DDT Posts Split from Outing Anonymous Posters Thread

[_Jersey Girl]

uh... Why is this thread about DDT?

Coggies, I thought DDT lost its effectiveness because the mosquitoes became resistant when it was used?

No. It was banned for alleged environmental reasons.

My understanding was that the mosquitoes that survived reproduced rapidly and their offspring were likewise resistant. That was my understanding of why 3rd world countries stopped with the spraying. That it just wasn't effective.

I thought you were referring to the US ban.

I didn't mention a ban... I mentioned DDT losing effectiveness.

I just said that!

[_Moniker]

uh... Why is this thread about DDT?

Coggies, I thought DDT lost its effectiveness because the mosquitoes became resistant when it was used?

No. It was banned for alleged environmental reasons.

My understanding was that the mosquitoes that survived reproduced rapidly and their offspring were likewise resistant. That was my understanding of why 3rd world countries stopped with the spraying. That it just wasn't effective.

I thought you were referring to the US ban.

I didn't mention a ban... I mentioned DDT losing effectiveness.

I just said that!

Umhum...

[_Coggins7]

My understanding was that the mosquitoes that survived reproduced rapidly and their offspring were likewise resistant. That was my understanding of why 3rd world countries stopped with the spraying. That it just wasn't effective.

Third world countries were forced to cease its use because the U.S. ceased its manufacture and the U.S. and U.N. imposed financial aid penalties on countries who continued spraying. The aggressive return of the disease, after spraying stopped, is truly nightmarish.

It may not kill mosquitoes, but it keeps them away from people and things that have DDT on them better, safer, and cheaper than any known alternative.

Eventually, we're going to have to kill the little suckers off again in vast quantities, with something more toxic, and the western ecofreaks are just going to have to cry in their cappuccino.

[_Moniker]

Well, I don't know enough about it (but rest assured I'll be reading up on it tonight:) yet, it appears to me that when you kill them off in vast quantities that there will be some that survive. Those that survive will pass on the resistance and then it will no longer be effective again... Didn't malaria become resistant to the drugs that were being used to treat it as well? Seems like a mess.... I just think it's probably a bit more complex than blaming merely the environmentalists.

[_Coggins7]

Well, I don't know enough about it (but rest assured I'll be reading up on it tonight:) yet, it appears to me that when you kill them off in vast quantities that there will be some that survive. Those that survive will pass on the resistance and then it will no longer be effective again... Didn't malaria become resistant to the drugs that were being used to treat it as well? Seems like a mess.... I just think it's probably a bit more complex than blaming merely the environmentalists.

No Moniker...the aversion effect has never diminished, which is why WHO supported the reintroduction of spraying programs. The Web is full of African websites run by private organizations and governments to lift fully the ban on spraying. As to the environmentalists, it was they and they alone who produced the ban. Rickelshaus, for his part, flatly defied the evidence of a lengthy EPA hearings in which the scientific evidence was overwhelmingly shown to be in favor of continuing the spraying program. But Rickelshaus was beholden to the Environmental Defense Fund, a nascent radical green group ideologically opposed to DDT use. He sided with them.

Here's a good place to begin your reading

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

[_harmony]

Was it DDT that stays stored in the fat, and then when people start losing weight due to old age, they were dying of DDT poisoning?

Or was that a different chemical?

And if you're going to weigh birds against human life, let's start weighing salmon against human life.

[_Coggins7]

Was it DDT that stays stored in the fat, and then when people start losing weight due to old age, they were dying of DDT poisoning?

Or was that a different chemical?

And if you're going to weigh birds against human life, let's start weighing salmon against human life.

No one has ever died of DDT poisoning. In fact, its difficult to make people sick with it unless large quantiles are consumed. So it must have been a different chemical. DDT is stored in fat, however, as are many other chemicals.

And well, Salmon isn't outside the environmentalist moral calculus, after all, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy...

[_harmony]

Was it DDT that stays stored in the fat, and then when people start losing weight due to old age, they were dying of DDT poisoning?

Or was that a different chemical?

And if you're going to weigh birds against human life, let's start weighing salmon against human life.

No one has ever died of DDT poisoning. In fact, its difficult to make people sick with it unless large quantiles are consumed. So it must have been a different chemical. DDT is stored in fat, however, as are many other chemicals.

And well, Salmon isn't outside the environmentalist moral calculus, after all, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy...

2-4-D, maybe?

[_Tarski]

Here's a good place to begin your reading

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

No! That is one of the worst places to go if you want an unbiased view of science.
That site is just an anti-environmental, right wing rag. Basically, something is pegged as junk science if it inconveniences big business, is championed by anyone precieved to be liberal, or if it just sounds like something "liberals" would care about.
They have the balls to call the opinions of the majority of climate and earth scientists at the best universities "junk science".

"Edward Herman reported that from 1996 to 1998, there were 8 articles in the mainstream media labeling criticism of corporations or tort claims 'junk science' for every 1 article labeling research sponsored by corporations as such.[12]

In a February 6, 2006 article entitled "Smoked Out: Pundit for Hire", Paul D. Thacker of The New Republic reported that non-profit organizations operated by Fox News "Junk Science" commentator Steven Milloy from his home had received money from ExxonMobil while Milloy attacked research on global warming.[9] Thacker also noted that Milloy was receiving almost $100,000 a year in consulting fees from Philip Morris while he criticized the evidence regarding the hazards of second-hand smoke as "junk science"."



Take a look at Coggin's crazy Limbaugh-esque rhetoric and you can see he has been on a steady diet of this stuff for a long time.

A site written by scientists would be http://www.realclimate.org/

Oh, and blame malaria on liberals? HA ha ha haha .....what a laugh.

[_Coggins7]

Was it DDT that stays stored in the fat, and then when people start losing weight due to old age, they were dying of DDT poisoning?

Or was that a different chemical?

And if you're going to weigh birds against human life, let's start weighing salmon against human life.

No one has ever died of DDT poisoning. In fact, its difficult to make people sick with it unless large quantiles are consumed. So it must have been a different chemical. DDT is stored in fat, however, as are many other chemicals.

And well, Salmon isn't outside the environmentalist moral calculus, after all, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy...

2-4-D, maybe?

I don't know. That stuff was in Agent Orange, but there's still a great deal of scientific controversy about that issue as well, so I really don't know, especially as to whether its ever killed anyone.