In the 1950’s and 60’s DDT drove malaria almost to extinction as well as significantly reducing yellow fever, dengue, sleeping sickness, plague, encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and other diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, fleas, and lice. 1962 Rachel Carson (author of “Silent Spring” and William Ruckelshaus, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency began a two person campaign of mis-information The public was so inundated with excerpts from Silent Spring by the media, they came to believe this work of pure speculation, and very deliberate Gore-Like omissions and deceptions, was actually proven fact. The budding environmental movement was given a CAUSE….. EPA appointed Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney to evaluate DDT. In 1971-2 he conducted a seven-month hearing. Judge Sweeney, after 80 days of testimony from 150 expert scientists, ruled that DDT "is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man" and does "not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wild life. There is a present need for the continued use of DDT for the essential uses defined in this case." Ruckelshaus banned DDT anyway, overruling the findings. He admitted he had never attended a day of the hearings nor read a page of the transcripts. USAID, prodded by a lawsuit by the Audubon Society and the Natural Resources Defense Council, undertook to discourage other countries from using DDT by threatening to stop foreign aid to any country using it. Its threat spread Ruckelshaus's ban worldwide. Today, The National Institutes of Health Estimate that the DDT ban has so far caused the deaths of up to 20 MILLION children, mostly in Africa. Today, Malaria victims (mostly children < 6) are dying at the rate of 1 every 30 seconds In 1979, on April 26, Ruckelshaus wrote the American Farm Bureau Federation that his ban was imposed for political, not scientific, reasons: "Science, along with other disciplines such as economics, has a role to play, but the ultimate judgment remains political“ The World Health Organization has finally acknowledged this farce and allowed DDT to be used for malaria control again. I would post a picture of a child dieing from malaria here but it would likely get removed, it is quite disturbing. One man, with the unrestrained power of the EPA, killed millions.
To start: when putting down a list of supposed facts, it is customary to tell where you got those supposed facts. As they didn't just pop into your brain, what's the source of your information? "Drove malaria almost to extinction"? Where did you get that nonsense? DDT had some success, then it failed hard because mosquitoes developed resistance to it. Here, I'll show you an actual paper on the topic, describing DDT use in India. Note this is an independent research paper from 1981. Those are kind of sources I use, as opposed to crank political blogs. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/10/14/chapin/ --- 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. --- So, how do you reconcile your conspiracy theory with the documented history? Conspiracy theory crackpottery, check. Carson never called for a ban on DDT for malaria control. You'd think that since every DDT-fan repeats this, just one of them somewhere might have actual evidence to back it up. But they don't. They all parrot each other, and none of them sees any need to go to the original source. After all, they were told what they wanted to believe, so why should they doubt? Source checking is for dirty liberals. However, I did the liberal thing. Instead of blindly believing, I dug up the actual source. Here it is, in all of its badly-scanned giant-sized-file glory. http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=62 I'll draw your attention to page 92. --- 20. DDT can have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish and estuarine organisms when directly applied to the water. 21. DDT is used as a rodenticide. 22. DDT can have an adverse effect on beneficial animals. 23. DDT is concentrated in organisms and can be transferred through food chains. --- That's funny. Sweeny appears to be saying DDT is harmful. He just says it's not harmful to humans, and that the benefits outweighed the harm to the environment. That was the point of the hearings, whether an agricultural ban was justified by cost/benefit analysis. The "He admitted never reading the transcripts" thing appears to be an outright fabrication, made up to demonize Ruckelshaus. If you disgree, show us where he said that. Ruckelshaus disagreed with Sweeny after closely examining all the evidence. That was his job, to look at all the evidence, and not just blindly follow Sweeny. 40 years later, the science shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ruckelshaus was correct on all counts, and Sweeny was totally wrong. But that won't matter to the right-wing conspiracy theorists. This is similar to the AGW issue, where they only care about what's politically correct instead of what's true. They want excuses to hate liberals, not accurate science. Note that Ruckeshaus did not order a ban on DDT for malaria control, another basic fact that the conspiracy theorists get wrong. He orders a ban for agricultural use, which was justified by the evidence. And no one really protested at the time. The Boll Weevil had already become resistant to DDT, and DDT use in the USA was already in heavy decline. Nice conspiracy theory. USAID disagrees with that version of history. Well then, you should have no trouble showing us where the NIH says that. I give you sources, and it's time for you to do the same. Quite a trick, given that DDT was never banned for malaria control. When, over and over, you get the basic facts so completely wrong, why should anyone pay attention to you? Back in the real world, Ruckelhaus and Carlson saved millions. They eliminated the root cause of mosquito resistance, the agricultural use of DDT. That made DDT viable again for household use in malaria control.
You went to a lot of work for nothing. I do not intend to spend my time listing sources for historical fact. You may as well ask for the source that the Civil War ended at Gettysburg and the north won. Sure you can twist and spin things (just as i could convince someone Lee WON), but the basics of my statements are true and anyone here who is interested (and objective - that leaves you out) can google DDT scam or fraud and read blogs, history books, and scholarly papers on the subject, and make their own judgement. I invite them to do so, separating truth from scam is part of my "hobby".... I go now,..... I have to enjoy my day off so that tomorrow you can turn on you lights and boot up your computer (no need to thank me...I get paid REALLY well) By the way, here are those people you have said don't exist (like you said about skeptic scientists), that want to shut down fossil fuel TODAY: Turn off you air conditioner yet??.....Bet not......
Utter braindead bullcrap!!!!! As usual, from you, Fudd. To Fudd: all of your talking points are rightwingnut anti-environmental "scams" and lies. You are apparently too brainwashed to check up on this nonsense before making a fool out of yourself by posting such lies. I can certainly demonstrate the deliberate deceptions behind the kind of braindead propaganda you're fallen for and are now trying to push off on others. All of your 'talking points' and myths about DDT are some utter crap, long since debunked, that continues to rattle around in the anti-science, anti-environmental rightwingnut echo chambers. Here's the actual verifiable facts about DDT and the propaganda started by some fools with a financial interest in selling DDT. DDT From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (excerpts) In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"[19] and dramatically reducing mortality in Sri Lanka and India.[20] However widespread agricultural use led to resistant insect populations. In many areas, early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased.[21] The program was successful in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".[22] DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease's resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969, and attention was focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation, but mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.[21] Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.[22][23] ...The EPA then held seven months of hearings in 19711972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDTan exemption allowed for public health uses under some conditions.[12] Immediately after the cancellation was announced, both EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against the EPA, with the industry seeking to overturn the ban, and EDF seeking a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.[12] The U.S. DDT ban took place amidst a growing public mistrust of industry, with the Surgeon General issuing a report on smoking in 1964, the Cuyahoga River catching fire in 1969, the fiasco surrounding the use of diethylstilbestrol (DES), and the well-publicized decline in the bald eagle population.[25] Some uses of DDT continued under the public health exemption. For example, in June 1979, the California Department of Health Services was permitted to use DDT to suppress flea vectors of bubonic plague.[27] DDT also continued to be produced in the US for foreign markets until as late as 1985, when over 300 tonnes were exported.[1] Restrictions on usage In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[28] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the United States in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. Vector control use has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides. The Stockholm Convention, which took effect in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted DDT use to vector control. The Convention has been ratified by more than 170 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that total elimination in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, public health use is exempt from the ban pending acceptable alternatives. Malaria Foundation International states, "The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations...For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."[29] Despite the worldwide ban, agricultural use continues in India[30] North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.[14] Today, about 3-4,000 tonnes each year are produced for vector control.[13] DDT is applied to the inside walls of homes to kill or repel mosquitoes. This intervention, called indoor residual spraying (IRS), greatly reduces environmental damage. It also reduces the incidence of DDT resistance.[31] For comparison, treating 40 hectares (99 acres) of cotton during a typical U.S. growing season requires the same amount of chemical as roughly 1,700 homes.[32] (continued)
(continued from previous post) DDT From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (excerpts) Environmental impact DDT is a persistent organic pollutant that is extremely hydrophobic and strongly absorbed by soil. Depending on conditions, its soil half life can range from 22 days to 30 years. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. When applied to aquatic ecosystems it is quickly absorbed by organisms and by soil or it evaporates, leaving little DDT dissolved in the water itself. Its breakdown products and metabolites, DDE and DDD, are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties.[1] DDT and its breakdown products are transported from warmer regions of the world to the Arctic by the phenomenon of global distillation, where they then accumulate in the region's food web.[33] Because of its lipophilic properties, DDT has a high potential to bioaccumulate, especially in predatory birds.[34] DDT, DDE, and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptor birds concentrating more chemicals than other animals in the same environment. They are very lipophilic and are stored mainly in body fat. DDT and DDE are very resistant to metabolism; in humans, their half-lives are 6 and up to 10 years, respectively. In the United States, these chemicals were detected in almost all human blood samples tested by the Centers for Disease Control in 2005, though their levels have sharply declined since most uses were banned in the US.[35] Estimated dietary intake has also declined,[35] although FDA food tests commonly detect it.[36] 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,[7] brown pelican[38] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[1] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent than DDT.[1] Even in 2010, more than forty years after the U.S. ban, California condors which feed on sea lions at Big Sur which in turn feed in the Palos Verdes Shelf area of the Montrose Chemical Superfund site seemed to be having continued thin-shell problems. Scientists with the Ventana Wildlife Society and others are intensifying studies and remediations of the condors' problems.[39] DDT and DDE have been linked to diabetes. A number of studies from the US, Canada, and Sweden have found that the prevalence of the disease in a population increases with serum DDT or DDE levels.[49][50][51][52][53][54] DDT and DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity, meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. This endocrine disrupting activity has been observed in mice and rat toxicological studies, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. The US Environmental Protection Agency states that DDT exposure damages the reproductive system and reduces reproductive success. These effects may cause developmental and reproductive toxicity: * A review article in The Lancet states, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[23] * Human epidemiological studies suggest that exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed.[55] Some 21st century researchers argue that these effects may increase infant deaths, offsetting any anti-malarial benefits.[56] A 2008 study, however, failed to confirm the association between exposure and difficulty breastfeeding.[57] * Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 University of California, Berkeley study suggests that children exposed while in the womb have a greater chance of development problems,[58] and other studies have found that even low levels of DDT or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased attention at infancy[59] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[60] Similarly, Mexican researchers have linked first trimester DDE exposure to retarded psychomotor development.[61] * Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from IRS).[62][63][64] * Studies generally find that high blood DDT or DDE levels do not increase time to pregnancy (TTP.)[65] There is some evidence that the daughters of highly exposed women may have more difficulty getting pregnant (i.e. increased TTP).[66] * DDT is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found "a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy losses."[67] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT.[68] * A Japanese study of congenital hypothyroidism concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and "play an important role in the incidence and/or causation of cretinism."[69] Other studies have also found the DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function.[70][71] Occupational exposure in agriculture and malaria control has been linked to neurological problems (i.e. Parkinsons)[72] and asthma.[73] DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen," the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a "possible" human carcinogen, and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 "probable" carcinogens. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.[1][23] There is evidence from epidemiological studies (i.e. studies in human populations) that indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver,[23][35] pancreas[23][35] and breast.[35] There is mixed evidence that it contributes to leukemia,[35] lymphoma[35][74] and testicular cancer.[23][35][75] Other epidemiological studies suggest that DDT/DDE does not cause multiple myeloma,[23] or cancers of the prostate,[23] endometrium,[23][35] rectum,[23][35] lung,[35] bladder,[35] or stomach.[35] The question of whether DDT or DDE are risk factors of breast cancer has been repeatedly studied. While individual studies conflict, the most recent reviews of all the evidence conclude that pre-puberty exposure increases the risk of subsequent breast cancer.[35][76] (continued)
(continued from previous post) DDT From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (excerpts) Mosquito resistance Resistance has greatly reduced DDT's effectiveness. WHO guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before using the chemical.[90] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use, in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[21] Resistance was noted early in spray campaigns. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that "resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years."[19] DDT has lost much of its effectiveness in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, and it has largely been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb.[91] In many parts of India, DDT has also largely lost its effectiveness.[92] Agricultural uses were banned in 1989, and its anti-malarial use has been declining. Urban use has halted completely.[93] Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used,[94] and one study had concluded that "DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor."[95] DDT can still be effective against resistant mosquitoes,[97] and the avoidance of DDT-sprayed walls by mosquitoes is an additional benefit of the chemical.[95] For example, a 2007 study reported that resistant mosquitoes avoided treated huts. The researchers argued that DDT was the best pesticide for use in IRS (even though it did not afford the most protection from mosquitoes out of the three test chemicals) because the others pesticides worked primarily by killing or irritating mosquitoesencouraging the development of resistance to these agents.[97] Others argue that the avoidance behavior slows the eradication of the disease.[98] Unlike other insecticides such as pyrethroids, DDT requires long exposure to accumulate a lethal dose; however its irritant property shortens contact periods. "For these reasons, when comparisons have been made, better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT."[91] In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[99] Human exposure People living in areas where DDT is used for IRS have high levels of the chemical and its breakdown products in their bodies. Compared to contemporaries living where DDT is not used, South Africans living in sprayed homes have levels that are several orders of magnitude greater.[35] Breast milk in regions where DDT is used against malaria greatly exceeds the allowable standards for breast-feeding infants.[101][102][103] These levels are associated with neurological abnormalities in babies.[91][101][102] Most studies of DDT's human health effects have been conducted in developed countries where DDT is not used and exposure is relatively low. Many experts urge that alternatives be used instead of IRS.[23][35] Epidemiologist Brenda Eskenazi argues, "We know DDT can save lives by repelling and killing disease-spreading mosquitoes. But evidence suggests that people living in areas where DDT is used are exposed to very high levels of the pesticide. The only published studies on health effects conducted in these populations have shown profound effects on male fertility. Clearly, more research is needed on the health of populations where indoor residual spraying is occurring, but in the meantime, DDT should really be the last resort against malaria rather than the first line of defense."[104] Illegal diversion to agriculture is also a concern, as it is almost impossible to prevent, and its subsequent use on crops is uncontrolled. For example, DDT use is widespread in Indian agriculture,[105] particularly mango production,[106] and is reportedly used by librarians to protect books.[107] Other example include Ethiopia, where DDT intended for malaria control is reportedly being used in coffee production,[108] and Ghana where it is used for fishing."[109][110] The residues in crops at levels unacceptable for export have been an important factor in recent bans in several tropical countries.[91] Adding to this problem is a lack of skilled personnel and supervision.[98] Criticism of restrictions on DDT use Critics claim that restricting DDT in vector control have caused unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands,[111] to millions. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."[112] These arguments have been dismissed as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios. May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible."[83] Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize this notion as a "myth" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[113][114] Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 US ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted."[115] Carson actually devoted a page of her book to considering the relationship between DDT and malaria, warning of the evolution of DDT resistance in mosquitoes and concluding: It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity." It has also been alleged that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contingent upon not using DDT. According to a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."[116] Roger Bate asserts, "many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID]."[117] The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the focus of much criticism. While the agency is currently funding the use of DDT in some African countries,[118] in the past it did not. When John Stossel accused USAID of not funding DDT because it wasn't "politically correct," Anne Peterson, the agency's assistant administrator for global health, replied that "I believe that the strategies we are using are as effective as spraying with DDT ... So, politically correct or not, I am very confident that what we are doing is the right strategy."[119] USAID's Kent R. Hill states that the agency has been misrepresented: "USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted."[120] The Agency's website states that "USAID has never had a 'policy' as such either 'for' or 'against' DDT for IRS. The real change in the past two years [2006/07] has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS in generalwith DDT or any other insecticideas an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa."[118] The website further explains that in many cases alternative malaria control measures were judged to be more cost-effective that DDT spraying, and so were funded instead.[121] ***
Grow up. You parroted a load of fabricated BS and got called on it. Everyone sees that. Your "declare victory and run" routine just causes everyone to assume you have a very tiny weewee. You can be excused for falling for the lies. You can't be excused for continuing to push the lies after they get debunked, because that makes you a liar. I'm going to keep pointing that out, you're going to keep blubbering like a little beeyatch, and I'll keep laughing. Ain't life grand?
I didn't run anywhere...I'm right here. NOr have I declared "victory"...I have only declared I have pealed the lid of this national shame. I pointed out historical facts to the forum as I promised you I would (if you recall). If the readers here want to see sources I referred them to google. They can then read facts and compare them to you and whats-his-names....cut and past spins from liberal websites. I have faith in the intelligence of the people who read theses posts can tell the difference from court records, documented quotes, and scientific testimony...they can see all the sources for themselves. It is foolish for me to waste my valuable time cut and pasting the first dozen links that come up after you google "DDT Scam" or "DDT Fraud". These folks can do it and make their own judgement. Many, maybe most, will read it objectively.......... Gotta get back to work.....good day sir.....
BTW, objective readers also credit a lot towards the posters reply "style" fabricated BS you have a very tiny weewee. that makes you a liar keep blubbering like a little beeyatch You seem upset....or is this your normal style? Based on experience, I am a little surprised the mods let this stand, but I'm a big boy so no matter....... Again....good day sir......
Wiki says don't use Wiki as a "source"...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use Little help for ya.....
When you are supporting a decision responsible for over 25,000,000 deaths you have to be adamant. Even if the deaths are mostly black babies which don't interest you at all you still have to lie and manipulate. Number of known humand deaths from DDT. Zero. Save the Mosquito and (*)(*)(*)(*) the babies. Mr. Ruckleshaus did get a good job with, I think, the WWF when he left government work. But, since I don't want to be like Ruckleshaus I will disclose that this time of year, the rainy season, my house is full of mosquitoes and dengue fever is a threat. Not that you would care.
Fine example of confirmation bias! The proper way to research any controversial topic is to use google to find articles that disagree with your POV and use your Critical Thinking Skills to discredit those articles. Mamooth did research for you and instead of using your CTS and showing us where he is wrong, you tell us to "google it". You want us to do your work for you because you do not have the time. I don't know about anyone else, but my time is also limited. If you start a thread and want a discussion, you had better prepared to invest some time. And I took your advice and googled "DDT scam". One of the results: Looks much like mamooth's post. And here is a paper in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons from our "friends" at the Heartland filled with unsubstantiated and unreferenced claims. And I am supposed to believe them because I read it on the Internet?
But why should WE waste OUR valuable time validating your conspiracy theories? If you want to be taken seriously you should treat this the same way as you would if you were writing a paper in college only we will allow Wiki.........
But why should WE waste OUR valuable time validating your conspiracy theories? YOU need do nothing....I really do not care. You and the other enviro-people will not believe it anyway. I am saying if any reader who is objective, and wants to learn more about the sources, he can simply click on google. If a few clicks are too much trouble, then he really is not interested anyway. If you want to be taken seriously I don't care how people with closed minds take me.......people with open minds can click google and type a few keystrokes. only we will allow Wiki well that is mighty generous of you (still doesn't make wiki valid.....)
I have a rule after years of finding myself doing other people's homework - like is being asked here. I no longer do more research than the OP
And good for you......but IF I had given a list of citations....you would not have checked them out?? That would have been "more research"....
In a word - yes In fact I ALWAYS check out the other links(unless I am strapped for time or I recognise it as a whack-job site) I consider it courteous to check out what someone else has posted Plus I usually can debunk the site to a fare-thee-well because MOST people do not know the difference between opinion and research, journalism and science. That and it always amazes me how many people use confirmation bias to swallow !@#@!# wholeheartedly and enthusiastically - example - look at how many people have accepted the rubbish from the "Oregon petition" despite it being a blatant fraud Asking for people making claims to support statements with research is an academic standard and one that anyone having done tertiary studies will do almost unthinkingly and it is one of the criteria I use in determining if members CLAIMING academic degrees and studies really have done any tertiary studies at all.
I hope Elmer realizes they still have fish advisories in the Great Lakes for DDT. And many other waterways in the U.S. also.
What a tool. A mindless tool of some corporation spin machine. Reminds me of the tools who are sure there's no harm from smoking, fossil fuels do not cause air pollution, and global warming is a "myth." You really have no idea what you're talking about, what the facts are, what the science is, you're just mouthing something you read somewhere and you're just absolutely certain it's true because .... Well, I have no idea why you would think any of this is true.
But there is DDT there. http://www.great-lakes.net/humanhealth/fish/critical.html#DDT What you and Elmer doesn't get is that we _did_ google and look at your claims. That's how we know they're crap. None of those conspiracy web pages gives an original source for anything. All of them just link back and forth to each other. A link to idiot crap opinions doesn't prove anything, except that someone is too lazy to find the original sources. We read what the opposition says, and we give original hard sources to back our claims. In contrast, you and Elmer stick your heads in the sand and refuse to look at anything that disagrees with you, and you won't back up anything. That reinforces our point that you two are parroting false conspiracy theories because your political cult demands it. And even by your conveniently adjustable moral relativist standards, calling us racists was a particularly vile lie on your part. You got called on acting like a cultist, and rather than address that, you went hyperPC on us and played your well-worn race card again.
