myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
1st and 2nd Amendments under attack
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 31, 32, 33  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1393

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what I learned from this conversation:

DDT was banned for agricultural use in the US in 1972. It remains a valuable instrument in the fight against Malaria when used for treating mosquito nets (thanks mrgybe, I didnt know that).

It has shown to bio-accumulate in species higher up in the food chain which take about 20-30 the amount of time to develop resistance to it; and it destroys insect pollinators (bees, etc. but then, Monsanto is also in the agro-business of selling seed for food stocks).

I don't see much of a thought-through argument here against environmentalists in general, but instead a hypothesis of what would have happened if we had continued to use DDT as before 1972. The equation of 5000 African lives saved does not seem to account for the deaths associated with bio-accumulation in humans and perhaps the development of related diseases, and an eventual resistance to the insecticide in its primary target (Anopheles). What would one use to treat mosquito nets now instead?

Yes, life's not that simple.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 877

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if I understand this correctly when animals are exposed to DDT this can happen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzaoNEG6P4U
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4995

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Virtually everything that mrgybe has posted about DDT and DDT toxicity and regulation is false. But it can be found on many right wing blogs and web sites, and is believed by those who are eager to believe the worst of many. Somehow nothing happened for 30 years--while mrgybe and I were both too young to do anything about it. But the truth is, when someone proposed a responsible way of using DDT (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". ) it was approved and funded.

My point, ignored as usual, is that working with the environmental groups with concerns, and acknowledging their concerns, was an effective way to get DDT re-introduced. (mrgybe also spoke falsehoods about that.) Blaming environmentalists may make mrgybe feel self righteous, but makes him one of the worst imaginable spokespersons for responsible use of chemicals.

How do I know? I taught courses in cleaning up contaminants--including many POP's, not just DDT, for years.

But if you want to post again mrgybe, trace the history from 1972 until reintroduction--back up your venom with some facts and research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1922

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feuser...

I also learned for this conversation and dusted off an old Natl Geographic on malaria and DDT. It also seems, as Mac pointed out, that DDT use was also phasing out for mosquito control before the non approval for agricultural use because its effects were waning. Seems overuse was stimulating resistance in the mosquito population. Overuse of the pesticide was, apparently, detrimental in controlling the population of malaria carrying Mosquitos.

Malaria, obviously, is a continuing horrible disease and I applaud Mrgybe efforts in fighting it. I believe it is also important to look at the whole picture. Is it possible,sadly, that it took some time to understand that what was needed was an understanding that the pesticide should be used in and around households, but not applied widespread across the ecosystem?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2551

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

feuser wrote:
It remains a valuable instrument in the fight against Malaria when used for treating mosquito nets (thanks mrgybe, I didnt know that).

DDT is used for small scale spraying in houses in much the same way that a pest control service would treat your house. Other insecticides are used to treat bed nets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2551

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
Malaria, obviously, is a continuing horrible disease and I applaud Mrgybe efforts in fighting it. I believe it is also important to look at the whole picture. Is it possible,sadly, that it took some time to understand that what was needed was an understanding that the pesticide should be used in and around households, but not applied widespread across the ecosystem?

That is a reasonable hypothesis. However, the genesis of this whole discussion was that overreaching by environmentalists can have dire unintended consequences. I cited the DDT ban as a classic example since it is a topic close to my heart. The blather coming from Berkeley since then has been incessant. He is not outraged because millions have died......no, his fury is directed at me because I had the temerity to point the finger squarely at his environmentalist pals and the disastrous consequences of their actions. He now rewrites history to tell us that "team building" would have brought that lobby around. Yeah, right. Read the 1997 article I linked........their words not mine. Crowing about the great victory they achieved in having DDT banned.....25 years after the ban, and after tens of millions of malaria related deaths had occurred. Could they possibly have been that isolated from events elsewhere in the world?

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. 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2551

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
Mr. Gybe.

You have personal experience of living and working in Africa, and must have first hand knowledge of the frequent famine conditions, with fly infested, helpless, starving infants dying in their mothers arms.

Why, or what in their culture keeps them bringing new born into almost certain starvation conditions? We in the West live inlands of plenty, and feel hard done by if we can't live a life of conspicuous consumption, so we can't understand the mindset of those who live in REAL poverty.

How can any mother bring a newborn into the world in almost certain death conditions? Is it that they have absolutely nothing in life except an infant, a part of themselves?

GT, That's a large question and deserves more thought than I can currently summon. I'll attempt to get back to you tomorrow (wind permitting!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1922

PostPosted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe..

The EPA decided to not allow DDT use in commercial agriculture. Should they have continued to allow the use in this country on cotton (the remaining large scale use of the pesticide) because it was useful in a different type of application in Africa?

While I understand that the ban caused the viability of manufacturing the pesticide to become much more difficult since the market was eliminated, how can the two be reconciled? This does not seem to me the fault of environmentalists. The product should have been banned in this country, as it was used, but not in Africa where it was needed in a different venue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 877

PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I sense that somewhere in Berkley there is a keyboard close to catching fire as someone is busy typing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2551

PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
While I understand that the ban caused the viability of manufacturing the pesticide to become much more difficult since the market was eliminated, how can the two be reconciled? This does not seem to me the fault of environmentalists. The product should have been banned in this country, as it was used, but not in Africa where it was needed in a different venue.

Malaria control has, until recently, been the almost exclusive domain of governments. The EPA ruling was persuasive in terminating government funding for DDT use in malaria control. Since my words will be attacked, let me quote others:

- In 1986, Secretary of State George Shultz sent a telegram to all US embassies stating: “The U.S. cannot, repeat cannot, participate in programs using any of the following: (1) lindane, (2) BHC, (3) DDT, or (4) dieldrin.” This message reinforced the practice adopted by USAID more than a decade prior.

- this from the United nations News Centre: 15 September 2006 – Nearly 30 years after safety concerns led to the phasing out of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the United Nations health agency said today it will start promoting this method again to fight the global scourge that kills more than one million people every year, including around 3,000 children everyday.

“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, World Health Organization (WHO) Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.


DDT was banned as a direct result of efforts by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Audubon Society. The collateral impacts are undeniable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 31, 32, 33  Next
Page 28 of 33

 
Jump to:  
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

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group