PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #101
Let me correct that for you: you post in defense of warped brains of bien-pensant compulsive meddlers.
Millions Die Via Liberal Science
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Let me correct that for you: you post in defense of warped brains of bien-pensant compulsive meddlers.
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
The posts here speak for themselves... I will not indulge your bullshit delusions, sorry.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #103
There is never a clearer indication of retreat and rout than the neg rep you sent.
L.K.Eder
unbannable non-troll
thank you rachel, for saving me.
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Opinion - FOXNews.com
From the 900,000 that die every year;
Fuck you.
why do you hate the bald eagle, fox news aficionado?
and your faux umbrage is thoroughly laughed at, great american.
unfuckingbelievable, the little **** thinks he can speak for malaria victims.
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
There is never a clearer indication of retreat and rout than the neg rep you sent.
Keep telling yourself that...
jillian
Princess
There is never a clearer indication of retreat and rout than the neg rep you sent.
i particularly liked her use of the phrase bien-pensant. i'm sure that proves to everyone how intellectual she is.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
It was doing nothing of the sort. God, editec is so gullible, he'll believe anything.
Rachel Carson - who certainly deserves to be burning in Hell for all the deaths she's caused - claimed that DDT made birds' eggshells thinner. As it turned out, the studies she based that claim on were faked.
One of the researchers making that claim turned out to have fed his test birds a low-calcium diet along with the DDT. Unsurprisingly, a lack of calcium will make eggshells thinner all by itself, and when that fault was corrected, the eggshells became normal again.
Further studies showed that, in fact, levels of DDT that birds were likely to encounter in the wild were not harmful. However, Science, the journal originally publishing the claims that DDT thins bird eggshells, refused to print a retraction or the results of later research. In fact, they stated categorically that they would never publish anything about DDT that was not antagonistic.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
No, we have evidence that, rather than champion policies that would protect human life, the left would prefer to cling to outdated and incorrect research because it fits their ideology. We can assume that conservatives' environmental policy is to save millions of lives every year.
Of course, they're just brown people in third-world countries (since the US happily used DDT to eradicate malaria here before deciding no one else should use it), so it's unlikely that liberals are going to give a rat's ass. What's important is that the left can cuddle itself warmly in the belief that they're "saving the planet". Nothing trumps a liberal warm fuzzy.
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #109
us regulations are not enforced in africa where the vast majority of malaria cases occur.
people don't contract malaria in the u.s. they get it overseas, where, again, u.s. regulations have no force.
how many americans do you think have died of malaria since 1972?
hint: it's not millions
it's nice to see you and the other bloviator who wrote the OP are on the same page, though.
us regulations are not enforced in africa where the vast majority of malaria cases occur.
people don't contract malaria in the u.s. they get it overseas, where, again, u.s. regulations have no force.
how many americans do you think have died of malaria since 1972?
hint: it's not millions
it's nice to see you and the other bloviator who wrote the OP are on the same page, though.
Thanks you beat me to it.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
DDT can change into many different forms that are only slightly different from the original. They call these new forms metabolites. They think that one of these metabolites, abbreviated DDE, interferes with certain reproductive enzymes in birds.
thank you rachel, for saving me.
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Opinion - FOXNews.com
From the 900,000 that die every year;
Fuck you.
Enzymes act as helpers for certain chemical reaction. They can speed up biological processes, slow them down, etc.. In birds, certain reproductive enzymes affect how much calcium is deposited in eggshells. DDE probably gets in the way of some of these enzymes. Consequently, eggshells have less calcium, which makes them easier to break.
Except, of course, that no one's ever been able to prove it without rigging the experiment results. You can hypothesize all you like; without proof, it's just blowing smoke.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
"The entire scientific community"? You mean the one that's increasingly pushing to have the DDT bans lifted?
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
the hunting ban?
you had me going for a minute there. good one!
hunting ban-that's a corker
you're a funny bastard
While the AP acknowledged the fact that bald eagle populations “were considered a nuisance and routinely shot by hunters, farmers and fishermen” – spurring a 1940 federal law protecting bald eagles – the AP underplayed the significance of hunting and human encroachment and erroneously blamed DDT for the eagles’ near demise.
yes, you accurately quoted your opinion piece.
it's still some funny shit though.
All right, Sparky. How about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? That work for you?
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
I'm guessing you're just going to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your worldview.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
us regulations are not enforced in africa where the vast majority of malaria cases occur.
people don't contract malaria in the u.s. they get it overseas, where, again, u.s. regulations have no force.
how many americans do you think have died of malaria since 1972?
hint: it's not millions
it's nice to see you and the other bloviator who wrote the OP are on the same page, though.
Oh, yeah, threatening to withhold financial aid from sub-Saharan Africa unless they forego the use of DDT isn't "enforcing US regulations" at all.
Why don't people contract malaria in the US? Oh, yeah, that's because we liberally (you should excuse the expression) used DDT until malaria in the US was eradicated.
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #115
All right, Sparky. How about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? That work for you?
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
I'm guessing you're just going to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your worldview.
an opinion piece by a dead professor?
even for you, that's weak.
keep swinging, corky
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
yes, you accurately quoted your opinion piece.
it's still some funny shit though.
All right, Sparky. How about the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? That work for you?
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
I'm guessing you're just going to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your worldview.
an opinion piece by a dead professor?
even for you, that's weak.
keep swinging, corky
JAPS doesn't publish opinion pieces, dipwad. Just because the research and conclusions don't suit you doesn't make them "opinion". Sorry you're so uneducated you've never heard of the JAPS.
What does the fact that he died have to do with anything?
YOU keep swinging.
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #117
an opinion piece by a dead professor?
even for you, that's weak.
keep swinging, corky
JAPS doesn't publish opinion pieces, dipwad. Just because the research and conclusions don't suit you doesn't make them "opinion". Sorry you're so uneducated you've never heard of the JAPS.
What does the fact that he died have to do with anything?
YOU keep swinging.
so how many have died worldwide as a result of the tragic decision to ban its use in the united states, corky?
Greenbeard
Gold Member
I'm hoping that you're not actually familiar with JPandS. If you're not, you might want to familiarize yourself with it.
Valerie
Platinum Member
- Sep 17, 2008
- 31,521
- 7,392
- 1,170
an opinion piece by a dead professor?
even for you, that's weak.
keep swinging, corky
JAPS doesn't publish opinion pieces, dipwad. Just because the research and conclusions don't suit you doesn't make them "opinion". Sorry you're so uneducated you've never heard of the JAPS.
What does the fact that he died have to do with anything?
YOU keep swinging.
No YOU!
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Just a blog, but the fellow seems to have some points.
No, DDT is not the easy answer to malaria « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub
1. There is no shortage of DDT.
2. Not only is DDT not a panacea, it is increasingly not effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
3. Richard Tren leads an astro-turf organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars, but does very little if anything to actually fight malaria. These sorts of diatribes increase contributions to his organization’s coffers, but they don’t help fight malaria.
4. In actual practice over the last decade, bednets have proven to reduce malaria by 50% to 85% in areas where they are deployed; DDT is only 25% to 50% effective.
5. Bednets cost about $10 and last about five years — $2.00 per year. DDT costs upwards of $12 per application, and must be applied twice per year — $24.00 per year. Bednets stop mosquitoes cold. DDT depends on mosquitoes biting people first, then resting on a DDT-coated wall — and we hope that it’s a young mosquito that has not yet contracted malaria itself and is not shedding the parasites.
6. Malaria deaths, worldwide, are lower now than at any other time in human history. Since the U.S. stopped using DDT on cotton in 1972, the death rate to malaria has been cut in half. The death toll to malaria is, today, less than 25% of what it was when DDT use was at its peak. Statistically, it appears that cutting DDT use also cuts malaria.
7. We know that’s not the case, but those statistics prove that we can beat malaria without DDT — as indeed, the U.S. Army beat malaria without DDT to build the Panama Canal by 1915, 24 years before DDT was discovered to have any insecticidal properties. In the U.S., with the great aid of the Tennessee Valley Authority, malaria was essentially wiped out by 1939 — seven years before DDT became available for use against mosquitoes. No nation relying on DDT has been able to eradicate malaria
No, DDT is not the easy answer to malaria « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub
1. There is no shortage of DDT.
2. Not only is DDT not a panacea, it is increasingly not effective against malaria-carrying mosquitoes.
3. Richard Tren leads an astro-turf organization that collects hundreds of thousands of dollars, but does very little if anything to actually fight malaria. These sorts of diatribes increase contributions to his organization’s coffers, but they don’t help fight malaria.
4. In actual practice over the last decade, bednets have proven to reduce malaria by 50% to 85% in areas where they are deployed; DDT is only 25% to 50% effective.
5. Bednets cost about $10 and last about five years — $2.00 per year. DDT costs upwards of $12 per application, and must be applied twice per year — $24.00 per year. Bednets stop mosquitoes cold. DDT depends on mosquitoes biting people first, then resting on a DDT-coated wall — and we hope that it’s a young mosquito that has not yet contracted malaria itself and is not shedding the parasites.
6. Malaria deaths, worldwide, are lower now than at any other time in human history. Since the U.S. stopped using DDT on cotton in 1972, the death rate to malaria has been cut in half. The death toll to malaria is, today, less than 25% of what it was when DDT use was at its peak. Statistically, it appears that cutting DDT use also cuts malaria.
7. We know that’s not the case, but those statistics prove that we can beat malaria without DDT — as indeed, the U.S. Army beat malaria without DDT to build the Panama Canal by 1915, 24 years before DDT was discovered to have any insecticidal properties. In the U.S., with the great aid of the Tennessee Valley Authority, malaria was essentially wiped out by 1939 — seven years before DDT became available for use against mosquitoes. No nation relying on DDT has been able to eradicate malaria
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump Supporters Voted For The Largest Tax Increase In Nearly 60 Years With These Disastrous Tariffs....Seriously, How Stupid Are They???- Started by Dr. Phosphorous
- Replies: 2
-
Far Right Zionist Rabble Threaten And Kick Woman In New York- Started by Deadstick
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Poll predicts Reform sweeping THREE mayoral races in huge night for Nigel Farage- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 1
