Dangerous Chemicals in the Environment

[emptystep]

Bring back DDT?

DDT never went away, so one wonders what they're babbling about.

The "DDT is harmless" idiocy is just another religious mantra of the extreme-right wing political cult. In general, they are all required to believe and loudly state that:

1. Global warming is a hoax.
2. DDT is harmless.
3. Ozone depletion is a hoax.
4. Air and water pollution regulations are a socialist plot.
5. The media is liberal.
6. The polls are all rigged, and Romney is ahead. (oops)

... and the list goes on. No need to humor them. Just mock them every time they spout any of their cult mantras.

OMG! You still believe that???
Once brain-dead, seems you remain so.



1. . “…concerns about the impact of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane) and its derivates on human health, in spite of the fact that DDT has been used widely for seven decades and no properly replicated and confirmed study has found any specific human health harm. Given the enormous and proven public health benefits arising from the use of DDT in disease control,… high levels of human exposure to DDT among those living in sprayed houses but presented no evidence of actual human harm arising from that exposure….Where DDT has been used in malaria control over many decades, populations have grown and health outcomes have improved.” PMC - NCBI

2. . On June 14, 1972, 30 years ago this week, the EPA banned DDT despite considerable evidence of its safety offered in seven months of agency hearings. After listening to that testimony, the EPA's own administrative law judge declared, "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man...The use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." Today environmental activists celebrate the EPA's DDT ban as their first great victory. Silent Spring at 40 - Reason.com



So....which appellation do you prefer? "Reliable Democrat Voter," or the more current, "Low Information Voter"

And don't forget to wear the sign.

So you would have no issue if your home was fumigated with DDT?

 

[emptystep]

Give the environmental movement its due!

1. If there is one positive to be said for the environmental movement, it is that they bring public awareness of dangerous chemicals in our environment. Case in point: “The Invisible Killer: Dihydrogen Monoxide”

a. Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there.

b. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage.

c. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance.

d. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

e. Is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain…contributes to the "greenhouse effect."…may cause severe burns….contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape….accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals….may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes….has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.”

f. Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today.”
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!






2. The above exposes the inanity of the environmental movement. Why? How? Well, those of us who recall even our junior high school chemistry recognize dihydrogen monoxide, which follows the proper conventions for chemical nomenclature, as what is, colloquially, known as water. Environmentalism takes advantage of the fact that most folks have a limited knowledge of chemistry, and fear what they don’t understand.

a. So, collectivists- totalitarian big government agents- realize that most are susceptible to irrational fears…and, essentially, promise ‘don’t worry! We’ll take care of…protect you!” From water??


3. While not as ubiquitous nor as harmless as water….DDT served as the stepping stone that launched the movement: The movement arose from the dead in the 1960’s, with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” From that moment, progressives embraced radical environmentalism and other visions of natural utopia. Based on anecdotal evidence and dubious statistics coupled with heaping doses of paranoia, but very little science, it gave birth to the full-blown Progressive!

a. Carson’s book was dismissed in ‘Science’ magazine as a “prosecuting attorney’s impassioned plea for action,” not a book based on scientific data.
I.L.Baldwin, “Chemicals and Pests,” Science, September 28, 1962, p.1042-1043.

b. “Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children.” Bring Back DDT!






4. The more one knows, the more pathetic the Environmental Movement is seen to be. But, at the same time, the words of Lord Byron, “And if I laugh at any mortal thing,
'Tis that I may not weep.”
One has to cry at how many invest these thieves of liberty, these dictators of everything we have and everything we do, with political power.

The old saying "knowledge is power" rings true. So, also, is “resist or lack of knowledge results in environmentalism.”


And no one knows it better than a demagogue like Barack Obama.

That link is to some kid's, Donald Simanek from Lock Haven University, joke about banning dihydrogen monoxide. You didn't understand your own link? Now that is something new for you.

 

[westwall]

Fucking dumb. Exactly what one would expect from the source.

How about the numbskulls SIGNING it stooopid. I thought you all were scientifically literate....guess not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Give the environmental movement its due!

1. If there is one positive to be said for the environmental movement, it is that they bring public awareness of dangerous chemicals in our environment. Case in point: “The Invisible Killer: Dihydrogen Monoxide”

a. Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there.

b. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage.

c. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance.

d. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

e. Is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain…contributes to the "greenhouse effect."…may cause severe burns….contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape….accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals….may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes….has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.”

f. Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today.”
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!






2. The above exposes the inanity of the environmental movement. Why? How? Well, those of us who recall even our junior high school chemistry recognize dihydrogen monoxide, which follows the proper conventions for chemical nomenclature, as what is, colloquially, known as water. Environmentalism takes advantage of the fact that most folks have a limited knowledge of chemistry, and fear what they don’t understand.

a. So, collectivists- totalitarian big government agents- realize that most are susceptible to irrational fears…and, essentially, promise ‘don’t worry! We’ll take care of…protect you!” From water??


3. While not as ubiquitous nor as harmless as water….DDT served as the stepping stone that launched the movement: The movement arose from the dead in the 1960’s, with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” From that moment, progressives embraced radical environmentalism and other visions of natural utopia. Based on anecdotal evidence and dubious statistics coupled with heaping doses of paranoia, but very little science, it gave birth to the full-blown Progressive!

a. Carson’s book was dismissed in ‘Science’ magazine as a “prosecuting attorney’s impassioned plea for action,” not a book based on scientific data.
I.L.Baldwin, “Chemicals and Pests,” Science, September 28, 1962, p.1042-1043.

b. “Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children.” Bring Back DDT!






4. The more one knows, the more pathetic the Environmental Movement is seen to be. But, at the same time, the words of Lord Byron, “And if I laugh at any mortal thing,
'Tis that I may not weep.”
One has to cry at how many invest these thieves of liberty, these dictators of everything we have and everything we do, with political power.

The old saying "knowledge is power" rings true. So, also, is “resist or lack of knowledge results in environmentalism.”


And no one knows it better than a demagogue like Barack Obama.

That link is to some kid's, Donald Simanek from Lock Haven University, joke about banning dihydrogen monoxide. You didn't understand your own link? Now that is something new for you.

Of course I did, you fool.

That's the purpose....to show what joke environmentalism is and how it sucks in the ignorant......you know, like your.

 

[emptystep]

Give the environmental movement its due!

1. If there is one positive to be said for the environmental movement, it is that they bring public awareness of dangerous chemicals in our environment. Case in point: “The Invisible Killer: Dihydrogen Monoxide”

a. Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there.

b. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage.

c. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance.

d. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

e. Is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain…contributes to the "greenhouse effect."…may cause severe burns….contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape….accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals….may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes….has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.”

f. Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today.”
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!






2. The above exposes the inanity of the environmental movement. Why? How? Well, those of us who recall even our junior high school chemistry recognize dihydrogen monoxide, which follows the proper conventions for chemical nomenclature, as what is, colloquially, known as water. Environmentalism takes advantage of the fact that most folks have a limited knowledge of chemistry, and fear what they don’t understand.

a. So, collectivists- totalitarian big government agents- realize that most are susceptible to irrational fears…and, essentially, promise ‘don’t worry! We’ll take care of…protect you!” From water??


3. While not as ubiquitous nor as harmless as water….DDT served as the stepping stone that launched the movement: The movement arose from the dead in the 1960’s, with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” From that moment, progressives embraced radical environmentalism and other visions of natural utopia. Based on anecdotal evidence and dubious statistics coupled with heaping doses of paranoia, but very little science, it gave birth to the full-blown Progressive!

a. Carson’s book was dismissed in ‘Science’ magazine as a “prosecuting attorney’s impassioned plea for action,” not a book based on scientific data.
I.L.Baldwin, “Chemicals and Pests,” Science, September 28, 1962, p.1042-1043.

b. “Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children.” Bring Back DDT!






4. The more one knows, the more pathetic the Environmental Movement is seen to be. But, at the same time, the words of Lord Byron, “And if I laugh at any mortal thing,
'Tis that I may not weep.”
One has to cry at how many invest these thieves of liberty, these dictators of everything we have and everything we do, with political power.

The old saying "knowledge is power" rings true. So, also, is “resist or lack of knowledge results in environmentalism.”


And no one knows it better than a demagogue like Barack Obama.

That link is to some kid's, Donald Simanek from Lock Haven University, joke about banning dihydrogen monoxide. You didn't understand your own link? Now that is something new for you.

Of course I did, you fool.

That's the purpose....to show what joke environmentalism is and how it sucks in the ignorant......you know, like your.

You don't think the way you posted it might somehow, perhaps maybe, might be considered misrepresenting information?

 

[PoliticalChic]

That link is to some kid's, Donald Simanek from Lock Haven University, joke about banning dihydrogen monoxide. You didn't understand your own link? Now that is something new for you.

Of course I did, you fool.

That's the purpose....to show what joke environmentalism is and how it sucks in the ignorant......you know, like your.

You don't think the way you posted it might somehow, perhaps maybe, might be considered misrepresenting information?

My goodness.

"...misrepresenting information..."
Exactly the purpose intended!!!



I constructed it to trick the unsuspecting into acquiescing to ban WATER!!

Then...hit 'em with the truth as to what DHMO really is.....and how 'harmful' it is.

Same with most of environmentalism.


Get it now????

 

[Toronado3800]

Of course I did, you fool.

That's the purpose....to show what joke environmentalism is and how it sucks in the ignorant......you know, like your.

You don't think the way you posted it might somehow, perhaps maybe, might be considered misrepresenting information?

My goodness.

"...misrepresenting information..."
Exactly the purpose intended!!!



I constructed it to trick the unsuspecting into acquiescing to ban WATER!!

Then...hit 'em with the truth as to what DHMO really is.....and how 'harmful' it is.

Same with most of environmentalism.


Get it now????

Be careful with the choice of words.

MOST

Ya say?

What are you talking about?

Leaded gas or catalytic converters?

 

[PoliticalChic]

OMG! You still believe that???

Everyone who isn't a retarded right-wing political cultist believes it. I mean, we have raving cranks like you on one side, and the entire freakin' planet and all the scientific research on another. Golly, who to trust?

"Where DDT has been used in malaria control over many decades, populations have grown and health outcomes have improved.”

DDT wasn't banned for malaria control. It was banned for mass agricultural use, where application rates were thousands of times higher. The fact that you tried to equate those two wildly different cases shows you're either being deliberately dishonest, or that you're completely ignorant of the facts. Either way, it means you need to go sit down at the kiddie table, shut up and just listen as the grownups talk.

On June 14, 1972, 30 years ago this week, the EPA banned DDT despite considerable evidence of its safety offered in seven months of agency hearings.

And considerable evidence it wasn't safe when used by the ton, which is backed up by all the scientific evidence. You're crazy desperate now, rambling about what some political hacks said at a 1972 hearing instead of looking at actual scientific evidence.

So....which appellation do you prefer? "Reliable Democrat Voter," or the more current, "Low Information Voter"

I prefer you break free of your brainwashing, but you don't have the smarts or the courage for that. You'll go to your grave as a Useful Idiot.

Rachel Carlson, by stopping mass DDT use, prevented mosquitoes from developing resistance to DDT, and thus allowed DDT to be used effectively in malaria control, saving millions of lives. Your retarded political hackery, if implemented, would have killed those millions.

And you don't care. If millions have to die for the glory of TheParty, you're good with seeing that happen. On every topic, in every case, you will do what your party orders, no matter how many people it kills. There's no difference between you and the Stalinists in that regard.

1. . o Annual worldwide cases of acute illness due to malaria: 300-500 million
o Annual worldwide deaths due to malaria: 1.1-2.7 million, mostly among children under five years of age http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/GlobalBurdenofMalaria.pdf

2. . Malaria is transmitted from person to person through the bite of a female Anopheles—a species of mosquito prevalent throughout sub-Saharan Africa and considered to be the most dangerous. Africa's Malaria Death Toll Still "Outrageously High"


3. “…Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which in 1962 exposed the hazards of the pesticide DDT, eloquently questioned humanity's faith in technological progress and helped set the stage for the environmental movement….Silent Spring … meticulously described how DDT entered the food chain and accumulated in the fatty tissues of animals, including human beings, and caused cancer and genetic damage. …Carson concluded that DDT and other pesticides had irrevocably harmed birds and animals and had contaminated the entire world food supply.” http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp

4. British politician Dick Taverne was damning in his criticism of Carson:
Carson didn't seem to take into account the vital role (DDT) played in controlling the transmission of malaria by killing the mosquitoes that carry the parasite (...) It is the single most effective agent ever developed for saving human life (...) Rachel Carson is a warning to us all of the dangers of neglecting the evidence-based approach and the need to weight potential risk against benefit: it can be argued that the anti-DDT campaign she inspired was responsible for almost as many deaths as some of the worst dictators of the last century. Taverne, Dick (2005). "The Harm That Pressure Groups Can Do". In Feldman, Stanley; Marks, Vincent. Panic Nation.



And speaking of "dangers of neglecting the evidence-based approach..." a wise pundit said the following:

"Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals."


Don't forget to wear your sign!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You don't think the way you posted it might somehow, perhaps maybe, might be considered misrepresenting information?

My goodness.

"...misrepresenting information..."
Exactly the purpose intended!!!



I constructed it to trick the unsuspecting into acquiescing to ban WATER!!

Then...hit 'em with the truth as to what DHMO really is.....and how 'harmful' it is.

Same with most of environmentalism.


Get it now????

Be careful with the choice of words.

MOST

Ya say?

What are you talking about?

Leaded gas or catalytic converters?

Start with DDT.

 

[emptystep]

Of course I did, you fool.

That's the purpose....to show what joke environmentalism is and how it sucks in the ignorant......you know, like your.

You don't think the way you posted it might somehow, perhaps maybe, might be considered misrepresenting information?

My goodness.

"...misrepresenting information..."
Exactly the purpose intended!!!



I constructed it to trick the unsuspecting into acquiescing to ban WATER!!

Then...hit 'em with the truth as to what DHMO really is.....and how 'harmful' it is.

Same with most of environmentalism.


Get it now????

Gee PC, it has been quite a while since you and I have gone back and forth. Now I remember why we stopped.

When you are attempting to demonstrate a behavior and you use an example that is not actually an example of the behavior you seek to demonstrate do you not think that it lessens your argument just a bit?

 

[Toronado3800]

My goodness.

"...misrepresenting information..."
Exactly the purpose intended!!!



I constructed it to trick the unsuspecting into acquiescing to ban WATER!!

Then...hit 'em with the truth as to what DHMO really is.....and how 'harmful' it is.

Same with most of environmentalism.


Get it now????

Be careful with the choice of words.

MOST

Ya say?

What are you talking about?

Leaded gas or catalytic converters?

Start with DDT.

What are your acceptable levels of cancer cases per exposure?

Just like my last X Ray and MRI, we have to know what the risk benefit balance is. In that case I choose the risk of cancer as I needed to know what was up in my knee.

In America what are your acceptable levels of malaria? Is it a problem here that is prevalent enough I need DDT?

It is your topic so if we stay away from MOST we can talk about DDT in particular all day long.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Be careful with the choice of words.

MOST

Ya say?

What are you talking about?

Leaded gas or catalytic converters?

Start with DDT.

What are your acceptable levels of cancer cases per exposure?

Just like my last X Ray and MRI, we have to know what the risk benefit balance is. In that case I choose the risk of cancer as I needed to know what was up in my knee.

In America what are your acceptable levels of malaria? Is it a problem here that is prevalent enough I need DDT?

It is your topic so if we stay away from MOST we can talk about DDT in particular all day long.

1. Did you know that in colonial times, most of the Southern farmers had malaria due to the nature of the land they found, largely swamps? They just considered it the way we view the flu.

2. It is not possible to make the argument that all drugs, or all chemicals, are totally safe. Yet, the way politicians and environmental activists deal with the issue is as though the tiniest bit of negative evidence requires extensive regulation, moratoriums, congressional testimonies, …heck, outright banning: “…until it is proven safe!”

a. Known as the ‘precautionary principle,’ it requires a scientifically impossible standard that none can achieve.



3. Take the latest ‘whipping-boy,’ bisphenol A.BPA, another example of the exaggerated chemical scare stories, that include DDT, dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Not claiming harmless….merely way overblown as dangers. Now, the bisphenol is thought dangerous because it has been labeled an “endocrine disruptor.” Well, it is….so is wheat, soy, and a number of fruits.

a. “… regulatory scientists throughout the world have uniformly concluded that these levels of BPA are so miniscule as to be basically harmless.” Jon Entine: Scared to Death: Toxic Debate Over Chemicals Threatens Risk-Based Regulations

b. “When it comes to stories on so-called toxic substances, the public discourse seems infected by a malady worse than microscopic residues: chemophobia.” Ibid.




4. Here are the lessons to be learned: Just because a chemical has a certain effect in the laboratory does not mean that it has a biologically relevant effect in our bodies. Toxicology is extremely complicated and nuanced. Simply being exposed to a chemical, even a dangerous one, in not necessarily a cause for alarm; dosage is a far more important factor.

a. Studies in a lab, often done on a mouse, or a human cell grown under artificial conditions, do not always yield the same information when repeated in research animals.

b. Even then, studies which show negative health effects in animals don’t always translate to the same outcomes in human.

c. And, even then, epidemiological studies do not always agree with biological studies.

d. Bottom line: just because a published paper presents a statistically significant result does not mean it necessarily has a biologically meaningful effect.
The above, from chapter seven of “Science Left Behind,” Berezow and Campbell.

 

[mamooth]

And speaking of "dangers of neglecting the evidence-based approach..." a wise pundit said the following:

Political Chic talking about evidence? She doesn't use evidence. She vomits out cut-and-paste that she doesn't understand. Plagiarizes, actually, seeing as she copied the joke post and took credit for it herself.

Now, liberals, not being so craven, argue in their own words, state a cogent argument, and make a point directly. Like this:

1. Mass usage of DDT is harmful to the environment.
2. The ban on such mass agricultural use was clearly justified
3. Only right-wing cranks now try to revise the history and science to claim otherwise
4. By creating resistance to DDT in mosquito populations, mass agricultural usage was making DDT useless for malaria control.
5. Thus, opposing the ban on mass agricultural use would have allowed malaria to kill more.
6. Political Chic still embraces her junk science, even now knowing it would have killed many people.
7. That shows Political Chic is staggeringly immoral.

Now, let's check out how Political Chic is trying to deflect from that argument.

1. . o Annual worldwide cases of acute illness due to malaria: 300-500 million
o Annual worldwide deaths due to malaria: 1.1-2.7 million, mostly among children under five years of age http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/d...nofMalaria.pdf

Not relevant, being that DDT has always been legal for malaria control. Not in the USA, but the issue is academic, as malaria was mostly wiped out in the USA before DDT was invented, and malaria was completely gone in the USA by the time DDT became an environmental issue.

2. . Malaria is transmitted from person to person through the bite of a female Anopheles—a species of mosquito prevalent throughout sub-Saharan Africa and considered to be the most dangerous. Africa's Malaria Death Toll Still "Outrageously High"

Not relevant, being that DDT has always been legal for malaria control in areas where malaria exists.

3. “…Rachel Carson's Silent Spring,

... was not always correct with all the science. No one disputes that. But it was correct in that mass agricultural usage of DDT was a serious environmental problem, regardless of whether Carlson got the dangers to humans wrong.

4. British politician Dick Taverne was damning in his criticism of Carson:
Carson didn't seem to take into account the vital role (DDT) played in controlling the transmission of malaria by killing the mosquitoes that carry the parasite (...)

And given that DDT was never banned for malaria control in areas where malaria existed, one wonders what Dick Taverne is babbling about.

Political Chic, why won't you address the fact that mass agricultural use of DDT caused mosquitoes (and other pests) to develop DDT resistance? Act like a liberal and do your homework, instead of doing mindless cut-and-pastes. DDT wasn't abandoned because of the dirty liberals. It was abandoned because it no longer worked. That's why it could be banned in the USA. The agriculture lobby no longer cared about DDT, being that it no longer killed Boll Weevils on the cotton crop.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And speaking of "dangers of neglecting the evidence-based approach..." a wise pundit said the following:

Political Chic talking about evidence? She doesn't use evidence. She vomits out cut-and-paste that she doesn't understand. Plagiarizes, actually, seeing as she copied the joke post and took credit for it herself.

Now, liberals, not being so craven, argue in their own words, state a cogent argument, and make a point directly. Like this:

1. Mass usage of DDT is harmful to the environment.
2. The ban on such mass agricultural use was clearly justified
3. Only right-wing cranks now try to revise the history and science to claim otherwise
4. By creating resistance to DDT in mosquito populations, mass agricultural usage was making DDT useless for malaria control.
5. Thus, opposing the ban on mass agricultural use would have allowed malaria to kill more.
6. Political Chic still embraces her junk science, even now knowing it would have killed many people.
7. That shows Political Chic is staggeringly immoral.

Now, let's check out how Political Chic is trying to deflect from that argument.

1. . o Annual worldwide cases of acute illness due to malaria: 300-500 million
o Annual worldwide deaths due to malaria: 1.1-2.7 million, mostly among children under five years of age http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/d...nofMalaria.pdf

Not relevant, being that DDT has always been legal for malaria control. Not in the USA, but the issue is academic, as malaria was mostly wiped out in the USA before DDT was invented, and malaria was completely gone in the USA by the time DDT became an environmental issue.



Not relevant, being that DDT has always been legal for malaria control in areas where malaria exists.

3. “…Rachel Carson's Silent Spring,

... was not always correct with all the science. No one disputes that. But it was correct in that mass agricultural usage of DDT was a serious environmental problem, regardless of whether Carlson got the dangers to humans wrong.

4. British politician Dick Taverne was damning in his criticism of Carson:
Carson didn't seem to take into account the vital role (DDT) played in controlling the transmission of malaria by killing the mosquitoes that carry the parasite (...)

And given that DDT was never banned for malaria control in areas where malaria existed, one wonders what Dick Taverne is babbling about.

Political Chic, why won't you address the fact that mass agricultural use of DDT caused mosquitoes (and other pests) to develop DDT resistance? Act like a liberal and do your homework, instead of doing mindless cut-and-pastes. DDT wasn't abandoned because of the dirty liberals. It was abandoned because it no longer worked. That's why it could be banned in the USA. The agriculture lobby no longer cared about DDT, being that it no longer killed Boll Weevils on the cotton crop.

The board is never so much fun as when someone bites it big time…..
…that’s where you come in!

Your post makes the strong and indelible connection between current progressives and the progressives who endorsed eugenics….the killing of those deemed less worthy.
A major endeavor of earlier progressives.

And, sure enough, here you are shrugging at the millions of deathsdue to malaria.



And you pretend that it is based on science….preventing the mosquito from developing resistance to DDT.
a. one never knows if and when mutations will occur, nor to what extent.
b. One who claims to be for science, but can’t imagine science modifying the pesticide to deal with the mutation.
Hoist by your own petard, eh?


No, you are simply another example of progressives affirming the insouciance with respect to human life, and ideology over humanity. The progressive's doctrine.



Your post, and my response establishes exactly why no progressive should ever, ever, be allowed in a position of power.
Not if one is concerned for his fellow man.

 

[Toronado3800]

In*2007, CDC received reports of 1,505 cases of malaria among person in the United States. All but one of these cases were acquired outside of the United States; one was acquired through a blood transfusion.

CDC Data & Statistics | Feature: Malaria Surveillance in the United States.

This does not seem worth the risk to fight with DDT.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In*2007, CDC received reports of 1,505 cases of malaria among person in the United States. All but one of these cases were acquired outside of the United States; one was acquired through a blood transfusion.

CDC Data & Statistics | Feature: Malaria Surveillance in the United States.

This does not seem worth the risk to fight with DDT.

1. Seems you don't understand malaria.

"Malaria existed in the United States from colonial times until the 1940's."
Malaria

Do you know the year it was banned?

The reduction was based on the agriculture, changing swamps to arable lands.


2. "By means of that ban, environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable."
Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths - Discover the Networks

 

[Toronado3800]

In*2007, CDC received reports of 1,505 cases of malaria among person in the United States. All but one of these cases were acquired outside of the United States; one was acquired through a blood transfusion.

CDC Data & Statistics | Feature: Malaria Surveillance in the United States.

This does not seem worth the risk to fight with DDT.

1. Seems you don't understand malaria.

"Malaria existed in the United States from colonial times until the 1940's."
Malaria

Do you know the year it was banned?

The reduction was based on the agriculture, changing swamps to arable lands.


2. "By means of that ban, environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable."
Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths - Discover the Networks

Maybe I don't understand your point.

DDT was banned in the 70's under either progressive Nixon or progressive Ford (sorry, I couldn't resist, maybe they fought it tooth and nail, who knows)...use may have been cut before then. I am not an expert on it....

Malaria is carried by mosquito's who do well in swampy areas....In the U.S. we are eliminating "wet lands" very quickly because republican farmers like big government to build levee's for them or something. I live in Missouri, I don't get why we build levees for business parks when there is dry land five miles away but hey, that's me and my love for small government. Ah, another issue.

Being for small government and being an American first I don't support Mississippi creating an environmental problem to make it's land livable. Just plum don't care about raising land value in Louisiana or the Everglades when there is other land.

Are you asking if DDT was useful in America in the 50's? Maybe but man what a cost. Besides the immediate effects it created a permanent problem my children may have to pay to fix again. Folks moved where folks into places which may require terrible chemicals to be used to eliminate mosquitoes next time the malaria sneaks up or West Nile gets worse. Now I don't see a point to it.

When reading scientific papers I am conservative. If that paper says DDT makes bird eggs unviable I assume it is not good for humans. I guess you can liberally read any tissue sample inspection liberally and hope it doesn't work that way in the real world.

You strike me as a minimalist. I'm surprised we aren't in agreement here.

Do you want to talk about if Panama should use DDT? Heck, is it banned there?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In*2007, CDC received reports of 1,505 cases of malaria among person in the United States. All but one of these cases were acquired outside of the United States; one was acquired through a blood transfusion.

CDC Data & Statistics | Feature: Malaria Surveillance in the United States.

This does not seem worth the risk to fight with DDT.

1. Seems you don't understand malaria.

"Malaria existed in the United States from colonial times until the 1940's."
Malaria

Do you know the year it was banned?

The reduction was based on the agriculture, changing swamps to arable lands.


2. "By means of that ban, environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable."
Malaria Victims: How Environmentalist Ban on DDT Caused 50 Million Deaths - Discover the Networks

Maybe I don't understand your point.

DDT was banned in the 70's under either progressive Nixon or progressive Ford (sorry, I couldn't resist, maybe they fought it tooth and nail, who knows)...use may have been cut before then. I am not an expert on it....

Malaria is carried by mosquito's who do well in swampy areas....In the U.S. we are eliminating "wet lands" very quickly because republican farmers like big government to build levee's for them or something. I live in Missouri, I don't get why we build levees for business parks when there is dry land five miles away but hey, that's me and my love for small government. Ah, another issue.

Being for small government and being an American first I don't support Mississippi creating an environmental problem to make it's land livable. Just plum don't care about raising land value in Louisiana or the Everglades when there is other land.

Are you asking if DDT was useful in America in the 50's? Maybe but man what a cost. Besides the immediate effects it created a permanent problem my children may have to pay to fix again. Folks moved where folks into places which may require terrible chemicals to be used to eliminate mosquitoes next time the malaria sneaks up or West Nile gets worse. Now I don't see a point to it.

When reading scientific papers I am conservative. If that paper says DDT makes bird eggs unviable I assume it is not good for humans. I guess you can liberally read any tissue sample inspection liberally and hope it doesn't work that way in the real world.

You strike me as a minimalist. I'm surprised we aren't in agreement here.

Do you want to talk about if Panama should use DDT? Heck, is it banned there?

1. "Maybe but man what a cost."
What cost?


2. "Besides the immediate effects it created a permanent problem my children may have to pay to fix again."

may
/mā/
Verb
Expressing possibility.


3. " If that paper says DDT makes bird eggs unviable I assume it is not good for humans."

a. Studies in a lab, often done on a mouse, or a human cell grown under artificial conditions, do not always yield the same information when repeated in research animals.
b. Even then, studies which show negative health effects in animals don’t always translate to the same outcomes in human.
c. And, even then, epidemiological studies do not always agree with biological studies.
d. Bottom line: just because a published paper presents a statistically significant result does not mean it necessarily has a biologically meaningful effect.
The above, from chapter seven of “Science Left Behind,” Berezow and Campbell.

4. " I'm surprised we aren't in agreement here."
That's because I use and read words precisely.


5. "Do you want to talk about if Panama should use DDT? Heck, is it banned there?"
"The obvious question is why DDT isn't being used if it is so effective. The short answer is that the controversy and misunderstanding surrounding DDT stops the leading donor countries from supporting its use."
DDT use urged by: Jasson Urbach, Free Market Foundation | H. D. Hudson

a. “Ugandan farmers are being told that they could lose millions of dollars in fruits and vegetable exports into the European Union (EU) market when the Ugandan government imports DDT for the prevention of malaria. European protectionism is odious at the best of times, but this alleged EU threat borders is particularly egregious, and should be pre-emptively challenged by Ugandans through the WTO."
Europe Promotes Tragedy in Uganda - Energy and the Environment - AEI

 

[Toronado3800]

4. " I'm surprised we aren't in agreement here."
That's because I use and read words precisely.

No, that is because you find the meaning you want in words or do not understand.

I prefer to think it is the meaning you want. People hear what they want to hear.

"If a settlement is built in a swamp and malaria is eradicated by use of DDT then the children of that generation MAY just have to use DDT again in the future to re-eradicate malaria."

Any disagreement with that statement? I view it as plain and sorry to have offended you in my previous post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. " I'm surprised we aren't in agreement here."
That's because I use and read words precisely.

No, that is because you find the meaning you want in words or do not understand.

I prefer to think it is the meaning you want. People hear what they want to hear.

"If a settlement is built in a swamp and malaria is eradicated by use of DDT then the children of that generation MAY just have to use DDT again in the future to re-eradicate malaria."

Any disagreement with that statement? I view it as plain and sorry to have offended you in my previous post.

Is that your answer to question 1 in the post?