The C-Span 2 presentation by
the author of "The Deniers",
Lawrence Solomon, is still
available for viewing on line.
Posted on 05/12/2008 7:13:34 AM PDT by Victory111
When Al Gore and his global warming alarmists take over, one of the first citizens they’ll slap in a prison and charge with crimes against the (green) state will be Steven J. Milloy, founder and publisher of the popular Web site JunkScience.com.
For 12 years, JunkScience.com has worked to debunk the bad science that has been used to advance the harmful or merely silly political and social agendas of environmentalists that have led to things such as bans on DDT and incandescent light bulbs.
Try looking for Carbaryl, Patterson Chemical Co., Drexel
Actually, when I did a bit of research on Sevin, I found Carbaryl.
But the poster put a chemical name that couldn’t be found on Google.
Which one? Gotta name? You can list it with all those ‘peer reviewed world scientific community’ papers that support your contentions. You ARE going to aren’t you?
Speaking of "kooks"
The Green-Big Tobacco Death Alliance
By Patrick Poole
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, October 18, 2006It isn’t everyday that the environmental leftists gang up with an international tobacco conglomerate to advocate policies that are responsible for the deaths of millions of pregnant mothers and small children throughout the Third World over the past 30 years, so the occasion is worth noting.
What has brought these two seemingly unlikely forces together? The recent decision by the World Health Organization (WHO) to reverse its 30 year-old ban on DDT for indoor use to combat malaria – one of the biggest killers of children in the Third World – after a mountain of scientific studies have repeatedly found that DDT is safe, inexpensive and the best way to eradicate mosquitoes that carry the malaria parasite. This move by WHO follows a decision by USAID in May of this year to begin funding malaria control projects in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Zambia as part of President Bush’s $1.2 billion five-year plan to reduce malaria mortality rates by 50 percent in 14 Sub-Saharan African countries.
This reversal by WHO flies in the face of the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which calls for the eventual elimination of DDT and has been signed by 122 countries (the U.S. Senate has not ratified the treaty). However, many countries that face regular malaria outbreaks have refused to sign the accord, or, like Tanzania, are beginning to use DDT despite being signatories to the Convention.
During the negotiations over the Stockholm Convention, more than 300 environmental groups, including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Pesticide Action Network, and Physicians for Social Responsibility had pushed for a total worldwide ban on DDT. Under pressure from representatives of the Third World who argue for the necessity of using DDT to fight malaria, Greenpeace and WWF has since softened their stand. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has spoken in favor of using DDT for malaria control, though the WWF still publicly advocates for a total DDT ban...
He’s putting up a lot of things that don’t exist. Don’t know why when a little bit of research isn’t that hard but that’s just my opine.
Agreed!
Wrong guy; the Edwards you’re thinking about is a Canadian who campaigns against all things nuclear.
In my coffee? That is a poorly crafted challenge. I’d be glad to spray it on the inside walls of my home if I had a mosquito problem.
And BTW, subsequent studies on the impact of DDT on bird eggs was that the small amount of shell thinning that occurred after exposure to large amounts (not likely to be ingested through the environment), the affect was to make it easier for chicks to hatch. You can look it up.
I’d also invite your attention to the fact that many in the scientific community are claiming now that DDT is rapidly becoming less-effective as a pesticide as mosquitoes and other pests are developing an immunity through mutation and natural selection.
I’ve heard that claim but haven’t seen it proved or documented that that renders DDT ineffective nor does it detract from the previous harm caused by its disuse.
This is from the CDC in a recent report:
“
Indoor Residual Spraying
Many malaria vectors are endophilic, resting inside houses after taking a blood meal. These mosquitoes are particularly susceptible to control through indoor residual spraying (IRS). As its name implies, IRS involves coating the walls and other surfaces of a house with a residual insecticide. For several months, the insecticide will kill mosquitoes and other insects that come in contact with these surfaces. IRS does not directly prevent people from being bitten by mosquitoes. Rather, it usually kills mosquitoes after they have fed, if they come to rest on the sprayed surface. IRS thus prevents transmission of infection to other persons. To be effective, IRS must be applied to a very high proportion of households in an area (usually >70%).
Indoor residual spraying
IRS with DDT and dieldrin was the primary malaria control method used during the Global Malaria Eradication Campaign (1955-1969). The campaign did not achieve its stated objective but it did eliminate malaria from several areas and sharply reduced the burden of malaria disease in others.
Resistance to DDT and dieldrin and concern over their environmental impact led to the introduction of other, more expensive insecticides. As the eradication campaign wore on, the responsibility for maintaining it was shifted to endemic countries that were not able to shoulder the financial burden. The campaign collapsed and in many areas, malaria soon returned to pre-campaign levels.
As a result of the cost of IRS, the negative publicity due to the failure of the Malaria Eradication Campaign, and environmental concerns about residual insecticides, IRS programs were largely disbanded other than in a few countries with resources to continue them. However, the recent success of IRS in reducing malaria cases in South Africa by more than 80% has revived interest in this malaria prevention tool. It has also reignited the debate over whether or not DDT should have a place in malaria control. With support from the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria as well as the President’s Malaria Initiative, several countries have initiated IRS programs—many using DDT in their arsenal of insecticides—for the control of malaria.”
Who and where are these many? Peer reviewed like you asked for? Or is there now another standard for claims you assert as fact?
Correction: “...alreqady resistant to poisoning by....” in quote.
My response was based on this sentence you wrote, which I took at face value.
Based on the information in that sentence, my position was that you were debating relative harm and priorities, NOT junk science.
If the argument is that there is no harm to birds from DDT, that is a different argument. I thought you had conceded there was harm to birds, but that it wasn't worth killing people over.
If I accepted that assumption, then we aren't talking about junk science, just about science not setting the priorities, but simply providing the information about impacts.
I try not to fault scientists for pointing out various risks, if it's the politicians that are too ignorant to correctly assess their relative impacts.
When you come here to joust you need to be able to fill the saddle and reach the stirrups. “meandog”? ha!
>>As well, ask yourselves, why would the world health community seek a ban on DDT—and this was long before “global warming” nonsense?<<
Bumpersticker mentality maybe? The bandwagon to feel good? Agenda driven $$$$
Lots of things.
What the 2 have in common is getting rid of the excess people.
either by not letting them be born, contraceptive, abortion or by killing off lots of people thru famine, sickness or death camps.
so banning DDT did increase the agenda..... less people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.