Greenhouse Gases

[JcDean78]

All those darn SUV's on Mars are now causing Global Warming there too.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

[sixpacktr]

It's only a matter of time before these people begin to blame the solar flares (which, by the way, also cause global warming. I mean, if you bring the sun closer to us by several million miles, it has to raise temps, doesn't it?) on us.

The environmentalists are costing this planet billions of dollars, as well as costing millions of lives because of Malaria and other diseases. DDT was a very safe and very effective method of controlling mosquitoes. But since a few eagles eggs became a little thin we switched to something much less effective and much more deadly to humans, and now millions a year die because of the tree hugging whackos. They prize the life of animals more than they do of humans.

It is simply unbelievable, but moreso that so many sheep buy into their propaganda...

[Blessed]

Sixpack, tell me you are joking about DDT. I am waiting for the punchline. And by the way we are still getting our share of DDT because we shipped it off to SOuth America and that is where a majority of our non-seasonal fruit comes from.

And your joke about "mental" is not in the least bit humorous. Not in the least, sir.

[Dr T]

JcDean78, make me chuckle. Thank you for that.

[JcDean78]

And your joke about "mental" is not in the least bit humorous. Not in the least, sir.

It is not funny, but I would say it is accurate.

A few years ago there was a huge fire in the north west USA. The firefighters got surrounded and died. I do not recall how many died but it was 12-20 which is a lot of people.

The reason they died? They were out of water to fight the fire. They were near a lake but were not allowed to use the water because it had endangered fish in it. These firefighters died because the environmental wackos saw more value in the life of those fish than they did the humans working to stop this devistating fire.

[sixpacktr]

Blessed,

Didn't mean to offend you, but I stand by my remarks on mental. And it wasn't meant as a joke, but I am serious. They fail to see the forest for the trees.

As for DDT, I am copying some of the tidbits from JunkScience regarding DDT. It was a myth then, and repeating that DDT is bad doesn't make it correct:

"In May 1955 the Eighth World Health Assembly adopted a Global Malaria Eradication Campaign based on the widespread use of DDT against mosquitos and of antimalarial drugs to treat malaria and to eliminate the parasite in humans. As a result of the Campaign, malaria was eradicated by 1967 from all developed countries where the disease was endemic and large areas of tropical Asia and Latin America were freed from the risk of infection. The Malaria Eradication Campaign was only launched in three countries of tropical Africa since it was not considered feasible in the others. Despite these achievements, improvements in the malaria situation could not be maintained indefinitely by time-limited, highly prescriptive and centralized programmes."

[bull World Health Organ 1998;76(1):11-6]

"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.]

It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years.

[Africa News, January 27, 1999]

Here is some more:

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.

Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

How's that for caring about people? Kind of scary, isn't it? Along the lines of Nazi Germany's propaganda?

How about this?

Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article on DDT that was not antagonistic.

William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on his personal stationery that read "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."

But as an assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus stated on August 31, 1970 in a U.S. Court of Appeals that "DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation." But in a May 2, 1971 address to the Audubon Society, Ruckelshaus stated, "As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions ... because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review." Ruckelshaus later explained his ambivalence by stating that as assistant attorney general he was an advocate for the government, but as head of the EPA he was "a maker of policy."

[barrons, 10 November 1975]

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

[sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.

[santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]

After reversing the EPA hearing examiner's decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just "internal memos." Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus' "Opinion and Order on DDT."

IV. Human exposure

Actual human exposures have always been far lower than the "acceptable" level.

Human ingestion of DDT was estimated to average about 0.0026 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day) about 0.18 milligrams per day.

[Hayes, W. 1956. J Amer Medical Assn, Oct. 1956]

In 1967, the daily average intake of DDT by 20 men with high occupational exposure was estimated to be 17.5 to 18 mg/man per day, as compared with an average of 0.04 mg/man per day for the general population.

[iARC V.5, 1974].

Dr. Alice Ottoboni, toxicologist for the state of California, estimated that the average American ingests between 0.0006 mg/kg/day and 0.0001 mg/kg/day of DDT.

[Ottoboni, A. et al. California's Health, August 1969 & May 1972]

"In the United States, the average amount of DDT and DDE eaten daily in food in 1981 was 2.24 micrograms per day (ug/day) (0.000032 mg/kg/day), with root and leafy vegetables containing the highest amount. Meat, fish, and poultry also contain very low levels of these compounds."

[Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989.Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD]

The World Health Organization set an acceptable daily intake of DDT for humans at 0.01 mg/kg/day.

"Air samples in the United States have shown levels of DDT ranging from 0.00001 to 1.56 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3), depending on the location and year of sampling. Most reported samples were collected in the mid 1970s, and present levels are expected to be much lower. DDT and DDE have been reported in surface waters at levels of 0.001 micrograms per liter (ug/L), while DDD generally is not found in surface water. National soil testing programs in the early 1970s have reported levels in soil ranging from 0.18 to 5.86 parts per million (ppm)."

[Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989.Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD]

V. Cancer

DDT was alleged to be a liver carcinogen in Silent Spring and a breast carcinogen in Our Stolen Future.

Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was "inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates."

[J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]

A nested case-control study was conducted to examine the association between serum concentrations of DDE and PCBs and the development of breast cancer up to 20 years later. Cases (n = 346) and controls (n = 346) were selected from cohorts of women who donated blood in 1974, 1989, or both, and were matched on age, race, menopausal status, and month and year of blood donation. "Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer."

[Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999 Jun;8(6):525-32]

There is more, if you care to read it. It has been a crock dreamed up by some author that skewed her information (how about that?!) to prove a point that never existed.

In my opinion, the deaths of millions are upon the heads of these idiots that wanted to save a few birds (and the data proved it really didn't make any difference). I remember as a kid being told that DDT was next to talking to strangers in danger, and that all the baby eagles were going to die. At that time I was a young mind full of mush and actually believed it. Now, though, I can think, unlike most of the sheep that climb on AlGore's private plane...

[Outshined]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Neraly 20,000 scientists have now signed the petition attached to this site.

[Canuck Mormon]

I read that "State of Fear" about a year ago and was shocked by all the evidence against Global Warming. An excellent book. It really makes you think about who is right and why the media is 99% bad news, when there is a lot of good to report.

Just my two cents.

[StrawberryFields]

Next thing you know the government will be telling me what kind of toilet paper I can use.

Ben Raines

Didn't they already do that?

I remember when there used to be colorful toilet paper and then they came out saying that we needed to use plain white and that it was better for the enviroment.

<div class='quotemain'>

Next thing you know the government will be telling me what kind of toilet paper I can use.

Back in the good ole days when I was a kid you could get coloured toilet paper and kleenex and then it too was band - now all there is, is white. Some kind of "colourist" philosophy going on or, was it for the betterment of mankind? I must say though that coloured toilet paper was fun to use for TP'ing, and very decorative. :)

M.

HAHA I just saw this....

[Blessed]

I will admit there are Extreme Enviromentalists, but to say that all environmentalists are mental is an unfair statement to make.

There are those in corporate America who have admittedly and knowingly polluted our watertables by pouring various chemicals into the ground as well as rivers and streams. I would say there are Extreme Polluntionists and who have also caused all kinds of cancers... bladder cancer, stomach cancer and throat cancer.

So if you are going to pull out a small reactionary group who do bad things, then you have to keep in check those who are polluting the world too.

One more thing... you can state all the junk science or whatever it was called all you want... I can find information that will cancel it out.

And leave us tree huggers alone as we are only trying to preserve our earth for future generations.

[shanstress70]

Taking the middle road... I can totally see both sides.

[JcDean78]

And leave us tree huggers alone as we are only trying to preserve our earth for future generations.

Would love to but the issue is not that we have gone after "tree huggers" but tree huggers have gone after us trying to force their world view on us through laws, mass media, harrasment, and other bully tactics.

The truth is we all have the same goal. Nobody wants to destroy the earth and we all want to keep it as clean as possible. Now there are always expections for crazy people but the vast majority are all for a clean environment. The difference seems to come in how we should do that, how far we should go, and agreeing on what the issues are. But in general the environmental movement has gone too far and it seems that the environment is not at the top of their agenda anymore.

[sixpacktr]

The problem, Blessed, is that even when presented with the data on DDT, people refuse to believe it. It plainly shows this woman LIED to prove a point, and everyone jumped on board, and it lasted for 30 years and over 94 MILLION deaths. As I said, I believe this will fall upon those people's heads.

Just so you are aware, I am a conservationist. I don't pollute, think it is a sin to do so. Heavenly Father gave us this earth to tend and nurture. I also am pro-hunting and fishing. Man is a part of this world, and we have the beasts here for food as well as beauty. Again, killing for killing's sake and to have a nice head mounted on your wall I believe may cross a line, but I'm not sure on that. Hunters contribute way more dollars to preserving nature than most of the environmental whackos out there, thru their hunting licenses and stamps and other fund raising activities because they know that without those areas the game goes away and so does their hobby.

There is a balance in all things. My belief is that people's lives are worth more than animal's lives are. Period. The whackos don't believe that. Read the post I put up before, bolded, where the UN committee even stated it was better for all those 3rd world people to die of malaria. Stalin and Hitler didn't even do as much damage. And yet the whackos keep on jumping on that big sheep wagon because they can't think for themselves.

What really galls me is the most of these whackos want OTHERS to live in primitive 3rd world type conditions while they live in big mansions, fly private planes, etc., etc. Just ONCE I'D like to see an AlGore live in a hut in the middle of Africa with the threat of malaria, bad food because of no refrigeration (thanks to the ban on CFCs), unhealthy water, etc.

But they care more, so I guess that is what makes them better than me...

[shanstress70]

Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

Do you have a source for this? Exactly who said it, and when?

[Outshined]

I did a search on the quote:

http://www.atlassociety.org/cth--209-Envir...Extremists.aspx

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html

[sixpacktr]

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

The information I provided all had the quotes/footnotes/documentation, but it kind of clumped up. Everytime you see a documentation notation, it is AFTER the information.

When I read this, my jaw literally dropped open. But that is the type of attitude most of the tree huggers have. Save mother earth, at all costs.

[shanstress70]

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

The information I provided all had the quotes/footnotes/documentation, but it kind of clumped up. Everytime you see a documentation notation, it is AFTER the information.

When I read this, my jaw literally dropped open. But that is the type of attitude most of the tree huggers have. Save mother earth, at all costs.

That is seriously messed up!

[Blessed]

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

But that is the type of attitude most of the tree huggers have. Save mother earth, at all costs.

I wish the overgenerilazation of tree huggers would stop. It isn't MOST, it is some. Get it right.

[Outshined]

I wish the overgenerilazation of tree huggers would stop. It isn't MOST, it is some.

I think most people know that. Hence the title of the first article I linked; Environmentalism: Don't Judge It by Its Extremists.

[Guest Username-Removed]

Well, this is an interesting thread. Me, I lived in Oregon for many years and I think I probably am somewhere in the middle.

I think that every state should recycle. I was astonished when I came to Utah and noticed that recycling service at the curb wasnt even offered.

Every state should have a bottle bill. People will turn in thier cans and get 5 or 10 cents they wont throw them away and fill our landfills.

We should find ways to not pollute, but I dont think we should do it at all cost. Im not for living like the amish, I think the Lord does want us to progress, even industrially. But I also think that we should be responsible.

I have leather furnature, and Im ok with that. I also have a bear head in my living room, which was in our family for generations, and I am ok with that too - but probably wouldnt go out and kill a bear unless I was really hungry! LOL

I eat meat, but not a lot of it. I have a large truck that's a gas guzzler, but only use it when I have something to haul. otherwise it just sits there! LOL.

I think in general, there's alot more that can be done without a lot of expense, for example, recycling. However, Im not sure everyone is ready to buy a million dollar hydrogen car ... not yet anyways.

[sixpacktr]

Blessed,

If you wish this type of generalization to stop, then you need to stand up and be counted within this movement or else it will continue to be hijacked by the whackos. Simply wishing it won't stop it. And, sadly, if we continue to think it is just a small fringe group, they are the vocal ones, they are the ones that enact laws that damage the greater good. All for the sake of a fish.

Our way of life as we know it is coming to an end. These types know the judicial system, and much like the gays, will get their way unless their propaganda is fought with truth and facts. And let's be really honest here: the entire focus of the tree huggers is to destroy the US, to make us either like the Europeans or, better yet in their minds, like the 3rd world countries. And that is all driven by jealousy. Jealousy of our standard of living, jealousy of our freedoms (which are quickly dwindling away), jealousy of our ability to make whatever we want of ourselves. By making industry meet standards that are like picking pepper off of fly poop in their efficacy is stupid and immoral and exactly what the tree huggers want.

Read the facts, use the God-given ability you have to see that this is a smoke screen to destroy us.

[Blessed]

<div class='quotemain'> I wish the overgenerilazation of tree huggers would stop. It isn't MOST, it is some.

I think most people know that. Hence the title of the first article I linked; Environmentalism: Don't Judge It by Its Extremists.

Somehow, Outshined, I missed your post. (I think others did too.) Thank you.