Though I do not know what pest management actions the hospital requested, my urban entomology experience tells me it likely wasn't the IPM option.
The hospital suggests the cockroaches were accidental invaders due to disturbance from nearby
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/321ee/321ee9ed03ea3b4162420de95a6c1b870115a361" alt=""
One would think that particularly in this case (hospital, sick people, pregnant women, newborn babies) IPM would be a no-brainer. But for reasons I can only chalk up to lack of awareness, I see the opposite happen all the time. People choose the traditional option - hose it now, ask questions later. "Spray and pray" is another term of endearment. But when panic sets in -- and public sympathy for a pregnant woman over a "dirty" hospital is excellent fodder for controversy-driven panic -- the customer usually requests a lid on the eco-bright ideas for the PR-assuaging approach of spray (!). Ironically, everyone assumes that if pesticides are applied, the problem is taken care of. Everyone feels better.
IPM methods are not only eco-friendly and human-health-friendly, but the technique also demonstrates significant reduction in pests over the hose-and-go approach. Not embracing this is, well, a loss of opportunity for some great PR at the very least. THAT'S what this story should have been about (i.e., "Hospital addresses patient health with progressive pest control").
Ah, well. Hope they dealt with those 2 cockroaches.
********
Addendum, 2.23.08: Coincidentally, NPR aired a story yesterday about a fleet of Turkmenistan newscasters being fired by the country's President because a cockroach was a repeat visitor on the set. Assuming the almost unbelievable story is true, it makes absolutely no sense. I wouldn't even know where to begin addressing this in a post, except to say: 1. How did he get into office? 2. Good thing this didn't happen in Turkmenistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment