0
   

DDT to Return as Weapon Against Malaria, Experts Say

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 07:23 pm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060801-ddt-malaria.html

DDT to Return as Weapon Against Malaria, Experts Say
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
August 1, 2006


Quote:

"For duration of activity there is no [competitive] chemical that even comes close to DDT, and of course the duration is a big factor in overall cost," Roberts, of Uniformed Services University, said.

"If you're spraying one time versus four times a year, the cost difference is enormous."




Come on, "farmerman", let's hear it. Tell us how the world's top scientists and those National Geographic editors are a bunch of ignorant rednecks.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,821 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 09:21 pm
Quote:
Indoor Application

The suggested technique for indoor antimalarial use today would be a far cry from the crop-dusting methods of DDT's heyday in the 1950s, experts say.

Very small amounts would be used to treat only house walls, so the probability of human and environmental contamination would be low.


Quote:
Managing DDT's application to account for insect resistance is another challenge.

Insects are remarkably adaptable, so use of DDT must be carefully monitored and controlled to ensure that the treatments don't enhance insects' genetic DDT resistance.

0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 09:26 pm
gunga....again?!?!?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 09:59 pm
http://www.able2know.com/forums/about39091.html


The ultimate mass murderess (90 million dead so far and counting):

http://www.healthybreastprogram.on.ca/rc_copy2.gif
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 10:19 pm
Consider the contrast:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/KarlaHomolka_1993.jpg/200px-KarlaHomolka_1993.jpg

Last summer, Canada appeared to be in a national state of shock when the young woman pictured above was released from the slammer after 12 years according to a deal made in 94. This was for being an accessory to two or three murders, and possibly a baker's half dozen rapes while essentially in a state of bondage similar to that of the Patricia Hurst case, i.e. whather Karla Homolka was even guilty of anything rating twelve years in prison was questionable.

All any of the pinkos and other leftists in Canada had to say about Karla Homolka was what an a$$hole she was, and that she deserved to hang.

Rachel Carson, on the other hand, is a hero to leftists and pinkos either because of or in spite of the 90,000,000+ people who have died of malaria and the billions who have suffered from it due to the banning of DDT. The difference might have something to do with the vast bulk of Rachel Carson's victims being negros, it's hard to say.

Genghis Khan used to think he was a serious murderer and I don't know what the figures actually are or whether it's possible to calculate a figure for him, but I'd be surprised if it came to more than about 25,000,000 in his own lifetime. Similarly, between Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, and the sundry lunatics of our own age, it's doubtful if any of them were directly responsible for more than about 30,000,000 human deaths. Rachel Carson is at least three to one ahead of all of them.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 11:10 pm
What the hell does any of that have to do with DDT? Gunga, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 03:46 am
dagmaraka wrote:
What the hell does any of that have to do with DDT? Gunga, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


Banning DDT has cost upwards of ninety million human lives, and it wasn't necessary. Yet another case of leftist junk science at work:

http://junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 08:54 am
Junk science indeed.

I love the claim that DDT was banned to kill millions of Africans to prevent overpopulation.

Quite the junk there Gunga.. junk for sure.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 11:37 am
parados wrote:
Junk science indeed.

I love the claim that DDT was banned to kill millions of Africans to prevent overpopulation.




It only sounds funny until you think about it a bit. Question is, how many motives for wanting to kill 90 million people could there be in the world??

Or did you think the people espousing this lunatic policy didn't know what the policy would accomplish?

What sort of motive would make YOU want to kill 90,000,000 people?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 11:41 am
My advice to Karla Homolka, on the off chance she might be reading A2K:

There is at least one well-paying job for which having been married to a psychopathic serial rapist is at least a plus if not an outright requirement: Consider running for US senator from the state of New York the next time the job comes open.

http://clinton.senate.gov/images/home/topmast/topmast_hillary.jpg
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 11:49 am
The only junk science is the stuff that occurs in you brain.

If something says DDT is dangerous, then the safest thing is to pull it out of circulation and to stop using it. However, I think recently someone has stated that the study was flawed. So its put back.

The flawed study had nothing to do with politics. It was a flawed study. That's it.

It's like the flawed study that showed the troposhere was cooling compared to the surface of the Earth and therefore supposedly proved that global warming wasn't happening. That wasn't conservative junk science. It was just flawed, that's all, and recent studies have corrected that flaw.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 12:39 pm
The claims that the studies about DDT were flawed aren't based on much science themselves.

Farmer has listed scientific study after study that Gunga refuses to address. He keeps going back to his same discredited source. Junkscience.com is full of junk.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 01:03 pm
parados wrote:
The claims that the studies about DDT were flawed aren't based on much science themselves.

Farmer has listed scientific study after study that Gunga refuses to address. He keeps going back to his same discredited source. Junkscience.com is full of junk.


Only thing is, now you and "farmerman" are in the position of having to claim that National Geographic is full of junk too.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 01:44 pm
Not at all Gunga...

If you had bothered to read the rest of the article or just the excerpts I quoted earlier you would see it wasn't junk at all. The National Geographic article disputes your junkscience crap.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 07:20 am
I never said that National Geographic was in total agreement with junkscience.com.

Nonetheless farmerman and others here have maintained that DDT was totally ineffective and that very clearly is not the case. The clear impression anybody gets reading material from many sources INCLUDING NG is that DDT can still do things which nothing else can do, and at a miniscule fraction of the cost.

DDT is a legitimate candidate for greatest thing the whiteman ever invented.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DDT to Return as Weapon Against Malaria, Experts Say
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/16/2019 at 05:19:37