Originally posted by whodeySo it's extremist Libertarian fantasy and waffle.
That is your definition not mine. Lavine introduced the term to me. Here is what he says,
"The Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natura ...[text shortened]... rp the rights from the average Joe in any way they can with enviro-statists included.
Everybody is a Statist to a degree. It's a massive woolly nothingness and everythingness that can be tossed around as a catch-all insult and smear. Just the job for paranoid sociopathic malcontents.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySince you have accepted that your original statement was an 'error', we can indeed move on. The above is piffle. It states, as its central point, that the EU has threatened to ban agricultural imports from Uganda if the country uses DDT in residual indoor spraying. Here's what the EU ambassador to the US has to say about that statement:
Just google Marjorie Mazel Hecht and ddt and you should find out what I am talking about.
She writes, "As malaria continues to kill one child every 30 seconds in sub-Saharan Africa, and 500 people per day in Uganda alone, officials in the European Union have threatened to ban agriculture imports from Uganda if the country begins to spray the indoor walls pate in programs using any of the following, 1) lindane, 2) BHC, 3) DDT, or 4) dieldrin."
"The European Union has no objection to the safe spraying of houses with DDT for malaria control, but it does have concerns about illegal agricultural uses. The E.U., like the United States and 149 other countries that signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001, believes that the use of DDT in agriculture should be phased out.
Nations have the right to use DDT for public health protection, and the convention includes an exemption to allow such uses. It even sets out conditions for the safe use of DDT in malaria control -- a use unlikely to leave residues in crops.
It is up to Uganda how to fight malaria, and DDT is one tool in that fight. The European Union continues to assist Uganda and other affected countries in efforts to combat malaria and contributes almost $100 million to this cause annually."
here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501032.html
Your article goes on to state that USAID did not provide funds to support DDT use. Whatever Schultz may have said, Kent R. Hill, assistant administrator, Bureau of Global Health, USAID, says otherwise:
"In the past, USAID has provided critically needed technical support to implement the use of DDT, including training, logistic and planning support in countries where DDT has proved to be the best insecticide for spraying and when its use is permitted in that country."
here:
http://thehill.com//thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/LetterstotheEditor/111505.html
(Admittedly, this is now one word against another: we (you) will need to do some more digging to prove your point, if evidence there is to support it.
So - again you have peddled untruths. When will this ever end?
5 edits
Originally posted by DrKFI tried to access this but all I got was the Washington post web site saying it could not find the article. I then searched the site using their search engine but with no luck. Can anyone else find it? In addition, when was the article written. I believe the article showing its ban was written in 2005, so subsequent changes may have taken place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/15/AR2005101501032.html
I have, however, taken the liberty of finding other news sources corraborating what I said. The New Vision Uganda' Leading Website, says that,
"In addition, countries that export crops to the EU wil be hit by the new rules. Just two years ago, Uganda had to stop spraying tiny amounts of DDT on walls inside their homes in a highly malarial region because of exporter's fears that their crops would be (illegally) rejected by the EU -- fears fanned by EU representatives statements in Uganda."
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/20/668020
So it would appear to me, that the EU representatives are saying one thing to the world and another to Uganda farmers. In fact, another article shows the rabid fear Ugandan farmers have in using DDT.
http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200806031149
In the article, it states that the government is trying to get people to spray inside their homes. Of course, the fear is twofold. One is that their exports will be rejected if only trace amounts of DDT are found in them. In addition, it is known that the chemical was banned in the US and EU, so why would they use it? The fearmongering regarding its use is now a world wide phenomenon. But as the artricle states, the chemical is relatively safe to use. In fact, The Monitor, the name of the news organization, reaffirms its support to the government initiative to spray DDT. It states, "So in opposing government attempts to eradicate this menace, those opponents are advocating a poor and sick population, an illiterate generation, and a country that is moving downwards on the develpment ladder."
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyHmmm. I got the same with the piece you mentioned, so apologies - let me backtrack and see if I can find it again. Your other point makes no sense, though: since you have been discussing historic actions on the part of USAID, it doesn't matter if the representative said they supplied the resources 'in the past' in 2005 or subsequently.
I tried to access this but all I got was the Washington post web site saying it could not find the article. I then searched the site using their search engine but with no luck. Can anyone else find it? In addition, when was the article written. I believe the article showing its ban was written in 2005, so subsequent changes may have taken place.
I hav n illiterate generation, and a country that is moving downwards on the develpment ladder."
We can go back and forth with the other point, I suppose, although the ambassador expressly denies any such threat has ever been issued; in most circumstances, I'd give that more weight than pure hearsay (which, I'm sure you'll concede, is all the your sources contain). The suggestion that the EU is saying one thing publicly and another privately to Uganda is pure, unadulterated speculation in any case.
I must admit, it is honestly no longer clear to me what your position is here, because you've had to change tack and flip-flop repeatedly. Your recent blizzard of copy-typed text (and your apparent demand that we go through it line by line and discuss those screeds of text) has done little to help.
Can you summarise the basic point you have been, or are trying to make, in your own words and relatively succinctly, please?
EDIT: some of this refers to parts of your post since edited.
Originally posted by DrKFFrom what I can ascertain, members of the EU etc favor manipulating countries to not use DDT more than they do relying on written policies. Case in point is an article in good old Wiki.
Hmmm. I got the same with the piece you mentioned, so apologies - let me backtrack and see if I can find it again. Your other point makes no sense, though: since you have been discussing historic actions on the part of USAID, it doesn't matter if the representative said they supplied the resources 'in the past' in 2005 or subsequently.
We can go back and for ...[text shortened]... vely succinctly, please?
EDIT: some of this refers to parts of your post since edited.
"it has also been argued that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contengent upon not using DDT. According to a report in the "British Medical Journal", use of DDT in Mozambique was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT. Roger Bates asserts that many countires have been coming under pressure from international health and environmental agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants. Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from USAID. The USAID has been the focus of much criticism. While the agency is currently funding the use of DDT in some African countires, in the past it has not. When John Stossel accused USAID of not funding DDT because it was not politcially correct, Anne Peterson, the agency's assistant administrator for global health, replied that, "I believe that the strategies we are using are as effective as spraying with DDT....So, politically correct or not, I am very confident that what we are doing is the right strategy. USAID's Kent R. Hill states that the agency has been misrepresented: "USAID strongly supports spraying as a prevenatitive measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted. Wiith regard to the decision to start funding the use of the chemical, the Agency's website states that "USAID has never had a policy as such either for or against DDT for IRS. The real change in the past two years (2006/2007) has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS in general -- with DDT or any other insecticide -- as an effective malaria prevention staregy in tropical Africa."
I interpret this as saying that the use of DDT was, in fact, shunned through various coercive means, while at the same time carefully not creating world wide banning its use outright due to the controversial nature of the consequences of doing so. Even Carson in her book Silent Spring writes, "It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time buy paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting (In the advice given in Holland by Dr. Briejer in capacity as director of the Planet Protection Service). Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity". In fact, I agree with this bit of advice. The data shows that sparying in homes only seems to be the most effective way to combat malaria. It helps reduce DDT resistance and even when mosquitos become resistant, often shun DDT sprayed houses because they are irritated by the chemical. However, the movement began by Carson, as most movements do, evolve into something other than was was desired in the first place. If you ask me, those living in the developed world in their ivory towers who have nothing to worry about in regards to malaria, simply sit back and snub their noses at imports that might be contaminated by DDT. In addition, they are appalled by the effects DDT might have globally. However, in doing so they seem to cover their tracks well enough as I have found. They are careful not to make outright policies while they twist the arms of third world countires behind the scenes, and or, cut off needed funding for the use of DDT.
1 edit
The Stockholm Conventions marked a new era in attitudes towards DDT. Classed as a POP, its indiscriminate use in agricultural spraying was to be banned internationally. However, bodies including the WHO - who had always approved the use of DDT for use in indoor residual spraying - lobbied for DDT to have a limited exemption from the ban. They were successful in this.
One reason, beyond the environmental damage DDT causes and the human health risks substantial research indicates DDT to pose, for seeking to ban the indiscriminate use of DDT is this: mosquitoes develop immunity to DDT.
In outlawing the indiscriminate use of DDT in agricultural spraying, the playing field was altered. Bodies such as the WHO changed their policy from approval to active promotion, safe in the knowledge that this was now an extremely viable strategy since its agricultural ban meant that the 'spray as little as you can' policy would have maximum impact.
Other aid bodies - who surely have always had the right to decide themselves how best their aid money is spent - appear to have agreed with this assessment, and the active promotion of the safe use of DDT in IRS is now more common than it was when DDT was still used agriculturally.
However, this active promotion is targeted, as IRS is not universally effective. In any event, it is almost certain that DDT alone cannot rid us of malaria forever; nor could it ever have achieved that lofty goal. That is why IRS has joined the list of location-specific projects that have, in the interim, been happening anyway.
There can be no doubt that USAID and the WHO - among many other bodies - have worked hard and invested much money in to combating malaria; to suggest otherwise, even by inference, is baloney. The use of bed nets, for instance, may when properly used be about as effective as DDT, and alternative chemicals have been actively promoted. To suggest, particularly given the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes over time, and all the quicker in a world where agricultural spraying is allowed, that having actively promoted DDT use in the last thirty years would have been more effective in the long-run is complete speculation. To use that speculation to speak of responsibility for millions of deaths is insulting and short-sighted.
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFI never said that DDT would rid of us malaria, however, it is by far the cheapest way to combat it and, when used correctly, saves lives. Most lives I think could be saved in Africa since their mortality rates regarding malaria is through the roof. This is a far cry from FMF's hysteria regarding DDT being a toxin. I do think a form of hysteria was created with the initial environmental movement to ban DDT and was refected by international action/inaction. As I have shown, there was a change in policy around 2006 regarding DDT and rightly so. I don't disagree with improper use of DDT. As you have said, if used in the wrong way, the chemical will by in large by ineffective. However, used correctly, it will save untold number of lives. My only qustion is, will countries around the world continue to pressure countries like Uganda not to use DDT at all using various encomic forms of coercion? It is good that funding for the use of DDT has been revived.
There can be no doubt that USAID and the WHO - among many other bodies - have worked hard and invested much money in to combating malaria; to suggest otherwise, even by inference, is baloney. The use of bed nets, for instance, may when properly used be about as effective as DDT, and alternative chemicals have been actively promoted. To suggest, particularly given ...[text shortened]... at speculation to speak of responsibility for millions of deaths is insulting and short-sighted.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyYou've a cheek speaking about other people's 'hysteria'! But perhaps we have nevertheless reached an uneasy truce: the international ban on the indiscriminate use of DDT is to be commended, not least because it makes direct promotion of DDT in IRS extremely worthwhile. The resumption of direct promotion of DDT will now be of good use in combating malaria. I don't agree with your dismissal of the EU ambassador's explicit refutation of coercion to try to prevent Uganda using DDT even for IRS, though: but that seems unresolvable to me.
I never said that DDT would rid of us malaria, however, it is by far the cheapest way to combat it and, when used correctly, saves lives. Most lives I think could be saved in Africa since their mortality rates regarding malaria is through the roof. This is a far cry from FMF's hysteria regarding DDT being a toxin. I do think a form of hysteria was created ...[text shortened]... rious encomic forms of coercion? It is good that funding for the use of DDT has been revived.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by whodeyDDT has far reaching harmful implications, across the board to plants, animals, water, soil. I am certainly willing to usurp the average Joe's false rights to act in a blatantly destructive manner. Only the government stands a chance to save me from the environmental brain stems because I am but one against millions upon millions.
...The statist is continuously looking to usurp the rights of individuals within the civil society that is not backed by the law of the land. The law must then be "reinterpreted" or ignored or rewritten to usurp such rights.
As for myself, I look at it this way. The country I live in in increasingly becoming a Nanny state. Suppose you give someone in ...[text shortened]... ually usurp the rights from the average Joe in any way they can with enviro-statists included.
Originally posted by BadwaterSo are you outraged regarding WHO reintroducing the use of DDT in Africa to save lives?
DDT has far reaching harmful implications, across the board to plants, animals, water, soil. I am certainly willing to usurp the average Joe's false rights to act in a blatantly destructive manner. Only the government stands a chance to save me from the environmental brain stems because I am but one against millions upon millions.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think it should be done - the environmental impact will be far-reaching and long lasting should they decide to do so.
So are you outraged regarding WHO reintroducing the use of DDT in Africa to save lives?
Using DDT is not a clear fix, and there are serious consequences to be traded for what it does "fix".
2 edits
Originally posted by BadwaterLet me give you a little background info before you make any hasty comments such as this. DDT was used widely in the US after WW11 and through the 60's. So where is the ecological devistation? Any extinctiongs in wildlife? Any mass loss of life in the population? In comparison, WHO estimates that there are 250 million cases every year of malaria, resulting in almost 1 million deaths per year. About 90% of those deaths occur in Africa, and mostly to children under the age of 5. The great thing about DDT, is it is darn cheap. In addition, due to its effectiveness it has been coined a miracle weapon which led to a Nobel prize for its inventor at one point. Of course, we are not even talking about randomly spraying it everywhere as was done for about 30 years in the US, rather, we are talking about using it in peoples homes.
I don't think it should be done - the environmental impact will be far-reaching and long lasting should they decide to do so.
Using DDT is not a clear fix, and there are serious consequences to be traded for what it does "fix".
So what is worse? Is it the fearmongering surrounding the use of DDT, or is around 1 million deaths caused by malaria every year?
Originally posted by whodeyLOL. You are so funny whodey.
This is a far cry from FMF's hysteria regarding DDT being a toxin.
You start a thread with a text riddled with demonstrably untrue assertions and which seems to almost sugget that DDT was completely safe.
You are called on it.
You say what's wrong with the text?
I (and others) say it plays down the dangers and risks of DDT which were in the minds of those who were worried about its incorrect use and which uncontroversial science has conformed in the meantime.
You say you've got a newspaper article about a ruling by someone called Sweeney in NY 37 years ago which said it was safe.
So I provide some links - maybe 0.001% of what's out there - and you are invited to check 2 or 3 of them. Each and every one of them provides hard science indicating that DDT was unsafe, and extremely unsafe if used incorrectly.
Your rebuttal is to say I am "hysterical"?
Welcome to the intellectual landscape of far right blog fury-paranoia and freepster "integrity".
LOL.
🙄