I get my news and editorials from several different sources. Last night I was listening to Mike Reagan, son of the former President, on the radio. If someone is not familiar with him, he can be a hothead conservative radio host, but he is admittedly more central than most other conservative radio show hosts. He was quoting the CDC from an article that I did not catch the name of. Here were the results.
The West Nile Virus is killing more Americans than the war in Iraq. If you take the number of American casualties from the Iraq war so far, and adjust the number across a full year at this rate, more Americans have died from the West Nile Virus in the past year, by a fair margin.
“But,” you say, “The difference is that the West Nile Virus is something that we can fight and end. We have a choice to prevent this. The troops in Iraq are dying in vain.”
Actually, not quite. Mike went on to quote the CDC in saying that the main breeding grounds of the mosquitos that harbor the West Nile Virus are protected wet lands that cannot be drained and cannot be sprayed. One case in point was a female farmer who cannot touch 94 acres of her total of 100 acres of farmland, because it has been deemed as a protected wetland, in which West Nile Virus carrying mosquitos have been found.
So, what are your thoughts of more Americans, innocently going about their business, are dying from a preventable disease that we refuse to prevent, than American troops who have volunteered for a possible hazardous military service?
It would be a story if it were true. In fact both confirmed cases of West Nile and confirmed deaths from West Nile have declined this year. Last year there were 4156 confirmed cases of WNV and 284 deaths (I didn’t realize it was that many). This year there are 1482 confirmed infections and 24 deaths. OTOH, there 330 US and British deaths in Iraq as of yesterday.
So she is farming on 94 acres of protected wetland? Is she growing sugar or rice? This is bullshit.
I think that war is more easily preventable than disease. And even without a cite to back up your claims, I am going to bet that the EPA will allow spraying of infested wetlands.
That is almost exactly the current reported death toll in Iraq, which I believe currently somewhere around 280, but the West Nile figures are for around twice the time period.
So on the face of it, I’d say the commentator was a little off in his statistics. Not that it really matters, as I don’t think it is a great analogy
Because spraying and draining could ( would ) cause damage that may have hard to predict effects that might in the long run be even worse ( or if not worse, not easily repairable ). Nor would it automatically prevent West Nile, as mosquitos are resourceful at finding standing water. It’s not a much better argument than saying we should eliminate the deer population to cut down on Lyme’s Disease.
Spraying in protected wetlands is a bad idea. West Nile is simply not virulent enough to justify the ecological damage that WILL result from using pesticides in those areas.
“But TVAA,” I’m sure some of you are gasping, “are you really suggesting that some stupid marshy swamps are more important than saving human lives?!”
Yes. We accept that lots of things are more important than saving human lives, all the time – and IMO most of those causes are far less important than the environment.
Not to mention that war is one of the worst ecological disasters ever (short of a meteor strike or a large volcanic eruption). Just think…we could have prevented ecological damage and deaths at the same time by not going to war. Hmmm…
Well, there’s also the fact that 280,000,000 Americans are exposed to the risk of West Nile Virus. Fewer than 200,000 are exposed to the risk of death in Iraq. Unless my math is way off, it seems to me the risk of death is quite a bit higher in Iraq.
