Mosquito Control wants to spend $1.2 million for a new poison spray plane

Good post, SJ.

Any chemical exposure to humans will have long-term effects. Artificial sweeteners are a great example of this. The human body does not recognize chemicals and stores them in the body's tissues as toxins. It is only a matter of time until they manifest into neurological disorders, thyroid problems, blood pressure issues, cancer, etc.

Breathing in the mosquito spray while it touches the skin poses the same issue with toxins. The residue also ends up in lakes and gardens. Then people eat the fish from the lake and the produce from the garden and end up ingesting the chemicals. This is why organic produce is in such demand -- organic farmers do not use chemical pesticides.

In Hawaii, mongooses are used to control the snake population. Bat houses and martin houses sound like the ideal pest control for mosquitoes. It harmonizes with the environment, human wellness, and the pocketbook.

Now wait a minute...oh, never mind:roll:

Now wait a minute...oh, never mind:roll:

And by that, you mean...?

Your physiology is off.

Your physiology is off.

Even if it is, the fact still remains that artificial sweeteners are toxic to humans.

Even if it is, the fact still remains that artificial sweeteners are toxic to humans.

Which sweetener and at what concentration? :idontno:

But you do have a choice, SJ - you could move to an area where they don't spray. ;-) Or devote your energies toward banishing the current pesticides used.

So by this statement, are you suggesting that I don't have the right to peaceful enjoyment on my own property? Sure sounds like it.

BTW, by posting this thread, I am devoting my energies toward banishing the spraying.

Again, it is all about choice.

This is the whole point. When there is a choice made by someone else to spray everywhere, including those that have "No Spray" signs (those obbviously don't help with the aircraft spraying), then it's an infringement on individual rights.

What if they had ChemLawn go down the street and spray every lawn, no matter if you wanted it, with chemicals, to keep down the weeds, etc.? OR what if it was discovered that patchouli was a great mosquito deterrent and was sprayed EVERYWHERE?:funn: :funn: :funn: :funn: Would you be happy then? Would it be so "Well, why the hell not?" Then? I can think of a lot of people that would complain that "those d*** hippies are at it again!"

Would those who feel that this is a little crazy to argue want to be told they had to do things naturally, without any say? Would you want to be told what to eat, what & where to buy, that you couldn't take a drug or have surgery to get well, etc.?

All we (that oppose the spraying) are saying is that we should be able to make an individual's and consumer's choice in this matter. If y'all want to spray your own yards, then fine. Yes, it's still a bit toxic for others & the ecosystem, but we can't dictate what one does to him/herself. I oppose the mass spraying of the whole area.

So by this statement, are you suggesting that I don't have the right to peaceful enjoyment on my own property? Sure sounds like it.

BTW, by posting this thread, I am devoting my energies toward banishing the spraying.

:clap_1: THAT is great to hear SJ! As I mentioned earlier, if you are passionate about something, you must take action to bring the change you wish to see - you can't just complain about it.

And no, I wasn't suggesting you don't have the right to peaceful enjoyment on your own property. In an earlier post, you were saying you should have a choice - what I was suggesting was that there are ALWAYS choices and this is situation is no different. It appears that you just didn't like to hear me point out one of the options - moving - but it is an option. Moving is not an ideal, practical choice but it IS a choice. THAT is the point I was making.

Here's an article about bio-accumulation, bio-concentration & bio-magnification.

This is why just a little spraying eventually is concentrated into a larger "issue," simply put, that we have years and years to figure out.

This is the whole point. When there is a choice made by someone else to spray everywhere, including those that have "No Spray" signs (those obbviously don't help with the aircraft spraying), then it's an infringement on individual rights.

I will preface this by saying that I am for the spraying. That said, I am in the camp that would like to see a more natural alternative used (my bug spary is Burt's Bees and it works great, my cleaning products are, for the most part, homemade using Ecover Dish Soap mixed with essential oils).

The best way to bring about change to a current system, especially one dictated by the government, is to encourage a dialogue that is sensible, level headed and not emotionally charged. Otherwise, there is a chance the group spearheading the effort to bring about change to the current system could be labeled (i.e. radical environmentalists springs to mind) and the potential exists to lose the support of the masses.

The choice to spray originally wasn't made by one person. And keep in mind, this area is not known as being very "progressive" - there are systems (how many times have I heard the phrase "the good ole' boy system) in place that are obsolete and need to be reviewed and brought up to current-day-speed if you will. No one obviously has challenged the spraying issue - or maybe they have but it hasn't been with enough force to bring about the change. Maybe this dialogue here will be in impetus to get the ball rolling. But it has to be done properly to be effective.

All we (that oppose the spraying) are saying is that we should be able to make an individual's and consumer's choice in this matter. If y'all want to spray your own yards, then fine. Yes, it's still a bit toxic for others & the ecosystem, but we can't dictate what one does to him/herself. I oppose the mass spraying of the whole area.

OM - are you against spraying completely or spraying using natural alternatives?

I will preface this by saying that I am for the spraying. That said, I am in the camp that would like to see a more natural alternative used (my bug spary is Burt's Bees and it works great, my cleaning products are, for the most part, homemade using Ecover Dish Soap mixed with essential oils).

The best way to bring about change to a current system, especially one dictated by the government, is to encourage a dialogue that is sensible, level headed and not emotionally charged. Otherwise, there is a chance the group spearheading the effort to bring about change to the current system could be labeled (i.e. radical environmentalists springs to mind) and the potential exists to lose the support of the masses.

The choice to spray originally wasn't made by one person keep in mind. And keep in mind, this area is not known as being very "progressive" - there are systems (how many times have I heard the phrase "the good ole' boy system) in place that are obsolete and need to be reviewed and brought up to current-day-speed if you will. No one obviously has challenged the spraying issue - or maybe they have but it hasn't been with enough force to bring about the change. Maybe this dialogue here will be in impetus to get the ball rolling. But it has to be done properly to be effective.

I totally agree. I'm not in the "I love bugs!" camp. In that way, my daughters are totally calmer than I am when creepy-crawlers are around.:floor:

We use more natural cleaners in our home, including Ecocover and others. For bug spray, we use one that is certified organic with no synthetic chemicals in them. Why? Because I am cautious. I do not believe that poisons and pesticides are healthy for us and I cannot say that spraying them on my children or myself is wise. That said, I can only make those choices for us. I do not even make them for my husband, as he is an adult and can make his own decisions in regards to what he uses on his skin.

I simply don't agree that the current sprays being used are even remotely safe. There are systems that have been developed that use the ecosystem's natural balance to keep the "bug problems" at bay.

What we need is more research into what other communities/states/countries are doing to prevent problems without all the toxicity issues. I will check into it today, from a couple of resources, including the author of the article that I posted. He's in Australia, so it might not be until tonight or tomorrow before I get an answer from him.

OM - are you against spraying completely or spraying using natural alternatives?

I don't have a specific answer for you on that one. I need to research the alternatives, whether it's spraying non-toxic substances or some other alternative that takes care of the problem in a different way.

I've been thinking about this since I read an article in regards to the mosquito issue when the Europeans came in contact with the Native Americans in this area and they said that they were scarred with dogfly and mosquito bites. There's a big problem, but we are not solving the problem right now, only making a larger, hidden one.

I do feel that there is an alternative that most everyone can be satisfied with, by dealing with both issues: toxicity & bugs. The point is, let's find it. The "old way" of simply spraying pesticides is simply behind the times now.

Okay, so Indigo Jill's question is for everyone:

If we know that the pesticides being sprayed are toxic but we need an answer to the problem of mosquitoes and dogflies and the public simply isn't going to go for the "take care of it individually" answer, then what are our alternatives?

If we want to make a change in regards to this, we have to have an option that is viable to everyone, not just the pro-spraying side or the no-spraying side. The answer's in the middle somewhere.