The Ultimate Mass Murderer

I'll say it again since it didn't seem to register the first time, one of my sources is a buddy who studied under Heinz Meng and a couple of the other most major experts on the topic of raptors, and claims that Meng himself had stated that the entire case against DDT was bullshit, and that raptors were being HUNTED to extinction in the fifties and sixties, and were then beginning to rebuild their numbers at the height of DDT usage, after hunting them was banned.

...Also, I find the manner in which you started the thread to be offensive.

Can you provide ONE SCIENTIFIC link please?

dlowan-

I would like very much for this to become a serious discussion. The topic is important and interesting.

The title of the thread makes it hard.

Posts like this;

Quote:

I'm not "idolizing death and violence". I'm merely pointing out the fact that idiot yuppie leftist pseudoscientists managed to kill ninety million people in a single perverted beaurocratic move.

from gungasnake make it hard.

Constant reference to, (The Kings Of), junkscience.com make it hard.

But I'll stick around..... see where it goes.

So I'm sure everyone that cares has probably seen this but there is an interesting piece about the founder of junkscience HERE.

Quote:

But one close look a TASSC's record will show a different picture. TASSC officials have regularly criticised highly-recognised and perfectly legitimate studies ranging from the quality of drinking water to the safety of baby food. TASSC claims that these adverse health reports are based on dubious science and are employing scare tactics to drum up financial support -- but they don't reveal where their own funding support comes from. In fact, it comes from Phillip Morris and other major US organisations with pollution and health problems.

Like all good public relations, the strength of the message being sold depends to a very large degree on the credibility of the organisation. Credibility is best promoted by merging genuine and fake claims, with the legitimate information blended carefully with the skillfully-crafted backlash material. When credibility has been established though a list of reputable scientists acting as advisors, it steadily becomes easier to make a claim of "junk-science" stick.

This is Milloy's particular skill. He is the best in the PR profession at blending legitimate criticism of bad science (and there's plenty around) with illegitimate criticism of science that is against his clients financial interests.

TASSC's scientists/members lend their names to the organisation on the basis that it's mission is purely one of advancing good scientific practice. They do so in the belief that TASSC is closely associated with government and environmental groups. Of course, that's not the whole story, but most of the scientists don't know that. Nor do the media, who are equally gullible.

Nonetheless, the idea of 90 million people dying for the greater glory of green/leftist pseudoscience doesn't offend you?

There were suspensions in the spraying programs, but they were not the result of any "environmental hysteria". To understand what actually happened, it is necessary to learn about the realities of pesticide use. One of the major problems with using pesticides is that insect populations soon develop resistance to the chemicals. Insects resistant to DDT began appearing one year after its first public health use (Garrett, page 50). As new insecticides were introduced, resistance to them also developed. Much of Silent Spring is a cataloging of reports of resistance to insecticides. With the problem of mosquito resistance to DDT in mind, a plan to eradicate malaria was developed--several years of spraying, accompanied by treating patients with anti-malaria drugs, would be followed by several years of monitoring. Here is how Paul Russell, who would head the eradication effort, explained it in 1956 (Quoted in Garrett, page 48):

"Generally, it takes four years of spraying and four years of surveillance to make sure of three consecutive years of no mosquito transmission in an area. After that, normal health department activities can be depended upon to deal with occasional introduced cases. . . . Eradication can be pushed through in a community in a period of eight to ten years, with not more than four to six years of actual spraying, without much danger of resistance. But if countries, due to lack of funds, have to proceed slowly, resistance is almost certain to appear and eradication will become economically impossible. Time is of the essence [his emphasis] because DDT resistance has appeared in six or seven years."

Incredible as it might seem, while public health officials were cautiously limiting the usage of DDT, it was being used in increasing amounts in agriculture, especially on cotton, a cash crop (Chapin & Wasserstrom). This heavy use led to resistance among malaria carrying mosquitoes throughout the tropics. In this instance, the unwise use of DDT, rather than improving life, actually resulted in a resurgence of malaria. According to Chapin & Wasserstrom (page 183) "Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."

Which site were you asking about before?

Interesting forensic style Mr SW

It sounds as though it was a damned fine idea to stop using it in the US, which, of course, is wealthy - and suffers very little from malaria…