Enviro-statism

Originally posted by FMF
LOL. You are so funny whodey.

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 inco ...[text shortened]... lectual landscape of far right blog fury-paranoia and freepster "integrity".

LOL.
🙄

So I assume you are equally appalled by WHO using DDT? Are they knowingly poisening the planet and the people of Africa?

Originally posted by whodey
So I assume you are equally appalled by WHO using DDT? Are they knowingly poisening the planet and the people of Africa?

Which of my links to scientific studies showing the negative side effects of the incorrect or prolonged use DDT - something you and your one source (plues Sweeney in NY) were playing down to almost nothing - made you think I was being 'hysterical'?

Originally posted by whodey
So I assume you are equally appalled by WHO using DDT? Are they knowingly poisening the planet and the people of Africa?

What is it about 'correct use' and the 'misuse' of DDT that you don't understand? The W.H.O. never banned it. Since earlier this decade, their anti-malerial priorities have changed and they are promoting certain methods and restricted uses of it again. What's "Statist" about all this?

Do you think the regulation of dangerous chemicals should be left to the private sector or to some kind of panel of unaccountable Libertarians who hate Government to the point of baffling intellectual contortions and even deceit? It's impossible to work out what your actual stance on all this is - except that you put it down to "Statism" which you use as a term that means everything bad done by anyone, anywhere, at any time, since forever. And which you the apply to people who disgaree with you.

How does the chaning policy of the W.H.O. demonstrate this nonsensical, I read it in a book, catch-all 'ideology' you refer to as "Statism"?

Originally posted by FMF
What is it about 'correct use' and the 'misuse' of DDT that you don't understand? The W.H.O. never banned it. Since earlier this decade, their anti-malerial priorities have changed and they are promoting certain methods and restricted uses of it again. What's "Statist" about all this?

Do you think the regulation of dangerous chemicals should be left to the p ical, I read it in a book, catch-all 'ideology' you refer to as "Statism"?

For the last time, it is my position that the whole enironmental movement in the US was started by Silent Spring. As a result of it, the US government not only banned its use, but also did not favor funding DDT across the globe. I have successfully shown that although WHO did not "ban" its use, countries in the EU as well as the US found various other ways to discourage its use. I have shown article after article showing that, although the EU did not ban its use and declare publically it does not have a problem with its use, the message countries in the third world like Uganda is entirely something different. The article from Wiki even states that several countries have admitted to giving into such coercion. They simply do not want any of their exports they import tainted with the stuff nor do they want "mother earth" exposed to the stuff. Meanwhile they sit glibly by not having to worry about the life and death struggle against malaria that the people in the third world struggle with every day. However, in 2006 there seems to have been a change, at least in terms of the US funding the use of DDT. Perhaps after 30 years their conscience began to get the better of them. Unfortunately, countries lilke Uganda not only have to overcome the behind the scenes pressure by the industrialized world to abandon DDT, but they also have to overcome the stigma that was created by the industrialized world demonizing its use as I have also shown in the news article from Africa.

The environmentalist movement has simply become another tool by the statists even though there may be some merit in the initial causes. The environmentalist movement expanded government and its power over us and the rest of the world. Soon they will try to pass the largest regressive taxes in US history via cap and trade. Once again, like DDT the hysteria regarding CO2 emissions will be generated and another witch hunt and burnings at the stake will be sure to ensue.

Originally posted by whodey
For the last time, it is my position that the whole enironmental movement in the US was started by Silent Spring. As a result of it, the US government not only banned its use, but also did not favor funding DDT across the globe. I have successfully shown that although WHO did not "ban" its use, countries in the EU as well as the US found various other ways ns will be generated and another witch hunt and burnings at the stake will be sure to ensue.

- You have not successfully shown that "countries in the EU as well as the US found various other ways to discourage its use". You have asserted that, and decided to favour two newspaper articles that say a threat was issued and another that states that ordinary people are trying to avoid IRS on the basis of a perceived possibility of an EU import ban (in which case, if the Ugandan government is actively promoting IRS but ordinary people are resisting it, it may be this mythical threat - spread by irresponsible journalists - that is the issue; the polar opposite of what you deduce from the scenario) over and above over the express statement of the EU ambassador that no such threat has been issued. That is your prerogative, but you have 'shown' nothing except the hearsay of a couple of journalists. There is also an element of anachronism to your argument: the Uganda debate, for example, is recent enough to post-date Copenhagen, yet you seem to be using that to argue that such coercion pre-dated Copenhagen. You have 'shown' nothing, but rather 'suggested' something.

- To suggest that first world countries and aid organisations have 'sat glibly by' in the face of African malaria is preposterous nonsense. You might believe that aid bodies and the like did not take what you believe would have been the best course of action - again, that is your prerogative, but your conclusion ('sitting glibly by'😉 is a spurious non sequitur and an offensive, counter-factual conclusion to draw, since those bodies have continued - in good faith - to fight malaria as best they are able.

- even if it is true that some of the alarm about CO2 emissions turns out to have been exaggerated, this is a particularly poor comparison to make from your perspective. If the two examples are as similar as you wish us to believe, the eventual scientific consensus will be - as it is with DDT - that sticking to the policies of the past would never have been a viable option.

- I am also puzzled by a fundamental point: you, yourself, come across as something of a 'statist'. You appear to support the international ban on agricultural spraying of DDT and you appear to support the redistribution of wealth (in the form of aid) from first to third world countries, hence your delight at foreign aid going to fund DDT use in Africa. I am most surprised to find an 'anti-statist' as the new champion of USAID and the WHO.

Surely the actions of bodies like USAID and the WHO are always and in every case 'statist'. Or is it only when they get things, to your mind, wrong that they become 'statists'? When you erroneously, and hilariously, though the WHO had banned DDT they were evil 'statists', now they are champions of the poor? How odd; how inconsistent.

As FMF said early on in this discussion, there is a strong suspicion that you are crying crocodile tears for the suffering in Africa, and that your perception (completely unproved) of an error is simply a stick with which to beat 'statists'.

Originally posted by whodey
Let 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, resulti ...[text shortened]... ngering surrounding the use of DDT, or is around 1 million deaths caused by malaria every year?

The comment was not hasty.

DDT is a substance that does not break down well or quickly in the environment. It passes up the food chain and was responsible for the thinning of egg shells in bald eagles and peregrine falcons. It was responsible for a lot of other things too, but I'll stick to my expertise, which for the sake of personal experience and expertise (yeah, read 'expert' in that, I work with raptors most days of the week) I will use as an example.

The thinning of shells was such that eggs were breaking and successful hatches dropped precipitously - so much so that the birth rate could not keep up with the death rate and the bald eagle flirted with extinction by the 1960's. This is quite amazing given that the bald eagle is unusual in raptor species; it is a scavenger as well as a live prey predator, and can and will eat a lot of different things. It's not picky in the same way other raptors are.

Raptors are indicator species, and the damage done by DDT was in no way remotely limited to just a few species of raptors; rather, they are an indicator of how the environment as a whole was suffering due to the ravages inflicted by DDT. It is no coincidence that when DDT was banned in the early 1970's, that a hardy predator like the bald eagle, that was barely sighted in the wild 20 years ago, is easily seen these days in all 49 states that it lives.

It is important to note that in places where raptors did not live near humans, or did not live in close proximity to DDT spraying, those raptors were not affected. It also helped if you were not a migratory raptor and lived away from humans. Thus, the prairie falcon was largely unaffected by the problem of the thinning of egg shells, because they live in arid and desert parts of the American West where there wasn't much in the way of people, and the people that did live nearby didn't use DDT. Also, prairie falcons are generally not migratory - at all. The prairie falcons were, for the most part, unaffected by the use of DDT.

That's just the tip of the DDT iceberg, but if you're going to poo-poo that then you'll do the same to all other science and fact involving DDT and it won't matter what I or anyone else says.

And as I say, and my comments were not in the least bit hasty but rather came from my own expertise and what I teach educationally. I am against the use of DDT because of the well-documented, factual, negative factors associated with the use of DDT.

Originally posted by DrKF
[b]- You have not successfully shown that "countries in the EU as well as the US found various other ways to discourage its use". You have asserted that, and decided to favour two newspaper articles that say a threat was issued and another that states that ordinary people are trying to avoid IRS on the basis of a perceived possibility of an EU import ban (in which rcion pre-dated Copenhagen. You have 'shown' nothing, but rather 'suggested' something.

-

So you discount the source I provided from the Ugandan news source "New Vision". Very well. How about more information about the US involvment in surpressing the use of DDT as well?

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidwp/pdf/067.pdf

Do you have any respect for Amir Attaran who works at the Center for International Develpment at Harvard University? He is both a biologist and lawyer whose interest includes the organization and legal aspects of international health. In the article he states, "In the early 1990's the US government threatened Belize and Bolivia to stop using DDT or lose their international funding." The footnote to this reads, "The author has obtained some correspondance confirming US pressure on Bolivia under the American Freedom of Information Act, and this is on file with the author. For Belize, information was obtained by personal communication, Dr Dennis Carroll (USAID) to A. Attaran (April 2000). It is my guess that such efforts as this helped later reverse US policy regarding DDT funding in 2006. He writes, "....there has been intense disagreement about DDT, malaria, and the POPs Treaty. This is striking, because while the debate has pitted the opinion of the public health community (including hundreds of scientists in nearly 60 countries) against the opinion of environmentalist groups, there has been NO disagreement on one very important fact: DDT saves lives from malaria and if properly used causes very little environmental harm. This is because spraying very small amounts of DDT whthin the indoor walls of houses is both highly effective and poses a much lower environmental danger than spraying it on the agriculture."


I liked this quote the best from Attaran. He writes, "Environmentalists in rich, developed coutnries gain nothing from DDT, and thus small risks felt at home loom larger than health benefits for the poor tropics. More than 200 environmental groups, including Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT..."

Originally posted by DrKF
.

- To suggest that first world countries and aid organisations have 'sat glibly by' in the face of African malaria is preposterous nonsense.

Yes I do, much in the same way that they sat by while genocide was occuring in such places as Rwanda and the Sudan. Quoting from the movie, "Hotel Rwanda", the question was presented to a UN overseer of the genocide. He was asked why more was not done internationally to stop the genocide. He was told by the UN representative something to the effect that it was because they had nothing to offer the international community. In effect, what interest do they have in poverty? However, get an oil rich country like Iraq or trouble next door to the EU in Bosinia and they are there at the drop of a hat!!

Originally posted by DrKF
[- even if it is true that some of the alarm about CO2 emissions turns out to have been exaggerated, this is a particularly poor comparison to make from your perspective. If the two examples are as similar as you wish us to believe, the eventual scientific consensus will be - as it is with DDT - that sticking to the policies of the past would never have been a viable option.

You mean like some of the surpressed scientific consensus found in the e-mails that were hacked?

Originally posted by DrKF
- I am also puzzled by a fundamental point: you, yourself, come across as something of a 'statist'. You appear to support the international ban on agricultural spraying of DDT and you appear to support the redistribution of wealth (in the form of aid) from first to third world countries, hence your delight at foreign aid going to fund DDT use in Africa. I am most n (completely unproved) of an error is simply a stick with which to beat 'statists'.[/b]

My position is simple. I am for the average Joe whether it be in the US or Africa. So tell me, who is in control of the average Joe? Are they not statists? If it were not for the environmentalist movement initiated by Silent Spring, the surpression of DDT would never have reached the levels it has. Do I quesiton the powers that be? You betcha. I find that they have little need for apologetics from people like FMF. It is the average Joe who needs looked out after, not these bloated bureaucrats in the US and EU. Forgive me if I question the powers that be that decided to invade Iraq instead of genocidal Sudan and/or Rwanda. Forgive me if I question the powers that be that set up the ponzi scheme of social security and has run up a 12 trillion dollar deficit in the blink of an eye. Forgive me if I question the powers that be that oversaw Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae debacle and the credit crisis and did NOTHING. They then used the average Joe to bail out these neglagent theives. You see, the statist ALWAYS says that he is acting to help the average Joe, but how much and at what cost? Sure everyone gets a social security check, but for how long? Sure, they averted another depression by printing money and bailing out corporations, but for how long and why did they turn a blind eye leading up to it? So I dare to question the powers that be regarding the use of DDT. For shame!! In fact, I should also embrace cap and trade and natinoal health care while I'm at it. No doubt, the powers that be should be trusted, not questioned as history indicates.

Originally posted by DrKF
As FMF said early on in this discussion, there is a strong suspicion that you are crying crocodile tears for the suffering in Africa, and that your perception (completely unproved) of an error is simply a stick with which to beat 'statists'.[/b]

What can I say, FMF seems to be suspicious of everyone except the statists it would seem.

Originally posted by whodey
My position is simple. I am for the average Joe whether it be in the US or Africa. So tell me, who is in control of the average Joe? Are they not statists? If it were not for the environmentalist movement initiated by Silent Spring, the surpression of DDT would never have reached the levels it has. Do I quesiton the powers that be? You betcha. I find t ...[text shortened]... 'm at it. No doubt, the powers that be should be trusted, not questioned as history indicates.

He he - it's the rare post that can throw out some strawmen and ignore overwhelming scientific fact all in one fell swoop!

Oh wait, I stand corrected - there is the Spirituality forum, after all.

Originally posted by whodey
So you discount the source I provided from the Ugandan news source "New Vision". Very well. How about more information about the US involvment in surpressing the use of DDT as well?

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidwp/pdf/067.pdf

Do you have any respect for Amir Attaran who works at the Center for International Develpment at Harvard University? He is bo ...[text shortened]... icians for Social Responsibility and the World Wildlife Fund, actively condemn DDT..."

No, I don't discount it: I simply favour the express denial of the EU ambassador on the Ugandan debate - which is a debate. It's clear that you discount that - as you say, very well.

You are either confused or confusing: what does the word of one man on US actions have to do with the Uganda debate? As you have done before - ably taught by the slippery rhetoric of Levin - you appear to be deliberately confusing and conflating different issues to prove different points.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes I do, much in the same way that they sat by while genocide was occuring in such places as Rwanda and the Sudan. Quoting from the movie, "Hotel Rwanda", the question was presented to a UN overseer of the genocide. He was asked why more was not done internationally to stop the genocide. He was told by the UN representative something to the effect that it ...[text shortened]... like Iraq or trouble next door to the EU in Bosinia and they are there at the drop of a hat!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. So, over and against the real funding running to millions of dollars provided by the first world to combat third world malaria over the decades in question (the very most about which you can say is 'I think they got their priorities wrong' in moving away from DDT), you claim that those donor countries 'sat glibly by' (while ploughing millions of dollars in to the fight against malaria) and as evidence quote a film about an entirely different subject.

That, my good man, is simply the silliest thing you have posted to date - and for a man who said the WHO banned DDT world-wide when they did not, that took some doing.

Once you've scraped right through the bottom of the barrel (after, I dunno, quoting from a James Bond film or some Mariah Carey lyrics to support your case) what ever will you find beneath the barrel?

That really is laughable - and I rather think you, too, would discount as absolutely preposterous[/i] anyone else using a quote from a film to support their 'case' in anything other than a bloody film review.

Originally posted by whodey
You mean like some of the surpressed scientific consensus found in the e-mails that were hacked?

You miss my point - whether deliberately or because you did not understand it. If the latter, let me know and I'll try and explain it in eaier terms. perhaps by analogy with some film or another.