|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 6, 2014 13:30:09 GMT -8
spectator.org/articles/48925/ddt-fraud-and-tragedyDDT, FRAUD, AND TRAGEDY
Why are millions dying of malaria, a disease all but extinct forty years ago?What the article doesn't cover is the motivation for banning DDT. It stemmed from the belief at the time that we were all in terrible danger because of the "population bomb". They could easily see that 3rd world deaths from Malaria and yellow fever were significantly reduced on the way to becoming zero via DDT use. It doesn't take a much to see their leap in logic. Note: the mosquitoes that cause malaria only feed on humans and therefore live near them. It only takes a short concerted effort to eliminate all of them. You don't have to kill all mosquitoes, just the type that carry malaria. That is why we still have mosquitoes here but our malaria is gone. 3rd world countries were real close to whipping out the type of mosquitoes that carry malaria. The saviors of the environment caught them just in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 7, 2014 14:30:09 GMT -8
UWPhoto, Your comment please.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 9, 2014 16:33:47 GMT -8
I have had this discussion with Bill a few times before and I'm done. The current pace of population growth in Africa puts it at 4.2 billion at the end of the century versus 1.4 billion now. If there is a conspiracy to reduce population in Africa, where is it? The total terrestrial wildlife in Africa has been reduced to less than 50% of what it was 40 years ago. Do you understand how difficult it is to do that? This is not counting the Ocean's on both African coasts that are much worse than 50%. Did you know that the Somali pirates were originally given outboards and boats by the Chinese to fish for sharks (shark fin soup market). We know what happened after they fished out the sharks. The Chinese have in fact given boats and motors to many African countries on both coasts to fish for sharks. Please give me a logical debate to the fact that Africa has exceeded "carrying capacity". I mean how much "bush meat" is available for the next 40 years? And give me a break re: right wingers who are so concerned with population growth. The next right winger who wants more density in his neighborhood will be the first one I ever met. Regarding DDT, it is still persisting in the environment and White's Point in LA is still listed as a "super fund" site. A tiny example is that the California Condor and the Killer Whale still have extremely high levels and have been implicated in mortality. It is still used in third world in places like Brazil, Zimbabwe and New Guinea. This is how DDT was used in America before the early 60's and the "hated " (by the Right) environmental movement. How many cancers in the US were caused by this use? We will never know, but I am convinced many Americans did get cancer form the use. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmslbUoPLEQ |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 9, 2014 16:54:19 GMT -8
I would not advocate using DDT again mainly because I see the claims on both sides but no real proof. The stats in the American Spectator would lead you one way but no real convincing proof and when you google the issue you see mostly claims backing the ban on DDT. The one thing that I understand is Bald Eagle egg thinning claims with conflicting evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 10, 2014 14:21:23 GMT -8
There is no evidence of any harm from DDT. There never was. Applying a small amount inside huts twice a year certainly wouldn't do any environmental damage. DDT's ban was a tool to kill poor people in 3rd world countries. What those murders don't realize is that when child mortality is reduced, the number of children per female reduces. It happens like clock work. The best way to solve the problem is to reduce mortality and bring the 3rd world into first world status. The "greens" think just making sure they all die at high rates solves the problems. Unconscionable !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Nov 10, 2014 15:58:33 GMT -8
There is no evidence of any harm from DDT. There never was. Applying a small amount inside huts twice a year certainly wouldn't do any environmental damage. DDT's ban was a tool to kill poor people in 3rd world countries. What those murders don't realize is that when child mortality is reduced, the number of children per female reduces. It happens like clock work. The best way to solve the problem is to reduce mortality and bring the 3rd world into first world status. The "greens" think just making sure they all die at high rates solves the problems. Unconscionable !!! Some of us have been in the field for many years, and have traveled the World, to get our World view. Some, like you, Google their world view. Sorry, but the sites you have been going to are pretty sick.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Nov 10, 2014 20:27:40 GMT -8
There is no evidence of any harm from DDT. There never was. Applying a small amount inside huts twice a year certainly wouldn't do any environmental damage. DDT's ban was a tool to kill poor people in 3rd world countries. What those murders don't realize is that when child mortality is reduced, the number of children per female reduces. It happens like clock work. The best way to solve the problem is to reduce mortality and bring the 3rd world into first world status. The "greens" think just making sure they all die at high rates solves the problems. Unconscionable !!! Some of us have been in the field for many years, and have traveled the World, to get our World view. Some, like you, Google their world view. Sorry, but the sites you have been going to are pretty sick. Bull. The story about DDT is pretty clear. They first pushed cancer and when that didn't pan out they tried birds and it was just as wrong. It was a political decision not science. |
|
|
|
Post by Old_SD_Dude on Feb 22, 2015 10:00:10 GMT -8
Some of us have been in the field for many years, and have traveled the World, to get our World view. Some, like you, Google their world view. Sorry, but the sites you have been going to are pretty sick. Bull. The story about DDT is pretty clear. They first pushed cancer and when that didn't pan out they tried birds and it was just as wrong. It was a political decision not science. LOL. I'm not going even going to address your wingnut ideas on DDT and population control. But the relationship between bio accumulation of DDT and egg shell thinning in bird species was very clear. Faux news may agree with you. Stanford does not. Now proceed with posting a bunch pseudoscience links. web.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/DDT_and_Birds.html |
|
