Your Garage Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Brett Dennen Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Get Ready for Summer and Save 15% Father's Day Gifts Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Outdoor Recreation SnS
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 4926-4950 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on May 28, 2012 6:50:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 6:57:23 AM PDT
Realist. says:
DDT was one of the stars of World War II, used in wiping out malaria, typhus and other insect-delivered diseases on the battlefield and in nearby cities. DDT was first synthesized in 1874, but in 1939 Paul Muller of Geigy Pharmaceutical (the predecessor to Novartis) discovered the chemical's insecticidal behavior: it killed all the bugs it was tested on. For this, Muller won the 1948 Nobel Prize in medicine.

The lie spread by the guilty greens is that DDT has never been banned against malaria, but of course this is silly as what about and other insect-borne tropical diseases in Africa, South America and other parts of the World? One would have to prove that it was being used against malaria, Proof? How? Doubt? "Forget it we will not let you have it!" You see the key word here is "manufacture" and the other is "control". You cannot get something if it is not being made or you cannot have it. And if you do manage to get it by a roundabout route we will cancel all aid to you. Get it?

The WHO estimates that Malathion, the cheapest alternative to DDT, costs more than twice as much as DDT and must be sprayed twice as often. Another mosquito-fighting chemical, deltamethrin, is over three times as expensive as DDT, and propoxur, although also highly effective, costs 23 times as much.

Currently, DDT is made only in India and China, with the New Delhi-based Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (HIL), which is considered the largest producer in the world with an estimated 1,344 tonnes/year of DDT capacity, US capacity in 1962 was 85,000 tonnes PA with the population increase that would equate to at least double that today; so let us say to achieve what we were achieving in 1962 that we wish to achieve today we would require at least 170,000 to 250,000 tonnes PA= 126 times (at min) the amount that HIL can produce , so some very large factories need to be built. With the renewed interest towards DDT as a tool to fight malaria, the company has ventured into exporting DDT primarily to African nations. WHO says that indoor spraying of DDT can reduce malaria transmission by up to 90%. The WHO's regional director for Africa, Dr L.G Samb.o, says: "The WHO position on indoor-residual spraying is that countries have the right to choose the products to use "DDT being one of them," if there are no other alternatives possible "Read cost verses aid". The WHO like to just talk about malaria, but are well aware of the other beneficial uses of DDT but for political reasons choose to remain quite on the subject.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:00:42 AM PDT
Realist. says:
Treehuger:"I have you f'in liar"

JF: NO you have not. BTW why do you have a name like Treehugger? Very strange name!! Are you a little bit weird? Pray tell?

Posted on May 28, 2012 7:10:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 11:49:56 AM PDT
Realist. says:
I suppose that Carson would have been very happy to relate the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon to DDT. Lol far to early for that. The species lived in enormous migratory flocks. One sighting in 1866 in southern Ontario was described as being 1 mile wide, 300 miles long, and taking 14 hours to pass a single point with number estimates in excess of 3.5 billion birds in the flock. That number, if accurate, would likely represent a large fraction of the entire population at the time. Passenger Pigeons had one of the largest groups or flocks of any animal, second only to the Rocky Mountain locust. Some even say there were at one time more than 8 billion of them! Wow that is a lot of birds.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:41:09 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
Gee that's nice.

Next time just give us the link instead of wasting space just so you can see your name as posting something.

That seems to be an endemic problem with this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:41:45 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
Thank you!

Good link!

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:42:19 AM PDT
@JB Frodsham

You do realize that 21st century science tech is a fringe "science" magazine (now web-only) published by Lyndon LaRouche's organization, right? Now THERE'S a reliable guy to read!!!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/21st_Century_Science_and_Technology

BTW: Is your name pronounced "fraud-sham"? No offense, just askin'.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 7:43:02 AM PDT
Omnireader says:
Why are you exposing your ignorance so proudly?

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 8:35:11 AM PDT
A customer says:
He thinks that repeating loudly that he has done his research will make up for not knowing that DDT is still available for disease control.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 8:44:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 10:12:27 AM PDT
TSNTPW:" A pure right-wing lie, invented, if I'm not mistaken, by the late Michael Crichton. For one thing, DDT was never banned in the Third World. For another, countries that relied on it as the centerpiece of their anti-malaria strategy--like Sri Lanka--created resistant mosquito strains and wound up with a worse problem than before."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TS: Barton wrote this, not me.

Now, I supposed this would be in character for Crichton, who also insisted second hand smoke could not (by prinicple) possible be responsible for health problems, despite virtually all the reputable science research saying the opposite.

And Crichton had some medical training, but wasn't popular with his instructors.

<<At Harvard he developed the belief that all diseases, including heart attacks, are direct effects of a patient's state of mind. He later wrote: "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us."[17] Eventually he came to believe in auras, astral projection, and clairvoyance.[17]>>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

But that's only relevant if Crichton did start the DDT is save campaign.
But if HE were the type of source you were using , yes you would no doubt have amazing things to post here for us that you ad "read".

=====================================================

JBF: My research so far informs that indeed DDT was not banned for Malaria control in some African countries, the trouble of course is the factories that made DDT were in the West and those factories stopped making it. So the African countries could not buy it. At any rate at one time it was given away.

Did you know it was used BIG time in WW2? Without it the war with Japan would have dragged on for a long time and 10 thousands of GI deaths.

TS: All the history I have seen showed the cause was due to dropping the atomic bomb and their fear of Stalin's offensive starting on Japan.

--Perhaps your point is that it saved some lives.
--Don't you think it is absurd to claim it won the war with Japan?

You lose your credibility that way - especially with NO sources to back it up.
===========================================================

JF:... The wiki resource for DDT is just plain awful.

TS: You need to show proof of that JF - including listing your source so we can tell it is reputable.
==============================================

JF: My research so far informs that indeed DDT was not banned for Malaria control in some African countries, the trouble of course is the factories that made DDT were in the West and those factories stopped making it. So the African countries could not buy it.

TS: If there was demand, they would have found a manufacturer.

C'mon. Ever hear of something called capitalism. Even when guns and drugs are banned - countries can find a way to circumvent it.

And these were not even outlawed in those countries.

Your argument sounds just plain silly.

Let me help you out. I would argue if I was trying to make something up out of thin air - that the African countries relied entirely on donations from the US and Europe, and they weren't giving money for that.

But that sounds sort of silly too, I guess.
================================================================

JBF: (removed the part that was a repetition)

You already know that up to 200,000 ++ ? old trees (mainly oaks) died in the US alone because of the ban on DDT.

TS: You have to offset that with the animals and food chain that would have been harmed.
I have no doubt there are pros and cons, JBF. The issue is that you list all the pros and pretend there ARE no cons.

JBF: Carson's book is just a pile of rubbish not backed up at all with science. The main reason for the banning is she said it caused cancer, she was WRONG: "Carson filled her book with misinformation alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day."

TS: Wiki gave a large number of refrence of scientific studies that say the opposite.

--And I have NO problem with you claiming Wiki is just plain "awful".
--But I do have a problem with you saying that, with the belief you don't actually have to PROVE that with a reputable source.

===============================================================
JBF: I have eaten DDT 35 years ago and would do it again. Wonderful stuff DDT and cheap too. Good, bring it back big time and save lives.

TS: Wiki showed it was primarily pregnant women that had the risk for their forming fetus.

So you must not have even read that when I listed that. Am I right.

JBF: There were serious "audits" of Carlson's egg-thinning data that she claimed was caused by DDT, and the conclusion was that this claim was unsupportable. See another myth!

TS: Wiki posted a referenced sources to the opposite.

**<<DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects, including marine animals such as crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals, but may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stage. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle,[6] brown pelican[35] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[1] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species,
In addition to increasing the incidence of diabetes and cancers, DDT is thought to pose developmental neurotoxicity in humans.

So you need to do better than unsupported slogans JBF.

===========================================================

"Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT."

He's right. It was the FIRST lawsuit on environmentalism.

Found this:

<<The Environmental Defense Fund was founded in 1967 by Long Island scientists who discovered that DDT was having a devastating effect on ospreys and other local birds. Unable to persuade the Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commission to stop spraying DDT, the scientists went to court.
This environmental strategy is now a familiar one, but it had never been tried before. It worked.
"Within two weeks there was an injunction forcing the mosquito commission to stop using DDT,"
recalls chemist Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the founders. The group then began a campaign that resulted in a permanent, nationwide ban on DDT in 1972.>>

http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/218_AR98.pdf

And I just Wikied it. The EPA was set up in 1970, with the approval of then President Richard Nixon.
So the lawsuit set the EPA in motion, it would appear.

That was interesting research for me, by the way.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 8:47:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:57:06 AM PDT
JF: Wind farms will/are be responsible for killing 1000s of bald eagles. if Carson was around now she would write a book about that and then get wind mills banned too.

TS: The difference is, it doesn't pollute the food chain, JF.

I agree with you though against TH, just because you are arguing for DDT, that doesn't mean you MUST support Agent Orange, Napalm, etc.

That was an illogical fallacy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 8:56:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:03:13 AM PDT
TH to JF: I have you f'in liar

TS: He's not lying TH. He honestly disagrees with us.

--Now, he has no reputable sources listed that I can see.
-- So he is basing his "truth" on some very questionable facts, unless he can do better.

__________________________________________
TS: and yes, this one source JF listed IS insane.

<<JF: Try this for starters: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html??

TS: So the question for JF is why he finds Lyndon Larouche... reputable.

And I know Larouche well, living in Northern Virginia, I sometimes see his minions passing out pamphlets. Accidently picked up a few before. They were unbelievably crazy.

Wiki lists some of his looney positions.

(1) LaRouche interpreted the AIDS pandemic as fulfillment of his 1973 prediction that an epidemic would strike humanity in the 1980s. LaRouche said it had been created by the "Soviet war machine," or by the International Monetary Fund to kill "excess eaters" in Africa.

(2) In 2002 LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks had been an "inside job" and "attempted coup d'etat," and that Iran was the first country to question it. The article received wide coverage in Iran, and was cited by senior Iranian government officials, including Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rowhani. Mahmoud Alinejad writes that, in a subsequent telephone interview with the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, LaRouche said the attacks had been organized by rogue elements inside the U.S., aiming to use the incident to promote a war against Islam, and that Israel was a dictatorial regime prepared to commit Nazi-style crimes against the Palestinians.[146]

(3) During the discussion of U.S. health care reform in 2009, LaRouche advocated a single-payer health care bill, and took exception to what he described as Barack Obama's proposal that "independent boards of doctors and health care experts [should] make the life-and-death decisions of what care to provide, and what not, based on cost-effectiveness criteria." LaRouche said the proposed boards, later compared to "death panels" by Sarah Palin, would amount to the same thing as the Nazis' Action T4 euthanasia program, and urged Americans to "quickly and suddenly change the behavior of this president ... for no lesser reason than that your sister might not end up in somebody's gas oven." His movement printed pamphlets showing Obama and Hitler laughing together, and posters of Obama with a Hitler-style mustache.

OK?

Do you see why this appears to be nonsense to us, JF -- even though the guy chose to put science and tech in his magazine name? There is NOTHING scientific or even technological about it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:06:20 AM PDT
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "My research so far informs that indeed DDT was not banned for Malaria control in some African countries, the trouble of course is the factories that made DDT were in the West and those factories stopped making it."

His "research" failed to take into account that the last US plant was sold to Indonesia to manufacture DDT, and that the one country still manufacturing DDT is India.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:13:15 AM PDT
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "He's not lying TH. He honestly disagrees with us."

Nope. Not a chance.

The simple fact that he has switched from talking obvious nonsense about global warming to talking obvious nonsense about pesticides should alert you. He is not doing it because it strengthens his case - obviously it does not, it is a simple change of subject - but because he knows that none exists. He has no science on AW and he has no science on DDT - it's just the usual attempts at character assassination of those who DO have some science. Or did, in Carson's case.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:29:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:54:09 AM PDT
And to TH [edited and ECB]: This is what real LYING looks like!!!

Background: The TeaPartyWoman who fled the SCIENCE forum when everyone put her on group ignore has been very active on the POLITICAL forum:

She INIIATED a thread attacking Romney for being a Mormon (and therefore a polygamist )AND "torturing" his dog by putting his on the roof."

So I defended Romney saying it was his ECONOMIC policies I was against, and the other was irrelevant.

Look what followed, including where she called ME the Right Winger and TeaPartyPerson.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TeaPartyWoman: << Now of course TSNTP makes excuses for Willard because he's an extreme right, Libertarian conservative, who will support Willard no matter what.

and

<<TeaPartyWoman: This fake TSNTP has been impersonating me for months. He belongs to the Tea Party, so he will support anyone but Obama - even someone with major character flaws like Willard.>>

http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=47&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx1ZLHC1QER1KTQ#Mx1ZLHC1QER1KTQ

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DETAILS

Look where TeaPartywoman has been posting: LEADIN POST

TeaPartywoman says:
>>Why does Willard Romney only have one wife?

One of the motivations for the founder of Mormonism was to be able to officialize his extramarital relationship with his maid. Eventually he had 48 wives in total.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx1ZPL77XX944AL#Mx1ZPL77XX944AL

__________________________________________________

TeaPartyWoman: So why does Romney only have one wife? Why isn't he being a good Mormon?
TeaPartywoman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy

Polygamy, or plural marriage, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints probably originated with the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr., who taught that polygamy (or at least polygyny) was a divine commandment. Smith practiced it personally, by some accounts marrying as many as 30 women.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Evidence for Smith's position is provided by "sealing" records, public marriage licenses (in many cases notarized), affidavits, letters, journals and diaries,[1] but Smith and the leading church quorums denied that he preached or practiced polygamy.[7][8] Smith's son Joseph Smith III, his widow Emma Smith, and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now called the Community of Christ) challenged the evidence and taught that Joseph Smith had opposed polygamy. They instead claimed that Brigham Young introduced plural marriage.[7][9][10][11]

Mitt Romney is DISOBEYING the divine commandment of his religion!

http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=31&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx3HV1GQWH913VY#Mx3HV1GQWH913VY
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TeaPartyWoman: I can't believe that Willard was even a Mormon preacher without having more than one wife.
He's a pathetic Mormon.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=40&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx2EZOAX8MCRFQ7#Mx2EZOAX8MCRFQ7

TeaPartywoman:
The difference is that Obama was just a little kid when he ate dog, while Willard was a full-grown adult when he tortured his dog.

By the way, I am not an Obama supporter by any means, but there does not seem to be a reliable alternative.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdMsgNo=43&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2ZTURLATXG5B5&cdMsgID=Mx8U7PCQIXH7OM#Mx8U7PCQIXH7OM

TeaPartywoman: I consider strapping a dog to the roof of a station wagon, then driving hundreds of miles to Ontario, and even worse, when the dog got sick - brutally hose the poor creature and put the dog back on the roof - I consider that animal cruelty which should be prosecuted.

Now of course TSNTP makes excuses for Willard because he's an extreme right, Libertarian conservative, who will support Willard no matter what.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just wanted to show you where the BAR was on lying, guys.

And she has posted she gave up her US citizen and is not a French citizen (for taxes she said).
So she's not even voting.

See why I began calling her deranged ???
No, I don't even try rational discourse with this ... creature.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:31:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 10:23:03 AM PDT
Truthseeker - "My research so far informs that indeed DDT was not banned for Malaria control in some African countries, the trouble of course is the factories that made DDT were in the West and those factories stopped making it."

His "research" failed to take into account that the last US plant was sold to Indonesia to manufacture DDT, and that the one country still manufacturing DDT is India.

TS: Well of course, if there was ANY market they would be sold overseas.
That was just plain.. logical.

If his source was Lyndon Larouche -- well that explains a lot.

You DO need to note the difference between a person who purposely lies, and a person who believes lies.

--The latter CAN snap out of it eventually if reason is employed. But not if they are personally attacked, ok?

I find JF a decent meaning guy.
-- Sure I have to ignore some of his rants, as he does mine.
-- My other conservative friends and I understand that about each other, too... :-)

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 9:47:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 9:54:55 AM PDT
ECB: He has no science on AW and he has no science on DDT - it's just the usual attempts at character assassination of those who DO have some science. Or did, in Carson's case.

TS: To me, he's fighting off the belief his sources could really be giving him the big lie. He has emotional ties into believing them. Takes awhile for logic to break that down.

When you resort to EMOTIONAL tactics yourself, you shut down the previous rational discussion -- is how I see it.

Now you have presented fantastic rational facts very helpful for the discussion, I am just asking you to stick to that

I know about this, ECB -- because I was brought up a right wing social conservative person as a child in Texas. This is the process how I broke out of it ECB. And the process took years! Sure, I had snapped out of it by my mid 20s -- probably because I am a rational freak. But I understand the emotional ties, is my point.

Keep it 100% rational, ok? You too,TH.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:03:05 AM PDT
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "The latter CAN snap out of it eventually if reason is employed"

I'm not a therapist. I think of myself more as the Terminator type.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:03:47 AM PDT
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "Now you have presented fantastic rational facts very helpful for the discussion, I am just asking you to stick to that "

I AM making an effort. And only for your sake.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 10:15:51 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 11:07:56 AM PDT
Truthseeker - "The latter CAN snap out of it eventually if reason is employed"

ECB: I'm not a therapist. I think of myself more as the Terminator type.

TS: OK. Just don't put the Kabosh on rational discussion. ;-]

ECB: I AM making an effort. And only for your sake.

TS: And I saw posts by both Jason and JF where they noted they were trying too, while admitting biases.

That's what we want -- to drill down to the REAL facts -- where they have the opportunity to do the same, of course.

--Yes, I have gotten through to posters doing this (and I have learned from them as well), but ONLY if everyone agrees logic and facts are the driving forces for finding the truth on a topic.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 1:05:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 1:20:18 PM PDT
Realist. says:
TSNTPW: As usual a good reply from you. Glad you are finding your research interesting. I am a bit frustrated as some of the with the books I want to read as they are of a technical nature and not available on kindle, getting books sent to Viet Nam is hopeless. DDT is fascinating stuff. You need to remember that DDT's effectiveness as a public health insecticide lies not how many mosquitoes it kills, but in how many it repels. By keeping malaria-bearing mosquitoes away from the people they could infect, the chemical breaks the cycle of infection and death. In other words on a hut sprayed with DDT the mosquitoes do not enter and settle, so it is operating as a repellant not as a killer, but yes it can kill them as well. But what I would really like to see is malaria exterminated as it was in the USA. "DDT should be used in African countries as it was in the United States for decades until malaria is eradicated" Groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Physicians for Social Responsibilty and over 300 other environmental organizations to advocate for a total DDT ban, starting as early as 2007. But they failed. http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

So I believe that in the future we will see a big come back of DDT. Sure it has its downsides, but the upsides well out weigh it. The main thing here is DDT saves lives and does not take them.

BTW: On environmental issues wiki is a terrible source. I used to donate to wiki, I no longer do. And I never said that DDT won the war for the USA against Japan, DDT helped shorten the war and saved countless GI lives. And you said: "primarily pregnant women that had the risk for their forming fetus." Sorry but that is just a theory, no proof on that. From your source wiki: The study suggests that children exposed while in the womb have a greater chance of development problems. Note "suggests."Malaria is much more dangerous to African children that any possible developmental delays due to overexposure.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 1:24:33 PM PDT
Tree: Arrhenius asked what would happen to the earth's climate if CO2 levels were halved and also if they were doubled. In the case of doubling, he determined that average global temperatures would rise between nine and eleven degrees, a result that approximates the estimates of the most sophisticated climate models in operation today.

BPL: Note that those are Fahrenheit degrees, equivalent to about 5-6 K.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 1:30:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 1:36:48 PM PDT
Realist. says:
TSNTPW: " Do you see why this appears to be nonsense to us, JF -- even though the guy chose to put science and tech in his magazine name? There is NOTHING scientific or even technological about it. "

JF: Of course I know of LaRouche. Yes a lot of his views are a bit wacko. But the copy on DDT was very good. I just picked what I agree on. One book that I really want to read (No kindle) is The Excellent Powder by D Roberts.

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 1:31:12 PM PDT
JBF, quoted by TS: I have eaten DDT 35 years ago and would do it again.

BPL: Hey, the more DDT JBF swallows, the happier I'll be. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 1:43:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 1:45:57 PM PDT
Realist. says:
BPL: "In the case of doubling, he determined that average global temperatures would rise between nine and eleven degrees, a result that approximates the estimates of the most sophisticated climate models in operation today."

JF: Without positive feedback it would be at the most 1 deg C. Did you hear the joke about wamists always automatically winding up the window of the car they are sitting in as it starts to get hot and then refusing to wind the window down as they cook because that would be a negative feedback.

BPL: Hey, the more DDT JBF swallows, the happier I'll be. ;)

JF:The more time you spend in your car cooking the happier I will be. ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on May 28, 2012 2:20:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 28, 2012 2:45:39 PM PDT
From JF's website: MALARIA FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since I find this a reputable and strong source, I read it. Let me summarize what I found.

#1 MFI wants a reasoned approach of using DDT as part of a tool kit against malaria in certain vectors such as Africa, where malaria is prevelant.

#2 They support an eventual (but not immediate) ban, when alternatives are found.
-- That means, they aren't arguing (as you are) that DDT is completely safe for the long term ecological system- but want a balanced approach where it is recognized lives lost is part of the equation of looking at all the PROs and CONs.

#3 They ask for other solutions because they recognize among other issues - there is the problem of mosquitoes mutating to have drug resistance against DDT.

Here is how they put it.

<<The MFI has supported an eventual (not immediate) ban, with the proviso that an effective and affordable replacement is found before DDT is banned.

DDT is one tool of many in the malaria control worker's toolbox. The reason that it is being discussed at this site is that, unlike other tools, there is an imminent danger of it being taken away. This puts not just health, but lives, at stake. The MFI wants to see all possible tools for malaria control be readily available, because malaria is a serious, resurgent problem with drug resistance and increasing numbers of illnesses and deaths.>>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I find this very balanced and reasonable.

=====================================================
So the next step to me was to see who was opposed to this/

To test your contention that liberals were all fighting this. I googled <<Sierra Club DDT>>
This popped up.

a 1996 response by Sierra Club to WHO noting that while dangerous, they agreed Africa should get an exception to the DDT ban.

PROOF:
"Malaria kills millions of people in Africa every year. Under closely controlled conditions and as part of a broader, integrated response, Sierra Club agrees that DDT should only be used in accordance with limiting provisions agreed to by more than 150 nations in the Stockholm Convention. Further, many effective non-toxic and less toxic alternatives are available and affordable, such as cleaning mosquito breeding areas, use of treated nets and early malaria detection and treatment programs. Sierra Club believes that DDT should be considered as the option of last resort only, when all feasible non-toxic and less toxic alternatives have been tried and proven ineffective. Sierra Club encourages governments and the WHO to give priority to increasing the informed use and accelerated development of such non-toxic and less toxic alternatives."

http://www.sierraclub.org/toxics/pesticides/default.aspx

Isn't it "amazing" how LaRouche (or whoever you are listening to) doesn't note any of this.

It's because they only care about demonizing this for their political advantage!
================================================
So next I looked at who the MFI blamed for this.

And it was the WHO

<<In 1955 the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted the controversial Global Eradication Campaign emphasising DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) spraying in homes. The incidence of malaria fell sharply where the programme was implemented, but the strategy was not applied in holoendemic Africa. This, along with the failure to achieve eradication in larger tropical regions, contributed to disillusionment with the policy.

The World Health Assembly abandoned the eradication strategy in 1969. A resurgence of malaria began at about that time and today reaches into areas where eradication or control had been achieved. A global malaria crisis looms.

In 1993 the WHO adopted a Global Malaria Control Strategy that placed priority in control of disease rather than infection. This formalises a policy that emphasises diagnosis and treatment in a primary healthcare setting, while de-emphasising spraying of residual insecticides. The new policy explicitly stresses malaria in Africa, but expresses the intent to bring control programmes around the world into line with the strategy>>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10804031?dopt=Abstract

TS: So I looked around to see what THEY said was the history of spraying.

It says it was World Health Organization who abandoned DDTS as a strategy in 1969.

Who were Presidents then?
--Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford 1969-1976
--Jimmy Carter -1977-1981
--Ronald Reagan 1981-1988
--George Bush Sr. 1989-1992

And the WHO is a UN agency with members of most countries around the world.

But the US President has the power to appoint to the US representative to it.
Another indication it was all those SCIENCE studies that were responsible for banning DDT, not any "liberal plot".

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And last, here is what was really going on.

Poor countries, such as in Africa were looking for FREE UN aid (through WHO) to eradicate malaria.

It is a well known fact that most people who died from DDT also had poor immunity systems because they were weak from hunger or had a lack of medical attention.

Meaning a bigger problem was: more foreign aid was needed to help the poor.

Thus, If you're going to go down the road of arguing that not providing aid to the poor with malaria control constitutes the SAME AS MURDER,

You have to accept the same is true when conservatives do not want to provide enough foreign $$ aid for FOOD, CLEAN WATER, and MEDICAL CARE.

You see, it is a double edged sword.

So tell me, of your hard right sources - how many of them really support more FINANCIAL aid to the poor around the world.

I have always seen the screaming about liberals murdering people with the DDT ban, as a smoke screen by the right wing, to hide the fact many want to cut off all foreign aid. And no one is supposed to notice aid for malaria control is just one subset of financial aid to the poor -- here AND abroad.

Let me know what I missed, ok?
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
spherical earth vs. flat earth 1082 29 seconds ago
What is the greatest thing in the universe? 681 48 seconds ago
DRM is Voluntarily Leaving This Forum 56 28 minutes ago
Creationists ask......Are there honest Scientists? 31 31 minutes ago
Why dont Top Scientists care about the Rape Culture on our campuses?. 41 32 minutes ago
Famous Scientists Who Believed In God 74 41 minutes ago
Age of Neanderthal stone circles in France 6 3 hours ago
Rat Tumors & Cancer 0 8 hours ago
Meet an ET, Named (by us) JROD from 'Serpo' whose 'Flying Saucer' crashed near Kingman, Arizona in 1963 45 9 hours ago
Creationists ask.....Cant anyone answer a Scientific question? 100 14 hours ago
Undeniable Proof That God Exists! 1049 16 hours ago
Tesla deliveries, and lost money on every one! 285 17 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions