Nice post, you caught me. Initially I focused upon the toxicology and wrote the second and third paragraph below. Then I re-read the initial post.
I would direct the reporter to remember how to PREVENT infections, not the toxicology of the pesticide(s) in question. Please see the latest CDC Guidance, removing breeding sources by eliminating standing water, mosquito netting, etc., although these recommendations may seem simplistic, but historically they have proven effective. See the building of the Panama Canal and disease prevention. Prevention really is the best course of action and that should be emphasized!
Be careful what you right. Most importantly who you cite, I recommend you search: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2 for pyriproxyfen.
The results will provide a list of U.S. Government databases, albeit in multiple and incompatible formats. You'll have to open up each database to find the specific information you are looking for. Additionally, search: http://www.echemportal.org/echemportal/substancesearch/substancesearchresult.action?queryTicket=SUBQ21i3&view=grouped&pageID=9 for pyrifproxifen and review the query results.
The EU appears to be ahead of the U.S. in recognizing chemical classifications, hazards, etc. (If interested, this would be a tremendous follow-up topic/article, comparing how the EU's data review packages have progressed and concluded, compared to the snails-pace of TSCA regulated chemicals or even more tragically, OSHA's multiple attempts to update the PELs.
Simply confirm: 1) How many chemicals does OSHA regulate? 2) How many chemicals are regulated by TSCA? 3) How many chemicals have been evaluated by REACH? The real kicker would be to ask how many chemicals are produced and used in commerce daily within the U.S. that have no information regarding chemical or physical hazards. The P.S. question might be, how are those unknown chemicals to be classified- how reliable are those evaluation methods?)
My Dad always said "Shxt or get off the pot," (Sorry large family growing up with few bathrooms.) The key point were to finish your business while ensuring the best potential outcomes. But, in comparing to today's internet world it would mean: 1) cite credible sources, 2) evaluate and compare their conclusions and 3) Completely avoid unpublished, peer reviewed or un-vetted sources!
I'm sorry, but Mother Earth News is not a scientifically published or peer reviewed source and I have actually had an employee attempt to cite Mother Earth News as a credible source, within a scientific community!
The internet has become a great tool for the dissemination of information. However, it relies upon each of its users to determine if that information remains scientifically justified and credible- now that's a scary thought!
I hope that I am wrong, but my additional advice would be to: 1) Obtain confirmation, 2) Vet your sources, and 3) Perform your due diligence to ensure the story you are reporting is truthful, complete, accurate and defendable.
I may be old school, but you may want to consider and remember how us old-schoolers learned those lessons. Prevention really is the key. Please do not be side-tracked on the mechanisms of response, which have proven worthless. The U.S. military learned what works at preventing disease, the CDC has recommended the proper corrective actions, all that is left is for the news media to support those recommendations.
Who was it that said "Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it?" I can't remember and am looking for a specific answer. Thank you,
The reporter is doing a story related to the Zika Virus and Brazil has pulled the use of this larvacide. I did a quick look at the material and found the following:
It is listed in a patent for Phthalamide derivatives
The Safety Data Sheet indicates the following toxicity:
Acute oral LD50: > 5000 mg/kg in rats (calculated for the formulation) (technical = > 5000 g/kg in rats) Acute dermal LD50: > 2000 mg/kg in rats (calculated for the formulation) (technical = > 2000 mg/kg in rats) Inhalation: Technical = > 1300 mg/l (4 hours, rats) Acute skin irritation: Severe irritant, may cause dermatitis through defatting of tissue. Acute eye irritation: Severe irritant, may cause permanent damage. Dermal sensitisation: Non-Sensitizer. May cause sensitisation during over exposure. Carcinogenicity: Pyriproxyfen was not carcinogenic in a study in mice or in rats. Does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans. Mutagenicity: In an adequate range of tests for mutagenicity and cytogenicity it was concluded that Pyriproxyfen is not genotoxic. Reproductivity: No reproductive toxicity was observed in the twogeneration rat study, the NOAEL being 340 mg/kg bw per day. Teratogenicity: Pyriproxyfen caused little development toxicity and was not teratogenic.
Which would not imply that there would be a link -- however - this could bring into issue some of the models.
I don't feel qualified to talk on this one - but the reporter is trying to pull a story together - TODAY Feb. 16.
Please contact Joan Coyle at ACS if you think you could answer some questions.
Frankie Wood-Black, Ph.D., REM, MBA
Principal - Sophic Pursuits
NOTE - ADDRESS CHANGE - Mailing Address - PO Box 433, Tonkawa, OK 74653
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post