California officials yank controversial urban spraying plan 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Wolverine Posted 5:20 am
   22 Jun 2008

   Victory For The Earth And The PeopleThis change of plans was a direct result of a lot of hard work by many people.  The Earth destroyers already lost TWO lawsuits -- not one as Grist reports -- and would have needed to prepare environmental impact reports in order to spray in both Santa Cruz and Monterey counties.  But our strategy was also to get all the cities to formally oppose the project, which obviously worked.  Most, if not all, of the Bay Area cities formally opposed the spraying.  The larger cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley passed resolutions against it, as did many smaller cities and towns.
   It is a total lie to say that "the change of plans had nothing to do with loud public outcry."  The public outcry, of which the two lawsuits were a part, forced the California Department of Food and Agriculture to find another method, just as it did in the case of the medfly fiasco on which the strategy of getting the cities on record opposing the spraying was modeled.  Those in power don't want to admit that their power is dependent on public approval, but that was clearly the case here.
   Never underestimate the power of the people.  If enough people care enough about an issue, we can actually change things significantly.

   Permalink

2. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 6:33 am
   22 Jun 2008

   Grab A DictionaryYou know what a pheromone is right?
   No...it wasn't invented at an oil refinery...

   Permalink

3. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 7:12 am
   22 Jun 2008

   Hey BailoYou know what an endocrine disruptor is, right?
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor

   Permalink

4. 

   Wolverine Posted 7:15 am
   22 Jun 2008

   Artificial Pheromones And Other ChemicalsJohn,
   As usual, your ignorance is breathtaking.  Instead of me grabbing a dictionary, you need to learn something before you go spouting your half baked idiocies.
   The plan was to spray artificial pheromones, encapsulated in plastic and mixed with chemicals, from planes.  Now, what part of that resembles anything natural?  Moreover, the spraying of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties the previous year sickened at least hundreds of people and possibly caused the deaths of hundreds of birds.
   Some people are so supportive of destructive human lifestyles that they automatically attack environmentalists when we oppose harmful projects, even though the former have no idea what they're talking about.  Environmentalists don't oppose projects for the sake of opposing everything or for any other silly reason.  We oppose them because they're somehow harmful.

   Permalink

5. 

   Wolverine Posted 7:16 am
   22 Jun 2008

   Last PostErr, I meant latter, not former.  Obviously.

   Permalink

6. 

   Nucbuddy Posted 11:25 am
   22 Jun 2008

   Maybe Santa Cruz should be tested with waterWolverine wrote: The plan was to spray artificial pheromones, encapsulated in plastic and mixed with chemicals
   Is that supposed to imply something sinister?
   
   
   
   
   Wolverine wrote: the spraying of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties the previous year sickened at least hundreds of people
   Perhaps it is just a coincidence that both Santa Cruz and Monterey are also notorious hotbeds of anxiety neurosis. It is well known that there are special reasons that people move to special places like Santa Cruz and Monterey, and that high stress-tolerance is not one of those reasons.
   If a double-blind test -- consisting of random alternation between 1. any-given commercial spray and 2. a placebo (maybe plain water?), and with sufficient time between sprayings -- were to be conducted over Santa Cruz and/or Monterey, would you expect the corresponding sickness-reporting from the public to statistically-significantly vary between the two types of sprayings?
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   BlackBear Posted 11:36 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   Wow...That's amazing. I definitely think that we should throw out the lab tests identifying the substance as an endocrin disruptor right out the window and instead conduct illegal human psychology experiments. What a great idea!
   I don't even understand the objection here. The people in those counties decided that it was a harmful substance they'd rather not have sprayed in their neighborhoods. They should have the freedom to veto it. After all, my neighborhood can put a lien on my property if I paint my house without approval, so I can't imagine why this topic is causing such news.

   Permalink

8. 

   Wolverine Posted 2:43 am
   23 Jun 2008

   Black BearWe have several anti-environmentalists who comment on this blog, John Bailo and Nucbuddy being two of them.  (The internet name for them is "trolls.")  That's the reason for those two comments; I can't imagine that they're representative of Grist or its readers.

   Permalink

9. 

   caredun Posted 12:36 am
   24 Jun 2008

   Black BearPerhaps it is just a coincidence that both Santa Cruz and Monterey are also notorious hotbeds of anxiety neurosis.tiffany jewelry

   Permalink