Dangerous Chemicals in the Environment

[Bfgrn]

PC, I hate to 'water' down your rant. But when you took junior high school science, did your teacher go over 2nd generation resistance? Probably not. I'm sure it was an edict by the teacher's union.

 

[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.

Is that your answer to question 1 in the post?

What cost?

Environmental - DDT is not good for small mammals, fish or birds much less being outright poison for insects besides mosquitoes. Do you dispute this?

Human - while being great for getting rid of malaria it is not great for your nervous system (you have to breath or eat it, not touch it). I hear new science from Africa reports male reproductive problems are a side effect.

Economic - in the United States we have places to live that are not prone to malaria. It increases our cost of living by having to eradicate bugs to make certain areas desirable to live.

What are we talking about in 1920? 5 to 10 k deaths per year in the U.S. from malaria?

 

[Toronado3800]

Moving on with sloppy cut quotes from your previous points.

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.

The use of the word "always" so often there is a key.

If you replace it with "usually" do all a. b. & c. become false statements? (I don't know, but if I'm stuck in the woods with my dog and he eats something that kills him I won't eat it.)

d. is true but only because of a similar word trick which I suppose allows the author to make the point he wants w/o lying.

Look, my garage has two kinds of insecticide in it. One I can use on my fruit trees and plants if I spray two weeks or more before harvesting, the other one I'm not even supposed to get on plants I care about living. I'm not paranoid about insecticides but I pay attention to where I spray each one and I try to limit my use to when necessary.

In the U.S. now or in 1970, I see no need for DDT.

In the U.S. of 1950 for disease control? I don't think malaria was that much of a problem. Tell me how bad it was again in New Orleans or something. I'm grasping for your straws here because you make good constitutional points.

In the U.S. of 1950 for crop treatment? No.

 

[Toronado3800]

Point 5

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

Let's start with the European Union...

What do you want to do, tell the Europeans they MUST import food grown with pesticides of last resort when there are other sources available? If the DDT farmers and DDT makers can get enough studies together then duplicate them with or under government surveillance they will win out. Until then some environmental hippies with no money to be made from anything besides selling a book have beaten their economic might?

The first part I'm loosing the point on...but I figure if Uganda is getting DDT (which is causing problems with their food exports per your source) then Panama or any "X" country can. Are you stating it should be cheaper?

Malaria is the 5th leading cause of death in Kenya (I used Google!). Accidents are the 5th leading cause here followed by Alzheimer's and lead by strokes. I'm trying to quantify how bad Malaria is anyplace else to make your case....it is such a non issue here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

What cost?

Environmental - DDT is not good for small mammals, fish or birds much less being outright poison for insects besides mosquitoes. Do you dispute this?

Human - while being great for getting rid of malaria it is not great for your nervous system (you have to breath or eat it, not touch it). I hear new science from Africa reports male reproductive problems are a side effect.

Economic - in the United States we have places to live that are not prone to malaria. It increases our cost of living by having to eradicate bugs to make certain areas desirable to live.

What are we talking about in 1920? 5 to 10 k deaths per year in the U.S. from malaria?

Nonsense.


"Despite this direct exposure, the scientific world has failed to produce any substantial evidence to back claims that link DDT to health ailments in humans. We do know, however, that wherever DDT has been used in public health, disease and deaths decreased dramatically and human populations began to rise; something one wouldn't expect if DDT was as dangerous as some people make it out to be."
DDT use urged by: Jasson Urbach, Free Market Foundation | H. D. Hudson

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, I hate to 'water' down your rant. But when you took junior high school science, did your teacher go over 2nd generation resistance? Probably not. I'm sure it was an edict by the teacher's union.

You're all wet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Moving on with sloppy cut quotes from your previous points.

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.

The use of the word "always" so often there is a key.

If you replace it with "usually" do all a. b. & c. become false statements? (I don't know, but if I'm stuck in the woods with my dog and he eats something that kills him I won't eat it.)

d. is true but only because of a similar word trick which I suppose allows the author to make the point he wants w/o lying.

Look, my garage has two kinds of insecticide in it. One I can use on my fruit trees and plants if I spray two weeks or more before harvesting, the other one I'm not even supposed to get on plants I care about living. I'm not paranoid about insecticides but I pay attention to where I spray each one and I try to limit my use to when necessary.

In the U.S. now or in 1970, I see no need for DDT.

In the U.S. of 1950 for disease control? I don't think malaria was that much of a problem. Tell me how bad it was again in New Orleans or something. I'm grasping for your straws here because you make good constitutional points.

In the U.S. of 1950 for crop treatment? No.

Worldwide.

 

[Oddball]

Reload this Page Dangerous Chemicals in the Environment

Anybody yet mentioned all the hazardous and environmentally dangerous chemicals at the numerous ammo depots and derelict arsenals scattered about the nation?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Point 5

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

Let's start with the European Union...

What do you want to do, tell the Europeans they MUST import food grown with pesticides of last resort when there are other sources available? If the DDT farmers and DDT makers can get enough studies together then duplicate them with or under government surveillance they will win out. Until then some environmental hippies with no money to be made from anything besides selling a book have beaten their economic might?

The first part I'm loosing the point on...but I figure if Uganda is getting DDT (which is causing problems with their food exports per your source) then Panama or any "X" country can. Are you stating it should be cheaper?

Malaria is the 5th leading cause of death in Kenya (I used Google!). Accidents are the 5th leading cause here followed by Alzheimer's and lead by strokes. I'm trying to quantify how bad Malaria is anyplace else to make your case....it is such a non issue here.

1. 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.


b. The ‘precautionary princeple’ can be summarized as ‘better safe than sorry,’ and in Europe, it is the law of the land.
“The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. However, in practice, the scope of this principle is far wider and also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.” The precautionary principle

c. “In practice, many environmentalists do not eschew risk analysis when they apply the principle; rather, they use it selectively to advance preconceived agendas, cherry-picking scientific risk assessments and information in order to restrict technologies that they dislike — such as biotechnology, DDT, fossil fuels, nuclear energy — and to advance technologies that they favor, including forms of renewable energy, organic farming and light-weight vehicles.”
Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT | NCPA





2. The EU blackmailed Uganda into banning DDT.
“If the European bureaucrats opposed to the use of DDT have their way, they will effectively condemn tens of thousands of Ugandan children to death,” said Tren"
.EU?s ?precaution? on DDT threatens lives of millions of Africans, says health charity | International Policy Network

a. Environmentalists have little concern for human beings.
The more that 'disappear,' the better they like it.
Today:
"David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth
Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough."
David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth - Telegraph




3. "… the triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. 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

 

[Locke11_21]

Point 5

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

Let's start with the European Union...

What do you want to do, tell the Europeans they MUST import food grown with pesticides of last resort when there are other sources available? If the DDT farmers and DDT makers can get enough studies together then duplicate them with or under government surveillance they will win out. Until then some environmental hippies with no money to be made from anything besides selling a book have beaten their economic might?

The first part I'm loosing the point on...but I figure if Uganda is getting DDT (which is causing problems with their food exports per your source) then Panama or any "X" country can. Are you stating it should be cheaper?

Malaria is the 5th leading cause of death in Kenya (I used Google!). Accidents are the 5th leading cause here followed by Alzheimer's and lead by strokes. I'm trying to quantify how bad Malaria is anyplace else to make your case....it is such a non issue here.

1. 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.


b. The ‘precautionary princeple’ can be summarized as ‘better safe than sorry,’ and in Europe, it is the law of the land.
“The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. However, in practice, the scope of this principle is far wider and also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.” The precautionary principle

c. “In practice, many environmentalists do not eschew risk analysis when they apply the principle; rather, they use it selectively to advance preconceived agendas, cherry-picking scientific risk assessments and information in order to restrict technologies that they dislike — such as biotechnology, DDT, fossil fuels, nuclear energy — and to advance technologies that they favor, including forms of renewable energy, organic farming and light-weight vehicles.”
Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT | NCPA





2. The EU blackmailed Uganda into banning DDT.
“If the European bureaucrats opposed to the use of DDT have their way, they will effectively condemn tens of thousands of Ugandan children to death,” said Tren"
.EU?s ?precaution? on DDT threatens lives of millions of Africans, says health charity | International Policy Network

a. Environmentalists have little concern for human beings.
The more that 'disappear,' the better they like it.
Today:
"David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth
Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough."
David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth - Telegraph




3. "… the triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. 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

Outstanding info!! Here is a little something to add about DDT also. There was this professor who purposely drank DDT for 40+ years just to prove it has no negatives on our health. Attacks on, bans on and such DDT are just nothing more than an attempt by the sick-minded population control leftists to have more people die off.


DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years

 

[westwall]

Point 5



Let's start with the European Union...

What do you want to do, tell the Europeans they MUST import food grown with pesticides of last resort when there are other sources available? If the DDT farmers and DDT makers can get enough studies together then duplicate them with or under government surveillance they will win out. Until then some environmental hippies with no money to be made from anything besides selling a book have beaten their economic might?

The first part I'm loosing the point on...but I figure if Uganda is getting DDT (which is causing problems with their food exports per your source) then Panama or any "X" country can. Are you stating it should be cheaper?

Malaria is the 5th leading cause of death in Kenya (I used Google!). Accidents are the 5th leading cause here followed by Alzheimer's and lead by strokes. I'm trying to quantify how bad Malaria is anyplace else to make your case....it is such a non issue here.

1. 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.


b. The ‘precautionary princeple’ can be summarized as ‘better safe than sorry,’ and in Europe, it is the law of the land.
“The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. However, in practice, the scope of this principle is far wider and also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.” The precautionary principle

c. “In practice, many environmentalists do not eschew risk analysis when they apply the principle; rather, they use it selectively to advance preconceived agendas, cherry-picking scientific risk assessments and information in order to restrict technologies that they dislike — such as biotechnology, DDT, fossil fuels, nuclear energy — and to advance technologies that they favor, including forms of renewable energy, organic farming and light-weight vehicles.”
Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT | NCPA





2. The EU blackmailed Uganda into banning DDT.
“If the European bureaucrats opposed to the use of DDT have their way, they will effectively condemn tens of thousands of Ugandan children to death,” said Tren"
.EU?s ?precaution? on DDT threatens lives of millions of Africans, says health charity | International Policy Network

a. Environmentalists have little concern for human beings.
The more that 'disappear,' the better they like it.
Today:
"David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth
Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough."
David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth - Telegraph




3. "… the triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. 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

Outstanding info!! Here is a little something to add about DDT also. There was this professor who purposely drank DDT for 40+ years just to prove it has no negatives on our health. Attacks on, bans on and such DDT are just nothing more than an attempt by the sick-minded population control leftists to have more people die off.


DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years

Yep. This follows the experience of the vets involved with Operation Ranch hand in Vietnam. They drank a glass of Agent Orange as a initiation ceremony and because of that they have been heavily monitored ever since. The result is they have the same death and cancer rates as the general population.

 

[Bfgrn]

1. 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.


b. The ‘precautionary princeple’ can be summarized as ‘better safe than sorry,’ and in Europe, it is the law of the land.
“The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU). It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk. However, in practice, the scope of this principle is far wider and also covers consumer policy, European legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health.” The precautionary principle

c. “In practice, many environmentalists do not eschew risk analysis when they apply the principle; rather, they use it selectively to advance preconceived agendas, cherry-picking scientific risk assessments and information in order to restrict technologies that they dislike — such as biotechnology, DDT, fossil fuels, nuclear energy — and to advance technologies that they favor, including forms of renewable energy, organic farming and light-weight vehicles.”
Applying the Precautionary Principle to DDT | NCPA





2. The EU blackmailed Uganda into banning DDT.
“If the European bureaucrats opposed to the use of DDT have their way, they will effectively condemn tens of thousands of Ugandan children to death,” said Tren"
.EU?s ?precaution? on DDT threatens lives of millions of Africans, says health charity | International Policy Network

a. Environmentalists have little concern for human beings.
The more that 'disappear,' the better they like it.
Today:
"David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth
Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough."
David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth - Telegraph




3. "… the triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. 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

Outstanding info!! Here is a little something to add about DDT also. There was this professor who purposely drank DDT for 40+ years just to prove it has no negatives on our health. Attacks on, bans on and such DDT are just nothing more than an attempt by the sick-minded population control leftists to have more people die off.


DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years

Yep. This follows the experience of the vets involved with Operation Ranch hand in Vietnam. They drank a glass of Agent Orange as a initiation ceremony and because of that they have been heavily monitored ever since. The result is they have the same death and cancer rates as the general population.

Yea, I smoked a cigarette once...I'm still here!

You do not have one scientific neuron in your brain.

 

[westwall]

Outstanding info!! Here is a little something to add about DDT also. There was this professor who purposely drank DDT for 40+ years just to prove it has no negatives on our health. Attacks on, bans on and such DDT are just nothing more than an attempt by the sick-minded population control leftists to have more people die off.


DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years

Yep. This follows the experience of the vets involved with Operation Ranch hand in Vietnam. They drank a glass of Agent Orange as a initiation ceremony and because of that they have been heavily monitored ever since. The result is they have the same death and cancer rates as the general population.

Yea, I smoked a cigarette once...I'm still here!

You do not have one scientific neuron in your brain.

Tell that to the US Army and the researchers who have been checking these guys every three months for the last 25 years asshat. They are probably the most inspected group of individuals in the world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Outstanding info!! Here is a little something to add about DDT also. There was this professor who purposely drank DDT for 40+ years just to prove it has no negatives on our health. Attacks on, bans on and such DDT are just nothing more than an attempt by the sick-minded population control leftists to have more people die off.


DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years

Yep. This follows the experience of the vets involved with Operation Ranch hand in Vietnam. They drank a glass of Agent Orange as a initiation ceremony and because of that they have been heavily monitored ever since. The result is they have the same death and cancer rates as the general population.

Yea, I smoked a cigarette once...I'm still here!

You do not have one scientific neuron in your brain.

Here....but not all there.

 

[mamooth]

It's very rare to find anyone repeating this nuttiness who isn't a bitter delusional right-wing crank. That's because, like I mentioned before, we're watching cultists chanting their cult mantras here.

"DDT is harmless!"

"There is no global warming!"

"Ozone depletion is a scam!"

And so on. And you can't deprogram any cultists by using facts and logic, since logic is clearly part of the vast conspiracy against them. See Political Chic's unimbomber manifestos for examples of that attitude.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's very rare to find anyone repeating this nuttiness who isn't a bitter delusional right-wing crank. That's because, like I mentioned before, we're watching cultists chanting their cult mantras here.

"DDT is harmless!"

"There is no global warming!"

"Ozone depletion is a scam!"

And so on. And you can't deprogram any cultists by using facts and logic, since logic is clearly part of the vast conspiracy against them. See Political Chic's unimbomber manifestos for examples of that attitude.

I believe you've been thoroughly spanked.

 

[Toronado3800]

Cancer map may show enormous St. Louis clusters | Video | ksdk.com

Not DDT but just a reminder of what comes out in the news everyday.

If the Chinese are that much of a threat we have to loosen our regulations and live in a sh*thole world start making your case but just for money I dunno.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cancer map may show enormous St. Louis clusters | Video | ksdk.com

Not DDT but just a reminder of what comes out in the news everyday.

If the Chinese are that much of a threat we have to loosen our regulations and live in a sh*thole world start making your case but just for money I dunno.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/276686-conservation-biology-isn-t-science.html

 

[Toronado3800]

Cancer map may show enormous St. Louis clusters | Video | ksdk.com

Not DDT but just a reminder of what comes out in the news everyday.

If the Chinese are that much of a threat we have to loosen our regulations and live in a sh*thole world start making your case but just for money I dunno.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/276686-conservation-biology-isn-t-science.html

Sounds pretty liberal of you there hoping and dreaming of a hippie like world filled with fields of butterflies and dreams. That was all fine in college but not now. We have to use best guesses and be conservative.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cancer map may show enormous St. Louis clusters | Video | ksdk.com

Not DDT but just a reminder of what comes out in the news everyday.

If the Chinese are that much of a threat we have to loosen our regulations and live in a sh*thole world start making your case but just for money I dunno.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/276686-conservation-biology-isn-t-science.html

Sounds pretty liberal of you there hoping and dreaming of a hippie like world filled with fields of butterflies and dreams. That was all fine in college but not now. We have to use best guesses and be conservative.

"...use best guesses..." Sure isn't science.