Liberals and their scare tactics.....

A. Crowley · #21 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 08:51 AM

1DumbShit is a True Believer!

1wiseguy · #22 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Crowley

1DumbShit is a True Believer!

Projecting again, hey Ass Crack?

Believing is for those of who don't know...ROTFLOL... You fools never learn.

mulp · #23 (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1wiseguy

ROTFLOL....What a load of tripe!

Show me your proof on ANY of this. Sorry, but the baffling with bullshit doesn't work with me.

Getting back to facts... DDT was banned without the rigors of scientific scrutiny just like what is happening with this Global Warming/ Climate Change hoax.

The consequences for the ban is responsible for the deaths of millions of the third world poor due to malaria. And just like those consequences, AGW/CC hoax has already begun to ruin the economy and cause the poorer nations to go without some of their staple foods... and this is just the beginning.

And if you believe in this hoax, fine, but leave me and mine alone and go live your freakish life as you see fit.

The simple minded summary, which I hope you can understand, is the press release from 1972, issued when Nixon was president by the agency Nixon created by executive order, the EPA.

Quote:

DDT Ban Takes Effect
[EPA press release - December 31, 1972]

The general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States after today, ending nearly three decades of application during which time the once-popular chemical was used to control insect pests on crop and forest lands, around homes and gardens, and for industrial and commercial purposes.

An end to the continued domestic usage of the pesticide was decreed on June 14, 1972, when William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, issued an order finally cancelling nearly all remaining Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as export of the material.

The effective date of the EPA June cancellation action was delayed until the end of this year to permit an orderly transition to substitute pesticides, including the joint development with the U.S. Department of Agriculture of a special program to instruct farmers on safe use of substitutes.

The cancellation decision culminated three years of intensive governmental inquiries into the uses of DDT. As a result of this examination, Ruckelshaus said he was convinced that the continued massive use of DDT posed unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health.

Major legal challenges to the EPA cancellation of DDT are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The courts have not ruled as yet in either of these suits brought by pesticide manufacturers.

DDT was developed as the first of the modern insecticides early in World War II. It was initially used with great effect to combat malaria, typhus, and the other insect-borne human diseases among both military and civilian populations.

A persistent, broad-spectrum compound often termed the "miracle" pesticide, DDT came into wide agricultural and commercial usage in this country in the late 1940s. During the past 30 years, approximately 675,000 tons have been applied domestically. The peak year for use in the United States was 1959 when nearly 80 million pounds were applied. From that high point, usage declined steadily to about 13 million pounds in 1971, most of it applied to cotton.

The decline was attributed to a number of factors including increased insect resistance, development of more effective alternative pesticides, growing public and user concern over adverse environmental side effects--and governmental restriction on DDT use since 1969.

DDT Ban Takes Effect | EPA History | US EPA

Note that the peak year for DDT sales was 1959, three years before Silent Spring was published, and a decade before any significant restrictions on its use.

And DDT has never been banned, especially for use against malaria or other related community health problems, like denga fever.

Quote:

Extracts from “Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India” by Georganne Chapin and Robert Wassertrom published in Nature Vol 293 17 Sepember 1981 pages 181–185

Among the inhabitants of Asia, Latin America and tropical Africa malaria, remains a major cause for alarm. Yet only a few years ago, health officials in a dozen developing countries (capitalizing on the discoveries of British parasitologist Ronald Ross half a century earlier) pointed triumphantly at their efforts to eradicate entirely this mosquito-borne scourge[1-5]. Following World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, for example, Indian authorities instituted a programme of medical treatment and pesticide application in 1952 which within a single decade reduced the number of cases from over 100 million to 50,000 (ref. 6). Ten years later, using the same methods, health workers in Sri Lanka cut the annual incidence of malaria from three million cases to fewer than 25.

By 1970, however, it had become clear that malaria eradication had run into severe difficulties. Instead of dwindling to insignificance, the number of infected individuals rose again to distressing proportions. In India, which had served as a showplace for WHO policies, five million people were soon infected; in Sri Lanka, two million people became sick again almost overnight; and in Central America infection rates grew to previously unknown levels[7]. Moreover, unlike earlier outbreaks, this new plague was often carried by mosquitoes which had become resistant to pesticides like DDT and dieldrin and could not be controlled by conventional means[8-15]. The origins of this major ecological disaster must be sought as much in the unwitting actions of international organizations as in hapless nature.
:
... But there was another obstacle which experts at WHO were more reluctant to engage: as early as 1953, they obtained conclusive evidence that Anopheles mosquitoes, like many insect pests, sooner or later became resistant to DDT and other pesticides. Within a few years, in fact, such resistance had been reported in Greece and Italy (where insecticides were used both in public health and in agriculture) as well as in the Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. In some cases a single application was sufficient to reduce mortality (that is, in- crease resistance) among mosquitoes by 80 per cent[18]. Accordingly, WHO malariologists urged their local counterparts to conduct “time-limited” spraying operations — to complete the “attack” phase as quickly as possible.
:
The case of El Salvador is illuminating. In 1958 a group of entomologists reported that the local vector. Anopheles albimanus, had lost its susceptibility to all major organochlorine compounds and was proliferating rapidly along the Pacific coast[29-30]. Four years later, researchers in southern Mexico encountered the same problem, which forced them to admit that the disease had not been eradicated in several areas[31]. In India, widespread tolerance to organochlorine was discovered among two important vectors, Anopheles culifacies and Anopheles fluviatilis, particularly in regions which had recently shifted to high-yielding forms of agricultural production[32].

In such places, effective control might be regained only by using insecticides which cost four, five or even ten times as much as common toxins — a burden which few governments were willing to bear[33]. Yet even measures of this kind might serve at best only as temporary expedients: vectors which became resistant to one compound frequently enjoyed mysterious immunity to other unrelated poisons, and in any case it was only a matter of time before natural selection favoured those insects which could withstand a broad spectrum of chemical agents[34-36]. Faced with these problems, in 1973 WHO officials reluctantly transformed the Malaria Eradication Division into the Division of Malaria and other Parasitic Disease[37,38].
:
In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the death rate from infectious and parasitic diseases in Central America has remained extremely high and that the incidence of malaria has generally in- creased — despite an impressive diminution in the late 1960s and early 1970s[45]. The relationship between fibre production and the recrudescence of malaria has been clearly established in a study by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the Institute Centro-americano de Investigacion y Tecnologia Industrial (ICAITI)[46]. To combat cotton pests and to raise yields, planters in Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador have not only expanded their acreage, but since 1970 they have also applied heavier concentrations of pesticides. Whereas a decade ago, fields were sprayed only eight or nine times each season, they must now be fumigated on as many as 50 occasions. Consequently, the amount of pesticide which enters the local ecosystem has expanded at an increasing rate.

In 1971, for example, farmers in El Salvador sprayed 58.4 kilos on each hectare of cotton; three years later, applications had reached 70.0 kg per hectare. As a result, DDT consumption in El Salvador increased threefold between 1970 and 1977 — from 555,200 kg to 1.6 million kg. Similar circumstances prevailed in Nicaragua, where DDT imports rose from 29,000 kg in 1974 to 521,600 kg in 1976.

That's a refereed paper published in Nature, you can access the complete paper in your research library or here: Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India

I can provide more references, but I doubt that your views are swayed by facts, and that to you facts are set by ideology even when the facts and ideology contradict nature.

But perhaps you can provide refereed papers that make your case that DDT was banned, that insects never evolve to be resistant to DDT, that the commodity DDT is more profitable than a patented pesticide.

Tileman · #24 (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

And DDT has never been banned, especially for use against malaria or other related community health problems, like denga fever

I want some DDT. Who is selling it because I want to buy it?

Please give me the address or 1-800 number to order some. We own 1 sq mile of land (640 acres) that is in bad need of clearing everything!

1wiseguy · #25 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

The simple minded summary, which I hope you can understand, is the press release from 1972, issued when Nixon was president by the agency Nixon created by executive order, the EPA.
DDT Ban Takes Effect | EPA History | US EPA

Note that the peak year for DDT sales was 1959, three years before Silent Spring was published, and a decade before any significant restrictions on its use.

LOL... more baffling with irrelevant bullshit?.... Having a problem with argueing the topic at hand? I know the history and if you had a modicum of intellect you would see the obvious parallel that I drew between the DDT hoax and AGW hoax ...clearly enought that even a a pre-schooler could follow. So I guess I should thank you for proving my point--even though your apparent simpler mind didn't know it. So what is suppose to be my take away from this... that Nixon was wrong about DDT too!...or wrong to create the EPA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

And DDT has never been banned, especially for use against malaria or other related community health problems, like denga fever.

Geez... more red herrings or is this more stupidity? Of course DDT was not banned for its use against malaria per se... and it is dengue fever--the hoax was about a cancer scare and possible damage to birds and other animal life---all which have been debunked--just like the debunking that is taking place right now against the AGW hoax. Since you like links so much, try this one...

In Africa, DDT Makes a Comeback To Save Lives

This might get you started on the right path--of course that is if you are really interested in the truth and not the mythology you surround yourself in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

I can provide more references, but I doubt that your views are swayed by facts, and that to you facts are set by ideology even when the facts and ideology contradict nature.

My views are the facts and only relevant facts can be of influence, so there is no need to worry your little mind about me bringing in ideology--you have apparently already done just that. Save your time, no sense in providing more irrelevant ideological sources.

So....Getting back to the issue at hand (I know how to be focused) which is the parallel of the DDT scare to AGW hoax and their respective detrimental consequences coming from the same environmentalists who have been proven wrong. If your going to keep up your cut and pasting, you might try to show something that provides a counterpoint that denies the DDT scare of the 70's or that DDT is a carcenogyn... or that DDT is not being used in Africa and is not saving lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

But perhaps you can provide refereed papers that make your case that DDT was banned, that insects never evolve to be resistant to DDT, that the commodity DDT is more profitable than a patented pesticide.

Puhleeeeze...more scatter-brained bullshit. Stick to the topic. Why don't you try to refute the fact that DDT was not found to be harmful to man or beast as was so exaggerated back in the 60's and 70's or the lack of real science by which to base the hysteria then and now with AGW. Or refute that the ban on DDT caused the resurgence of Malaria and the subsequent deaths of millions of Africans, or refute that DDT is now being used once again in Africa as successful vector control .

A. Crowley · #26 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:25 AM

You are completely Whacked, dumBguy...

Too bad, that.

A. Crowley · #27 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:25 AM

Rotflmfao!

1wiseguy · #28 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Crowley

You are completely Whacked, dumBguy...

Too bad, that.

As you are completely irrelevant in almost all topics...Ass Crack...

Really too bad that....NOT...ROTFLMAOADAC

A. Crowley · #29 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 01:31 AM

No, really.......

cat's meow · #30 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 02:09 AM

What DDT actually does...

Quote:

DDT Breakdown products in the soil environment are DDE (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-dichlorodiphenyl)ethylene) and DDD (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane), which are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties. These products together are known as "total DDT".

DDT is a toxicant across a certain range of phyla. In particular, DDT is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s as well as the brown pelican and the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption, thereby impairing eggshell quality. Studies in the 1960s and 1970s failed to find a mechanism for the hypothesized thinning. However, more recent studies in the 1990s and 2000s have laid the blame at the feet of DDE. Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used. DDT is also highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure to high concentrations.