Moderator: Nicole Marie
piqaboo wrote: Govt bans -yup, those gov;t encouraged changes never work... no more clean rivers for us...
piqaboo wrote:Govt bans one thing, but "lied into banning DDT"?
Um? Defend, explicate, explain?
” The reason for this shift away from DDT towards an emphasis on population control reveals the Malthusian philosophy behind the anti-DDT movement.
"[Any known alternative to DDT] only kills farm workers, and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes. So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any," said Dr. Charles Wurster, chairman of the Environmental Defense Fund's Scientific Advisory Council and a key promoter of the DDT ban.
Another anti-DDT Malthusian is Sierra Club director Michael McCloskey, who said that the "Sierra Club wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control...[because by] using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations."
BigJon wrote:piqaboo wrote: Govt bans -yup, those gov;t encouraged changes never work... no more clean rivers for us...
Once again Piq, you make the unjustified leap. Show me where the dirty rivers needed to be modeled with incredibly complex simulations that were very sensitive to inputs and could not be correlated to current conditions. We saw effects, we found cause, we regulated and cleaned. Today we see effects, we still can't put our finger on cause, but you want us to implement the most wide ranging and economically imposing regulation in the history of man?
piqaboo wrote: 2) actually BigJon, no I am not proposing we make changes solely on the possibility of man-induced global warming. I'm proposing that where proposed changes are beneficial for other reasons, we make them. Health care costs would go down if the air were cleaner, for example.
BigJon wrote:.... When you need to make public policy decisions based on complex science, I'd prefer if a deep and facile mind was in charge of the the team....
BigJon wrote:... When you need to make public policy decisions based on complex science, I'd prefer if a deep and facile mind was in charge of the the team.
Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:BigJon wrote:.... When you need to make public policy decisions based on complex science, I'd prefer if a deep and facile mind was in charge of the the team....
Why, thank you. Piq and I accept the position. She can do deep.
Selma in Sandy Eggo wrote:Alas, I fear we both lack the political skills to convince anyone but you, BJ. Can you do the politics?
Haggis@wk wrote:Now we are being told by the UN that cows contribute more greenhouse gases than SUVs.
”This assertion leads to follow up Q: So what WAS thinning the eggshells? Mercury? Research project here for some data-mining grad student”
” After many years of carefully controlled feeding experiments, Dr. M. L. Scott and associates of the Department of Poultry Science at Cornell University “found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where ‘catastrophic’ decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed.”23 In fact, thinning eggshells can have many causes, including season of the year, nutrition (in particular insufficient calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and manganese), temperature rise, type of soil, and breeding conditions (e.g., sunlight and crowding).25
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]