Marketing e Negocios

Sorprende estas afirmaciones, poner en cuestion los contenidos del
libro de Rachel Carson despues de 50 años es desconocer sus alertas
sobre los impactos de los plaguicidas que han sido confirmadas
cientificamente en todo el mundo. Con esta afirmacion tambén se pone
en cuestion los acuerdos mundiales sobre los contaminantes orgánicos
persistentes (donde esta el DDT y otros plaguicidas organoclorados)
para su eliminación del planeta por sus riesgos a la salud y al
ambiente.

Le recomiendo hacer una mejro lectura de la historia y estudiar los
argumentos cientificos que se han usado para aprobar la Convención de
Estocolmo, Roterdam y Basilea.......

Saludos

Luis Gomero

2012/9/10, lwdb1208@yahoo.com <lwdb1208@yahoo.com>:
> Estiamdos:
>
> Un interesante articulo sobre el aniversario del libro de Rachel Carson que
> dio nacimiento al movimiento ambientalista. Lamentablemente, todo lo que
> dice Henry Miller es cierto. Por eso la moraleja es que TODA politica en
> nombre del ambiente tiene que ser basada en ciencia.
>
> Para aquellos que aun piensan que el DDT es malo, los invito a a que visiten
> los links (en azul).
>
> Saludos
>
> Luis
>
> Rachel Carson's Deadly Fantasies
> Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We recently passed the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson's best-selling
> book, "Silent Spring." Widely credited with launching the modern
> environmental movement, it was an emotionally charged but deeply flawed
> denunciation of the widespread spraying of chemical pesticides for the
> control of insects. Today, the book is still revered by many, but its legacy
> is anything but positive.
>
>
>
>
> Carson's proselytizing and advocacy raised substantial anxiety about DDT
> and led to bans in most of the world and to restrictions on other chemical
> pesticides. But the fears she raised were based on gross misrepresentations
> and scholarship so atrocious that, if Carson were an academic, she would be
> guilty of egregious academic misconduct. Her observations about DDT have
> been condemned by many scientists. In the words of Professor Robert H.
> White-Stevens, an agriculturist and biology professor at Rutgers University,
> "If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the
> Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit
> the earth."
> As detailed by Roger Meiners and Andy Morriss in their scholarly yet very
> readable analysis, "Silent Spring at 50: Reflections on an Environmental
> Classic," Carson exploited her reputation as a well-known nature writer to
> advocate and legitimatize "positions linked to a darker tradition in
> American environmental thinking." The book "encourages some of the most
> destructive strains within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure
> to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of
> human well-being around the world."
> In 1992, San Jose State University entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, a
> long-time member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society and a fellow of
> the California Academy of Sciences, offered a persuasive and comprehensive
> rebuttal of "Silent Spring." As he explained in "The Lies of Rachel Carson,"
> a stunning, point by point refutation, "it simply dawned on me that that
> Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about [pesticides] and that I
> was being duped along with millions of other Americans." He
> demolished Carson's arguments and assertions, calling attention to critical
> omissions, faulty assumptions, and outright fabrications.
> Consider, for example, this passage from Edwards' article: "This implication
> that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have
> ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and
> suffered no adverse effects. Millions of people have lived with DDT
> intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a
> result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that 'in a
> little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths
> that would otherwise have been inevitable.' The World Health Organization
> stated that DDT had 'killed more insects and saved more people than any
> other substance.'"
> In addition, DDT was used with dramatic effect to shorten and prevent typhus
> epidemics during and after WWII when people were dusted with large amounts
> of it but suffered no ill effects, which is perhaps the most persuasive
> evidence that the chemical is harmless to humans. The product was such a
> boon to public health that in 1948 the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
> was awarded to Dr. Paul Müller for his discovery of the "contact
> insecticidal action" of DDT.
> It is extraordinary that anyone in the mainstream scientific community could
> continue to embrace sentimental claptrap of "Silent Spring," so we were
> surprised to see the commentary, "In Retrospect: Silent Spring," in the
> scientific journal Nature in May by evolutionary biologist Rob
> Dunn. Science is, after all, evidence-based, but Dunn's puff piece is a
> flawed and repugnant whitewash of Carson's failure to present actual
> evidence to support her assertions, and of the carnage that she caused. It
> also demonstrates that Dunn knows little about the history or toxicology of
> DDT.
> Although the use of DDT is not risk-free, there is a vast difference between
> applying large amounts of it in the environment — as farmers sometimes did
> before it was banned in the United States — and using it carefully and
> sparingly to fight mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects, as it is
> used in a handful of African and Asian countries even today. It is sprayed
> or dusted indoors in small amounts to prevent mosquitoes from nesting, so
> exposures are extremely low. The now well-known problems associated with
> the thinning of raptor's eggshells – while always exaggerated – can be
> completely avoided by using DDT with care exclusively in residential areas,
> because the chemical remains largely near where it is sprayed. No study has
> ever linked DDT environmental exposure to harm to human health.
> A basic principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison, and with
> modern regimens both environmental and human exposures would be very
> low. But "Silent Spring" condemned essentially all use of chemical
> insecticides and rejected the firmly established principle that products
> with known but small risks can offset far larger risks and provide a net
> safety benefit.
> Carson's disingenuous proselytizing spurred public pressure to ban DDT in
> many countries, with disastrous consequences: a lack of effective control of
> mosquitoes that carry malaria and other diseases. Malaria imposes huge
> costs on individuals, families and governments. It inflicts a crushing
> economic burden on malaria-endemic countries and impedes their economic
> growth. A study by the Harvard University Center for International
> Development estimated that a high incidence of malaria reduces economic
> growth by 1.3 percentage points each year. Compounded over the four decades
> since the first bans of DDT, that lost growth has made some of the world's
> poorest countries an astonishing 40 percent poorer than had there been more
> effective mosquito control.
>
> It is bad enough that the case against DDT was based on anecdote and
> innuendo, but Carson and Dunn and the regulators who banned DDT failed to
> consider the inadequacy of alternatives. Because it persists after
> spraying, DDT works far better than many pesticides now in use, many of
> which are just as toxic to birds, mammals, fish and other aquatic
> organisms. And with DDT unavailable, many mosquito-control authorities are
> depleting their budgets by repeated spraying with expensive, short-acting
> and marginally effective insecticides.
> Another advantage of DDT is that even when mosquitoes become resistant to
> its killing effects, they are still repelled by it. An occasional dusting
> of window- and door-frames is extremely effective at keeping mosquitoes out
> of homes, schools, hospitals, and other buildings. When used in this way,
> the exploitation of DDT's repellency also exposes people to lower amounts of
> insecticide than occurs with the only comparably effective alternative, bed
> nets soaked in various other pesticides. Moreover, limited DDT spraying
> does its work at a fraction of the cost.
> Neither Carson nor Dunn appears to appreciate the observation of political
> scientist and risk analysis expert Aaron Wildavsky that although it is bad
> to be harmed, it is worse to be harmed in the name of health. The legacy of
> Rachel Carson is that tens of millions of human lives – mostly children in
> poor, tropical countries – have been traded for the possibility of slightly
> improved fertility in raptors. This remains one of the monumental human
> tragedies of the last century. It is shocking that Dunn, an assistant
> professor of biology, remains ignorant of Carson's shortcomings, and
> deplorable that university students are exposed to a scientist who manifests
> such ignorance and failure to respect the norms of science. Likewise,
> Nature's decision to publish Dunn's commentary reflects either an
> antiscientific bias or a failure of peer-review.
> Henry I. Miller, a physician, is the Robert Wesson Fellow of Scientific
> Philosophy and Public Policy atStanford University's Hoover institution; he
> was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. Gregory
> Conko is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in
> Washington, D.C.
>
>
> Luis De Stefano Beltrán, Ph.D.
>
> Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia
> Av Honorio Delgado 430
> Lima 31, Perú
> E-mail: luis.destefano@upch.pe
> Skype: ludes1982
> Twitter: @LuisDeStefano
>
> --
> -----------------------------
> Grupo Agronegocios [GA] Más de 5,300 personas suscritas.
>
> Para enviar un email a todo el grupo:
> agronegociosenperu@googlegroups.com
>
> Para suscribirse, enviar un email vacío a:
> agronegociosenperu+subscribe@googlegroups.com
> con el asunto SUSCRIBIR, le llegará un mensaje de confirmación.
>
> Para anular la suscripción a este grupo, envía un email a
> agronegociosenperu+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
> Quieres una cuenta gratuita de email ...@agronegocios.pe
> Solicitala a: minombre@agronegocios.pe
>
> Búscanos en facebook o www.agronegocios.pe
> --------------------
>
>
>

--
-----------------------------
Grupo Agronegocios [GA] Más de 5,300 personas suscritas.

Para enviar un email a todo el grupo:
agronegociosenperu@googlegroups.com

Para suscribirse, enviar un email vacío a:
agronegociosenperu+subscribe@googlegroups.com
con el asunto SUSCRIBIR, le llegará un mensaje de confirmación.

Para anular la suscripción a este grupo, envía un email a
agronegociosenperu+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Quieres una cuenta gratuita de email ...@agronegocios.pe
Solicitala a: minombre@agronegocios.pe

Búscanos en facebook o www.agronegocios.pe
--------------------