Liberals and their scare tactics.....

1wiseguy · #41 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Well, fisrt of all, you are making claims to the reason DDT was banned that aren't true:

- DDT wasn't banned.
- DDT wasn't judge to cause cancer.

Sorry but I don't do circular arguments. Just what part of banned do you not understand?

DDT Ban Takes Effect | EPA History | US EPA

I told you that it did not cause cancer, but cancer was a big issue at the time and it was used as a scare tactic to get DDT BANNED. I am not an idiot liberal like yourself and will not be confused with your bullshit. This is not a public classroom...your teachers might be impressed with your word count, but I'm only interested in words that count and you do offer anything new or enliggtening....so I can only assume that you can't argue my premise about the DDT scare and AGW hoax being similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

And you mumble something about it not being a zero sum game. Sorry, but the universe is zero sum, and worse, entropy always increases.

Now you are hearing things...I never "mumbl" nor did I mention anything about a zero sum game...man you are worse off than I originally thought...Fool, entropy happens, just like climate happens.... but at least I can use that machine gun you mention and speed your entropy up...you can't do a damn thing about the climate.

I don't waste my time with folks like you who make up your arguments as you go along, don't argue my premise, or are so steeped in denial that reality is but a dream.

1wiseguy · #42 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Too many big words...he won't get it...

LOL... too bad for you, entropy is already in my vocabulary and at least I know how to spell it! ROTFLOL

1wiseguy · #43 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Uh, no. Nice spin but try again. Actually, the bi-products are dangerous. Stop only reading what you want to...

Practice what you preach!

Quote:

Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.

[Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dad in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

Quote:

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

[Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

Quote:

Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

[Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning] .") ]

Quote:

No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.

[Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

Quote:

In congressional testimony, Charles Wurster, a biologist for the Environmental Defense Fund, noted the abundance of birds during the DDT years, referring to "increasing numbers of pheasants, quail, doves, turkeys and other game species."

[Wurster, C.F. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969]

Now how about disputing the relevant parallel between the DDT scare and AGW hoax

?

cat's meow · #44 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 04:40 PM

From the Wall Street Journal...

Quote:

DDT Does Take Its Toll on Some People
September 22, 2007

In response to Steven Milloy's Aug. 31 Letter to the Editor "DDT Scaremongering Will Take Human Toll":

Mr. Milloy describes our study as "statistical malpractice." Our paper was published in a highly respected scientific journal, and the manuscript was carefully peer-reviewed by scientists whose identity is unknown to us but who are experts in the subject area, including statistics. Although the sample size was not large, the study was hypothesis-driven (not a fishing expedition), and the subjects came from a very high-quality prospective study, the best design for such research and one rarely available. The exposures were measured using biomarkers, another strength. The findings presented were not "correlations" (simply two-way relationships) but "associations" that enabled us to adjust for multiple confounding factors without which results might be obscured or inflated. The factors that we did not include (genetics and family history) might change the magnitude of the effects, but they are unlikely to change the overall results or their statistical significance because they have not ever been found to be correlated with the exposures.

We agree that malaria is a terrible disease, whose eradication may save many lives, and that DDT has played an important role in malaria control in third world countries. However, its potential harmful effects should be recognized. In addition to breast cancer, reproductive effects in women, including premature delivery and shortened lactation have been demonstrated. Recent evidence also suggests impaired neurological function in infants exposed prenatally to DDT. Taken as a whole, this body of evidence would suggest that prevention of DDT exposure among humans may be warranted. Reducing exposure may be possible by using prudent approaches to pesticide application or substitutes. In sum, while malaria control is a pressing public health issue world-wide, the side effects of DDT are not zero, and a balanced view should be encouraged.

Barbara A. Cohn, Ph.D
Piera M. Cirillo, M.P.H.
Robert I Sholtz, M.S.
Mary S. Wolff, Ph.D.
Public Health Institute Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Oakland, Calif.

1wiseguy · #45 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

The problem with your logic is that DDT was never banned.

The problem with your argument is that you have no logic and must resort to lies!

The U.S. Ban on DDT - Environmental Defense Fund

DDT Ban Takes Effect | EPA History | US EPA

So I guess your own EPA and Environmental Defense Fund are liars as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

And you are also wrong in arguing that DDT was actually effective in stopping the spread of malaria, when it was well documented that the specific vector quickly developed a tolerance for DDT, and could not be controlled by DDT.

Getting your information from 1969 only hurts you fool! LOL

"Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied -- this still reduces mosquito-human contact. "This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria."

[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Clearly you are making the case that we should believe in global warming because the only argument you can make is by drawing an comparison to a purposeful lie, the lies that DDT was banned and if DDT hadn't been banned no malaria deaths would have occured, when both are lies.

Clearly you suffer the same AGW alarmist mental disorder that most liberal tree sitters do--no brains. I have already proved you to be the liar here sonny!

And scaring people about DDT back then without real proven science is exactly the same bullshit practice you worshipers are trying to do about the AGW/CC HOAX!

cat's meow · #46 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 04:48 PM

From the Washington Post...

Quote:

Early Exposure to DDT May Raise Risk of Breast Cancer

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; Page HE01

A new study has found a significant link between women's exposure to DDT as young girls and the development of breast cancer later in life.

The results are something of a surprise, researchers said, because several previous studies have found no link between cancer and the insecticide, which was widely used during the 1950s and '60s but was banned in the United States in 1972.

The new work differs from all other studies, however, by focusing on the age at which women were exposed. Echoing the situation with some other breast cancer risks, such as radiation, it finds that DDT increases the risk of breast cancer in adulthood only if the exposure occurred at a young age, before the breasts were fully developed.

All told, girls who had the highest levels of the chemical in their blood during that crucial developmental period were five times more likely to get breast cancer years later than were girls who had the lowest levels. That fivefold increase is a bigger boost in risk than is now attributed to hormone replacement therapy or having a close relative with breast cancer.

Although there is nothing that women today can do about their DDT exposures decades ago, the results could influence an ongoing controversy about the extent to which the chemical should still be used around the world.

That question has haunted the World Health Organization because, despite its environmental and potential human health risks, DDT remains one of the most potent weapons against the mosquitoes that transmit malaria, a global scourge that kills about a million people every year, most of them children.

"This is a very important public health issue that calls for a balanced approach," said the leader of the new study, Barbara A. Cohn, director of Child Health and Development Studies, a nonprofit research initiative in Oakland, Calif.

Experts emphasized that the breast cancer findings must be considered preliminary until they can be replicated by others. But several who examined the study, published in the October issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, said the results looked valid.

There is a growing recognition that "what happens in early life is really important for what happens decades later," especially for breast and other tissues that undergo developmental changes in childhood, said Ezra Susser, chairman of epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

But for the connection between DDT and breast cancer, Susser said, "No one has really been able to test it until now."

Perhaps no other chemical has earned such a full spectrum of both accolades and notoriety as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT.

First synthesized in the 19th century, the chemical came into widespread use to control mosquitoes and other insect pests after World War II. In the 1950s and '60s, when its popularity peaked, truck-sized foggers were repeatedly deployed in many U.S. neighborhoods, parks and summer camps, as well as on farms.

Around the same time, DDT brought near-miraculous declines in malaria in many developing countries around the world.

Rachel Carson's seminal 1962 book, "Silent Spring," marked the beginning of the end of DDT's glory. It documented the persistence of DDT and its chemical byproducts in the environment and its devastating effects on some bird species.

By the early 1980s, in response to environmental concerns, virtually every developed country had banned it and the WHO backed off from its promotion of indoor spraying -- and malaria began to make a comeback, triggering a global policy debate that goes on to this day.

Though no one today advocates profligate spraying of DDT, the World Health Organization in September 2006 stirred controversy by endorsing the chemical's application in people's homes in malarial areas -- an approach that minimizes its contact with non-insect wildlife and presumes, on the basis of evidence available until now, that such exposures pose minimal risk to human health.

The new study took a fresh look at that presumption and focused on breast cancer -- a disease that DDT researchers have repeatedly come back to because, although more than a dozen studies have found no link, a few others have pointed to a possible connection.

Cohn and her co-workers, including Robert I. Sholtz and Mary S. Wolff of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, knew that older studies had two weaknesses.

For one, most of those studies did not measure actual DDT levels in people's blood, assaying instead a metabolic byproduct of DDT called DDE, which stays in the body much longer than DDT. It was considered a simple marker for the amount of DDT to which a person had been exposed.

But it is a bad marker, many scientists agree. Much of the DDE in a person's body has been consumed directly as DDE, in meat and other foods where the chemical has persisted long after DDT was banned. Studies have shown that DDE does not pose a breast cancer risk.

The second shortcoming is that even the few studies that measured DDT itself did not stratify participants by age. Cohn's hypothesis was that age of exposure matters.

To find out, the team got access to frozen blood samples that had been drawn from American women between 1959 and 1967. At the time, most of those women ranged in age from 19 to 29.

Half of those samples -- 129 of them -- were selected because the women from whom they were drawn developed breast cancer by age 50. The other 129 were selected to match the first 129 by age, but those women did not have breast cancer.

The team measured DDT levels in the women's blood. (They all had at least some.) And by taking into account their ages, the team also got a measure of how old the women were when the first big U.S. wave of DDT exposures began, in the mid-1940s. Some were as young as 3 at the time, while others were 14 or older.

Among women who were exposed to DDT in their first 13 years, those who scored in the top one-third for DDT levels had more than five times the likelihood of getting breast cancer compared with those whose DDT levels were in the lowest third.

By contrast, women who were older than 14 when their DDT exposure began showed no differences in risk, whether they had high or low levels of DDT in their blood.

The results suggest that DDT can pose a serious breast cancer risk -- but only if it has a chance to work on breast tissues early.

Mark Maier, health policy leader for CropLife America, a trade organization for pesticide makers, emphasized that the study was small, that pesticide use in the United States is "highly regulated," and that any risks in the developing world must be balanced against those from malaria.

"Appropriate use of DDT today would not result in significant exposure," Maier said.

But Suzanne Snedeker, who studies environmental links to breast cancer at Cornell University, said she has serious concerns about a DDT comeback in developing countries and would rather see funding for other approaches to malaria control.

"Certainly people will be exposed and it will enter the environment," she warned, adding that the next step is to learn how DDT may predispose young breast cells to later trouble.

Cohn, too, urged policymakers to watch the science carefully, noting that women who were exposed to DDT in their youth are just now entering the age range when most breast cancers are likely to emerge.

"We could change the risk of an entire generation of girls by what we do now," she said.

1wiseguy · #47 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

From the Washington Post...

An article dujour on cancer eh? And your point is?

Again, you people suffer from trying to make words like "may" or "might be linked to" sound or give credence to REAL or PROVEN science--and it doesn't.

cat's meow · #48 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1wiseguy

An article dujour on cancer eh? And your point is?

Again, you people suffer from trying to make words like "may" or "might be linked to" sound or give credence to REAL or PROVEN science--and it doesn't.

Read the whole article(s)...

wow · #49 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

The problem with your logic is that DDT was never banned. Instead, the approved uses of organochloride compounds was withdrawn for uses where good alternatives existed. The use of these compounds for public health needs, such as malaria and denga, was specifically allowed in the US and in the Stockholm protocols.

And you are also wrong in arguing that DDT was actually effective in stopping the spread of malaria, when it was well documented that the specific vector quickly developed a tolerance for DDT, and could not be controlled by DDT.

Clearly you are making the case that we should believe in global warming because the only argument you can make is by drawing an comparison to a purposeful lie, the lies that DDT was banned and if DDT hadn't been banned no malaria deaths would have occured, when both are lies.

This sounds like Liberals creating death and disaster to set up another welfare scam.

mulp · #50 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1wiseguy

The problem with your argument is that you have no logic and must resort to lies!

The U.S. Ban on DDT - Environmental Defense Fund

DDT Ban Takes Effect | EPA History | US EPA

So I guess your own EPA and Environmental Defense Fund are liars as well?

Getting your information from 1969 only hurts you fool! LOL

"Resistance" may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied -- this still reduces mosquito-human contact. "This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria."

[See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]

Clearly you suffer the same AGW alarmist mental disorder that most liberal tree sitters do--no brains. I have already proved you to be the liar here sonny!

And scaring people about DDT back then without real proven science is exactly the same bullshit practice you worshipers are trying to do about the AGW/CC HOAX!

Well, was DDT banned for use for public health needs like fighting malaria? Cite the specific agency, the ruling, and the year?

The reason resistence to DDT occurs is because of constant exposure. Limiting DDT use to the inside of closed and screened houses prevents this constant exposure and thus the resistence.

However, well into the 80s, DDT was considered the only pesticide useful against cotton pests, so DDT use was used even after "banned" in the US until alternatives were available, and elsewhere until DDT just didn't work and the alternatives were cheaper.

Only then was it possible for DDT to be useful for public health.

But, DDT alone in not sufficient. DDT must be sprayed in all houses in the region, and this requires government mandates. And drugs must be given to all who get malaria. Only by cutting off the vector for transmitting it, and by killing off the source, the infected people regardless of how much money they have, can malaria be close to eradicated. It is impossible to kill off all the specific mosquitos, so the mosquitos must be given people free of malaria to bite if the succeed. Malaria erradication hasn't worked because no one has put together the command and control regime to do it.

But more important, the environmental damage to the environment was very clear in the 60s all over the world, and the connection between the damage and DDT was very clear, and DDT just wasn't that effective when used by the ton as was common then, so no justification existed for continuing to permit DDTs use as a general purpose pesticide.

Now, where is the fraud. Please provide the evidence that DDT did not cause harm - in fact the whole point of DDT was to kill stuff, so harm was intended, but what was required was very limited harm. And provide the evidence that withdrawing DDT as a general purpose pesticide killed anyone.

And don't cite articles written after 1970 to explain the the basis for decision making in 1970 and 1972, unless you have evidence that someone with a time machine took those results back in time. By the 90s, DDT was used in very few places on crops, so the vectors were no longer resistent to DDT, so the effectiveness inside houses today is much different than in the 50s and 60s.

And whether or not DDT is harmful to people based on research today is irrelevant to the decision making in 1970 - that was not the basis for the decision making then.

What I find ironic is the people who complain about the restriction on the use of DDT were never affected one way or the other by the EPA action if in the US or by the Stockholm Convention if outside the US. More cost effective alternatives were available long before 1972, and they had largely replaced DDT already.

On the other hand, the evidence of the harm caused by burning fossil fuels has been far clearer since the 50s, but every effort to limit the harm has been painfully fought with many lives lost to inaction. And the need to stop burning fossil fuels has been clear for well over half a century.

The current strategy of people like you seems to be to push the problem down the road until after you die, and stick you children with the pain of solving the problem you created and were too lazy or stupid to address. And you just keep making up stuff to deny the existance of any problem. You never provide any evidence that fossil fuels can be found and burned for the next thousand years, but merely make claims like "global warming, peak oil, are all just like the hoax that claimed DDT didn't cure malaria, so we can just keep on living like we always have, and if we can't find oil, then the liberals have moved it to where the terrorists live."

Really, if you are going to make up stuff, please be creative. Claim "JFK moved the oil from Texas to Cuba as part of a deal with the commies, and that's why Texas oil production is own so much - those damn commie liberals."