Originally posted by FMFInteresting. I had him down as the sort of credulous, partisan fool who would believe a 'book' if it said 'Liberals Gave the Moon AIDS', whereas you seem to think there was malice aforethought. I'm not sure which I'd rather were true.
A simple apology to the community of posters here would suffice, plus, maybe, an undertaking not to use RHP Forums to knowingly spread lies for poltical ends in future.
I do hope he can sort this out for us, though.
Originally posted by DrKFOh the drama. Without a doubt, you and FMF, if nothing else, have earned the drama queen award here at RHP. Ok kids, so I fineally have a chance to respond to these ongoing attacke, although I was kind of curious to see how long they would continue in my absense. LOL.
Interesting. I had him down as the sort of credulous, partisan fool who would believe a 'book' if it said 'Liberals Gave the Moon AIDS', whereas you seem to think there was malice aforethought. I'm not sure which I'd rather were true.
I do hope he can sort this out for us, though.
The book in question is Liberty and Tyranny, by Mark Lavine. In it he has a chapter on envirostatism and in which he discusses DDT and for which was the inspiriation of my thread. I may have misinterpreted one element in the book by saying that WHO banned DDT, when in fact he says, "Only recently has the world community begun to revisit the benefits of DDT. In 2006, WHO announced that it would reverse years of policy and back the use of DDT as a way to control malaria outbreaks." The source he sites is Lauren Neergand, "WHO calls for more DDT Use vs. Malaria", CBS News, Sept 15, 2006, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/15/ap/health/mainDSK5C8QG1.shtml.
So whether it was banned or merely shunned by WHO the same result has occurred it seems to me.
Originally posted by whodeyWas it this 'Mark Lavine' who inspired you to suggest that W.H.O. policy, with regard to DDT, was a deliberate genocide perpetrated by "statists"? Or was that your own deliberate embelishment?
So whether it was banned or merely shunned by WHO the same result has occurred it seems to me.
Originally posted by FMFInstead of me telling you what the book says, thereby possibly misquoiting or misinterpreting what was said, I have decided to give you the whole scoop word by word with side notes to boot!!
A simple apology to the community of posters here would suffice, plus, maybe, an undertaking not to use RHP Forums to knowingly spread lies for poltical ends in future.
"Indeed, the modern environmental movement was founded on one of the most ergregious frauds in human history: that DDT is a human-killing poisen when, in fact, it is a human-saving wonder chemical-a chemical compound developed in 1939 for use as an insecticide. DDT was critical in protecting American soldiers from the typhus epidemic and malaria during WW11. (2) In 1948, Paul Hermann Muller received the nobel prize "for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods." (3) DDT's usefuleness in combating malaria and other insect-borne diseases was unprecedeneted. San Jose State University professor J. Gordon Edwards, who was a longtime opponent of banning DDT, wrote in 2004: "Hundreds of millionas have died from malaria, yellow fever, typhus, dengue, plague, encephalitis, leishmanniasis, filariasis, and many other diseases. In the 14th century the bubonic plague (transimitted by fleas) killed a fourth of the people of Europe and 2/3 of those in the British Isles. Yellow fever killed millions before it was found to be transimitted by Aedes mosquitos.....More that 100 epidemics of typhus ravaged civilizations in Europe, and Asia, with mortatility rates as high as 70%. But by far the greatest killer has been malaria, transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes. In 1945, the goal of eradicating this scourge appeared to be achievable thanks to DDT. By 1959, the US, Europe, portions of the USSR, Chile, and 7 Caribbean islands were nearly malaria free." (4) Journalists and bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell recounted the successful eradication campaigns waged in Italy, Taiwan, the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the South Pacific, Austrailia, and India: "In India, where malaria infected an estimated 75 million and killed 800,000 every year, fatatlties had dropped to zero by the early sixties. Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions--even tens of millions--of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical behfore or since. (5) A few years ago, New York Times editorial page writer Tina Rosenburg explained that "today, westerners with no memory of malaria often assumed it has always been only a tropical disease. BUt malaria was once found as far north as Boston and Montreal. Oiver Cromwell died of malaria, and Shakespeare alludes to it (as 'ague'😉 in 8 plays. Malaria no longer afflicts the US, Canada, and Northern Europe in part because of changes in living habits--the shift to cities, better sanitation, window screens. But another reason was DDT, sprayed from airplanes over American cities and towns while children played outside". (6) So effective is DDT that in 1970 the National Academy of Sciences announced that "to only a few chemicals does man owe a great debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria that would have otherwise been inevitable" (7) But in 1962, Rachel Carson, an opponent of pesticides, succeeded in spreading widespread hysteria about DDT's effects on wildlife and especially children. In her book Slient Spring, Carson decried the broad use of DDT. As reason science correspondent Ron Bailey wrote, "Carson was......an effective popularizer of the idea that children were especially vulnerable to the carcinogenic effects of sythetic chemicals. "The situation with respect to children is even more deeply disturbing" she wrote. "A quarter century ago, cancer in children was considered a medical rarity. Today, more American school children die of cancer than from any other diseases" In support of her claim, Carson reported that "12% of all deaths in children between the ages of one and 14 are caused by cancer." Although it sounds alarming, Carson's statistic is essentially meaningless unless it's given some context, which she failed to supply. It turns out that the percentage of children dying of cancer was raising because of other causes of death, such as infectious diseases, were drasitcally declining" (9) (Cont)
Originally posted by whodeyWell that leaves the issue of why you misrepresented the content of this book on this forum? You claimed to be actively seeking more information about "why the ban was lifted". Which authoritative web sites did you come across that seemed to support your theory that there was indeed a ban? You said that, having tried, you could "find nothing" indicating 'why the ban was lifted. You used this to try to give weight and plausibility to your skepticism. Were you lying about looking for this information?
Instead of me telling you what the book says, thereby possibly misquoiting or misinterpreting what was said, I have decided to give you the whole scoop word by word with side notes to boot!!
(Cont)
"It is a sickening irony that Carson's focus on children helped kill the use of DDT when malaria is the cause of death of millions of chldren living in underdeveloped countries. In fact, nowhere in Slent Spring did Carson mention that DDT had saved tens of millions of lives of chldren living in underdeveloped countries. In fact, nowhere in Silent Spring did Carson mention that DDT had saved tens of millions of lives, a widely known fact by 1962 but of no apparent import to her or her growing legion of adherents. (10) The media gobbled up Carson's alarmism. President JFK formed an advisory committee to investigate her claims. Congress held hearings. The Environmental 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 (Gladwell recounts incidents of test subjects literally lathering themselves in DDT), (11) the EPA, which had been established in 1970, banned DDT in 1972. (12) Its use world wide soon plummeted because the US and the UN's WHO would no longer provide financial support for thhe lifesaving chemicals use (13). But even the manner in which the EPA banned DDT was an abuse of both the scientific and legal process. An EPA administrative law judge held several months of hearings on DDT's environmental and health risks. IN the end, Judge Edmund Sweeney found 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 deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine orgainisms, wild birds or other wildlife". (14) However, Sweeney's ruling was rejected by EPA administrator William Doyle Ruckelshaus, who in 1972, banned it anyway. BUckelshaus attended none of the hearings and aides reported he had not read the hearing transcript before overruling Sweeney's fingdings. (15) At the time, Ruckelshaus belonged to the Audubon Society and later joined the Environmental Defense Fund, which, along with the Sierra Club, was a budding organization that brought lawsuits pressuring for DDT's ban." (16) Only recently has the world community begun to revisit the benefits of DDT. In 2006, WHO announced that it would reverse years of policy and back use of DDT as a way to control malaria outbreaks. (17) Better late than never, but the human cost has been enormous. In 2002, the American Council on Science and Health reported that 300 million to 500 million people suffer from malaria each year, 90% ocurring in Africa. It is the number one killer of children there. (18) Overall, the ban has resulted in the deaths of millions. (19) The EPA and its environmental-group masters conspired in a deliberate and systematic distortion of science, leading to genocide-like numbers of deaths of human beings throughout the undeveloped world. Today the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, and scores of similar groups, raise tens of millions of dollars a year to promote their causes in Congress, the bureaucracy, and the courts, are relied on frequently by the media for expert comment, and make no apologies for the consequences of their success in banning DDT. Ruckelshous, a Republican, rose thorugh the executive branch and has received acclaim for his public service. He currently serves on the boards of numerous corporations and endorse Barack Obama for president. After her death in 1964, Carson was the recipient of numerous honors and awards. Her childhood home is on the National Register of Historic Places and the home she lived in when she wrote Silent Spring was named a National Historic Landmark. There are no landmarks or memorials for those who suffered and perished from the banning of DDT. In the name of protecting wildlife and children, millions of human lives were needlessly sacrificed. On its website, the group Earth First! declares that it "does not accpet a human-centered worldview of "nature for peoples sake". It insists that "life exists for its own sake, that industrialized civilization and its philosophy are anti-Earth, anti-woman, and anti-liberty.....To put it simply, the Earth must come first". (20) Is not man, therefore, expendable? And if he is, is not the supresssion of his liberty, the onfiscation of his property, and the blunting of his progress at all times warranted where the purpose is to save the planet--or any part of it---from man himself? After all, it would seem that there can be no end to man's offenses against nature if he is not checked at every turn. (Cont)
Originally posted by whodeyI rather think that if you want to discuss something that may have some basis in fact, you should consider starting a new thread.
(Cont)
"It is a sickening irony that Carson's focus on children helped kill the use of DDT when malaria is the cause of death of millions of chldren living in underdeveloped countries. In fact, nowhere in Slent Spring did Carson mention that DDT had saved tens of millions of lives of chldren living in underdeveloped countries. In fact, nowhere in Silent Sp ...[text shortened]... nd to man's offenses against nature if he is not checked at every turn. (Cont)
Originally posted by whodeyHow come there are spelling mistakes in this cut & paste?
(Cont)
"It is a sickening irony that Carson's focus on children helped kill the use of DDT when malaria is the cause of death of millions of chldren living in underdeveloped countries. In fact, nowhere in Slent Spring did Carson mention that DDT had saved tens of millions of lives of chldren living in underdeveloped countries. In fact, nowhere in Silent Sp ...[text shortened]... nd to man's offenses against nature if he is not checked at every turn. (Cont)
(Cont)
National Park Service ecologist David M. Graber, writing in the LA times in 1989, well articulated the perversity of this view: "We contaminated the planet with atmospheric hydrocarbons and metals beginning in the Industrail Revolution. The Atomic Age wrote another indelible signature in the radioscopes on every bit of the Earth's surface. DDT and its kin appear even in the Antartic ice....I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth's biota a tame planet, a human-managed planet, be it monstorous or -- however unlikely -- benign.......(I am) not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free flowing river or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value--to me--than antoher human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it is not true. Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the onctract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consupmtion, and the 3rd world its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapians should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." (21)
If nature has intrinsic value then nature exists for its own sake. Consequently, man is not to be preferred over any respect of his naturual surrounding. He is no better than any other organism and much worse than most because of his destructive existence. And so it is that the EnviroStatist abandons reason for a faith that preaches human regression and self-loathing. And he does so by claiming the moral high ground--saving man from himself and nature from men. Most individuals who are sympathetic to environmental causes are unwitting marks, responsive to the Enviro-Statist's manipulation of science, imagery, and language. Over time, they self-surrender liberty for authority, abundance for scarcity, and optimism for pessimism. "Save the planet!" is the rallying cry that justifies nearly any intrusion by government into the life of the individual. The individual, after all, is expendable."
Any of the numbers I posted indicate a source which I will gladly share. I think one worth mentioning is (13) from which he states that the US and the UN would no longer provide financial support for the lifesaving chemicals use.
THe source is Marjorie Mazel Hecht, "In Africa, DDT Makes a Comeback to Save Lives," Excessive Intelligence Review, June 18, 2004, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_techs/3124ddt_africa.html
Originally posted by DrKFEverything I have discussed is based in fact. You should consider addressing what the facts are rather than turning tail and running.
I rather think that if you want to discuss something that may have some basis in fact, you should consider starting a new thread.
Originally posted by whodeyIf you look at what he's written and the way he's written it, one can see the sleight of hand that could lead the credulous reader to believe there had ever been a world-wide, WHO-directed ban on the use of DDT to combat malaria. I can see - since it snugly fits your absurd world-view - why you lapped up the inference, how you were duped.
(Cont)
National Park Service ecologist David M. Graber, writing in the LA times in 1989, well articulated the perversity of this view: "We contaminated the planet with atmospheric hydrocarbons and metals beginning in the Industrail Revolution. The Atomic Age wrote another indelible signature in the radioscopes on every bit of the Earth's surface. DDT and government into the life of the individual. The individual, after all, is expendable."
Rather than quoting chunks from what you know perfectly well to be a wholly partisan - and as it turns out, misleading - book by someone with whom you'd always agree anyway, why not do what I obviously did and spend a little time doing the tiniest bit of research in to opposing views?
Originally posted by whodeyThat is a simply incredible thing to say, and wholly and entirely unbelievable in every conceivable way, precisely because it's exactly what you said last time about the WHO banning DDT. Repeatedly, insistently, taunting your readers with what transpired to be a fundamental untruth - and now you're back with the same, and no mention of your repeated error last time. No shame - and worse, no dignity or honour.
Everything I have discussed is based in fact. You should consider addressing what the facts are rather than turning tail and running.