Global Warming

[Bo D]

You bring up a GREAT example of how the IPCC is 'dicking" up global warming.  Rachel Carson was the one who yelled the "sky is falling" with DDT.....A National Cancer Institute report concluded that after two years of testing on several different strains of cancer-prone mice and rats—that DDT was not carcino-genic...but yet, the fear factor she created caused it to be banned.....even though DDT saved hundreds of millions of people by destroying malaria and other harmful insect-ridden diseases.

1.  Although I was NOT writing about DDT's role in cancer (It's major effect was the thinning of bird eggs, nearly wiping out eagles and ospreys) ....

"More recent evidence from epidemiological studies indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver, pancreas and breast. There is mixed evidence that it contributes to leukemia, lymphoma and testicular cancer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Carcinogenicity

2. DDT is STILL used to fight malaria bearing mosquitoes, but the mosquitoes have become resistant to it.

[Bo D]

That's admirable, because educating the public is key.  I do feel, however, that there is some validity to the point Ex is constantly making in that stupid people are breeding like rabbits, and are quickly outnumbering their more intelligent counterparts.

And I believe that stupid people will eventually kill themselves off, just as they have done with the animals. "Hold my beer and watch this ...."

[Henry Hawk]

1.  Although I was writing about DDT's role in cancer (It's major effect was the thinning of bird eggs, nearly wiping out eagles and ospreys) ....

"More recent evidence from epidemiological studies indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver, pancreas and breast. There is mixed evidence that it contributes to leukemia, lymphoma and testicular cancer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Carcinogenicity

2. DDT is STILL used to fight malaria bearing mosquitoes, but the mosquitoes have become resistant to it.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a large, well-designed study that found no evidence that exposure to DDT and DDE increases the risk of breast cancer. In the accompanying editorial Dr. Steven Safe, a toxicologist at Texas A&M University, stated, "weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and DDE are not a cause of breast cancer." Dr. Sheila Zahm, deputy chief of the occupational epidemiology branch at the National Cancer Institute, agrees that the body of evidence that DDT can cause breast cancer "is not very compelling."

Also, there have been studies showing the decline in bird populations either had occurred before DDT was present or had occured years after DDT's use.

At Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, teams of ornithologists made daily counts of migrating raptors for over 40 years. The counts—published annually by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association—reveal great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years. The osprey counts increased as follows: in 1946, 191; in 1956, 288; in 1967, 457; and in 1972, 630.13 In 1942 Dr. Joseph Hickey—who in 1968 would blame DDT for bird population decline—reported that 70 per-cent of the eastern osprey population had been killed by pole traps around fish hatcheries.14 That same year, before DDT came into use, Hickey noted a decline in the population of peregrine falcons.15

Other observers also documented that the great peregrine decline in the eastern United States occurred long before any DDT was present in the environment. In Canada peregrines were observed to be "reproducing normally" in the 1960s even though their tissues contained 30 times more DDT than did the tissues of the midwestern peregrines allegedly being extirpated by the chemical. And in Great Britain, in 1969, a three-year government study noted that the decline of peregrine falcons in Britain had ended in 1966 even though DDT levels were as abundant as ever. The British study concluded that "There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT."

In addition, later research refuted the original studies that had pointed to DDT as a cause for eggshell thinning. After reassessing their findings using more modern methodology, Drs. Hickey and Anderson admitted that the egg extracts they had studied contained little or no DDT and said they were now pursuing PCBs, chemicals used as capacitor insulators, as the culprit.

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

My point is, Fear mongering is a tactic played well by the left, that is not always resulting in the best interests of Americans....i.e. Global Warming...

[Exterminator]

Well once upon a time it WAS a good thing, until the democrats turned it into MORE government control....forcing issues like try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions with the CAFE it did little to actually reduce emissions but it hit the consumers in the pocketbooks even harder during already hard times....they have used it to try to FORCE an agenda more than trying to equal out a playing field to where everyone wins.

Oh, for fuck's sake; do you ever get tired of spewing about things about which you know nothing?

[Exterminator]

My point is, Fear mongering is a tactic played well by the left, that is not always resulting in the best interests of Americans....i.e. Global Warming...

Fear mongering as in starting a war over non-existent WMD's?

Since this DDT stuff is so safe, you should go drink some!

[Exterminator]

And I believe that stupid people will eventually kill themselves off, just as they have done with the animals. "Hold my beer and watch this ...."

Not fast enough.

[Locutus]

I 100% agree with you........

Of which demographic do you consider yourself a member?

[Locutus]

And I believe that stupid people will eventually kill themselves off, just as they have done with the animals. "Hold my beer and watch this ...."

I fear they're breeding at a faster rate than they're managing to kill themselves.  I don't want them taking the rest of us down with them. 

[Henry Hawk]

Of which demographic do you consider yourself a member?

Let's just say that I'm on the RIGHT side..

[Bo D]

The New England Journal of Medicine published a large, well-designed study that found no evidence that exposure to DDT and DDE increases the risk of breast cancer. In the accompanying editorial Dr. Steven Safe, a toxicologist at Texas A&M University, stated, "weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and DDE are not a cause of breast cancer." Dr. Sheila Zahm, deputy chief of the occupational epidemiology branch at the National Cancer Institute, agrees that the body of evidence that DDT can cause breast cancer "is not very compelling."

Also, there have been studies showing the decline in bird populations either had occurred before DDT was present or had occured years after DDT's use.

At Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, teams of ornithologists made daily counts of migrating raptors for over 40 years. The counts—published annually by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association—reveal great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years. The osprey counts increased as follows: in 1946, 191; in 1956, 288; in 1967, 457; and in 1972, 630.13 In 1942 Dr. Joseph Hickey—who in 1968 would blame DDT for bird population decline—reported that 70 per-cent of the eastern osprey population had been killed by pole traps around fish hatcheries.14 That same year, before DDT came into use, Hickey noted a decline in the population of peregrine falcons.15

Other observers also documented that the great peregrine decline in the eastern United States occurred long before any DDT was present in the environment. In Canada peregrines were observed to be "reproducing normally" in the 1960s even though their tissues contained 30 times more DDT than did the tissues of the midwestern peregrines allegedly being extirpated by the chemical. And in Great Britain, in 1969, a three-year government study noted that the decline of peregrine falcons in Britain had ended in 1966 even though DDT levels were as abundant as ever. The British study concluded that "There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT."

In addition, later research refuted the original studies that had pointed to DDT as a cause for eggshell thinning. After reassessing their findings using more modern methodology, Drs. Hickey and Anderson admitted that the egg extracts they had studied contained little or no DDT and said they were now pursuing PCBs, chemicals used as capacitor insulators, as the culprit.

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html

My point is, Fear mongering is a tactic played well by the left, that is not always resulting in the best interests of Americans....i.e. Global Warming...

Hmmm... I wonder why the links ( "Facts Versus Fears" and  American Council on Science and Health) in your article are broken ....

The ACSH is known as an "industry-friendly" group. In 1982, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a watchdog and consumer advocacy group, known to spar with ACSH, published an extensive report on ACSH's practices that stated, "ACSH appears to be a consumer fraud; as a scientific group, ACSH seems to arrive at conclusions before conducting studies. Through voodoo or alchemy, bodies of scientific knowledge are transmogrified into industry-oriented position statements." CSPI director Michael F. Jacobson said of ACSH, '"This organization promotes confusion among consumers about what is safe and what isn't... ACSH is using a slick scientific veneer to obscure and deny truths that virtually everyone else agrees with."

In 2004, the now-defunct Tufts University Nutrition Navigator (a rating guide to nutrition websites) gave the ACSH site an overall rating of 20 out of 25 and an "Accuracy of Information" rating of 8 out of 10. However, it commented, "This site aims to arm consumers with the facts necessary to make wise decisions about health, but be aware that the information here is biased and represents a very conservative interpretation of current science. Consumers looking for a balanced debate on health issues will have to look elsewhere."

58% of the organization's donations in the period from July 1, 2012, to December 20, 2012 came from corporations and large private foundations, many of which themselves had close ties to industries with financial stakes in the specific issues on which ACSH issues industry-favorable opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

In other words ... follow the money.

[Locutus]

Let's just say that I'm on the RIGHT side..

Then why are you arguing against us? 

[Henry Hawk]

In other words ... follow the money.

Exactly, looks like we can go "tit for tat" on this....

https://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/030710_acrylamide.pdf

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has purposefully and knowingly misled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American public with its flawed and deceptive petition regarding theoretical human cancer risks associated with dietary acrylamide.


In its June 2003 petition to the FDA and news release, CSPI made the following glaring errors:

•CSPI assumes that acryamide in food has been conclusively linked to cancer in humans. In fact, there isno peer-reviewed science that
bears out this assumption.
•CSPI's calculations presume that the highest levels of acrylamide ever found in French fries or potato chips are always found in every sample. In fact, wide variations are found from brand to brand and even from batch to batch.
•CSPI knowingly underestimated the average American body weight in order to overestimate acrylamide's theoretical carcinogenic effects.
•CSPI consciously used outdated methods of determining cancer risk, failing to acknowledge that risks vary by a population's age.
•CSPI intentionally omitted some government nutrition data from its analysis, and intentionally "adjusted" other data in order to inflate its estimates of how much acrylamide Americans ingest daily.

[Bo D]

Exactly, looks like we can go "tit for tat" on this....

https://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/030710_acrylamide.pdf

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has purposefully and knowingly misled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American public with its flawed and deceptive petition regarding theoretical human cancer risks associated with dietary acrylamide.


In its June 2003 petition to the FDA and news release, CSPI made the following glaring errors:

•CSPI assumes that acryamide in food has been conclusively linked to cancer in humans. In fact, there isno peer-reviewed science that
bears out this assumption.
•CSPI's calculations presume that the highest levels of acrylamide ever found in French fries or potato chips are always found in every sample. In fact, wide variations are found from brand to brand and even from batch to batch.
•CSPI knowingly underestimated the average American body weight in order to overestimate acrylamide's theoretical carcinogenic effects.
•CSPI consciously used outdated methods of determining cancer risk, failing to acknowledge that risks vary by a population's age.
•CSPI intentionally omitted some government nutrition data from its analysis, and intentionally "adjusted" other data in order to inflate its estimates of how much acrylamide Americans ingest daily.

WTF? What does this have to do with DDT?

[Henry Hawk]

WTF? What does this have to do with DDT?

I thought you changed it up, slamming the validity of American Council on Science and Health by using the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) as your source........I googled CSPI, and came up with THIS, that suggests that the truth of (CSPI) may be suspect.

Hell, I don't know I am trying to get work done and read about this stuff.....I'm confusing myself right now...

I do think I brought some valid points up today though....

[Henry Hawk]

Then why are you arguing against us? 

I DID capitalize "RIGHT" for a reason.....