Did the WHO intentionally seek to kill 10 million people by banning DDT? Were they essentially on the same level as Hitler? That is absurd. What is really happening is:
1. Often, the only way to get enough support to change regulations (whether it be DDT, asbestos, or any other toxin) is to get everyone REALLY SCARED. This generally means that legitimate concerns must be grossly exagerrated to get anyone to care at all. In an ideal world, the authorities would gather the data as stoicly as possible, publish the results, and rationally suggest sensible regulations that would address the problem. But in the real world, this approach is totally ignored -- because no one cares about anything unless the "sky is about to fall".
Unfortunately, this leads to a world full of crazy people with tin foil hats screaming about a wide array of imaginary catastrophes. After awhile, the person with a legitimate worry is drowned out by the cacophony of phony alarm.
2. But once people are finally convinced that something is toxic, there's this tendency for everyone to see it as "Something That is Evil" -- so even the mere discussion about possible beneficial uses becomes unacceptable. We see it with marijuana and nuclear power. This is something human beings are going to have to stop doing, but I doubt it will ever happen.
Originally posted by FMFWell then, if you believe this and WHO believes this, it begs the question as to why they have chosen to use it once again. Speaking of creepy. 😲
In your eagerness to accuse the WHO of calculated genocide (on a scale comparable to Stalin and Mao, I notice), you seem to have filtered out any and all inconvenient information about DDT. Having discounted all this stuff about the effects of DDT on its victims, you then feign some sort of hysterical, exaggerated, ostentatious sympathy for the victims of Malaria.
Originally posted by MelanerpesI did not mean to imply that they purposefully killed millions of people. However, it was the end result nonetheless so what difference does it make? That was the point I was trying to make.
Did the WHO intentionally seek to kill 10 million people by banning DDT? Were they essentially on the same level as Hitler? That is absurd. What is really happening is:
1. Often, the only way to get enough support to change regulations (whether it be DDT, asbestos, or any other toxin) is to get everyone REALLY SCARED. This generally means that legitim is something human beings are going to have to stop doing, but I doubt it will ever happen.
I agree on your assessment regarding "getting people scared". It has been shown time and again, the best way to effect change is to ilicit a crisis mode of some kind. I also agree with your assessment that certain substances, once villified, become evil in nature. Heck, they even have us believing CO2 is a pollutant. LOL.
As far as my assessemnt on the situation, it is not my position, no matter how much FMF has tried to frame my positoin, that WHO sought to erradicate tens of millions of people. If that were the case, the question then begs as to why the ban was ever lifted by them in the first place some 30 yaers later. It is my guess that an age of environmental political correctness had come about in which certain chemicals were being villified as you say. In addition, you had certain individuals who stood to profit from these movements such as William doyle Ruckelshaus who ignored a courts rullng by judge Edmund Sweeney that he did not agree with the deleterious effects of DDT that had been so widely accepted based upon junk science. It is akin to AL Gore and his movie and inconvient truth. Good old Al has positioned himself to benefit handsomely from this green movement to erradicate naturally occuring CO2. In fact, a court in England has listed the movie as propoganda due to the fact that there were so many proven falsehoods in it. Meanwhile the US government is about to pass a cap and trade bill based upon such junk science. I compare the DDT issue and CO2 issue much in the same light. You have mass panic based upon some truth coupled with the powers that be who stand to make a killing. Meanwhile, the econmic circumstances and health circumstances take a back seat. I just love it that left wingers like FMF call me creepy and paranoid by hinting at a conspiracy on some level yet the same ones are all ready to jump on the bandwagon accusing Bush and Cheney of a conspiracy to make a killing off the Iraqi war through such corporations as Haloburton. I guess greed and corruption only occurs with those who are right of the political spectrum as where those on the left, especially those in the environmental movement, should all be considered for sainthood.
And lastly, the little comment by Shav gave me further pause about what may have occured. There are those out there that think it immoral to "harm" animals no matter if it may save human life. No doubt, like most other man made chemicals and substance, there are some deleterious effects to animals and the environment. Then the use of these substances are that much harder to justify in their minds simply because they don't equate human life as more important than those of animals. As for myself, I would kill a million animals to save a million humans, but many on the left would disagree. I have to say, however, that I believe that the deleterious effects on animals have been over exagerated. In additon, if the beneficial use of DDT does not outwiegh the harmful aspects of DDT WHO should held accountable for lifting the ban after 30 years. Either way, their position is inconsistant and incoherent at best.
Originally posted by whodeyLearn some basic science about bioaccumulation and the damaging effects of DDT and you might understand why it must be used so sparingly. Unless of course your goal is to sterilise the African continent.
I did not mean to imply that they purposefully killed millions of people. However, it was the end result nonetheless so what difference does it make? That was the point I was trying to make.
I agree on your assessment regarding "getting people scared". It has been shown time and again, the best way to effect change is to ilicit a crisis mode of some kin ...[text shortened]... the ban after 30 years. Either way, their position is inconsistant and incoherent at best.
Also try to understand the difference between a film made by Al Gore and the IPCC report. You may be less paranoid as a result.
Originally posted by mrstabbyI am all ears mate. Why do you think I post such things. It certainly is not to convince people like FMF of anything. I wish to hear what you think you know.
Learn some basic science about bioaccumulation and the damaging effects of DDT and you might understand why it must be used so sparingly. Unless of course your goal is to sterilise the African continent.
Also try to understand the difference between a film made by Al Gore and the IPCC report. You may be less paranoid as a result.
Originally posted by whodeyI need be convinced no further about you whodey. If the W.H.O. bans DDT it's attempted genocide. If they don't ban it it's attempted genocide. If they ban it and then un-ban it, it's attempted genocide. If they don't ban it and then ban it, it's attempted genocide. They're Statists you know.
Why do you think I post such things. It certainly is not to convince people like FMF of anything.
Originally posted by FMFSo far, you are the only one who spends all their time atacking me personally. Why are yoiu wasting my time? Provide some info why don't ya?
I need be convinced no further about you whodey. If the W.H.O. bans DDT it's attempted genocide. If they don't ban it it's attempted genocide. If they ban it and then un-ban it, it's attempted genocide. If they don't ban it and then ban it, it's attempted genocide. They're Statists you know.
Originally posted by whodeyI did. re: the potentially horrific side-effects of DDT if it is not used very very carefully. And of course, you ignored it completely. It doesn't fit with your genocide theory. Or maybe it does? "Why did they un-ban it?" Genocide by the Statists! Genocide by the Statists!
So far, you are the only one who spends all their time atacking me personally. Why are yoiu wasting my time? Provide some info why don't ya?
Originally posted by whodeyhttps://www.marietta.edu/~biol/102/2bioma95.html here's some info
I am all ears mate. Why do you think I post such things. It certainly is not to convince people like FMF of anything. I wish to hear what you think you know.
Basically once you put DDT in the environment, it stays until it breaks down (taking up to 15 years to decrease by half). The toxin stays inside the organisms that consume it, so any crops, or animals will give a small dose that stays in the body gradually breaking down.
Now DDT is toxic to humans, but much less so than to insects. If we were still spraying it like we were after WW2 there would probably be huge health problems like sterility, birth defects etc to the point that those areas would be dangerous for people to live. It really is best saved as a last resort.
Originally posted by mrstabbySo if it is so bad, why did they restart its use? Why wait 30 years?
https://www.marietta.edu/~biol/102/2bioma95.html here's some info
Basically once you put DDT in the environment, it stays until it breaks down (taking up to 15 years to decrease by half). The toxin stays inside the organisms that consume it, so any crops, or animals will give a small dose that stays in the body gradually breaking down.
Now DDT is toxic t ...[text shortened]... t those areas would be dangerous for people to live. It really is best saved as a last resort.
Originally posted by whodeyAt some point, the Fed Govt will eventually have to acknowledge that marijuana (like any other susbstance) should be legal for legitimate medical purposes.
So if it is so bad, why did they restart its use? Why wait 30 years?
At that point, the question could be proposed - "if it is so bad, why did they now allow its use? Why wait all those years?"
It's because when a substance is demonized, it becomes politically impossible to allow any use at all -- at least until the benefits of the substance become clear enough to cut through the fog.
But making marijuana legal for medical use does NOT mean it is harmless or should be totally unregulated. And likewise, allowing DDT to be used under certain conditions doesn't mean it is harmless or should be totally unregulated.
Originally posted by whodeyTo allow whatever's in the environment to decay before raising its levels again. It's current guidelines are to use it as a last resort so that it doesn't reach dangerous levels in the biosphere. Also they're currently trying to phase out its use with alternatives.
So if it is so bad, why did they restart its use? Why wait 30 years?
In fact, the international community continues to regard DDT with great concern. The scientific consensus remains that widespread DDT use poses a significant public health and wider environmental risk (there is also evidence that mosquitoes in some areas may be developing resistance to DDT) and the Stockholm Convention has therefore included it in a 'dirty dozen' persistent organic pollutants which are to be globally banned.
But a reprieve of sorts has been extended to DDT among those twelve, precisely because it was recognised that in some situations adequate alternative control methods are not currently available. In particular DDT is now recommended by the WHO for the specific purposes of indoor residual spraying: the application of long-acting insecticides on the walls and roofs of houses and domestic animal shelters in order to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes that land on these surfaces.
Views about the use of insecticides for indoor protection from malaria have been changing in recent years: Environmental Defense, which launched the anti-DDT campaign in the 1960s, now endorses the indoor use of DDT for malaria control, as does the Sierra Club and the Endangered Wildlife Trust. But they, and the international community, remain determined to have a DDT-free world. The aim is to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT world-wide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s if not sooner, while staying on track to meet the malaria targets set by WHO.
So very real concerns about the widespread use of DDT, which remain, retarded research in to safe applications, but advances in science and the distance of time have allowed those safe applications to be developed.
What we don't know is what effect not discouraging the use of DDT would have had, but the scientific consensus remains that the effect would have been bad. That's why the international community, on scientific advice, still hopes to eliminate the need for the use of DDT as quickly as possible - and why it recommends its use in a very specific way when it must be used. No serious scientist in the literature would suggest that never having discouraged the use of DDT would have had a purely beneficial effect (which seems to be the weird maths on display here), because serious scientists agree DDT to be very dangerous when used widely and indiscriminately, and given a time machine we would want to go back and allow the use of DDT only in very specific ways.
Time to properly call you out on this one, whodey.
From the OP onwards in this thread, you have claimed that the WHO banned the use of DDT in the fight against malaria. In fact, this is untrue and wholly without foundation. You stated that 'this is, in fact, what occured'. This is not true. You claimed to be 'a person who has revealed the facts that millions were allowed to die by banning DDT' when in fact no such international, WHO-directed ban was in place. You stated that 'their [WHO's] policy to ban it for 30 years and then suddenly revive it is incoherent', when in fact they did not ban and un-ban it, leaving your charge of incoherence ridiculous and you not much better off.
You even challenged your readers to defy your claims: "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... Face it, the enviro-statists got it wrong and senttenced millions to death as a result."
In fact, the opposite is true: anyone can quite easily discover that your claim that the WHO banned DDT is entirely and wholly false. Between the early 1970s and early this century, DDT was approved but not actively promoted by the
WHO, which recognised that in some circumstances the use of DDT was the only available effective anti-malaria policy. Several countries during this period continued to use DDT, and American firms exported DDT to those countries for that purpose.
The Stockholm Conventions have recently outlawed the use of DDT in agriculture, but the WHO was, in fact, one of the bodies that lobbied for an exemption for the use of DDT in indoor residual spraying!
When accused of parrotting nonsense from anti-DDT websites, you responded that 'the 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.'
In point of fact your most basic point is wholly false.
What was the book you read, whodey? Who was the author? I can quite imagine that you didn't want to tell us before, in case we went off and tried, ad hominem, to discredit the author as some sort of nut-job. But now that he or she has been revealed as a liar, maybe you'd be prepared to share? I trust that you have now discarded the book in question as being entirely unreliable, partisan nonsense deliberately spreading misinformation.
You? You were just credulous, I assume: you wanted to believe that the WHO had banned DDT and that this had resulted in millions of deaths and gobbled up base lies that fitted your preconceived prejudices. But the author of your 'book' must surely have deliberately lied in furtherance of his or her (unknown) objectives. Have you any other works by this 'anti-enviro-statist' author? Oughtn't you radically to re-evaluate how much weight you will give to what he or she says?
And really, to maintain a shred of honour or dignity, oughtn't you to apologise for spreading untruths?