Punjab Farmers Show Pesticide Blood Levels 16 To 605 Times US Farmers

[hatrack]

CHANDIAGARH: "Punjab may be the food grain provider of the country but its people could have paid a heavy price for this, suggests a Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) study revealing alarming pesticide levels in the blood of farmers in two districts. The CSE study of villages in Bathinda and Ropar districts released here on Tuesday said pesticide levels in the blood of Punjab farmers was 16 to 605 times higher than their counterparts in the US.

It stated that higher levels of pesticides could be the cause of higher incidence of cancer among families of farmers. "We do not have any set parameters on what pesticide levels should be there. Our study was based on pesticide levels found in the blood of farmers in US and findings revealed that our farmers had a much higher pesticide content," CSE director Sunita Narain told reporters here.

She said pesticide manufacturers were pushing pesticides into the market with the government and its agencies doing little to regulate them. This was resulting in unsuspecting farmers getting them inside their bodies by using them in the fields.

According to Narain, the study was not aimed at seeking a ban on pesticides but to give a wake-up call to the government to monitor and regulate the manufacture and use of pesticides countrywide. She said though the study had been done in Punjab, the presence of pesticides in blood of farmers could be a countrywide phenomenon."

EDIT

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEP20050607080753&Page=P&Title=States&Topic=0

[rkc3]

1. It sounds like pesticides aren't as bad for us as we thought.

Maybe they'll make a similar discovery about Mercury and PCBs.

[blindpig]

2. Hurray for the Green Revolution!

Might we have been better off without it and concentrated on population management instead?

Back to the Pleistocene!(sp?)

[phantom power]

3. It's gradually becoming clear to me that the green revolution was a hoax.

I mean, it was more or less "real" here, in the US (until BushCo dismantled it). But in the bigger picture, what was really happening over the last 30 years was that industry was just moving to other countries, where the regulations were more relaxed or nonexistant.

All those articles about how industry was getting greener, and still being productive, were deluded. We just outsourced our pollution to China, India, South America, etc.

[Maurkov]

4. Different.

Blindpig is talking about a different Green Revolution.

[phantom power]

5. Oopsie.

[Maurkov]

6. No, thank you.

I'm all for non-racist, non-coercive population control. However, it appears that the only really effective population control is equal rights combined with sufficient wealth. When this is the norm world-wide, our population will stabilize. A return to a Paleolithic existence would be a backwards leap.

[blindpig]

7. We must achieve carrying capacity in a just and humane manner.

Non-racist, non-coercive, absolutely! Equal rights is obvious and as for wealth, some redistribution might go a long way there. Stabilization however is inadequate. Depending on who you quote the Earth's carrying capacity for the human species is 1 to 2 billion. This allows for the long term survival of our species and the species we share this planet with. It might take generations but we have no other choice.

The "back to" declaration was a reference to the emerging consensus that life for the majority of people was better when we were hunter gatherers. People were healthier, had more freedom and more free time. And we tread much more softly upon Nature.

[Maurkov]

8. We agree on the goal. Now about the means....

First, any ideas for non-coercive redistribution of wealth? Barring that, I think we need to look at how to encourage development. Making wealth is going to be easier (and more just) than prying it away from those who have it.

Second, we should note that carrying capacity is not fixed. It varies with technology. New technologies allow us to get more resources, and to do more with existing resources. While technological advance is uncertain, it is our best option. We should encourage, for example, responsible use of GMOs. We should encourage space exploration. We should encourage all kinds of energy research. Returning to a state of nature throws that away. It would reduce the Earth's carrying capacity to maybe a hundred million.

Carrying capacity also varies with quality of life. 2500 calories and a hot shower every day has a cost. If everyone was willing to give up their cars, their mansions, and meat, we might easily break the 4 billion mark. But again, I don't see a non-coercive way to make it happen.

[thegreatwildebeest]

9. The means are there...

First, any ideas for non-coercive redistribution of wealth?

Simple. Take it. When the ownership and possesion of wealth is based on coercion (and it is) taking it back isn't coercive, its stopping the agressor.

Making wealth is going to be easier (and more just) than prying it away from those who have it.

No it isn't. Cause as long as people own capital and the means of production (which sounds horribly Marxist but bear with me) they still own the whole shebang. Nothing changes.

Returning to a state of nature throws that away.

Returning to a state of nature is the only truely sustainable way to be. Everything else requires mineral extraction and environmental degradation in some form or another. I have no problem necessarily with people advocating this, as long as they're honest with themselves that they are exploting and damaging the earth, albeit on a small scale. You might be drastically minimizing it, but you're still tampering with things.

It would reduce the Earth's carrying capacity to maybe a hundred million.

Actually it would reduce it to much smaller than that. I think its pegged at something like 6 to 10 million people?

[blindpig]

10. That will not work

Other than overpopulation, overconsumption is our greatest problem. This planet is finite. Does not conservation make more sense than putting faith in technologies which may have unintended consequences? The Green Revolution is a case in point. Sure, it staved off the population crunch that was looming in the 70's, at great cost. That respite has allowed population to grow even more out of control and now the petrochemicals upon which it is dependent are drying up. Now the crash will be even harder, with fewer remedial options.

What you suggest is just more of the same and the path of destruction. Only by curbing population and consumption is there a chance for our civilization to continue on the long term.

I don't pretend to have the answers, I'm not that smart. But it is obvious that capitalism is wrecking this world at an accelerating rate. The answer will not come from the likes of Ayn Rand. It is more likely to come from the likes of Anne and Paul Ehrlich or Jared Diamond.