Are you looking this product? Now you can get product in ePub Format,just following step by step until finish you will be guided downloading this book for free, Enjoy it.
Any time we humans accept paradigm shifts and make sweeping changes to the way we do things we have to consider what some call, "the law of unintended consequences." This law seems to come into play when we make changes based more on ideology than in fact. In these situations it is inevitable that consequences which the promoters of those changes didn't anticipate present themselves, often with detrimental effects. The current move toward a "green," environmentally utopian way of life appears to be falling victim to this law, and the costs are just beginning to add up.
A November 29, 2010 article at PR Web entitled "Britons Living the ‘Good Life' Contribute to the Exploding Rat Population," describes some of the downside of "green living." According to the article, one of the icons of green living, composting, is a huge contributor to the feral rodent population. It seems that rats are so well fed that they're multiplying at an alarming rate. The author goes on to say that city residents living the good life, i.e. the green life, are five times more likely to have rodent problems on their properties that their non-eco neighbors. In an August 10th, 2010 article called "Why Billions of Bed Bugs are Biting" Alan Caruba, of the National Anxiety Center in South Orange, New Jersey, explains some of the folly of "Chemophobia" and its consequences in the real world. In the article he explains that the banning of some very effective pesticides, combined with the pest control industry's move toward the greener methods of baiting vs. spraying with long-residual pesticides, has contributed to the recent, massive growth of bedbug populations. In my own, September 8, 2010 article on the Pest Control Center, Inc. blog, entitled "The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Modern Bed Bug Control Methods," I outline the potential consequences of very expensive green pest control treatments such as extreme heat or cold and the energy consumption required for these methods, as applied to the current, rapidly-growing bed bug pandemic. Since the current methods are reactive only and cannot prevent bed bugs, re-infestation can occur at any time. (All it takes is the introduction of one inseminated female.) Treatments will have to be applied each time the problem resurfaces, with important consequences for individual finances, the economy and the environment. In one more article, published October 5, 2010, on the Pest Control Center Blog, called "Invasive Species Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Threatens US Crops," I discuss the recent invasion of this new, exotic pest. It has no important, natural predators in North America and has now spread from Pennsylvania, where it first invaded the continent in 1996, to the west coast of the United States. This pest has already devastated crops in the Mid-Atlantic States and threatens to invade California's agriculture-rich central valley and the Salinas Valley, often called "America's salad bowl," where it could cause serious disruption of large portions of the US food supply. In areas where this pest is established there have been crop losses in excess of 50 percent. The adults are strong fliers and since we have no insecticides available that have residual properties which could offer protection, re-infestation can realistically occur within just hours of treatment. As a result the only answer is repeated, expensive and probably futile treatment of affected crops at who-knows-what environmental and financial expense.
Throughout our history pestilence, diseases transmitted by pests and famine have constituted the natural condition of humans on planet Earth. They were responsible, in great measure, for our species' short life span. During the post-World War II period the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers has given us a higher standard of living, greater freedom from pests and disease, increased agricultural yields and contributed to longer life expectancy for each succeeding generation. The benefits of these materials have far outweighed their comparatively small potential to cause the diseases and disorders attributed to them by the modern devotees of extreme environmentalism and "green" living. If we persist in our head-long rush to ban all chemicals and move toward more natural methods, to the exclusion of all others, we will pay huge sums of money in our attempt to control pests and will ultimately use vastly larger quantities of our natural resources, in a losing battle. We will, in the final analysis, end up short-changing ourselves and future generations. This path we are on will ultimately lead us back to our natural state as a species. That state is one of being plagued by cycles of pestilence, disease, famine and shorter life-expectancy. I believe it's time to inject a little common sense and balance into the debate.
Â
