Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 7 Jan 2009 06:11:32 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have been sent this by a friend who hasn't the time to lurk here.
Chris
"Interesting analysis. I believe it is not the technology that is at fault,
as that simply operates functionally, objectively. The problem with everything
humans do is the practice. In practice, pesticides are formulated, tested,
approved, licensed and sold for commercial reasons. Nothing wrong with
commercial motivation per se. Except that in practice it means people (not the
'system') doing things for short term gain regardless. In practice, pesticides
have a shelf life of 20 - 80 years depending, so the manufacturers push for as
many approved applications as possible, naturally, it makes commercial sense.
In the hands of users, applications are then misused and abused. Take
beekeepers and pyretheroids for instance. The correct method of application is
short duration, high dose. How many beekeepers did it take, leaving strips in for
months at a time to develop resistance? The small cell issue is a matter of
practice. Beekeepers deliberately increased cell sizes in a bid to boost
honey production for commercial gain.
One side is sticking up for the technology regardless, because it works at
the technical level and delivers profits. The other is arguing about the
results of commercial motivation driving practice and the true costs we all have
to bear after manufacturers have reaped profits - contamination, loss of
biodiversity etc etc."
*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at: *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************
|
|
|