OK I'm on my way. I have been vaccinated against all these diseases so I should be safe. Are you paying my fare through Paypal?Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Poster
BT Rep: +1
OK I'm on my way. I have been vaccinated against all these diseases so I should be safe. Are you paying my fare through Paypal?
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
there is no god
I have trouble following the train of thought with the likes of Ms.Schlafly's and similar minded peoples "ethics" when it comes to "compulsory medications" such as vaccines, because they say it takes away choice and carries dangers of side effects. Yet here she is suggesting we cover another nation with DDT.
I fear the statement of "junk science" is used too often when it comes to evidence that goes against large corporate interests. For years the tobacco industry called the links to cancer junk science. We hear it now over global warning.
The question here should be would Ms.Schlafly be happy to have her home sprayed with the stuff. Would she be happy for her children and grandchildren to be exposed to it?
I do realise that she isn't in any imminent danger from malaria but if she is so sure it's safe then surely she won't mind.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
effendi
In the article Ms. Schlafly is saying that there is no proof that DDT is harmful to humans, in no way did she unequivocally state that it was harmless.
I imagine that she knows that it could affect some people detrimentally and would have no problem admitting that. However, it appears she thinks the benefits would outweigh the costs.
Her refusing to let her family get covered in DDT would prove precisely nothing.
Last edited by manker; 07-02-2005 at 02:48 PM.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
effendi
Well, this is just it. I really don't know much about DDT and the effects of. Nor any agendas that may be involved with the issue.This caught my eye-
How is it we go about determining that anything we see/read (anywhere!) is free front error or agenda?
It all comes back to one's own powers of discrimination and discernment; we practice at this in a world that preaches, indeed, insists upon non-judgementalism.
Usually I can be discerning about a topic but in this case I felt it necessary to qualify my reasoning.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
there is no god
The article is called...."the myth of DDT"
I must know more about her and her "way of thinking".
She didn't say that there was also "expert testimony that DDT was harmful to humans, animals or the environment".... anything that suggests it is or may be is dismissed as "junk science".
I made a point of raising the tobacco/cancer link as for years they called any "proof" junk science.
evolution...junk science.... global warming.... the list goes on and on..
it may well be that she feels the benefits do outweigh the risks, but the point of my post is that she is willing to decide for others but is against others deciding for her when it comes to personal risk assessment.
Even though he was teased for it I remember a British political figure eating a beef burger to prove that British beef is safe....
Last edited by vidcc; 07-02-2005 at 03:51 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
effendi
You're missing my point, vid. I said nothing about junk environmentalism. I'm saying that she shouldn't cover her family in DDT, because she's no need to. Any refusal on her part could be put down to not wanting them to suffer any discomfort - it would prove nothing.The article is called...."the myth of DDT"
I must know more about her and her "way of thinking".
She didn't say that there was also "expert testimony that DDT was harmful to humans, animals or the environment".... anything that suggests it is or may be is dismissed as "junk science".
I made a point of raising the tobacco/cancer link as for years they called any "proof" junk science.
evolution...junk science.... global warming.... the list goes on and on..
it may well be that she feels the benefits do outweigh the risks, but the point of my post is that she is willing to decide for others but is against others deciding for her when it comes to personal risk assessment.
Even though he was teased for it I remember a British political figure eating a beef burger to prove that British beef is safe....
John Gummer ate some beef in front of the media, he never stopped eating it at home, either. He ate it at home because he didn't believe the hype, he was hungry and it tastes nice.
Ms. Schlafly simply has no need to spray her family with DDT. Maybe if she lived in Africa then she would.
Her recommendation that DDT is used more in Africa cannot be rendered useless just because she (probably) wouldn't agree to a pointless publicity stunt. To me that statement smacks of schoolboy reasoning; "We shouldn't have to do homework because the teacher doesn't do it".
Of course, the teacher has already passed GSCEs, so why study. Ms. Schlafly doesn't have malaria ridden mosquitos around her home so why spray herself with DDT.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
Broken
If you read back, i said its because she is on a board with a special interest.and Rat wouldn't believe Phyllis Schlafly if she told him the sky was (normally) blue, because she's...well...Conservative.
I also said i have left a liberal group with a special interest that used similar tactics in the past.
It has nothing to do with her politics... just that those politics affect the special interest group she belongs to, and gave an example of that.
It doesnt matter if those politics are left or right.
In this instance, DDT is not as effective in the poorest countries that didnt stop using it. This means that other pesticides are now beginning to be purchase, and the profits of a certain company are therefore affected.
This is a blatant attempt to take over the agenda of something thats already in the news. Make the countries that are just beginning to stop using it (not because of environmental concerns, but because its no longer effective in those countries) buy it anyway, or deny them aid. If this can increase the sales by selling elsewhere because its now "safe" in their eyes, so much the better.
Notice that it doesnt mention the $73million that firms have agreed to pay to stay out of court in California...
Why pay $73million if theres no risk, and it happened before the ban?
Possibly its because the courts require evidence to convict... and there is plenty around. More than enough to prove DDT is pretty nasty stuff..LOS ANGELES
Montrose Chemical Corp. and three other firms agreed last week to pay $73 million to settle a lawsuit charging the companies with contaminating 17 square miles of ocean floor near Catalina Island with the pesticide DDT.
The suit, filed in 1990, accused now-defunct Montrose of dumping nearly 2,000 tons of DDT-contaminated waste into the ocean and Los Angeles sewers between 1947 and 1971, according to a report form the Reuters news agency.
DDT was banned from use in the United States in 1972 because it damaged the human nervous system and the reproductive systems of animals.
Last week's agreement will be used to fund the rehabilitation of species of fish and birds damaged by the DDT dumping, as well as to clean up the contaminated ocean floor near Catalina Island.
Firms involved in the settlement also include Aventis CropScience USA and Chris-Craft Industries, which jointly owned Montrose, as well as Atkemix Thirty Seven, which now owns the site of the former Montrose DDT plant, according to Reuters.
However, as i said earlier.... im not going to argue in favour or against DDT as a pesticide. Its the blatent propaganda and false implications in the original article thats pissed me off. Money grabbing bastards trying to force a sale
Last edited by Rat Faced; 07-02-2005 at 04:57 PM.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
there is no god
so would you be happy to be exposed to DDT?
On what are you basing her article as having more weight than opposing articles?...has she carried out scientific studies ?Manker-
Your comments are appreciated as they weigh on dispassionate reasoning; too little of this is done....studies are slanted, expert testimony is purchased, and Rat wouldn't believe Phyllis Schlafly if she told him the sky was (normally) blue, because she's...well...Conservative.
I wonder what it is you feel that the people that wish to ban DDT altogether will gain ? The increase in malaria is hardly something to aspire to is it?
Are you suggesting that one side has "slanted studies" and not the other and one side has paid for their experts to say what they want to be said?...which side?
But then DDT wasn't banned completely, the ruling allowed for its use to fight malaria in those areas until an alternative could be found...trouble is that profit or lack of is slowing the process down. We have alternatives but they are apparently too expensive for "mass usage".
I would have more respect for Ms. Schlafly's "concern" about malaria if her article hadn't started with pointing out that Africa owes money that it is not going to have to repay..... seems to me she has her priorities in order.That said she does raise a very valid point about how our money is spent
There is indeed a huge problem with this dreadful disease and it deserves attention. DDT as a cure to me seems to be on a level with cutting ones leg off to cure athletes foot..
what is needed is more viable and urgent research into alternatives....and put aside the monetary issue. Ban DDT altogether and force the use of the expensive alternatives and the motivation to find cheaper better alternatives will be supplied.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
there is no god
The whole weight of her arguement for DTT is that it's NOT harmful
Originally Posted by the article
Nevertheless, contrary to expert testimony that DDT was not harmful to humans, animals or the environmentshe actively opposes any maditory medications for herself and other Americans, yet is fine with spraying this stuff on Africans
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Broken
And no one has ever argued that small amounts of DDT are harmfull, except extremists that would have us all in caves still.
The problem with DDT is that it doesnt break down, and accumulates in the foodchain.
Any toxic substance and most non-toxic, in enough quantity is harmful.
Find a way to make DDT break down if its too expensive to find other pesticides..
Its not the only chemical that the west developed and stopped using because of its dangers... but continued selling to the 3rd world either..
Plenty of western pharmacutical companies making a fortune on stuff deemed unsafe in the USA and Europe...Phalidomide and Tamazopam for example.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
That said she does raise a very valid point about how our money is spent
Bookmarks