Outrageous: Obama Issues Permits To Kill Our Symbol Of Freedom, The Bald Eagle

[daveman]

No, I dismissed it because I couldn't get to it, genius.

You couldn't get to any of the articles you cited either - but you accepted them as gospel. Nevermind that mine is an actual piece of experimental research from the leading science journal in the world, and it's one of the seminal articles on the topic.

Ah, but you don't understand 8537. All them thar pointy headed pinko scientists are in on a worldwide conspiracy to delude and confuse poor little minds like Daveboy. They are part of the vast Masonic conspiracy working toward a one world government that will take all our gun and gonads. They make vast amounts of money and do nothing in return. After all, we all know it is them holy roller preachers and right wing politicians that create the new medicines, design airplanes and computers, them thar pointy headed scientists never have done anything useful

Yes, you just keep being emotional. It's all you've got.

And if that lets you excuse the millions of needless deaths due to malaria, so be it.

 

[daveman]

Typical CON$erviNutzi half truth/whole lie!

The increase in the number of eagles was because of the Bald Eagle Act that was passed in 1940 and in spite of the use of DDT, which hampered their recovery.

History of the Bald Eagle


By the 1930s, people became aware of the diminishing bald eagle population, and in 1940 the Bald Eagle Act was passed. This reduced the harassment by humans, and eagle populations began to recover. However, at the same time DDT and other pesticides began to be widely used. Pesticides sprayed on plants were eaten by small animals, which were later consumed by birds of prey. The DDT poison harmed both the adult birds and the eggs that they laid. The egg shells became too thin to with stand the incubation period, and were often crushed. Eggs that were not crushed during incubation often did not hatch, due to high levels of DDT and its derivatives. Large quantities of DDT were discovered in the fatty tissues and gonads of dead bald eagles, which may have caused them to become infertile.
Status and future of bald eagles.

In 1972 the United States ban DDT.

With these and other recovery methods, as well as habitat improvement and the banning of DDT, bald eagle populations have steadily increased. Indeed, the number of nesting pairs in the lower 48 United States increased 10-fold, from less than 450 in the early 1960s, to more than 4,500 adult bald eagle nesting pairs in the 1990s. In the Southeast, for example, there were about 980 breeding pairs in 1993, up from about 400 in 1981

There is no credible scientific evidence that shows DDT harmed wildlife.

There is, though, a lot of leftist hysteria and fear-mongering, which, while amusing in a pats-the-screaming-child-and-sends-him-on-his-way fashion, is not a sound basis for legislation and policy.

But that's all you've got.

On your way, kid.

Like all deniers, you're full of shit!

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/pesthist.htm

The first important synthetic organic pesticide was a chlorinated hydrocarboon (or organochlorine): dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or DDT. DDT was discovered in 1939 by a Swiss chemist Paul Muller. In its early days, it was hailed as a miracle for a number of reasons:

It was toxic to wide range of insect pests ("broad spectrum") yet appeared to have low toxicity to mammals.

It was persistent (didn't break down rapidly in the environment) so that it didn't have to be reapplied often.

It was not water soluble (insoluble), so didn't get washed off by rains.

It was inexpensive and easy to apply


​

(1) Direct toxicity. It was discovered that DDT was toxic to fish (especially juveniles) and crabs, not only to insects.
(2) Indirect toxicity, related to its persistence. (It's persistence came in part from its insolubility, from the fact that it was a synthetic, recently introduced compound that microconsumers, such as bacteria, lacked enzymes capable of degrading -- basically they hadn't evolved to use it as an energy source, as well as from other features of its chemistry.)




The pesticide manufacturers said that the minute amounts found in the environment couldn't possibly be killing them. However, some experimental work demonstrated that even small amounts of some of the pesticides could affect the survival and reproduction of some species. More important, research demonstrated that, although concentrations were very low in the soil, atmosphere and water, concentrations were higher in plants, higher still in herbivores, and still higher as one moved up the food chain.
The indirect toxicity related to two principles :

(1) Bioconcentration – the tendency for a compound to accumulate in an organisms's tissues (especially in fatty tissues for fat soluble organochlorines such as DDT) and
(2) Biomagnification. – an increase in concentration up the food chain.
​

(These terms are sloppily used; sometimes "bioaccumulation" is also used to mean either of these, and people often use all of these terms interchangeably.)
Because DDT was (is) persistent, there was abundant opportunity for it to be taken up from the environment by organisms. For example, in the estuarine ecosystem next to Long Island Sound, the following concentrations of DDT were found:

In water = 3 ppt (0.000003 ppm)

In zooplankton = 0.04 ppm (bioconcentration and biomagnification from eating plants)

In minnows = 0.5 ppm (bioconcentration + biomagnification) (Because of the inefficiency of energy transfer, each minnow has to eat lots of zooplankton, and so acquires quite a burden from them.)

In large fish = 2.0 ppm

In ospreys (fish eating birds) = 25.0 ppm
​

Thus, concentrations had increased 10 million times up this progression, largely because of biomagnification (differential uptake and secretion may also be involved). These concentrations were not directly lethal to the highest order carnivores, but did impair their reproduction. DDT (actually, its breakdown product DDE) reduced the deposition of calcium in eggshells. The birds thus produced thinner shell that cracked more readily during incubation.
The populations of many predatory populations (the highest order carnivores), such as bald eagles and brown pelicans were nearly eliminated. The peregrine falcon disappeared in the eastern US as a result of reproductive failures by the 1960's.
DDT (as DDE, a breakdown products from DDT) also appeared in the fatty tissues of seals and Eskimos, far from any area of use, indicating that, because of its persistence, it was being transported for long distances in the atmosphere and then being washed from the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast milk at remarkably high concentrations -- so high that the milk couldn't legally be sold through interstate commerce if it were cow's milk! DDE is the most widespread contaminant in human milk around the world.

​

So you're saving thousands of lives by letting millions more die.

Good job, asshat.

 

[Sunshine]

Do we even need DDT any longer? My exterminator told me a couple years ago that insecticides have become more specific for the insects and less so for humans. I recall when I was a girl, they came and sprayed our house for termites and other bugs every year. No bug could safely walk in our house. But then I always figures that is why my mother and sister got cancer. And my last m'gram was suspicious too. Never mind that we have a gaseous diffusion plant in this area. I remember how the flowers wilted after those sprayings. Now they come and inspect for termites every year, but have only sprayed once since I've been here and that was just because it was time. I have to have my place sprayed for wasps, though. Got stung on the ankle by two at the same time one year, and thought my bionic knee would be stiff for the rest of my life. As it turned out, it only took 6 months for it to loosen back up.

Haven't researched it, but I have to wonder if there isn't something that is better for malaria. Isn't there a vaccine? I'm thinking there is.

 

[Synthaholic]

hey Frankie.....use all that education you claim to have and do some research before you open your ass and talk......DDT is claimed by many to have been a major factor in the Bald Eagles demise...some also say that is bullshit......this is from the Smithsonian...you do know what that is right?.......

Saving Our Symbol: The Bald Eagle's Path to Recovery - National Zoo| FONZ

When the bald eagle was adopted as our national symbol in 1782, there were between 25,000 and 75,000 birds nesting in the lower 48 states. Illegal shooting, habitat destruction, lead poisoning, and the catastrophic effects of DDT contamination in their prey base reduced eagle numbers to a mere 417 pairs by 1963. Legal protection began with the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and continued with the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the 1978 listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The single-most important regulation affecting bald eagle recovery may have been the banning of DDT for most uses in the United States in 1972.

guess who was behind the banning of this ?....the EPA created under Nixon....and this guy appointed by Nixon.....William Ruckelshaus the first head of the EPA....
i dont think the Democrats can take all of the accolades for this you puss infested Anal Fissure.....

Yeah, right after the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969, which happened to be where he lived. Didn't he move to the Keys after that?

I heard a Republican Senator say that 53% of the people who ever lived in Santa Barbara are mentally challenged. I refuse to provide proof that this is an accurate number, because Dick TuckedInHisMouth says someone elses word should be good enough.

I see by your desperate sigline that DT must have whupped you something fierce in one of these threads.

Perhaps making the font even larger and bolder will make you feel better?

 

[Synthaholic]

Typical CON$erviNutzi half truth/whole lie!

The increase in the number of eagles was because of the Bald Eagle Act that was passed in 1940 and in spite of the use of DDT, which hampered their recovery.

History of the Bald Eagle


By the 1930s, people became aware of the diminishing bald eagle population, and in 1940 the Bald Eagle Act was passed. This reduced the harassment by humans, and eagle populations began to recover. However, at the same time DDT and other pesticides began to be widely used. Pesticides sprayed on plants were eaten by small animals, which were later consumed by birds of prey. The DDT poison harmed both the adult birds and the eggs that they laid. The egg shells became too thin to with stand the incubation period, and were often crushed. Eggs that were not crushed during incubation often did not hatch, due to high levels of DDT and its derivatives. Large quantities of DDT were discovered in the fatty tissues and gonads of dead bald eagles, which may have caused them to become infertile.
Status and future of bald eagles.

In 1972 the United States ban DDT.

With these and other recovery methods, as well as habitat improvement and the banning of DDT, bald eagle populations have steadily increased. Indeed, the number of nesting pairs in the lower 48 United States increased 10-fold, from less than 450 in the early 1960s, to more than 4,500 adult bald eagle nesting pairs in the 1990s. In the Southeast, for example, there were about 980 breeding pairs in 1993, up from about 400 in 1981

There is no credible scientific evidence that shows DDT harmed wildlife.

There is, though, a lot of leftist hysteria and fear-mongering, which, while amusing in a pats-the-screaming-child-and-sends-him-on-his-way fashion, is not a sound basis for legislation and policy.

But that's all you've got.

On your way, kid.

Like all deniers, you're full of shit!

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/pesthist.htm

The first important synthetic organic pesticide was a chlorinated hydrocarboon (or organochlorine): dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or DDT. DDT was discovered in 1939 by a Swiss chemist Paul Muller. In its early days, it was hailed as a miracle for a number of reasons:

It was toxic to wide range of insect pests ("broad spectrum") yet appeared to have low toxicity to mammals.

It was persistent (didn't break down rapidly in the environment) so that it didn't have to be reapplied often.

It was not water soluble (insoluble), so didn't get washed off by rains.

It was inexpensive and easy to apply


​

(1) Direct toxicity. It was discovered that DDT was toxic to fish (especially juveniles) and crabs, not only to insects.
(2) Indirect toxicity, related to its persistence. (It's persistence came in part from its insolubility, from the fact that it was a synthetic, recently introduced compound that microconsumers, such as bacteria, lacked enzymes capable of degrading -- basically they hadn't evolved to use it as an energy source, as well as from other features of its chemistry.)




The pesticide manufacturers said that the minute amounts found in the environment couldn't possibly be killing them. However, some experimental work demonstrated that even small amounts of some of the pesticides could affect the survival and reproduction of some species. More important, research demonstrated that, although concentrations were very low in the soil, atmosphere and water, concentrations were higher in plants, higher still in herbivores, and still higher as one moved up the food chain.
The indirect toxicity related to two principles :

(1) Bioconcentration – the tendency for a compound to accumulate in an organisms's tissues (especially in fatty tissues for fat soluble organochlorines such as DDT) and
(2) Biomagnification. – an increase in concentration up the food chain.
​

(These terms are sloppily used; sometimes "bioaccumulation" is also used to mean either of these, and people often use all of these terms interchangeably.)
Because DDT was (is) persistent, there was abundant opportunity for it to be taken up from the environment by organisms. For example, in the estuarine ecosystem next to Long Island Sound, the following concentrations of DDT were found:

In water = 3 ppt (0.000003 ppm)

In zooplankton = 0.04 ppm (bioconcentration and biomagnification from eating plants)

In minnows = 0.5 ppm (bioconcentration + biomagnification) (Because of the inefficiency of energy transfer, each minnow has to eat lots of zooplankton, and so acquires quite a burden from them.)

In large fish = 2.0 ppm

In ospreys (fish eating birds) = 25.0 ppm
​

Thus, concentrations had increased 10 million times up this progression, largely because of biomagnification (differential uptake and secretion may also be involved). These concentrations were not directly lethal to the highest order carnivores, but did impair their reproduction. DDT (actually, its breakdown product DDE) reduced the deposition of calcium in eggshells. The birds thus produced thinner shell that cracked more readily during incubation.
The populations of many predatory populations (the highest order carnivores), such as bald eagles and brown pelicans were nearly eliminated. The peregrine falcon disappeared in the eastern US as a result of reproductive failures by the 1960's.
DDT (as DDE, a breakdown products from DDT) also appeared in the fatty tissues of seals and Eskimos, far from any area of use, indicating that, because of its persistence, it was being transported for long distances in the atmosphere and then being washed from the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast milk at remarkably high concentrations -- so high that the milk couldn't legally be sold through interstate commerce if it were cow's milk! DDE is the most widespread contaminant in human milk around the world.

​

Prediction: daveman will answer your post with a lame insult, then claim victory.


(because he's a dope)

 

[Synthaholic]

There is no credible scientific evidence that shows DDT harmed wildlife.

There is, though, a lot of leftist hysteria and fear-mongering, which, while amusing in a pats-the-screaming-child-and-sends-him-on-his-way fashion, is not a sound basis for legislation and policy.

But that's all you've got.

On your way, kid.

Like all deniers, you're full of shit!

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/pesthist.htm

The first important synthetic organic pesticide was a chlorinated hydrocarboon (or organochlorine): dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or DDT. DDT was discovered in 1939 by a Swiss chemist Paul Muller. In its early days, it was hailed as a miracle for a number of reasons:

It was toxic to wide range of insect pests ("broad spectrum") yet appeared to have low toxicity to mammals.

It was persistent (didn't break down rapidly in the environment) so that it didn't have to be reapplied often.

It was not water soluble (insoluble), so didn't get washed off by rains.

It was inexpensive and easy to apply


​

(1) Direct toxicity. It was discovered that DDT was toxic to fish (especially juveniles) and crabs, not only to insects.
(2) Indirect toxicity, related to its persistence. (It's persistence came in part from its insolubility, from the fact that it was a synthetic, recently introduced compound that microconsumers, such as bacteria, lacked enzymes capable of degrading -- basically they hadn't evolved to use it as an energy source, as well as from other features of its chemistry.)




The pesticide manufacturers said that the minute amounts found in the environment couldn't possibly be killing them. However, some experimental work demonstrated that even small amounts of some of the pesticides could affect the survival and reproduction of some species. More important, research demonstrated that, although concentrations were very low in the soil, atmosphere and water, concentrations were higher in plants, higher still in herbivores, and still higher as one moved up the food chain.
The indirect toxicity related to two principles :

(1) Bioconcentration – the tendency for a compound to accumulate in an organisms's tissues (especially in fatty tissues for fat soluble organochlorines such as DDT) and
(2) Biomagnification. – an increase in concentration up the food chain.
​

(These terms are sloppily used; sometimes "bioaccumulation" is also used to mean either of these, and people often use all of these terms interchangeably.)
Because DDT was (is) persistent, there was abundant opportunity for it to be taken up from the environment by organisms. For example, in the estuarine ecosystem next to Long Island Sound, the following concentrations of DDT were found:

In water = 3 ppt (0.000003 ppm)

In zooplankton = 0.04 ppm (bioconcentration and biomagnification from eating plants)

In minnows = 0.5 ppm (bioconcentration + biomagnification) (Because of the inefficiency of energy transfer, each minnow has to eat lots of zooplankton, and so acquires quite a burden from them.)

In large fish = 2.0 ppm

In ospreys (fish eating birds) = 25.0 ppm
​

Thus, concentrations had increased 10 million times up this progression, largely because of biomagnification (differential uptake and secretion may also be involved). These concentrations were not directly lethal to the highest order carnivores, but did impair their reproduction. DDT (actually, its breakdown product DDE) reduced the deposition of calcium in eggshells. The birds thus produced thinner shell that cracked more readily during incubation.
The populations of many predatory populations (the highest order carnivores), such as bald eagles and brown pelicans were nearly eliminated. The peregrine falcon disappeared in the eastern US as a result of reproductive failures by the 1960's.
DDT (as DDE, a breakdown products from DDT) also appeared in the fatty tissues of seals and Eskimos, far from any area of use, indicating that, because of its persistence, it was being transported for long distances in the atmosphere and then being washed from the atmosphere by rains. It also showed up in human breast milk at remarkably high concentrations -- so high that the milk couldn't legally be sold through interstate commerce if it were cow's milk! DDE is the most widespread contaminant in human milk around the world.

​

So you're saving thousands of lives by letting millions more die.

Good job, asshat.

Damn, I'm good!

 

[daveman]

Damn, I'm good!

Oh, look...you answered with a lame post, then claimed victory.

If that lets you feel better about the millions of malaria victims the banning of DDT caused, go for it. The left's intentions were pure, and that's all that matters.

Dead malaria victims are just...collateral damage. Right?

 

[Polk]

That's not true. The authority to grant or deny permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act falls to Interior.

This was pointed out to me earlier.

the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed,
from time to time, having due regard to the zones of temperature
and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding
habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds, to
determine when, to what extent, if at all, and by what means, it is
compatible with the terms of the conventions to allow hunting,
taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment,
transportation, carriage, or export of any such bird, or any part,
nest, or egg thereof, and to adopt suitable regulations permitting
and governing the same, in accordance with such determinations,
which regulations shall become effective when approved by the
President.

Which sets out the general framework. Once that framework is created, implementation falls to the department.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's not true. The authority to grant or deny permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act falls to Interior.

This was pointed out to me earlier.

the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed,
from time to time, having due regard to the zones of temperature
and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding
habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds, to
determine when, to what extent, if at all, and by what means, it is
compatible with the terms of the conventions to allow hunting,
taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment,
transportation, carriage, or export of any such bird, or any part,
nest, or egg thereof, and to adopt suitable regulations permitting
and governing the same, in accordance with such determinations,
which regulations shall become effective when approved by the
President.

Which sets out the general framework. Once that framework is created, implementation falls to the department.

Can't do it without the presidents OK, that is the law. But are you saying obama is incompetent and does not know what his appointee's are doing?

which regulations shall become effective when approved by the President

 

[Harry Dresden]

2 Bald Eages for the Arapaho ceremony seems reasonable- since Dems have saved them from the endangered list...

hey Frankie.....use all that education you claim to have and do some research before you open your ass and talk......DDT is claimed by many to have been a major factor in the Bald Eagles demise...some also say that is bullshit......this is from the Smithsonian...you do know what that is right?.......

Saving Our Symbol: The Bald Eagle's Path to Recovery - National Zoo| FONZ

When the bald eagle was adopted as our national symbol in 1782, there were between 25,000 and 75,000 birds nesting in the lower 48 states. Illegal shooting, habitat destruction, lead poisoning, and the catastrophic effects of DDT contamination in their prey base reduced eagle numbers to a mere 417 pairs by 1963. Legal protection began with the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and continued with the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the 1978 listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The single-most important regulation affecting bald eagle recovery may have been the banning of DDT for most uses in the United States in 1972.

guess who was behind the banning of this ?....the EPA created under Nixon....and this guy appointed by Nixon.....William Ruckelshaus the first head of the EPA....
i dont think the Democrats can take all of the accolades for this you puss infested Anal Fissure.....

Yeah, right after the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969, which happened to be where he lived. Didn't he move to the Keys after that?

Ruckelshaus?....in 1969 he was Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division for the U.S. Department of Justice.....so i would think he was in Wash DC at that time....

 

[hortysir]

I've been offline for almost 16 hours ... are there any eagles left?

Judging by the direction of this circle-jerk of a thread they were all killed off by DDT

 

[daveman]

But I didn't reject your Science article because of where it was published. You rejected my JunkScience article because of who published it.

I'll bet you can't see the difference.

Wait - you just dismissed the Science article by saying that scientists would "never falsify data" sarcastically. That occurred shortly after you stood by junk science site's claims from a bunch of articles that don't even show up in the leading academic search engines.
And by "don't show up", I don't mean they have low citation ratings or show up without any cites. I mean they don't show up.

But of course, that's the man keeping conservative academia down.

And by the way, Heartland didn't publish those articles. University Press did. Heartland simply offered them as sources knowing damn well that (a) their supporters wouldn't check them and (b) they couldn't even if they tried.

So your point is, if it's not available on the internet, it doesn't exist?

Yeah. You go with that.

Let me ask you a question about the Science article: How much DDT were they giving the birds?

Well? How much?

 

[Political Junky]

It's great to see conservatives become interested in conserving wildlife.

 

[JScott]

Is this outrageous or not? This is a attack on our symbol of freedom, the bald eagle. What does this tell us about this man that sits in the White House? Would Teddy Roosevelt approve, or any other American president? I don't know about you but I cherish the Bald Eagle with pride and patriotism. Do you?

Permit to Kill Bald Eagles Granted by Obama Administration | Conservative Byte

Its two birds for a culture that predates ours by thousands of years. Get over it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is this outrageous or not? This is a attack on our symbol of freedom, the bald eagle. What does this tell us about this man that sits in the White House? Would Teddy Roosevelt approve, or any other American president? I don't know about you but I cherish the Bald Eagle with pride and patriotism. Do you?

Permit to Kill Bald Eagles Granted by Obama Administration | Conservative Byte

Its two birds for a culture that predates ours by thousands of years. Get over it.

Many Americans have worked hard to bring back the Bald Eagle from near extinction. There are other options for Indian tribes to get the parts they need for their ceremonies. Captive Eagles that cannot be released molt their feathers every year, so Indians can get their feathers that way, and Eagles that die in those Eagle preserves the tribes can get the parts they need, such as claws. The Bald Eagle is America's national symbol, let's not open a Pandora's box over this.

 

[Seawytch]

Is this outrageous or not? This is a attack on our symbol of freedom, the bald eagle. What does this tell us about this man that sits in the White House? Would Teddy Roosevelt approve, or any other American president? I don't know about you but I cherish the Bald Eagle with pride and patriotism. Do you?

Permit to Kill Bald Eagles Granted by Obama Administration | Conservative Byte

Its two birds for a culture that predates ours by thousands of years. Get over it.

I don't know if the age of a culture is exactly the way you want to go on this. Illegal is illegal. If it is illegal for me to go out and shoot a bald eagle, it should be illegal for everyone, no exceptions.

Same thing goes for Eskimos and whales or whatever.

 

[rightwinger]

Bald Eagle is actually quite tasty

I like mine with some fava beans and a nice Chianti

 

[8537]

No, I dismissed it because I couldn't get to it, genius.

You couldn't get to any of the articles you cited either - but you accepted them as gospel. Nevermind that mine is an actual piece of experimental research from the leading science journal in the world, and it's one of the seminal articles on the topic.

...because you agree with its conclusions.

You wouldn't think as highly of it if it didn't support the leftist agenda. We both know that.

No, not because I agree with them. Because the scientific method was rigorously employed and the outcomes have been repeated over and over.

...unlike the articles you allegedly quote that aren't even available.

 

[Decepticon]

This is rich coming from rat-felching CONZ.

YOU guys were the ones who fight the endangered species act at every turn you get. Hell, Limbaugh is STILL talking about brining back DDT on his show, saying it was a liberal plot.

Don't talk to me about the ceremonial taking of a bird for religious purposes versus nearly wiping out an entire species.



Along with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the US ban on DDT is cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle, the national bird of the United States, from near-extinction in the contiguous US.[8]

The EPA then held seven months of hearings in 1971–1972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDT—an exemption allowed for public health uses under some conditions.[13] Immediately after the cancellation was announced, both EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against the EPA, with the industry seeking to overturn the ban, and EDF seeking a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.[13]


Not surprisingly, you hear CONZ wanting to get RID of the EPA entirely.
Huzzah!

Over the last couple of weeks, we've had a family of about 5 bald eagles nest in some trees near a lake by our home. I've lived in this area my entire life and have not seen 5 bald eagles in my 40+ years. Already my daughter, at 10, has seen more wildlife than I did at her age. And CONZ would look to make sure HER daughter never saw anything like she did again.

 

[daveman]

You couldn't get to any of the articles you cited either - but you accepted them as gospel. Nevermind that mine is an actual piece of experimental research from the leading science journal in the world, and it's one of the seminal articles on the topic.

...because you agree with its conclusions.

You wouldn't think as highly of it if it didn't support the leftist agenda. We both know that.

No, not because I agree with them. Because the scientific method was rigorously employed and the outcomes have been repeated over and over.

...unlike the articles you allegedly quote that aren't even available.

If you couldn't read the articles that I quoted, how do you know how they reached their conclusions?

Oh, yeah -- you're determining what is and isn't science based on your politics.

Meanwhile, I don't believe you ever answered my question:

In the study you posted, how much DDT was given to the birds?