Why environmentalist are genocidal mass murderers
Andre Jute
> > environmentalists include too many irrationalists and mass murderers
> > for someone of my sensitivity to be associated with them.
Tom Sherman then opined:
> Environmentalists have caused nothing along the lines of mass murder as
> has the business community, since most wars have been driven by business
> interests.
A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.
We cannot count he cost of banning DDT: just the deaths from a one of
the many by-effects of banning DDT are uncountable; a total is
impossible to tally. DDT was the only effective control on the killer
malaria. Every year since DDT was banned, millions of the poorest
people on earth have been killed by malaria. Every year millions of
the poorest people on earth continue to be killed by malaria while
DDT, now declared innocent, remains banned for outdoor use. These tens
of millions, perhaps already hundreds of millions of deaths of poor
women and children, and their fathers and husbands, are the direct
result of banning DDT. Every environmentalist, whether or not he was
alive when this happened, is guilty of benefitting by the success of
the campaign to ban DDT, because the fear that campaign inspired in
politicians is one of the reasons politicians do not today clamp down
on the irrationality of the environmentalists. In short,
environmentalists today benefit by the frame of mind created through a
monstrous genocide for which only environmentalists stand in the dock.
Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that just the deaths from
malaria caused by the banning of DDT under environmental pressure
inspired by her book, makes Carson a greater mass murderer than Jossph
Stalin, Mao Ze-Dung and Pol Pot put together (hell, she makes Pol Pot,
who killed only a few million, look like a bit player).
Let me repeat, there was no known case of human cancer from DDT. None
has been proven since the banning of DDT. It was all a "What if..."
scare of the kind we're still seeing from the environmentalists.
Of course, DDT was more effective than anything else then available or
since invented against the common pests that destroy the crops grown
in the third world. Once DDT was banned, starvation was sure to
follow, and it was predicted at the time, and it was pointed out at
the time, that the deaths by starvation when the crops unprotected by
DDT were eaten by pests, would be directly traceable to the banning of
DDT by environmental hysteria. But by now, with the tens of millions
dead of malaria, what's another billion dead of starvation over the
years since DDT was banned? They change only the magnitude of the case
that the environmental movement is the largest mass murderer in human
history.
I think it entirely right that environmentalists should burn in
Purgatory for all eternity.
***
It would only a fraction of the costs of the totally inefficient Kyoto
Agreement to give all the world's poor clean water and primary health
care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive and
feed themselves.
It would cost one sixth of what, on hand of the Stern Report, British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown will suggest to the world be spent on
fighting global warming (just when there has been no global warming
for a decade!), to give all the world's poor clean water and primary
health care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive
and feed themselves.
Now who really cares about the poor and the sick and the starving? Not
the environmentalists! They care about having the power to enforce
their irrational mob religion.
Stern, incidentally, proposes a carbon tax. It would, for instance, be
levied on the cargo-miles of foodstuffs imported into Europe from
those selfsame poor countries where the environmentatlists are already
committing a genocide by the continued ban on DDT.
Ask yourself how all this appears from a hut in the third world as to
parents listening to their children crying with hunger. Selfish is the
word that comes to mind, but it is really too small a word for a
genocide of the helpless by smug but powerful environmentalists.
*******
Let's look at that meretricious piece of crap from Tom Sherman again:
> Environmentalists have caused nothing along the lines of mass murder as
> has the business community,
I"ve just demonstrated that environmentalists from the beginning were
the greatest mass murderers the world has ever seen, and to this day,
and for the foreseeable future, remain genocidally dangerous to the
poor and the voiceless.
>since most wars have been driven by business
> interests.
Really? You should read a little history, Tom. The two largest and
most destructive wars in history were fought for the pride of two men,
Kaiser Wilhelm and Georges Clemenceau, who was already dead when the
war fought for his pride started.
World War One was fought because the German Kaiser wanted an empire as
glorious as that of his cousin Bertie, who was King of England. The
business interests in Germany were no fools: they knew that the
British Empire, though it glittered, cost more than it benefited the
nation (look it up -- modern studies have confirmed that the gut
instinct of the German mercantile classes was right: the British
Empire cost more to administer than it brought in). German business,
as represented by the Chancellor, was dead against the war, and you
may include Bertha von Krupp (or more precisely her hushand, who ran
her family's businesses) in that; they were very bitter that they were
not permitted to arm France fully before the Emperor forced the war.
World War Two became inevitable when that idiot Wilson, President of
the United States, rubbed wrong Lloyd George, Prime Minister of
England and a compromiser from way back, the one man Wilson had to
have onside for his dream of a lasting peace to be realized, in
consequence, Llloyd George, against the advice of his advisors (who
included such diverse men as Maynard Keynes, Jan Smuts -- who would
later write the Declaration of Human Rights the UN still uses, and the
arms merchant Basil Zaharoff), sided with Clemenceau, the Tiger of
France, when he wanted a peace that avenged French humiliation in
1870. That unmagnanimous peace guaranteed the second world war as the
magnanimity of the British in not demanding a destructive peace after
WW2, and the huge generosity of the Americans in making that peace
prosperous and democratic via the Marshall Plan, guaranteed the peace
we live in, which is of a length and a prosperity quite unknown in
human history.
Neither of these huge wars had anything to do with business interests;
in both cases the commercial interests were horrified at the wars.
*******
As for your remark the other day about many wars since WW2, so what?
They're little wars, police actions. Dictators at home, some listed
above, have killed more people every year for no reason at all than
were killed in all those declared wars. Joe Stalin in the 1920s had
between 3-6 million orphaned children running wild in the countryside
machine-gunned; he thought they might be infected with venereal
disease. The world hardly noticed. But you want to whine about a few
companies providing services when Iraq is forcibly democratized. I say
good for George Bush, and wonder why his dad didn't finish the job.
(Bill Clinton wanted to finish the job but was distracted by the
bother America's petty moralists blew up about Monica Lewinsky.) I
also say it is a damn good thing that the military is forced to
privatise services: without competition, the price of having the
military provide the same service would skyrocket. I just don't see
your implied case that it is all right for Saddam Hussein to murder
people but wrong for the US to install a democratic government. It's
leftie bullshit, and you know it; if George Bush didn't go into Iran,
you'd now be whining that he was a coward who lets Saddam get away
with genocide.
*******
Try to look up from the saplings to the forest, Tom.
Andre Jute
Well-read
Tom Sherman
down to on birds, useful insects and other animals. Glad to see
revisionist history is alive and well.
Mr. Jute fails to mention that the large multinational pharmaceutical
companies have little interest in developing drugs that would help dark
skinned people in less developed countries, in favor of developing more
profitable drugs for aging baby boomers non life threatening problems.
Mr. Jute also fails to mention the corporate greed that would not allow
for many to afford life-saving drugs even if they were developed.
> ***
> It would only a fraction of the costs of the totally inefficient Kyoto
> Agreement to give all the world's poor clean water and primary health
> care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive and
> feed themselves.
>
> It would cost one sixth of what, on hand of the Stern Report, British
> Prime Minister Gordon Brown will suggest to the world be spent on
> fighting global warming (just when there has been no global warming
> for a decade!), to give all the world's poor clean water and primary
> health care, which is where everyone must start if they're to survive
> and feed themselves.
>
> Now who really cares about the poor and the sick and the starving? Not
> the environmentalists! They care about having the power to enforce
> their irrational mob religion.
>
The US/European based corporations and their client governments
certainly do not give a damn about helping these people.
> Stern, incidentally, proposes a carbon tax. It would, for instance, be
> levied on the cargo-miles of foodstuffs imported into Europe from
> those selfsame poor countries where the environmentatlists are already
> committing a genocide by the continued ban on DDT.
>
> Ask yourself how all this appears from a hut in the third world as to
> parents listening to their children crying with hunger. Selfish is the
> word that comes to mind, but it is really too small a word for a
> genocide of the helpless by smug but powerful environmentalists.
>
While the multi-nationals rape these countries of their natural
resources, stealing their wealth, Mr. Jute stands by and says nothing?
Mr. Jute ignores the business forces that profited handsomely from that
war, and may well have had a great hand in starting it. Who's history
does one want to believe?
> World War Two became inevitable when that idiot Wilson, President of
> the United States, rubbed wrong Lloyd George, Prime Minister of
> England and a compromiser from way back, the one man Wilson had to
> have onside for his dream of a lasting peace to be realized, in
> consequence, Llloyd George, against the advice of his advisors (who
> included such diverse men as Maynard Keynes, Jan Smuts -- who would
> later write the Declaration of Human Rights the UN still uses, and the
> arms merchant Basil Zaharoff), sided with Clemenceau, the Tiger of
> France, when he wanted a peace that avenged French humiliation in
> 1870. That unmagnanimous peace guaranteed the second world war as the
> magnanimity of the British in not demanding a destructive peace after
> WW2, and the huge generosity of the Americans in making that peace
> prosperous and democratic via the Marshall Plan, guaranteed the peace
> we live in, which is of a length and a prosperity quite unknown in
> human history.
>
Peace and prosperity for only a fraction of the world's population.
> Neither of these huge wars had anything to do with business interests;
> in both cases the commercial interests were horrified at the wars.
>
Oh really? Despite the huge profits involved? Does Mr. Jute prefer the
sanitized version of history sanctioned by these same business interests?
> *******
> As for your remark the other day about many wars since WW2, so what?
> They're little wars, police actions.
Yes, little wars that kill mostly poor, dark skinned people. Why should
USians and Europeans be concerned about such wars?
> Dictators at home, some listed
> above, have killed more people every year for no reason at all than
> were killed in all those declared wars.
And many of those dictators have been supported by the US, whose foreign
policy has been run by corporate interests. Ask the Dulles brothers if
you do not believe this (rhetorical question).
> Joe Stalin in the 1920s had
> between 3-6 million orphaned children running wild in the countryside
> machine-gunned; he thought they might be infected with venereal
> disease. The world hardly noticed. But you want to whine about a few
> companies providing services when Iraq is forcibly democratized.
"Iraq is forcibly democratized" - that is the type of comment I expect
from Ed Dolan, who is not to be taken seriously. Thanks for the laugh,
however.
> I say
> good for George Bush, and wonder why his dad didn't finish the job.
> (Bill Clinton wanted to finish the job but was distracted by the
> bother America's petty moralists blew up about Monica Lewinsky.) I
> also say it is a damn good thing that the military is forced to
> privatise services: without competition, the price of having the
> military provide the same service would skyrocket.
The money in either case goes to the same companies that are politically
well connected. The greatest welfare expenditure in history.
> I just don't see
> your implied case that it is all right for Saddam Hussein to murder
> people but wrong for the US to install a democratic government.
What democratic government? Right now Iraq has a dysfunctional
government that is trying to get the US military to eliminate its
internal enemies while taking orders from Tehran.
> It's
> leftie bullshit, and you know it; if George Bush didn't go into Iran,
> you'd now be whining that he was a coward who lets Saddam get away
> with genocide.
>
Mr. Jute's putting these words into my mouth is as off base as any
accusation Mr. Fogel has made on these newsgroups, and on the same moral
level. To use a Brownism, the about comment by Mr. Jute is replete with
used food.
First off, Saddam Hussein killed those who he needed to so as to stay in
power, with the total numbers in Iraq not approaching genocide.
Secondly, the most people killed by his regime were Iranians and Iraqi
soldiers in a proxy war fought on behalf of the US under the direction
of "Saint Reagan".
> *******
>
> Try to look up from the saplings to the forest, Tom.
>
I have learned that evil is rooted in the lust for power. Mr. Jute seems
to have missed that lesson.
> Andre Jute
> Well-read
And with a self-serving agenda.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
Tim McNamara
Woland99
> I just don't see
> your implied case that it is all right for Saddam Hussein to murder
> people but wrong for the US to install a democratic government.
No it was not alright for Saddam to murder people. But in your
righteous zeal to create better world you glide over some heard
reality. Saddam was not the only enemy in the region - Iran with
their nuclear ambition and somewhat insane leaders poses far greater
danger than Iraq. And the way to keep Iran in check was to keep
Saddam
in place - the minute Iran gets uppity we lift sanction and throw
supprt behind Saddam. And Iranians knew it and sit tight, After we
removed Saddam and gave power in IRAQ to Shi'ite coalition - which
very much pro-Iranian we blew the lid off - the is nothing we can do
to Iran except go after them ourselves. Which we cannot afford.
Now that - our dear bleeding heart conservative friend - is called
utter STUPIDITY. That os Political Science 101.
Regarding your remark "INSTALL democratic government" - that is an
oxymoron - don't you agree? You can install dictator but democratic
governments are elected (or not elected) by the will of majority of
thye people. And frankly I think that it is nearly impossible for
democracy to thrive in IRAQ. For that you need some influential
enough class/group (or several od them) in society to support it.
IN post war Iraq there were four organized groups ready to compete
for political power:
1. Iraqi military
2. Baath party
3. Shiite islamists
4. Sunni islamists
In April 2003 Paul Bremmer disbanded the military and banned Baath
party members from holding public offices. Thus effectively removing
two SECULAR and anti-Iranian groups we could USE to attempt
democtratic
reforms.
Instead we were left with islamists that do not give a shit about
democracy and we are doing idiotic balancing act between Sunnis and
Shiites ever since. With no end in sight.
That is what happens when idiots and amateurs try to "install
democracy".
MY personal opinion is that democracy in IRAQ is pie in the sky thing
-
we can keep trying for next 20 years and minute we withdraw two
things
will happen:
1. pro-Iranian Islamic republic
2. military dictatorship
We could have cut our losses tremendously if we immediately threw all
our
support behind Iraqi military - let them take control, provide
security,
fight any pro-Iranian element and maybe even install military leader.
And cut the deal with them them that in 10-15 they would move Iraq
toward
democracy. Benefits: no insurgency, our troops would have been home,
Iran
would have been contained, Iraq would have been STABLE.
But NO - bleeding heart righteous neocons decided to have their
little
democracy experiment. And our soldier and taxpayer are paying for
their
dogmatic idiocy.
Bill Sornson
> Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?
Who are you addressing?
Tom Sherman
> Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?
I got bored of arguing with Ed Dolan. ;)
Andre Jute
> Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?
Yo, McNamara, what's a "griefer", and should I care that you call me
one?
Andre Jute
Wow! Now that's realpolitik for you. In Woe's worldview, conservatives
are bleeding hearts... I'm not going to say anything more for fear of
offending a truly hard man.
Andre Jute
Realist
Ozark Bicycle
Lil' Timmy Mac is a psychologist (hard to believe, but it's
true!)......he thinks he should be able to tell people how and what to
think.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> > environmentalists include too many irrationalists and mass murderers
>> > for someone of my sensitivity to be associated with them.
> A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
> committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
> first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
> DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
> Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
> cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
> the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.
> A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
> committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
> first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
> DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
> Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
> cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
> the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.
Well yeah, sure, you make a compelling case!
Except for one thing. It hasn't been banned in tropical countries where
mosquito-borne illnesses are a major problem.
Oh darn, one other pesky thing about your logic. You only mention cancer as
the reason for banning most use of DDT. Nice try. Much of the environmental
movement is about reducing threats to biodiversity, and DDT proved to be a
very significant threat to wildlife (thinning egg shells and severe toxicity
to many fish and other acquatic species when DDT runoff from fields entered
streams and lakes). There may come a time when a lack of biodiversity
results in a genocide far greater than theone that you imagine to be
presently happening.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
Tom Sherman
Zarkie is back! Been visiting JFT in New York?
Andre Jute
wrote:
Gee, Tom, you've blamed everyone from the dead (Reagan) via the
inanimate (multinationals) to the President (Bush) for the world not
being a perfect place, but you haven't offered a single word that
would aid in stopping the deaths of tens of millions of people every
year from hunger and malaria while DDT remains under environmental
injunction.
And, Tom, you've spouted quite a bit of conspiracy theory, but I don't
see a word in which you try to refute the facts I offered. Am I to
conclude that you agree with me that environmentalists are the
greatest mass murderers and genocides the world has ever known?
BTW, I didn't put words in your mouth -- I merely pointed out that you
will damn Bush for acting, or for not acting. It is characteristic of
left-wingers always to try to have it both ways. We're a long way from
falling out to the extent that you should compare me to that slimy
slitherer Fogel -- the implication of insincerity really hurt. Don't
be so thinskinned, man.
Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
Tom Sherman
Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 8:27 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 31, 1:08 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?
> >> Yo, McNamara, what's a "griefer", and should I care that you call me
> >> one?
>
> > Lil' Timmy Mac is a psychologist (hard to believe, but it's
> > true!)......he thinks he should be able to tell people how and what to
> > think.
>
> Zarkie is back! Been visiting JFT in New York?
>
No, I've been too fucking busy, and vice versa, to post to Usenet. I
see the same cannot be said of you. ;-)
Bill Sornson
> Gee, Tom, you've...
Why address him directly when he doesn't have the courtesy, courage or class
to do the same? (One of many reasons he's plonked.)
BS (jus' callin' it)
Andre Jute
Yeah, when I heard that he's a psychologist, I wondered which
institution punched his ticket. I mean, there's a quality level below
which professional solidarity ceases to operate.
Andre Jute
Pass up the spirit level
Woland99
> Wow! Now that's realpolitik for you. In Woe's worldview, conservatives
> are bleeding hearts... I'm not going to say anything more for fear of
> offending a truly hard man.
>
> Andre Jute
> Realist
War in IRAQ was waged to CONTROL WMDs.
We did not find any so we do not control any.
So war was a failure.
Knowing that suddenly bleeding heart neocons discovered passion
for freedom and democracy and started selling as IRAQ as democracy
mission.
One lie to cover another.
Every organization should set goals, attempt to achieve them
and then be accountable. Otherwise it is a complete failure.
All those neocons running around and crying that if we leave IRAQ
now we will not "complete the mission". Well fuck IRAQ - they quite
obviously do not want any democracy, national reconciliation, freedom
or or other US BS. All that assholes that are their leaders want is
to keep stealing Yankee dollar. And all that assholes that are our
leaders want is exactly the same but on the larger scale. Shadow
puppets.
Andre Jute
wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >> > environmentalists include too many irrationalists and mass murderers
> >> > for someone of my sensitivity to be associated with them.
> > A single compelling example of mass murder of genocidal scale
> > committed by environmentalists will do to convict Rachel Carson as the
> > first in a long line of killer-environmentalists. It's name is DDT.
> > DDT was banned by politicians riding a rollercoaster of mob action.
> > Regardless of the lies of trendy "scientists", not a single death from
> > cancer was ever proven against DDT. But the banning of DDT is counted
> > the first and the greatest of triumph of environmentalism.
>
Thank you, Mike. As we shall see when I have disposed of your
quibbles, I have indeed made a compelling case.
> Except for one thing. It hasn't been banned in tropical countries where
> mosquito-borne illnesses are a major problem.
It is this sort of kindergarten debating trick which makes people
doubt the sincerity of the entire environmental movement. It is
widely known that the poor nations whose populations are killed by
malaria depend for funding of their anti-malaria campaigns on foreign
aid -- and it is equally widely known that almost all those agency
will not sanction aid for DDT spraying. That is a defacto ban, and if
you don't about it, Mike, you shouldn't be posturing in this thread
with sarcastic quips.
> Oh darn, one other pesky thing about your logic. You only mention cancer as
> the reason for banning most use of DDT. Nice try.
Yawn. Here we go. Mike doesn't have have any answers so he accuses me
of deceit. Let's see whether I was deceifful or whether I overrated
the concern for human life of the environmentalists on RBT, including
of course you, Mike.
>Much of the environmental
> movement is about reducing threats to biodiversity, and DDT proved to be a
> very significant threat to wildlife (thinning egg shells and severe toxicity
> to many fish and other acquatic species when DDT runoff from fields entered
> streams and lakes).
Yes, but I had already stated in the thread from which this one arose
that I don't care shit for Gaia or the whales, if people need to eat
them. It is this totally inhumane preference for little furry and
feathered creatures to people (and especially to brown people) that
marks the environmentalists out as some of the ugliest people on
earth.
>There may come a time when a lack of biodiversity
> results in a genocide far greater than theone that you imagine to be
> presently happening.
Malaria kills -- and the most effective and cheapest (DDT is out of
patent) treatment is under de facto ban in the poorest countries in
the world. Millions die every year from a disease that is preventable
-- except for the malign influence of the environmentalists' abiding
preference for crawling things over (brown) people. Sneering that I'm
"imagining the genocide" doesn't prevent one death or disablement from
malaria, a permanently debilitating disease.
As for
>There may come a time when a lack of biodiversity
> results in a genocide far greater than theone that you imagine to be
> presently happening.
Gaia has been taking her chances with extinctions and new evolutions
for millions of years, and will for millions of years after the
sentient ape is gone. What the devil makes you, Mike, think our
little moment in time is worth fixing in amber at the cost of millions
of lives? Even the Greek Gods never had the arrogance of the
environmentalists.
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> [mail order merchant recommended by me among many others]
You shouldn't sign your corporate affiliation when you lay yourself
open so blatantly to be being described as at the very least an
apologist for racists and genocides; it's not smart publicity.
Andre Jute
Just the fax, mam
Andre Jute
Tom's okay and he's probably right to be pissed at me. Until I just
now started checking some of my facts on the net, I hadn't even
realized that calling Carson a genocide was not an original idea, nor
a surrealist joke -- because it had been done before, and in such a
manner that the environmentalists are sure to be hyper-sensitive about
it. That doesn't mean I'm wrong about it, you understand, merely that
I now understand it is a bit provocative to bring it up on a cyclists'
newsgroup.
Andre Jute
Monster's balls
Bill Sornson
Still say it's chickenbleep to argue in the third person the way he so often
does. That was all.
Woland99
> We cannot count he cost of banningDDT: just the deaths from a one of
> the many by-effects of banningDDTare uncountable; a total is
> impossible to tally.DDTwas the only effective control on the killer
> malaria. Every year sinceDDTwas banned, millions of the poorest
> people on earth have been killed by malaria. Every year millions of
When you finish crying over "millions of the poorest people" perhaps
you would like to address the following issue:
Overall effectiveness of DDT against malaria
In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria
in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested
in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17
cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria
in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter
of 1969. Although the country resumed spraying with DDT, many of the
local mosquitoes had acquired resistance to DDT in the interim,
presumably because of the continued use of DDT for crop protection, so
the program was not nearly as effective as it had been before.
Switching to the more-expensive malathion in 1977 reduced the malaria
infection rate to 3,000 by 2004. A recent study notes, "DDT and
Malathion are no longer recommended since An. culicifacies and An.
subpictus has been found resistant."
and
Mosquito resistance to DDT
Although the publication of Silent Spring undoubtedly influenced the
U.S. ban on DDT in 1972, the reduced usage of DDT in malaria
eradication began the decade before because of the emergence of DDT-
resistant mosquitoes. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-
Malaria campaign, observed that eradication programs had to be wary of
relying on DDT for too long as "resistance has appeared [after] six or
seven years."[73]
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt
I bet you also like antibacterial soap. There is no action without
reaction - you should realize it by now.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> [mail order merchant recommended by me among many others]
>>You shouldn't sign your corporate affiliation when you lay yourself
>>open so blatantly to be being described as at the very least an
>>apologist for racists and genocides; it's not smart publicity.
First off, let's get something straight that we can both probably agree
upon. We are a retail stand-alone operation (two stores) and serve a local
clientele only. We are not in any way, shape or form, a "mail-order
merchant."
The case for & against use of DDT is far more complex than you would like
people to believe. One of the best analysis may be found here-
http://www.malaria.org/tren.html and pay particular attention to the section
titled "The Move Away from DDT." There are a number of reasons why an
alternative must quickly be found; in general, as areas improve their
standard of living, residents become increasingly resistant to having their
houses sprayed (for reasons that have nothing to do with any "environmental"
concerns).
In a nutshell, DDT has done great things for malarial control when used to
spray inside surfaces of houses. It works remarkably well in the
least-developed countries, because the surfaces of the dwellings tend to be
porous, and the staining (white) that comes from the spraying isn't a big
deal. As standards of living improve, a variety of things conspire against
the effective use of DDT, including plastered and painted walls upon which
DDT is not suitable.
It's the use of DDT as a field pesticide that causes the environmental
issues, and its very low price makes it attractive to try and divert from
its use as a malaria control.
The answers for this one aren't as easy as it would seem. Environmental
groups demanding a total ban on its use are likely over-reacting to sins of
the past, but POP (persistant organic pollutants) have to be dealt with in
the most-cautious manner due to their refusal to break down into benign
components. Used without caution and you end up with ever-increasing amounts
of it in the food chain, plus a higher risk of evolution of vermin resistant
to it. Fortunately, those countries (primarily sub-Sahara Africa) most in
need of DDT for malarial control have accepted the fact that its continued
availability requires systems in place to prevent its use for agricultural
purposes.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d39e75f4-9560-4a1e...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Ozark Bicycle
And pity the poor sod who stumbles upon Timmy Mac in their HMO list of
approved providers......
Peter Cole
> On Mar 31, 3:38 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
> Thank you, Mike. As we shall see when I have disposed of your
> quibbles, I have indeed made a compelling case.
>
>> Except for one thing. It hasn't been banned in tropical countries where
>> mosquito-borne illnesses are a major problem.
>
> It is this sort of kindergarten debating trick which makes people
> doubt the sincerity of the entire environmental movement. It is
> widely known that the poor nations whose populations are killed by
> malaria depend for funding of their anti-malaria campaigns on foreign
> aid -- and it is equally widely known that almost all those agency
> will not sanction aid for DDT spraying. That is a defacto ban, and if
> you don't about it, Mike, you shouldn't be posturing in this thread
> with sarcastic quips.
>> Much of the environmental
>> movement is about reducing threats to biodiversity, and DDT proved to be a
>> very significant threat to wildlife (thinning egg shells and severe toxicity
>> to many fish and other acquatic species when DDT runoff from fields entered
>> streams and lakes).
> Malaria kills -- and the most effective and cheapest (DDT is out of
> patent) treatment is under de facto ban in the poorest countries in
> the world. Millions die every year from a disease that is preventable
> -- except for the malign influence of the environmentalists' abiding
> preference for crawling things over (brown) people. Sneering that I'm
> "imagining the genocide" doesn't prevent one death or disablement from
> malaria, a permanently debilitating disease.
Where to start?
First, there never has been a ban on DDT for indoor malaria spraying. It
was feared that a ban might arise in 1999, but quite the opposite happened:
http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
"The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going
into the negotiations over two years ago. For the first time, there is
now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning
that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."
"Also, there is a clear procedure that endemic countries may follow to
use DDT, and having done so, they have the RIGHT at international law to
use DDT, without pressure from the developed countries or international
institutions who have in the past threatened them against doing so."
The treaty was signed 12/10/2000.
Why were they "threatened" before? Who would care if Uganda sprayed the
insides of its mud huts with DDT anyway? Not Greenpeace (the usual
whipping boy), not the WWF (the other one), not the EDF (original DDT
sinners), not WHO (UN incompetent agency), not USAID (our incompetent
agency) -- here's a clue:
http://www.malaria.org/cautionprecaution.html
"The "precautionary principle" has become an established argument in
debates on the environment and health.
Whose health is being protected by this invocation of the precautionary
principle? And who will benefit if and when malaria-endemic countries
are forced to switch to newer, more expensive insecticides? The answer
seems to be that the health of people in poorer countries is being put
at a very real risk to protect the citizens of wealthier nations from a
theoretical risk. The only player guaranteed to benefit if DDT is banned
outright seems to be the chemical-manufacturing industry.
The Lancet"
Wake up and smell the coffee. Use your brain and stop being a dumb
flunkie for the right-wing blow-hards and their corporate masters. Those
stories are invented for the gullible, they don't withstand the
slightest scrutiny. If "killer-environmentalists" care about "crawling
things" rather than "brown people", why should they care one whit
whether "brown people" have the *insides* of their huts sprayed?
Malaria eradication is a complicated, multifaceted problem. If DDT were
a silver bullet it would be ancient history. Everyone seems to get that
but you and your flat-earthers. Read some books, or at least a (good)
magazine or newspaper.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.kurlantzick.html
"This preoccupation with DDT, however, is largely a distraction.
Environmental leaders now agree that the pesticide should be used to
combat malaria; few nations in Africa ban it; and USAID has agreed to
spray DDT in countries like Ethiopia and Mozambique. What's more, DDT is
no silver bullet. Malaria experts agree that it reduces transmission,
but emphasize that it must be combined with other interventions,
including ACT. The furor over DDT has undoubtedly hampered efforts to
provide better access to antimalarial drugs. When another malaria expert
met with Senate staffers to discuss malaria in 2004 and 2005, they
badgered him about DDT. "I tried to explain the reality," he says, "and
people in the U.S. say 'That's not what I was told.'" "DDT has become a
fetish," adds Allan Schapira of WHO. "You have people advocating DDT as
if it's the only insecticide that works against malaria, as if DDT would
solve all problems, which is obviously absolutely unrealistic.""
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/health/27prof.html
"In the war on malaria, silver bullets inevitably morph into rubber
ones: the parasite and its mosquitoes develop resistance to every
miracle drug and pesticide that comes along."
The real problem is that the industrialized countries are too cheap to
fix a fixable problem, not that anyone really needs an obsolete
insecticide. As usual, it's a depressing story of "national interests",
corporate greed and bungling bureaucracies, leave it to the
right-wingers to try to twist it into a regressive fable -- fodder for
their herd.
As for DDT, it's persistent, it's bio-active (duh), and it accumulates
in tissue -- a really terrible set of features. It's one of only 12
compounds the UN is seeking to ban world-wide. Even the most fervent
advocates for its use in malaria vector control agree it should be
eventually banned even for that. By the time it was banned in the US
(1972) it had been largely replaced and was almost exclusively used on
cotton. In that year we exported more than we used, and the ban didn't
apply to exports. At its peak (1959), we dumped about half a pound
annually for every man, woman and child in the US. It wasn't the *use*
of toxic chemicals that environmentalists (even Rachel Carson)
protested, it was the *abuse*. Agri-business and other corporate
interests don't care about such abuse, they are *mandated* to care only
about profits. Bureaucracies are no better. Neither of them give a damn
about America, Africa, or anywhere else.
For the real story of how the conservatives twisted a nasty chemical
into an anti-environmental poster boy (for the truly gullible):
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186
"At one level, these articles send a comforting message to the developed
world: Saving African children is easy. We don’t need to build large aid
programs or fund major health initiatives, let alone develop Third-World
infrastructure or think about larger issues of fairness. No, to save
African lives from malaria, we just need to put our wallets away and
work to stop the evil environmentalists."
"Instead of apologizing, the chemical companies went on the attack. They
funded front groups and think tanks to claim the epidemic started
because countries “stopped” using their products. In their version of
the story, environmentalists forced Africans to stop using DDT, causing
the increase in malaria.
What a crock of cynical, self-serving bullshit. It's obscene.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/
"Overseas, DDT was being phased out of the fight against malaria, but
Carson and budding environmentalists were not the reason. In the 1950s,
when the Global Malaria Eradication Program was launched, the U.S. had
been a major financier of it. But as the years ticked by, eradication
remained a distant dream, says Litsios, the retired World Health
Organization scientist. (His book, "The Tomorrow of Malaria," was
published in 1996.) He explains that the global program "oversold the
possibility of eradication" and Congress tired of its promises. By the
early '60s, the money Congress had pledged to the program dried up. In
1969, the WHO officially abandoned the eradication effort."
"Richard Tren, who is allied with libertarian and free-market think
tanks, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, believes that
anti-insecticide sentiment scared donors away from DDT programs. "By the
late 1960s and early 1970s, the donor nations were starting to withdraw
support from insecticide-spraying programs and from the use of DDT,"
Tren says. "I am confident in saying that the anti-DDT crusades harmed
malaria control and cost lives." "
"That is misleading, say Litsios and Clive Shiff, a malaria researcher
at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who has
participated in malaria programs in Africa for decades. They stress that
aid organizations weren't anti-DDT during that period, they were
pro-medicine. Through the '70s and '80s, most countries, on the advice
of the WHO, "changed their approach to malaria control from insecticide
treatment to treating people with chloroquine" -- which kills the
parasites that cause malaria -- "because that was a way they could
impact the mortality of the disease," Shiff says. "I don't think the ban
of DDT in the U.S. had any impact on malaria control programs in Africa,
certainly not in southern Africa where I was working." "
I think this myth is busted.
JCrowe
what it has to do with bicycle technology...
Tom Sherman
Why not blame those who make things worse through their greed for power?
Really? Why not spend some money on better anti-malarial drug
development, more biologically benign ways of reducing mosquito
populations? Why not stop predatory exploitative economic practices?
> And, Tom, you've spouted quite a bit of conspiracy theory, but I don't
> see a word in which you try to refute the facts I offered. Am I to
> conclude that you agree with me that environmentalists are the
> greatest mass murderers and genocides the world has ever known?
>
Why argue with the ridiculous?
> BTW, I didn't put words in your mouth -- I merely pointed out that you
> will damn Bush for acting, or for not acting.
That is a false assumption. I was not concerned about Iraq being a
significant threat to anyone since 1991 - heck, even the Kuwaitis did
not feel threatened. The idea of post 1991 Iraq being a threat was a
Potemkin village. Furthermore, I consider Bush I a war criminal for
deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure such as water and
wastewater treatment plants; Clinton a war criminal for continuing the
sanctions that did not allow for civilian infrastructure to be rebuilt
and the 1998 bombings of Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi deaths; and Bush II a war criminal for conducting an illegal and
immoral invasion of conquest.
Mr. Jute's assumption is false, and he should retract that assumption.
> It is characteristic of
> left-wingers always to try to have it both ways.
Please do not generalize me. I do not follow anyone else ideology, but
consider issues by themselves.
> We're a long way from
> falling out to the extent that you should compare me to that slimy
> slitherer Fogel -- the implication of insincerity really hurt. Don't
> be so thinskinned, man.
>
I do not talk kindly to people making incorrect claims as to what I have
said or thought - that is far more offensive than any insult could be.
Please stick to facts and opinions about me.
Tom Sherman
Mr. Sherman still can not comprehend Mr. Sornson's reasoning (or lack
thereof) on this issue.
If Mr. Sornson means "chicken shit", he should write "chicken shit".
After all, former United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall
used the term.
Tom Sherman
> On Mar 31, 4:20 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> Gee, Tom, you've...
>> Why address him directly when he doesn't have the courtesy, courage or class
>> to do the same? (One of many reasons he's plonked.)
>>
>> BS (jus' callin' it)
>
> Tom's okay and he's probably right to be pissed at me.
My only real objection to anything that Mr. Jute has posted was to the
incorrect statement that I would have critized Bush the Lesser for not
invading Iraq, since it is not only completely false, but diametrically
opposed to what I believe in.
> Until I just
> now started checking some of my facts on the net, I hadn't even
> realized that calling Carson a genocide was not an original idea, nor
> a surrealist joke -- because it had been done before, and in such a
> manner that the environmentalists are sure to be hyper-sensitive about
> it. That doesn't mean I'm wrong about it, you understand, merely that
> I now understand it is a bit provocative to bring it up on a cyclists'
> newsgroup.
>
I think the argument is silly, but posting it does not offend me.
Tom Sherman
> [...]
> Yes, but I had already stated in the thread from which this one arose
> that I don't care shit for Gaia or the whales, if people need to eat
> them. It is this totally inhumane preference for little furry and
> feathered creatures to people (and especially to brown people) that
> marks the environmentalists out as some of the ugliest people on
> earth.
>
not a hominid exclusive? Having a soul - ancient superstition, not science.
The little furry and feathered creatures are not capable of evil, unlike
hominids (and chimpanzees), who murder each other.
> [...]
>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> [mail order merchant recommended by me among many others]
>
I believe you have Mike's two stores in the San Francisco Bay area
confused with the mail order outfit in the UK. Mike has stated several
times in the past that he does not sell mail order.
> You shouldn't sign your corporate affiliation when you lay yourself
> open so blatantly to be being described as at the very least an
> apologist for racists and genocides; it's not smart publicity.
>
I would still recommend a LBS where the proprietor disagreed with me
politically, if that store offered high quality service (e.g. Yellow
Jersey).
Andre Jute
> On Mar 30, 5:07 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We cannot count he cost of banningDDT: just the deaths from a one of
> > the many by-effects of banningDDTare uncountable; a total is
> > impossible to tally.DDTwas the only effective control on the killer
> > malaria. Every year sinceDDTwas banned, millions of the poorest
> > people on earth have been killed by malaria. Every year millions of
> > the poorest people on earth continue to be killed by malaria whileDDT, now declared innocent, remains banned for outdoor use.
>
> When you finish crying over "millions of the poorest people" perhaps
> you would like to address the following issue:
>
> Overall effectiveness of DDT against malaria
You, Woe, you missed the point altogether: the environmentalists lied
about DDT causing cancer in humans in order to get it banned, while,
as they now admit, their real agenda was to save the bald eagle and
suchlike little furry friends. That in turn meant that tens of
millions of poor brown people died from or were incapacitated by
malaria. To come a generation afterwards and say with 20-20 hindsight,
oh, DDT isn't all that effective (which in itself is bullshit), is not
an excuse for carelessly committing a genocide. It isn't even an
excuse for creating a scare based on a lie, which is where we started,
because the environmentalists are still at it, creating scares by
telling lies. I have already in this thread demonstrated some of the
lies Al Gore, for instance, tells in his film. A High Court Judge in
England wouldn't let the film be shown to schoolchildren unless they
were warned of nine major errors and in addition told that the film is
not science but a political document.
Andre Jute
Simple logic is always true
Andre Jute
wrote:
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > [mail order merchant recommended by me among many others]
> >>You shouldn't sign your corporate affiliation when you lay yourself
> >>open so blatantly to be being described as at the very least an
> >>apologist for racists and genocides; it's not smart publicity.
>
> First off, let's get something straight that we can both probably agree
> upon. We are a retail stand-alone operation (two stores) and serve a local
> clientele only. We are not in any way, shape or form, a "mail-order
> merchant."
I've been trying to calculate the odds on my favourite mailorder bike
component pusher (the biggest in Europe) having the same name as a two-
store Californian (?) operation -- but how do you assess the
likelihood of two guys independently making the same pun?
> The case for & against use of DDT is far more complex than you would like
> people to believe.
I don't actually care what people believe about DDT. I chose an
example almost at random. I would have no problem whatsoever making a
plausible case that posterity will regard the signatories of the Kyoto
Agreement as criminals for wasting so many resources when the world's
poor don't even have clean drinking water. But, that said, I believe
you: DDT isn't a simple problem. I didn't say it was or is. I called
Rachel Carson a genocide because her followers oversimplified the
problem of DDT, and then lied to get it banned, with a cost in lives
of tens or hundreds of millions.
>One of the best analysis may be found here-http://www.malaria.org/tren.htmland pay particular attention to the section
That must be a real comfort to parents listening to their children
starve, that more than thirty years after a de facto ban on the use of
DDT *without any provision being made for a replacement*, some
bureaucrat has accepted that controls must be in place before DDT can
be used again. The de facto ban arose because the aid agencies,
fearful of the environmental mob and their yesmen in the media, would
not fund the use of DDT. USAID, for instance, has just recently, under
the pressure of publicity orchestrated by someone who uses the
environmentalists' methods against them, changed its mind about
funding DDT spraying indoors, after decades of not funding it while
refusing to admit that they had an unofficial but nonetheless firm ban
on DDT. Imagine how that deceit looks to some hungry brown peasant who
has already buried his children. Imagine trying to explain to him that
he will die or at a minimum have his life ruined with a debilitating
disease, because a bunch of USAID bureaucrats operate in fear of the
hysterical overreactions of an unelected pressure group called
environmentalists.
I know. I tried to explain it a few years ago to a university graduate
whose job is to count mosquitos; this African was the guest of my
local country health authority. "But what laws do they answer to?" he
kept asking.
Andre Jute
Who switched the light out on the Dark Continent? Why, the good
people.
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "Andre Jute" <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>
> <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That doesn't mean I'm wrong about it, you understand, merely that
> >I now understand it is a bit provocative to bring it up on a cyclists'
> >newsgroup.
>
> even mark it OT. We all know that.
Why should it be a troll to demand on RBT that people who claim
science as their justification must not lie about the science they
claim as justification, as the environmentalists lie all the time, as
I have proven in this thread. Or are you claiming that such a
substantial majority of RBTers lie about science so often and so
consistently that it is offensive to demand on RBT that science be
truthfully represented? You're not too bright, are you Still?
Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
Tom Sherman
> On Mar 31, 8:34 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> [mail order merchant recommended by me among many others]
>>>> You shouldn't sign your corporate affiliation when you lay yourself
>>>> open so blatantly to be being described as at the very least an
>>>> apologist for racists and genocides; it's not smart publicity.
>> First off, let's get something straight that we can both probably agree
>> upon. We are a retail stand-alone operation (two stores) and serve a local
>> clientele only. We are not in any way, shape or form, a "mail-order
>> merchant."
>
> I've been trying to calculate the odds on my favourite mailorder bike
> component pusher (the biggest in Europe) having the same name as a two-
> store Californian (?) operation -- but how do you assess the
> likelihood of two guys independently making the same pun?
There are also Chain Reaction Cycles in Anchorage, Alaska and
Prattville, Alabama.
Andre Jute
targets.
First, it is immaterial whether environmentalists by lies about cancer
in humans had DDT banned for fighting malaria or for protecting crops.
One or the other killed millions of poor brown people.
Second, you're full of shit, Peter Cole. There may not have been an
official ban on indoor spraying but it is widely known that the
unofficial ban, inspired in aid bureaucrates by the hysteria of
environmentalists, was extremely effective. Health officials up and
down Africa are on record as saying that plans to use DDT could simply
not be funded. You yourself further on tell us that you told a lie
above:
"and USAID has agreed to spray DDT in countries like Ethiopia and
Mozambique." Tell us then, oh genius of great mind, if USAID hasn't
been practicing a ban on DDT for 36 years (at the cost of untold lives
of course), why should it suddenly agree to do something you claim it
has been doing all along? I say again, you're full of shit, Peter
Cole.
First of all, Peter, are you sure you want to patronize me and call me
a "dumb flunkie"? Are you really sure you want to say in public that
I'm "gullible" for not running along with the hysterical mob of
environmentalists practising their destructive religion? There are no
free lunches around me, sonny.
For next we're going to read the piece from The Lancet that you quote
above with a bit more attention. You have gullibly believed The Lancet
that the pressure against DDT comes from the pharmaceutical industry.
In fact, down below you quote a writer whose institute is financed by
business, precisely for the purpose of exposing the de facto ban on
funding even indoor spraying of DDT. And very successfully exposed
too, because the USAID has been forced to choose between the unelected
pressure of the environmentalist and the health of its aid clients --
and Goddamn high time too.
Turning to the next emanation of your dumb gullibility:
>If "killer-environmentalists" care about "crawling
> things" rather than "brown people", why should they care one whit
> whether "brown people" have the *insides* of their huts sprayed?
First of all, you're making the mistake of thinking a hysterical mob,
which is what the environmental movement demonstrably is, is rational.
It is not. It lied in the first instance to get DDT banned by creating
a totally unfounded cancer scare when its real agenda was saving
little furry animals.
Secondly, you are truly dumb if you cannot imagine the outcry among
some of your even less rational fellow-travellers if they heard that a
US-funded body was paying for the foreign use of a substance banned in
the USA. It is fear of these irrational environmental lobbies that
caused aid agencies to operate a de facto ban for decades, until it
was exposed in recent years.
> Malaria eradication is a complicated, multifaceted problem.
Which in your opinion I am not qualified to understand but you are?
Tell me, Peter, have you travelled in Africa? I have. Have you
delivered food there to the starving? I have. I'm not giving you smug
suburban ivory tower shit. But you're giving me claptrap straight from
some provincial, smugly suburban security.
> If DDT were
> a silver bullet it would be ancient history. Everyone seems to get that
> but you and your flat-earthers.
If you're right, convince me. I'm not saying DDT is the be-all and end-
all. I merely said that the environmental movement is made up of mass-
murderers and genocides because *without putting anything in its
place* they lied about cancer in humans irrationally to ban DDT,
causing the death of tens of millions of poor people, and that they
operate this ban to this day 36 years later by hysterical public
lobbying. and mob pressure group tactics.
>Read some books, or at least a (good)
> magazine or newspaper.
Which you will choose for me? The debate is over. The consensus is
here. That slogan was the biggest mistake the environmentalists ever
made.
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.kurlantzick.html
>
> "This preoccupation with DDT, however, is largely a distraction.
> Environmental leaders now agree that the pesticide should be used to
> combat malaria
Dumb? Dumb doesn't describe you, Peter. I wonder if you realize what
you have just admitted. You have just admitted that you consider
yourself, as an environmentalist, so far above human life that 35
years and hundreds of millions of lives after your kind caused a human
catastrophe (which I have here characterized as a genocide), your
leaders have condescended to permit the starving and diseased people,
whose starvation and death and permanent debilitation is clearly to be
laid at your door, to have a little half-measure of succour. Your
arrogance is sickening. Who the fuck appointed "environmental leaders"
to decide life and death for an entire continent of people who cannot
fight back? Environmentalism is the true colonial enslaving mechanism.
>; few nations in Africa ban it; and USAID has agreed to
> spray DDT in countries like Ethiopia and Mozambique.
Bit late, eh, unless you know how to resurrect the millions of
children and women and men who died or had their lives ruined because
environmentalists wanted to save a few bald eagles and to do it lied
about DDT causing cancer in humans.
>What's more, DDT is
> no silver bullet. Malaria experts agree that it reduces transmission,
> but emphasize that it must be combined with other interventions,
> including ACT. The furor over DDT has undoubtedly hampered efforts to
> provide better access to antimalarial drugs.
Oh, crap. Your attempt to turn this into "a furore over DDT" is tenth-
rate smoke you're blowing out of your ass. This is a furore over a
genocide environmentalists have committed, a genocide which clearly
exposes their hysteria and their basic inhumanity, when they rate a
few bald eagles higher than the lives of tens of millions of human
beings, and when they have to be forced, 36 years later, to make some
minor concession, they behave about it like gods permitting worms to
live.
>When another malaria expert
> met with Senate staffers to discuss malaria in 2004 and 2005, they
> badgered him about DDT. "I tried to explain the reality," he says, "and
> people in the U.S. say 'That's not what I was told.'" "DDT has become a
> fetish," adds Allan Schapira of WHO. "You have people advocating DDT as
> if it's the only insecticide that works against malaria, as if DDT would
> solve all problems, which is obviously absolutely unrealistic.""
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/health/27prof.html
>
> "In the war on malaria, silver bullets inevitably morph into rubber
> ones: the parasite and its mosquitoes develop resistance to every
> miracle drug and pesticide that comes along."
Yada yada yada, more irrelevant smoke. 36 years and tens of millions
of deaths and what have those responsible, the environmentalists, done
about it? Why, they've blamed everyone else.
> The real problem is that the industrialized countries are too cheap to
> fix a fixable problem, not that anyone really needs an obsolete
> insecticide. As usual, it's a depressing story of "national interests",
> corporate greed and bungling bureaucracies, leave it to the
> right-wingers to try to twist it into a regressive fable -- fodder for
> their herd.
So why did USAID and the other aid bodies operate a de facto ban on
DDT even for indoor spraying for over three decades if not out of fear
of environmentalist hysteria?
>
> As for DDT, it's persistent, it's bio-active (duh), and it accumulates
> in tissue -- a really terrible set of features. It's one of only 12
> compounds the UN is seeking to ban world-wide. Even the most fervent
> advocates for its use in malaria vector control agree it should be
> eventually banned even for that. By the time it was banned in the US
> (1972) it had been largely replaced and was almost exclusively used on
> cotton. In that year we exported more than we used, and the ban didn't
> apply to exports. At its peak (1959), we dumped about half a pound
> annually for every man, woman and child in the US. It wasn't the *use*
> of toxic chemicals that environmentalists (even Rachel Carson)
> protested, it was the *abuse*. Agri-business and other corporate
> interests don't care about such abuse, they are *mandated* to care only
> about profits. Bureaucracies are no better. Neither of them give a damn
> about America, Africa, or anywhere else.
Here we go: as I said, the environmentalists, with Peter Cole here
their spokesman, are simply destructive and murderous without thought
for consequences -- but someone else is always to blame. It is no
accident that the someone else is the big something else of the profit
motive: the environmentalists are simply the marxists in diferent
clothes, so caring about humanity that they have no time to pause
because they will at least two million *people* by disease alone every
year for a whole generation -- and continuing, because nothing
effective has been done meanwhile, among other reasons because of
hysterical environmentalist resistance to possible solutions, like
genetically modified crops.
>
> For the real story of how the conservatives twisted a nasty chemical
> into an anti-environmental poster boy (for the truly gullible):
>
> http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186
>
> "At one level, these articles send a comforting message to the developed
> world: Saving African children is easy. We don't need to build large aid
> programs or fund major health initiatives, let alone develop Third-World
> infrastructure or think about larger issues of fairness. No, to save
> African lives from malaria, we just need to put our wallets away and
> work to stop the evil environmentalists."
>
> "Instead of apologizing, the chemical companies went on the attack. They
> funded front groups and think tanks to claim the epidemic started
> because countries "stopped" using their products. In their version of
> the story, environmentalists forced Africans to stop using DDT, causing
> the increase in malaria.
Yawn. DDT is long since out of patent. There is no big money to be
made in DDT; it is a commoditiy level product well suited to
production in the third world with existing facilities and financing.
It is simply a lie to imply that the big pharmaceutical companies,
with their overheads and research commitments, can make a living,
never mind a profit, out of DDT.
> What a crock of cynical, self-serving bullshit. It's obscene.
Yes, that's what I keep saying about the environmentalists' apologia
for an undeniable genocide they have committed.
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/29/rachel_carson/
>
> "Overseas, DDT was being phased out of the fight against malaria, but
> Carson and budding environmentalists were not the reason. In the 1950s,
> when the Global Malaria Eradication Program was launched, the U.S. had
> been a major financier of it. But as the years ticked by, eradication
> remained a distant dream, says Litsios, the retired World Health
> Organization scientist. (His book, "The Tomorrow of Malaria," was
> published in 1996.) He explains that the global program "oversold the
> possibility of eradication" and Congress tired of its promises. By the
> early '60s, the money Congress had pledged to the program dried up. In
> 1969, the WHO officially abandoned the eradication effort."
>
> "Richard Tren, who is allied with libertarian and free-market think
> tanks, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs, believes that
> anti-insecticide sentiment scared donors away from DDT programs. "By the
> late 1960s and early 1970s, the donor nations were starting to withdraw
> support from insecticide-spraying programs and from the use of DDT,"
> Tren says. "I am confident in saying that the anti-DDT crusades harmed
> malaria control and cost lives." "
>
> "That is misleading, say Litsios and Clive Shiff, a malaria researcher
> at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who has
> participated in malaria programs in Africa for decades. They stress that
> aid organizations weren't anti-DDT during that period, they were
> pro-medicine."
It doesn't matter what they were not anti. Anything that they wouldn't
fund, the recipients could not have. In plain English the sentence
above reads: "At that time the donor bodies said, We won't pay for DDT
but if you get sick we'll pay for medicine."
You're right, Peter. This is obscene.
>"Through the '70s and '80s, most countries, on the advice
> of the WHO, "changed their approach to malaria control from insecticide
> treatment to treating people with chloroquine" -- which kills the
> parasites that cause malaria -- "because that was a way they could
> impact the mortality of the disease," Shiff says. "I don't think the ban
> of DDT in the U.S. had any impact on malaria control programs in Africa,
> certainly not in southern Africa where I was working." "
>
> I think this myth is busted.
I think some people can't find their arse with both hands and a torch.
i think a substantial number of them don't want to find their arse.
Then they blow smoke.
I must say, Peter Cole, that I am disappointed with the poor quality
smoke you blow as a distraction from a very serious charge against the
environmental movement, that to save a few bald eagles they've
committed the most obscene genocide the world has ever seen, and 36
years later these arrogant unelected murderers are still the chief
obstruction to a solution.
Andre Jute
The facts speak for themselves
Andre Jute
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > BTW, I didn't put words in your mouth -- I merely pointed out that you
> > will damn Bush for acting, or for not acting.
>
> That is a false assumption. I was not concerned about Iraq being a
> significant threat to anyone since 1991 - heck, even the Kuwaitis did
> not feel threatened. The idea of post 1991 Iraq being a threat was a
> Potemkin village. Furthermore, I consider Bush I a war criminal for
> deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure such as water and
> wastewater treatment plants; Clinton a war criminal for continuing the
> sanctions that did not allow for civilian infrastructure to be rebuilt
> and the 1998 bombings of Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of
> Iraqi deaths; and Bush II a war criminal for conducting an illegal and
> immoral invasion of conquest.
>
> Mr. Jute's assumption is false, and he should retract that assumption.
Of course I withdraw the statement. Apologies for making an
unwarranted assumption about what you think.
But that raises another question: When, in your opinion, did George W
Bush last do something, anything at all, right?
Andre Jute
Rachel Carson is now getting into distinguished company: Bush pere et
fils, and Bill Clinton, past and future president of the United States
Andre Jute
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]
> > Yes, but I had already stated in the thread from which this one arose
> > that I don't care shit for Gaia or the whales, if people need to eat
> > them. It is this totally inhumane preference for little furry and
> > feathered creatures to people (and especially to brown people) that
> > marks the environmentalists out as some of the ugliest people on
> > earth.
>
> Why are hominids more valuable than other species? Cognitive thought -
> not a hominid exclusive? Having a soul - ancient superstition, not science.
I don't need a reason to believe hominids are more valuable than other
species. The belief itself has survival value. They're mine, therefore
I protect them, well before other species.
It is of course true that my pet chimpanzee -- several, all called
MiniAndre with a numeral -- were more worthwhile entities than most of
the environmentalists that i have ever met, but then they were also
more worthwhile beings than most of the restaurateurs I've ever met.
> The little furry and feathered creatures are not capable of evil, unlike
> hominids (and chimpanzees), who murder each other.
You're full of shit, Tom, says Champion Cleopatra Midnight III, my
study cat, sitting on my lap and watching your message on the screen.
She should know; every months she kills about 250 small animals for
sport, simply to hone her hunting instincts, because all the food she
requires, and much more, is put down for her in half a dozen bowls a
day.
> > [...]
>
> >> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> >> [mail order merchant recommended by me among many others]
>
> I believe you have Mike's two stores in the San Francisco Bay area
> confused with the mail order outfit in the UK. Mike has stated several
> times in the past that he does not sell mail order.
I have it now, thanks.
> > You shouldn't sign your corporate affiliation when you lay yourself
> > open so blatantly to be being described as at the very least an
> > apologist for racists and genocides; it's not smart publicity.
>
> I would still recommend a LBS where the proprietor disagreed with me
> politically, if that store offered high quality service (e.g. Yellow
> Jersey).
I wasn't thinking about Mike disagreeing with me; while I do not
forgive and forget scum like Fogel who deliberately assualt me, I'm
very relaxed about political or even personal disagreements, as long
as everyone in the end admits I am right, of course <g>. In this sort
of discussion errors -- and quite large ones at that -- are
unavoidable. It isn't like a problem in electrical engineering which
has a small number of correct answers, and only those can possibly be
the correct answers. (Note that I am not making a limp sociologist's
argument that everyone's opinion has value; that's clearly nonsense.)
Quite unlikely answers may by circumstances in a few decades prove
with hindsight to be right.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
Andre Jute
Oh woe is weather
Tom Sherman
> On Apr 1, 4:25 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Yes, but I had already stated in the thread from which this one arose
>>> that I don't care shit for Gaia or the whales, if people need to eat
>>> them. It is this totally inhumane preference for little furry and
>>> feathered creatures to people (and especially to brown people) that
>>> marks the environmentalists out as some of the ugliest people on
>>> earth.
>> Why are hominids more valuable than other species? Cognitive thought -
>> not a hominid exclusive? Having a soul - ancient superstition, not science.
>
> I don't need a reason to believe hominids are more valuable than other
> species. The belief itself has survival value. They're mine, therefore
> I protect them, well before other species.
>
should be preferred over another?
> It is of course true that my pet chimpanzee -- several, all called
> MiniAndre with a numeral -- were more worthwhile entities than most of
> the environmentalists that i have ever met, but then they were also
> more worthwhile beings than most of the restaurateurs I've ever met.
>
>> The little furry and feathered creatures are not capable of evil, unlike
>> hominids (and chimpanzees), who murder each other.
>
> You're full of shit, Tom,
No, I contributed to Milorganite production earlier on in the day.
> says Champion Cleopatra Midnight III, my
> study cat, sitting on my lap and watching your message on the screen.
> She should know; every months she kills about 250 small animals for
> sport, simply to hone her hunting instincts, because all the food she
> requires, and much more, is put down for her in half a dozen bowls a
> day.
>
If the brain of Champion Cleopatra Midnight III was put in a hominid
body, she would be found incompetent to stand trial, as she is not
capable of understanding right and wrong. Being evil requires the
knowledge of making the incorrect moral choice.
>>> [...]
>>>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>>>> [mail order merchant recommended by me among many others]
>> I believe you have Mike's two stores in the San Francisco Bay area
>> confused with the mail order outfit in the UK. Mike has stated several
>> times in the past that he does not sell mail order.
>
> I have it now, thanks.
>
>>> You shouldn't sign your corporate affiliation when you lay yourself
>>> open so blatantly to be being described as at the very least an
>>> apologist for racists and genocides; it's not smart publicity.
>> I would still recommend a LBS where the proprietor disagreed with me
>> politically, if that store offered high quality service (e.g. Yellow
>> Jersey).
>
> I wasn't thinking about Mike disagreeing with me; while I do not
> forgive and forget scum like Fogel who deliberately assualt me, I'm
> very relaxed about political or even personal disagreements, as long
> as everyone in the end admits I am right, of course <g>. In this sort
> of discussion errors -- and quite large ones at that -- are
> unavoidable.
The error of believing that one knows what others are thinking is avoidable.
> It isn't like a problem in electrical engineering which
> has a small number of correct answers, and only those can possibly be
> the correct answers. (Note that I am not making a limp sociologist's
> argument that everyone's opinion has value; that's clearly nonsense.)
> Quite unlikely answers may by circumstances in a few decades prove
> with hindsight to be right.
>
Or prove to be wrong
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful.
Tom Sherman
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>>> BTW, I didn't put words in your mouth -- I merely pointed out that you
>>> will damn Bush for acting, or for not acting.
>> That is a false assumption. I was not concerned about Iraq being a
>> significant threat to anyone since 1991 - heck, even the Kuwaitis did
>> not feel threatened. The idea of post 1991 Iraq being a threat was a
>> Potemkin village. Furthermore, I consider Bush I a war criminal for
>> deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure such as water and
>> wastewater treatment plants; Clinton a war criminal for continuing the
>> sanctions that did not allow for civilian infrastructure to be rebuilt
>> and the 1998 bombings of Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of
>> Iraqi deaths; and Bush II a war criminal for conducting an illegal and
>> immoral invasion of conquest.
>>
>> Mr. Jute's assumption is false, and he should retract that assumption.
>
> Of course I withdraw the statement. Apologies for making an
> unwarranted assumption about what you think.
>
> But that raises another question: When, in your opinion, did George W
> Bush last do something, anything at all, right?
>
Woland99
> You, Woe, you missed the point altogether: the environmentalists lied
> about DDT causing cancer in humans in order to get it banned, while,
> as they now admit, their real agenda was to save the bald eagle and
> suchlike little furry friends. That in turn meant that tens of
> millions of poor brown people died from or were incapacitated by
> malaria. To come a generation afterwards and say with 20-20 hindsight,
> oh, DDT isn't all that effective (which in itself is bullshit), is not
> an excuse for carelessly committing a genocide. It isn't even an
> excuse for creating a scare based on a lie, which is where we started,
> because the environmentalists are still at it, creating scares by
> telling lies.
Hold on for a sec. You were telling us that that banning DDT was
equivalent to genocide. I gave you some reference to data
demonstrating that mosquitoes CAN (in case of undiscriminated use
of DDT in the fields) develop resistance to it.
And you are telling me that:
a. environmentalists were liars because they argued to ban DDT
based of threat of cancer
b. developing resistance is BS
Well I do not know where you get the idea about (b). I guess it just
does not fit in your picture so path of least resistance is to call
it BS.
As for the correct or incorrect reasons to ban DDT. I seriously doubt
that if government started putting some chemicals in your food and
water about which nothing was known regarding potential cancer risk
due to prolonged exposure you would happily tolerate that situation.
Remember asbestos?
So I can only think about you cries with regard to 3rd world people
dying from malaria as purely theatrical.
If you wanted to present the case honestly you would say:
"DDT might have been banned worldwide for wrong reasons - while
in countries like US risk of cancer was more potent argument than
malaria in other parts of the world - where risk of malaria is far
greater - the DDT should have been kept in use for limited spraying
indoors and not on crops because of documented cases of mosquitoes
developing resistance. And comprehensive study of potential
carcinogenic effects of DDT should have followed".
That would have been somewhat objective.
But no - instead you decided to make it hysterical cry about
"genocide" committed by environmentalists. You have to excuse me
but it is a bit hard to take that seriously. And at this point we
did not event start discussing documented effects of DDT on birds.
> Simple logic is always true
No - but it may be more convincing to simple people.
Bottom line is that at the time when DDT was banned we most likely
did not know long term effect of massive release of toxic chemical
into environment. Your position is "if it worked it should have been
continued until sbdy proved them harmful to human". And in the
meantime
we could have ended with massive amount of fairly slow to biodegrade
chemical everywhere. A perfect first step to "oh shit" scenario -
for which of course nobody would hold you responsible so you can
write whatever fantastic accusation you want now.
Peter Cole
> On Mar 31, 10:06 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> First, there never has been a ban on DDT for indoor malaria spraying.
>
> First, it is immaterial whether environmentalists by lies about cancer
> in humans had DDT banned for fighting malaria or for protecting crops.
No it isn't. Banning agricultural use while maintaining indoor spraying
generally makes DDT more effective for malaria control.
> One or the other killed millions of poor brown people.
I think the burden of proof is on you for that.
> There may not have been an
> official ban on indoor spraying but it is widely known that the
> unofficial ban, inspired in aid bureaucrates by the hysteria of
> environmentalists, was extremely effective.
Prove it. While you're at it, explain why virtually every country in the
world has banned DDT -- including those well-known enviro-wackos in the
USSR who banned it a year before the US.
> Health officials up and
> down Africa are on record as saying that plans to use DDT could simply
> not be funded. You yourself further on tell us that you told a lie
> above:
> "and USAID has agreed to spray DDT in countries like Ethiopia and
> Mozambique." Tell us then, oh genius of great mind, if USAID hasn't
> been practicing a ban on DDT for 36 years (at the cost of untold lives
> of course), why should it suddenly agree to do something you claim it
> has been doing all along?
USAID has spent almost nothing on direct malaria control* -- by whatever
means. They've taken a lot of heat for that lately (or don't you read
the papers?).
*http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/malaria/funding/malfunding.html
WHO, on the other hand, tried DDT (failed in Africa), gave up and tried
disease treatment (failed), and is now trying a combination of the two.
USAID is following their program.
> First of all, Peter, are you sure you want to patronize me and call me
> a "dumb flunkie"? Are you really sure you want to say in public that
> I'm "gullible" for not running along with the hysterical mob of
> environmentalists practising their destructive religion? There are no
> free lunches around me, sonny.
Your opinion is so far afield from accepted science that it puts you on
the lunatic fringe. If the shoe fits...
> the USAID has been forced to choose between the unelected
> pressure of the environmentalist and the health of its aid clients --
> and Goddamn high time too.
You think the "USAID clients" don't have their own environmentalists? A
whole lot of those "brown people" you refer to aren't enthusiastic about
having the interiors of their houses sprayed with a chemical that's been
banned world-wide for decades. Most of them have tons (literally) of
this stuff laying around in dumps.
> First of all, you're making the mistake of thinking a hysterical mob,
> which is what the environmental movement demonstrably is, is rational.
> It is not. It lied in the first instance to get DDT banned by creating
> a totally unfounded cancer scare when its real agenda was saving
> little furry animals.
Sure, that's why the USSR and China and everyone else banned it, too.
The whole world's gone crazy!
> Secondly, you are truly dumb if you cannot imagine the outcry among
> some of your even less rational fellow-travellers if they heard that a
> US-funded body was paying for the foreign use of a substance banned in
> the USA. It is fear of these irrational environmental lobbies that
> caused aid agencies to operate a de facto ban for decades, until it
> was exposed in recent years.
"Fellow-travelers"? You're going to have to do better than that.
Greenpeace, the EDF and WWF are on record as supporting indoor DDT
spraying when necessary. You are the one holding the extreme views, not
"the environmentalists" (or most of the human race).
>> Malaria eradication is a complicated, multifaceted problem.
>
> Which in your opinion I am not qualified to understand but you are?
Most of it, apparently.
> Tell me, Peter, have you travelled in Africa? I have. Have you
> delivered food there to the starving? I have. I'm not giving you smug
> suburban ivory tower shit.
No, just right-wing wackiness.
> If you're right, convince me. I'm not saying DDT is the be-all and end-
> all. I merely said that the environmental movement is made up of mass-
> murderers and genocides
"Merely"? See, that's what makes you a wacko. You can even see the
extreme nature of your beliefs.
> because *without putting anything in its
> place*
Wrong. There are plenty of other insecticides (duh), and DDT was never
"banned" for indoor spraying. That's a myth. A busted myth.
> they lied about cancer in humans irrationally to ban DDT,
How did "they" lie?
"Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) is reasonably anticipated to be
a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
experimental animals (IARC 1974, 1987, 1991). When administered
orally in the diet or by stomach tube, DDT induced hepatomas in mice
and rats of both sexes, and lymphomas and lung carcinomas and
adenomas in mice. When administered by subcutaneous injection,
DDT induced liver tumors in mice of both sexes (IARC 1974, 1987,
1991). DDT administered orally to hamsters resulted in an increase in
adrenocortical adenomas."
IARC. 1974. Some Organochlorine Pesticides. IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, vol. 5. Lyon,
France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 241 pp.
IARC. 1987. Overall Evaluations of Carcinogenicity. IARC Monographs on
the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Supplement
7. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 440 pp.
IARC. 1991. Occupational Exposures in Insecticide Application , and Some
Pesticides. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of
Chemicals to Humans, vol. 53. Lyon, France: International Agency for
Research on Cancer. 440 pp.
> causing the death of tens of millions of poor people, and that they
> operate this ban to this day 36 years later by hysterical public
> lobbying. and mob pressure group tactics.
Only in your fevered imagination.
> The debate is over. The consensus is
> here. That slogan was the biggest mistake the environmentalists ever
> made.
Which slogan? "Save the Planet"?
>
>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.kurlantzick.html
>>
>> "This preoccupation with DDT, however, is largely a distraction.
>> Environmental leaders now agree that the pesticide should be used to
>> combat malaria
>
> I wonder if you realize what
> you have just admitted. You have just admitted that you consider
> yourself, as an environmentalist, so far above human life that 35
> years and hundreds of millions of lives after your kind caused a human
> catastrophe (which I have here characterized as a genocide), your
> leaders have condescended to permit the starving and diseased people,
> whose starvation and death and permanent debilitation is clearly to be
> laid at your door, to have a little half-measure of succour. Your
> arrogance is sickening. Who the fuck appointed "environmental leaders"
> to decide life and death for an entire continent of people who cannot
> fight back? Environmentalism is the true colonial enslaving mechanism.
Go off the deep end much? (You might want to check your math -- your
numbers just went past even the loony fringe).
>> What's more, DDT is
>> no silver bullet. Malaria experts agree that it reduces transmission,
>> but emphasize that it must be combined with other interventions,
>> including ACT. The furor over DDT has undoubtedly hampered efforts to
>> provide better access to antimalarial drugs.
>
> Oh, crap. Your attempt to turn this into "a furore over DDT"
I'm most certainly not. You most certainly are.
{snip repeated rant]
>> The real problem is that the industrialized countries are too cheap to
>> fix a fixable problem, not that anyone really needs an obsolete
>> insecticide. As usual, it's a depressing story of "national interests",
>> corporate greed and bungling bureaucracies, leave it to the
>> right-wingers to try to twist it into a regressive fable -- fodder for
>> their herd.
>
> So why did USAID and the other aid bodies operate a de facto ban on
> DDT even for indoor spraying for over three decades if not out of fear
> of environmentalist hysteria?
They didn't. They spent almost nothing, and of what they did spend,
almost none of it made it to Africa.
The WHO, on the other hand, spent more, but after failing to control the
vector in (most of) Africa, went after the parasite. It's hard to fault
the reasoning: if you can't keep people from getting the disease,
perhaps you can keep it from killing them. There's been a shakeup at
WHO, new leadership, new staff, we'll see if they're any more effective.
Contrary to your tightly clutched beliefs, there has been plenty of
DDT sprayed "over the last 36 years", even over the last 10-20 years.
Success has been mixed. Citizens in places like Uganda, Sri Lanka and
Tanzania (to name just 3) aren't the simple minded victims of
colonialism you make them out to be. India, South Africa and Ecuador
continue to use DDT as a primary weapon. They aren't suffering from a
"ban". India still makes the stuff. The only "genocide" is in the
right-wing blogosphere.
> Here we go: as I said, the environmentalists, with Peter Cole here
> their spokesman, are simply destructive and murderous without thought
> for consequences --
Hey, lighten up Sparkie. I may accuse you of being stupid and gullible,
but "murderous"?
> It is no
> accident that the someone else is the big something else of the profit
> motive: the environmentalists are simply the marxists in diferent
> clothes,
OK, mainstream environmental concerns make me a Marxist now. Right.
> hysterical environmentalist resistance to possible solutions, like
> genetically modified crops.
One tar baby at a time, Bunky.
>> "Instead of apologizing, the chemical companies went on the attack. They
>> funded front groups and think tanks to claim the epidemic started
>> because countries "stopped" using their products. In their version of
>> the story, environmentalists forced Africans to stop using DDT, causing
>> the increase in malaria.
>
> Yawn. DDT is long since out of patent. There is no big money to be
> made in DDT; it is a commoditiy level product well suited to
> production in the third world with existing facilities and financing.
> It is simply a lie to imply that the big pharmaceutical companies,
> with their overheads and research commitments, can make a living,
> never mind a profit, out of DDT.
You miss the point (as usual). No chemical company wants to sell DDT
(except perhaps a South African, Indian, or Chinese, but probably not
even them). They want to sell more expensive pesticides and
anti-malarial drugs. The new WHO chief just had a very public shootout
with pharma companies over their African drug sales programs.
>> "That is misleading, say Litsios and Clive Shiff, a malaria researcher
>> at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who has
>> participated in malaria programs in Africa for decades. They stress that
>> aid organizations weren't anti-DDT during that period, they were
>> pro-medicine."
>
> It doesn't matter what they were not anti. Anything that they wouldn't
> fund, the recipients could not have. In plain English the sentence
> above reads: "At that time the donor bodies said, We won't pay for DDT
> but if you get sick we'll pay for medicine."
No. It was an approach taken after the failure of DDT-centric programs
in the 50-60's. It did have the effect of lowering mortality. One can
argue whether it was an optimum approach. The current consensus seems to
be that any real headway against malaria in tropical Africa will only
happen with much more money being spent on a multi-faceted, long-term
effort. DDT will obviously play a role (as it always has), WHO is
leading with a more aggressive use of DDT in conjunction with many other
initiatives. They never had a "ban", de facto or de jure, they simply
focused efforts in another direction, given the limited resources they
had. DDT's well-earned unpopularity didn't help its use, but many of
those decisions seemed to have been made at the local level.
> I must say, Peter Cole, that I am disappointed with the poor quality
> smoke you blow as a distraction from a very serious charge against the
> environmental movement, [etc., etc.]
I took the trouble to provide quotations and citations, which is more
than I can say for you. Your claims are not supported by any science or
history I have been able to find, they just seem to be part of an
irrational attack on what most people find a reasonable human concern
(protecting the environment).
Mike Jacoubowsky
> starve, that more than thirty years after a de facto ban on the use of
> DDT *without any provision being made for a replacement*, some
> bureaucrat has accepted that controls must be in place before DDT can
> be used again.
Make up your mind. Is it mosquitoes or starvation?
DDT was losing effectiveness in agriculture long before it began losing the
war against mosquitoes. But farmers are probably more "traditional" than
those of most any other occupation. It takes a very long time to convince
them that something new is better than what they'd been using, even as what
they've been using becomes less effective over time.
These are things I know quite well, having spent a lot of time on my
grandparents ranch growing up. My grandfather was the type of guy who would
eat a handful of DDT just to prove a point. And he held strong opinions
about the weirdos & hippies who wanted it banned. But he did come around,
*before* it was banned for agricultural use in the US, because there were
more-effective pesticides and farming methods which resulted in higher
yields & greater profits.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:672e9b24-9a27-4843...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Tom Sherman
> On Mar 30, 8:41 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> On Mar 30, 8:27 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 31, 1:08 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>> Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?
>>>> Yo, McNamara, what's a "griefer", and should I care that you call me
>>>> one?
>>> Lil' Timmy Mac is a psychologist (hard to believe, but it's
>>> true!)......he thinks he should be able to tell people how and what to
>>> think.
>>
>
> No, I've been too fucking busy, and vice versa, to post to Usenet. I
> see the same cannot be said of you. ;-)
Is she presta or Schrader?
Werehatrack
Sherwood Florist. There's a bunch of them. Some have never heard of
Green Arrow.
The battles in courts between folks who came up with the same name and
then *later* started to compete have been more than just a handful.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>> component pusher (the biggest in Europe) having the same name as a two-
>> store Californian (?) operation -- but how do you assess the
>> likelihood of two guys independently making the same pun?
>> [...]
>
> There are also Chain Reaction Cycles in Anchorage, Alaska and Prattville,
> Alabama.
There are many, many more. Near as I can tell, we were the first. But, as is
obvious, we made no attempts to keep the name for our exclusive use. Too
expensive to go that route. We did have somebody open up a shop in North
Carolina several years ago and try to register the name as a trademark and
have an attorney send us a "cease & desist" letter, including a demand to
turn over our website domain to them. I guess they figured they had a shot
as us rolling over, but it was dealt with in a way that those folk won't
likely be trying any such thing again.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fssde9$qni$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Paul M. Hobson
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fssde9$qni$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Alabama.
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> There are many, many more. Near as I can tell, we were the first. But, as is
> obvious, we made no attempts to keep the name for our exclusive use. Too
> expensive to go that route. We did have somebody open up a shop in North
> Carolina several years ago and try to register the name as a trademark and
> have an attorney send us a "cease & desist" letter, including a demand to
> turn over our website domain to them. I guess they figured they had a shot
> as us rolling over, but it was dealt with in a way that those folk won't
> likely be trying any such thing again.
Did you make them an offer they couldn't refuse, Don Jacoubowsky?
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 8:41 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 8:27 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 31, 1:08 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Andre's just a griefer. Why are you wasting your time on him?
> >>>> Yo, McNamara, what's a "griefer", and should I care that you call me
> >>>> one?
> >>> Lil' Timmy Mac is a psychologist (hard to believe, but it's
> >>> true!)......he thinks he should be able to tell people how and what to
> >>> think.
> >> Zarkie is back! Been visiting JFT in New York?
>
> > No, I've been too fucking busy, and vice versa, to post to Usenet. I
> > see the same cannot be said of you. ;-)
>
> Is she presta or Schrader?
>
> --
You are conflating valves and vulvas. Given your vast inexperience
with the latter, that is not a surprise, eh? ;-)
Tom Sherman
But Zarkie can use the same pump for both.