0
   

The Ultimate Mass Murderer

 
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 05:56 pm
gungasnake wrote:
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.


Can you provide ONE SCIENTIFIC link please?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 05:59 pm
MerlinsGodson wrote:

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


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

I mean, people are starting to die of this West Nile virus in the D.C. area now and my neighbors and I are having to remember insect repellent when we go out to play tennis anymore and in the fifties, they'd have just sprayed the park area where the courts are with DDT once a year.

We were safer and better off in 1955 than we are now.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 06:00 pm
Adrian wrote:


Can you provide ONE SCIENTIFIC link please?


I've provided several. I can't fix reading problems.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 06:08 pm
None of your links makes mention of Heinz Meng.

As for the scientific part.... I'll let that slide for the moment.....
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 06:14 pm
Best to let the whole concept slide, methinks...
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 06:16 pm
Assuming our gungasnake has insight into the thinking of the ding-a-ling radical right , I sense a straw in the wind here. Look for a major assault on basic environmental regulations using the logic he/it has presented.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 06:24 pm
It's already started, Acquiunk. Gungasnake is just a bit more extreme in his/her approach to the subject.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:16 pm
Adrian wrote:
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.


Oh indeed, Adrian - Gunga's offensiveness makes it hard to debate any of his topics in a reasonable manner - and, indeed, this one may be beyond help.

I just thought it worth a try for two reasons - one being that it IS an interesting topic, and the second that these sorts of threads (whether from loony right, or loony left) are such an insult to rational discussion that I find it a sort of a fun challenge to battle this level of "debate" by trying to "reclaim" such a thread from time to time.

It is also, I think, worth exposing such stuff to the light of rational evidence. And one learns stuff!

For instance, I am off to check your link about the Junkscience site.

Edit: That's an interesting site, Adrian - do you have a link to the whole site? Later - got it!!!
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:23 pm
dlowan-

Alright, I'll hang around.

Which site do you mean?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:28 pm
the ultimate mass murderer=god
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:51 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Nonetheless, the idea of 90 million people dying for the greater glory of green/leftist pseudoscience doesn't offend you?


Name three of them.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:54 pm
Interesting forensic style Mr SW
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:58 pm
Found another interesting site. This one talks about DDT resistance. Well referenced and has some good links.

The DDT Ban Myth.

Quote:
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."
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:58 pm
I don't think we get to count god, Dys.

It is interesting, it seems that when Carson wrote her book, " farmers in the United States used to put 80,000 tons on the fields each year -- (and it) was being washed into rivers and entering the food chain....". 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 - though this is predicted to change if climate change continues (and it seems to be gathering speed.)

The evidence of harm to humans seems slight - but, of course, it ends up spreading through the entire eco-system being found in things like human breast milk, and the poles, where it has not been used.


It appears that, in Africa, only South Africa continued using it - but now many countries are wanting to use it again - hopefully in a more targeted fashion - but that aid agencies are reluctant to fund its use - because of the strong stand against it in the west.

It is to be hoped, I would think, that less difficult to break down poisons could be found - and there continues to be work towards a vaccine.

I would also imagine that mosquitoes will fairly quickly build up an immunity to it?

The whole thing certainly does, I think, raise the question about how much we westerners can try to insist on measures which make sense here - without an appreciation of what this may mean in the third world.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 07:59 pm
Lol - SNAP, Adrian! With the resistance, I mean.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 08:01 pm
Laughing

Which site were you asking about before?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 08:01 pm
Hmmm - sort of like the whole antibiotic thing, Adrian.

That is interesting to read.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 08:09 pm
Adrian wrote:
Laughing

Which site were you asking about before?


I have it - it was the home part for the article pointing out Gunga's Junk Science site bloke's special circumstances, shall we say.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:55 pm
panzade wrote:
Interesting forensic style Mr SW
dlowan wrote:
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¬Ö
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 10:11 pm
And that argument has been made - although greenpeace, for example, is lobbying to limit the exemptions to the recent POPS treaty gained by a number of countries re malaria.

Re the malaria deaths increasing since the ban - a number of articles I looked at cite malaria deaths rising back to pre-1972 levels - (the last one about South America is very interesting.)

Nowhere have I seen claims anything like Gunga's - and he, of course, ignores the points brought up by Adrian re the immunity and the likely effect this would have had on malaria anyway.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2022 at 08:22:48