Posts
Have long been fascinated, with the pro and con arguments, given by professional experts within their field of expertise. What triggers such a wide schism within their ranks when certain research is presented to them. As far as I'm concerned, only what falls into the " common sense " truth, matters. Guess this is where many argument's fall apart. The failure to apply common sense on the one hand, and how one is affiliated on the other. So somewhere between the two extremes, is the " rubber band ". ( see post # 2 ) Some expressions may be blatant lies, partial truth, greed, fear, love, or actually truth.So what is the truth about the use of DDT?An article put out by one of my trusted sources had mentioned DDT quite a few times in the past, but I had never followed up on it. Had also read Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the 1962 book against DDT and other pesticides.
So, as stated in my # 2 post, seems that there is some degree of truth, in both the pro and the con arguments, but only if used with a good dose of common sense.
..( below from one of my more trusted sources )......
NO OTHER DOCTOR OF OUR TIME has crusaded harder, traveled further and sacrificed more to advance the science of alternative medicine than William Campbell Douglass II, MD. Today, many of the breakthroughs he fought so hard to establish have been adopted by thousands of doctors. But many battles with the stodgy, set in their ways medical establishment came first, and his real life story is more fascinating than any television "doctor drama."
Learn the facts of real health from medicine's most acclaimed MYTH-BUSTER!
He's been exposing medical conspiracies and pioneering breakthrough treatments for nearly 4 decades. Here's your invitation to join him on the path to real health!
Click on the link below to discover how you can get the fittest you've ever been even while watching TV or reading the paper.
http://www1.youreletters.com/t/1370415/16292626/832128/58/
Campbell Douglass II, M.D. Editor 'DDT CAUSES CANCER.' Says WHO? Check the record. Back in the 1970s,
the Environmental Protection Agency examiner summed up 9,000 pages of research by flatly declaring, 'DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.' He also emphasized that it doesn't harm fish, birds or other wildlife. Despite this open-and-shut case, his boss, EPA head William Ruckleshaus went ahead and banned DDT. Aides later said he never read even one page of the studies. He had helped to hatch the DDT scare and couldn't bring himself to admit he was wrong. The worldwide witch-hunt against DDT hasn't saved one peregrine falcon. But it has unquestionably murdered tens of millions of human children in tropical nations, who continue to die from malaria, Dengue fever, yellow fever and other mosquito-borne plagues.
............. ( sites I researched about DDT ) .............
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/28/154924.shtml
http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/ddt.htm
http://timlambert.org/category/science/ddt/
http://sanchosass.blogspot.com/2006/10/truth-about-ddt-ban-killed-50-million.ht
mlhttp://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=821
http://www.petrifiedtruth.com/archives/001491.html
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/ddt_vs_death.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorchen/astroturf-and-ddt-liber_b_30800.htm
l
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You cite articles here which directly contradict your own assertions. In addition, if you read WHO reports, there are in fact quite reputable studies, including those relied on by the WHO, showing that exposure to DDT is harmful to fish, that it can in fact case males to change to females, which impacts their ability to reproduce. The harm to humans and wildlife or lack of it from DDT has never been an "open-and-shut case." Your statement to the contrary is false.
Mosquito population can and do develop resistance to DDT, which was another reason overuse of the chemical was not helpful for controlling malaria. Its use now is considered effective only for the treatment of mosquito nests and habitations, and only sparingly so as not to create resistant insects, never for use in exterminating large populations of mosquitoes.
No one is dying for lack of effective use of DDT. That is simply a false statement. You ought to retract it.
It's always more fun to be angry rather than to evaluate evidence thoughtfully. I hope you're having yourself a lot of fun.
You are certainly not perform any kind of useful service. You have no expertise and little knowledge, and a seeming inability to draw valid conclusions from your research. If you must do something stupid to feel good, try eating sweets.
Excuse me for the many typos above. Let me correct one important one:
"Its use now is considered effective only for the treatment of mosquito nests" should read "Its use now is considered effective only for the treatment of mosquito nets."
The way DDT was used before its initial restrictions was not effective in preventing mosquito-borne diseases. That is a canard used by those who want only to cast environmentalism in a bad light. Certainly there are environmentalists with bad ideas. Blaming the movement for tens of millions of deaths though is simply to peddle a falsehood.
If you really cared about malaria victims you would do your research more carefully.
Hello yosephus,
I respect your right to express your point of view on my site, but you loose credibility with judging me with your childish attack. I've expressed my thoughts, same as you, now should I call you 'names' for having an opposing point of view. Post an apology and I would gladly converse with you, sharing points of view. Even the world of scientists, has opposing viewpoints, which side is correct! Yes, until all viewpoints are validated, one way or another, contoversy will abound.
Be Well
Post a Comment