Mosquito control No Mo

Patrick Foley patfoley at csus.edu
Sun May 8 12:03:28 EDT 2005


Ron,

The problems posed by mosquito control and its environmental side 
effects are enormous. There is a big but biased literature, written 
mostly by mosquito control workers, not by Lepidopterists or aquatic 
entomologists. This is an inevitable source of bias, just as papers 
written by butterfly enthusiasts inevitable show some bias towards 
butterfly preservation. That does not mean the science is done wrong in 
either case, but it is certainly worth noting what journal a paper comes 
from. Hribar's 41 page paper was reviewed by whom? Published by whom? 
(These are rhetorical questions, Ron.)

Perhaps it is worth noting that there are hundreds of nontarget aquatic 
insect larvae that will be affected by almost any mosquito control 
technique. My guess is that the real mosquito control danger is not to 
butterflies but to aquatic invertebrates, including other insects, 
crabs, etc. Some of this is already documented. Most of it is not even 
being monitored by the Florida Mosquito Control Association, or by anybody.

I am not saying we should have no mosquito control efforts. I am saying 
that there are trade-offs. Cost-benefit calculations are especially 
appropriate when much of the Florida mosquito control effort is targeted 
against mosquitos of little public health concern. This is not a 
conspiracy of environmentalist activist scientists to kill off Florida 
tourists. It may be mostly just question about how much environmental 
degradation we can tolerate in order to minimize personal inconvenience. 
Please do not attack me for not caring about people's lives. Much of my 
research effort  is on vector-borne disease, (though not on mosquitos).

Patrick
patfoley at csus.edu

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Patrick Foley" <patfoley at csus.edu>
>Subject: Re: Mosquito control No Mo
>
>
>  
>
>>Jonathan,
>>
>>I have no special problem with Ron testifying to his faith every now and
>>again, even though the Leps list may not be the finest pulpit.
>>    
>>
>*************
>
>I posted on a _butterfly_ paper and the mention in it that the Lep. Soc.
>had rejected it in its original form (far less than 41 pages I am sure).
>I gave the citation of this paper so anyone interested could get a copy and
>compare it with the Salvato paper.  Although, there is probably little left
>in it of the actual rebuttal paper. The title of the paper shows it is not
>about a rebuttal, but about the Miami Blue and mosquito control.   There
>was nothing even remotely "religious" in what I posted.
>
>Stan went back to the religious matters as previously and sarcastically
>posted here by myself some weeks ago.  I replied to that misconstruing of
>my position, and attached a position paper of mine on the idea that the
>Adam of Gen 2 is not the mankind of Gen. 1.  Unfortunately, for everyone
>else, leps- l does not cut off attachments.
>
>I have never "testified" of my faith here.   Which is why Neil is correct
>when he stated that I have never said which God/god I "believe" in.   I
>have put out philosophical statements regarding Darwinism and Creationsim
>I am careful to not attack a belief in evolution as that and strict
>Darwinism are not the same thing, in my view.
>
>
>
>
> I do wish
>  
>
>>Ron would give other people a little credit for their views. If a
>>scientist doesn't want to argue about Creation, is that because of
>>anti-God feelings, or is it because we can make a lot more progress
>>doing science than arguing about the 10,000 names of God?
>>    
>>
>************
>Again, I never get into that.   Others at times have injected such things
>but not me (or very rarely - I'd have to go back and look at everything I
>ever posted here to see if I even mentioned any name(s) - or religious
>paths to God/god.
>
> If the Journal
>  
>
>>of the Leps society rejects a paper, must it be due to environmentalist
>>bias? Keeping in mind that most submitted papers are rejected,
>>especially 41 page papers.
>>    
>>
>************
>
>First, the "society" rejects nothing - it is totally up to the editor what
>goes in and what doesn't.  Second, it was never said that the submitted
>paper was 41 pages.   I am sure it was much much shorter.   The reason I
>see it as bias, and why this subject is important to me, is that I have
>over the last 30 years I have often spoke and written on the side of
>anti-mosquito control in informal communication.   I have written on this
>very list serve how I blamed the mosquito control in the Keys for the
>demise of leps there.   I have talked about being there personally in the
>70's and 80's when the planes came over and sprayed.   What has changed is
>that I came into contact with Larry Hribar via our mutual interaction on
>the Miami Blue and got straightened out from all the one sided and
>distorted (to downright false) propaganda I had been fed for my _whole
>life_.   Larry is an entomologist, naturalist, lepidopterist, family man,
>etc. etc.  He is not some moron red neck driving about in the pick-up,
>holding a can of bud, and spraying chemicals to kill every creature in
>sight.  He also does not work for the "chemical industry".   YES, I believe
>the paper was rejected at least in part because it went against the party
>line - which is that mosquito control can _never_ be a good much less an
>environmentally safe thing.   I bet the editor didn't want "that" on
>his/her watch.
>
>
>  
>
>>I'm sitting here listening to the Persuasions sing "Building a Home"
>>(from the disk "Sincerely"), but I suspect Ron feels scientists and
>>environmentalists are the enemy of all things spiritual and down-home
>>American.  Should I be listening to Green Day's "American Idiot", Ron?
>>
>>Patrick
>>    
>>
>****************
>
>I don't see what the last statement has to do with anything - other than
>getting off one last sling of horse-hock to the face of "faith people".
>All you know is your prejudices that form your religious bigotry.   Which
>your above statement clearly manifests.   I have no idea of who any of the
>artists you refer to are nor anything about their music.   I only listen to
>rock n' roll - the harder the better.  I am a scientist and an American the
>last I checked.
>
>RG
>
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20050508/35783e2e/attachment.html 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list