sábado, 29 de julio de 2017

Plagas 2 ( el mosquito)



Foto de Edgar P. Miller



Ya vimos algo sobre la mosca ahora platicaré sobre su primo el zancudo o mosquito. A este pequeño insecto le han achacado la muerte de millones de humanos. Aunque él nada más ha sido usado como transporte por el verdadero culpable, a él se le ha perseguido para extinguir en diferentes ocasiones. La malaria o paludismo que es la principal enfermedad que ocasiona las muertes; una entre otras, es realmente producida por un parásito llamado plasmodium, este personaje llega al mosquito cuando chupa sangre a un humano que ya está contaminado pero al seguir alimentándose de la sangre de otros se los convida, no cabe duda que el plasmodium encontró en el mosquito a un magnífico transporte para pasar de enfermo a enfermo donde se   reproduce de una manera primero dentro del mosquito y de otra después dentro del humano, ¿cómo fue que esto empezó y por qué? no lo se. Como el huevo y la gallina.
Ésto realmente no sucedería si se impidiera que un mosquito coma sangre de un humano infectado, pero al parecer esto no es muy buen negocio y es por eso, supongo, que mejor se van en contra de los mosquitos haciendo campañas millonarias que han demostrado su ineficacia. Además estos cretinos han creado multitud de instituciones y de argumentos para justificarlo. Probablemente esto último es deliberado ya que si la enfermedad es terrible y espanta al humano este siempre permitirá que se efectúe el gasto. Sí acaban con el mal también se acaba el negocio. Recuerden que el mundo vive controlado por el capitalismo corrosivo; así que como está, si algo puede dar utilidades se aferrarán a lograrlo muera quien muera.
Pero démosle el beneficio de la duda y miremos como se ataca al problema. Pues bien, inician por buscar a un chivo expiatorio: el mosquito, después se van con todo sobre de él.
No toman en cuenta que estos animales se reproducen rápido, viven poco y en muy rápido se suceden las generaciones; por lo que el arma con la que lo atacan; o sea los insecticidas, pierde su eficacia pronto. Pero aún cuando no sean resistentes a ella su comportamiento y estructura ergonómica no está en acomodo para ser víctima de los insecticidas de la misma manera que lo están los otros insectos y arácnidos que sí pueden terminan siendo víctimas de los arsenales destinados a él.
El mosquito tiene pata largas alejada de su cuerpo que evitan el contacto con las superficies donde se detiene, se alimenta de sangre; hundiendo una lanceta al huésped; la sangre de su víctima difícilmente puede contener el insecticida letal, así pues que ni come, ni toca los insecticidas por lo que salvo por casualidades  le sucede que ellos salgan  perjudicados por contacto o aspiraciòn. Los mismos insecticidas destinados a ellos, aparte de liquidar a sus enemigos ya mencionados, también afectan anfibios, reptiles y aves que sobreviven gracias a ellos también; incluso los humanos pueden sufrir males por las aspersiones de químicos. Cosa que sólo termina beneficiando al mosquito en lugar de exterminarlo. Pero cuidado con divulgarlo pueden llegar los malos.
Incluso la destrucción de los lugares donde podrían reproducirse; o sea, fuentes de agua, no llega a ser efectivo dado que el agua es extremadamente escurridiza y al parecer siempre encuentra espacio para lograr un buen abrigo de zancudos.Ya que una hembra llega a depositar hasta 200 huevos que no teniendo enemigos naturales resulta todo un éxito de reproducción y proliferaciòn.
La otra es que entre que aplican insecticida en un lugar y otro, ellos ya hicieron de las suyas infectando a muchas personas.
Así pues, mientra exista quien hace negocio con el mal y por otro lado existe también una población espantada e ignorante además permisible, lo que sucede es que el mal seguirá originando calamidades. Agregando a todo lo anterior, que los servicios médicos son deficientes para atender las emergencias y la población no tiene cultura sobre epidemias. Aislar a los enfermos y tener casas con mosquiteros, ayuda más, permitiendo la proliferación de los enemigos naturales de la plaga, terminaría reduciendo mejor el mal.
Vivimos en el tròpico y a pesar de que diferentes tecnologías para vivir mejor se han adoptado, la simple utilización de mosquiteros al parecer a sido desechada.
Acabar con el mosquito puede ocasionar otros problemas por cuestiones ecológicas, ya que el mosquito es parte de la cadena alimenticia de las demás especies y otras cuestiones importantes en el entorno que vive.

En el enlace existe una carta donde menciona datos importantes sobre las fumigaciones:


Aquí en inglés:
“Why Are We Spraying?   
East Hampton   
June 20, 2015
   
Dear David,   
Suffolk County Vector Control has one of the most aggressive mosquito-control programs in the Northeast and has routinely sprayed and applied a variety of chemicals throughout the county since 1934. Starting in the mid-’90s, vector control has sprayed the Accabonac and Napeague Harbor areas with the biopesticide methoprene, and the chemical pesticides resmethrin and sumithrin around Beach Hampton and Cedar Point.
   
In 1999, West Nile virus was identified in New York City, and today the virus has been reported in all 48 contiguous states. Alarming, but keep in mind that 70 to 80 percent of human West Nile infections present with no symptoms, meaning people don’t know they have it, and become immune to further infection. Less than 1 percent of infected persons develop serious complications, which are certainly problematic, but does it warrant the prophylactic spraying of our marshlands with questionable agents that pose health and environmental hazards under the guise of the protection of public health?
   
The New York State Department of Health tested 13,059 saltwater mosquito pools for the West Nile virus between 2000 and 2007 and found no incidence of diseased mosquitoes. While all mosquitoes are capable of transmitting disease, the primary West Nile vector in our area is Culex pipiens, the common house mosquito, which breeds in fresh water. Why are our saltwater marshlands being routinely sprayed with controversial materials that are banned or restricted in three nearby states?
   
The finding of methoprene and resmethrin in living, dead, and dying lobsters in 2012 may have been the catalyst that caused Connecticut to enact restrictions in 2013. Years ago, areas of Rhode Island and Maine also passed laws against the use of the same chemicals used by Suffolk County Vector Control. New York City banned the use of methoprene back in 2001. These chemicals pose broad non-target impacts and have a serious, negative effect on many species.
   
These chemicals kill stuff, yet vector control claims they are safe. Why does that agency stubbornly refuse to change its practices, and why aren’t our local leaders vehemently objecting and crafting a comprehensive plan to reduce mosquitoes through education, larval control, aggressive removal of standing water sources, monitoring and restoration of marsh hydrology, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat to provide effective biological mosquito control?
   
Where does the public stand on this issue? Can we all come together like the folks at Georgica Pond did, to help save our environment and reduce or eliminate the county’s use of toxic chemicals in our community, or do we allow this to continue?
   
Back in 2007, amid much controversy, the multimillion-dollar Suffolk County Mosquito Control Plan was adopted, and each fall, 18 county legislators review (and approve) Vector Control’s “Plan of Work” for the following year. The Council on Environmental Quality, a 10-member appointed board established in 1970 to advise the Suffolk County executive and Legislature on issues that impact the quality of the environment (among other things) recommended that the county deny the plan because of the high potential for negative consequences to our marine life and wetlands. The council studied the plan and its components for over two years, and along with other recommendations, urged that chemical pesticides and biopesticides should only be used for public health emergencies, but not routinely, nor for nuisance control. Our elected legislators ignored their advice and adopted the plan; subsequently four members of the council resigned in protest.
   
The plan seeks to control mosquito populations and includes public education, integrated marsh and water management, biological control, and the application of pesticides. An integrated approach to pest management is certainly the most effective and environmentally conscious way to control mosquitoes and protect public health, and public education and participation is an integral component to any plan.
   
Suffolk County Vector Control is not following the plan! The public is not being informed how to reduce mosquito populations around their home or how to avoid getting bit. There are no biological control efforts or marsh management projects planned for our community, even though the county received $1.3 million in Sandy funding for integrated marsh management work.
   
The Towns of Babylon, Islip, and Brookhaven will receive these funds, which makes no sense to me since East Hampton and Southampton are the most vocal opponents of vector control’s pesticides, and are home to the two largest commercial fishing ports in New York State. Our economy is driven by our estuarine and marine environments. Our quality of life, commercial and recreational fisheries, and tourism all depend on healthy, fully functioning marine ecosystems. There has been a steady decline in water quality both globally and locally, which affects us all.
   
Why is it okay for vector control to directly discharge toxic pollutants into fragile marshlands and water bodies? The marshlands (and the public) are routinely sprayed by their helicopters, with little to no notice, because by law, the county is not required to provide public notification for aerial larviciding. How is this protecting the public? Seems to me the only component of the plan that is being followed in our community is the application of pesticides to our most environmentally sensitive areas!
   
The 2007 plan states the goal of a 75- percent reduction of Vector Control’s use of pesticides over 10 years, yet larvicide treatments in 2014 were up 56 percent from 2013. As of June 9, 2015, there were no West Nile virus infections in mosquitoes, birds, sentinel animals, or veterinary animals reported in New York State, so the prophylactic application of larvicides each week by S.C.V.C. is nuisance control.
   
Have you heard of the evolution of pesticide resistance in mosquitoes? Vector Control has, and in order to combat this, they apply pesticides at the maximum label rate, as a way to avoid the development of pesticide resistance. This may help to explain why the county is not reducing its use of pesticides as per the plan. The thought that mosquito control is essential to holding down human cases of West Nile virus may be valid, but if there is no disease threat prior to any spraying, why are we spraying?
   
Environmental surveillance is a key component to identify any threats of disease, but environmental surveillance is also necessary to determine the short- term and long-term effects that these pesticides have on the environment in which they are sprayed. I am seeking scientific assistance to help the trustees identify if methoprene metabolites are building up in our marshlands and bottomlands.
   
The precautionary principal states that “if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.” So why must we identify potential threats to out environment rather than vector control proving to us that it is safe? There is no scientific consensus on the safety of methoprene use in our marshlands.
   
Just so you know, resmethrin products will no longer be allowed to be purchased past Dec. 31, 2015, by the county for use in mosquito control, but I thought vector control said they were safe! The plan has been modified this year to include a prallethrin product called Duet for adult mosquito control, an oil-soluble synergized synthetic pyrethroid, with the active ingredient prallethrin being highly toxic to aquatic organisms including fish and aquatic invertebrates, and very toxic to bees.
   
Sumithrin, an endocrine disruptor, will also be used by vector control. It is extremely toxic to bees and aquatic life, and also poisonous to cats and dogs. All safe, according to vector control. The synergist piperonyl butoxide, which has no pesticidal activity of its own but enhances the potency of pesticides, and is also considered to be a possible carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency, will be mixed with the pesticides. Also in the mixture are petroleum distillates and the “other” manmade chemical compounds (trade secrets), which are of course, all safe according to Suffolk County Vector Control.
   
I beg to differ, and I beg our elected officials and the public to take action! This is not good for us or the planet. A new plan will require the cooperative efforts of all levels of government, but I wouldn’t count on our Department of Environmental Conservation for assistance, as it granted a 10-year permit to S.C.V.C. to apply these chemicals. There is little to no regulatory oversight by anyone other than S.C.V.C., and a yearly rubber-stamping of a “plan” by 18 elected legislators, with only 2 representing the East End.
   
In 2013, Jay Schneiderman proposed a bill to restrict the use of methoprene in Suffolk County. It was not supported. I asked him to resubmit it and to word it so that the restriction is only for the East End, or maybe just for his district, since it seems that the legislators up west really like their mosquito control pesticides. Their economy and environment is very different than ours, they do not have what we have. But I feel that we are losing the battle, that our environment and our health are in danger, and the powers that be do not seem to be aware, or they do not care.
   
Well, I care, and I will be circulating a petition against the use of methoprene in our marshlands as well as a call for action from our town board. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
   
Enjoy the summer, and stay away from the spray; at least you can hear it coming!” por   DEBORAH KLUGHERS

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario