0
   

Reject Environmentalism, Not DDT

 
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 03:51 am
farmerman wrote:


Gungas reasons for pulling out this discussion every couple of weeks are tied to a simplistic view of most sciences.


Somebody who didn't know better might mistake you for somebody who knew what he was talking about.

DDT is an economic issue. Using it as an area pesticide for crops was a mistake; using it to protect humans from mosquitos and disease vectors worked in the 50s and it works now.

The fact that it lingers is amongst the most major benefits, making it many times less expensive than other insect repellants. Other than that as has been noted here, it's basically harmless to humans and to birds.

The DDT FAQ:

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 06:43 am
Quote:
Okay, fellas, if you condemn the snake for lack of a biological background, perhaps you should also mention that you don't have one either. As a veterinarian with thirty years of practice under my belt,


Well, you have more experience under your belt than the time I've even been alive, that's for sure. Hell I don't even have a degree. My one source of knowledge on this matter comes from the fact both my parents are a lecturer or a teacher (or rather were... now retired). One in science with a background in microbiology and the other in both psychology and zoology with a strong emphasis on ethology (evolutionary impact on behaviour). Having grown up around them my entire life, I've at least learned what your average first or second year student would probably know in those fields.

Yes, I'm an amateur. No, I'm not as qualified as a practitioner on any of these issues. But... the suggestion that I don't have a "background" in these areas is incorrect. I at least understand the basic theories and have a conversant level of knowledge on the topic. Certainly not to the same degree as you, nor even close. But I suspect far more than Gungasnake.

What I object to is that the argument rather than being a discussion on the science of DDT it was being made an emotive argument on the level of "look at these poor dying children, won't someone please think of the children." when the actually issue at hand is scientific in nature. In fact I'm quite glad that you've joined the discussion as it seems that there's someone who knows what they're talking about who is advocating DDT usage.

Quote:
What was not reveals until much later was the fact that ALL the control rats in the experiment that resulted in the drug ban died before the experimental rats developed tumors.


That's really bad science that the study used... That the FDA made the mistake of utilising said study says that someone once twenty years ago made a mistake. Quite a bad one. Yet nevertheless it was simply the failure to notice an (admittedly very bad) error within a scientific study. Still though, they based their decision to ban the substance based on scientific evidence (albeit flawed).

This was 20 years ago. The FDA while still the same organisation has no doubt replaced many of its personnell and altered its policies. Judging the modern FDA upon the mistakes of its predecessors is hardly fair or justified.

Quote:
The worse news is that political agendas drive much of today's environmental science,


Correction: The worse news is that political agendas drive much of today's science.... This isn't only restricted to environmentalism. It's a far worse, far more reaching problem.

Now that we're talking about political agendas driving science think strongly on that point and now look at the website junkscience.com... notice something? The entire website appears to be a political agenda disguised as a debunking site.

Quote:
I greatly fear that EarthFirst!, PETA, the Sierra Club, and a plethora of other urban-based organizations will continue to hold sway over decisions that should be made by those who actually have some idea of the science behind sound conservation.


Mmmm... not just on environmentalism but on many other issues.

Quote:
I, for one, would suggest that people cease referring to themselves as "environmentalists" and make the clarification as to whether they support "conservation" or "preservation".


Knowing some of these people perhaps consecration would be a better word Wink

As a final note I'll point out that my one wish in this matter is that this issue be decided on science. Not emotional pleas. This seems to be your point of view as well.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 06:50 am
Quote:

As a final note I'll point out that my one wish in this matter is that this issue be decided on science. Not emotional pleas.


When you're talking about 90,000,000 human lives being lost on account of this stuff being banned, science by itself doesn't cut it. For that matter, concern over raptors doesn't cut it. The continued existence of raptors does not weigh as heavily as 90,000,000 human lives.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 07:48 am
Once the acquired resistance is, well, acquired, its difficult to "unacquire". Im amazed at how you twist things
PS, I do know what Im talkingabout but you, instead, are an avid fan of those nifty websites that offer nothing , and Art BElls radio show.

I got a kick out of your feeble attempts at ad hominems. Arent you the one who recently bailed from the Evolution in Public Schools thread because you said to me

You are getting personal and Im outta here?'
Boy what a wuss thou art little snakey.

You keep posting "junk science" dot com and they fail to give the entire story , thats where they make their converts form impressionable minds. (or whatever neuro ganglia you possess)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 08:14 am
WHO AND MALARIA STRATEGY

Once more from the top. DDT began to have decreasing effects on MALARIA MOSQUITOES, as early as 1951. The major reason for its gradual disuse was that it just wasnt working anymore because the same poor science that you claim is behind its ban, was responsible for the bugs acquiring a systemic immunity. Weve only learned in the last few years what the genetic component was.
You can spray DDT all over and , in some areas it may have an initial effect (if the area hadnt been sprayed at all in the 1940sand 50s). Soon, (the 20 generational genic rule often applies) the resistance will be set in the ace gene of Anapholes and then , you might just as well spray tap water. We had this discussion in your first babble on DDT, Try to get up to date and understand what modern integrated vector management is trying to achieve.

Weve got a bunch of vectors, diseases, and invasive plants that are now immune to certain pesticides, vaccines, and herbicides.
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 09:13 am
gungasnake wrote:
90,000,000 human lives...90,000,000 human lives.


Gosh, 90,000,000 that's a lot... well if 90,000,000 lives are at stake then **** science.

You know, why bother using DDT at all. If we're forgetting all about science let's just pray that Malaria away. *rushes off to form a prayer group*. Or perhaps we should just consult what Astrology says we should do.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 09:20 am
Most of the 90,000,000 lives in question were black and brown, which might explain some of it. Envirowhacks don't seem to view non-whites as counting for terribly much.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 10:22 am
Hearn, the editor of junkscience.com is apparantly a nobody but Milloy has been a political lobbyist for corporations that are polluters and poisoners, was funded by Phillip Morris to debunk the dangers of smoking and is absolutely tied to a political agenda.
His site was obviously financed by the political factions including corporations who have little or no concern for public health, black, brown or white. He sometimes appears on POX Unfair and Unbalanced news as a pundit. He is having little to do with junkscience.com these days being "on vacation" and leaves the posting of online news sources to support his flimsy evidence against established scientific research with scientific dogma of his own to Mr. Nobody Hearn.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 10:34 am
Like I say, Junkscience.com is not the only place I get this stuff and I don't base anything on single sources. Amongst other things I have a personal friend who studied under Heinz Meng and a couple other of the nations most major experts on raptors and he tells me that Meng himself claimed that the case against DDT was bullshit. Raptors were nearly HUNTED to extinction at the point at which DDT usage peaked; when the hunting stopped, raptor numbers improved.

Sufficient firepower can interfere with the breeding habits and affect the numbers of anything.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 10:40 am
That's you answer to the obvious radical right agenda of Mr. Malloy? He's not an impartial commentator -- he's made his money from being a lobbyist and an advocate for anti-evironmentalist factions. His pockets are lined with bribes, essentially. You want to give proof of Heinz Meng's opinion other than a friend told you? Laughable.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 10:48 am
You're claiming there's a profit motive in wanting to resume production of DDT.

Amongst the many problems with that is the fact that DDT is by at least one order of magnitude less expensive than any other product which has ever existed for protecting humans from disease vectors. In other words, whatever profit any greedy capitalist might hope to make from manufactoring DDT, he could make at least ten times as much money by making and selling any other solution to the problem of mosquitos and other insects.

You might want to go back to google and look up the word 'logic'.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 10:52 am
No I'm not. You're observation of logic is about as convincing as your conspiracy theory fantasies.
0 Replies
 
theantibuddha
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 11:01 am
gungasnake wrote:
Most of the 90,000,000 lives in question were black and brown, which might explain some of it. Envirowhacks don't seem to view non-whites as counting for terribly much.


I love you gungasnake... No seriously I do. You've brought a massive smile to my face.

See, the thing is, I imagine your brain as a spaceship, (bear with me okay)...

Chekov speaks up, "Kaptain sirrr, ze statistic attack is not working."
Spock: "Curious captain, this enemy does not appear to respond to the emotional appeals. Perhaps we should attempt to use logic."
Kirk: "Maybe if it were a green-blooded vulcan like you Spock, but that thing out there is human damnit and I've got to prove it. We've got to give the emotional appeal one last shot. Scotty, can you prepare a racism missile."
Scotty: "Captain, I dun know if i canna do it. That's the most powerful weapon in our arsenal sir. It'll take at least an hour."
Kirk: "You've got five seconds"
Spock: "Captain, this is most illogical certainly we sho..."
Scotty: "Is ready captain, but I dunna know if it will work."
Kirk: "We've got to give it a shot. Fire the racism allegation Chekov"
Chekov: "Aye aye sir."

Tzzzeeeeewwwww, kabaaaang.

Thankyou for that image Gungasnake.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 11:10 am
Laughing Beam 'em up, Snotty.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 11:28 am
Incidentally, since you brought it up, I'm sure a Monsanto would love to begin the production of DDT as it is, in fact, cheap to make. As some seem wanting in their knowledge of marketing, companies who find something cheap to make are very much inclined to put on a much higher markup and still undercut the user price of a more expensive product. The suspicion of the perpetrator of the junkscience.com being personally paid for his anti-environment agenda is there in spades and to ignore it is just another example of a tightly closed brain.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 12:21 pm
aynrand.com


<snort>


I always marvel when I see that.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 12:28 pm
aynrand.com? I missed that one.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 12:29 pm
("The Fountainhead" being one of my favorite novels, but "Atlas Shrugged" was a politicized mess).
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 12:33 pm
actually aynrand.org

the very first link in this thread


i've just been reading about the real life of Ms. Rand. Quite the Miss Thing.

Quote:
The author is an archivist at the Ayn Rand institute, the associate producer of an Oscar-nominated documentary about Rand, and obviously a keeper of the flame. Thus Mr. Britting has little to say about the romantic entanglements, more Peyton Place than Galt's Gulch, that devastated Rand's circle in later years.

Most notably, Rand had an affair with her chosen intellectual heir, Nathaniel Brandon. While both Rand's husband and the wife of the intellectual heir agreed (sort of) to this arrangement, it added further emotional complications to what was, given Rand's prominence, a surprisingly hermetic, claustrophobic little world, one best described in "The Passion of Ayn Rand" (Bantam Dell) - the compelling, and sympathetic, biography of Rand written by, yes, the intellectual heir's ex-wife.

As I said, Peyton Place.

Closed, neurotic environments filled with true believers are the hallmark of a cult, and there's a good case to be made that that's exactly what Rand was running. Take a look at the way in which she treated her acolytes: angry excommunications, overbearing diktats, dramatic interventions, and, disappointing in one who preached self-determination, rather too much fuhrer prinzip.

The cult-or-not controversy goes unmentioned in Mr. Britting's book. What a reader will find, particularly in the excellent selection of illustrations, is a real sense of how Rand's life related to her novels. One glance at her Hollywood-handsome husband, and the rugged succession of steely supermen who dominate her fiction make more sense ("All my heroes will always be reflections of Frank").

Rand herself, alas, was no beauty; her glorious heroines, ridiculously gorgeous, impossibly named, remarkably lithe, are less the template for - as some allege - a sinister eugenic agenda than the stuff of Ayn's randy dreams garnished with a dollop of Art Deco kitsch. The first, extraordinarily violent, coupling in "The Fountainhead" of Howard Roark with Dominique Francon is not a general prescription for the relationship between the sexes but merely Rand's own erotic fantasy ("wishful thinking," she once announced, to the cheers of a delighted crowd).

Likewise, her sometimes-overwrought style is no more than - well, judge this sentence from "Atlas Shrugged" for yourself: "She looked at the lone straight shaft of the Taggart Building rising in the distance - and then she thought she understood: these people hated Jim because they envied him." Call Dr. Freud.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2005 12:44 pm
The mistress of didactic corporate dogma. Her late-in-life manufacturing of a religion based on paganism shot a huge torpedo through all of her objectivist theories. It was a case of from the sublime to the ridiculous. When I finally trudged through "Atlas Mugged," I mean "Shrugged," and reached that last phallic pun, I groaned, "Why did I waste my time reading this paean to the erection of commercialism." It was a literary dildo.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 12:53:58