THE CASE AGAINST EXPERTS: WHY MIAMI BEACH SHOULD NOT BE SPRAYED WITH NALED
For the next two Sundays, residents of Miami Beach’s new “Zika zone” (From the Bay to the East Coast, and from 8th Street to 63rd Street) will be sprayed with Naled (a dangerous neurotoxin) just before sunrise.
Despite broad opposition to the spraying, Miami-Dade mayor Carlos Gimenez, Miami Beach mayor Philip Levine, and some Miami Beach commissioners have justified their support for Naled spraying with their deference to “experts.” Mayor Gimenez brought in a few of these experts to a meeting in Miami Beach Commission Chambers on Wednesday, September 7th, before the spraying began. Among these experts was someone who knew everything there is to know about mosquitoes. Another expert worked directly with infected women whose pregnancies were being monitored, and who has witnessed first-hand the fear and misery of women who are told their children would be born with birth defects. And another expert (representing the contractor that would conduct the spraying) who assured everyone that, with measurements of wind speed and altitude, it was possible to target aerial spraying accurately.
I sympathize with the position into which our mayors have been cornered. They must either spray a harmful chemical on people in the hopes of reducing the incident of a dangerous disease, or they must have the courage to do nothing when the benefits of a proposed solution do not outweigh the risks.
Ordinarily, a responsible representative should follow expert advice, rather than that of the average constitutent who just reads a couple of articles on the internet. In general, it’s easy to understand why Gimenez and Levine have chosen to move forward with the spraying. At the same time, one can also fault them for allowing their deference to the “experts” to override their common sense.
Expert opinions cannot be relied on blindly. Recent history has shown that just 40 years ago, there was a scientific consensus that the world was cooling. Even more recently, health experts recommended diets that favored simple sugars over fats. In the early 20th century, scientific consensus was opposed to the theory of continental drift. In each of these cases, the experts were wrong. In a theoretical vacuum, where there are no risks involved with embracing the “expert opinion,” then one must always go with the experts. But this is where common sense must be applied.
It is easy to be skeptical of the expert from the company that will conduct the spraying. That person has skin in the game; their company only gets paid if the county sprays. It is also very easy, despite their best assurances, to doubt that spraying from a high altitude can be conducted with any sort of accuracy. Just from walking outside, one knows that winds can go from 0 to 15 miles per hour from one second to the next. Wind speed and direction change with altitude. How is it possible to measure all these constantly changing variables and assure any controls over where the Naled will fall? Winds on the beach are generally from the east. How can the spray reach the “wind shadows” that lie to the west of all the tall building along Ocean and Collins? How can the spray reach the sheltered spaces below the boardwalk? What effect will it have on beneficial insects such as bees and spiders? All of these rather obvious questions cast doubt on the recommendations to spray.
The benefits of Naled can also be questioned statistically. The number of cases actually attributable to Miami Beach is difficult to determine due to the high volume of tourism, but according to the Miami Herald, we currently have about 300 total cases in Miami-Dade County. Let’s presume that 150 were contracted in Miami Beach, a city of 90,000 residents. The tourist population in Miami Beach, according to statistics, is about 22,000 on the average day. If visitors contract Zika at the same rate as residents before going back home, we can calculate that roughly 40 visitors have caught Zika in Miami Beach and taken it home with them. This makes a total of around 190 locally contracted cases in Miami Beach. Most of these, according to the charts, appear to have been contracted in the summer, and will taper off significantly in winter, due to the natural decline in mosquito numbers. Let’s assume about 30 people will get infected each month until the winter if nothing is done. These are the stakes. How much are we willing to risk to keep a few dozen people from getting infected?
If we are generous, let’s say that Naled, alone, can cut the number of cases by 75%. That means that, until the winter takes hold, we are keeping maybe 50 people from getting Zika. But in order to achieve this benefit, we are spraying tens of thousands of residents and thousands of tourists with a dangerous chemical. Even if just one in a thousand residents and tourists get seriously ill from Naled, its benefits are erased.
According to a letter from a doctor at Emory University, posted on Commissioner Arriola’s Facebook page, “Exposure to Naled … is not without risk,” “the effects [of Zika] are devastating,” but the “risk of contracting Zika from mosquitoes in Miami is … low.” The doctor concludes by opining that “the decision to use Naled to control Zika-carrying mosquitoes is a complicated one both scientifically and politically. My opinion is that the potential consequences of a Zika infection in a pregnant woman are so great that spraying is the better alternative.” And so, while the doctor, a recognized expert, leans toward the spraying of Naled, he notes that Naled is dangerous and the incidents of Zika are low. Absent any alternatives, the spraying of Naled seems to be the preferable choice.
However, we do have alternatives, one of which is BTI, which we are implementing. The doctor in Commissioner Arriola’s post did not address any alternative to Naled in his letter, because, clearly, he was not asked to consider them. And given that the doctor, despite his opinion in favor of it, recognizes the dangers posed by Naled, it is quite galling that Gimenez and Levine have completely ignored the vast opposition by residents.
If a doctor’s patient decides not to follow the suggestion of his doctor, is that treatment forced on them against their will? If not, then why are the residents of Miami Beach, all of whom are conscious of the risk of contracting Zika, being treated against their will? And to those who say that we must still spray to protect the minority who are afraid of catching Zika, I would ask, then, who is protecting the rights of those who do not want to be sprayed with a neurotoxin?
This is a complex decision. The risks are nearly balanced. And in such cases, even if the experts tend to favor an unpopular decision, politicians must recognize their duty to faithfully act in accordance with the will of their constituents.
- submitted by A. Gross, unit 1806