The article "Are Pesticides from Plants Dangerous to Humans?" discusses the potential dangers of pyrethroids, synthetic versions of pesticides naturally occurring in plants such as the chrysanthemum flower that have been chemically altered to make them more stable in sunlight and to increase their toxicity. It is estimated that over 70% of Americans have come into contact with pyrethroids, which, while less dangerous than organophosphate, which consumers have widely abandoned due to the dangers they pose to humans and wildlife, have been linked in studies with animals to damage to the thyroid, liver, and nervous system, and also to changes in the immune system and the disruption of reproductive hormones. These pesticides are also toxic to small marine animals eaten by fish, insects, and possibly other animals, appearing in toxic concentrations in rivers in Texas and California which were tested. This year, pyrethroids are being reevaluated by the EPA as part of its 2010 pesticide review (it reevaluates all pesticides every 15 years). Alternatives to pyrethroids include the chrysanthemum flower itself, whose natural pesticides do not persist in the enviornment which pyrethroids do, or boric acid. Experts agree, however, that the best thing for consumers to do is to try to minimize the use of any pesticides at all.
Pyrethroids, which have been shown to be present in the environment areas throughout the US, if harmful to humans would pose a major health risk. For that reason it is important for the EPA and private scientists to continue to investigate the safety of these pesticides. This also shows how altering chemicals such as pyrethroids can change them in ways we cannot fully anticipate, as the natural pesticides of chrysanthemum flowers are much less dangerous. Chemistry is a major industry in the US, but can sometimes produce unsafe products. Perhaps a more thorough review process of chemicals by the EPA to be used in the future, regardless of what they conclude about the dangers of pyrethroids to humans this year. In the 21st century, chemicals are becoming more and more unpredictable, and thus must be regulated very carefully.
I enjoyed reading Mr. Jabr's article, which highlights how further testing of chemicals such as pyrethroids which have already pervaded US society are needed. Unlike many of the reviews I see on this blog, Mr. Jabr's article was very detailed, and left me with no further questions about the topic other than what the EPA concludes in the future. I recommend sciam.com to my fellow classmates, as its articles seem to be much more thorough than those from other sources, such as the New York Times. However, it seems to me like Mr. Jabr may have exaggerated the facts in this article, as he himself says on the second page of the article that little scientific data exists to support or rebuke his assertion that pyrethroids are likely very dangerous to humans and should be avoided whenever possible. This is one of the flaws of modern media - that scientists have the ability to present their theories to the media without enough data to validate their claims. While this article may be valid, other articles make even more exaggerated claims, frightening consumers needlessly. Like Mr. Jabr says, more data on this subject is needed, which the EPA should provide by the end of the year.
Robert Petrasovits
ReplyDelete3/3/10
chem. Review #3
Overall I though t that Jamie did a good job summarizing this article. One thing that I thought that Jamie did well was that he included a lot of detail in his summary. Jamie gave specific examples and referred back to the article during the summary. Another thing that I thought that Jamie did well is that he worded the summary in a way so that he does not bore the reader. Since Jamie included a lot of detail in his write up it is very easy to bore your reader. Jamie avoid boring the reader by mixing facts with opinions which created a good article. A final thing that I thought that Jamie did well was that he explained what scientists were doing to resolve this problem. Since Jamie explained what scientists were doing to try to solve this problem he calms the reader. He calms the reader by saying that they are retesting the pesticide and offering an alternate pesticide to use. If Jamie did not do this the reader would be panicked that their life was in danger.
Although Jamie’s article was very well written there were two things that I thought that Jamie could have done better. The first thing that I thought that Jamie could have done better was explain some of the terms like organophosphate. When I was reading this article it was unclear whether organophosphate was another pesticide or not. I also thought that some of the wording in Jamie’s sentences was a little awkward. I thought that if Jamie reread his summary he would have avoid this mistake and made his article easier to understand. Although Jamie had Some minor flaws in his summary I thought it was very well presented overall.
One thing that I learned from Jamie’s article was that one of the most common pesticides in America is harmful to human beings and animals. If it was not for Jamie’s article I would have assumed that all of the pesticides in America were tested and deemed safe by the EPA.
Zachary Mattes 3/3/10
ReplyDeleteChem. Comment 3
Jamie did a very good job explaining his article. He explains how the
chrysanthemum has been chemically altered by the pesticides. He went in depth and made me want to read the article. Jamie gave the most important parts of the article so it wouldn’t be boring. He made his review more interesting then the article itself. Jamie tells us what the best way to stop the problem is. He shows how something like that can do such damage to the planet by giving us specific situations. Jamie gives us statistics on how many people have run into this pesticide. He makes sure you understand the magnitude of the situation. He talks about how the US sometimes makes dangerous products that are not safe. One thing that I really liked that he did was give alternative pesticides that are safe and can be used instead of pyrethroids.
Even though Jamie’s article impressive he does leave a few things out. I was unsure if the pesticides actually alter the chrysanthemum or it was purposefully altered by people. He was unclear when he first said that pyrethroids was a form of pesticides natuaraly occurring in the chrysanthumum plant .then he says an alternative to pyrethroids include the chrysanthumum plant itself. Even though he made a few errors his review was still very good.
From Jamie’s review I learned how such a small thing like pesticides can affect 70 % of the population and marine life and its amazing that the EPA does not check these chemicals to be safe!