getting into a critique of the district’s surveillance program now but will say that monitoring data by the time they sprayed last year showed a natural decline. Also, our district has a larvicide program. It is not saying that larviciding is not practical so they had to adulticide. Adulticiding, given the district’s approach, is to say their larviciding program failed.
The CDC webpage notes “…. reduce the risk of transmission to humans.” That is on the web page. But if you talk to them and ask them to cite one peer reviewed study that shows it ACTUALLY does reduce risk, they cannot, and we have seen no such paper. We asked for documentation, members had conversations with CDC and officials etc. They have not cited a paper or study to back up the plan. People simply begin with the assumption that killing adult mosquitoes will probably reduce transmission. There is one paper by Roger Nasci that attempts to do this and they cite it continually, but we have not been given a reference to its publication in a peer reviewed journal. Nasci now works for the CDC. See our web page for critique of his slide presentation. The district has not cited it as such either.
The CDC will not come out and say that spraying has been proven to reduce transmission of WNV to humans. It will not say it is without risk.
DEET is a potent neuro toxin that has caused severe reactions and even death. Individual can weigh for themselves whether they are comfortable using DEET. It is not recommended for very young children. It is dangerous, each can decide individually if s/he is comfortable with DEET — that is a personal choice. There are plenty of studies on the toxicity of DEET. Here are the application guidelines, and they are pretty extensive for a substance that is supposedly safe:
Recommended Application Guidelines 12,13
• Apply DEET product only when planning to be outdoors in a mosquito-infested area.
• Use the appropriate concentration of DEET. Children and adults in the general public should use 30% or less. A product with a concentration of 10% or less may be more appropriate for children under 12 years.
• Do not apply DEET to children under 2 months of age.
• When using on children, apply to your own hands and then put it on the child.
• Do not apply to children’s hands.
• Do not allow children to handle products containing DEET.
• Do not apply over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.
• Do not apply near eyes and mouth. Apply sparingly around ears.
• Reapply DEET only as directed by packaging. The effective duration depends on the concentration of DEET in product.
• Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin/and or clothing.
• Do not use on skin under clothing.
• Avoid over-application of DEET products.
• After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water.
• Wash treated clothing before wearing it again.
• Do not apply a combination product containing sunscreen and DEET.
• Do not spray aerosol or pump products in enclosed areas.
• Do not apply aerosol or pump products directly to your face. Spray your hands and then rub them carefully over the face, avoiding eyes and mouth.
We still challenge CDC or anyone to show a study and not just guidelines on the CDC page. There is currently no evidence, and even CDC officials confirm this. Having individuals take personal responsibility is better than spraying a whole population. If you do not take personal responsibility to protect yourself you may get sick. The infinitesimally small number is one in 150 that get WNv with the serious neuro complications. That is not one in 150 bites but in 1 in a 150 cases of WNV, which is almost nonexistent when you look at the cases reported vs. the population in California. An infinitesimally small part of the population will ever get seriously sick or die of WNV.
The money spent could save more lives if used for public education, water reduction, and larvidicing.
Don –
Even if you disagree with Sue on this one issue, I think it is short sighted to attack her ability to serve on the council considering: 1) that Sue has a consistent and reliable progressive voting record and
2) how difficult it is to elect and keep progressive councilmembers. I think it is not realistic that you would agree with Sue all of the time, but the alternative is orthodox members like Saylor, Souza and Asmundson.
Don –
Even if you disagree with Sue on this one issue, I think it is short sighted to attack her ability to serve on the council considering: 1) that Sue has a consistent and reliable progressive voting record and
2) how difficult it is to elect and keep progressive councilmembers. I think it is not realistic that you would agree with Sue all of the time, but the alternative is orthodox members like Saylor, Souza and Asmundson.
Don –
Even if you disagree with Sue on this one issue, I think it is short sighted to attack her ability to serve on the council considering: 1) that Sue has a consistent and reliable progressive voting record and
2) how difficult it is to elect and keep progressive councilmembers. I think it is not realistic that you would agree with Sue all of the time, but the alternative is orthodox members like Saylor, Souza and Asmundson.
Don –
Even if you disagree with Sue on this one issue, I think it is short sighted to attack her ability to serve on the council considering: 1) that Sue has a consistent and reliable progressive voting record and
2) how difficult it is to elect and keep progressive councilmembers. I think it is not realistic that you would agree with Sue all of the time, but the alternative is orthodox members like Saylor, Souza and Asmundson.
Samantha, this is what you said:
“CDC officials who have been asked to compare and contrast spray vs. no spray were unable to show it was effective or even did anything at all.”
“Spraying is not effective even by the CDC.”
“CDC scientists when given the task were unable to demonstrate that spraying reduced transmission.”
“If the CDC scientists chagrged with showing spraying was effective at redcusing transmission of WNV to humans could not do so….”
Don said “there is no credible evidence that the spraying is effective…”
Asked for a citation, you come up with one individual who said he could not design such a study because of the range of variables. That does not make the logical leap that spraying for adult mosquitoes is ineffective. So your constant citing of CDC is tenuous at best. You are citing a math professor (well-respected, of course) and a retired physician, while the mayor has consulted with people who are in the field of vector management and who have no particular partisan axe to grind so far as we know.
Adult insect control is part of management of other mosquito-borne diseases, and in those cases, as with WNV, it is the least preferred option (nowadays). Probably the disease experts assume that the malaria management model applies to WNV. I would be curious as to what level of symptomless infection already exists in the population, and at what point they would consider WNV endemic (if that is the term) and not worth continuing to try and prevent. In a reasonable discussion, one might be able to ask that question of the local officials.
So work with the local health officials instead of making personal attacks on them. Push for the prevention methods. They have threshold levels at which they believe adulticide applications are the last resort, but still justified. It’s not an either/or situation: if the prevention works, they won’t get to the population levels that trigger the aerial spraying.
But your confrontational and polarizing tactics do not get us there. Quit blaming the victims; avoiding mosquitoes is not easy. And some of the victims are pretty hard to protect: horses, alpacas, and other animals are vulnerable, as you know.
The problem is, Samantha and Don, the more you talk and attack people, the more damage you do to your cause.
Samantha, this is what you said:
“CDC officials who have been asked to compare and contrast spray vs. no spray were unable to show it was effective or even did anything at all.”
“Spraying is not effective even by the CDC.”
“CDC scientists when given the task were unable to demonstrate that spraying reduced transmission.”
“If the CDC scientists chagrged with showing spraying was effective at redcusing transmission of WNV to humans could not do so….”
Don said “there is no credible evidence that the spraying is effective…”
Asked for a citation, you come up with one individual who said he could not design such a study because of the range of variables. That does not make the logical leap that spraying for adult mosquitoes is ineffective. So your constant citing of CDC is tenuous at best. You are citing a math professor (well-respected, of course) and a retired physician, while the mayor has consulted with people who are in the field of vector management and who have no particular partisan axe to grind so far as we know.
Adult insect control is part of management of other mosquito-borne diseases, and in those cases, as with WNV, it is the least preferred option (nowadays). Probably the disease experts assume that the malaria management model applies to WNV. I would be curious as to what level of symptomless infection already exists in the population, and at what point they would consider WNV endemic (if that is the term) and not worth continuing to try and prevent. In a reasonable discussion, one might be able to ask that question of the local officials.
So work with the local health officials instead of making personal attacks on them. Push for the prevention methods. They have threshold levels at which they believe adulticide applications are the last resort, but still justified. It’s not an either/or situation: if the prevention works, they won’t get to the population levels that trigger the aerial spraying.
But your confrontational and polarizing tactics do not get us there. Quit blaming the victims; avoiding mosquitoes is not easy. And some of the victims are pretty hard to protect: horses, alpacas, and other animals are vulnerable, as you know.
The problem is, Samantha and Don, the more you talk and attack people, the more damage you do to your cause.
Samantha, this is what you said:
“CDC officials who have been asked to compare and contrast spray vs. no spray were unable to show it was effective or even did anything at all.”
“Spraying is not effective even by the CDC.”
“CDC scientists when given the task were unable to demonstrate that spraying reduced transmission.”
“If the CDC scientists chagrged with showing spraying was effective at redcusing transmission of WNV to humans could not do so….”
Don said “there is no credible evidence that the spraying is effective…”
Asked for a citation, you come up with one individual who said he could not design such a study because of the range of variables. That does not make the logical leap that spraying for adult mosquitoes is ineffective. So your constant citing of CDC is tenuous at best. You are citing a math professor (well-respected, of course) and a retired physician, while the mayor has consulted with people who are in the field of vector management and who have no particular partisan axe to grind so far as we know.
Adult insect control is part of management of other mosquito-borne diseases, and in those cases, as with WNV, it is the least preferred option (nowadays). Probably the disease experts assume that the malaria management model applies to WNV. I would be curious as to what level of symptomless infection already exists in the population, and at what point they would consider WNV endemic (if that is the term) and not worth continuing to try and prevent. In a reasonable discussion, one might be able to ask that question of the local officials.
So work with the local health officials instead of making personal attacks on them. Push for the prevention methods. They have threshold levels at which they believe adulticide applications are the last resort, but still justified. It’s not an either/or situation: if the prevention works, they won’t get to the population levels that trigger the aerial spraying.
But your confrontational and polarizing tactics do not get us there. Quit blaming the victims; avoiding mosquitoes is not easy. And some of the victims are pretty hard to protect: horses, alpacas, and other animals are vulnerable, as you know.
The problem is, Samantha and Don, the more you talk and attack people, the more damage you do to your cause.
Samantha, this is what you said:
“CDC officials who have been asked to compare and contrast spray vs. no spray were unable to show it was effective or even did anything at all.”
“Spraying is not effective even by the CDC.”
“CDC scientists when given the task were unable to demonstrate that spraying reduced transmission.”
“If the CDC scientists chagrged with showing spraying was effective at redcusing transmission of WNV to humans could not do so….”
Don said “there is no credible evidence that the spraying is effective…”
Asked for a citation, you come up with one individual who said he could not design such a study because of the range of variables. That does not make the logical leap that spraying for adult mosquitoes is ineffective. So your constant citing of CDC is tenuous at best. You are citing a math professor (well-respected, of course) and a retired physician, while the mayor has consulted with people who are in the field of vector management and who have no particular partisan axe to grind so far as we know.
Adult insect control is part of management of other mosquito-borne diseases, and in those cases, as with WNV, it is the least preferred option (nowadays). Probably the disease experts assume that the malaria management model applies to WNV. I would be curious as to what level of symptomless infection already exists in the population, and at what point they would consider WNV endemic (if that is the term) and not worth continuing to try and prevent. In a reasonable discussion, one might be able to ask that question of the local officials.
So work with the local health officials instead of making personal attacks on them. Push for the prevention methods. They have threshold levels at which they believe adulticide applications are the last resort, but still justified. It’s not an either/or situation: if the prevention works, they won’t get to the population levels that trigger the aerial spraying.
But your confrontational and polarizing tactics do not get us there. Quit blaming the victims; avoiding mosquitoes is not easy. And some of the victims are pretty hard to protect: horses, alpacas, and other animals are vulnerable, as you know.
The problem is, Samantha and Don, the more you talk and attack people, the more damage you do to your cause.
What fraud.
Sue said: “I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.”
…
“Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.”
For anyone who has watched Madame Sue over the past 7 years, they know that Sue uses the “I have talked to soooo many experts” as her way of supporting her position when she lacks a valid basis. We know it’s usually fraudulent: she, in fact, does not do the research if it’s not listed in the City Council packets. Of course, if any of you disagree with me … note how she completely, repeatedly, and 98% of the time fails to mention who these “experts” are. And if you press her, she will start yelling at you, and hang up the phone or walk away. Then she makes 25 calls to others to complain about the abuse …
On the other hand, Samantha DOES do her homework. Disagree with her or not, she has the articles, she has the names of her experts … and will deluge you with the information if you hint you want something to read that night after dinner.
If you have read the court file for the effort two years ago that Don and Samantha pursued, the evidence to stop spraying is there for all to see. Samantha did her homework, but unfortunately the laws in California are geared towards preventing either the public or the courts from challenging the decisions of a few untrained or ignorant personnel who run these abatement districts.
Upshot: Sue, stop your lying about your “research” and “experts.” I challenge you to start quoting sources by name. For the first time in your 7 years of political life.
And it was embarrassing, and shameful, when you failed to second Lamar’s motion to put the City on record as being opposed to those aircraft buzzing over us in the setting sun.
Many hope you retire this term, and spend your time feeding ducks at UCD and staying away from public meetings.
What fraud.
Sue said: “I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.”
…
“Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.”
For anyone who has watched Madame Sue over the past 7 years, they know that Sue uses the “I have talked to soooo many experts” as her way of supporting her position when she lacks a valid basis. We know it’s usually fraudulent: she, in fact, does not do the research if it’s not listed in the City Council packets. Of course, if any of you disagree with me … note how she completely, repeatedly, and 98% of the time fails to mention who these “experts” are. And if you press her, she will start yelling at you, and hang up the phone or walk away. Then she makes 25 calls to others to complain about the abuse …
On the other hand, Samantha DOES do her homework. Disagree with her or not, she has the articles, she has the names of her experts … and will deluge you with the information if you hint you want something to read that night after dinner.
If you have read the court file for the effort two years ago that Don and Samantha pursued, the evidence to stop spraying is there for all to see. Samantha did her homework, but unfortunately the laws in California are geared towards preventing either the public or the courts from challenging the decisions of a few untrained or ignorant personnel who run these abatement districts.
Upshot: Sue, stop your lying about your “research” and “experts.” I challenge you to start quoting sources by name. For the first time in your 7 years of political life.
And it was embarrassing, and shameful, when you failed to second Lamar’s motion to put the City on record as being opposed to those aircraft buzzing over us in the setting sun.
Many hope you retire this term, and spend your time feeding ducks at UCD and staying away from public meetings.
What fraud.
Sue said: “I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.”
…
“Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.”
For anyone who has watched Madame Sue over the past 7 years, they know that Sue uses the “I have talked to soooo many experts” as her way of supporting her position when she lacks a valid basis. We know it’s usually fraudulent: she, in fact, does not do the research if it’s not listed in the City Council packets. Of course, if any of you disagree with me … note how she completely, repeatedly, and 98% of the time fails to mention who these “experts” are. And if you press her, she will start yelling at you, and hang up the phone or walk away. Then she makes 25 calls to others to complain about the abuse …
On the other hand, Samantha DOES do her homework. Disagree with her or not, she has the articles, she has the names of her experts … and will deluge you with the information if you hint you want something to read that night after dinner.
If you have read the court file for the effort two years ago that Don and Samantha pursued, the evidence to stop spraying is there for all to see. Samantha did her homework, but unfortunately the laws in California are geared towards preventing either the public or the courts from challenging the decisions of a few untrained or ignorant personnel who run these abatement districts.
Upshot: Sue, stop your lying about your “research” and “experts.” I challenge you to start quoting sources by name. For the first time in your 7 years of political life.
And it was embarrassing, and shameful, when you failed to second Lamar’s motion to put the City on record as being opposed to those aircraft buzzing over us in the setting sun.
Many hope you retire this term, and spend your time feeding ducks at UCD and staying away from public meetings.
What fraud.
Sue said: “I spent a lot of time on this issue last year. I talked at length with University experts. I chose only those who have national reputations in their fields, who have a history of strong support of aggressive environmental advocacy, and history of challenging authority. I spoke with ecologists, a professor who studies vector born diseases, an infectious disease professor/physician, among others.”
…
“Again, I spent a lot of time talking with top University researchers who are among those that are both renowned and have been historically trusted by environmentalists and activists in this community, and I did not find support for challenging the vector control district.”
For anyone who has watched Madame Sue over the past 7 years, they know that Sue uses the “I have talked to soooo many experts” as her way of supporting her position when she lacks a valid basis. We know it’s usually fraudulent: she, in fact, does not do the research if it’s not listed in the City Council packets. Of course, if any of you disagree with me … note how she completely, repeatedly, and 98% of the time fails to mention who these “experts” are. And if you press her, she will start yelling at you, and hang up the phone or walk away. Then she makes 25 calls to others to complain about the abuse …
On the other hand, Samantha DOES do her homework. Disagree with her or not, she has the articles, she has the names of her experts … and will deluge you with the information if you hint you want something to read that night after dinner.
If you have read the court file for the effort two years ago that Don and Samantha pursued, the evidence to stop spraying is there for all to see. Samantha did her homework, but unfortunately the laws in California are geared towards preventing either the public or the courts from challenging the decisions of a few untrained or ignorant personnel who run these abatement districts.
Upshot: Sue, stop your lying about your “research” and “experts.” I challenge you to start quoting sources by name. For the first time in your 7 years of political life.
And it was embarrassing, and shameful, when you failed to second Lamar’s motion to put the City on record as being opposed to those aircraft buzzing over us in the setting sun.
Many hope you retire this term, and spend your time feeding ducks at UCD and staying away from public meetings.
“Samantha DOES do her homework. Disagree with her or not, she has the articles, she has the names of her experts.”
Samantha’s so-called experts are as crazy as she is. Any five dollar lawyer can find a quack who disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion and is willing to testify to that.
“Samantha DOES do her homework. Disagree with her or not, she has the articles, she has the names of her experts.”
Samantha’s so-called experts are as crazy as she is. Any five dollar lawyer can find a quack who disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion and is willing to testify to that.
“Samantha DOES do her homework. Disagree with her or not, she has the articles, she has the names of her experts.”
Samantha’s so-called experts are as crazy as she is. Any five dollar lawyer can find a quack who disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion and is willing to testify to that.
“Samantha DOES do her homework. Disagree with her or not, she has the articles, she has the names of her experts.”
Samantha’s so-called experts are as crazy as she is. Any five dollar lawyer can find a quack who disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion and is willing to testify to that.
54 deaths in a state of 35 million certainly is a disaster for the families of those 54 people, but it really isn’t a serious public health risk, statistically. while the spraying probably won’t turn out to be one either, i question whether the hype about west nile and the government’s leap to measures like aerial spraying isn’t seriously misplaced.
for the corvid (crows, magpies, jays, etc) population, it’s a different story, and i suspect that it’s livestock and not humans that the spraying is meant to protect (lotta big money in cattle in the valley), but humans just are not at much risk for the disease.
if we were talking about were malaria or dengue fever in the valley, i would be gung-ho for the spraying, but west nile doesn’t raise to the level of public health concern necessary to justify such things, in my opinion.
54 deaths in a state of 35 million certainly is a disaster for the families of those 54 people, but it really isn’t a serious public health risk, statistically. while the spraying probably won’t turn out to be one either, i question whether the hype about west nile and the government’s leap to measures like aerial spraying isn’t seriously misplaced.
for the corvid (crows, magpies, jays, etc) population, it’s a different story, and i suspect that it’s livestock and not humans that the spraying is meant to protect (lotta big money in cattle in the valley), but humans just are not at much risk for the disease.
if we were talking about were malaria or dengue fever in the valley, i would be gung-ho for the spraying, but west nile doesn’t raise to the level of public health concern necessary to justify such things, in my opinion.
54 deaths in a state of 35 million certainly is a disaster for the families of those 54 people, but it really isn’t a serious public health risk, statistically. while the spraying probably won’t turn out to be one either, i question whether the hype about west nile and the government’s leap to measures like aerial spraying isn’t seriously misplaced.
for the corvid (crows, magpies, jays, etc) population, it’s a different story, and i suspect that it’s livestock and not humans that the spraying is meant to protect (lotta big money in cattle in the valley), but humans just are not at much risk for the disease.
if we were talking about were malaria or dengue fever in the valley, i would be gung-ho for the spraying, but west nile doesn’t raise to the level of public health concern necessary to justify such things, in my opinion.
54 deaths in a state of 35 million certainly is a disaster for the families of those 54 people, but it really isn’t a serious public health risk, statistically. while the spraying probably won’t turn out to be one either, i question whether the hype about west nile and the government’s leap to measures like aerial spraying isn’t seriously misplaced.
for the corvid (crows, magpies, jays, etc) population, it’s a different story, and i suspect that it’s livestock and not humans that the spraying is meant to protect (lotta big money in cattle in the valley), but humans just are not at much risk for the disease.
if we were talking about were malaria or dengue fever in the valley, i would be gung-ho for the spraying, but west nile doesn’t raise to the level of public health concern necessary to justify such things, in my opinion.
Roy Campbell was a long time CDC employee until he recently retired. He is not my expert. He was asked to compare and contrast to in effect prove what works. His conclusion was it is not provable with what he was given and does not believe that a study that can withstand peer review will be done since there are too many variables. I just called him up as (others in our group did with various other CDC officals) and talked. I was seeing gaps and wanted answers. I actually called him related to blood testing and what shows up on WNV screening tests. I had tried evey local route to a hemeotology expert to expalin things and got Roy finally. It just turns out we started talking about other studies etc… He is a wealth of knowledge from his position at CDC. Trochet is an idiot, with a medical license and a public health degree. Pesticides are the american way of life …..and she bills herself as charged with protecting the health of two million people. She had no idea DDT was dangerous and no concept of an eco system. There is name calling and then there is the truth. Trochet is a joke, watch her on tape even if you agree with her concept of vector control she is an embarrassment. Watch the tape, speak to physicians and other public heath officials. If you get a candid answer you will not see her getting a vote of confidence.
I do not believe we have said the spraying is ineffective. Maybe I missed that or typed wrong, but I believe what we have always said is it has not been shown to be effective. If it is not proven effective then do not take any risk and save us all from unknowns and known risks of spraying when ther are prooven ways that are effective. Ineffective and not proven effeective are not the same thing.
What about all the public health officials in various jurisdictions that say it is too risky to spray why are they the quacks and not Trochet?
Oh and guess when spraying has occurred frequently around the state? …just after large blocks of funds are given by the Governator. Kern had 38 cases and no spray … funds appear they spray. If it were so necessary to spray and Sac decided to spray at 2 cases then why was 38 maybe 28?? to late to check but far more than 2. in Kern OK… Two infections in Sac and one was a man from Texas and we spray??? This is not a public health emergency it is media blitz.
Roy Campbell was a long time CDC employee until he recently retired. He is not my expert. He was asked to compare and contrast to in effect prove what works. His conclusion was it is not provable with what he was given and does not believe that a study that can withstand peer review will be done since there are too many variables. I just called him up as (others in our group did with various other CDC officals) and talked. I was seeing gaps and wanted answers. I actually called him related to blood testing and what shows up on WNV screening tests. I had tried evey local route to a hemeotology expert to expalin things and got Roy finally. It just turns out we started talking about other studies etc… He is a wealth of knowledge from his position at CDC. Trochet is an idiot, with a medical license and a public health degree. Pesticides are the american way of life …..and she bills herself as charged with protecting the health of two million people. She had no idea DDT was dangerous and no concept of an eco system. There is name calling and then there is the truth. Trochet is a joke, watch her on tape even if you agree with her concept of vector control she is an embarrassment. Watch the tape, speak to physicians and other public heath officials. If you get a candid answer you will not see her getting a vote of confidence.
I do not believe we have said the spraying is ineffective. Maybe I missed that or typed wrong, but I believe what we have always said is it has not been shown to be effective. If it is not proven effective then do not take any risk and save us all from unknowns and known risks of spraying when ther are prooven ways that are effective. Ineffective and not proven effeective are not the same thing.
What about all the public health officials in various jurisdictions that say it is too risky to spray why are they the quacks and not Trochet?
Oh and guess when spraying has occurred frequently around the state? …just after large blocks of funds are given by the Governator. Kern had 38 cases and no spray … funds appear they spray. If it were so necessary to spray and Sac decided to spray at 2 cases then why was 38 maybe 28?? to late to check but far more than 2. in Kern OK… Two infections in Sac and one was a man from Texas and we spray??? This is not a public health emergency it is media blitz.
Roy Campbell was a long time CDC employee until he recently retired. He is not my expert. He was asked to compare and contrast to in effect prove what works. His conclusion was it is not provable with what he was given and does not believe that a study that can withstand peer review will be done since there are too many variables. I just called him up as (others in our group did with various other CDC officals) and talked. I was seeing gaps and wanted answers. I actually called him related to blood testing and what shows up on WNV screening tests. I had tried evey local route to a hemeotology expert to expalin things and got Roy finally. It just turns out we started talking about other studies etc… He is a wealth of knowledge from his position at CDC. Trochet is an idiot, with a medical license and a public health degree. Pesticides are the american way of life …..and she bills herself as charged with protecting the health of two million people. She had no idea DDT was dangerous and no concept of an eco system. There is name calling and then there is the truth. Trochet is a joke, watch her on tape even if you agree with her concept of vector control she is an embarrassment. Watch the tape, speak to physicians and other public heath officials. If you get a candid answer you will not see her getting a vote of confidence.
I do not believe we have said the spraying is ineffective. Maybe I missed that or typed wrong, but I believe what we have always said is it has not been shown to be effective. If it is not proven effective then do not take any risk and save us all from unknowns and known risks of spraying when ther are prooven ways that are effective. Ineffective and not proven effeective are not the same thing.
What about all the public health officials in various jurisdictions that say it is too risky to spray why are they the quacks and not Trochet?
Oh and guess when spraying has occurred frequently around the state? …just after large blocks of funds are given by the Governator. Kern had 38 cases and no spray … funds appear they spray. If it were so necessary to spray and Sac decided to spray at 2 cases then why was 38 maybe 28?? to late to check but far more than 2. in Kern OK… Two infections in Sac and one was a man from Texas and we spray??? This is not a public health emergency it is media blitz.
Roy Campbell was a long time CDC employee until he recently retired. He is not my expert. He was asked to compare and contrast to in effect prove what works. His conclusion was it is not provable with what he was given and does not believe that a study that can withstand peer review will be done since there are too many variables. I just called him up as (others in our group did with various other CDC officals) and talked. I was seeing gaps and wanted answers. I actually called him related to blood testing and what shows up on WNV screening tests. I had tried evey local route to a hemeotology expert to expalin things and got Roy finally. It just turns out we started talking about other studies etc… He is a wealth of knowledge from his position at CDC. Trochet is an idiot, with a medical license and a public health degree. Pesticides are the american way of life …..and she bills herself as charged with protecting the health of two million people. She had no idea DDT was dangerous and no concept of an eco system. There is name calling and then there is the truth. Trochet is a joke, watch her on tape even if you agree with her concept of vector control she is an embarrassment. Watch the tape, speak to physicians and other public heath officials. If you get a candid answer you will not see her getting a vote of confidence.
I do not believe we have said the spraying is ineffective. Maybe I missed that or typed wrong, but I believe what we have always said is it has not been shown to be effective. If it is not proven effective then do not take any risk and save us all from unknowns and known risks of spraying when ther are prooven ways that are effective. Ineffective and not proven effeective are not the same thing.
What about all the public health officials in various jurisdictions that say it is too risky to spray why are they the quacks and not Trochet?
Oh and guess when spraying has occurred frequently around the state? …just after large blocks of funds are given by the Governator. Kern had 38 cases and no spray … funds appear they spray. If it were so necessary to spray and Sac decided to spray at 2 cases then why was 38 maybe 28?? to late to check but far more than 2. in Kern OK… Two infections in Sac and one was a man from Texas and we spray??? This is not a public health emergency it is media blitz.
I can’t believe that in the year 2007 I am reading blog comments asserting that DDT is not harmful.
One of the saddest things about this situation is that so many lives could be saved if the money spent on spraying were diverted to real public health issues (not to mention education about prevention and larvaciding). I feel very sorry for the few people who have suffered serious neurological illnesses from West Nile virus, but they are far outnumbered by the number of people in this state who die every year from the flu or the number of people who die every year from heat exhaustion because they can’t afford air conditioning.
The problem (spraying) exists because the mosquito and vector control districts have nothing else to focus on and are not asked to balance health risks. Their charge is only to prevent/reduce vector-borne illnesses. (Check the website if you don;t believe me.) Their charge does not require them to consider other health issues, much less environmental consequences of their decisions.
The districts should be dissolved and the responsibility for preventing and dealing with vector-borne illnesses should be handled by the state department of public health (which presumably could afford to hire people who are more competent than those at the local health departments). That department would have to weigh the health trade-offs of spraying vs. not spraying. They are also the appropriate body to determine whether so much money should be spent on a disease with such a relatively low frequency rate (even assuming spraying is effective, which I have not seen any evidence of).
In the meantime, while the City has no control over our Mosquito and Vector Control District, that is not an excuse for members of the City Council to abdicate all responsibility. It is reasonable to believe that the City’s opinions and requests to the District would be considered by the District in making decisions, even without formal control.
I am very grateful to Samantha McCarthy, Don Mooney, and Jack Milton for their continued research and efforts on this issue and others.
I can’t believe that in the year 2007 I am reading blog comments asserting that DDT is not harmful.
One of the saddest things about this situation is that so many lives could be saved if the money spent on spraying were diverted to real public health issues (not to mention education about prevention and larvaciding). I feel very sorry for the few people who have suffered serious neurological illnesses from West Nile virus, but they are far outnumbered by the number of people in this state who die every year from the flu or the number of people who die every year from heat exhaustion because they can’t afford air conditioning.
The problem (spraying) exists because the mosquito and vector control districts have nothing else to focus on and are not asked to balance health risks. Their charge is only to prevent/reduce vector-borne illnesses. (Check the website if you don;t believe me.) Their charge does not require them to consider other health issues, much less environmental consequences of their decisions.
The districts should be dissolved and the responsibility for preventing and dealing with vector-borne illnesses should be handled by the state department of public health (which presumably could afford to hire people who are more competent than those at the local health departments). That department would have to weigh the health trade-offs of spraying vs. not spraying. They are also the appropriate body to determine whether so much money should be spent on a disease with such a relatively low frequency rate (even assuming spraying is effective, which I have not seen any evidence of).
In the meantime, while the City has no control over our Mosquito and Vector Control District, that is not an excuse for members of the City Council to abdicate all responsibility. It is reasonable to believe that the City’s opinions and requests to the District would be considered by the District in making decisions, even without formal control.
I am very grateful to Samantha McCarthy, Don Mooney, and Jack Milton for their continued research and efforts on this issue and others.
I can’t believe that in the year 2007 I am reading blog comments asserting that DDT is not harmful.
One of the saddest things about this situation is that so many lives could be saved if the money spent on spraying were diverted to real public health issues (not to mention education about prevention and larvaciding). I feel very sorry for the few people who have suffered serious neurological illnesses from West Nile virus, but they are far outnumbered by the number of people in this state who die every year from the flu or the number of people who die every year from heat exhaustion because they can’t afford air conditioning.
The problem (spraying) exists because the mosquito and vector control districts have nothing else to focus on and are not asked to balance health risks. Their charge is only to prevent/reduce vector-borne illnesses. (Check the website if you don;t believe me.) Their charge does not require them to consider other health issues, much less environmental consequences of their decisions.
The districts should be dissolved and the responsibility for preventing and dealing with vector-borne illnesses should be handled by the state department of public health (which presumably could afford to hire people who are more competent than those at the local health departments). That department would have to weigh the health trade-offs of spraying vs. not spraying. They are also the appropriate body to determine whether so much money should be spent on a disease with such a relatively low frequency rate (even assuming spraying is effective, which I have not seen any evidence of).
In the meantime, while the City has no control over our Mosquito and Vector Control District, that is not an excuse for members of the City Council to abdicate all responsibility. It is reasonable to believe that the City’s opinions and requests to the District would be considered by the District in making decisions, even without formal control.
I am very grateful to Samantha McCarthy, Don Mooney, and Jack Milton for their continued research and efforts on this issue and others.
I can’t believe that in the year 2007 I am reading blog comments asserting that DDT is not harmful.
One of the saddest things about this situation is that so many lives could be saved if the money spent on spraying were diverted to real public health issues (not to mention education about prevention and larvaciding). I feel very sorry for the few people who have suffered serious neurological illnesses from West Nile virus, but they are far outnumbered by the number of people in this state who die every year from the flu or the number of people who die every year from heat exhaustion because they can’t afford air conditioning.
The problem (spraying) exists because the mosquito and vector control districts have nothing else to focus on and are not asked to balance health risks. Their charge is only to prevent/reduce vector-borne illnesses. (Check the website if you don;t believe me.) Their charge does not require them to consider other health issues, much less environmental consequences of their decisions.
The districts should be dissolved and the responsibility for preventing and dealing with vector-borne illnesses should be handled by the state department of public health (which presumably could afford to hire people who are more competent than those at the local health departments). That department would have to weigh the health trade-offs of spraying vs. not spraying. They are also the appropriate body to determine whether so much money should be spent on a disease with such a relatively low frequency rate (even assuming spraying is effective, which I have not seen any evidence of).
In the meantime, while the City has no control over our Mosquito and Vector Control District, that is not an excuse for members of the City Council to abdicate all responsibility. It is reasonable to believe that the City’s opinions and requests to the District would be considered by the District in making decisions, even without formal control.
I am very grateful to Samantha McCarthy, Don Mooney, and Jack Milton for their continued research and efforts on this issue and others.
Don, were you who brought upo ineffective? If so I have not gone back and read evrythign but I think remember the where the word ineffective and I menat in a slightly differnet way, but with parsig of words on blog no way for you or anyone to to tell that. So sorry should be not prooven effective when pointing to spraying. I believe was meaning in a more methodological context and should have used several more sentences ot distinguish .
Don, were you who brought upo ineffective? If so I have not gone back and read evrythign but I think remember the where the word ineffective and I menat in a slightly differnet way, but with parsig of words on blog no way for you or anyone to to tell that. So sorry should be not prooven effective when pointing to spraying. I believe was meaning in a more methodological context and should have used several more sentences ot distinguish .
Don, were you who brought upo ineffective? If so I have not gone back and read evrythign but I think remember the where the word ineffective and I menat in a slightly differnet way, but with parsig of words on blog no way for you or anyone to to tell that. So sorry should be not prooven effective when pointing to spraying. I believe was meaning in a more methodological context and should have used several more sentences ot distinguish .
Don, were you who brought upo ineffective? If so I have not gone back and read evrythign but I think remember the where the word ineffective and I menat in a slightly differnet way, but with parsig of words on blog no way for you or anyone to to tell that. So sorry should be not prooven effective when pointing to spraying. I believe was meaning in a more methodological context and should have used several more sentences ot distinguish .