Discuss any 2 of the foregong results of use of pesticides!?

Question

1.) destruction of the soil's micro-flora and fauna, leading to both physical and chemical deterioration

2.) severe yield reduction in crops

3.) leaching of toxic chemicals into groundwater and potentially threatening drinking water resources

Answer 1

You have listed 3 grossly exaggerated examples of the misuse of pesticides and other chemicals.  Pesticides are intended to increase crop yields, and, with proper use, do just that, and there is insufficient residue to percolate down and contaminate groundwater supplies.

Answer 2

All I can say is since I moved from the city to a very rural town-I live on Main Street and am surrounded by 3 cotton fields- I never had allergies or asthma until now.  Also, When they were doing Boll Weevil eradication- my husband went outside and the man fixing to spray told him he needed to go back inside for a few hours.  When farmers spray for "weeds" in their fields- the wind carries the chemicals- killing trees and gardens.  The cancer rate in the area and children born with disabilities is so high, a team was sent in to do a study- I guess the Health Dept.  Within days- they were gone- never to be heard from again. Unofficial word- lack of funding. Logic- People who benefit from the chemicals did not want study done.

I have nothing against farming- we need it to sustain our country. However, how many chemicals have been approved in the past- only to be banned later after finding out they cause cancer?   To address question 3- we buy our water- our tap water stinks and is dirty.

My husband used to fish all the time-- the Mercury levels are to high to be considered safe for fishing-- and he has caught to many 2 headed fish.

Answer 3

If this is a question presented to you at school, you should question the educator about qualifications regarding the question or the school system about it's curriculum. Having said that...( I am a proponent of organic agriculture)

1) Chemical pesticides currently being used are designed to be very specific in employment, designed to be short lived in the environment, and formulated to impact the environment and beneficial soil life as little as possible. For all that, they initially do kill any macro and micro organisms they do come in contact with. Most chemicals are used with a minimum amount of distribution in accordance with the directions for their employment but there is collateral damage to surroundings in the plant environment that can not be helped, only minimized. Most are designed to be short lived in the environment and break down quickly with exposure to sunlight, atmospheric gases, environmental organic material, or dissipation into the air, thinning out to "nothing". That is assuming they are used properly. One noted problem is that plants do incorporate small quantities of these materials, and even later generations of vegetation will take them in and release them, back and forth and it takes a long time for some to really be unmeasurable. Those that are designed to break down quickly fragment frequently into odd components that get caught up in the cycles that maintain some presence and are found in some part in the food and environment. With other chemicals, natural and employed, they can link up in odd and sometimes unforeseen ways, possibly with the aid of sun light, or heat, or ozone/ pollution, soil acidity/ alkalinity, in suspension or dissolved in water, or combinations of the above. Frequently this activity is not completely understood and in honesty, might not be a very frequent occurrence. Research tries to guarantee that problems don't occur, but that is not always the case especially as research continues after the release of a product. Many products are found unsuitable and are then pulled from the market and no longer used, but only after a great amount has been used. The complex and often fleeting chemical forms manifested may not be understood for a variety of reasons, and those may be very harmful, or not. People are getting vary tired of the risk taking even with assurances as too many times we end up as the lab rat. That brings to mind the whole process of animal experimentation and the LD 50 (lethal dose expected to kill 50% of animals exposed, the other 50% not necessarily singing and dancing). We won't address the horror of animals killed in the name of science except to say it is a terrible shame on humanity and many people won't use products they know to employ such procedures.

2) In general crop yield is expected to increase by getting rid of an insect or disease but the emploment of these materials is generally done after there is a problem, thogh not necessarily so. Chemicals frequently are not dispensed as a preventitive but as a remedy. One could surmise that had there been an organic approach that addressed an issue in a prevention stategy, that the plant and it's environment would function at a greater efficency level and stay in a harmonius balance. To compare that set of results with respect to harvest/ yield, it would actually be higher than the chemical intensive harvest and yield. Keep in mind that the product harvested from the organic areas may not be as aestetically pleasing (a few spots or slightly smaller size) but the compared chemical harvest has residual chemicals that may or may not be cleaned from it. Harvest aproximations are just that and so many other events determine the actual harvest. It is also important to note here somewhere that just because a product is concidered "organic" in nature, does not mean that it is not just as toxic to people and their environment, maybe even more so. The nature of the material determines the effect on surrounding life. Nicotine and pyrethrins (from natural sources) are cases in point.

3) All materials that are put in the environment have the potential to get into the ground water, irregardless of their nature or purpose. Chemical and organic fertilizers, pesticides (to include gases), biologicals, and even mined minerals affect the water below. They last, or not. They change, they can combine in their aqueous environment to form other odd chains, regardless of origin. Chemistry does not care. The fact is that we need to consider everything we do with respect to the environment, either below our feet or as far away as a sewage plant or even the ocean which is the recipient of all our efforts good or bad. Many toxic metals that are the base for pesticides (they are poisons and so they are chosen) get in the food chain and concentrate as they make their way to the top of that chain. All that we make and dispense will go some where in some form. As Pete said in his musical poetry "The sea refuses no river" and though meant to be more than just this single "stream" of thought, it is so appropriate.

Answer 4

Well Crrs , whatever, if I could split 10 pts between Mike and Helmut I would, cause it sounds like a liberal 'tree hugging" Prof. ya have and YOU SHOULD question your school's curriculum at the highest level or transfer to an agricultural based school before ya end up "Brainwashed" and your future farming exploits end up in bankruptsy court