BS: Not evil, just wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:39 PM

TY.....TYVM!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:38 PM

This is why I enjoy Canadians so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:35 PM

Dito!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:33 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:31 PM

I won't capitulate, but I will concede that not everything you say is wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:25 PM

I wonder which one of those companies makes DDT.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:24 PM

This is a list of some of American Council on Science and Health's funders over the years...

# ALCOA Foundation
# Allied Signals Foundation, Inc.
# American Cyanamid Company
# American Meat Institute
# Amoco Foundation, Inc.
# Anheuser-Busch Foundation
# Archer Daniels Midland Company
# Ashland Oil Foundation
# Boise Cascade Corporation
# Bristol-Myers Fund, Inc.
# Burger King Corporation
# Campbell Soup Company
# Carnation Company
# Chevron Environmental Health Center
# Ciba-Geigy Corporation
# Coca-Cola Company
# Consolidated Edison
# Cooper Industries Foundation
# Adolph Coors Foundation
# Crystal Trust
# Shelby Cullum Davis Foundation
# Dow Chemical Canada, Inc.
# Dow Corning Corporation
# E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company
# Ethyl Corporation
# Exxon Corporation
# FMC Foundation
# Ford Motor Company Fund
# Frito-Lay
# General Electric Foundation
# General Mills, Inc.
# General Motors Foundation
# Gerber Products Company
# Rollin M. Gerstacker Foundation
# Hershey Foods Corporation Fund
# Heublein, Inc.
# ICI Americas Inc.
# Johnson & Johnson
# Johnson's Wax Fund, Inc.
# Kellogg Company
# Ester A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund, Inc.
# David H. Koch Charitable Foundation
# Kraft Foundation
# Kraft General Foods (now part of Altria Group)
# Licensed Beverage Information Council
# Thomas J. Lipton Foundation, Inc.
# M&M Mars
# Merck Company Foundation
# Mobil Foundation, Inc.
# Monsanto Fund
# National Agricultural Chemicals Association
# National Dairy Council
# National Soft Drink Association
# National Starch and Chemical Foundation
# Nestlé
# Samuel Roberts Nobel Foundation, Inc.
# Northwood Institute
# NutraSweet Company
# John M. Olin Foundation Inc.
# Oscar Mayer Foods
# Pepsico Foundation Inc. (Pepsi-Cola)
# Pfizer Inc.
# Pillsbury Company
# PPG Industries Foundation
# Procter & Gamble Fund
# Ralston Purina
# Rohm & Haas Company
# Salt Institute
# Sarah Scaife Foundation, Inc.
# Schultz Foundation
# G.D. Searle Charitable Trust
# Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc.
# Shell Oil Company Foundation
# Stare Fund
# Starr Foundation
# Sterling Drug, Inc.
# Stouffer Company
# Stroh Brewery Company
# Sugar Association, Inc.
# Sun Company, Inc.
# Syntex Corporation
# Union Carbide Corporation
# Uniroyal Chemical Co.
# USX Corp.
# Warner-Lambert Foundation
# Wine Growers of California

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:18 PM

I'd be interested to know which chemical company the American Council on Science and Health is fronting for.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:16 PM

They were getting it somehow and they were using it. But a lot of it went onto their crops instead of being used for malaria control. That's their own fault and hardly the fault of Rachael Carson.

Another thing that these people who are trying to mislead everyone haven't said is that there are other, much more effective methods of malaria control, that can't be diverted to agricultural use. In Vietnam, malaria was reduced by 97% after they switched from using DDT to using bed nets, pyrethroids, and prompt medical treatment. These methods also have the advantage of being much less expensive than DDT, and they don't cause any of the health problems that are associated with indoor use of DDT. But the people who are paying these liars to mislead everyone don't want anyone to know about those things, because then they woudn't be able to make as much money selling DDT (at the expense of the health of a lot of people).

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 03:13 PM

From The American Council on Science and Health. Their words, not mine!

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 02:59 PM

Where were they supposed to get the DDT from and what would they use to pay for it. Hopes and dreams don't get the job done!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 02:55 PM

( ...so therefore, in case I have to spell it out completely, none of those people died because of the ban)

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 02:54 PM

But those people died in countries were DDT was NOT banned!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 02:46 PM

All I did was type in "How many people have died as a result of malaria" in my google search engine. I don't think you'll be happy with the answers that were given!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 01:11 PM

LOL!

Looks like it's the people citing a figure of fifty million dead because of the DDT ban who are misinformed (and the ones who originally started that story are simply lying through their teeth).

DDT has never been banned for the purpose of vector control in any of the countries were malaria is a problem. That fifty million figure is pure fiction.

I think I was probably right when I speculated that the people responsible for spreading that lie are being paid to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 12:35 PM

I didn't see anyone saying that 50 million people died because of DDT. I only saw people saying that 50 million people died because DDT was banned. And I would definitely like to see some evidence for that number.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: folk1e
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 11:48 AM

There's Lies, there's Damned Lies and then there's Statistics!

There may well (gives the benefit of doubt) have been 50 Million people who are not alive now due to DDT ....... but this does not mean that there are not another 50 Million who live as a result of DDT?

If someone can put a sensible argument together without beating each other up (much) it would be appreciated by me at least. As an alternative I could hold your coat for you!


...... was the H2SO4 an acidic comment or was it just me?

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 11:04 AM

I would be interested in seeing some evidence that 50,000,000 people died because of DDT being banned. One of the problems I have with that figure is that DDT is not banned everywhere in the world. I'd be interested to know in which countries those 50,000,000 were living, and which countries have banned DDT and which haven't.

I think it's quite possible that some of those figures are being fudged.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 06:35 AM

I didn't start this thread so it could turn into a shit-fest. That's what some referees call a hockey game, when there's still time on the clock, but what they're doing on the ice has very little to do with the game of hockey.
I started it because I came across, what I thought, was some insightful information that shed light on a particular subject from a different angle.
99.9% of every living entity that ever graced this planet is extinct. I won't say gone forever because I know what science can/could do! Are we responsible for some of them? My guess would be yes! Evolution for some more of it? I would think so! I would also suggest that some of the natural changes the planet has gone through over the eons has had a hand in it too! We shouldn't forget those things that were not of this planet either!
What I was able to grasp and clearly understand from what I've seen and read is this: We had a tool and didn't use it properly, so we banned it! That banning has resulted in about 50,000,000 deaths! Perhaps we should reconsider our thinking of the past and come up with a new model!

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 12:28 AM

LOL

I just realized the absurdity of my having been accused by another poster of telling them what they think, when their explanation of why they posted the water satire shows that they did it as an act of telling me what I think, and they did it first.

LOLOL

(Can anyone spell hypocrisy? Sure they can... )

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 09 - 12:09 AM

GUEST,droberts, Cousteau was not necessarily talking about DDT, he was talking about pesticides and various industrial pollutants in general. And the fact that we are using the planet's oceans as a septic tank for all kinds of poisonous chemicals. His questions started with "Why is the plankton dying?" not "What is DDT doing to plankton?"

He knew what he was talking about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: GUEST,droberts
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 10:11 PM

Response to Don Firth:
Cousteau might have known a lot about the oceans, he knew little about DDT. DDT is hardly soluble in water and it reaches saturation at less than 2 ppb. It will have no influence on algal growth if it is not in solution. In general, at a concentration of less than 2 ppb algal growth will not be harmed, period. The whole idea that DDT could harm algal growth in the oceans and, in any way, endanger global oxygen supply was a profoundly false scare tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 08:39 PM

Hey, I've seen many posts recently on many threads. Know who'd I'd trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 06:49 PM

Ditto, my friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 06:12 PM

You would be wrong less often if you did not insist on telling others what and why they were thinking when they posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:43 PM

Well, the explanation came after my post, didn't it. So I guess I can be excused for not seeing into the future just this one time.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 04:07 PM

Since I explained what I was doing, I need not state that obviously you are wrong in your thinking..

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:41 PM

I think it's not unreasonable for someone to think that the reason someone else might post that water satire is to make fun of people who say that some chemicals are not safe for use. That's the most obvious reason for the existence of a bit of satire like that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:38 PM

CarolC,

YOU stated "Well, shoot. I guess if all chemicals are safe then the person who posted ..." when I did not EVER say OR indicate in any way that ANY chemical was "safe".

So watch the "wild accusations" you keep throwing around.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:08 PM

When the environment is exploited, the proceeds wind up in the pockets of the exploiters. The local folk are left with a devastated and sometimes unlivable landscape.

They don't give a damn about the local folks. It's all about mining for money.

Despoilers of the earth who, as long as they make their pile, couldn't care less about the future of the planet.

Hell is not hot enough!!

CLICKY #1.

CLICKY #2.

Decades ago (not long after the publication of Silent Spring, Captain Jacques Cousteau of the French Undersea Research Group, Co-inventor of the Aqua-Lung, and who knew more about the earth's oceans than any other person in the world stated that the oceans' plankton is dying—killed by pesticide run-off, mostly DDT, but other pesticides as well. Just so you know, 70% of the oxygen we breathe is generated by the oceans' plankton.

We're fouling our own nest and we're already starting to pay for it.

But you ain't seen nuthin' yet!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 02:04 PM

It's easy to accuse me of seeing things only in black and white. It would be a lot harder for that person to show me where I have stated any opinions at all on banning all use of DDT. Some people substitute throwing around wild accusations for actual debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: pdq
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 01:06 PM

In 1962 when "Silent Spring" was published, at least 500 million people owed their lives to pesticide use, mostly for the control of Malaria, Yellow Fever and other arthropod-borne diseases.

Since the population in 1962 was 3.136 billion people, the number saved by disease control throught pesticide use amounted to about 16% of the World's population.

Most of the control was done by chloronated hydrocarbon insecticides, now almost completely banned in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 12:40 PM

Yes, Becky, but CarolC does not believe in shades of gray- everything is black or white to her.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 21 Oct 09 - 01:33 AM

As usual, reason and reality lie somewhere in between the two poles of argument.

DDT used intensely and indiscriminately as it was in the late 50s and early 60s was clearly damaging to many species, and its ban in the U.S. was responsible for the recovery of many species of birds of prey that had been brought to the brink of extinction by its use. Rachel Carson's book played an important role in bringing about this recovery.

However, DDT is an effective pesticide, and in parts of the world where malaria is a serious hazard, very controlled uses -- e.g., DDT-laced mosquito netting -- can be effective and safe to people and other vertebrate species.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 11:23 PM

No, my drink is gin.

The problem with DDT, and what is so very misleading for people to say they drank a glass of it and they didn't die, is that the harmful effects are cumulative. People who are not being honest about the problems caused by DDT don't want us to know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 10:47 PM

Wrong, as usual.

I do not deny the hazards of various chemicals- but one has to look at what the positive effect is before declaring them "Bad". Of course, that presumes you are sane and reasonable. Perhaps I am wrong in your case.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 10:36 PM

PDQ - there is a difference between anecdote and evidence. Eg my grandmother lived to 88 even though she smoked a pack a day. cigarettes must be just fine, eh?

Bruce - typical troll posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 10:22 PM

No Carol, that is YOUR drink.

I was pointing out that you have not established that the danger posed is greater than the benefit from it's use, in the case of DDT. I think you would agree that in the case of Dihydrogen Monoxide, the benefit does outweigh the dangers- So look at the people who duie that could be saved by the use of DDT, and tell me that those lives are not worth the risks. Hey, some of them might even be Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: pdq
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 10:13 PM

Please read the article linked to...

          From: 3refs
          Date: 20 Oct 09 - 05:30 PM

In it, Dr. J. Gordon Edwards shows that much of Rachel Carson's book is exagerations (being polite about it).

Dr. Edwards tested his convictions by eating a heaping spoonful of concentrated DDT before press cameras.

He lived for another (nearly) 40 years, dying of a heart attack while rock climbing. Age: 85.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:33 PM

(No problem ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:33 PM

Well, shoot. I guess if all chemicals are safe then the person who posted the satirical piece about water would also have no problem drinking a nice tall class of H2SO4.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: sing4peace
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:27 PM

Thanks Carol.
JK from RI too. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 09:00 PM

Ha Ha, water under the bridge, and no, I didn't have to use your clicky. Did you think this pap actually made a point about Carole's post.
   Ridicule is no argument, and the authors of the clip clearly studied Goebbels and McCarthy well

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: GUEST,beaqrdedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 08:37 PM

What is Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
For more detailed information, including precautions, disposal procedures and storage requirements, refer to one of the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for DHMO:

Kemp Compliance & Safety MSDS for DHMO
Chem-Safe, Inc. MSDS for Dihydrogen Monoxide
Applied Petrochemical Research MSDS for Hydric Acid
Original DHMO.org Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Dihydrogen Monoxide (html)

Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.   

Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.

http://www.dhmo.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 06:47 PM

Also, the bald eagle went almost extinct during the time that DDT was in use in the US because of the effect that it caused on the eagles' eggs. It tended to thin them out so much that they would be crushed by the parent birds while being incubated by them. I find myself wondering if the people who are promoting the idea that DDT is safe are being paid to say that. This is what the US Environmental Protection Agency has to say about DDT:


DDT
What is DDT?

Prior to 1972 when its use was banned, DDT was a commonly used pesticide. Although it is no longer used or produced in the United States, we continue to find DDT in our environment. Other parts of the world continue to use DDT in agricultural practices and in disease-control programs. Therefore, atmospheric deposition is the current source of new DDT contamination in our Great Lakes. DDT, and its break-down products DDE and DDD, are persistent, bioacculumative, and toxic (PBT) pollutants target by EPA.
Why Are We Concerned About DDT?

Even though DDT has been banned since 1972, it can take more than 15 years to break down in our environment. Fish consumption advisories are in effect for DDT in many waterways including the Great Lakes ecosystem.
What harmful effects can DDT have on us?

    * Probable human carcinogen
    * Damages the liver
    * Temporarily damages the nervous system
    * Reduces reproductive success
    * Can cause liver cancer
    * Damages reproductive system

How are we exposed to DDT?

    * By eating contaminated fish and shellfish
    * Infants may be exposed through breast milk
    * By eating imported food directly exposed to DDT
    * By eating crops grown in contaminated soil

Where can DDT be found?

Potential Sources to our Environment:

    * DDT in soil can be absorbed by some growing plants and by the animals or people who eat those plants
    * DDT in water is absorbed by fish and shellfish in those waterways
    * Atmospheric deposition
    * Soil and sediment runoff
    * Improper use and disposal

http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 06:32 PM

The author of that article is wrong. The greatest threat to humans is not diseases. The greatest threat to humans is loss of biodiversity.

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 05:30 PM

Maybe give this one a try!

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 05:13 PM

"Go have some DDT and see if you feel any better. "

If you still feel ok, try some 2,2-Dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate (DDVP) famous as the ingredient in Shell No-Pest strips. Ever wonder why you no longer see those?

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 05:12 PM

In the clips Ann McElhinney says she is "all for unsustainable growth" and that her main concern is the children. What sort of world does she expect the children to have if we all pursue unsustainable growth?

Subject: RE: BS: Not evil, just wrong!
From: 3refs
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 04:25 PM

This is Part #2 of three, which sheds some light on DDT specifically. I'd suggest all three parts get watched.
I provided the "disconnected clips and images promoting a particular agenda", but I also did some research!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5wIE9jQLEQ