Home - List All Discussions

Conceived Overpopulation reason DDT Perished

DDT never had a problem with toxicity.

by: theroo

Humans killing humans. It's happened in the past, and will likely happen in the future. One of the most prolific baby-killing machines has been the banning of the man-made chemical [dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane]. Billions know it by its acronym - "DDT".
Why would so many feel justified with the deaths of 50-80 million mostly children (2-3 million per year), and mostly in Africa from malaria? (1) This genocide is painfully described by Steve Jalsavec in how National Geographic acknowledges huge loss of life to malaria and ...the need for DDT. (2)
Some Americans believe the death of African children is wholly justified for population reduction. Evidently, they are expendable. But Malaria is the biggest killer of African children.
Unfortunately, population control activists blamed DDT for increasing third word populations. In the 1960's, the World Health Organization (WHO) believed that the only alternative to the overpopulation problem was to assure that 40% of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. An official of the Agency for International Development even stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing." (3)
Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome said (9), "In Guyana...it [DDT] had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time, the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem."
Jeff Hoffman, environmental attorney (4) wrote, "Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has actually caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria." Hoffman continues, "More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life?"
A plethora of information is contained in junkscience.com -- 100 things you should know about DDT (5). It goes into great detail about how DDT doesn't have anything to do with various bird egg thinning, and no other country even mentions it. Even the Wall Street Journal endorses DDT (6), and gives reasoned explanations for its use.
Dr. J. Gordon Edwards describes his path from being an environmentalist to discussing the lies of Rachel Carson (8). As explained in AD: The truth about malaria and DDT - Paul Driessen - Jul 17, 06 (7), DDT-expert Edwards used to eat a spoonful of DDT whenever he lectured on it. He finally died at age 85 of a heart attack while hiking in the mountains.
In Townhall - Deadly Environmentalists (9) - John Berlau (Competitive Enterprise Institute) reiterates "Not a single study linking DDT exposure to human toxicity has ever been replicated." Dr. Walter Williams (George Mason University) discusses a long-term study where volunteers ate 32 ounces of DDT for 18 months, and 16 years later they suffered no increased risk of unfavorable health effects.
To date, hundreds of knowing people are who's promoting DDT (11) use, especially in Africa. You hear the common chant there "Bring Back DDT!" (10). Many more people and organizations are behind a DDT comeback, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Patrick Moore (Greenpeace and Greenspirit), Robert Gwatz (malaria specialist/ US National Institute of Health), the African- American Environmentalist Association (AAEA), Sam Zaramba in ending malaria in Africa (14), and hundreds of other experts from over 25 other African countries.
The United Nations has revised its population forecast (12) for 2050. Population will likely stop increasing by 2050, and will begin a decreasing death spiral specifically due to factors such as malaria, abortion, contraception, Plan-B, etc., etc... If one looks at population articles by Jonathan Last (13), one can see where population is headed.
It takes 2.1 children per woman to produce enough babies to keep the population constant. The number of children per woman was 6.0 in 1970. Today the global average is 2.9. The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) says it will decrease to 2.05 by 2050.
History and God are likely to judge us harshly. Population control activists need to be told they are killing off the human species.
(1) http://www.fightingmalaria.org
(2) National Geographic, 7/07
(3) Desowitz, RS; 1992; Malaria Capers
(4) [grist.org]
(5) JunkScience, J Gordon Edwards & Steven Milloy
(6) Wall Street Journal, 8/16/07
(7) American Daily, Paul Driessen, 7/17/06
(8) Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, Science and Technology, Summer 1992
(9) Dr. Walter Williams, TownHall
(10) Marjorie Hecht, Science and Technology, Summer 1992
(11) PAN (Pesticide Action Network) North America; "Who's Promoting DDT?"
(12) AEI (American Enterprise Institute); "Two Billion Never-Borns"
(13) Population articles by Jonathan Last
(14) Sam Zaramba/ Uganda; Ending Malaria in Africa
Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

reply from: Shenanigans

My brother is currently in Africa, he posted to his blog that while lots of kids died from Malaria, a lot of the adult population were immune to it due to contracting it when they were little children.
There are ways to survive malaria, just as there are ways to increase your mortality rate to it. You can bet your bottom dollar if a western kid picked it up they'd be fine, they're not undernourished and they have access to clean water and medical care.
What a lot of people, including those in the UN and other richer white nations don't seem to understand, is that people in dirt poor countries living in cow poop huts dont' have a whole lot of money or collateral, having a lot of kids is how they ensure they're looked after in their old age. Its part of the reason for the Chineses perferance for boys, because girls go off and join another family, so for the Chinese parents who have a girl as their only child, chances are, they're not going to be comfortable in their retirement.
People in the West, the UN, and even to an extent, the WHO, need to MTOB and keep their western mindset of "lots of kids = bad" to themselves. they sure as hell shoudln't be essentially holding these people to randsom by refusing medical care and not funding vaccination programmes et al. because these people understand the value of family.

reply from: carolemarie

Chronic low dose DDT exposure is associated with premature birth and low birthweight in babies who were exposed before birth, and with decreased duration of milk supply in nursing mothers. Most of what we know about DDT's toxicity to humans (as with many chemicals) is derived from laboratory-animal studies, which have demonstrated that DDT is likely to cause cancers and other health problems.
Also, DDT was banned because it contributed to the near extinction of birds, including the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. DDT is a persistent chemical that becomes concentrated in animal tissues, rising in concentration in animals that are higher in the food chain. It is particularly toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates and insects While not immediately toxic to birds, DDT causes long-term reproductive problems by causing eggshells to weaken and crack, threatening the survival of many bird species. Birds and fish are indicator species that lets us know when environmental damage is being done.
Also, once DDT is applied in a field or other environment, it remains in an active form for decades. People throughout the United States still carry DDT and its metabolites in their bodies, 30 years after the pesticide was banned in this country. That in it's self is a good reason to ban it.
There are other pesticides that can be used for spraying for mosquitos that don't carry the same dangers as DDT.

reply from: Banned Member

fboy, you really should consider eating the business end of a shotgun, do the world a favor.

reply from: Banned Member

Not quite as dangerous as some killers to their own children.
Do you know what hillbilly? You have no class.

reply from: Banned Member

I once watched a 20/20 program that concluded that DDT was harmless and blamed the banning of it in America upon faulty science offered up by the environmentalist lobby. Something about thin shelled bird eggs.
I've noticed that everything we think we know from science will be disproved by new science about every ten years, or so it seems.

reply from: carolemarie

What is needed is to use another type of spray in Africa that isn't toxic to everything that lives and doesn't stay in the soil for decades.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not wrong. 20/20 show had incorrect information. DTT stays in the tissue of those who are exposed to it, has serious reprecussions to the environment.

reply from: theroo

Carol, I'm sorry, but you ARE wrong. It's been proven that egg-thinning has nothing to do with DDT. It doesn't sound like you looked at any of the links at all.
I'm really not surprised. The 'egg-shell' thinning theory has been bated around so long some are going to believe it no matter what.

reply from: theroo

Carol--For those who have problems looking up links, try [junkscience.org]. 100 things you should know about DDT.
What do they say...if you say a lie enough times anyone will start to believe it. You should know better.
I doubt seriously that African inhabitants would want to use DDT if there was anything dangerous about perscribed amounts to be sprayed.

reply from: theroo

For those that would like to stay informed, the only thing DDT is toxic to is fish. Somehow CaroleMarie got a whole boatload of bad info.

reply from: Banned Member

Maybe the reason fboy's wife can't have babies is because her name is really Steve.....

reply from: cracrat

Carole is absolutely right, DDT is really really horrible stuff. Don't believe me? Just google "DDT MSDS" and have a little read for yourself.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202447,00.html
Pennsylvania officials just announced success with their program to re-establish the state's bald eagle population. But it's a shame that such welcome news is being tainted by oft-repeated myths about the great bird's near extinction.
In its July 4 article reporting that the number of bald eagle pairs in Pennsylvania had increased from 3 in 1983 to 100 for the first time in over a century, the Associated Press reached into its file of bald eagle folklore and reported, "DDT poisoned the birds, killing some adults and making the eggs of those that survived thin. The thin eggs dramatically reduced the chances of eaglets surviving to adulthood. DDT was banned in 1972. The next year, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagles began their dramatic recovery."
While the AP acknowledged the fact that bald eagle populations "were considered a nuisance and routinely shot by hunters, farmers and fishermen" - spurring a 1940 federal law protecting bald eagles - the AP underplayed the significance of hunting and human encroachment and erroneously blamed DDT for the eagles' near demise.
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction - 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 - 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.
But by 1960 - 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use - the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a "widespread loss of suitable habitat," but noted that "illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles," according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.
A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs," according to a 1966 report published in the "Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference."
The USFWS examined every bald eagle found dead in the U.S. between 1961-1977 (266 birds) and reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.
One of the most notorious DDT "factoids" is that it thinned bird egg shells. But a 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds indicate that DDT isn't associated with egg shell thinning.
In the few studies claiming to implicate DDT as the cause of thinning, the birds were fed diets that were either low in calcium, included other known egg shell-thinning substances, or that contained levels of DDT far in excess of levels that would be found in the environment - and even then, the massive doses produced much less thinning than what had been found in egg shells in the wild.
So what causes thin bird egg shells? The potential culprits are many. Some that have been reported in the scientific literature include: oil; lead; mercury; stress from noise, fear, excitement or disease; age; bird size (larger birds produce thicker shells); dehydration; temperature; decreased light; human and predator intrusion; restraint and nutrient deficiencies.
Most of this evidence was available to the Environmental Protection Agency administrative judge who presided over the 1971-1972 hearings about whether DDT should be banned. No doubt it's why he ruled that, "The use of DDT under the regulations involved here does not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."
Yet it's the myths, not the facts that endure. Why? The answer is endless repetition. The environmentalists who wanted DDT banned have constantly repeated the myths over the last 40 years, while most of DDT's defenders lost interest after the miracle chemical was summarily banned in 1972 by EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus.
Why was banning DDT so important to environmentalists?
Charles Wurster, a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund - the activist group that led the charge against DDT - told the Seattle Times (Oct. 5, 1969) that, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT."
Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power. The sooner the record on DDT is set straight, the sooner the environmentalists' ill-gotten "authority" will be seen for what it is.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

reply from: cracrat

Ahh yes, fox news. That well known repository of balanced reporting.

reply from: theroo

Crac--Is that why not one death has ever been blamed on DDT? Is that why the MSDS says "possible carcinogen" and not definite carcinogen? Never mind the millions killed by malaria because DDT couldn't be used in their country.

reply from: Banned Member

On Tv......First, CSPAN, then CNN, then ABC/CBS.....MSNBC is just as bad as FOX only they're left leaning.

reply from: BossMomma

Then why was the problem fixed by banning DDT?

reply from: Banned Member

Or down the throat of his cell mate....Can't make babies that way...

reply from: theroo

C-Span, CNN, ABC/CBS fairer han FOX? I guess that's your unvarnished opinion of those news agencies, huh?
Didn't anyone ever tell you you can't be pro-baby, pro-family, and pro-choice all together? Welcome to the real world.

reply from: theroo

Sorry, Boss. DDT baning never 'fixed' the problem. I guess you never read the link [junkscience.com] did you? Wow, you sure can be misinformed when you never read the correct info.

reply from: theroo

Boss, that wasquite a pile of misinfo you quoted from Carol. You ever wonder how the MSDS says one thing, but they've never pinned one death on the use of DDT?

reply from: theroo

Spin, that I know of, you never stated if you ever had sex, period. And you're going to make assumptions about my sex life?
Did I ever tell you what the word A-S-S_U_M-E does?
The word is that you're actually a female. It's hard to imagine a female making the comments you have. Word is that you have aborted with abandon. But since I never assume, you'll have to let me know if those two items are true...

reply from: Banned Member

Wow....You really are one of the most ignorant people I've ever come across. It's actually mind boggling. It's not possible for a network to be more fair than CSPAN, moron, they just televise political events, you know, like senate, congress, so on. With people as stupid as you walking around, I'm surprised all the sharp edges of the world aren't padded.
A person certainly can be pro-family, and pro-baby, and pro-choice. I'm in favor of all types of families, I'm in favor of any one who wants a baby, having a baby, and I'm for a woman's right to choose which option is best for her regarding her pregnancy. For example, I, being a pro-choice female, am also a wife, married for 8 years, and a stay at home mom to a beautiful 2 year old girl. It doesn't get much more pro-family than that.

reply from: Banned Member

And I don't know what question you are talking about.....But, no, I've never had an abortion. But I do (usually) vote democrat, quite unapologetic in fact. Though I'm registered as an independent.

reply from: BossMomma

http://www.referencecenter.com/ref/reference/DDT/DDT?invocationType=ar1clk&flv=1
">http://www.referencecenter.com...pe=ar1clk&flv=1
Columbia Encyclopedia entry: DDT
DDT or 2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1,-trichloroethane, chlorinated hydrocarbon compound used as an insecticide. First introduced during the 1940s, it killed insects that spread disease and feed on crops. Swiss scientist Paul Müller was awarded the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering (1939) DDT's insecticidal properties. DDT, however, is toxic to many animals, including humans, and it is not easily degraded into nonpoisonous substances and can remain in the environment and the food chain for prolonged periods. By the 1960s its harmful effects on the reproductive systems of fish and birds were apparent in the United States, where the insecticide had been heavily used for agricultural purposes. After the United States banned its use in 1972, the wildlife population returned, particularly the bald eagle and the osprey. Nevertheless, DDT use continues in parts of the world, particularly in tropical regions, to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria. In 2001 the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants called for the phasing out of DDT once a cost-effective alternative becomes available.
The Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 2001-09 Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

reply from: carolemarie

DDT is a danger to the pregnant women and their unborn children in Africa. It is associated with low birth weight and premature birth, and for women who have little or no access to health care it is very dangerous. DDT is a chemical that biomagnifies. The chemical stays in the ground, the plants store it in their tissues, animals eat those plants and the DDT stores in the fat and when we eat those animals and the plants we get that DDT in our tissue, where it stays and gets higher and higher.
Not at all a safe little chemical....

reply from: CP

The same people who claim DDT is safe think we don't need to be concerned about overpopulation, conservation of finite resources, global warming, or much of anything. Many are Dominionists, believing that God will provide our needs, and that conservation is a non-issue. Cut down the rain forests, use the fresh water indiscriminately, pollute our air and water, drill for oil, and harvest marine food sources to extinction without concern because we trust in God...Right.

reply from: BossMomma

God will provide, but we must meet him half way.

reply from: Banned Member

Do you really believe there are people who want to spoil Earth's resources in the name of God? I've never met anyone who fits that description and I have no idea who you could be talking about.

reply from: CP

No, and that's not what I said. I said there are people who think we need not be concerned about conservation and such things.

reply from: Banned Member

No.. you said a lot more than that and your implications are clear. Spin and twist as you like but this is exactly what you said;
"The same people who claim DDT is safe think we don't need to be concerned about overpopulation, conservation of finite resources, global warming, or much of anything. Many are Dominionists, believing that God will provide our needs, and that conservation is a non-issue. Cut down the rain forests, use the fresh water indiscriminately, pollute our air and water, drill for oil, and harvest marine food sources to extinction without concern because we trust in God...Right."
Let me summarize for you.. Some people say: Screw the Earth because God will save us.
Who exactly are these Dominionists?

reply from: CP

I said some people think we "don't need to be concerned" (my exact words) about our resources because God will provide.
You asked:
I clarified that I do not believe there are people who want to "spoil Earth's resources," and pointed out the fact that I never claimed there were, which I clearly did not...It's not that they "want" to screw up the planet, it's just that they don't think it's a valid concern. Understand?
Now, if you want to know who these people are, simply read my post. As I stated, some of them are "Dominionists." If you don't know what a Dominionist is, Google it!
Christian fundamentalists who believe we're in the "end times," and that conservation is therefore no major concern...Surely you are not unfamiliar with right wing opposition to conservation efforts? A knowledgeable man such as yourself?
http://www.grist.org/article/scherer-christian/

reply from: CP

Can you provide examples? Are you implying that nothing we "think we know" is correct, it just hasn't been disproved yet?
That is ridiculous. We are constantly expanding our knowledge base, and while some theories are eventually disproved, your claim is an obvious and blatant exaggeration.

reply from: CP

Which you have conspicuously failed to further address yourself...
[IMG][/IMG]
No.. the question at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with your inane queries.
Your self importance stops at the front of your skull. No one cares what questions you are asking.. fool.
Quite the bitter little person, aren't we? Just accept that your objections to my observations have been proven to be absurd and move on. Just because it's something you didn't know about doesn't mean I made it up or that it is the product of some psychological disorder. Also, don't be bitter because I turned your attempts to be insulting against you. Simply accept that, in this case, you have been outclassed and shown for what you are. If you did not want to make it personal, you should not have attempted to make it so. In short, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

reply from: faithman

Well, that's good, especially considering the fact that I am not an atheist...I'm certain I have clarified that fact many times on this forum, but apparently, you simply do not pay much attention to what others post. Why is that? My theory is that it is a reflection of your belief that others can teach you nothing, a reflection of your own massive ego. This is just one of the things that leads me to my conclusions regarding what I interpret as your feelings of superiority and self importance. It is admittedly speculation on my part, but certainly not without logical basis.
You lie.. you are an atheist. You just don't care for the label and the baggage it caries with it but you are an atheist. An atheist in denial but an atheist none the less.
Actually lefty, he confabulates. He has told so many lies, he actually believes them now.

reply from: CP

Well, that's good, especially considering the fact that I am not an atheist...I'm certain I have clarified that fact many times on this forum, but apparently, you simply do not pay much attention to what others post. Why is that? My theory is that it is a reflection of your belief that others can teach you nothing, a reflection of your own massive ego. This is just one of the things that leads me to my conclusions regarding what I interpret as your feelings of superiority and self importance. It is admittedly speculation on my part, but certainly not without logical basis.
You lie.. you are an atheist. You just don't care for the label and the baggage it caries with it but you are an atheist. An atheist in denial but an atheist none the less.
LOL! I think I am better qualified to determine what I do or do not believe than you are. And if you really want to go there, a "Christian" is one who follows Christ, and I could make a strong argument that you don't fit the bill, that you "lie" when you claim to be a "Christian." Belief alone is not sufficient, since even "the devil" presumably believes, does he not?

reply from: CP

Well, that's good, especially considering the fact that I am not an atheist...I'm certain I have clarified that fact many times on this forum, but apparently, you simply do not pay much attention to what others post. Why is that? My theory is that it is a reflection of your belief that others can teach you nothing, a reflection of your own massive ego. This is just one of the things that leads me to my conclusions regarding what I interpret as your feelings of superiority and self importance. It is admittedly speculation on my part, but certainly not without logical basis.
You lie.. you are an atheist. You just don't care for the label and the baggage it caries with it but you are an atheist. An atheist in denial but an atheist none the less.
Actually lefty, he confabulates. He has told so many lies, he actually believes them now.
Really? Provide proof that I have told just one! Anybody can go about calling others "liars." The accusations are easy, especially for one who himself has no qualms about misrepresenting the truth.

reply from: faithman

Oh gosh, they are SSSSOOOOO numerous where to begin. Your attack on my service, and misrepresentation of my actual situation is the last one.

reply from: CP

Please provide a direct quote from any of my posts and show why you believe it to be a "lie."

reply from: faithman

Already did, and you are just to blind, and full of your self to see.

reply from: Banned Member

So I'm the bitter one eh? lulz
Guess who it was that got you kicked off the forum in the first place, ConcernedParent.
You're the only person with any real reason to be bitter around here. You are still the most pretentious egomaniac I've ever encountered online. Even your avatar is pretentiously queer looking.
I'll give you this, you have a great imagination CP. You imagine that you are winning some sort of victory by talking smack about someone who has you pegged to a T and hands you your own @ss on a regular basis. Your lies, your denial, your snarkyness and superior attitude make you guilty of all the things you repeatedly accuse me of. You are perfect. Perfectly ironic.
I've got an idea.. instead of digging up some tired old kitchen cliché, why don't you ask me some more of your transparent questions that you are fond of using in your vain attempts to try and trap me into admitting something that you can use against me.. again? That's always fun to read.
Or better yet, why don't you make another snide comment about how I've got an overinflated ego and then try to engage me with some quasi-intellectual question? This way you can get all offended and preachy again when I ignore your sophomoric attempts at debate. I love it when you do that.
Gordon Lightfoot has a line that fits you well. Imagine yourself singing this line; "Sometimes I think it's a sin when I feel like I'm winnin' when I'm losin' again."
Lefty sings; "Under my thumb, the dog who just had it's day, under my thumb..."

reply from: faithman

So, you believe it is "normal" to be "abnormal?" [IMG][/IMG]
And you have determined me to be "abnormal" based on a mere presupposition for which you offer no evidence beyond your own speculation, not to mention offering no logical basis for the assumption that, even if your presupposition were true, your premise is sound?
And you wonder why I assume you are not as smart as you imagine yourself to be?
At any rate, you have apparently decided not to further address the actual topic of discussion, which I would hope is a reflection of your realization that your arguments are absurd. If this is the case, perhaps you are, in fact, learning something, in which case I should be greatly encouraged, and proud of your progress.
With this latest batch of non-sequitous blathering my powers of prediction are once again validated.
I'm guessing that you are in love with the sound of your own voice as well. Your constant condescension informs us as to your fundamental unlikability. It would be very hard to tolerate that kind of snottiness for very long, so for that reason I'm guessing that you are either unmarried or your spouse is deaf? Am I close?
Actually she left him.

reply from: faithman

So, you believe it is "normal" to be "abnormal?" [IMG][/IMG]
And you have determined me to be "abnormal" based on a mere presupposition for which you offer no evidence beyond your own speculation, not to mention offering no logical basis for the assumption that, even if your presupposition were true, your premise is sound?
And you wonder why I assume you are not as smart as you imagine yourself to be?
At any rate, you have apparently decided not to further address the actual topic of discussion, which I would hope is a reflection of your realization that your arguments are absurd. If this is the case, perhaps you are, in fact, learning something, in which case I should be greatly encouraged, and proud of your progress.
With this latest batch of non-sequitous blathering my powers of prediction are once again validated.
I'm guessing that you are in love with the sound of your own voice as well. Your constant condescension informs us as to your fundamental unlikability. It would be very hard to tolerate that kind of snottiness for very long, so for that reason I'm guessing that you are either unmarried or your spouse is deaf? Am I close?
Actually she left him.
But you may have given him an idea for a dating pool. Just find a ministry to the deaf. Just a hint though, the middle finger means the same thing in sign language.

reply from: Banned Member

So, you believe it is "normal" to be "abnormal?" [IMG][/IMG]
And you have determined me to be "abnormal" based on a mere presupposition for which you offer no evidence beyond your own speculation, not to mention offering no logical basis for the assumption that, even if your presupposition were true, your premise is sound?
And you wonder why I assume you are not as smart as you imagine yourself to be?
At any rate, you have apparently decided not to further address the actual topic of discussion, which I would hope is a reflection of your realization that your arguments are absurd. If this is the case, perhaps you are, in fact, learning something, in which case I should be greatly encouraged, and proud of your progress.
With this latest batch of non-sequitous blathering my powers of prediction are once again validated.
I'm guessing that you are in love with the sound of your own voice as well. Your constant condescension informs us as to your fundamental unlikability. It would be very hard to tolerate that kind of snottiness for very long, so for that reason I'm guessing that you are either unmarried or your spouse is deaf? Am I close?
Actually she left him.
Bingo.. my powers of prediction are undeniable. I just got to figuring, who could listen to that hypercritical bloviator forever? He probably constantly pounded away at her self esteem until the day she found someone that didn't criticize her, but rather, built up her self esteem and confidence. Just like that song on HeeHaw, once someone showed her some kindness, She found another and Pfft! she was gone.
You got to give me my props CP, I called this one out of the blue.
I deduce that you didn't learn your lesson either. Your overcompensating from feelings of inadequacy is what makes you act like such a puke towards others. Get a clue would you? I'm just trying to help you here but you don't give me much to work with.

reply from: faithman

Actually he saw the hand writing on the wall, and requested to be removed. Plausible deniability don't ya know.

reply from: Banned Member

I have no faith in anyones assertions in this matter. The science on this is entirely unsettled, so even if there were a scientist among us, their opinion would carry no more weight than anyone else's. We can all speculate as much as we want but the jury is still out on this deal.
Having said that, here is my opinion. Follow the money. theroo is the one following the money. Follow theroo.

reply from: CP

This is hilarious! I made a relevant observation, Lefty attacked it out of ignorance, apparently for personal reasons, I showed he didn't know what he was talking about, and now he considers himself somehow "superior" to me for going "grade school" on me! Too funny!

reply from: CP

Wait, what? Do you even know what a "direct quote" is? I made a few calls about my concerns that you may be cheating Uncle Sam, just so you know. If you have nothing to hide, then good for you! You at least lied about having your own business and being self employed, right? If you really did work, you can't really claim to be disabled by government standards, that much is clear.

reply from: CP

Can you provide examples? Are you implying that nothing we "think we know" is correct, it just hasn't been disproved yet?
That is ridiculous. We are constantly expanding our knowledge base, and while some theories are eventually disproved, your claim is an obvious and blatant exaggeration.
You may as well admit you pulled this out of your nether regions....I don't expect a response...

reply from: CP

Actually he saw the hand writing on the wall, and requested to be removed. Plausible deniability don't ya know.
And yet, here I am...

reply from: Banned Member

You are way off the rail on this one. I wasn't thinking of you at all you goofball. Your paranoia coupled with your over developed sense of self important have you thinking everything is about you. I got news.. it ain't. This is exactly the reason I doubt your mental health. Classic paranoia and delusions of grandeur. What's the matter Mr. Bipolar, off your lithium meds again?

reply from: faithman

Actually he saw the hand writing on the wall, and requested to be removed. Plausible deniability don't ya know.
And yet, here I am...
And yet under another name and account. But give it time. You will be gone again.

reply from: theroo

Boss (tongue-in-cheek), DDT is NOT oxic to many animals. And certaily not in the quantities asked to be sprayed on the inside of housing.
If it was toxic to humans, I don't think Dr. Edwards would have had a spoonful of DDT every time he tacked about it.
NO wildlife population returned to the US after the 1972 ban of DDT. It was already there. Perhaps you'd better look at your facts again.
Once again your facts are flawed about which parts of the world uses DDT. I'd also love to know which material comes any where close to the mosquito killing power of DDT.

reply from: theroo

Carol, sorry wrong on all counts. Just where are you getting your info from?

reply from: theroo

CP--thesame people who think overpopulation is a problem don't read "links" very often. Have you seen what is happening to world bithrates as compared to 1960??
Just think about what the number 2.05 means to you. If you don't know, point made--case closed.

reply from: theroo

CP--Just who is the one who wants to spoil the earths resources???

reply from: CP

It is the plants and animals that it is toxic to that are the issue. It may not kill some species directly, but did you ever hear of a thing called the food chain? Insects are near the bottom, but are essential for the rest. If one link is weakened or destroyed, the entire chain suffers. A chain is no stronger than it's weakest link.
Population control, while perhaps related in some ways, is an entirely different issue from the dangers of DDT use.
It really is amusing how you implied that I refused to view your sources. I did. I have simply concluded that you are wrong on this issue, based on all the facts. Isn't it ironic that you make such an accusation, yet told BM that "your facts are flawed?" Facts, by definition, can NOT be "flawed!"
I suggest you do some more research on the subject before arriving at any conclusions.

reply from: theroo

Tell me CP, did you read any of the "links" that were provided in the original column? When was the last time you ever heard of any human having difficulties being around DDT?
You did read the part about >1 million babies that die each year because of malaria carried by mosquitoes?
You ever have an abortion? Chances are you will refuse to answer these questions.

reply from: CP

I give up. Who? You didn't read the thread, did you?

reply from: CP

Tell me, did you read my post? I already answered this in the affirmative.

When did I ever claim humans had "difficulty being around DDT?"
Yes, and I believe it is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but you don't cure a headache by cutting off the head...
If I had, would that somehow make your arguments more credible? (hint: I'm male and prolife, just in case you're a little slow on the uptake, so I have obviously never had an abortion.)
Based on?

reply from: theroo

Toxicity is NOT the issue. The only animal it has been proven toxic to is fish. Not a problem in most areas where there's any fish involved.
Mosquitoes reproduce by the BILLIONS. Compared to >1 miilion human deaths per year from malaria, there's NO comparison.

reply from: theroo

No CP, you couldn't have read my links much less the column. Go back and read it again.

reply from: CP

As with most poisons, it most certainly is...
Not true. It is toxic to fish, birds, insects, and marine invertebrates, all of which are important to our ecology, representing vital links in the food chain. Without these 'lower" life forms, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT COULD NOT EXIST.
You're kidding me, right? DDT exists in soil and water for decades! Ever hear of runoff? Do you understand how our planet naturally cycles our limited fresh water?
Like I said, you don't cure a headache by cutting off the head. People can't live without food, and DDT effects vital resources. You would prefer to spray DDT and see children starve?
Rather than face facts, you come to us with this conspiracy theory about DDT being banned specifically so people will die, then wonder why you have no credibility?

reply from: theroo

CP--what does cutting off the head have anythng to do with DDT reinstatement?

reply from: CP

I examined your sources, but found nothing I had not seen before. For some people, immediate profits are more important than conservation, and they have a lot of people fooled, especially right wingers who honestly believe they can just trust God to provide.
You are the one who has obviously never objectively reviewed all the facts, proclaiming the facts you don't like to be "flawed!"

reply from: theroo

CP--the death of a million and a half babies is a "serious problem"???? I am astounded at your ability at the understatement.
Hey, CP. You didn't answer the question about having an abortion. You still didn't answer most of my questions. That's too bad...

reply from: theroo

Oh, you've examined the sources. And in your esteem, how should I take your accusation of me being a "right winger" and that I only trust God to provide?

reply from: theroo

CP--Let me be a little more explicit. You called a number of things 'facts' in your responses. How do we know what you call "facts" are really facts?

reply from: CP

You need to read more carefully. Scroll up...

reply from: CP

I didn't say you were one of them. Once more, read more carefully.

reply from: theroo

CP--and mosquitoes are vital resources? What does seeing children starve have anything to do with spraying DDT?

reply from: CP

Read the post. The explanation immediately follows the analogy that has you so confused.

reply from: CP

I already explained this. The mosquitoes are only a small part of the ecosystem. More concerning is the damage done to other life forms. You're not playing with me, are you? You're really not getting this...

reply from: theroo

CP--Like I said, if DDT were toxic to all the life forms you mention, all those Africans would not be calling for immediate reinstatement of DDT.
Killing mosquitoes is NOT 'cutting off the head'! Who spoonfed you this info? It's unfortunate you see a conspiracy theory in the deaths of millions.
Next time, don't assume that what youi say is 'fact' and you cannot be wrong.
Please answer the question as to whether you ever had an abortion...

reply from: theroo

CP--You called DDT a 'poison". Where did you get that from? Did you know if you drink enough water in a day it can kill you? Is water therefore a poison?

reply from: theroo

CP--No, I already explained this. Mosquitoes numer in the BILLIONS. Killing or repelling the ones in homes are but a drop in the bucket.
You still haven't answered my questions...

reply from: theroo

CP---don't parse words. You directly inferred I was a 'right winger". Darn, what does that make you?

reply from: theroo

CP--there were many links in that column. Are you telling me that you don't believe any of them?

reply from: CP

Here's an interesting fact for you. The world wide ban on DDT use applies only to agricultural use, and it can still used for disease control.
See "Stockholm Convention"

reply from: CP

Gee, I don't know why I'm still here, since you obviously don't read my posts.
First of all, this is neither any of your business nor relevant in any way to this discussion (in so much as it can actually be classified as such...).
Second, I already told you I'm a prolife male, and that I have never had an abortion!

reply from: CP

http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

reply from: theroo

CP--I've got a much more interesting act for you. Nobody realizes that DDT has been OK'd for uses other than agriculture. I guess the "Stockholm Convention" just doesn't carry the weight you think it does.

reply from: CP

Prove that is a fact. The Stockholm Convention is where the "ban" was initiated by the U.N., you know, the "ban" that the African Nations agreed to, the one that allows DDT for disease control?
I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll prove it's not a fact...Go to the last link I posted and start reading! You do realize that it isn't a fact if it can be disproved, right? You are such a hack! You're spreading misinformation!

reply from: CP

At any rate, I believe it has been firmly established that the claim that a "ban on DDT" is responsible for the loss of XXXX lives is absurd.

reply from: theroo

You've got numerous more posts (at least 5x) more than I do. You've never responded to any of my posts before--at least that I can remember. I don't recall ever seeing your picture before, and it doesn't look like a man!
No, you never told me you're a pro-life male, and if that's the case, that still does't mean you haven't convinced your significant other never to have an abortion.
Having an abortion falls into the same classification that DDT does. It supposedly justifies taking a life because of the perceived notion that overpopulation is a problem (with DDT).
Have you even read my column on OVERPOPULATION? Are you someone who actually voted for Obama? Sorry, but lack of political intelligence doesn't count...
Evidently there were no "links" in my posted column. That's no excuse for not looking up the info that was discussed...

reply from: theroo

I guess you'll have to ask all those African nations why they can't use DDT. Oh, that's right. You didn't look any of those links up...

reply from: CP

You asked on this thread and I responded! You then twice declared that I had not! Also, most reasonably intelligent posters are aware that the avatar represents a judge...
*eyeroll*
You must have missed the part where I proved your assertions regarding DDT and loss of life from malaria to be utter fabrication... You claimed that DDT was banned because of population concerns, resulting in many deaths from malaria, but it is still allowed for combating malaria! What part of that do you not understand?
Yes, but you are not understanding the issue. Overpopulation has more to do with available resources than numbers of people.
Oh, please! This is not my first rodeo, hoss. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck and happen to land on the internet!

reply from: CP

No, because they can, at least for controlling mosquitoes... There are people who want DDT to be used for agriculture despite the dangers, and I suspect they have been instrumental in misrepresenting this issue in this way. There is really no excuse for you to continue to be deceived now that I have shown you the truth, however.

reply from: CP

That's not really me, just so you know.

reply from: CP

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0612_030612_malaria.html

reply from: CP

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ending-malaria-deaths-in-africa

reply from: theroo

CP--I suspect you'd better get a better picture--unless you're pretending again.
You'll have to get a few facts right. I reponded that you had not responded to earlier posts. Don't confuse the issue.
"Eyeroll" doesn't work when you don't answer the question.
I missed the part because you never said it. You never proved anything, and it seems obvious that you never acessed any of those reports from Africans I cited. That's too bad...
It also doesn't seem like you understood all the parts about people wanting to NOT use DDT because it meant more malarial death. How unfortunate...
Oh, please. Enough info was given where you could have easily looked up the info rather tha just commenting on it. Do this frequently?

reply from: theroo

You didn't ask any African, or African nation anything, did you? You just commented...

reply from: theroo

Your last posts didn't answer ANY question. I wonder why...

reply from: CP

*sigh* This guy is African....Go read at the link.
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

All your concerns have been addressed on this thread, I promise. All you have to do is read...

reply from: CP

It would seem that the reason all these babies and children are dying of malaria is because they can't afford treated nets and pesticides. It also appears that the world's efforts to help them are being compromised by the greed of their leaders, but I might be misinterpreting this. At any rate, NO "BAN" ON DDT IS RESPONSIBLE! THERE IS NO BAN ON SPRAYING DDT FOR DISEASE CONTROL!

reply from: theroo

CP--I'm astounded by your reliance to proposed info rather than reality. In the assessment by WHO, who actually endorses DDT use you get this:
"Although DDT has been banned for agricultural use in the 1970's...it (DDT) continues to be used in limited quantities for public heath services."
You obviously have not read any of the links from Africans that I put into the article. Dr. Attaran may be from Africa, but he is not one of the Africans or African countries that I cited.
I would directly disagree that all these babies are dying from malaria because they can't afford treated nets and pesticides. They are dying because their country will not allow the use of DDT.
It has been proven before 1970 that use of DDT reduced the deaths to malaria almost to zero in some countries. The ban negated that effect, because it altered ay DDT they could get.
DDT has been proven the most cost effective method of reducing mosquito population. Other solutions have all proven to be cost prohibitive for most poor African nations.
The ban that was first promugated is STILL in effect for most African nations. Their leaders are usually greedy. But they know what is good for their country.
Why is it when I read your links that I never get any discredit to the column, but you have never read any of the info I offered? If you want particular links I can send them to you.
What really concerns me is that you aren't worried about the ~2 million that die every year because of malaria, and you insist that overpopulation justifies it when population growth is decreasing, and will begin a downward slide by 2050.
Just what are your priorities???

reply from: CP

Doesn't this prove my point? DDT use is permitted. The problem with malaria control appears to be primarily financial.
Why are you still going on about population control? I have shown that DDT was not banned in order to ensure that more Africans die, as you suggested...
I do not deny that a few people seem to think death is a good thing due to overpopulation concerns, and it may be that these people are against helping Africans financially, but there is certainly no ban on DDT use for controlling malaria!
I must say that I actually resent the implication that conservation minded folks are so evil as to wish death on others for the sake of conservation. Most of us are caring people, and are horrified by the small minority that make statements such as you quoted on this thread. Those people are in no way representative of liberals or conservationists, and I resent the implications of portraying them as such.
This whole blatant misrepresentation of facts, I believe, is a direct result of the desire of some to demonize liberals. "Those liberal scum not only approve of killing innocent unborn babies, but look, they banned DDT just so more children will die under the guise of concern about overpopulation and the environment!" Give me a break, already! I have proved this is a misrepresentation of the facts!

reply from: theroo

CP--Sorry. You have made no point so far. DDT use is technically permitted, but numerous countries are still following the ban. Millions are dying because of it.
I continue to talk about population control because that's what the column centered upon. Unfortunately, you have not addressed the ill-conceived problem of overpopulation in the first place.
How can death EVER be a good thing? As I already explained DDT is NOT a financial concern at all. I didn't say that people wish death on others just for the sake of 'conservation'. I said they did that because of ill-placed fears on overpopulation. Again you would not discuss any facts stated here.
Most of you could not be a caring person if you voted for Obama and all the death he has endorsed. It's too bad you resent facts. Please let me know if you voted for Obama, or didn't vote at all. My experience tells me you will not respond.
It's too bad you can't handle the FACTS. Your weak attempt to categorize me as liberal has failed again, as well as your veiled attempt to accuse me of demonizing liberals. Then you attempt to put words in my mouth, as well as your attempt to say that I misrepresented facts. It sounds like you took those facts and misrepresented them yourself.
We look forward to any hope that you will admit who you voted for, admit that you are partially responsible for deaths in Africa, admit that you had at least a say-so in aborting a child before, and admit that your icon is a woefully inadequate representation.
We are hopeful of your turnaround. Unfortunately, it looks like there may only be a 3.7% chance of that...

reply from: CP

What ban? Prove there is a ban on DDT use for disease control...(HINT: I already showed there is not...) How can any country be "following a ban" that does NOT exist? Do you honestly believe the governments in Africa that actually signed the agreement banning DDT for agricultural use, but allowing it for use in controlling malaria, do not know what the agreement they signed says?
I give up. You simply refuse to accept reality...

reply from: CP

theroo says he needs to know who I voted for and whether I have ever had an abortion. If I have had an abortion or voted for a candidate he did not approve of, clearly I lose all credibility, proving that everything I say is wrong...

reply from: Banned Member

Well that's silly, I don't need either of those things to know you're wrong.

reply from: CP

You seem to be either failing to understand, or intentionally ignoring all relevant points in this topic. Could it be because you have yourself had an abortion? I will need you to supply a complete record of candidates you have supported since you attained the age of majority in order to determine whether you are the kind of person who supports the killing of children as well, since this is clearly relevant to the topic at hand...
I look forward to you admitting you have voted for candidates who have caused the deaths of innocent children in unjust wars taken up out of greed, that you are at least partially responsible for the deaths and injuries of thousands of innocent children, that you have either had an abortion or encouraged some woman, directly or indirectly, to abort her child, and that you were too lazy to choose an avatar, accepting the default.
I estimate the chances of you turning from your ways to be, Oh, I don't know, let's say .0000067302777300173755%.

reply from: CP

Things you might like to know about "junkscience.com" and the guy who runs the site, Steven J. Milloy.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy

reply from: theroo

CP--Get this. There WAS a ban! Who says anybody has to SIGN an agreement for a ban???
I think it's interesting how you always try to misdirect a statement you don't like...

reply from: theroo

CP--It's amazing what you think is actually relevant. I am male, so I could never have had an abortion. I have always voted for pro-life candidates.
I co-chair the Right to Life comittee at our church. Have never, ever, talked a woman to have an abortion.
That reminds me of all the questions you never answered...
Wow, I guess everyone knows you were wrong after all.
At least my calculation was right that you have a small chance (+/- 5%) for my statement to be correct. What was your calculation based on again?

reply from: theroo

CP--You'll have to tell me why Steven Milloy cannot be believed. Or are you just trying to camouflage your answer again?

reply from: Banned Member

Now here is an interesting web site this Source Watch outfit. They are so leftist that they use the standard partisan mockery of "right wing" instead of the correct and less inflammatory label of conservative. This pot is calling the kettle black and if CP uses this as his baseline for the truth.. then no wonder.

reply from: CP

I proved my case long before discovering Milloy was a corporate shill, essentially paid to misrepresent the truth by those who stand to gain financially from his doing so. I posted that last link as a bonus.

reply from: terry

Is this discussion even remotely related to the issue of abortion?

reply from: BossMomma

Nope, but neither is the majority of the stuff posted. Abortion can only be argued so many ways before it becomes boring, so we have these little side threads for a change of scenery. :-)

reply from: B0zo

Nope, but neither is the majority of the stuff posted. Abortion can only be argued so many ways before it becomes boring, so we have these little side threads for a change of scenery. :-)
I think since the new rules were posted we have stayed on topic fairly well, but do agree with the need for a "change of scenery" sometimes.

reply from: CP

theroo seems to think so. This topic was started before the new rules were posted, but your point is certainly valid. I will not post anything else on this topic.

reply from: terry

Well, this is what I suggest. I suggest that you (whichever of you sees this and agrees with me first) start a private topic about this, and that you invite all those users who have been actively participating in this discussion on this thread. Then, any of you can participate or not, as you choose. Anyone who has been lurking and not participating so far, chime in now if you want to be part of the private conversation about DDT. Then, each of you who wants to participate can go through this thread and find the things you'd like to include in that discussion, and copy/paste them over there. Then you can leave a lot of the "noise" behind and just take the "data" (if you all catch my drift). I'll leave this thread up for another week or so to give people a chance to do whatever they'd like in terms of creating private threads (create multiple ones with different groups of users if you want, even), and then I'm going to delete it. Unless its relevance to abortion becomes clear in the interim, I suppose.

reply from: terry

In fact, by the way, if there are other threads that you can see will probably end up gone because they're either not remotely on topic or a cesspool of personal attacks, feel free to start doing your best to create corresponding private threads, and clean up your posts in the public threads. That would be really helpful.

reply from: theroo

Terry--Maybe you understand that the "simple" killing of young children, by lack of DDT, goes inherently to the ease at which so many kill the child in the womb.
Once we realize what killing our children really does, minds will be changed. Others will not.
However, if you isist that the conversation be taken elsewhere, I would be happy to reply.
My e-mail is [roetenks@charter.net] for those of you who would like to bring this conversation elsewhere. The question is, will there be any takers???
I don't recall how ANY of my posts were completely off-topic, and certainly never contained any personal attacks.
It's infortunate when responders will not answer any questions, and not only insult you, but others you may write about.
You, of all people, probably realize that it takes a truly unbelievable MINDSET to even consider abortion. That mindset does indeed spill over to many topics...

reply from: terry

Ok. I just read through most of this thread, and after deleting about 30 or 40 posts, I have grown weary of this and skimmed the rest. In my opinion, this thread is not only unrelated to abortion but also a cesspool of personal attacks (many of which I deleted, but many of which remain). This thread is getting deleted. However, you have had some lengthy DDT conversation, so in case you want to move that conversation to a private topic, I will leave this thread up for another week.

reply from: theroo

Terry--It's all up to you. You run the show. Just keep in mind there was no name-calling on my part, no eternal judgment (since that is God's duty), and no degrading on a personal level.
A you can see, I've already attempted to move this discussion to my personal e-mail, with no response.
It is my sincere wish that before you call things a 'cesspool of personal attacks', you cite which comments were so offensive to you, or you give the responder's NAME so we know who the offender really is...
Thank you for your actions with this.

reply from: terry

Theroo, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I am not trying to stifle your voice. I didn't accuse you or anyone in particular of name-calling, and since I've already deleted all the worst posts (sorry, I was wrong earlier when I said that many remain--I guess I did get through almost the whole thread, I just pessimistically overestimated the amount of work remaining to me), quoting them to you would be too much work. I'm sorry, I know you're curious to see everything that violated the rules, and to see others than yourself get blamed for those rule violations, but I am not going to indulge that wish; you will have to trust me that I deleted violations of rule 2, and that it's a violation of rule 1.
I am probably going to create categories in the forum at some point. One category could be for off-topic posts that YOU feel are important to share with the forum even though they are not really about abortion at all. So I guess I will not delete off-topic posts for now, I will ask Mark about it. Thanks.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics