Dangerous Chemicals in the Environment

[Toronado3800]

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.

But apparently it is enough of a sure thing that folks aren't fighting to have nuclear plants put in their zip codes or even coal plants despite the number of great jobs at each.

I do admire your well researched postings but feel you bark up the wrong tree with the environmental sciences. I agree to pollute up a storm cranking out tanks or planes if it cones time to fight the Chinese or Russians or whoever though if that helps mend fences.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

But apparently it is enough of a sure thing that folks aren't fighting to have nuclear plants put in their zip codes or even coal plants despite the number of great jobs at each.

I do admire your well researched postings but feel you bark up the wrong tree with the environmental sciences. I agree to pollute up a storm cranking out tanks or planes if it cones time to fight the Chinese or Russians or whoever though if that helps mend fences.

1. "I do admire your well researched postings but feel you bark up the wrong tree with the environmental sciences."

Thanks....but didn't we just agree that environmentalism isn't based on science?

It's political.

The backers have a collectivist, global governance plan in mind.


2. "... if that helps mend fences."

Hey...no fences broken!

It’s OK if you disagree with me….I can’t force you to be right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

no sense of humour Old Rocks?

It was a mildly funny joke the first 100,000 times it was told.

 

[NYcarbineer]

DDT is not banned worldwide.

That DDT fairy tale is well worn, but it never gets any less dishonest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

DDT is not banned worldwide.

That DDT fairy tale is well worn, but it never gets any less dishonest.

It is effectively banned where most needed, in Africa, due to the blackmail of the EU.

The EU threatens to restrict imports from nations that allow the DDT as a pesticide.

 

[Toronado3800]

DDT is not banned worldwide.

That DDT fairy tale is well worn, but it never gets any less dishonest.

It is effectively banned where most needed, in Africa, due to the blackmail of the EU.

The EU threatens to restrict imports from nations that allow the DDT as a pesticide.

Just because DDT may be necessary if you live in a swamp or where malaria is prevalent does not mean the New World Order / One World Government should tell Europeans what they must eat and from where.

 

[PoliticalChic]

DDT is not banned worldwide.

That DDT fairy tale is well worn, but it never gets any less dishonest.

It is effectively banned where most needed, in Africa, due to the blackmail of the EU.

The EU threatens to restrict imports from nations that allow the DDT as a pesticide.

Just because DDT may be necessary if you live in a swamp or where malaria is prevalent does not mean the New World Order / One World Government should tell Europeans what they must eat and from where.

Could you explain what your post is related to, and articulate your point.

 

[Toronado3800]

It is effectively banned where most needed, in Africa, due to the blackmail of the EU.

The EU threatens to restrict imports from nations that allow the DDT as a pesticide.

Just because DDT may be necessary if you live in a swamp or where malaria is prevalent does not mean the New World Order / One World Government should tell Europeans what they must eat and from where.

Could you explain what your post is related to, and articulate your point.

Who do you think should make the Europeans import certain food? The United Nations?

Lucky France is not claiming DDT should be banned world wide because while it benefits those due to die from Malaria (which may never have been a big problem in the US but is in Panama and the like) DDT is apparently not good for others who do not live in malaria prone areas. The whole food chain thing. Like us claiming Brazil should not clear their forests as it is bad for the planet.

Imagine if someone went to build a nuclear on coal plant on the absolute western most line in Illinois. Folks in Indiana probably would be upset if they have tougher environmental standards as they are downwind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just because DDT may be necessary if you live in a swamp or where malaria is prevalent does not mean the New World Order / One World Government should tell Europeans what they must eat and from where.

Could you explain what your post is related to, and articulate your point.

Who do you think should make the Europeans import certain food? The United Nations?

Lucky France is not claiming DDT should be banned world wide because while it benefits those due to die from Malaria (which may never have been a big problem in the US but is in Panama and the like) DDT is apparently not good for others who do not live in malaria prone areas. The whole food chain thing. Like us claiming Brazil should not clear their forests as it is bad for the planet.

Imagine if someone went to build a nuclear on coal plant on the absolute western most line in Illinois. Folks in Indiana probably would be upset if they have tougher environmental standards as they are downwind.

1. Where did you find that I suggest making the Europeans import African produce?
Since I didn't do so, and since you are not a fool....
...your post comes across as an attempt to suggest that the argument I've made is other than the true one.

2. "Imagine if ..."
How about we don't imagine anything, and stick to the facts.

3. In the US, it is necessary for a product to be shown to be harmful before it is banned.

a. The ‘precautionary principle’ 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.”

This is the effect of Liberalism, whose doctrines reveal feeling, rather than knowing.


4. '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


a. Other chemicals are available, but they are generally less effective, shorter-acting and - most importantly for the Third World - more expensive. And DDT is extraordinarily safe for humans. Prof Kenneth Mellanby lectured on it for more than 40 years, and during each lecture he would eat a pinch.
DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years - Telegraph


And, please, don't pretend that my posts are malleable. Stick to what I actually say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

DDT is not banned worldwide.

That DDT fairy tale is well worn, but it never gets any less dishonest.

It is effectively banned where most needed, in Africa, due to the blackmail of the EU.

The EU threatens to restrict imports from nations that allow the DDT as a pesticide.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/cdc_malaria_program.pdf

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are virtually no malaria deaths in the US in recent years.

 

[initforme]

So how do you compare water to an actual man made synthetic chemical. While the dangers of DDT are clearly debatable, there is no comparison between water and the fact that we have a plethora of chemicals in the environment, many of which we dont know their long term effects. Do chemicals cause sicknesses? In all likelihood yes. But a great country such as this would never put out chemicals that make people sick to make a buck, would it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So how do you compare water to an actual man made synthetic chemical. While the dangers of DDT are clearly debatable, there is no comparison between water and the fact that we have a plethora of chemicals in the environment, many of which we dont know their long term effects. Do chemicals cause sicknesses? In all likelihood yes. But a great country such as this would never put out chemicals that make people sick to make a buck, would it?

Clearly you have no idea as to the meaning of 'chemicals.'

Definition: Everything which has mass is a chemical. Anything consisting of matter is a chemical. Any liquid, solid, gas. Any pure substance; any mixture.
Chemical Definition - Chemistry Glossary Definition of Chemical

Go ahead....name a few things that you eat, you believe harmless, but are not 'chemicals.'


You are exactly the kind of uninformed dunce that the Left finds so easy to manipulate.

 

[Old Rocks]

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????

Sure got it from the start. Still fucking dumb. After all, you people acquiesed to letting the Teabaggers run the GOP and forcing Romney to run as a far right wingnut. And that was just as fucking dumb as your OP.

 

[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????

Sure got it from the start. Still fucking dumb. After all, you people acquiesed to letting the Teabaggers run the GOP and forcing Romney to run as a far right wingnut. And that was just as fucking dumb as your OP.

Now, now, Rocks.....that language is a sure give-away that you can't come up with a cogent response.

And, this: "Teabaggers ... the GOP and ... Romney "
Are you trying to change the subject?
Actually...a good idea for one in your position...



Well...I wrote this one for you.....but, in your condition, you better not read this:

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


....it might just send you over the edge!

 

[IanC]

it is actually pretty funny how people will go along with stupid ideas if they are presented earnestly, and sometimes not so earnestly. Rick Mercer of the CBC has made a handsome living and a ton of laughs out of making politicians agree with preposterous things. as well as other people who should know better, like Harvard professors.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo]Rick Mercer - Talking To Americans - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

it is actually pretty funny how people will go along with stupid ideas if they are presented earnestly, and sometimes not so earnestly. Rick Mercer of the CBC has made a handsome living and a ton of laughs out of making politicians agree with preposterous things. as well as other people who should know better, like Harvard professors.

Rick Mercer - Talking To Americans - YouTube

“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Oh goody, more PC spew about how AWFUL it is to take care of our environment. She admits that DDT builds up in the fatty layers of higher birds and amphibians, and that it is detrimental to their reproductive health. I wonder if she realizes this: If you destroy one food chain, you destroy another. Those birds and frogs that you give not one SHIT about eat bugs... bad bugs like mosquitoes, slugs and all others that can destroy our agriculture and spread disease. These are the very important predators that keep insect populations in check. Have ticks? Get 20 guinea hens and see what happens to your tick population. I am so sick of the cut and paste drivel deriding people who want clean air and water, and to not let corporations rape, exploit and destroy every inch of this planet. Which for all her ANNOYING lists, looks like that is exactly what whe wishes to happen in her disturbing randian fantasy. But she is who she is. Then again, what can you expect from someone who quotes the big-mouthed moron that is Ann Coulter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh goody, more PC spew about how AWFUL it is to take care of our environment. She admits that DDT builds up in the fatty layers of higher birds and amphibians, and that it is detrimental to their reproductive health. I wonder if she realizes this: If you destroy one food chain, you destroy another. Those birds and frogs that you give not one SHIT about eat bugs... bad bugs like mosquitoes, slugs and all others that can destroy our agriculture and spread disease. These are the very important predators that keep insect populations in check. Have ticks? Get 20 guinea hens and see what happens to your tick population. I am so sick of the cut and paste drivel deriding people who want clean air and water, and to not let corporations rape, exploit and destroy every inch of this planet... all for her disturbing randian fantasy. But she is who she is. Then again, what can you expect from someone who quotes the big-mouthed moron that is Ann Coulter.

I just love, love, love it when you fools offer nothing but vituperation.....

...means I hit a nerve.


So....you lock-step Liberals spout every bit of nonsense the Left tells you.

Consider this: "If you destroy one food chain, you destroy another."
So....how come the planet has survived all of the extinctions throughout history?

Dunce.


You've been 'Elmer-Gantryied' and you still lap it up.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

God, you have to be the biggest fucking moron alive. I sure hope you don't reproduce.

"As DDE increased through the lower layers of the deposit, beetles showed up less often in the birds' diets and true bugs became more common, the researchers report online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This result agrees with other reports that DDT is hard on beetles, while true bugs can evolve resistance quickly. The change in diet may also help explain why chimney swifts have declined so precipitously, Nocera says."

Hmmm, wonder what other bugs can evolve resistance quickly...

"Canadian surveys have found that the number of chimney swifts dropped 95% between 1968 and 2005. Some researchers have suggested that part of the reason is that chimneys like this one, swifts' preferred habitat, have been capped or redesigned, making it harder for birds to get in. But the new work suggests that the decline may be diet related. Beetles generally contain more calories than do true bugs. Swifts need a ton of energy—they spend a lot of time on the wing, looking for food. A change in their diet, like substituting less-nutritious true bugs, could have a big impact. DDT was banned in the 1970s, but the beetles never seem to have gotten back their original place in the food web, Nocera says."


Clues to Species Decline Buried in Pile of Bird Excrement - ScienceNOW

And before man, extinctions were very slow and took millions of years. You really are completely mis-informed. Holy shit...

Humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve, say experts | Environment | The Guardian