Rachel Carson Mass Murderer

[mamooth]

DDT is so safe that it can be consumed by humans in bulk.

Provided you redefine "safe" to mean "a couple grams won't kill you, but will just do a lot of other nasty things to you in the long term." That's a definition of "safe" that few people use.

Up to this point, no one has identified exactly how DDE causes eggshell thinning.

Not relevant to the fact that _does_ cause eggshell thinning.

Those were government programs, and were often conducted over the objection of the farmers whose crops were being sprayed.

An interesting conspiracy theory there, that the USDA mandated and performed all pesticide spraying on private farms. But what does it even matter? If everyone is banned from mass agricultural usage, mosquitoes don't become resistant to it. There's no downside to such a ban.

DDT was banned for all use in the United States and many other countries. It was only when it was scientifically proven that nothing else works as well as DDT at controlling mosquitoes that limited use of DDT was permitted in some countries to deal with malaria.

An interesting take on history, but DDT was never banned for malaria control.

Did that policy kill millions? Yes.

The teentsy problem again being that DDT was never banned for malaria control. And by preventing DDT-resistant mosquitoes from evolving, the mass-use ban saved millions of lives.

Was it based on bad science and a stupid book? Yes.

Your pseudoscience, which derives from political sources, would have killed millions if implemented.

I will also point out that everything I have posted has been scientific studies except for one link to the NYT, yet you have not addressed any of it.

No, you've given us two red herrings that have nothing to do with the point you're trying to evade. Your eagle study had nothing to do with eggshell thinning, and your "we can't identify the precise cause exactly" study has nothing to do with the fact it's happening.

You've provided no actual evidence for your seemingly faith-based belief that the DDT science is wrong. I'm curious as to what you'll identify as the nefarious motives behind the vast conspiracy to fake all the science across the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Provided you redefine "safe" to mean "a couple grams won't kill you, but will just do a lot of other nasty things to you in the long term." That's a definition of "safe" that few people use.

How about I define safe as you can eat a teaspoon of it every week of your life for decades and suffer no ill effects.

Instead of relying on blogs for your evidence why don't you site all the scientific research about how deadly DDT is to humans.

Not relevant to the fact that _does_ cause eggshell thinning.

Actually, it is. It might turn out that the process involves an additive that can be eliminated or something else encountered in the environment that DDE aggravates. Given that eggshell thinning was documented years before DDT was invented it would be helpful to understand the entire mechanism.

An interesting conspiracy theory there, that the USDA mandated and performed all pesticide spraying on private farms. But what does it even matter? If everyone is banned from mass agricultural usage, mosquitoes don't become resistant to it. There's no downside to such a ban.

Are you denying that the USDA sprayed DDT? You might want to tell these nuts that it didn't happen.

DDT: An Issue of Property Rights : PERC - The Property and Environment Research Center

An interesting take on history, but DDT was never banned for malaria control.

It is illegal to manufacture DDT in the US. This makes it really hard to use it to control anything.

The teentsy problem again being that DDT was never banned for malaria control. And by preventing DDT-resistant mosquitoes from evolving, the mass-use ban saved millions of lives.

Keep telling yourself that. The simple truth is that mass spraying was never intended to control malaria, so saying that mass spraying to control malaria led to problems makes you the one rewriting history.

Your pseudoscience, which derives from political sources, would have killed millions if implemented.

Silent Spring included a claim from a woman that DDT caused her to instantly get cancer. how is me pointing out that this is absurd pseudo-science? Do you have any scientific evidence to support that DDT causes cancer in humans at all, much less does so instantaneously?

No, you've given us two red herrings that have nothing to do with the point you're trying to evade. Your eagle study had nothing to do with eggshell thinning, and your "we can't identify the precise cause exactly" study has nothing to do with the fact it's happening.

You've provided no actual evidence for your seemingly faith-based belief that the DDT science is wrong. I'm curious as to what you'll identify as the nefarious motives behind the vast conspiracy to fake all the science across the world.

I did prove the science is wrong, even though I do not have to. I actually linked to a review by a professor of agricultural bacteriology that pointed out the flaws, and directly challenged you to defend the so called science in Silent Spring. All you have countered with is a that DDE causes eggshell thinning in some birds, something that was not known until 5 years after Silent Spring came out. I think that makes you the one that is guilty of misdirection and faith based belief in the book that you, obviously, have not read.

Want to try again?

 

[daveman]

What was bogus was your attempt to to divert us with an off point article. Don't try and back track now. You haven't proved your point yet. You made an assertion and backed it up with an irrelevant article. WTF? Why should we give credence to anything you say, when your argument is all over the place? It's just sloppy debating. Stick to one point. One point had nothing to with the other and nothing's going to change that.

Are you going to attempt to refute the studies I linked that showed to eggshell thinning caused by DDT, or are you going to keep flapping at QW?

I gave you props for posting an on-point article. That hardly constitutes proof, however, as a simple search and the reference section of the Wikipedia article I posted provide many articles that say just the opposite.

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One article from a source heavily funded by industry and dedicated to "common sense" approaches to environmental problems, code for "scientists don't know what they're talking about", hardly constitutes proof of anything.

American Council on Science and Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guess you missed the one about the two guys, Hickey and Anderson, who did one of the original studies proving DDT led to thinning, later recanting their claims, huh?

Did BIGBUGSPRAY pay them off?

 

[mamooth]

How about I define safe as you can eat a teaspoon of it every week of your life for decades and suffer no ill effects.

Be my guest to start snarfing spoonfulls of organophosphates as part of your diet. I won't be joining you, as I'm not crazy.

Instead of relying on blogs for your evidence why don't you site all the scientific research about how deadly DDT is to humans.

The wiki page has dozens of such links. Use them. The "deadly" part is your strawman, so I feel no need to address it.

It might turn out that the process involves an additive that can be eliminated or something else encountered in the environment that DDE aggravates. Given that eggshell thinning was documented years before DDT was invented

Er, no. One study in England about thrush eggs has nothing to do with Bald Eagles, especially given that no one ever claimed DDE/DDT could be the only thing causing egg thinning.

it would be helpful to understand the entire mechanism.

Many links on the wiki to that.

Are you denying that the USDA sprayed DDT?.

Goalpost moving. A source about how the USDA encouraged some spraying does not support your claim that all DDT spraying was due to "Government programs". You're starting to look like a "libertarian for junk science", always finding reasons to blame the government.

It is illegal to manufacture DDT in the US. This makes it really hard to use it to control anything.

But there's no malaria in the USA, so who cares? Malaria had been nearly eradicated in the USA before DDT was invented.

The simple truth is that mass spraying was never intended to control malaria,

Which would be why I specifically called it "agricultural".

so saying that mass spraying to control malaria led to problems makes you the one rewriting history.

Since I hadn't mentioned mass spraying to control malaria, I have no idea where you're getting this.

But I am very happy to bring up the topic. There was a malaria eradication program using DDT in the 1960s. It failed, mainly because the mosquitoes were becoming resistant to DDT. That's why DDT spraying mostly stopped, not because of some great environmentalist conspiracy. DDT use outside the USA was already plummeting before the USA ban. A ban which, by the way, still allowed DDT exports.

If mass agricultural spraying had stopped earlier, that resistance might not have arisen. Malaria could have been largely eradicated, and millions of people might not have died.

Silent Spring included a claim from a woman that DDT caused her to instantly get cancer. how is me pointing out that this is absurd pseudo-science? Do you have any scientific evidence to support that DDT causes cancer in humans at all, much less does so instantaneously?

That's nice, but no one ever claimed all the science in Silent Spring was right. Again, I have little interest in your strawmen. What Silent Spring did get right was publicizing how soaking the environment in mass quantities of organophosphate pesticides was not a good idea. That has been proven by time to be 100% correct, and no one outside of right-wing political movements now try to argue against such common sense.

I did prove the science is wrong,

You proved a lot of your strawmen were wrong. The real science, no.

 

[mamooth]

Guess you missed the one about the two guys, Hickey and Anderson, who did one of the original studies proving DDT led to thinning, later recanting their claims, huh?

Being that you've never been very bright, you will not be able to see the flaw in your logic. Probably not your fault, as in your youth you may have been affected by some organophosphate in the environment.

You seem to be under the strange impression that cherrypicking one retracted study nullifies every other piece of data. Rest assured that intelligent people don't make the same boneheaded logical mistake you do.

Did BIGBUGSPRAY pay them off?

Also, intelligent people note that the DDT denial conspiracy is only espoused by those of a far right political bent. That's because, like the closely related AGW theory denial conspiracy and Ozone Depletion Theory denial conspiracy, it's purely political, and has zilch to do with any actual science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How about I define safe as you can eat a teaspoon of it every week of your life for decades and suffer no ill effects.

Be my guest to start snarfing spoonfulls of organophosphates as part of your diet. I won't be joining you, as I'm not crazy.

Instead of relying on blogs for your evidence why don't you site all the scientific research about how deadly DDT is to humans.

The wiki page has dozens of such links. Use them. The "deadly" part is your strawman, so I feel no need to address it.



Er, no. One study in England about thrush eggs has nothing to do with Bald Eagles, especially given that no one ever claimed DDE/DDT could be the only thing causing egg thinning.



Many links on the wiki to that.



Goalpost moving. A source about how the USDA encouraged some spraying does not support your claim that all DDT spraying was due to "Government programs". You're starting to look like a "libertarian for junk science", always finding reasons to blame the government.



But there's no malaria in the USA, so who cares? Malaria had been nearly eradicated in the USA before DDT was invented.



Which would be why I specifically called it "agricultural".



Since I hadn't mentioned mass spraying to control malaria, I have no idea where you're getting this.

But I am very happy to bring up the topic. There was a malaria eradication program using DDT in the 1960s. It failed, mainly because the mosquitoes were becoming resistant to DDT. That's why DDT spraying mostly stopped, not because of some great environmentalist conspiracy. DDT use outside the USA was already plummeting before the USA ban. A ban which, by the way, still allowed DDT exports.

If mass agricultural spraying had stopped earlier, that resistance might not have arisen. Malaria could have been largely eradicated, and millions of people might not have died.

Silent Spring included a claim from a woman that DDT caused her to instantly get cancer. how is me pointing out that this is absurd pseudo-science? Do you have any scientific evidence to support that DDT causes cancer in humans at all, much less does so instantaneously?

That's nice, but no one ever claimed all the science in Silent Spring was right. Again, I have little interest in your strawmen. What Silent Spring did get right was publicizing how soaking the environment in mass quantities of organophosphate pesticides was not a good idea. That has been proven by time to be 100% correct, and no one outside of right-wing political movements now try to argue against such common sense.

I did prove the science is wrong,

You proved a lot of your strawmen were wrong. The real science, no.

Can't handle an honest debate, can you? There is not a single link on the Wikipedia page that says anything about DDT being deadly to humans, all it talks about is the conjecture that it might do something that no one has seen happen.

Potential mechanisms of action on humans are genotoxicity and endocrine disruption. DDT may be directly genotoxic,[47] but may also induce enzymes to produce other genotoxic intermediates and DNA adducts.[47] It is an endocrine disruptor; The DDT metabolite DDE acts as an antiandrogen (but not as an estrogen). p,p'-DDT, DDT's main component, has little or no androgenic or estrogenic activity.[47] Minor component o,p'-DDT has weak estrogenic activity.

Now that I have destroyed the only argument you have, when are you actually going to address the issues raised in Silent Spring, which were all based on bad science?

 

[mamooth]

Can't handle an honest debate, can you? There is not a single link on the Wikipedia page that says anything about DDT being deadly to humans, all it talks about is the conjecture that it might do something that no one has seen happen.

Given I specifically pointed out "deadly" was your strawmen, it's dishonest of you to keep pretending it's something I believe.

You also ran from everything else. How convenient for you. You can't handle an honest debate. That's a statement of fact, not a question. If you could handle honest debate, you'd argue against what I actually say, instead of your strawmen.

Now that I have destroyed the only argument you have when are you actually going to address the issues raised in Silent Spring, which were all based on bad science?

And you do it again. That is, you assign a strawman to me that I specifically stated I did not believe.

You refuse to debate in good faith, so you're not worth my time. Unless I need you for comic relief. But thanks for demonstrating my other point, which is that AGW/Ozone/DDT denialism (they're all the same thing) usually has a strong streak of dishonesty in it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can't handle an honest debate, can you? There is not a single link on the Wikipedia page that says anything about DDT being deadly to humans, all it talks about is the conjecture that it might do something that no one has seen happen.

Given I specifically pointed out "deadly" was your strawmen, it's dishonest of you to keep pretending it's something I believe.

You also ran from everything else. How convenient for you. You can't handle an honest debate. That's a statement of fact, not a question. If you could handle honest debate, you'd argue against what I actually say, instead of your strawmen.

Now that I have destroyed the only argument you have when are you actually going to address the issues raised in Silent Spring, which were all based on bad science?

And you do it again. That is, you assign a strawman to me that I specifically stated I did not believe.

You refuse to debate in good faith, so you're not worth my time. Unless I need you for comic relief. But thanks for demonstrating my other point, which is that AGW/Ozone/DDT denialism (they're all the same thing) usually has a strong streak of dishonesty in it.

DDT is safe for humans, period. You want to claim it isn't, you have to provide evidence, not a bunch of opinions. I want facts, the same thing I have used to refute everything you got wrong. I actually posted a link from a study that showed all known affects on bird populations that were sensitive to DDE, and you insist that I am running from the facts.

The facts are that Silent Spring is trash and should be read only as an example of how not to do science. You have provided no evidence to refute that, all you have done is insist that the fact that DDE somehow causes thinner eggshells in birds proves that Rachel Carson was right, even though no one was aware of the link between DDT and eggshells at the time Silent Spring was published. You even insisted that the mass spraying of DDT by the US government, which is historical fact, did not happen.

I ran from what, exactly? Explain it in detail, I await the chance to call you a liar.

 

[konradv]

I ran from what, exactly? Explain it in detail, I await the chance to call you a liar.

I'll explain it anyway I care to. You're all over the place and can't seem to keep your facts straight. We're talking egg shells, you talk spermatogenesis. You invent a scenario about instantaneous cancer. You're all over the place with intent to confuse, because your objection is purely political and has little to do with the science at all.

 

[daveman]

Guess you missed the one about the two guys, Hickey and Anderson, who did one of the original studies proving DDT led to thinning, later recanting their claims, huh?

Being that you've never been very bright, you will not be able to see the flaw in your logic. Probably not your fault, as in your youth you may have been affected by some organophosphate in the environment.

Your inability to comprehend the logic in my argument in no way constitutes a flaw in it.

You seem to be under the strange impression that cherrypicking one retracted study nullifies every other piece of data. Rest assured that intelligent people don't make the same boneheaded logical mistake you do.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't read my link. If you had, you'd have seen it references numerous studies.

Remind me again -- why is it, exactly, you claim to be intelligent? NOTE: "Being a liberal" is not proof of intelligence.

Did BIGBUGSPRAY pay them off?

Also, intelligent people note that the DDT denial conspiracy is only espoused by those of a far right political bent. That's because, like the closely related AGW theory denial conspiracy and Ozone Depletion Theory denial conspiracy, it's purely political, and has zilch to do with any actual science.

Ass backwards. DDT opposition, like AGW, is purely political.

You can tell because the science supporting both sucks. Badly.

 

[daveman]

The liberal definition of "honest debate":

"Agreeing with me".

That's all. If you agree with the liberal, you're debating honestly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I ran from what, exactly? Explain it in detail, I await the chance to call you a liar.

I'll explain it anyway I care to. You're all over the place and can't seem to keep your facts straight. We're talking egg shells, you talk spermatogenesis. You invent a scenario about instantaneous cancer. You're all over the place with intent to confuse, because your objection is purely political and has little to do with the science at all.

We are talking about how the science behind Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is non existent. Since Rachel never mentioned eggshells that makes you the one that is changing the subject. Then we have the fact that I never mentioned spermatogenesis, I simply pointed out that the studies about DDT effects on raptors are based on actual experiments, not "Rachel Carson Science." You, or some other idiot like you, refused to believe that anyone would actually intentionally feed bald eagles DDT. I proved you idiots wrong, and instead of admitting it, you changed the subject.

Again.

The simple fact is that any discussion of eggshells is irrelevant to a discussion about Silent Spring. No one made a connection between egghells and DDT until after Silent Spring was written, and Carson made no mention of it in the book. That is a fact.

Another fact, instantaneous cancer does not happen. Period.

 

[konradv]

I ran from what, exactly? Explain it in detail, I await the chance to call you a liar.

I'll explain it anyway I care to. You're all over the place and can't seem to keep your facts straight. We're talking egg shells, you talk spermatogenesis. You invent a scenario about instantaneous cancer. You're all over the place with intent to confuse, because your objection is purely political and has little to do with the science at all.

We are talking about how the science behind Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is non existent. Since Rachel never mentioned eggshells that makes you the one that is changing the subject. Then we have the fact that I never mentioned spermatogenesis, I simply pointed out that the studies about DDT effects on raptors are based on actual experiments, not "Rachel Carson Science." You, or some other idiot like you, refused to believe that anyone would actually intentionally feed bald eagles DDT. I proved you idiots wrong, and instead of admitting it, you changed the subject.

Again.

The simple fact is that any discussion of eggshells is irrelevant to a discussion about Silent Spring. No one made a connection between egghells and DDT until after Silent Spring was written, and Carson made no mention of it in the book. That is a fact.

Another fact, instantaneous cancer does not happen. Period.

So, a connection has been made! Thank you. You're on your way to sanity. What Carson said may have been merely an impetus, but like Darwin's work, it's what's been learned since that's important, not the supposed "holy writ" of the original work.

 

[mamooth]

These cranks think they can wave their hands around, parrot retarded logic from some liar political blog, and magically make decades of hard science vanish. They may as well scream that drinking Draino is harmless, as that wouldn't look any less dumb.

Sadly, their political cult has brainwashed them into believing a whole bunch of idiot conspiracy theories. Every DDT-denialist is also an AGW-theory-denialist and an Ozone-theory-denialist. It's not coincidence that they always embrace all three retarded conspiracy theories. Their cult masters have ordered them to embrace all three retarded conspiracy theories. After decades of such brainwashing, none of 'em is capable of breaking free from the cult programming. They've got too many years of emotional investment in those conspiracy theories. They weren't reasoned into them, so they can't be reasoned out of them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

These cranks think they can wave their hands around, parrot retarded logic from some liar political blog, and magically make decades of hard science vanish. They may as well scream that drinking Draino is harmless, as that wouldn't look any less dumb.

Sadly, their political cult has brainwashed them into believing a whole bunch of idiot conspiracy theories. Every DDT-denialist is also an AGW-theory-denialist and an Ozone-theory-denialist. It's not coincidence that they always embrace all three retarded conspiracy theories. Their cult masters have ordered them to embrace all three retarded conspiracy theories. After decades of such brainwashing, none of 'em is capable of breaking free from the cult programming. They've got too many years of emotional investment in those conspiracy theories. They weren't reasoned into them, so they can't be reasoned out of them.

Why is it that when I quote Silent Spring to prove how absurd the science behind it is you resort to claiming that I am the one ignoring decades of science? Have you found decades of science to back up her claim that DDT causes cancer instantaneously? How about decades of science showing how deadly DDT is to humans, can you show me the multiple studies that prove that claim? Can you show me a single example of humans ever living in perfect harmony with nature?

 

[mamooth]

Why is it that when I quote Silent Spring ...

... everyone rolls their eyes? Because it's an obvious strawman, as no one ever claimed all of the science in the book was good. You keep conclusively proving a point that no one ever denied. It's just not a point that matters.

Silent Spring got one thing very correct, which is that drenching the environment in tons of organophosphates is a really bad idea. Decades of science confirm that. Nitpicking the other parts of the book doesn't change that.

How about decades of science showing how deadly DDT is to humans, can you show me the multiple studies that prove that claim?

"Deadly" is yet another of your strawman. "Harmful" is well documented.

Can you show me a single example of humans ever living in perfect harmony with nature?

Bizarre red herring.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is it that when I quote Silent Spring ...

... everyone rolls their eyes? Because it's an obvious strawman, as no one ever claimed all of the science in the book was good. You keep conclusively proving a point that no one ever denied. It's just not a point that matters.

Silent Spring got one thing very correct, which is that drenching the environment in tons of organophosphates is a really bad idea. Decades of science confirm that. Nitpicking the other parts of the book doesn't change that.

How about decades of science showing how deadly DDT is to humans, can you show me the multiple studies that prove that claim?

"Deadly" is yet another of your strawman. "Harmful" is well documented.

Can you show me a single example of humans ever living in perfect harmony with nature?

Bizarre red herring.

My claim is the science in the book, all of the science in the book, is bad. Your claim just transformed from me being a ideologue who hates science to me using a strawman arguments. Here is the opening sentence of Silent Spring.

THERE WAS ONCE a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live inharmony with its surroundings.

I am reading from the book, which you are defending, anything I find in that book can be used against you.

Carson claimed that DDT is deadly, was she wrong? She claimed that people in towns lived in harmony with nature, was she wrong?