Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

Makes sense to me. (g)

[PBzeer]

So there we have it. Decision and policy first, evidence later. That, in our book, is pure junk science.

One questions when it has ever not been so.

Of course, based on the "scientific" methodology of GW, one could make a plausible case for the return of CFC's to allow the escape of Greenhouse Gases from the atmosphere

To take logic to it's conclusion, if one was to consider planetary health, ie: "Save the Planet", rather than human habitation thereupon, the eradication of naturally occurring disease, irrigation, dams, and countless other manmade constructs to allow human habitation would, of necessity, be banned. That we choose NOT to live within the limits placed upon us by nature would seem to be the ultimate pollution. IF, of coures, one is really worried about "Saving the Planet".

Whilst the above is written tongue-in-cheek, the logic seems indisputable.

[sailaway21]

And a good example in how DDT's harmfulness is accepted science as well.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

And a good example in how DDT's harmfulness is accepted science as well.

It is not accepted science at all.
What is accepted science is the fact that it causes birth defects, cancers and various other messing around with genes - and that it remains in the food chain for many decades.

The science does not call it harmless or harmful in the aggregate, but rather cautions on it's use - to use as little as possible, and only when the results (vast decrease in Malaria, etc.) outweigh the effects.

Even the author of the book which started all that brohaha says not to ban it:
"Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."

In short ,the stuff is terribly dangerous and heavy use resulted in a fivefold increase in breast cancer among many other problems, but in some instances light use (or appropriate use) can save enough lives to make the dangers worthwhile.

But that, in no way, implies harmlessness.

And that may be the difference between science and "I know I am always right" type of thinking.

[PBzeer]

If the scientific opinion was as you portray it, there would not have been the necessity, nor reason, to ban it's use.

Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control" pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.

"To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable."

[National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life Sciences; Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs; The World of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.]

[erps]

What is accepted science is the fact that it causes birth defects, cancers and various other messing around with genes

DDT cancer history:

Two months later EPA head William Ruckelshaus—who had never attended a single day’s session in the seven months of EPA hearings, and who admittedly had not even read the transcript of the hearings— overturned Judge Sweeney’s decision. Ruckelshaus declared that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” and banned it for virtually all uses.32

A 1978 National Cancer Institute report concluded—after two years of testing on several different strains of cancer-prone mice and rats—that DDT was not carcino-genic.36

Facts versus fears - DDT


Regarding birth defects, that doesn't seem to be associated with DDT although:

In mice, maternal doses of 26 mg/kg/day DDT from gestation through to lactation resulted in impaired learning in maze tests(17). Epidemiological studies involving humans are unavailable(18).

DDT

[PBzeer]

One could assume that the popularity of the Prius is due not to it's various eco-friendly (supposedly) attributes, but to the large rear bumper area on which to display the bumpersticker wisdom so often employed by the Sage of Massachusetts.

[sailaway21]

Our resident Naderite is unlikely to familiar with Professor J. Gordon Edwards, a noted entomologist whom made DDT a regular part of his diet. He expired at 84 years of age from a heart attack, while mountain climbing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gord...nd_mountaineer)

The infamous study of bird eggs shell thickness has been discredited based upon the fact that the bird's studied had a reduction of calcium in their diet as well as DDT.

[craigimass]

He was not a woman, then......
I can show you people who smoked cigarettes until they were 100, but that does not prove they make you live longer!

All things in moderation. X-rays can be very helpful, but when they came up with a model that was used in shoe stores and bombarded you with vast radiation, it caused cancer.

There is a good reason your dentist steps out of the room.

Hey, we used to follow the fog truck at camp and inhale the stuff. Then again, cancer has become epidemic in this country, largely due to life style and environmental factors.

I have a Subaru - with no bumper stickers. My wife does have a peace sign and a dog breed on hers, though.

I do have a bumper sticker on my office door - from Hendrix....
"when the power of love wins over the love of power, the world will know peace"

[denby]

Cam,

I don't think our friend is getting it.