tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424144.post236033584804537805..comments2023-11-02T04:18:45.711-07:00Comments on blogfish: YOU are probably contaminated with toxic pesticidesMark Powellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08121566220326246265noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424144.post-49004416168217117902008-05-18T18:12:00.000-07:002008-05-18T18:12:00.000-07:00In my opinion pesticide use has to be balanced wi...In my opinion pesticide use has to be balanced with potential benefits. If the benefits are purely cosmetic then we should think twice about using them.<BR/><BR/>http://lawntrouble.blogspot.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424144.post-72396366167502793062008-01-06T17:29:00.000-08:002008-01-06T17:29:00.000-08:00Blogfish is getting grouchy. Here's more on the D...Blogfish is getting grouchy. Here's more on the DDT/malaria issue, including a debunking of the malaria/DDT article that anonymous cited from National Geographic (which happens to have been written by a journalist who has admitted fabricating parts of his past work). <BR/>Summary:<BR/>http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/ddt-and-attacks-on-rachel-carson-the-cliffsnote-version/<BR/>Health Mark Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10333424116503463839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424144.post-78272428593763568182008-01-06T17:01:00.000-08:002008-01-06T17:01:00.000-08:00I think you're all wet, anonymous. You cite a mag...I think you're all wet, anonymous. You cite a magazine article that says DDT is "nontoxic to humans." That's an article with serious crediblity gaps. <BR/>The idea that DDT bans somehow killed people has been debunked, partly because DDT is not banned in most places where malaria is common. See http://aaronsw.jottit.com/rachelcarson for just one example. And, regarding low level pesticide Mark Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10333424116503463839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424144.post-82478119515353289102008-01-06T01:13:00.000-08:002008-01-06T01:13:00.000-08:00Mark,I think the risk to public health from pestic...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I think the risk to public health from pesticide exposure is negligible (excepting acute exposures and also assuming the pesticides in question were used according to all label and government regulations).<BR/><BR/>And I still think the Grenada U study is worthless without concentration data from the authors.<BR/><BR/>I could write paragraphs to support my position, but instead I Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424144.post-84242278958674367732008-01-05T21:23:00.000-08:002008-01-05T21:23:00.000-08:00Pesticide risks are hotly debated, and I'll wager ...Pesticide risks are hotly debated, and I'll wager that existing contamination levels do cause health problems for some people. <BR/><BR/>Yes, more information is necessary to conclude anything about contamination risks in the study cited. But that doesn't mean it's without merit. It provides information to people about involuntary contamination and may motivate people to ask questions about Mark Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10333424116503463839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22424144.post-18881040140067432532008-01-05T11:45:00.000-08:002008-01-05T11:45:00.000-08:00Based on the information provided in the link, the...Based on the information provided in the link, the University of Grenada study is unnecessarily inflammatory and without merit for one huge reason: it doesn't provide the measured concentrations of the 6 POCs. You cannot assess risk without knowing amount.<BR/><BR/>I can put out a presser stating there is cancer-causing uranium in Pennsylvania ground water and be completely accurate and totally Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com