As the article mentions, it can be challenging to pin point the exact consequences of an external factor within an ecosystem. This is because an ecosystem is made up of a complex web of interactivity. How can they be sure that it was the pesticide that affected certain species? Moreover, there are other external factors to take into account too. The point is, without formal studies and official statements regarding the matter, the general public will not believe that there are problems.
While we can obviously tell that something is wrong when fishes in herbicide-polluted rivers start developing both male and female organs, some effects are less obvious. Long-term effects of herbicide consumption are cancer, and Parkinson's disease. However, there are many other factors that can contribute to those. Like food-poisoning, it is hard to know which exact food causes it in the first place. However, some things are clear. With global warming, the climate is shifting, and the weather does not act the way it used to. When an unexpected storm comes right after the herbicide application, they get diluted, absorbed into the ground, or deposited into the river.
I just feel that we could have taken faster actions against many issues if we don't have to wait for everything to be scientifically proven.
Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130816094634.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment