This thread is about the modern environmental movement. We will begin at the beginning of the movement. It seems to have been started in the US by one Rachel Carson in the 1960's, an opponent of pesticides, who succeeded in spreading widespread hysteria about DDT's effects on wildlife and especially children. In her book Silent Spring, she magnified the effect on children by saying that more American school children die of cancer than from any other desease. In support of her claims, she reported that 12% of all deaths in children between the ages of one and 14 are caused by cancer during that time. Although this sounds alamring, Carson's statistic is essentially meaningless unless its given some context, which she failed to supply. It turns out that the percentage of children dying from cancer was rising because other causes of death, such as infectious deseases, were drastically declining. It is somewhat ironic that Caron's focus on children helped kill the use of DDT when malaria is the cause of death in millions of children living in udeveloped countries. In fact, it is estimated that DDT has saved tens of millions of lives, a widely known fact in 1962 but of no apparent importance to her or he supporters. The next thing you know the media gobbled up this alarmism and JFK ordered an advisory committee to investigate her claims. The Evironmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club brought litigation to pressure the government to ban DDT. Although DDT has never been directly linked to even one human death, the EPA banned DDT in 1972. The world wide use, therefore, also declined drastically because the US and her World Health Organization allies would no longer provide financial support for the lifesaving chemical use in developing countries. This was done despite and EPA administrative law judge found while holding several months of hearings in 1972 about DDT that, "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man....DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man....The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a dleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." This ruling by judge Edmund Sweeney was rejected by the EPA by their administrator William Doyle Ruckelshaus who banned in anyway. This was done despite Ruckelshaus not attending one of the hearings as well as aids reporting he did not read any of the hearing transcripts before overruling Sweeney's findings. It should be noted that Ruckelshaus belonged to the Audubon Society and later joined the Environmental Defense fund, which, along side the Sierra Club, was a budding organization that brought lawsuits pressing for DDT bias.
Only recently has the world community begun to revisit the benefits of DDT. In 2006, the World Health Organization announced that it would reverse years of policy and back the use of DDT as a way to control malaria outbreaks. So what has been the cost of banning it in the first place? In 2002 the American Council of Science and Health reported that 300-500 million people suffer from malaria each year and the number one killer of children in Africa. Multiply 500 million by about 30 years and it gives you an idea of the cost of human lives for an accepted ideology grounded in what some call junk science. So were genocide-like numbers of the dead and dying created by the ban of DDT worth it? Did the first incidence of enviro-statism cause much more harm than potential good?
Originally posted by whodeyIt makes sense that DDT just may save too many lives to ban completely.
This thread is about the modern environmental movement. We will begin at the beginning of the movement. It seems to have been started in the US by one Rachel Carson in the 1960's, an opponent of pesticides, who succeeded in spreading widespread hysteria about DDT's effects on wildlife and especially children. In her book Silent Spring, she magnified the ef ...[text shortened]... it? Did the first incidence of enviro-statism cause much more harm than potential good?
I agree about many evironmental radicals being way out of line.
Originally posted by eljefejesusPerhaps it reduces the number of carbon footprints that are destroying our planet. So in a round about way, perhaps they were "saving" the planet. I just don't know who they are saving it for? LOL.
It makes sense that DDT just may save too many lives to ban completely.
I agree about many evironmental radicals being way out of line.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by whodeyYour history is astoundingly flawed and self-serving. The modern environmental movement starts long before the 1960's. Care to take another stab at it?
This thread is about the modern environmental movement. We will begin at the beginning of the movement. It seems to have been started in the US by one Rachel Carson in the 1960's...
I can use DDT again?
I guess one of the major flaws of wiping out all mosquitos is that a lot of animals feed off mossies.
Now, if there are no more mossies, most of these creatures are either gonna starve to death or start stealing babies out of prams and eating them.
Not so good for the biodiversity.
Originally posted by FMFWhy then do you suppose the state got things so wrong? In this particular case, the state getting involved seesm to have cost tens of millions of lives. Should we not then learn from our mistsakes especially in light of the up and coming cap and trade legislation that may also cause greater harm than overall good as well?
Individuals, however conscientious and active, cannot protect the environment from the negative impacts of commercial activity. It has to be the state that does it. Like it or not. And the democratic system is the mechanisim for decision making. Like it or not.
Originally posted by shavixmirAre you saying that biodervisty is more important that saving tens of millions of lives, assuming your theory is correct of course?
I can use DDT again?
I guess one of the major flaws of wiping out all mosquitos is that a lot of animals feed off mossies.
Now, if there are no more mossies, most of these creatures are either gonna starve to death or start stealing babies out of prams and eating them.
Not so good for the biodiversity.
Originally posted by whodeyI imagine it didn't, in fact. We've only got your unattributed, plagiarized cut and past to go on. And you're a poster who witters on about death camps and, on occasions, compares himself to Jesus and Gandhi while, on occasions, posting info in OPs that you later have to distance yourself from. So, I personally don't place much store in your OP. And I don't really care. So many of your posts and OPs are a kiss of death to genuine lively discussion. Death camps, Obama will kill my granny, the founding fathers, Death camps, Obama will kill my granny, the founding fathers, death camps, Obama will kill my granny, the founding fathers, death camps, Obama will kill my granny, the founding fathers etc. And now "Enviro-statism". Snap out of it. Please.
Why then do you suppose the state got things so wrong? In this particular case, the state getting involved seems to have cost tens of millions of lives.
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat gives me the right to kill millions of animals? How about saving millions of human lives? Of course, this is predicated on the notion that you even know what you are talking about which I don't believe you do.
In the long run it probably is.
Who gives you the right to murder millions of animals?
Originally posted by FMFDon't be obtuse. What I say is easily varifiable if you were so inclined to look into it, which you obviously are not. Anyone can look to see that the World Health Organization lifted the ban on DDT in 2002. So the question begs as to why if it is so dangerous to both man and beast? It is also easy to verify how many people die of malaria around the world every year. Face it, the enviro-statists got it wrong and senttenced millions to death as a result.
I imagine it didn't, in fact. We've only got your unattributed, plagiarized cut and past to go on. And you're a poster who witters on about death camps and, on occasions, compares himself to Jesus and Gandhi while, on occasions, posting info in OPs that you later have to distance yourself from. So, I personally don't place much store in your OP. And I don't real ...[text shortened]... ll my granny, the founding fathers etc. And now "Enviro-statism". Snap out of it. Please.
Originally posted by whodeyI Googled a huge chunk of the plagiarized/unattributed text in the OP, in inverted commas, and got a moderate number of hits mostly from far right tin foil blogs. You haven't said a word here for three years about Africans dying of malaria and AIDS nor about U.S./First World companies effectively withholding the medicines from tens of millions of them through pricing. And yet you fish some snotty little 3 year old something that you passed off as your own off fanatical conspiracy blogs - "Statists sentenced people to death"?? - and all of a sudden you're terribly terribly concerned about human beings dying of Malaria?? But only in the context of bashing "the State"?? You're a piece of work. Point me in the direction of your previous posts showing concern for people dying of these things or else spare me your alienating, self-righteous duckspeak.
Don't be obtuse.
one of the major concerns about DDT was that it was greatly harming birds like ospreys and eagles because it would cause their egg shells be too thin and thus easily broken.
Back in the 1970's, I can remember when you would almost never see an osprey or a bald eagle in New Jersey. Today, ospreys are rather common (especially near the coast), and it's no longer unusual to be able to enjoy the sight of an adult bald eagle soaring over a lake. Have you ever had the chance to see a bald eagle in person, or watch an osprey swoop down and grab a fish out of the water? They're very impressive.
Obviously, this should not mean that DDT is some sort of Evil Chemical that should never be used for any purpose. It's use in controlling malaria is clearly something that is a good thing. I see it as similar to marijuana which is too often viewed as an Evil Drug that should never be used - even though it appears to have definite benefits to people with certain medical conditions.
With all of these chemicals and drugs, guidelines need to be followed so that we can benefit from them while avoiding the negative effects of misuse. Of course, some authority (or "statist" ) would have to set the standards. But since all statists are Evil, I guess we'd be stuck with an "anything goes" approach?
Originally posted by FMFThe information I used came from a book I had read dealing with eviro-statism. So what? Either the facts are corrrect or they are not. As far as I can see, you have been unable to produce one fact that I have provided as a falsehood. Instead, you lower yourself to character assassination as you typically do. Now if you would like to join the conversation by addressing the facts at hand you are more than welcome.
I Googled a huge chunk of the plagiarized/unattributed text in the OP, in inverted commas, and got a moderate number of hits mostly from far right tin foil blogs. You haven't said a word here for three years about Africans dying of malaria and AIDS nor about U.S./First World companies effectively withholding the medicines from tens of millions of them through pr ...[text shortened]... dying of these things or else spare me your alienating, self-righteous duckspeak.