| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Mrgybe
Thanks for the response. It seems to me a failure of governments not environmental groups. Not that I don't believe that many environmentalists are zealots and have tunnel vision. It is the job of the government to set limits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GURGLETROUSERS wrote: | | Why, or what in their culture keeps them bringing new born into almost certain starvation conditions?.........How can any mother bring a newborn into the world in almost certain death conditions? |
Not an easy question and one that applies not only to African countries but to many others in the third world. I can make no pretense of expertise in this area but my observation is that many of the truly poor have large numbers of children in part.......and this sounds trite.......because that's what everyone they encounter does.......and. in part, because a larger family brings the possibility of greater economic security. There are no pension or medical schemes they can rely upon, and limited welfare programs. Numerous family members increase the productive capability of the family unit, and provide the parents with some small assurance that they will be looked after in their old age. In addition, painful history will dictate that some members of the family will not survive long. There is a fatalism that I particularly see in Africa. A resignation to the inevitable. That is also part of the equation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | Thanks for the response. It seems to me a failure of governments not environmental groups. Not that I don't believe that many environmentalists are zealots and have tunnel vision. It is the job of the government to set limits. |
If that view is accepted, then any lobbying group is absolved of responsibility for bad things that happen as a direct result of it's lobbying efforts. The oil, chemical, ethanol and other industry lobbyists will be relieved to hear that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | (on the walls, not on the nets--mrgybe did not correct me the first time three years ago, but corrected me recently to be able to crow "gotcha". ) |
Does someone have a ""gotcha-complex"? Or is gotchphobe?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I was out enjoying 30 mile an hour wind with my buddies, mrgybe decided to re-write history again. He now says:
| Quote: | | I have never suggested that DDT is not toxic when used on a large scale. Neither have I ever suggested that anything other than small scale use is safe. |
But what did he actually claim?
| Quote: | | Welcome to the rewards from the US ban on DDT rammed through by the environmentalist lobby and their stooge at the EPA. Thirty years on we realize the "science" used to justify the ban was fatally flawed.........and I mean fatally. Millions........I repeat, MILLIONS, of people in the developing world have died from Malaria as a result. Imagine the entire population of San Fransisco being wiped out every year, TWICE, then you'll get the picture. But I suppose it was all worth it just in case those insects and birds eggs might have been impacted (they weren't). |
and
| Quote: | | I used the term "stooge" to refer to the William Ruckelshaus who was the EPA administrator when the DDT ban was put into place. Following months of hearings held on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge, the judge concluded that DDT was not harmful to humans or wildlife. Despite the findings of his own judge, Ruckelshaus banned DDT. Oh.....did I mention that Rucklehaus was a member of, and fundraiser for, an activist environmental group, the Environmental Defense Fund who were vigorously lobbying against DDT at the time? You be the judge (but don't expect Ruckelhaus to listen to you!). |
Now he says, that because he didn't distinguish between large scale use--which was what was actually banned in 1972--and controlled use (as he slagged me and everyone else concerned about bioaccumulation--saying they weren't), he must have meant that small scale application is ok.
Of course, in my response I indicated that small scale application for malaria control was a different matter--and found out that there was support from the WHO, who carried the battle, and a number of environmental groups (another fact the mrgybe got wrong.)
The small scale application of DDT for malaria control was not an issue in EPA's banning of DDT. The primary use of DDT (80%) was cotton, the remainder was citrus. See http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/DDT.pdf
Of course, the underlying issue, apparently so irritating to the right, is that following publication of "Silent Spring", the public was quite fearful about food safety. With cotton insects increasingly resistant to DDT (another thing the gybster got wrong), they were rightly concerned about ever increasing application of chlorinated hydrocarbons that were suspected carcinogens, and food residue that threatened their health. DDT had already been banned by a number of states, and the use had dropped by over 80%.
I will repeat--if mrgybe's initial posting had been to say that there are unintended consequences from actions that are well intended, and that the banning of DDT for agricultural practices in the United States led to it being impossible to use for malaria control, and made a coherent argument, I would have agreed from the beginning. Remember, it was Mac that posted the WHO brochure that laid out how they dealt with the real, substantive issues--that mrgybe dismissed.
A tissue of lies. Offensive on its face, and counterproductive to the goal--which I support--of using all tools available, responsibly, for malaria control. (Another position he got wrong--as I said, he only reads long enough to find a nit to pick, rather than to try to understand and accept that sometimes people have good reasons.)
Why is this relevant again? Perhaps I am just obsessed by mrgybe's misrepresentation of information, and dismissal of legitimate concerns. But it is indeed topical as the Senate is engaged in a rancorous debate over chemical safety. Many chemicals in common use in the United States have never been reviewed for safety because they were initiated into use before regulation of chemical safety standards, and they have been grandfathered into continued use for some period of time. This is not acceptable to states like California, and the chemical industry is chafing at meeting standards from California. So again, the former "scientists" for Big Tobacco are trotted out to slag EPA and DDT regulation.
That is not to say that chemicals--even DDT--should not be used where the benefits outweigh the risks. It is, however, to say that that balancing must be made. When it was finally made for DDT, use was resumed--and of substantial benefit, insect resistant was dramatically reduced by the passage of time. Addressing issues rather than dismissing them is key to the success and credibility of this process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for your response Mr. Gybe.
I realise how carefully one must tread over this topic, but you make a very sound point. Appreciated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Been gone for a few days windsurfing up in the Delta, so I've just been catching up. Regarding all the heated discussion about abortion, it's telling that the most important commentary is totally missing from the foray. Of course, that would be what women actually think. Instead, all we get from the religious right is a bunch of righteous guys that could give a crap. Kind of like all the BS about the original framers of the US Constitution. One wonders why the framers didn't give women the right to vote, and the same kind of freedom that white men got.
You know, mac is right. Women will vote their interests, and they will quietly send their message. In the end, the Republicans lose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | I was tweaking mrgybe. He doez etempt to belittle arguments by correcting the grammer and or spalling of sum of us. |
Yet he still consistently types "it's" when he means "its". Go figure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | Our angry man in Berkeley keeps saying I've lied about all these matters, but when challenged to prove it always, always he backs off and changes the subject. |
Just as the sun rises in the east, the tides ebb and flood, the midday sky in Death Valley is blue, and the other 30-something mac clones follow suit. I don't know whether to commend your patience or shake my head at your continued dialogue with them. Einstein declared the latter "insanity" if you expect ANY change in them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. Fick-shun wrote: |
Yet he still consistently types "it's" when he means "its". Go figure. |
Just like you consistently type "its". when you mean "its." Go figure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
