A NASA-funded study of ancient and unpolluted South American forests promises to upend longstanding beliefs about ecosystems and the effects of pollution in the Northern Hemisphere.

The study, published in the Jan. 24 issue of Nature, focused on
nitrogen, a plant nutrient that plays a critical role in maintaining
everything from the health of local waterways to the global climate.

The study finds high levels of inorganic nitrogen in the United
States, long thought to be the natural mainstay of the ecosystem, are really the result of acid rain and agricultural fertilizers. The authors argue that the ecosystems of South America, with their preponderance of organic nitrogen, are a window into the past, showing that U.$. ecosystems were very different before the industrial revolution.

Ecologists previously thought that nitrogen-containing minerals,
referred to collectively as inorganic nitrogen, have always been the dominant nutrient in forests worldwide. The study of South American forests, however, showed a sharply different picture: complex, organic compounds are the main form of nitrogen in unpolluted ecosystems.

"We traveled in time by traveling to South America," said Lars Hedin, a co-author of the study and a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University.

The information they uncovered could have far-reaching impacts in many areas of ecology, from predicting the pace of global climate change to understanding the consequences of acid rain and agricultural run-off.

"Nitrogen is a sort of master variable," said Steve Perakis, the
paper's lead author and a research scientist with the U.$. Geological Survey. "If we don't get the fundamental elements of the nitrogen cycle right, we can't answer many other ecological questions."

The findings raise questions about our understanding of global
warming, which is partly caused by fossil fuel burning and increasing levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When trees grow and mature they remove carbon dioxide from the air. The ability of trees to grow and absorb more carbon is intimately related to the availability of nitrogen.

The remote areas of Chile and Argentina provided prime areas for
conducting the research. In North America the ground is tainted with large amounts of inorganic nitrogen from widespread use of nitrogen-heavy fertilizers, as well as acid rain brought on by fossil fuel burning. In the South American areas the researchers studied, there is no fertilizer use and almost no influx of fossil fuel emissions.

To reach their conclusions, the scientists spent five years preparing experiments in remote Chilean temperate forests and another five years conducting detailed analyses of water in those forests. They also conducted one-time tests in a dozen other remote areas in Chile and Argentina to prove that the preponderance of organic nitrogen they observed was not unique to the site they were studying. At the same time, they repeated their measurements in three U.$. virgin forests, two in the Smokey Mountains and one in Pennsylvania. All of the areas studied contained unlogged primary forests, in ecosystems
that have developed in place for 4,000 years to over 20,000 years.

The results also suggest that in North America the impact of nitrogen pollution from acid rain and agriculture may be more dramatic in years to come than previously thought. That's because North American forests are still young, after recovering from past logging and agricultural clear-cutting. Young trees use nitrogen from the soil for growth, but as they mature, they sequester less nitrogen from the environment. When that happens, more inorganic nitrogen will be available to run off into rivers and groundwater.

Another interesting finding, said Perakis, was that the nitrogen
cycle -- the way nitrogen compounds are exchanged between plants, soil, waterways and the atmosphere -- in South America is more uniform than it is in the United States. "We found that even though there were some noticeable variations in South America, they were pretty small compared to the variations caused by air pollution. We live in a transient world, a world that's changing because of many human activities, so many systems are responding in unique ways."

Perakis' work was funded by a NASA Earth System Science Fellowship.
The overall project was funded by grants from the Andrew Mellon
Foundation and the National Science Foundation.

Contact:

Cynthia O'Carroll
NASA Goddard
Space Flight
Center
Phone: 301/614-5563

Steven Schultz
Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
Phone: 609/258-5729

Ruth Jacobs
U.S. Geological Survey,
Corvallis, Ore.
Phone: 541/750-7304

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/news-release/releases/2002/02-023.htm


Adi Gaia
Universal Citizen
Universal EarthStar Space Avatar
http://world.care2.com/adigaia -- Check for updates.

Umm, Europe's ecology hasn't been severely altered by the construction of structures for human habitation and for the logisitical support of their inhabitants: power plants, factories, roads, parking lots, garbage dumps, churches, etc?

So, what you're saying is that us excess food-producing nations should cease reliance on fertilizers and herbicides, so as to save the environment, while people in food-deficient nations -- who otherwise would be eating our excess food -- die rather more quickly of starvation instead of eventual toxic poisoning?

Ah. I see. Sacrfice some so that the majority may live. I can buy into that, maybe.

Mr G,

The food never (or almost never) goes to those countries... It's usually go to make Americans even more fat... :(

Besides that, if we don't take care of our planet, who will? Are you saying that you rather destroy the planet to produce an unhealthy food with lots of fertilizers and herbicides than producing healthy food WITHOUT fertilizers? This doesn't make any sense...

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
The food never (or almost never) goes to those countries... It's usually go to make Americans even more fat...Oh. Please. Stop.

Even though I know you abhor facts, I'm forced to throw some at you anyway. The following sampling of food-related export information for 2000/2001 is available from the U.S. Commercial Service Website, located here (http://www.usatrade.gov/website/ccg.nsf/CCGurl/). Select a country then choose option 5: "Leading Sectors for Us Exports and Investments"

Bahrain
600 Metric Tons of Poultry
150 Metric Tons of Beef

Vietnam
10,000 Metric Tons of Soybeans
20,000 Metric Tons of Soybean Meal
45,000 Metric Tons of Wheat
35,000 Dairy Cows
200,000 Pigs
1,450,000 Chickens

Korea
70,000 Metric Tons of Poultry
110,000 Metric Tons of Beef
115,000 Metric Tons of Citrus Fruit
90,000 Metric Tons of Fruits, Nuts and Vegetables
80,000 Metric Tons of Seafood

Israel
950,000 Metric Tons of Wheat
7,000 Metric Tons of Tree Nuts

Dominican Republic
300,000 Metric Tons of Wheat
361,000 Metric Tons of Soybean Meal
975,000 Metric Tons of Corn
70,000 Metric Tons of Rice

Honduras
130,000 Metric Tons of Corn
155,000 Metric Tons of Wheat
79,000 Metric Tons of Soybean Meal
60,000 Metric Tons of Rice

These figures do not even include recent relief efforts by government, corporate and charitable organizations involving India, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, The Federated States of Micronesia and others. Please take a moment to think before you post statements like these.

Peace.

Well, this is a complete change of subject.

It started as a post about pollution and turns into a foodfight. Oh well, if you guys want to argue about that. Guess the pollution is a big problem on this Planet now-a-days. Humans should take better care of their natural environment and try to stop this crap. If they only could stop their consumption behaviour and have a little more respect for Nature, it would change a lot. Even their attitude on which food products to use and how to share it with others, as they should share their good will with others...:confused:

This is where men really scare me as most are ready to live and let die. They think ohhh no way it would hurt me in my lifetime, lets go ahead and screw this up some more. I should have added this on my legalize pot thread as Hemp per acre yields 3 times more usable forest as trees and we can let the trees live and help clean up this mess

The interesting fact is that the US fought in many of these countries... ;)

Even destroyed a whole ecosystem in one of them... :rolleyes:

Banshee is right... let's get back to pollution...
Let war and food in other thread...



If they only could stop their consumption behaviour and have a little more respect for Nature, it would change a lot.

Yes...
I don't know why people like to have so many things, so many possessions. That's even an illness with some people...

Nature is beautiful... why "we" don't care about it...? :(

Love,
Nelson

quote: <b>Truthseeker: </b><i>"Besides that, if we don't take care of our planet, who will? Are you saying that you rather destroy the planet to produce <b>an unhealthy food</b> with lots of fertilizers and herbicides than producing <b>healthy food </b>WITHOUT fertilizers? This doesn't make any sense... "</i>

You seem to forget (or ignore) that food produced with the help of fertilizers are <b>not necessarily unhealthy, nor food produced without fertilizers are more healthy.</b> Pollution does not seem to be the terrible problem you present. Life expectancy has increased so much (thanks to new technologies in medicine, agriculture, etc, that pollution is not a crucial problem nowadays. The air in Europe and America is now much cleaner than sixty or hundred years ago so, again, pollution is not a problem.<br><br> And about destroying the planet producing food, traditional agriculture using no fertilizers or pesticides are more damaging to the environment than modern technologies. Other issue to consider: traditional agriculture keep the population down, because it does not produce the amounts of food needed to feed large populations. The extinction of the Mayas ought to give you a clue. The reason is simple: without fertilizers and pesticides, you need to use more land to crop the same amount you would using advanced technologies. That means you have to chop down forests to make more room for arable land, and that wouldn't be nice. (Or start growing potato, lettuce and tomatoes on golf courses).<br><br>The fact is: due to the extensive use of fertilizers, pesticides and other evil things provided by science and technology, the area used for crops nowadays (in the U.S. and countries using modern tech) is about half the area used about sixty years ago, with a yield improvemnet almost tripled. With the advance in new hydroponics agriculture the yields are so astonishing you wouldn't believe your eyes. <br><br>The following table shows the results from an experiment performed in Denmark in 1988, as published in the <i>Journal of International society of Soiless Cultivation</i>. From the least intensive (at top) to the most intensive means of producing lettuce (at bottom), there is a dramatic increase in the yield, as measured in number of heads produced and the total biomass weight. Per year, per square meter, the productivity can be increased by increasing the intensiveness of input, such as water and light.<br><br>Believe it or not (as Ripley said), there are environmentalist groups that opposes this way of growing lettuce (or any other green produce) because they resent the way plants are "crowded" --they say lettuces are "living beings" and they suffer. Beware! Lots of freaks are on the loose!<br><br>
<center><B>TABLE 1<BR><BR>YIELD COMPARISONS OF LETTUCE PRODUCTION <br><font size=2>(Total production per suare meter, per year)<br><br></center>
<br><br>Please go down the page to find the Table: there is a problem with the HTML code that puts a lot of empty space before the Table... sorry for that.

<TABLE width="80%" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" bgcolor="#acc6c6" bordercolor="#ff0000">
<TR>
<TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">
<B>
Production method
</B>
</TD>
<TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">
<B>
Number of lettuce heads
</B>
</TD>
<TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">
<B>
Fresh weight of lettuce heads (kg)
</B>
</TD>
<TD bgcolor="#ffff00" align="center">
</B>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Soil, outdoors
</TD>
<TD align="center">
40
</TD>
<TD align="center">
8
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Soil, greenhouse, no heating
</TD>
<TD align="center">
80
</TD>
<TD align="center">
12
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Soil, greenhouse, with heat
</TD>
<TD align="center">
120
</TD>
<TD align="center">
18
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Hydroponic greenhouse
</TD>
<TD align="center">
150
</TD>
<TD align="center">
22
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
1-dimensional spacing
</TD>
<TD align="center">
360
</TD>
<TD align="center">
54
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
2-dimensional spacing
</TD>
<TD align="center">
500
</TD>
<TD align="center">
74
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Maximum spacing and artificial light (2,500 hrs)
</TD>
<TD align="center">
900
</TD>
<TD align="center">
135
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Maximum spacing and artifical light (5,000 hrs)
</TD>
<TD align="center">
1200
</TD>
<TD align="center">
180
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD align="left">
Phytotron experiments under sterile conditions
</TD>
<TD align="center">
1260
</TD>
<TD align="center">
300
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<br></font><font size=1>Source:Adapted from the Journal of the International Society of Soiless Cultivation, 1988.
<br><br></b>
</font><font size=2>
The same goes for intensive production of almost anything, from fodder to trouts. In south Africa, a hydroponic fodder unit called a Gordon Machine was profitable producing fresh grass rations to supplement feed for sheep raised in the pen or battery system. It was found that 250 sheep could be raised in an area of some 520 square meters, in contrast with the conventional open.range South African standard of one sheep per 2,5 hectares (a 12,000-fold reduction of space!). The same goes for cattle fodder, produced by means of the Groenvoer 365 system.

The saving of water under these kind of production is enormous (and saving fresh water seems a sensible thing to do,,,), as an example, for 1 kg of edible cucumber, 10 liters of water are required under hydroponic greenhouse, compared to 205 liters used in the open fields --as Mother Nature used to advice. One kg of lettuce needs 30 liters against 96 required in the open field. One kg of tomato need 13 liters, compared to 123 liters used by "organic" farmers.

And talking about the post that generated this thread, the nonsense of "inorganic" and "organic" nitrogen, there is little to say (technically, at least, because the political origin of such nonsense would require several thick books). It is in the same level of irrationality as the argument used by anti-nukes that say "man-made radiation" is hideous and dangerous, while "natural radiation" is harmless, although they deny it could be beneficial, in spite of the well established concept of Hormesis (the beneficial health effects of low level radiation) as put forward by the <b>UNSCEAR</b>, the <i>United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation</i>, in its April 4th,1994 document.

The nitrogen molecule is only one (leave aside isotopes) and its combination with other elements will male the substances <b>organic</b> or <b>inorganic</b>. Instead of using "inorganic" nitrogen, organic farmers use "organic" nitrogen found in manure --along with lots of campilobacter and other bacteria that causes food borne diseases. Nice going! No organic for me, thanks...

The press release pasted by Banshee also talks about South America, as if we were living in a prehistoric period, where farming is made "naturally", implying therefore, "healthy". Here in Argentina, we have converted ourselves into the <b>highest per-capita producers of soybean in the world</b>, almost doubling the US per-capita output. We are about to have the largest soybean crop in history --thanks to direct plowing, intensive use of fertilizers, and low use of herbicides because we use genetically modified (GM) varieties of soybean, wheat, corn, rice and whatever. In our present condition, we cannot afford to let modern technologies pass by. Because GM varieties are resistant to weeds and insects, the use of pesticides (Roundup, Dieldrin, etc) has been reduced to negligible levels, with beneficial effects on the environment, people and other animals.

However, there are still people who quote <b>Worldwatch Institute, Greenpeace</b>, the <b>WWF</B> and other anti-scientific organizations in their frantic claims against GM crops and foods, global warming, the ozone hole, DDT, PCBs, and other popular myths crowding the environmental issue. These are anti-people, genocidal organizations that have caused more deaths than Hitler's holocaust. Just remember that malaria kills more than 3 million people every year, needless deaths that could have been avoided if Rachel Carson hadn't start her campaign of lies and missinformation back in 1962.

:D Enough for now. There is much more to talk about, but it would take years. Remember what Einstein said: <b>"There are two infinite things: the Universe and the Human Stupidity... but I'm not too sure about the Universe".</b>

We have almost reached the point that without manmade help, such as fertilizers, we could not raise enough food to feed present day population. If you look at the chart that Edufer has posted, he shows that there is still a lot we could do to increase food production. To keep everyone fed though, is a one way street. You can not go back and say we made a mistake and lets not do that anymore. The results are lots of starved and dead people. Everyone hollers about what we are doing to the earth. When your neighbor dies of starvation then other things of more immeadate nature become the item of prime importance. So in the end you must decide what is the most important, people or enviroment. That is not to say that you can not improve enviroment. What must be allowed for is that it takes a little time to first arrange how best to do it and then put into use the technology that best fits the need.

Here in MD the outbreaks of Fisteria are blamed on pig farm runoff into the bay. The initial researchers were caught off guard with this organism not realizing it will travel in air and unfortunetly causes sever to mederate mental retardation. One of the 3 scientists investigating the fisteria bloom developed permanent retardation.

It grows from FL to SC to MD and has had a severe impact on fishing.

Thank you Edufer for the interesting article. :)

I agree with Greenpeace though, no matter what you say. They've done a lot of very good work.

And I stay with it that people should pay a little more attention to what they leave behind in garbage which they just throw away in Nature, like it is a big trash can. Plastic and all that kind of crap is pollution too...

It shall sound cold and hard, there are much to many people walking down on Earth. Perhaps Earth takes care of that problem Herself...

(yes, give me your reasonable, scientific replies, I am awaiting them!)

Edufer, thanks for the interesting seed. Seems promising.

(While this hamster has no concern for crowded cabbages, do feel some attention should be paid to living conditions of farm animals. First obligation is to hamsters, next humans, then other animals, then life.)

Edufer,

Yeah... ok... I don't understand very much about agriculture... (actually I never studied it)... But I do understand of ancient agriculture...
Ancient civilizations used to use even the space in the mountains instead of destroying the florest...
And some used to let the ground rest, going to other places, and then coming back after its recovery.

But since our world is so crowded...

Believe it or not (as Ripley said), there are environmentalist groups that opposes this way of growing lettuce (or any other green produce) because they resent the way plants are "crowded" --they say lettuces are "living beings" and they suffer. Beware! Lots of freaks are on the loose!

They are not freak...
The lettuces don't feel, but they are living beings...
and they deserve respect... :D

I agree with Greenpeace though, no matter what you say. They've done a lot of very good work.

And I stay with it that people should pay a little more attention to what they leave behind in garbage which they just throw away in Nature, like it is a big trash can. Plastic and all that kind of crap is pollution too...

Yup... :)

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
*They are not freak...
The lettuces don't feel, but they are living beings...
and they deserve respect... *

Yep! :)

Originally posted by Imahamster
*First obligation is to hamsters, next humans, then other animals, then life.)*

First obligation is to Nature, as in Forests and other vegetation, animals (including farm animals!), Earth Herself, humans..:bugeye:

It is outrageous what humans do to farm animals, guess that's something for another thread. Like what humans still do to the Whales, they can't get enough of it. Killing, killing, killing!

I quit it, I am getting real angry now! Talk to you later...:(

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Ancient civilizations used to use even the space in the mountains instead of destroying the florest...
And some used to let the ground rest, going to other places, and then coming back after its recovery.

Even today, as in most parts of the Andes (from Mexico down to Peru, Bolivia, Chile, etc) poor people still do it: they make terraces in the mountains and grow crops for their miserable sustain... But when you go to the sabanas and great plains. you'll find huge extensions of modern agriculture being performed. Ancient civilizations did it because they hadn't developed the technology --today Southamericans (and other parts of the world) keep doing it in mountains, where a tractor is not practical, and intensive agriculture is not possible.

Evolution means progress (or viceversa). In the Amazon jungle (where I lived for some years) indians and poor people have small "chacos" (about 1 or 2 hectares of cleared jungle where they plant corn, peanuts, bananas, yuca, potatoes, pumpkins, etc, all together in three levels: underground, low and medium height. After three or four years, the jungle soil fertility disappears and they move to a new "chaco", next to the old one. Hard work, hard life, meager crops, huge famines... it is not nice, believe me.

They are not freak...
The lettuces don't feel, but they are living beings...
and they deserve respect...

How do you know they don't feel? Experiments carried with plants subjected to music coming from loudspeakers, showed that plants "listening" to Mozart grew leaning towards the loudspeakers --and plants subjected to "heavy metal" rock music grew leaning away from the loudspeakers (I can understand them!).

Although the different levels (or stages) of feeling and sensitivity of minerals, plants, animals, humans and "spirits" are a fascinating subject, there is not enough evidence to say anything in favor or against it. Maybe some day... who knows for sure?

And Banshee, why did you get so furious? Take it easy. please. Things could be much worse, but it seems we can improve the state of the planet if everybody wanted to pull in the same direction. In the meantime, have a cold beer and enjoy life... it is not as long as we would it like to be. :D :D

Edufer,

How do you know they don't feel? Experiments carried with plants subjected to music coming from loudspeakers, showed that plants "listening" to Mozart grew leaning towards the loudspeakers --and plants subjected to "heavy metal" rock music grew leaning away from the loudspeakers (I can understand them!).

It's not that kind of feeling I'm talking about. I'm saying that they don't have nerves all around them as we do...

Yeah... I prefer listening to Mozart too... ;)

... But... don't understand me wrong!...

...I'm not a lettuce...

... :D

Love,
Nelson

Do I hear cabbage being muttered in the background?

Just kidding, TruthSeeker. You shouldn't leave yourself so open...

quote

First obligation is to Nature, as in Forests and other vegetation, animals (including farm animals!), Earth Herself, humans..

It is outrageous what humans do to farm animals, guess that's something for another thread. Like what humans still do to the Whales, they can't get enough of it. Killing, killing, killing!

I quit it, I am getting real angry now! Talk to you later...
--------------------------------------------
smiles well said and welcome to the Lakota tribe

Grandfather, Great Spirit, you have been always, and before you no one has been.

There is no other one to pray to but you.

You yourself, everything that you see, everything has been made by you.

The star nations all over the universe you have finished.

The four quarters of the earth you have finished.

The day, and in that day, everything you have finished.

Grandfather, Great Spirit, lean close to the earth that you may hear the voice I send.

You towards where the sun goes down, behold me;

Thunder Beings, behold me!

You where the White Giant lives in power, behold me!

You where the sun shines continually, whence come the day-break star and the day, behold me!

You where the summer lives, behold me!

You in the depths of the heavens, an eagle of power, behold me!

And you, Mother Earth, the only Mother, you who have shown mercy to your children!

Hear me, four quarters of the world - a relative I am!

Give me the strength to walk the soft earth, a relative to all that is!

Give me the eyes to see and the strength to understand, that I may be like you.

With your power only can I face the winds.

Great Spirit, Great Spirit, my Grandfather, all over the earth the faces of living things are all alike.

With tenderness have these come up out of the ground.

Look upon these faces of children without number and with children in their arms,

that they may face the winds and walk the good road to the day of quiet.

This is my prayer; hear me!

The voice I have sent is weak, yet with earnestness I have sent it.

Hear me!

It is finished. Hetchetu aloh!

Now, my friend, let us smoke together so that there may be only good between us.

Yes! :)

Peace...Love...For Earth, Nature and all that walks the Earth in Love and Peace with the Earth and the Cosmos... ;)

That's starting to become really cute... :D:D:D

Everyone praising Love...! :)

That's really good... :)

Now we seem Children of God... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Children of the Cosmos...;)

Well, what do you know! This thread started on the subject of polution. acid rain, organic nitrogen and developed into a religious gatheing... everybody praying and saying LOVE!, LOVE!

Although, as an agnostic, I have religious beliefs --and say my prayers to my own Force before going to bed-- I don´t think science and religion mix too well.

So, why don´t we start another thread about high levels of natural carcinogenics found in organic food, for example?

Or what could have happened to the Twin Towers if asbestos had not been banned when the asbestos covering of the steel beams had reached floor 67? Interesting subject. The beams gave up one and half hour after the fire started, while the asbestos covering guaranteed at least four hours before melting. The firemen could have had time to quench the fire...

Anyway, I love you all, fellers...

quote

The fact is: due to the extensive use of fertilizers, pesticides and other evil things provided by science and technology, the area used for crops nowadays (in the U.S. and countries using modern tech) is about half the area used about sixty years ago
------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't debate that or this line of thought, However, life needs food , oxygen, and water and the three need each other. We harm one ...we harm all three. The USDA (1998) stated 35 percent of the fresh water supply in the USA is impaired. It's not a problem just in the USA as it is worldwide and many countries face a harder challenge.

The mystery of the Maya will never be solved but history suggests war was the fall of their empire. Many ancient tribes of the "Americas" simply disappeared and others stood strong. For the most part the tribes all had hunting grounds (Maya also had farms but not all of the tribes farmed), holy grounds, and camp grounds. An invasion of these grounds caused wars among the tribes many times.

But after 761, he notes, "wars led to wholesale destruction of property and people, reflecting a breakdown of social order comparable to modern Somalia." In that year the king and warriors of nearby Tamarindito and Arroyo de Piedra besieged Dos Pilas. Says Demarest: "They defeated the king of Dos Pilas and probably dragged him back to Tamarindito to sacrifice him."

source Arthur Demarest's excavations

The theory goes the tribe went into civil war and self destructed and some escaped to a new area as the Mayan tribe still lives.

I am 47 and in my lifetime pollution continues to grow mostly out of each industry selfishly more worried about their "money" than the future of the world. We have to stop this trend or we will destroy our entire ecosystem.

Originally posted by Justagirl
*in my lifetime pollution continues to grow mostly out of each industry selfishly more worried about their "money" than the future of the world. We have to stop this trend or we will destroy our entire ecosystem.*

There you go! That is exactly my point, in every post made. It is the main cause of posting the whole article. Maybe it now gets a little more clearer, when more people here at the Forums speak up on the pollution done by industries and the everlasting race to make money, money, money, at cost of all. Good chance they pay the highest price for doing so in the end and nothing will be left to spend their sacred money on...:(

Fresh Water is becoming rare. Keep in mind that there is a lot more salt water on Earth then fresh water. We have to save what is left, not go on with the daily pollution and act like everything is ok, for it gets a huge problem if we go on like this...

in my lifetime pollution continues to grow mostly out of each industry selfishly more worried about their "money" than the future of the world. We have to stop this trend or we will destroy our entire ecosystem.

That was my point too...

In my city I can't breath well and we don't have any industry there! All the pollution is caused by... CARS!!!
When I look into the horizon, I see all the ski brown... :(
It's sick... :(

And look how many cars there are everywhere...
BILLIONS!
And when they get old... like 1 year (normal American) or 2 years (poor American), they just throw it into the "garbage" and buy a new one, because the other was "old"... :mad:

Ok... but where the "old" one is now? Guess where? Perhaps polluting an ocean... or a river... or in a junk yard among other millions of car...

That's an interesting question for another thread...
Which area of the planet is covered by garbage??

Does anyone know...?

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by Banshee
Fresh Water is becoming rare. Keep in mind that there is a lot more salt water on Earth then fresh water. We have to save what is left, not go on with the daily pollution and act like everything is ok, for it gets a huge problem if we go on like this...

Yes, Banshee, you are right there. But you have to remember that the water cycle keeps going: huge amounts of water are evaporated from the oceans and part of it goes back to firm land in the form of rains. That way rivers are formed and while they make they long journey back to the oceans, they carry mineral sediments that makes the salinity of the oceans. That way, the oceans <b>are getting saltier every minute</b>, although some minerals sediment on the ocean bottom as carbonates ,and other minerals are taken by fitoplankont and other life forms to grow.

But the amout of fresh water is always the same, regardeless of the increasing salinization of oceans. There are some deposit of fresh water that is not available to mankind, as the increasing amount of snow in the Antarctic that form the ice cover. Even so, if we face the risk of running out of fresh water, we can melt snow from glaciers and the Poles to use for our needs. Technically it is possible, politically is less feasible...

However, thanks to science and technology (evil things?) the salt water of the oceans can be desalinated at increasingly lower costs. There was a project for desalinating sea water in Israel and Jordan, by means of a network of desalination plants powered by small, inexpensive and highly efficient nuclear plants, that would provide fresh water for irrigation projects in the dry lands of the Near East.

Unfotunately, that project encountered fierce opposition from the anti-nuke movement. I hope they will someday recover their sanity and recognise that the benefits for the people dwarfs any hypothetical danger coming from radiation.

Originally posted by justagirl [/i]
The USDA (1998) stated 35 percent of the fresh water supply in the USA is impaired. It's not a problem just in the USA as it is worldwide and many countries face a harder challenge.

Statistics are the most elegant way to lie --or to misinform. I am sick of statistic that are used wildly to prove almost anyhting you want. Using the same set of data you can prove exactly opposite views of anything. On famous case was the study made by Dr. E.J. Sternglass and J.M. Gould, back in 1989, sponsored by the "Don´t Waste Oregon Committee", that tried to "prove" that the Trojan Nucelar plant in Multnomah County had provoked a 72% increase of leukemia in the county. If you take a look at the graph used by Sternglass (provided by the Oregon Epidemiological Department), of leukemia deaths from 1950 to 1989, Sterngalss took the figures for his study from 1980 ending in 1989. That is: he took the lowest point of the graph as the beginning (1980) and the ending point was at the highest point (1988). Magic! There is a 72% increase in leukemia deaths. Trojan nuke plant was responsible. But this is a typical case of lousy epidemiological study. (sorry for a graph in Spanish, but it belongs to our website of the Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INDICE/CAP14-AnalisisPolitico.htm

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/Sternglass.gif">

Using the same data from the graph, if we take as starting point the year of 1977 (one year after Trojan inauguration), with 60 deaths, and finish it in 1980, with 32 deaths, we "discover" that the Trojan plant had caused a decrease in leukemia deaths of 32%!. Miracle! Nuclear plants cure leukemia!. Garbage. As it is garbage Dr. Sternglass inescrupulous study. Any serious epidemiological study must be designed on a much larger time scale and on a significant population. Scientifically speaking, Dr. Sternglass' study is pure rubbish...

Originally posted by justagirl [/i]
The mystery of the Maya will never be solved but history suggests war was the fall of their empire. Many ancient tribes of the "Americas" simply disappeared and others stood strong. For the most part the tribes all had hunting grounds (Maya also had farms but not all of the tribes farmed), holy grounds, and camp grounds. An invasion of these grounds caused wars among the tribes many times.

That is true... partly. I am well aware of Demarest's work (I am a founding member of the Cordoba Anthropological Society, here in Argentina). But many serious studies show thta the decline and dissapearance of the Mayas was not caused by wars, but for huge famines. The studies point at the increase in population of the Mayas, and the consequent degradation of their environment by their ancient agricultural techniques that could not supply the food necessary for sustaining such a large population. Malthus delighr!

The Mayas had to abate large portions of the jungle for making their crop lands and, as it was mountainous terrain, the runoff caused by the heavy rains soon provoked an amazing ecological disaster. The hungry people had to look for other places for food and migrated to places where they were exterminated by stronger enemies, or just became part of new tribes and nations, losing their identities.

Anyway, although this seems to be a feasible explanation, it still is highly speculative, as any other theory sourrounding the Mayas.

quote

Statistics are the most elegant way to lie --or to misinform. I am sick of statistic that are used wildly to prove almost anyhting you want
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics never lie as Math doesn't lie. I agree they can show one side of an issue and mislead the public. That's common among the world as for years the tobbaco companies used their own statistics to show smoking didn't kill. Every issue in the world has more than one side and to make decisions based on "just" one side and ignore the other sides is a uninformed decision. Pollution has been debated for most of my life and the medical proof still shows it kills us . Now are some of the "risk" overrated??Yeah, probably but how many can we kill and say it is a safe risk??How many years can the world ignore statistics that show they do kill??

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2001/2001L-05-04-02.html

You may find that link interesting as Argentina allowed the use of PCB's many years after it was found to cause health hazards to humans.



Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution


C. Arden Pope III, PhD; Richard T. Burnett, PhD; Michael J. Thun, MD; Eugenia E. Calle, PhD; Daniel Krewski, PhD; Kazuhiko Ito, PhD; George D. Thurston, ScD


Context Associations have been found between day-to-day particulate air pollution and increased risk of various adverse health outcomes, including cardiopulmonary mortality. However, studies of health effects of long-term particulate air pollution have been less conclusive.

Objective To assess the relationship between long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution and all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants Vital status and cause of death data were collected by the American Cancer Society as part of the Cancer Prevention II study, an ongoing prospective mortality study, which enrolled approximately 1.2 million adults in 1982. Participants completed a questionnaire detailing individual risk factor data (age, sex, race, weight, height, smoking history, education, marital status, diet, alcohol consumption, and occupational exposures). The risk factor data for approximately 500 000 adults were linked with air pollution data for metropolitan areas throughout the United States and combined with vital status and cause of death data through December 31, 1998.

Main Outcome Measure All-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality.

Results Fine particulate and sulfur oxide–related pollution were associated with all-cause, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary mortality. Each 10-µg/m3 elevation in fine particulate air pollution was associated with approximately a 4%, 6%, and 8% increased risk of all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality, respectively. Measures of coarse particle fraction and total suspended particles were not consistently associated with mortality.

Conclusion Long-term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is an important environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality.

JAMA. 2002;287:1132-1141
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n9/abs/joc11435.html

Though I long ago lost the links, I remember doing some research on this. There was some geologic stuff done on the lake that supplies the main source of drinking water. Don't remember the name of the lake. Anyway, there was found a layer of gypsium in the bed indicating that the lake dried up and it is thought that the civil wars were basically wars over water.

Errr... guys...

I just happened to repare in the title of the post...:
"U$ ecology dramatically altered by fertilizers and acid rain..."

Well... first of all we are talking about U$...
And I would like to emphasize that the U$ seems to be much more concerned with their economy than with what their economy do with their ecologic system...

Acid rains, for example. It's a problem in many places in the world. See for example the Acropolis in Athens. The acid rain is eating all of it... Hundreds of years of history that survived many wars it's not surviving acid rain...

But we are tslking about U$ anyways...

Do you know that the U$ energy system is mostly supplied by Nuclear power? And where do they put the nuclear garbage? In the ocean? Underground? And if something happens and it starts to get out of there? Or they send to Developing countries to dump in OUR backyards!! :mad:

Anyways... And all this industrial waste being thrown in the rivers...

Wake up people! Stop thinking in the past!
Let's do something with our present before we have no chance anymore!

Act! If everyone start to complain they will HAVE to do something about it! Change it!

Love,
Nelson

TruthSeeker, I second your post. Though there is a lot pollution outside the U$, this article was specific about the U$.

Good question anyway! What does the 'god blessed' government of the U$ do with their nuclear garbage? They have to leave it somewhere. I bet they found a nice solution for it, not that the people hear about it. No, imagine!

Perhaps Edufer has statistics on this one. Let's hear it Edufer!

Now I'm dying to know what becomes of the nuclear garbage...:confused:

(am too lazy to have a look for it on the internet, it'll change nothing!)

P.S. If you can tell me where they keep their nuclear garbage, I will personally go and blow it up, so the U$ doesn't have to worry any more about their war on terrorism. Goodbye Cruel World, Goodbye Blue Sky... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Do you know that the U$ energy system is mostly supplied by Nuclear power?Not so, Anti-Fact Boy.


Capability by Fuel Source (Megawatts) Coal-fired - 285,798
Gas-fired - 121,479
Nuclear-powered - 94,689
Hydroelectric - 92,999
Petroleum-fired - 43,114When country-bashing, please get your information correct before posting. You should have hung on to your acid rain thought, backed it up with the fact that the United States produces most of its power through coal-fired production facilities, then finished off with a link illustrating how the sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrous oxides (NOx) released into the atmosphere can travel for thousands of kilometers before coming back down to earth in the form of dry particles or acid precipitation. Man, you could have had a post with substance!Wake up people!Yes, please do. Think.

Peace.

quote: <b>justagirl:</b> <i>"You may find that link interesting as Argentina allowed the use of PCB's many years after it was found to cause health hazards to humans".</i>

Yes, I am a consultant to our provincial government on environmental risks as PCbs, DDT, radiation, and know very well how ignorant politician are when it comes to science and political decisions about the environment. The link you gave me is interesting as there appear some ministers and officials well known for their utter incapacity for anything else beside stealing from the public treasure. They were expelled from office back in December. That is a consequence of a perverse policy being implemented for decades in Argentina: the destruction of the public education, especially the scientific education in primary schools, and later in high school and colleges.

That was toppled with the destruction of two really important scientific projects: the nuclear program (Argentina was selling reactors to other countries as Peru and lately to Australia), and the aerospace project called "Condor", that had managed to launch a 600-mile range missile. The British feared it could be used to attack the Malvinas Islands (400 miles away from Argentina´s coast) and the U.S. feared that Saddam Hussein could buy the missile for attacking Israel. Competitors in those fields (nuclear industry and weapon trafficking) are not welcome.

So, going back to the PCB scare, you´ll see that the accusations are based on the perss releases that say: <i><b>"PCBs</b></i> (or any other substance, for that matter) <i><b>has been linked to cancer in humans". </b></i> Scientific studies have shown there is not link whatsoever between human cancer and PCBs. I would suggest you to visit this link --the <A HREF="http://www.acsh.org/HealthFactsAndFears/index2.search"> (American Council on Science & Health),</A> where you will find scientific material on the PCB subject (and many other public health related issues). I promise you won´t be losing your time. The link will take you right to a page where there are 11 other links to articles on the PCBs subject, and one I selected is this: <A HREF="http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/BrownerBrodsky072398.html">BrownerBrodsky</A>

Quote: <b>Statistics never lie as Math doesn't lie.</b>

I cannot agree with that. Maths are not a simple matter, (I have a love-hate affair with them) and better leave it to mathematicians. In statistics you mostly use simple maths: add, substract, multiply and divide. And when using figures you can play nice and clever tricks. When I was studying computing some years ago, the first rule we learned from the masters was what has become the Golden Axiom of Programming: <b>"Garbage in, garbage out"</b>.That means that the electronic moron we know as "computer" or CPU, or whatever, will efficently carry away calculations according to the input, following precise instructions from the programmer. And this take us to the matter of the honesty (and no so much to the ability) of the programmer.

It is widely known that if you have a hypothesis you want to prove, there is nothing better as writing the adequate program. In other words, if you "know" the answer in advance, it is quite easy to select the adequate data to input to a program that will give the answer you want. An example: Global Warming. Another one? The Ozone hole hoax. Still another: overpopulation.

Quote: <b>How many years can the world ignore statistics that show they do kill??</b>

Or put it on reverse: "How many years can the world ignore statistics that show they do not present a real threat?" A two sided coin... Why they keep misinforming people about the alleged harm caused by some chemicals, especially when the concentration they are found in nature is minimal? Take the case of dioxins: once they said TCDD was the most deadly toxin known by man. It is not. Aflatoxin B1 is. They say all garbage burning facilities must be banned because they produce dioxin that is harmful for people. Then, what are they going to do about forest and prairies fires, that have been producing dioxin in quantities that makes garbage burning look like child's play? Why don't they tell people there is nothing to worry about these natural fires, because the amount of dioxin produced is minimal? Or is there another reason behind all this misinformation...? Is there a gigantic business where politicians and NGOs are profiting? You bet there is!

Quote: <b>"That's common among the world as for years the tobbaco companies used their own statistics to show smoking didn't kill. Every issue in the world has more than one side and to make decisions based on "just" one side and ignore the other sides is a uninformed decision.</B>

I couldn't agree more with you. You are absolutely right. To be informed is the duty of any concerned citizen. The problem arises when you start looking for sources of your information. Once you get hold of any, then you must compare both informations with universally accepted facts (as scientific facts --not "factoids"-- physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, etc.) And this is a tremendous job! It will take most of your time to check the accuracy and seriousness of all information you get. If you do it well, you won't have time to dinner or sleep, let aside go to work. In my case, my job in FAEC (Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology) is doing precisely this: check the information and, as we say, try to discover where the cat is hidden.

Quote: <b> Argentine electric utilities Edenor and Edesur eliminated PCBs from their transformers in 2000. </b>

Yes, they did. And soon afterwards happened tha biggest blackout known in the history of Buenos Aires, when entire bouroughs were without power for weeks! The new transformers, cooled with mineral oil instead of PCBs, started to explode and start fires that render most of the power grid useless. There were people killed, many died as a result of the loss of power, many small business connected with the food supply, restaurants, grocery stores, etc, went bankrupt because the food rot in the useless freezers and refrigerators.

Now listen to this: there is not a single case recorded in the medical history that show somebody died because of PCB exposure (leave aside suicides). Show me just ONE case where PCB was responsible of a human death. Just ONE. And the same goes for DDT and dioxins: just ONE human death related to an exposure to environmental concentrations. Even the Sevezo accident in Italy caused nothing more severe than a skin rash. No cancers, no leukemias, no birth defects at all. But yes, there hundreds of abortions performed by terrified pregnant women. Then, who are the criminals? Those who produce useful chemicals for mankind, or those who misinform and terrify people with imaginary dangers? Those like Erin Brokovich, who made a fortune with a hoax; or those who discovered DDT, the chemical pronounced by the World Health Organization as the most useful chemical ever discovered by man, that have saved more lives than antibiotics?

Quote: truthseeker: <b><i>"Do you know that the U$ energy system is mostly supplied by Nuclear power? And where do they put the nuclear garbage? In the ocean? Underground? And if something happens and it starts to get out of there? Or they send to Developing countries to dump in OUR backyards!!</I></b>

OK, Banshee, this goes in your behalf too... You asked for the knowledge. Now do your homework...

I´m sorry, but nuclear energy amounts to barely 20% of the electricity used in the US. In the mid 90s, the figures for nuclear borne electricity for different countries were: France 78%, Belguim 65,5%, Hungary 48,9%, Sweden 46,9%, South Korea 46,9%, Taiwan 41%, Switzerland 37,4%, Spain 36,1%, Finland 36,2%, Bulgary 35,6%, Germany 34%, Japan 40%, Checoslovaquia 26,7%, United States 20%, Great Britain 19,3%, Canada 17%, Argentina 17%, and Russia 12,6%.

<b>"Nuclear garbage"</b>, as you call it, is not garbage: it is a highly valuable material that can be reprocessed (recycled, the word adored by environmentalists) in a process that concentrates 96% of the radioactivity in only 4% of the original volume, and the resulting nuclear fuel is used in the advanced and ultra-safe fourth generation reactors (fast breeders, pressurized gas, HTWRs, and the like) until it is completely burned <b>--no leftover, no residues, no "garbage".</B> Everything converted into clean, environmenatly friendly electricity. Oddly, this type of "recycling" is strongly opposed by the anti-nuke movement (and most of their gullible and ignorant followers). Why? There is no scientific explanation for their oppostion, just emotional arguments, "remember Chernobyl" and other nonsense.

There is a much better way to deal with nuclear spent fuel (or garbage, as you like): the Argonne National Laboratory has synthesized a substance known as <b>CMPO</b> (octyl {fenil]-NN-diisobutyl-carbamyl-methyl-phosphine oxide), able to selectively isolate <b>transuranics</b> (highly radioactive materials as plutonium) from the rest of the nuclear residues (Horowitz, E. Philip, 1986, <i>"New Radioactive Waste Treatment Could Save Taxpayers Billions"</i>, Logos, Argonne Nat. Lab., <i>Progress Through Science,</i>, Vol. 4, No. 3, Fall 1986, pp.6-9) . the extraction is carried along with nitric and chloridic acids. Extracting the TUM (Trans Uranic Materials) the rest falls into the definition of LLR (Low Level Residues), therefore much easier, safer and cheaper to handle. The TUM are from 100 to 1000 less in volume and can be solidified and vitrified in borosilicate glass. That's enough for you, Banshee? There are many opther safe ways to deal and store with nuclear waste, so don´t provoke me because I might post here all the techniques available. Or better yet, give you the links for you to do your homework...

As the late former head of the American Nuclear Association, Dixie Lee Ray, a marine biologist of world renown, (also former governor of the State of Washington) once stated: <i>"Speaking as a marine biologist, I join the majority of oceanic scientists that say the ocean, the deep ocean, the bottom of the deep ocean, is the proper place for burying waste, whether radioactive or chemical"</I>. Why? Let's see:

The oceans already contain 400 billion Curies (Ci) of Potassium-40, 100 million Ci of Radium, and 1 billion Ci of Uranium-238. The uppermost inch of the oceans hold many millions Ci of uranium. Many marine organisms receive tens of Rems (not millirems!) of radiation coming from Polonium-210 that, as Plutonium, is an Alfa ray emitter, and a certain tpye of crawfish (that we eat without any fears) gets an annual dose of 100 Rems.

And what do you mean by <i>"Or they send to Developing countries to dump in OUR backyards!!"</I> That means that you consider developing countries as <b>the US backyard?</b> Wow! No wonder developing countries resent American Imperialism! :D

Quote: <i><b>"Wake up people! Stop thinking in the past!. Let's do something with our present before we have no chance anymore!" </b></i>

Really, I don´t get you here... Environmentalists keep thinking of the past as the Golden Days and something we must go back to. I think in our future, and seeing all the possibilities modern technologies present to us, it seems nonsensical no to take advantage of it for improving our environment and way of life... something that has been improving steadily for the last century. I agree with you on that: <b>stop thinking in the past, let us think in the future! Wake up!</b>

Ladies and Gentlemen: have a nice evening going through the English page of our website: FAEC - Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html) , the English version of our site.

Please feel free to browse the site at your heart's content. If you click on the link "Fotos" you'll see pictures of the place in the Amazon jungle where I spent three straight years of my life (from 1995 to 1997). It´s beautiful...

In the link "Quienes Somos" you´ll find a picture of mine, back in 1971, when training in the Amazon in the Brazilian Army Commando Training Unit. If you feel lazy, here it is:

(wow! it really came out big! No way of reducing it!)

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/EduCOSAC.gif

goofyfish,

Indeed... thanks for the information...
I was expecting someone to come up saying that we are still more suplied by coal... which is one of the worse polutant, if not THE worst!

Another thing I was expecting...

Capability by Fuel Source (Megawatts)

You showed the capability...
I was expecting how many types of power plant each one have...

So... how many Nuclear power plants there are in the U$? Not saying that all (or almost all) the gas come from Canada... ;)

You should have hung on to your acid rain thought, backed it up with the fact that the United States produces most of its power through coal-fired production facilities, then finished off with a link illustrating how the sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrous oxides (NOx) released into the atmosphere can travel for thousands of kilometers before coming back down to earth in the form of dry particles or acid precipitation. Man, you could have had a post with substance!

There you go... I wasn't even expecting you to do it for me... :D
They HAD substance. It had so much that influenced you to continue it by yourself... ;)

Ah... don't forget the H2SO4... ;)

Edufer,

Then, what are they going to do about forest and prairies fires, that have been producing dioxin in quantities that makes garbage burning look like child's play?

I would like to remind you that forests consume the dioxin...
And that it's almost allways humans that begin the fires...
And that forests near industries have been dying because of all the pollution created by the factories... :(

That means that you consider developing countries as the US backyard?

No... the other way around...

Really, I don't get you here... Environmentalists keep thinking of the past as the Golden Days and something we must go back to. I think in our future, and seeing all the possibilities modern technologies present to us, it seems nonsensical no to take advantage of it for improving our environment and way of life... something that has been improving steadily for the last century.

Yes... the past days with Nature... :)
... improve... environment?
What I've been seeing is a lot of pollution and dumb things like nuclear boms being created by humans.
I agree with Science as long as it doesn't hurt Nature and dont' make addicted junky people... like those who can't live without cars or other possessions or drugs or whatever...


All this information you gave...
Really... it seems a little to much in accordance with the U$ economy...
I don't really think all this information is true (besides the percentage of nuclear power). It's all done by them just to justify that they are right. Remember that they have the power over media, therefore, over the opinion of people.

You, Americans, and most of people all around the world just seems to be their little puppets, that they play with...

They talk of freedom...
But I only see slavery...

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
All this information you gave... Really... I don't really think all this information is true...Really, Edufer. Please stop trying to clutter TruthSeekers brilliant orations with somthing so trivial as facts.

Peace.

Show me just ONE case where PCB was responsible of a human death. Just ONE. And the same goes for DDT and dioxins: just ONE human death related to an exposure to environmental concentrations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------i . Data supplied to the Senate Environment Committee by EPA last year estimate the annual health bill from 7 million tons of SO2 and NO2: more than 10,800 premature deaths; at least 5,400 incidents of chronic bronchitis; more than 5,100 hospital emergency visits; and over 1.5 million lost work days. Add to that severe damage to our natural resources, as acid rain attacks soils and plants and deposits nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay and other critical bodies of water


The following letter of resignation was submitted on Feb. 27, 2002, by Eric Schaeffer, head of the U.S. EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, to protest White House and Energy Department attempts to weaken federal clean air policy. Schaeffer's resignation has prompted Senate hearings into the Bush administration's environmental record.

Christine Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Ms. Whitman:

I resign today from the Environmental Protection Agency after 12 years of service, the last five as Director of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement. I am grateful for the opportunities I have been given, and leave with a deep admiration for the men and women of EPA who dedicate their lives to protecting the environment and the public health. Their faith in the Agency's mission is an inspiring example to those who still believe that government should stand for the public interest.

But I cannot leave without sharing my frustration about the fate of our enforcement actions against power companies that have violated the Clean Air Act. Between November of 1999 and December of 2000, EPA filed lawsuits against nine power companies for expanding their plants without obtaining New Source Review permits and the up-to-date pollution controls required by law. The companies named in our lawsuits emit an incredible 5 million tons of sulfur dioxide every year (a quarter of the emissions in the entire country) as well as 2 million tons of nitrogen oxide.

As the scale of pollution from these coal-fired smokestacks is immense, so is the damage to public health. Data supplied to the Senate Environment Committee by EPA last year estimate the annual health bill from 7 million tons of SO2 and NO2: more than 10,800 premature deaths; at least 5,400 incidents of chronic bronchitis; more than 5,100 hospital emergency visits; and over 1.5 million lost work days. Add to that severe damage to our natural resources, as acid rain attacks soils and plants and deposits nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay and other critical bodies of water.

Fifteen months ago, it looked as though our lawsuits were going to shrink these dismal statistics, when EPA publicly announced agreements with Cinergy and Vepco to reduce Sox and Nox emissions by a combined 750,000 tons per year. Settlements already lodged with two other companies -- TECO and PSE&G -- will eventually take another quarter million tons of Nox and Sox out of the air annually. If we get similar results from the nine companies with filed complaints, we are on track to reduce both pollutants by a combined 4.8 million tons per year. And that does not count the hundreds of thousands of additional tons that can be obtained from other companies with whom we have been negotiating.

Yet today, we seem about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We are in the ninth month of a "90 day review" to reexamine the law, and fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce. It is hard to know which is worse, the endless delay or the repeated leaks by energy industry lobbyists of draft rule changes that would undermine lawsuits already filed. At their heart, these proposals would turn narrow exemptions into larger loopholes that would allow old "grandfathered" plants to be continually rebuilt (and emissions to increase) without modern pollution controls.

Our negotiating position is weakened further by the Administration's budget proposal to cut the civil enforcement program by more than 200 staff positions below the 2001 level. Already, we are unable to fill key staff positions, not only in air enforcement, but in other critical programs, and the proposed budget cuts would leave us desperately short of the resources needed to deal with the large, sophisticated corporate defendants we face. And it is completely unrealistic to expect underfunded state environmental programs, facing their own budget cuts, to take up the slack.

It is no longer possible to pretend that the ongoing debate with the White House and Department of Energy is not effecting our ability to negotiate settlements. Cinergy and Vepco have refused to sign the consent decrees they agreed to 15 months ago, hedging their bets while waiting for the Administration's Clean Air Act reform proposals. Other companies with whom we were close to settlement have walked away from the table. The momentum we obtained with agreements announced earlier has stopped, and we have filed no new lawsuits against utility companies since this Administration took office. We obviously cannot settle cases with defendants who think we are still rewriting the law.

The arguments against sustaining our enforcement actions don't hold up to scrutiny.

Were the complaints filed by the U.S. government based on conflicting or changing interpretations? The Justice Department doesn't think so. Its review of our enforcement actions found EPA's interpretation of the law to be reasonable and consistent. While the Justice Department has gamely insisted it will continue to prosecute existing cases, the confusion over where EPA is going with New Source Review has made settlement almost impossible, and protracted litigation inevitable.

What about the energy crisis? It stubbornly refuses to materialize, as experts predict a glut of power plants in some areas of the U.S. In any case, our settlements are flexible enough to provide for cleaner air while protecting consumers from rate shock.

The relative costs and benefits? EPA's regulatory impact analyses, reviewed by OMB, quantify health and environmental benefits of $7,300 per ton of SO2 reduced at a cost of less than $1,000 per ton. These cases should be supported by anyone who thinks cost-benefit analysis is a serious tool for decision-making, not a political game.

Is the law too complicated to understand? Most of the projects our cases targeted involved big expansion projects that pushed emission increases many times over the limits allowed by law.

Should we try to fix the problem by passing a new law? Assuming the Administration's bill survives a legislative odyssey in today's evenly divided Congress, it will send us right back where we started with new rules to write, which will then be delayed by industry challenges, and with fewer emissions reductions than we can get by enforcing today's law.

I believe you share the concerns I have expressed, and wish you well in your efforts to persuade the Administration to put our enforcement actions back on course. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and our greatest environmental President, said, "Compliance with the law is demanded as a right, not asked as a favor." By showing that powerful utility interests are not exempt from that principle, you will prove to EPA's staff that their faith in the Agency's mission is not in vain. And you will leave the American public with an environmental victory that will be felt for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Eric V. Schaeffer, Director
Office of Regulatory Enforcement



Even the Sevezo accident in Italy caused nothing more severe than a skin rash
-------------------------------------
http://www.foxriverwatch.com/monsanto2a_pcb_pcbs.html

That link will show the first two recorded deaths of PCB's in the world and also show a picture of a little kid with that skin rash you are talking about. It os not pretty.

An unfolding technology has increased our economic strength and added to the convenience of our lives. But that same technology—we know now—carries danger with it. From the great smoke stacks of industry and from the exhausts of motors and machines, 130 million tons of soot, carbon and grime settle over the people and shroud the Nation's cities each year. From towns, factories, and stockyards, wastes pollute our rivers and streams, endangering the waters we drink and use. The debris of civilization litters the landscapes and spoils the beaches. Conservation's concerns now is not only for man's enjoyment—but for man's survival.
-Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) 36th President of the United States,
Special Message to Congress, "To Renew a Nation"
8 March 1968

Reducing air pollution in just four of the world's largest cities--New York; Mexico City; Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Santiago, Chile--could prevent 64,000 premature deaths and 37 million lost workdays over the next two decades, according to research that examines the health effects of the use of fossil fuels. Worldwide, the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels leads to pollution that can result in elevated rates of infant mortality, asthma, cardiovascular problems and respiratory ailments and could cause millions of avoidable deaths worldwide over two decades, according to the new work, which reviewed more than 1,000 scientific studies… Also, "the benefits of lowering emissions are immediate" because many of the gases emitted when fuels are burned are also pollutants, said George Thurston, one of the review's authors and an associate professor of environmental medicine at the New York University School of Medicine. "Universal studies have shown when air pollution levels go up, you get an increase in the numbers of deaths and hospital admissions, missed days at work and school, and other adverse effects"
-Aparna Surendran, "Fossil Fuel Cuts Would Reduce Early Deaths, Illness, Study Says,"
Los Angeles Times, 17 Aug 2001


Diseases caused by environmental degradation kill one in five children before age five in the poorest areas of the world, international health experts said Friday. Worldwide, almost one-fourth of disease was linked to environmental factors of poor water and sanitation, indoor and outdoor air pollution, and vector-borne diseases, according to a report by the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based think tank.
-Reuters News Service article reported by CNN Earth News, 1 May 1998

A small neighborhood in Bossier City, Louisiana has some of the highest levels of chemical contamination, cancers and birth defects ever documented in the United States, according to National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists. The Lincoln Creosote plant is now a Superfund site on the National Priorities List of the most hazardous sites in the country. It was operated in a 20 acre field next to a residential area from 1935 to 1969 by several different owners and operators, producing telephone poles and railroad ties. The wood was pressure treated with creosote, copper-chromium arsenate and pentachlorophenol (PCP) and hung out to dry. Eventually, two large creosote ponds formed leaving arsenic and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as deep as 15 feet in the ground. Large residential neighborhoods border the Lincoln Creosote facility to the north, northeast, south and west… According to Dr. Patricia Williams, the high incidence of cancers and birth defects in Bossier City was probably caused by the contamination in the ground, air and water. Dr. Williams found that the incidence of leukemia from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s is as much as 40 times higher than normal populations, the rate varies depending on the type of leukemia. Breast cancer incidence is as much as five times higher than normal. Incidences of birth defects are 300 percent higher that those recorded during a comparable time period in Osaka, Japan which is near Hiroshima where an atomic bomb was dropped in 1945 to end World War II.

After the U.S. government has stolen most of our lands, your government believes that whatever Indian land is left is still good to be used as a garbage dump for your nuclear wastes that no one else with any good sense wants. I cannot speak the words to tell you how absolutely abhorrent this concept is to me.
- Kerry Cartier of the Native American Tribal Organization,
quoted by Tom Meersman in the Minneapolis Star Tribune 9 July 2000

Kathy Wallace, a Hopi Indian basket weaver and a member of the California Indian Basketweavers Association (“CIBA”), notes how Native Americans in Northwestern California are exposed to forestry herbicides sprayed by federal agencies and timber companies to kill grasses, brush and trees that surround commercial lumber sites. Herbicides can drift as far as forty miles from the spray site, according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. The Yurok reservation located near the Klamath River is sprayed by helicopters each year with herbicides, like 2-4-D, an Agent Orange component. The Native American people suffer negative health effects as a result of animals and plants, gathered for traditional subsistence food, being contaminated by pesticides. Native Americans have experienced high rates of cancer, respiratory and heart ailments, birth defects and infant deaths as a result of those contaminants. As Kathy Wallace has stated, many Native Americans who practice their traditional cultures do so at risk to their own health. They often unknowingly enter forestland and wetlands that have been sprayed with pesticides while hunting, fishing and gathering food and medicines. The environmental degradation of their communities renders it unsafe for them to continue practicing many of their cultural activities such as basket weaving. “Often the materials pass through our mouths during processing or weaving. Basket weavers fear that in passing down our traditions we will be passing on a legacy of disease and death to our children and future generations.” (Kathy Wallace, 1994 WCC/NCC Hearings, Oakland, California)
More than 300,000 Latino farm laborers suffer each year from illnesses related to their exposure to dangerous pesticides. The rate of anencephaly (babies born without brains) is four times the national average, due to exposure to pesticides sprayed on the fields along the U.S./ Mexican border.

http://www.woatusa.org/cerd/enviro.html

http://department.stthomas.edu/recycle/POLLUTION.HTM

One example Edufer...

http://www.fumento.com/reasonagent.html

In this link... they talk about the Agent Orange.
"The Agent Orange is our friend."
That's what they almost said, isn't it?

Well... Have you seen how is Vietnam today? Most of it's ecologic system is destroyed. And it didn't recovery very much since the Agent Orange...

And people there? Lots of people with cancer and other diseases because of that thing. And now you send a site that says... :

"Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs have responded with two official presumptions. First, that all Vietnam vets had Agent Orange exposure, even though blood testing has shown that only a handful had any exposure. Second, that certain cancers and one type of severe birth defect, spina bifida, are caused by the presumptive exposure. "

False?!?!?

Are you kidding???

First... they used Agent Orange even in cities. Second it causes all those things because it contains many chemical substances, not only dioxin.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is sponsored by the U$ government to difund all those lies. And here is the proof:

"Some would have us think Uncle Ho was a good guy compared to those who ordered the Agent Orange spraying. "

That's a common statement promoving the U$ "inocence". The U$ is allways a victim... isn't it. That's the idea the media passes. But the Truth is that U$ is allways manipulating all information. This above statement just proves it...

I had a link about the chemical composition of Agent Orange... but I unfortunatly don't know where it is. It's somewhere in sciforums... take a look... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Now I am really speechless. From sadness!!! :( When I read the post from Justagirl, I have the urge to go and kill the government of the U$ at once. It doesn't solve anything though, for the Americans live on, their daily life. Head in the sand, like always.

A month ago or so I had email information about skin rash which was raging in different states. Nobody knew where it came from. Doctors said it was harmless, it showed up in a lot of states. Wish I had saved those emails.
Maybe one of you has heard or read about it.

Then there are the chem-trails in the Sky and the trails of little particles they leave behind on the porches of peoples houses. More and more voices speak about the obnoxious(?) feelings they get and how ill they get when exposed to the chem-particles during an amount of time. The last word about this is not said in a long run.

And so it goes on and on. It gets worse and worse. Not only in the U$ no, big part of the pollution is caused by the U$ and you know it! D**N!

It has to stop! If it's not already too late...!

I quit with this. Now I get sick from it.
People, dig your heads up, from under the thick layer of sand you dug it in...:confused:

quote

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
All this information you gave... Really... I don't really think all this information is true...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really, Edufer. Please stop trying to clutter TruthSeekers brilliant orations with somthing so trivial as facts.

-----------------------------------
His links to the facts wouldn't open for me. It might be my PC as it has been acting funny recently but those links have not opened for me .

quote
Once you get hold of any, then you must compare both informations with universally accepted facts (as scientific facts --not "factoids"-- physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, etc.) And this is a tremendous job! It will take most of your time to check the accuracy and seriousness of all information you get. If you do it well, you won't have time to dinner or sleep, let aside go to work. In my case, my job in FAEC (Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology) is doing precisely this: check the information and, as we say, try to discover where the cat is hidden.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Oh I agree and I don't work as I found it suppressive to me( I worked for a Top 5 Fortune company that supressed the truth about a lot of things and had Congress in it's back pocket) and just retired at 39. I am single with no children so I can spend my days reading and learning and normally do.

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
goofyfish,

Indeed... thanks for the information... improve... environment?
What I've been seeing is a lot of pollution and dumb things like nuclear boms being created by humans... All this information you gave... I don't really think all this information is true (besides the percentage of nuclear power). It's all done by them just to justify that they are right. Remember that they have the power over media, therefore, over the opinion of people.

Truthseeker: where have you been seeking for the thruth? You have seen a lot of pollution. Maybe you didn´t travel far enough away from your city. I have traveled ALL South America, from Tierra del Fuego to the Darien strait, from west coast to East coast, and I assure you I have seen only small spots of pollution, always centered in big cities as Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Rio, Caracas, Santiago de Chile, etc. I have lived among indians in the amazon, and found how destructive to the environment they can be --only if they were more.

I wont argue about the truth in the information I gave you. that's something you have to do. Choosing to Ignore the facts is the Ostrich syndrome; hide your head in the sand and keep beliving in your own misinformed knowledge. (By the way, ostrich hiding their head in the sand is another popular myth, and I have to point it out for you because our mission in FAEC is to debunk myths.

So make your homework: go to these sites and check nuclear facts for yourself:

Argonne National Laboratory (http://www.ant.gov)
Lawrence National Laboratory (http://www.llnl.gov)
Los Alamos National Laboratory (http://www.lanl.gov)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (http://www.ornl.gov)
Sandia National Laboratory (http://www.sandia.gov)
U.S. Office of Science (http://www.science.doe.gov)
National Nuclear Security Administration (http://www.nnsa.doe.gov)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://www.nrc.gov)
Nuclear Power: Energy for Today and Tomorrow (http://pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html)
EPA's Yucca Mountain home page (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/)
EPA's Radiation Protection home page (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/)
Michael Fumento's mythbuster articles (http://www.fumento.com/columns.html)

And these are only a small fraction of sites where you could seek for the truth. Truth is a two sided coin; be brave and dare to visit the otehr side...

And starting in your home country (Canada) go to:

Atomic Energy of Canada website (www.aecl.ca/index.asp?layid=1)

And please, search in Google with "AECL" to find many pages and articles relating AECL. By the way, I worked at AECL while they were building our nuclear reactor in Cordoba, Argentina (Embalse nuclear plant) as head of the Technical Translations Dept. It is supposed I know about nuclear matters...

Have fun!

Justagirl, you don'l look like <b>"just a girl"</b>. It seems you have a sensible spirit, but it would be nice if you compared the information from different sources under the light of serious science.

I am sorry, but I couldn't find the informatin about the "two recorded deaths attributed to PCBs" in the link you gave (Fox River Watch). Maybe my sight is decreasing or my skills in English reading are not good enough. The only death attributed to PCB found on Fox River Watch website are these:

<b>"1970: Campbell’s Soup Company had to slaughter 146,000 chickens after detecting high levels of PCBs in chickens raised in New York State. --- 1971: Monsanto destroyed another 88,000 chickens in North Carolina because a PCB leak from a heating system had contaminated the feed.</B>

The picture of a child with a skin rash is not beautiful. Chloroacne is not beautiful, but it is not deadly. It cures in a week or so. It was the misinformation that urged former (and deceased) Minister of Prevention of Environmental Disasters of France, the scientist Haroum Tazieff jump aboard the wagon of "brownlashers" or eco-myths debunkers. Let's hear what he said in his Foreword to the book "The Holes in the Ozone Scare", by Rogelio Maduro: (bold emphasis added by me).

<i>"I had believed in what was thus universally and imperatively affirmed as incontestable truth: that PCBs, and the dioxins they emit when heated to 300°Celsius, were frigthful poisons. One or two years of this propaganda had led government officials --just as incompetent as I was in matters of polychlorobiphenils-- to make them officially illegal."

"A half dozn years later, I found myself responsible for the prvention of disasters, natural and technological disasters for the French government. ... As for technological disasters, <b...>it was necessary to inform myself.</B> The very first dossier I asked to have delivered to me was --so much I had been convinced of the extreme hazard of PCBs-- was the one on the explosion at the chemical plant in Sevezo, Italy, in July 1976. The study of this dossier and the inquest Ied at the time revealed to me, first of all, that this so-called catastrophe <B>had not one single victim.</B>

Second, I learned that dioxins, according to the judgement of ALL the actual experts consulted (and the very knowledgeable Academy of Science), are not at all "frightful" and have never, anywhere, killed anyone."

"Thus, the matter of presenting the industrial accident at the IMECSA factory in Sevezo as an apocaplyptic catastrophe was <B>a matter of deliberate disinformation</B> --in less diplomatic language was what one calls a LIE. ... The production and commercialization of PCBs was coming to an end. These substances, used as dielectrics, whose extraordinary qualities of chemical stability, <b>nontoxicity</B>, nonflammability, and nonexplosivity explain why they were being used by the entire world, with annual benefits that figure in billions of dollars... As for the billions of dollars involved in the destruction of PCBs --which is by now has become obligatory-- and the cost of their replacement, this bill will be paid by the consumers and taxpayers --for that matter without their knowledge. If by chance they are informed of it, they do not rebel, since it is a question of "defending the planet".</I>

And Tazieff finish his Foreword with these words: <i>"Here I have summarized the quite solitary path that I followed in discovering thet the catastrophes announced by great blowing of trumpets are no more than windmills for naive ecologists to tilt at. After I took my stand, first in a little book published in 1989, then in public debates and radio and television appearances, I had the surprise --oh, how pleasant-- of receiveing the approbation of numerous scientists, especially specialists in these matters. On the other hand, I have attracted innumerable enemies, some naive and some from certain people of doubtful honesty. But a small number of friends of quality is worth more than a bunch of fans or a bunch of foes."</i> Signed: <b>Haroum Tazieff</b>.

One thing people should know is how lab test are conducted for determining toxicity and carcinogenicity: feed rodents with huge (sub letahl doses) of the suspected chemical. According to studies made by Dr. Bruce Ames at University of California at Berkeley, show this technique will induce "mitogenesis", an uncontrolled cell growth (normally known as cancer). But when the rats are fed the chemical with doses at levels found in the environment, the results are negative.

Please read this page in our website at FAEC (it is in English): <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Nat-vs-Synth.html">Natural vs Synthetic</A>, were you'll find what Dr. Bruce Ames and Dr. Louise Gold have to say about this matter.

Moreover, when they tried to blame BHT (buto-hidroxy-toluidine, a preservative used on bread and butter) of being carcinogenic, the tests concluded that rats fed with BHT lived twice as much as the control rats! So no wonder this appears in the Fox river website:

<i>Testimony about the IBT Labs scandal in a Texas lawsuit against Monsanto indicates that IBT was aware that PCBs caused extremely high numbers of tumors in test rats, with 82 percent developing tumors when fed Aroclor 1254 at 10 parts per million and 100 percent at 100 parts per million. Yet IBT Labs certified PCBs a noncarcinogen"</I> Why? Because when rats were fed with dose levels found in the environment, the results were negative.

Quote: <i>" Diseases caused by environmental degradation kill one in five children before age five in the poorest areas of the world,"</i>

Indeed, it happens in poor countries, where they have not the money for aplying modern technologies for preventing or the cleanup of their pollution. Don´t blame it on the pollution but blame it on the neocolonial status imposed on them by the Seven Big industrialized countries that have their skies cleaner now than fifty years ago. Let's be honest, guys, MONEY TALKS. And the conditions imposed on those countries by the IMF are designed for stopping their industrial developing and tecnological advance. Greed talks trough Malthus' mouth...

quote

I am sorry, but I couldn't find the informatin about the "two recorded deaths attributed to PCBs" in the link you gave (Fox River Watch

-----------------------------------------------
There was a lot of data on that page but they are in 1937 to help locate them.


I am going to make a brief responce as today I have to do some things around here. Some of your points are well stated and I can't dispute them. The lab test do have a way of distorting the facts but lab test can't erase actual deaths. Many companies have been sued and lost the lawsuit over the use of environmental hazards. Some were probably a wrong judgement but I am able to find many that seemed to be flagrant and did kill the environment. I can't ignore those kinds of facts. Those are real facts and not an opinion.

Use of energy is a real problem in the world as the logical choices seem to be hydro and solar. Hydro needs a natural source as we know it now but I think a manmade hydro source is very possible. Solar power still needs to be improved but can help "some". A government faced with money "Issues" has to look at coal or gas if they have it as a natural resource.

The cost of food will go up if the farmers went back to using natural fertilizer as it isn't as effective. The fertilizers are good about not harming the crops they were designed for but sadly they get washed away and can cause problems elsewhere. The world is full of tough choices on how to provide jobs, food, water, and energy. But I feel instead of fighting the facts of actual deaths and the slaughter of marine life that science should be more concerned over finding new and better ways. But what is happening in our world is the economy and governments are fueld by money and some "real" hard choices have to be made. Most of the time I can show prejudice on any claim for or against unless it's actual deaths which happens at times.
I don't claim to know the answers because if we DID make all of our choices based on the environment the world would have a whole new set of "real" problems. That's the real cause of the debate as companies and countries need to back up their choices and don't have the time to wait for something new. Don't have the funds to go a better way. Bottom line "money" and politics are slowly hurting the environment. The largest river close to me is unfit for fishing. Many stories like that across the United States. That is facts and not an opinion.

Quote from "The History of PCBs" (Fox River Watch):

"In 1936 three workers at the Halowax Company died. Autopsies of two revealed severe liver damage. ... One man died and the diagnosis may have attributed his death to halowax vapors, but we are not sure of that...."

Did the autopsies revealed the real cause of death? They don't say. The autopsies sureley also showed the men had prostate cancer developing, and PCBs can not blamed for that. So this case is quite vague, as is the second case were "... the diagnosis may have attributed his death to halowax vapors, but we are not sure of that....". If they were not sure, why blame PCBs. Guilts and accusations must be based on factual evidence. We don't know if those men died of pneumonia or a car accident, or stroke or a heart attack. Based on what is posted in the article, the accusation is based on flimsy evidence --although it could have been caused by PCBs, the medical history does not have a record of <b>deaths</B> attributable to PCBs. Epidemiological studies are a difficult job to perform.

I would like very much if you take a brief look at this article on our website at FAEC, that will give you an idea about the difficulties in performing epidemiological studies in order to discover the causes for any disease:

<A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES\Epide.html>How to Understand Scientific Studies and Epidemiology</A>

On the whole, I agree with you on what you say in your last post, because it sounds reasonable. It is also my belief that we must take care of the environment and make anything possible to keep the aire, water, oceans, and land clean. There is a lot of pollution done, but I also believe that we have been detecting and correcting it. We have learned a lot, we have made great technological advances that are useful for keeping the woprld clean. There are abuses, yes, and it is our task to stop them and make sure they are not commited again.

But I don't think that banning useful chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers is the way to do it, especially if there is a lot of evidence that the problem is being highly overestimated and grossly exagerated (as the case of DDT, PCBs, CFs, lead in gasolines, etc). Of course, you may disagree with me, but that is a risk I can accept without enraging myself, as Banshee seems to do when somebody contradicts him.

We´ll keep this amicable discussion later. Have fun!

Are the harmful effects of PCB's and Dioxins exaggerated? Possibly, as both sides spin the data to uphold their view. The problem, I think, is that dioxins produce a wide spectrum of biochemical and toxic effects in experimental animals, and these effects depend on species, strain, gender, age and tissue. For the most part, the mechanisms of these impacts are still obscure, which hampers rational risk assessment.

A wide variety of health effects in humans have been linked to high exposure to dioxins, including mood alterations, reduced cognitive performance, diabetes, changes in white blood cells, dental defects, endometriosis, decreased male/female ratio of births and decreased testosterone levels. Presently the effects have been proven only in the case of chloracne. Another concern is the possible developmental effects. There is some data that dioxin exposure from breast milk is associated with abnormal development and "mineralization" of teeth.

My problem with chlorinated compounds in the body is that our body is not able to metabolize them and, because they are fat-soluble and practically not at all water-soluble, they cannot be excreted in urine. So they can accumulate in our body over decades, even at a low exposure. I think it is important that the levels of these compounds in our food be minimized. It has been suggested that the accumulation in the human system is so slow that it would take 40 to 50 years to reach critical levels. Possibly true; has there been a serious study by either side for such an extended period?

My vote is to err on the side of caution.

Peace.

As it happens an enormous amount of our food is directly and indirectly possible to produce only because of the cultivation of corn (maize)...The percentage may be high as 75%. Then there are the industrial products we can make because of corn. The implications are unthinkable.

It sounds like genetically modified corn has proliferated to such an extent since 1994 that original strains of corn are virtually impossible to grow without specialized technology. These genetic changes in corn could produce nearly unthinkable changes.

Earthquakes and volcanoes are most likely not life-threatening to the planet. Nuclear, biological and chemical components of modern civilization are the sources of devastation to this world. The real threat we are facing is the byproducts of the civilization we have created that has the potential to alter all life forms on this planet. This has been done with the implicit and explicit agreement of every man and woman who opens a plastic bottle without thinking of the long-term consequences of plastic -- which produces an over-abundance of estrogen and other problems -- for the sake of immediate convenience.

The world as we have known it has changed! In a few more generations, the difficulty in obtaining a high functioning body in which to incarnate on this planet will be unfathomable to most people. Badly damaged genetics will result in the majority of survivors going back to caves.

This is a done deal at this point, and the majority, who will start back up the evolutionary ladder in future incarnations, ignored the warnings when the curve could have been easily changed.

The earliest messages warned of damage being done to the environment by nuclear technology back in 1950. Rather than listen to the message about the dangers, the majority ignored obvious evidence and ignored the implications of the messages about environmental contamination.

President Eisenhower's farewell speech warned that the military-industrial complex posed the most dangerous threat to the American way of life. Not only did messages warn about the advancing line of technology on this planet, but an American president also warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.

What do you do when a large number of people don't want to hear a message repeated at great expense to a few people, who were threatened with financial and political ruin and social ostracism for delivering the message?

There are no innocent victims in this situation. The presently dangerous situation has been created by the consuming public who has kept the military-industrial complex thriving. We all have in common Homo sapien bodies for which we have battled to win human rights for centuries.

Beyond the shared body form, there are vast differences in awareness, knowledge and destiny among us. Each will inherit the destiny created from the awareness and knowledge manifest in the journey of life on Earth.

Please check out http://www.fao.org to see the United Nations site on Food and Agriculture.

:(

Originally posted by goofyfish
The problem, I think, is that dioxins produce a wide spectrum of biochemical and toxic effects in experimental animals, and these effects depend on species, strain, gender, age and tissue. For the most part, the mechanisms of these impacts are still obscure, which hampers rational risk assessment.

You are right, but the whole truth must be said: the effects vary according to species (a miligram of dioxin is instantaneously lethal to hamsters, but you need hundred times more to notice any effect on a rat, and thousand more to make an effect on humans. What we must take into account is that dioxin levels normally found in our environment is minimal and barely affect humans or higher animals. As many toxicologists insist on pointing out, the harmful effects become noticeable in animals under lab test, given huge amounts of dioxin (or other toxic substances) in doses know as MTD (or Maximum Tolerated Dose), that is, a sub-lethal dose that won't cause the instant death of the animal being tested.


A wide variety of health effects in humans have been linked to high exposure to dioxins, including mood alterations, reduced cognitive performance, diabetes, changes in white blood cells, dental defects, endometriosis, decreased male/female ratio of births and decreased testosterone levels. Presently the effects have been <i>proven</i> only in the case of chloracne. Another concern is the possible developmental effects. There is some data that dioxin exposure from breast milk is associated with abnormal development and "mineralization" of teeth.

Again, the problem lies on <b>"linked to high exposures"</b>... that is, there is no scientific evidence that this is an established fact. As you state, only chloroacne has been an established (and accepted) fact. Also abounds the claims as "the possible ... effects", or "there is some data that suggest", or "it is believed that", or "it seems associated with", etc., a wide variety of claims in potencial tense. White is white, and black is black, and don´t try to confuse people who have not the scientific or technical knowledge with "white could be black" (without saying that only if there is no light to see the colors)"


My problem with chlorinated compounds in the body is that our body is not able to metabolize them and, because they are fat-soluble and practically not at all water-soluble, they cannot be excreted in urine. So they can accumulate in our body over decades, even at a low exposure.

So, how do you explain the fact that about 80% of remedies and medicins are "hydrochlorates"? Most generic medical substances come in the form of hydrochlorates (I am taking "ervastatin hydrochlorate" -Lipitor- for reducing cholesterol, and most antihistaminics are hydrochlorates. Nobody seems to feel adverse effects from medicins (leave aside overdoses), so we arrive at the Golden Axiom of Toxicology: <b>"The Dose is the Poison"</b>. Theophilus Bombastus von Hohenheim (better known as Paracelsus) said back in the 16th century: <i>"Everything is poison, and nothing is poison; only the dose makes the poison"</i>.

My vote is to err on the side of caution.

You seem to be in favor of the infamous "Precautionary Principle". Life on Earth is for the brave of spirit; history shows that timids and cowards are rapidly erased from the surface of Earth. As I said before, had mankind applied the "precautionary principle" from the beginning, we would still be hanging from tree branches looking down on fierceful tigers and lions.

And, of course Peace. But what is Peace? Peace has different meanings to different people. To me "peace" is to live without worries, gardening my backyard. But when there comes somebody telling me I can´t use herbicides on my orchard or else I'll go to jail, that is not peace... that means war. Or I can't use water for irrigating my farm because a species of fish will be "endangered", that is violence imposed on me. That means war. If not, take a look at Klamath (?) county...

Now, really, peace for all.

This has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, but since you are here, I would like to know your opinion about your next Queen, Princess Maxima Zorreguieta, an Argentinian as myself...

Also, what do you think about the fact that her father was banned from the wedding ceremony because he was Secretary of Agriculture during the government of President Jorge Videla, back in 1976, when we sucessfully got rid of the communist guerrilla (ERP) in Argentina?

I know that Dutch people has a long history of hating dictators, but there is something that doesn't fit in the picture: why an obscure secretary of agriculture in a forgotten country was not permitted to atend the wedding of his daughter, but Prince Bernhard, Queen Juliana's husband, was at the ceremony?

Edufer,

You have seen a lot of pollution. Maybe you didn´t travel far enough away from your city.

I don't need to!!
The whole city is polluted... and there are only cars and other vehicles! We not even have factories!

Another thing... I traveled to many polluted places. Napoli, for example. I couldn't breath there! And the pollution made the air really hot... i could even see the sky all brown in Napoli, when I went to Capri... :(
Another place: Milan. I didn't even needed to get out of the airport to see the pollution. It was raining and it was everything brown and gray... :(
Venice, pollution of water... London air... etc...

There are lots of other examples that I saw thorugh TV, like garbage... but I guess this is enough... :(

I have lived among indians in the amazon, and found how destructive to the environment they can be --only if they were more.

Are you kidding? What did they do...? :confused: :confused:

And starting in your home country (Canada) go to:

Little misinformation...

Location: Canada (now)

As you see... I'm NOW in Canada...
Look clearly when you are reading the Truth... otherwise it can pass directly through you and you don't see it...
I'm from Brazil... ;)

Btw... much better wait for fuson... :)
Fuson will be better than those nuclear plants... ;)
And those nuclear plants will soon be discardable (do you have this word? We have somewhat in Portuguese...)

PS: Do you speak Portuguese??

Posted by Banshee:
It sounds like genetically modified corn has proliferated to such an extent since 1994 that original strains of corn are virtually impossible to grow without specialized technology. These genetic changes in corn could produce nearly unthinkable changes.

I totally agree with Banshee. The whole post...

Love,
Nelson

quote

In 1936 three workers at the Halowax Company died. Autopsies of two revealed severe liver damage. ... One man died and the diagnosis may have attributed his death to halowax vapors, but we are not sure of that...."

Did the autopsies revealed the real cause of death? They don't say. The autopsies sureley also showed the men had prostate cancer developing, and PCBs can not blamed for that
although it could have been caused by PCBs, the medical history does not have a record of deaths attributable to PCBs. Epidemiological studies are a difficult job to perform

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using that logic one could say "AIDS" doesn't kill as AIDS is never shown on the birth certificate as the cause od death and we could always say "well, they were gonna dia anyways"

Man found with 47 arrows in body. Sheriff says suicide...

LOL....


Yes, your Honor I shot that man 6 times but I didn't kill him as I will prove he was gonna die in 2 to 5 years from lung cancer anyways...

*why an obscure secretary of agriculture in a forgotten country was not permitted to atend the wedding of his daughter, but Prince Bernhard, Queen Juliana's husband, was at the ceremony?*

I disagree with the decision made that the father of the bride was not allowed to be at his daughters wedding. No matter what he's done before, it's his daughter, so he should have been there. Satisfied???

Then we can go back on topic. For a discussion on this wedding I have to direct you to the Dutch Forum of SETI, in Dutch, for it's a Dutch Forum, situated in the Netherlands. You can always enter the chat room if you want and tell them you speak English. They will immediately change their talk into English. Enjoy...

www.seti.nl

Click on communicatie and then on chat...

Nelson (Piquet?): meu chapa, acho que eu ainda falo Portugues bastante bem—morei in Manaus, Rio, Sao Paulo, Santos por meses e tomo mias ferias en Florianopolis (Canasvieiras) todos os anos (meu teclado es para espanhol, de modo que nao se como usar todos os signos e acentos Portugueses; sepa disculpar) mais mihna escritura e gramatica nao e muito boa, é ruim!. Eu escribo a meus amigos en Espanhol e recebo seus emails en Portugues.

Eu fiz uma expedicao (falta cedilla, reemplazo con "c,") no Amazonas en 1971 (Janeiro  Junho) e pegue um curso de Supervivenc,a na Selva e Ac,oes de Commando no COSAC en Manaus (Centro de Instrucc,ao de Guerra na Selva e Ac,oes de Commando, o velho CIGS), por invitac,ao especial do Exercito Brasilero. (Eu era reportero especial da revista Siete Dias de Buenos Aires, e estaba filmando una documentaria en 16 mm). Teve de camarada de viagem e interprete ao Major (agora Brigadeiro retirado) Roberto Guaranys, sub-chefe do ParaSAR (Busqueda e Salvamento da FAB).

Sempre conte con a muito prezada ajuda do governo Brasilero que teve a gentileza de enviarme a cualquer parte do Amazonas nos avioes da FAB. Dai que eu aprendi a amar ao Brasil, sua gente, sua selva e seus indios --mais no por iso deixo de reconhecer os defeitos que eles tem... eles sao so seres humanos como nos. Ninguem e perfeito.

Acordo con voce: os reactores de fusion sao el futuro do mundo. Pero os reactores de fisao de hoje tem una seguridade incrível e una eficiencia elevadíssima. Perdao por la ortografía.
Voce fala Espahnol? Pero é melhor si o bate papo continua en Inglés... os outros nao entenderán nada!

Um abrac,o

Eduardo Ferreyra(Edu-fer)

justagirl: <b>Using that logic one could say “AIDS” doesn’t kill as AIDS is never shown on the death certificate as the cause of death and we could always say “well, they were gonna die anyways”</b>

AIDS is another topic I would like to discuss because lots of evidence makes it another exaggerated issue. As this could be a long discussion, I will only point to you some facts not well known to the general public, or even to most scientists, and are related not with the medical side of AIDS, but with statistics --the most elegant way of lying, as I said before.

Dr. Eduardo Leschot, an Argentinian doctor, spent several months in Africa (in 1996) doing an intensive research on the subject. He gathered blood samples from 5,000 prostitutes in Timbuktu (supposedly the most exposed persons to HIV) and run the serum test on them. The rate of <b>HIV serum positive was 60%</B>, the same as it is claimed for Central and South African population (south of the Sahel). Then he took the 5,000 samples and checked them under the electron miscroscope, the only way you can "see" if the HIV virus is actually present in the blood. The results gave <b>a 5% infection rate</b> among prostitutes in Timbuktu.

Why this discrepancy with the serum HIV tests? Simply because malaria carriers <b>always give FALSE POSITIVE results to the HIV serum tests.</b> When you get to know that people south of the Sahel have a rate of malaria of 60%, including the 5,000 prostitutes of the study, the matter gets clearer. Then go north of the Sahel, to Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, etc, and you find the HIV serum positive tests range <b>in the order of 3 to 5%</b>. Look at the malaria cases in the region, and you find the same percentage. No malaria carriers, no HIV false positives.

This side of the question is profitted by corrupt African governments (all of them are corrupt). They see how scared the Europeans and Americans are from AIDS and they say: <i>"Give us money, so we can fight this horrible threat that will eventually kill you all"</i>. And a cataract of money flows into African governments trunks (first) and then this money goes right to Swiss Bank accounts (later).

You must have heard about Dr. Peter Duesberg, the scientist that discovered the retrovirus, back in the early 70s. He was declared the Scientisst of the Year then. Now he is been despised by the scientific establishment because he insists that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. He says the problem lies in another unknown side of the subject, and challenged is adversaries: he would gladly inject himself the HIV virus to prove he he's right. The government wouldn't allow him to do it: <b>what if he is right?</b> Where will all the billions "invested" in research go? The faucet of money cannot be shut down! The industry of AIDS research --looking for a vaccine they know they will never discover sees Duesberg as a horrible threat. It would be stupid to kill the hen of the golden eggs...

Then, what are the reasons for the miraculous cure of Magic Johnson, the NBA superstar? He had a positive HIV back in 1990; a few years later he had negative tests, one after another, without having had any medical treatment for HIV. And Johnson is not the only case. There are thousands of recorded cases of cures like that, and thousand recorded cases of people who have been infected with HIV for more than 20 years and don´t have any sign of AIDS.

What Duesberg and others say is that the most probably cause for the inhibition of the inmune system shown by AIDS pacients <b>is caused mainly by stress</b>. They keep pointing that stress has been totally proven to decrease defenses and lower the hability of the inmune system to make antibodies and defenses. They also point out that the main risk group remains to be homosexuals, drug addicts and people in extreme poverty. The stress experienced by these groups cannot be denied, and this could be the main cause of their diminished inmune system.

That seems to be reasonable, because when a person knows it has a positive HIV, goes into a state of extreme anguish, fear, and continuous stress that helps the virus to overwhelm the diminished defenses. The big alarm and steady propaganda on the seriousness and mortatlity of the disease have created a state of neurosis in the population that is now bordering paranoia. And that does not help to keep the inmune system in good working conditions.

A parallel can be traced with the Chernobyl nuclear neurosis that provoked more damage in the minds of the Russian population than the actual radioactivity (that, according to studies shown in the international 1996 conference <i>"One Decade After Chernobyl--Summing Up the Consequences",</i> held in Viena, Austria, where thousand s of scientists all over the world gathered for a week to analyze all studies made on the subject. As stated by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski, former head of the UNSCEAR <i>(United Nations Scientific Committee for the Study of Atomic Radiations</i>) in his long and well supported article in <A HREF=http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com>21st Century Science & Technology</A> magazine, (Spring, 1996, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 14-25):

<font color="#0000ff"><i>"Therefore, it should not be surprising that <b>no increase in the incidence of solid cancers, leukemias, or hereditary diseases</b> that might be caused by the whole-body doses of Chenobyl radiation, was detected in the population of the former Soviet Union and elsewhere."

"Psychosomatic consequences, on the other hand, appeared in great numbers of the inhabitants of contaminated regions in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. The causes of these psychosomatic consequences was not radiation, or any other physical factor, <b>but hysterical radiofobia, induced by the mass media and improper regulatory policies,</b> based on the no-threshold hypothesis and ICRP recommendations". </i></font>

Just replace the word <b>"radiofobia"</b> with <b>"AIDSfobia"</b> and you have a clear picture. In this mass media world, where the press is behaving in an irresponsible way --in its own selfish and greedy benefit-- the unaware citizen is subjected to a deluge of misinformation and scared to death from anything that the media says it is "suspicious". Those who know the facts, don´t feel afraid. <b>They are dangerous people for the System:</b> it is difficult to take their money away from them, but, worse yet, they keep spreading the truth and take away fears from other people that had been contributing with their money (in the form of taxes or donations to NGOs). They are spoiling the business. They have to go. So, all skeptical scientists are sentenced to "press silence", while scaremongers are given full coverage. Then the <i>"science-by-press-releases"</i> take the place of <i>"real-hard-facts-science"</i> for the sake of the Big Business, or for Geopolitical reasons, the Biggest Business of Them All. We are living in hard times. <font color="#ff0000"><b>Only the knowledge can keep us safe. Only the Truth will make us Free.</b></font> Hope so...

Posted by Banshee: <i>It sounds like genetically modified corn has proliferated to such an extent since 1994 that original strains of corn are virtually impossible to grow without specialized technology. These genetic changes in corn could produce nearly unthinkable changes. </i>

Oh, c´mon, Banshee! Who told you that?!! Greenpeace? My nephew crops 1200 hectares of soybean (GM), no fertilizers, no pesticides or herbicides. as this strain of soybean is resistant to insects and weeds. But we also grow five hectares (for family use) of the quite old "nice-tasting" sweet corn variety (white corn, known locally as "choclo". It is delicious with butter and salt.)

And wherever I go in Bolivia, I find in the markets an astonishing variety of corns, from the small grained, to the big violet color grained. I have personally seen not less than thirty varieties of ancient strains of corn in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Bolivia, Perú, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela (where I have been), and go no farther than Mexico to find much more varieties!

And poor people in our countries have not specialized technology at all!!! Corn is one of their most basic foods. As we say, somebody gave you "rotten meat" to digest! Next time, check the facts.

Give my regards to Princess Máxima!

The world, history, and my entry on this thread prove that pollution kills. The only debate that can be left is at what level it kills. For you or any man to ignore the deaths and say that is a lie has motivations tied to money. You are not willing to add pesticides to your diet to prove they don't kill. You will not add any of the chemicals into your diet to prove they won't kill as you know damn full well they can kill. Once upon time in North America the population thought tomatoes would kill. A man proved it was wrong by eating it in town daily. If you want to debate what level it kills, I am willing to debate, but if you still want to deny pollution kills I am going to start posting proof every day of pollution killing worldwide.

On a brighter side the USA has toughened the standards recently..
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a big win for environmentalists, a US appeals court on Tuesday rejected an attempt by business groups to overturn federal clean-air standards that would clamp down on pollution.


The decision would allow the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) to protect the public health by limiting pollution levels across the country for smog and fine, sooty particles--although other legal issues remain to be resolved.

A coalition of business groups, led by the American Trucking Associations, filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the EPA's 1997 pollution standards that would require ozone concentration levels not to exceed an average 0.08 part per million (PPM) during an eight-hour period and limit soot particles to 65 micrograms per 24-hour period.

The agency decided not to implement the clean air standards until the main legal disputes were settled by the courts.

The agency estimated the tough pollution standards would prevent 15,000 premature deaths, 350,000 cases of asthma and 1 million cases of decreased lung function in children.

However, business groups claimed that the standards were arbitrary and had no scientific basis.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that argument, saying EPA "has no obligation either to identify an accurate 'safe level' of a pollutant or to quantify precisely the pollutant's risks."

The court added that "EPA must err on the side of caution" and set pollution standards at "whatever level it deems necessary and sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, taking into account both the available evidence and the inevitable scientific uncertainties."

Environmental groups welcomed the court's decision and called on the EPA to immediately begin determining which parts of the country were not complying with the pollution standards.

"For nearly five years, the legal wrangling by industry lawyers has delayed critical progress in delivering cleaner, healthier air to the millions of Americans that will be protected by these standards," said Vickie Patton, senior attorney for Environmental Defense.

Three states--Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia--joined the industry in fighting the tough pollution rules.

EPA must still resolve two issues surrounding the pollution standards. First, the Supreme Court has ordered the agency to reexamine its plan for implementing the standards. Second, the circuit court for the District of Columbia ordered the EPA to consider industry claims that smog is beneficial for human health because it screens out ultraviolet rays.

Originally posted by justagirl
The world, history, and my entry on this thread prove that pollution kills. The only debate that can be left is at what level it kills.[B][/i]

Finally, we are getting closer to the truth --or an agreement on what seems to be the truth, as truth is highly relative... As you quite correctly say, <b>"The only debate that can be left is at what level it kills."</b> As I tried to show you with some of my links to scientific articles, the one in my website about <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Nat-vs-Synth.html">"Synthetics and Natural pesticides"</A> (that I would like very much if you read it) and <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/ChemTox.html">"Chemical toxiticy"</A>, also highly recommende reading, you will get closer to the scientific facts regarding the levels at which "pollution kills".

Pollution kills, there is no doubt about it, let's find the levels and dose of chemicals that can kill. But let us doi in a scientific way, leaving aside emotions.

[i]For you or any man to ignore the deaths and say that is a lie has motivations tied to money. You are not willing to add pesticides to your diet to prove they don't kill. You will not add any of the chemicals into your diet to prove they won't kill as you know damn full well they can kill.

As a matter of fact I do eat legumes and vegetables sprayed with pesticides, because they are more healthy than "organic" ones. Don´t take my word for it; listen to what Dr. Bruce Ames has been telling the world about the toxicity of pesticides since the 1970s. There are lots of information on Bruce Ames --just search the internet under "Bruce Ames" and you'll be overwhelmed with information.

Worse yet, I follow the advice of Dr. Gordon Edwards, famous enthomologist at University of California in San Jose, an world renown expert on malaria, that opens his classes every year by ingesting in front of his students a spoonfull of DDT --just to show "how dangerous DDT can be". I had a sever case of prostate cancer six years ago, and underwent a radiation treatmen (particle accelerator technique, not Cobalt-60) that got rid of it. But the levels of "prostatic antigen" was starting to rise again, so I decided to prepare a solution of DDT and ingest a daily dose of 35 milligrams (mg) of DDT. My "prostatic antigen" went down from 2,5 to 0,1, and has been at that levels for the past four years.

Am I a suicidal type? Not at all. The first recorded anti-carcinogenic properties of DDT belong to the studies made by Dr. Charles Silinskas and Allan E. Okey, back in the seventies, on <b>"Inhibition of Leukemia by DDT"</b>, (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 55, (Sept.), pp. 633-657), and the works of Edward R. Laws, et al., (Archives of Environmental Health, Vol. 15, pp. 766-775 (1967) and vol. 23, pp. 181-184, (1971), showing that high doses of DDT in the food of rats had prevented the appearance of cancer on them, while the control group had a 100% mortality. His next experiment showed that rats that had cancer tumors transplanted to their brains, had a 30% recovery when fed high doses of DDT, while the control group died 100%.

Dr. Silinskas began to suspect there was something wrong with the Rachel Carson hysteria against DDT, when he studied the medical records of the workers at Montrose Chemical Co., producers of DDT in California (he was working at the US Public Service), and compiled a epidemiological statistic of 1200-year-man, the longest statistic ever made for any substance. He found that among the workers at Montrose <B>there was not a single case of cancer recorded!</b>. As he said: "This is a statistically impossible event". Why? Because in any human group you care to choose, there will always be about 25% of cancers. The total absence of cancer among this group showed there was something that prevented them to develop cancer --and it turned out to be DDT! One chemical included in the Dirty Dozen list!

Just keep believing in politicians (you seem to be quite a politically correct person, so I guess you´ll keep doing it). It is your choice. It has never been mine.

So, for ending this: <b>I thrive on pesticides.</b> DDT is keeping me alive, away from cancer. My motivation is not related to money paid by the "callous industry" (as I don´t get any), it is just linked to a survival in healthy conditions.

PS: To my posts linking you to accepted, peer-reviewed scientific studies and data, you keep answering with political reports and press releases. Thet way we are going nowhere.

Well most of us eat veggies that have had chemicals processed on them but they are washed many times. I'm very open minded but if I read a report by a Doctor that says cancer is 300 times higher in his area and the EPA clearly shows his area is polluted I have to believe him. But for the record I have a long history of thinking our government policies are not in my best interest. This thread seems to be an exception. The problem with politics in the USA is the backers support the candidates for favours(many times it isn't talked about it but Enron is a great example as they donated a lot of money to Bush). Of course the larger the industry the more backers they have. Once my country wakes up and starts electing the guys who will cause trouble we will get somewhere. A good politician should make waves as our country has many major problems. Now having said that smiles... There is a lot of chemicals we could debate..I'm not educated in your field but am in the process of self educating. Lets take it one step at a time. I will read your links and we may as well start at DDT.

Edufer, good links to the Ames article and the toxicity article. (Ames has also pointed out that evolution provided plants with toxins that give protection against animals. So "natural" foods may not be inherently safer.)

As you seem knowledgeable, what’s your take on DDT affects on wildlife? Seem to remember something about weakened eggshells threatening bird species.

Checked out the Magic Johnson HIV-AIDS “miracle”. His privacy may prevent his story being fully known. Here’s an excerpt from a recent MSNBC article:

“Now, he takes the AIDS cocktail — combinations of medications that have kept some people with the virus from developing acquired immune deficiency syndrome — allowing him to focus on his business, and not just the business of staying alive.
“The medicine has done its thing; I think I’ve done my part,” he said last week.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/653700.asp

As HIV does attack the immune system (believe the science behind that fact has been established) and stress also lowers immune response it would seem natural that the effects would combine and acerbate progression to AIDS. However this hamster doubts there is a conspiracy among African leaders, UN health workers, and HIV medical researchers.

This hamster supports a science-based approach to environmental policy and appreciates your posts on this topic.

ImaHamster2: <i>As you seen knowledgeable, what’s your take on DDT affects on wildlife? Seem to remember something about weakened eggshells threatening bird species.</i>

I don´t know if you read Spanish, (It is a pity if you don't), because there is a complete story on the subject in our website at the Argentine Foundation for Scientific Ecology, <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Indice/Cap5-DDT.htm>Capitulo 5: DDT: Un mito Criminal</A>, (one of the 16 chapters in my book <b>"Ecology: Myths and Frauds"</b>, published in Argentina) where you could read all about it. However, I'll try to give you the basics of this criminal fraud.

<b>Thinning Eggshells</b>
The case of thinning eggshells is a phenomenon dating to years before the appearance of DDT. This has been known for decades before DDT was on the market. There are many causes for this: diets low on calcium or vitamin D, fear, high nocturnal temperatures, various toxic substances and diseases as the Newcastle disease. Experiments that tried to demonstrate any toxic effect by DDT ingestion failed, even when experimenters fed their birds (pheasants and quails) with doses 6,000 to 20,000 times higher than the 0,3 ppm (parts per million) normally found as residues in the food. Quails fed with 200 ppm of DDT in all their foods, through their entire reproductive lifespan, hatched 80% of their eggs, while the control group hatched 83,9%. There was no thinning of eggshells reported. When pheasants were given the same treatment, the birds fed with DDT had a haychong succes of 80,6%, against the 57,4% on the control group. (DeWitt, James, 1958, <i>"Effects of DDT on Reproduction of Quails and Pheasants"</i>, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry).

In the link to "Capitulo 5: DDT..." you can see the table taken from the work by DeWitt, and used by Rachel Carson in her book "Silent Spring", where she falsely claimed that <i>"...the quails and pheasants had hatched very few eggs".</i> Dosage given to pheasants was 100 ppm DDT on their foods, every day --almost 3,000 times more than the daily intake by human beings during the years of intensive DDT use. You don't have to translate the numbers to English; just replace the words "<b>Faisanes</b>" with "pheasants", "<b>Perdiz</b>" with "quails", "<b>% supervivencia</b>" with "% survival", "<b>Huevos/ave (promed)</b> with "Eggs/bird (average), "<b>Incubacion</b>" with "hatching".", "<b>semanas</b> with "weeks", and that's it.

You can also see in the same webpage the table published by the Audubon Society, regarding its <i>Annual Christmas Birds Count</i>, comparing the counts in 1941 (before DDT usage) and 1960, (after 20 years of heavy DDT usage). There you can see that the count of Robins by observer in 1941 was 8,41, while in 1960 it was 104,01, an increase of 12,37 times! By 1962 Rachel Carson falsely claimed that the Robin <b>was on the verge of extinction</b>. The same applies to almost every bird in the USA, the exception being the Pelican, (0,62 times), Crows (0.35), Pheasants (0,75), Swans (0,48), Geese (0,99), Ducks (0,33), Chickadee (0,68), Titmouse (0,95) Nuthatch (0,83) and Bluebird (0,48). As you see, these are mainly game birds that had been hunted during the big increase in the numbers of hunters after World War 2 --all those veterans "trigger happy".

On the other hand, you can see increases on the rest of the birds, especially the Grackle, 131,59 times more, this is, they spotted a total of 24,937 (10,7 per observer) in 1941, and 12,570,458 in 1960 (1,407,98 by observer). The Blackbird increased 39,02 times, the Cowbird 21,44 times, the Starling 10,69 times, etc.

Why the increase in bird population? They were supposed to be in danger of extinction due to the eggshell thinning... The truth is that DDT ingested by these seed and worm eating birds was the substance that metabolized the Aflatoxin B1 in their liver by the process of hydroxilation and converted it into non-toxic metabolites. The same goes with the Bald Eagle, the Peregrine Hawk and other predator birds. According to the records kept at the <b>Hawk Mountain Sanctuary</b> (see the table in the webpage), there was not a decrease of these birds during the usage of DDT, <b>but on the contrary, they increased steadily!</b>

We have just scratched the surface of the DDT issue. There is a good link to Junkscience.com website on <A HREF=http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#16>FAQs about DDT</A>. Give it a try. Also try articles in our website:

<A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/CaseDDT.html>The Case of DDT</A>

and a funny (but serious parody of Friends of the Earth website) page in:

<A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/SupportMalaria.html>We Support Malaria!</A>

The page <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/English.html>"English Version"</A> of our website has articles and many links that you may find interesting.

I hope this has served as a brief introduction to the subject, and the time spent reading it was not a waste of time...

Hamster, in the article you posted, Johnson said: <i>“The medicine has done its thing; I think I’ve done my part,”</i> he said last week. <i>“And God has done his part. It’s mind over matter, too. <b>I’ve never felt I would be sick or get sick.</b> I thought I would be here.”</i>

Now there some things to consider here:

1) If Magic Johnson ever had the HIV virus in him (I will return to this point later), the secret of his non developing AIDS most probably was his not suffering deep anguish that set him under a big stress --a well known factor of inmunosupression. He didn´t care, he didn´t have stress, he kept his inmune system in OK condition, thus he didn´t developed AIDS.

2) Talking last night with an American nephew of mine, presently living with us at our home in Argentina (an avid basketball fan and player), about Magic Johnson and his HIV infection, he said that there was a rumor in the US about Magic being in 1991 under a bad contract with his team, so he invented the HIV story to break the contract without being sued. After some time afterwards he made a comeback saying <i>"I´m cured, I no longer have HIV"</i>, but with a contract on much better economic conditions. Could this be real? It does not sound farfetched.

justagirl: <i>I'm very open minded but if I read a report by a Doctor that says cancer is 300 times higher in his area and the EPA clearly shows his area is polluted I have to believe him.</i>

I would read the full report about the claim of 300 times higher rates of cancer, and see if it has enough scientific basis to support the claim. But that cannot be done by someone that has not the scientific training and knowledge to do it. Many studies are beyond my hability and knowledge, so most of the times I have to rely on the peer-reviews or dissenting studies published by other scientists with the same (or higher) expertise in the field. Then I have to apply my judgment, based on what I understood of the whole matter. Not an easy task. Sometimes I am left in the dark.

<b>I wouldn´t trust anything coming from the EPA.</b> The EPA has a long tradition of non-science in their regulations, bans, and propaganda. I will only mention one example: the EPA has set the levels for Radon in the homes at 4 pC/litre (pico Curies/litre of air -- or liter in American English). Beyond that level, the EPA mandates "remediation actions". So, never in your live go the city of Bath, England, whose "miraculous waters" have a Radon content of 1,730 pC/litre). The radon levels in the natural gas in Bath is 33,650 pCi/litre. However, despite this murderous high levels of radon there, the Romans built there a temple and dedicated it to the Godess of Wisdom and Health. In 1742 the British built there the Royal National Hospital for rheumatic diseases. Flock of people go to Bath and thousand of other thermal baths and fountains worldwide (waters highly radioactive) to get cured from their illness, and not to die from radon and/or radioactivity!

In a very candid article published in the March 1984 issue of the Washington Monthly, signed by Jim Sibbinson, former press agent for the EPA, he says <b>"...how easy was to use those gullible journalists for spreading fritghtening messages."</b> Sibbinson had entered the EPA in 1979 and worked there until 1981.

<i>"In those days"</i> -writes Sibbinson- <i>"the idea was to make the press help transform the EPA in a repressor that could frighten polluters" ... "We had the routine of writing frightening stories about the risks imposed by chemical products using words as 'cancer', and 'birth defects' in order to sprinkle some cold water into the face of journalists" ... "Our press releases were more or less real, the air and water were really dirty and we were decided to make them cleaner" ... "However, very few press releases can be completely honest, and ours were not the exception." ... "The deceit was in what <b>we didn't write"</b>. "The main thing was we tended to omit the fact that we were not able to anything about the problems we were protesting against." ... <B>"We had set our task to whip the public in order to drive them into a frenzy of fear about the environment."</B> </i>

And the EPA keeps doing this until this very day.

I have studied DDT and I am going to start with quotes from the very links you gave me regarding DDT.



We have been taught that science produces certainty. As a result, the public is impatient with scientists who express uncertainty, and tend to believe scientists who express their views without reservations. In toxicology, the certainty most of us seek is that a particular chemical is safe. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an absolutely safe chemical: all chemicals can cause toxic effects in large enough amounts.

Well all can cause toxic effects has to include DDT.

Human individuals vary tremendously in their responses to their environment, including the chemicals in it, so what is "safe" for one person may not be "safe" for another.

The practice of smoking cigs bring this sentance home as many die of lung cancer from smoking and some live to a ripe old age and die of natural causes. The fact that some live and others die does not mean that smoking cigs is safe.

The poor health of people who worked at certain trades was noted by early Greek and Roman physicians. The first monograph on occupational diseases was published in 1567, 26 years after the death of its author, the Swiss physician Paracelsus. He set forth one of the basic tenets of modern toxicology when he wrote: "What is it that is not poison? All things are poison and nothing is without poison. It is the dose only that makes a thing not a poison

Using all things is a poisen as an excuse to allow a poisen into the environment is really lame.

No matter how large the experiment or how great the margin of safety, one can never prove that a chemical–or any other factor in the environment, for that matter–is totally harmless. We can only offer probabilities that there will, in fact, be no harm. Absolute safety is the complete absence of harm... and it's a goal we can never achieve.

Once again an argument based on everything is bad so why worry. Once again I find that prejudice. While I did omit quotes from this site that did dispute the lab test showing DDT lethal, I found no mention of a safe level but an admission that it is lethal.

your next link started with this statement...(Bruce Ames)

"The effort to eliminate synthetic pesticides because of unsubstantiated fears about residues in food will make fruits and vegetables more expensive, decrease consumption, and thus increase cancer rates. The levels of synthetic pesticide residues are trivial in comparison to natural chemicals, and thus their potential for cancer causation is extremely low."

He is stating that by banning the use of DDT we will increase the cost of veggies and fruits which will result in more people not having fruits and veggies in their diet. I think we all agree veggies and fruit are high in Vit's A and C that we know can lower the risk of cancer.

Bruce Ames says that it isnt that we neednt worry about man-made chemicals causing cancer, but that natural carcinogens are far more common, and the consensus is that we shouldnt worry about them at all. Why the difference?

Here is saying that eating Poisen in veggies and fruits tha the poisen is offset by Vit A and Vit C . But of course he adds we should worry about DDT .

"There is no risk-free world and resources are limited; therefore, society must distinguish between significant and insignificant risks in order to save the most lives. Putting resources into minimizing minuscule exposures to synthetic substances, such as pesticide residues, while ignoring the natural world, can also harm human health by having adverse side effects, which create more risk. For example, adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables plays a major role in lowering dise-ase rates; therefore if banning pesticides because of tiny hypothetical hazards of residues increases costs (organic food is very expensive), it harms public health. "

drives home his message well,eat veggies and fruits as we know they help prevent cancer. But using an argument that lack of using DDT will increase the cost of them and we should ignore the risk because everything is a risk.. WEll yeah just crawling out of bed is a risk but I don't feel that is a good argument to use poisens.

And, now he is suspicious of a lot of the activists because he thinks they are not good problem sol-vers. "If you push in the wrong direction, then youre counterproductive."

The absence of a good solution does not make a bad decision good..sorry that is almost laughable...

Now for some facts I found about DDT

If you are not familiar with biology, nerve impulse tell the muscles when to contract and relax. Thus, when an organism is poisoned with DDT, it dies by either convulsions (random, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles) or paralysis (complete loss of muscle control).


In the early to mid 1950s, DDT became one of the most widely used pesticides. This was when we thought it was completely harmless to human beings. When we originally used it to control lice, people were unaffected even though they were in direct contact with the pesticides.


One of the reasons why the DDT did not affect people is because it is difficult for DDT to be absorbed through human skin.


Eventually, we realized that some DDT was staying in our bodies. DDT was being used in the environment, on agricultural products, and on livestock. In the 1960's, concern arose about the widespread use of DDT and it's effects on humans.


A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day!


When DDT gets into our bodies, it is stored primarily in such fatty organs as the adrenals, testes, and thyroid. DDT is also stored in smaller concentrations in the liver and kidneys.


DDT concentrations are especially high in human milk. Milk production depends heavily on the use of stored body fat, and this is where DDT tends to stay in our bodies.


So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.

source Duke Univeristy which is a well respected Univeristy in the United States.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html#human

I thought we had agreed that chmicals kill and we were to debate at what level they kill. The links you directed to me did not deny they killed but offered theory's that is not accepted by most Scientist and Physicians.. Show me a link disputing the level at which it kills as like I said "that can be the only debate as I have proven it can kill".

Here is the cold reality and I am sorry that your country is faced with such a hard decison. But Argentina will suffer as a country without the use of DDT's. It will mean many of your people will not have veggies and fruits to eat. It will mean many of your farmers will starve to death. It will also reduce your overall trade among other nations. That is a reality and I am sorry but the demands of Argentina is not a good argument that the use of DDT is safe as it's only a decison fueled by economics and not medical facts. It is a acceptable risk in your country but it isn't in the United States.

Sooner or later a lot of the topics come back up in sciforums. While not the same info, a lot of the data pertaining to ddt was listed, both pro and con in another thread sometime back. I would suggest that it would be easy to find through a search for ddt.

One of the things we have discovered is that fat acts as a storage place for other things besides unused food, lead, mercury, and ddt amoung them; if I remember right. There is no telling what else is stored in fat in the body. I don't know if we even have developed the tests to show all that is there. I mean, we can do spectroscopy of the material and determine the elements, we can test for what we know, but what we are not aware of we have no tests for. Who knows what esle is stored there we have not yet discovered.

There was the suspected link between ddt and the thinning of the eagle's egg shells. We have stopped using ddt, the eagles are making a good comeback but were they cause and effect? Or was it something else? The releasing of young eagles into the wild, I am sure had something to do with the comeback. I do not think that conclusive evidence was presented that ddt was the sole villian in the decline. Just as much is the enroachment of people into the eagles habitat.

I thought I would throw these thoughts into the discussion as this could become quite lively a thread.

justagirl: <i>Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an absolutely safe chemical: all chemicals can cause toxic effects in large enough amounts ... Well, all can cause toxic effects, has to include DDT. </i>

Yes, DDT given in very, very high doses, is toxic. That is, given at doses above the MTD (Maximum Tolerated Dose), it will kill living matter in matter of minutes or hours. As it would happen whit any other substance found on Earth. But there has been determined the safe levels of DDT intake: the daily DDT intake by humans in the USA during the 1940-1972 period was about 0,065 mg, found in food residues, water, etc. In order to investigate its effects on humans, groups of volunteers were fed daily DDT doses of 35 mg, during periods of 21 to 27 months, whitout observing deleterous or harmful effects, either then and after more than 30 years (Hayes, Wayland J., 1956, <b>"Effects of Known Repeated Oral Doses of DDT in Man"</b>, <i>Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 162, pp. 890-897)</i>. DDT is metabolized in byproducts that are excreted in urine, and there is no "significant biological magnification" upwards in the food chain, has was theorized at the beginning.

During the years of major usage of DDT, the American citizen was ingesting an average of 13 mg a year; DDT was so safe that canned baby food was allowed to contain up to 5 ppm of DDT. This is a very small concentration: 5 ppm is equivalent to five 1 cent coins in a pile of $ 10,000. Dr. Bruce Ames tell us that every day in our lives we ingest hundreds or thousand of parts per million of natural carcinogenics with our regular diets. If people is worried about the infinitesimal amounts of pesticides found on food, they should know that a cup of coffee contains 10,000 more carcinogenics.

<i>No matter how large the experiment or how great the margin of safety, one can never prove that a chemical–or any other factor in the environment, for that matter–is totally harmless. We can only offer probabilities that there will, in fact, be no harm. Absolute safety is the complete absence of harm... and it's a goal we can never achieve.</i>

This is science at its best. I don´t know if this was taken from my links, or if it is your own opinion. Either way it is sound reasoning. As stated by Paracelsus, there is not a single substance in Earth that is ABSOLUTELY SAFE. Even water, pure clean water, can be deadly if taken in great amounts, as it would cause an hydrostatic imbalance in the organism leading to death. So we arrive at the core of the matter: <font color="red"><b>"The dose is the poison"</b></font>. Everyday substances, as table salt, aspirin, sugar, foods (you name it), if taken in higher than "safe" doses, will be harmful for our health. So we are, to this point, agreeing on safety and toxicity of substances, chemical products, and foods.

<i> (Bruce Ames) ...He is stating that by banning the use of DDT we will increase the cost of veggies and fruits which will result in more people not having fruits and veggies in their diet.</i>

No, as you see he said: "The effort to <b>eliminate synthetic pesticides...</b>", not only DDT. The ban of DDT, although it had a high impact on agricultural costs (for some years there was no insectices able to control many pests, until new and much harmful insecticides were used as Dieldrin, and the horrendous family of organophospates, that BTW, were the insecticides recommended by the NRDC and environmentalists to replace DDT).

<i>Bruce Ames says that it isnt that we neednt worry about man-made chemicals causing cancer, but that natural carcinogens are far more common, and the consensus is that we shouldnt worry about them at all. Why the difference? </i>

Because even natural carcinogenics found in most foods, are in levels still safe for humans, and the carcinogenicity of these natural pesticides is countered by the anti-carcinogens found in vegetables and fruits. What he insists upon is that <b>the levels of synthetic pesticide residues are smaller and less potent than the natural ones.</b> So, if because of an increase of costs imposed by a ban on pesticides (not just DDT), the less afluent people will be eating less veggies and fruits, losing the benefits of anticarcinogenics found on them. As usual, the thread breaks at its weakest point. The poor people is always paying for the party and broken dishes of the richer.

But the real crime of the DDT ban is related to the death toll taken by malaria every year since its ban in 1972. As presently deaths by malaria (and other insect borne diseases as yellow fever, dengue, Chagas-Maza, etc) is in the range of 3 million people a year, we cn make a simple math operation and see: 2002 - 1972 = 30 years x 3 million = <b>90 Million unnecesary and underserved deaths!</b> And we are still horrified by Hitler's Holocaust!

<i>If you are not familiar with biology, nerve impulse tell the muscles when to contract and relax. Thus, when an organism is poisoned with DDT, it dies by either convulsions (random, uncontrolled contraction of the muscles) or paralysis (complete loss of muscle control).</i>

Absolutely! There is no doubt about it. We had agreed on that already. But it seems you keep forgetting that these effects <b>are related to high doses --toxic and sublethal doses, not found in the environment during the years of DDT usage.</b>

<i>A study in 1968 showed that Americans were consuming an average of 0.025 milligrams of DDT per day! </i>

I showed you the study that proved that humans in the USA where having a daily intake of <b>0,065 mg, not 0,025 mg.</b> But even 0,065 mg was not harmful. The Montrose DDT factory workers had developed an accumulation of <b>100 to 650 ppm of DDT in their fatty tissues</b>, while the regular American citizen had an average <b>of about 5 ppm</b>. Then we see that Americans kept dying of cancer as usual, <b>but Montrose workers did not!</b> Not one of them had cancer! Was the buildup of DDT in their organism harmful? Far from that: <b>DDT kept them free from cancer!</b>

<i>At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.</i>

You are still mentioning lethal, sub-lethal, and highly toxic doses. As I said (and I can prove it) I have been ingesting a DDT solution of 25 mg every day for the past four years, in order to keep my prostate cancer at bay. It has worked, I am in perfect physical conditions (even I do smoke cuban cigars sometimes), and all my tomographies, blood analysis and electrocardiograms show I have the health condition of a 30 years old man (I am 64 now). That is why I am able to make long trips through the Amazon jungle, were younger people that came with me returned in critical conditions. By the way, as you seem to like my weblinks, take a look at at page in our website where you'll find some beautiful pictures about the guarayo indian village of Urubicha, where there is an old (but recycled) Jesuitic Mission. This is the environment where I spent three years (1995-1997) and where I am returning soon, possibly in two months, to live until the economic situation in Argentina returns to normal --that is: never. I will be guiding eco-tourists into the jungle and staying away of Bin lLaden, the CIA (although not from the DEA), George Bush, Kissinger and the rest of crazy people cramming the world Go here:

<A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/photo.html>Urubicha in the Amazon Jungle</A>

Hun...some of these test you are showing as proof I need something to link up to. I am not doubting you, but give me a link that supports that and not a study..see what I am saying??These case studies you are talking about it may be easy for you to get your hands on in your line of work but not sitting here in the little town where I live...Perhaps you can list the top three for me to review and I can try the local library to see if they can cross reference.>???Surely you see my point

by wanderer1: <i>There was the suspected link between ddt and the thinning of the eagle's egg shells. We have stopped using ddt, the eagles are making a good comeback but were they cause and effect? Or was it something else? The releasing of young eagles into the wild, I am sure had something to do with the comeback. I do not think that conclusive evidence was presented that ddt was the sole villian in the decline. Just as much is the enroachment of people into the eagles habitat. </i>

You are right, wanderer1. The Bald Eagles and Peregrine Flacons are well and happy. The falcon was endangered, but not because of DDT. It was endangered by a reward given for their heads. Let me post a re-translation from Spanish into English by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, emerit professor of entomolgy at State University of San Jose, Cal., where he has been teaching biology and entomology for more than 50 years. He is a long standing member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society, and member of the California Academy of Sciences. What you are about to read is a very small potion of his lecture at Dartmouth College, on April 11, 1999. In case you would like to read more, please tell me and I´ll try to find the original lecture in English and will send it to you by a private email through sci.forums service.

<b>The Bald Eagle</b>
In 1921, an article in <i>Ecology</i> was titled: "<i>Threat of Extinction of the Bald Eagle".</i> Until 1952 Alaska paid subsidies on 128,000 bald eagles. In 1930 --15 years before DDT-- ornithologists reported the existance of only 10 bald eagles nesting in Pennsylvania, 15 in the Washington, D.C. area, and none in most parts of New England. <i>Bird Lore</i> magazine wrote: <i>"This will give you the idea of how rare the bald eagle is in the Eastern US"</i>.
So the bald eagle was almost extinct long before DDT and other synthetic pesticides were discovered. Do the environmental extremists believe that the bald eagle <b>declined in anticipation of DDT</b>?

The <i>Hawk Mountain Sanctuary</i> reported that the number of bald eagles migrating through Pennsylvania had almost doubled during the first six years of intense use of DDT in the US Norhwest. Before DDT, the Annual Christmas Bird Counts by the Audubon Society recorded only 76 bald eagles in 1941, but after years of heavy DDT use, they recorded 891 bald eagles in 1961. In 1973, a biologist from the Everglades National park declared: <i>"I don´t know of any evidence that shows there was a higher number of bald eagles nesting ever".</i>

Between 1960-64, the Fish and Wildlife Service Center in Patuxent, Maryland, made the autopsies of 76 bald eagles found dead in the US, and reported that 71% of them had been killed violently (shot, electrocuted, or crashed against buildings and towers), and 4 died from diseases, <b>but none of them had been poisoned by pesticides.</b> They reached to the conclusion that <i>"the role of pesticides have been grossly exaggerated".</i> (Journal of Wildife Diseases, No. 6, 1970).

From 1964 until 1972, 190 bald eagle were analyzed. Most of them had been shot, and the majority of the rest also died violently. It was suspected that there were 19 cases of pesticide poisoning, but no one had DDT involvement. (Pesticied Monitoring Journal, 9:12-13, 1975).

During 112 days, the Fish and Wildlife Service fed high levels of DDT to a group of bald eagles in cages (up to 4,000 micrograms/kg) without observing harmful effects. <i>(Trans. 31st N.A. Wildlife Conference, 1966)</I> From 1974 until 1988, the USA spent millions of dollars in programs of raising bald eagles, and many more were spotted in most parts of the country. In 1983, New York state had only three bald eagle active nests, but later they imported 150 bald eagles from Alaska. Peter Nye wrote in <i>Natural History</i> magazine (May 1982) that in 1940 only existed a few couples <i>"...but DDT, frequently mentioned as the culprit, was not present until the 1950s, when the last eagles were already fighting for their survival."</i>

<b>Seagulls: to abundant to live</b>
In Trend Island, Massachussetts, seagulls increased during the years of DDT, from 2,000 couples up to 35,000 couples in 1971. William Drury, president of the Audubon Society in Massachussetss, decided to poison 30,000 of these birds, even though they were in the "endangered" and protected birds list. He had success and said: <i>"It is like weeding the garden".</I> AP, April 12th, 1971). It is quite remarkable that nobody had noticed that seagulls had increased by 28,000 during the years of heavy use of DDT!

<b>Peregrin Falcons</b>
Dr. William Hornady (head of the New York Zoological Society), commented on the Peregrine Falcons in his book of 1913 "Vanishing Wildlife". He wrote that the undesirable peregrine falcons <i>"deserve death, but they are so rare that we shouldn´t take them into account"</i>. He urged to people finding peregrine nests <i>"...to shoot on the parents and destroy the eggs or the offsprings."</i> (Peregrins were listed in most states as "plagues" before the environmentalists converted them into an environmental gold mine in the USA). ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... "I liked to travel to Inuvik, in the Northwest Territory, were peregrins are common. Canadian biologists reported that the nesting success <i>"was so high as never before recorded for the species (an average of 2,4 offsprings for every active nest)</i> Frank Beebe, the Canadian highest authority in predators, wrote in his book <i>"The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrines"</i> that <i>it seems that Canadian peregrines, ignorant of how gravely ill they are, continue to reproduce in a blissful unconcern about their desperate condition".</i>

"What effects had DDT in birds that ingested it? The researcher Hickney testified during the hearings held by the EPA, that he could not kill his caged robins feeding them DDT overdoses, simply because the product passed through the digestive tract and was eliminated in the feces" ... "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are just briefs excerpts from the lecture by Prof. J. Gordon Edwards. Anyone interested in the full article? (14 pages in Word 97 format).

Dr. J. Gordon Edwards has written many excellent articles on the DDT issue in the "politically incorrect" scientific magazine <A HREF="http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com">21st Century Science & Technology</A>, where you can read fine articles as "Malaria: The Killer That Could Have Conquered", "The Lies of Rachel Carson", and many, many more.

--------------------------------

Originally posted by justagirl
Hun...some of these test you are showing as proof I need something to link up to. ... Perhaps you can list the top three for me to review and I can try the local library to see if they can cross reference. ??? Surely you see my point

Absolutely. Most of my references are taken form books and scientific magazines (and where possible I give the reference, but it is not easy to get the books or articles published in scientific magazines in the seventies or earlier. Most magazines don´t have a databse accesible from the web. At least it is not as easy as an internet link).

But I will do my best and will try to find all references on the subject that will do the job.

PS: did you see the pictures of Urubicha in the Amazon?

Thanks smiles..and give it some thought on DDT and which case studies I should try at the library... PS: did you see the pictures of Urubicha in the Amazon?
No, did I overlook that link??which link was it?

Edufer,

There is prejudice against people with HIV in the US. Strongly doubt getting out of a contract would be adequate compensation for the negative impact Johnson’s announcement had on his social life. Would guess that his disclosure represents admirable character.

As there are animal models for similar diseases, this hamster doubts that reduced stress by itself prevents HIV from progressing to AIDS. (A commercial vaccine for a feline form of HIV has recently been announced. Apparently the virus is weaker in cats.)

Appreciate your discussion and links. This hamster agrees that organizations such as the EPA do engage in spin. As do corporations. Also feel that the EPA attracts dedicated people who are strongly committed to certain beliefs that flavor their actions. Wouldn’t go so far as to “never trust anything coming from the EPA”. The EPA (as well as the Food and Drug Administration) follows a conservative do no harm philosophy. All decisions have consequences. Playing it “safe” may cause harm in other ways, as your Malaria link shows. Also economic consequence isn’t trivial.


Justagirl, thanks for the Duke University link.

justagirl, the link is way up in this same page, but I will repeat it for you:

<A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/photo.html">The village of Urubicha in the Amazon</A>

I hope you like the pictures (the captions are in Spanish, but there are worse things in life).

To put an end to this discussion on DDT, please let me send this last post. Although we have not touched the political reasons behind the ban of DDT, I think this would take a long time and it is beyond the scientific side of the matter. After all, this is a science formum, isn't it? Let us leave politics out of science, even though politics will never let us go free...

<font color="red"><B>What is DDT?</B></font>
DDT is the abbreviation for IUPAC 1,1,-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chloro-phenyl) ethane, whose chemical formula is C₁₄H₉Cl₅. It is a chlorinated hydrocarbon, produced from a combination of chloral and chlorobenzene. It is a contact insecticide, penetrating the external body surface (the cuticule) of the insect to act as a nerve poison. It is so effective in malaria erradication programs because of its residual effects.

The most important metabolical product is DDE, short for Dichloro-Diphenyl-Ethane, (UIPAC 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chloro-phenyl-ethylene). DDE is produced as DDT is dehydrochlorinated in insects, microorganisms, birds, fish, mammals, and dead organic matter. DDE is the most persistent and widespread DDT residue because it is relatively inert. Most DDT "experiments" actually measure quantities of DDE, since DDT has such a short halflife, from hours to days in most species.

DDT controls more than 20 serious human diseases, including bubonic plague, yellow fever, trypanosomiasis, elephantiasis, leishmaniasis, and encephalitis. It greatly increases production of food crops by killing insect pests. In underveloped countries as much as 40 percent of each crop is lost to insects. In the US, cotton, peanuts, and potatoes increased 60 to 119 percent when DDT was used, and the production of alfalfa seed increased from 300 to 600 percent.

<font color="red"><b>How Dangerous is DDT to Humans?</b></font>
In 1969, when DDT was being on trial by the EPA, intending to ban it, the director of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared:

<blockquote><i>"It is so safe that no symptoms have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million inhabitants of sprayed houses. No toxicity was observed in the wildlife of the countries participating in the malaria campaign. Therefore WHO has no grounds to abandon this chemical which has saved millions of lives, the discontinuation of which would result in millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of illnesses. It has served at least 2 billion people in the world without costing a single human life by poisoning from DDT. The discontinuation of the use of DDT would be a disaster to world health"</i>. Prophetic words.</blockquote>

DDT is metabolized into breakdown products that are excreted in the urine, and there is no significant "biological magnification" up food chains, as once hypothesized. To appreciate the nontoxicity of DDT to human beings, consider the following: Tests by Dr. Wayland Hayes for the U.S. Public Service involved feeding human volunteers tremendous quantities of DDT to see if any adverse effects developed. The men ingested up to 35 mg of DDT in their food, <b>every day for 18 months</b>, and had no resultant difficulties either at the time or within the following 6 to 10 years while they remained under observation. (Hayes, Weyland, 1956. <b><i>Effect of Known Repeated Oral Doses of DDT in Man"</b>, Journal of the American medical Association, Vol. 162, pp. 890-897)</I>. During the years of greatest DDT use, the average US citizen was ingesting less than 13 mg <b>per year</b>, and DDT was so safe that canned baby food was permitted to contain 5 parts per million of DDT.

<font color="red"><b>The Montrose Workers Case</B></font>
The workers at the Montrose Chemical Company, which produced DDT, used no gloves or protective clothing of any kind and they were inhaling the DDT dust all day. Dr. Edward Laws of the U.S. Public Health Service examined the Montrose workers and found that they had accumulated <b<38 to 647 ppm</b> (parts per million) of DDT and its isomers in their fat tissue, but experienced no ill effects. At that time, the level of DDT in the fat tissue of the general population was only 5 to 6 ppm. Laws stated in a publication of the American Medical Association: <i>"It is noteworthy that (after 10 to 20 years on the job) <font color="red"><b>no cases of cancer developed among these workers, in some 1,300 man-years of exposure, a statistically improbable event"</b></font></i>. (Edward R. Laws, Jr., et al. <i>Archives of Environmental Health, </i>Vol. 15, pp. 766-775 (1967) and Vol. 23, pp. 181-184 (1971).

Laws later performed experiments feeding rodents DDT at 10,000 times the proportion ingested by humans and then transplanting malignant tumors directly into their brains. Without the DDT there was 100 percent mortality, but the cancer <b<dissappeared</b> from the brains of 22 of the 60 mice that had been on the DDT diet for six months. A 30 percent cure from cancer is a rate deserving further studies. Why did not the authorities keep doing this research? It was not politically correct.

Other scientists reported similar results. Drs. Charles Silinskas and Allan E. Okey found that DDT in the diet inhibited chemically induced mammary cancer and leukemia in rats. (Charles Silinskas and Allan E. Okey, 1975, <b>"Inhibition of Leukemia by DDT"</b>, <i>Journal of the National Cancer Institute,<(i> Vol. 55 (Sept.), pp. 653-657.)

Writing in <i>The British Medical Bulletin</I> in 1969, Dr. A.E. McLean, aq prominent pathologist and his coauthors cited the increased induction of enzymes by the liver of animals that have ingested DDT. The acute toxicity of Aflatoxin (a powerful carcinogen produced by common molds in grain and other seeds) was greatly enhanced in protein-deficient rats, they wrote, <i>"but the effect was reversed if they had previously eaten moderate amounts of DDT..."</i> The authors concluded: <i>"It appears likely that aflatoxin B1 and perhaps other aflatoxins , which are among the most carcinogenic substances known, are converted to non-toxic metabolites in the liver by the hydroxylation system".</i> (A.E.M. McLean, and E.K. McLean, 1969. <b>"Diet and Toxicity"</b>, </i>British Medical Bulletin</I>, Vol. 25, pp. 278-281.)

The web address of Dr. Bruce Ames is <A HREF="http://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/BMB/amesb.html">Bruce Ames</A> and also: <A HREF="http://socrates.berkeley.edu/mutagen/center.amesbn.html">More Bruce Ames</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.ideachannel.com/Ames.htm">The Best of All Links on Bruce Ames</A> where there are many scientific papers by him and Dr. Louise Gold for downloading. If you want to contact him regarding any doubt you have on DDT and other pesticeds, please reach him at: his email: <A HREF="mailto:bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu">bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu</A>

I hope this has been useful to you all.

Banshee, your claim that GN corn has made virtually impossible growing old strains of corn without specialized techniques, made me email a friend of mine in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, (an Agronomer) to see if he could give the strian of corn presently being used in Bolivia. He got in touch with the databases in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Economy and found these results:

<center><b>Strains of Corn Presently Grown in the Republic of Bolivia </b>
(year 2001 data)</center>
<dir><dir><dir><dir><dir>
<b>--- Name: ----------------- Altitude at which it grows</b>
.
Confite pune&ntilde;o -------------- (2160-3990 m)
Altiplano ----------------------- (1900-3800 m)
Patillo -------------------------- (2600-3275 m)
Kcello -------------------------- (2000-3650 m)
Kulli ----------------------------- (2000-3650 m)
Huilcaparu -------------------- (1300-3600 m)
Chake-sara ------------------- (1900-2400 m)
Aysuma ------------------------ (2000-3560 m)
Patillo grande ---------------- (2300-2650 m)
Cchecchi ---------------------- (2160-2750 m)
Paru ---------------------------- (2800 m)
Chuspilla ---------------------- (1100-3600 m)
Cuzco boliviano ------------- (200-2720 m)
Cuzco huilcaparu ----------- (no altitude given)
Pisankalla -------------------- (900-3560 m)
Uchuquilla -------------------- (1150-3420 m)
Karapampa ------------------ (1800-2160 m)
Argentino --------------------- (500-2720 m)
Ni&ntilde;uelo ------------------------ (1880-2000 m)
Camba ------------------------ (360-560 m)
Cateto ------------------------- (140-2000 m)
Porro -------------------------- (330 m)
Coroico blanco -------------- (150 m)
Coroico amarillo ------------ (80-1000 m)
Coroico ----------------------- (100-1390 m)
Enano ------------------------- (170-220 m)
</dir></dir></dir></dir></dir>

Now tell your sources that they are utterly ignorant (or great misinformers). Either way, you gave us wrong information (that you took at face value, without checking if there was some truth supporting the serious claim that regular strains of corn can no longer be grown.) If you are interested in the subject of genetically modified crops, go to professor <A HREF="http://www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk"> Philip Stott's website</A>. He teaches biology at the London University, Great Britain.

justagirl: I took a look at the Duke University link you provided. It is comprised mainly by the same data and misinformation, dressed with pseudo scientific clothes, provided by Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring" and Paul Ehrlich in "The Population Bomb" and subsequent books. This page seems directed to primary school kids <b>whose criterion for judging scientific information is null. </b>There is of course, some scientific and technical data, but it is only about mechanisms of the skin (DDT is not absorbed through the skin), and the chemical formula along with the real name of DDT --the same information I provided in my last post, before I had the chance to search the Duke University link.

<b>There is something wrong there.</b> They say: <i>"DDT is water insoluble and lipid (fat) soluble. This means that DDT will not dissolved in water, but it will in the fats of organisms."</i>

Unfortunately, the solution of DDT I take everyday (25 mg) as a cancer preventive, is diluted in water. Another example: As recalled by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, <i>"Another serious pest in northern Africa and in Central America is the little blackfly (<b>Simulium</b>) that transmits the parasitic roundworms causing "river blindness" (<b>onchocerciasis</b>) in human beings. Before DDT. More than 20,000 Africans were blind, including more than 30 percent of the population in some villages. The fly larvae live in swift streams and for many decades were impossible to control. A happy accident brought DDT into the battle against the disease-carrying blackfly. A mule carrying DDT to a malaria spraying project in the Volta River basin in the 1950s slipped while fording a stream and spilled its load of DDT powder into the water. Blackfly larvae were killed for a mile downstream, but other aquatic life was not adversely affected. Soon, many rivers were being sprayed with DDT from airplanes and there was a great reduction in the number of afflicted people."</i> So, DDT kills larvae with direct contact without being diluted? No way!

And how do you explain this blatant contradiction in the same Duke University page?: They say without blushing: <i>"Even small amounts of DDT can affect small microorganisms. This is especially true for microorganisms <b>that live in the water</b> (i.e. algae, and plankton), because the aquatic environment can bring more DDT in contact with these organisms. As an example of this high sensitivity, <b>water that contains only 0.1 (g (micrograms) of DDT per liter</b> can slow down growth and photosynthesis in green algae."</i>

If DDT was insoluble in water, then it would sink to the bottom of rivers, lakes, oceans, etc., without affecting microorganisms and algae!.

The Duke University page didn't tell us the origin of their claims on microorganisms in water and algae. So I will do it for you: During the hearings held by EPA for banning DDT, one accusation was DDT would bring "death to the oceans". It was based on a 1968 note published by a founder of the <i>Environmental Defense Fund</i> (EDF, that later made a fortune with the DDT ban), Charles F. Wurster, in <i>Science</i> magazine. (Charles F- Wurster, 1968, "<b>DDT Reduces Photosynthesis by Marine Phytoplankton,"</b> <i>Science</i> magazine. (March 29), Vol. 168, pp. 1474-1475.), Let me quote what late renown scientist Dr. Thomas H. Jukes, a biochemist at the Space Science Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley said about this in an article published in <i>21st Century Science & Technology</i> (Fall 1994), Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 46-54):

<blockquote>
<i>"This note described the addition of graded amounts of an alcohol solution of DDT to cultures of marine algae in seawater, followed by estimating photosynthesis from radiolabeled carbon dioxide (¹⁴CO₂) uptake. The addition of DDT ranged up to concentrations of 500 ppb (parts per billion) in the cultures, using the alcohol to force solution to the saturation point. The ¹⁴CO₂ uptake was depressed at the higher concentrations, presumably because of the phytotoxicity of DDT."

"The maximum natural solubility of DDT is 1.2 ppb in seawater </i> <b>(Note:</b>which demonstrates the falsehood of Duke University site claim about insolubility of DDT) <i> and above this level it would be precipitated and adhere to the algae. No depression (on average) of photosynthesis was found at levels of 1 to 2 ppb. It is surprising that <b>Science</b>, the weekly magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, permitted publication of such an ill-contrived experiment. Nevertheless, the publication was seized upon by biologist Paul Ehrlich, who used to predict the <b>'death of the oceans'</b> in the following terms:"
<dir>
"The end of the ocean came late in the summer of 1979, and it came even more rapidly than the biologists had expected. There had been signs for more than a decade, commencing with the discovery of 1968 that DDT slows down photosynthesis in marine plant life. It was announced in a short paper in the technical journal, Science, but to ecologists it smacked of doomsday. They knew that all life in the sea depends on photosynthesis, the chemical process by which green plants bind the Sun's energy and make it available to living things. And they knew that DDT and similar chlorinated hydrocarbons had polluted the entire surface of the Earth, including the sea." </> (Paul Ehrlich, 1969, <b>"Eco-Catastrophe!"</b>, <i>Ramparts</i> (Septemeber 1969, p. 25. Ehrlich is best known for his <i>The Population Bomb</i>, (New York, Ballantine Books, 1986), which incorrectly predicted that the world would completely run out of food in the 1970s)"
</dir>
"Ehrlich's declamation were echoed by U Thant in his capacity of head of the United Nations. Fears were expressed that DDT would bring an end to the world's supply of oxygen by ending photosynthesis, when actually there are 60,000 mols of oxygen per square meter of the Earth surface, compared to 8 mols per square meters produced annually by photosynthesis.
Also, saturation of the oceans with DDT would require 1.2 x 10¹⁰ kilos of DDT --an amount equal to more than 9,000 years of pre-Carson DDT production levels! And, as noted above, <b>saturation would have no effect on photosynthesis by marine algae."

"This is an example of the "science" used in the campaign to ban DDT. "</i>
</blockquote>
<font color="red">And also the "science" used by the Duke University web page on DDT... </font> LOL! Lots of LOL!</b> Let's go further in this funny science:

Then they keep saying: "(For a <b>possible</b> explanation to eggshell thinning, click here.)"</i> So they really don´t know. They can only suggest a "possible" explanation! They have not get the news that there never was eggshell thinning! They never knew the experiments "showing eggshell thinning" were flawed and faked, and when peer-revied, no one was able to reproduce the results claimed by the "eggshell thinners". When conducted in a proper and scientific manner, the eggshells got thicker or didn't show any difference with non DDT-fed birds. You'll find all the information on the causes of eggshell thinning in the work by Fish and Wildlife Service scientists, Tucker y Haegele (Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology, 5:19, 1971).

M.L. Scott, J.R. Zimmerman, Susan Marinsky, P.A. Mulenhoff, G.L. Rumsley y R.W. Rice spent many years at Cornell University testing different chemical products in the diets of birds in order to determine the cases of eggshell thinning. They reported that DDT, DDE, and DDD in the diet <b>resulted in thicker eggshells</b>, instead of thinner! (Tucker et al, <i>Utah Science</i>, June 1971).

So, after I clicked on the "click here", I found this "possible explanation": <i>"DDT can change into many different forms that are only slightly different from the original. We call these new forms metabolites. <b>We think</b> that one of these metabolites, abbreviated DDE, interferes with certain reproductive enzymes in birds."</i> So they THINK, they GUESS, they SUSPECT, they <B>DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST IDEA!</B> This is not science. This the kind of science-by-press-releases that has driven real science out of schools --and governmental offices.

PS: you wanted to know which dose of DDT is not lethal or harmful? I know by personal experience that 25 mg a day is not harmful. On the contrary, it is quite safe and healthy. So, don´t worry if you get the daily 0,065 mg the American citizen used to ingest every day.

Throw away any neurosis the green propaganda might have given you. Live happy! Enjoy life! DDT won't kill you, it might keep you away from cancer. It worked for me.

One of the big problems with the government in the US and I would suspect in other countries as well, is that we have law makers setting the policy. What this means is that someone with an ear to the political leaders says, "Look this study and that study suggest that this is a safe tolerance rate." Then they listen to industry, who says, "Ah, if we are forced do that it will bankrupt us and you don't have sufficient proof that this is even so." Then the political leaders come up with a ruling on what they think will do.

Now industry would rather not sink money into making a preventive if they don't have to. No money in it for them unless it is fending off law suits and fines from enforcing bodies like EPA. So naturally they are alarmist if it comes to changing anything. So you wind up with this hodgepodge of ruling that doesn't seem to make sense. In otherwords the vocal few always have more effect than the silent majority. Those that are vocal are usually the activist involved in getting their agenda addressed, such as the removal of ddt from the world markets. Many times it is later found that the fear was not justified. Welcome to the new friendly enviromental economy...

Edufer, why so derisive? What do you expect from Justagirl? You asked for reliable sources and she came up with a chemistry prof at Duke University. Presumably that professor agrees with the information on his web site. Want to argue with the information on that site? Fine. Take it up with the prof.

This hamster also made a cursory survey of that site in order to detect any obvious bias. Seemed to be an honest attempt to provide accessible information to lay persons. Yes, it was presented in a simplistic manner. That does imply certain complexities are glossed over.

You made a major issue of the author describing DDT as “water insoluble”. Right before the section you quoted, the author said, “DDT's long life is due to its low solubility in water and it's relatively high solubility in fats.” As your quote shows the author then simplified by referring to DDT as water insoluble and fat soluble, presumably to explain the danger of DDT accumulation in fat tissue and the persistence of DDT in the environment since it is not easily washed away by water. (This hamster did further online search to determine that DDT does have very low solubility in water. Whether you personally take it in water or not.) The author’s simplification when later referring to DDT as water insoluble does not seem unreasonable. Only by interpreting the author’s statement to mean that absolutely no DDT will dissolve in water do the “contradictions” you criticize arise. As the author’s first statement referred to low solubility, total insolubility was not implied. (This seemed clear from this hamster’s reading of the presentation.)

This hamster has also came across references to other species being sensitive to DDT (geckos, cats, bats, and crustaceans, e.g.). The issues don’t seem quite as clear as you have presented.

You may or may not be correct about the safety of DDT. (You make an interesting case.) You do seem correct that banning DDT has led to a resurgence of Malaria. In this hamster’s opinion you go overboard in your zeal and that hurts your credibility.

(Hopefully you recognize your statements regarding DDT helping your cancer are non-scientific.)

The discussion on DDT is a long ways from over. Saying eating veggies full of DDT is healthy because of VIT's A and B is not the end as I can say that eating a veggie without DDT is healthier. YOu have thrown a lot of facts on the screen and think I am going to change my opinion because you laid out your credentials. I don't think that way as now I am going to see how many of those facts I can get my hands on. It will go slow as I am in a little town but you can rest assured I will find what I can. But knowledge is like a set of encyclopedias and what we know today will be history in a few years and you are quoting facts from many years ago. As we learn something about "A" it can change what we thought we knew about C, H, G, L. I find it very interesting all of your facts are "old". You can jump up and down all you want but any encyclopedia written in the 60s is full of facts and theory we have proved were not accurate. That is how knowledge evolves and 500 years from now people will look at our set of encyclopedias(2002) and laugh at us for many of our so called facts that have been proven wrong. I even found it interesting you say the discusion is over after agreeing to give me the case studies that proved your case the best so I could go do a search at the libray. I was prepared to learn your side of the story and now you want to change the subject and say DDT is over. The debate on DDT is still an active debate among the world and you didn't end it here or the world. I can't end it either but a real search of the truth means I should look at facts discovered in 2002 more than I should the 1960's and 70's. Your search for the truth seems to be over as you still can't quote a source that is current.

quote

In order to investigate its effects on humans, groups of volunteers were fed daily DDT doses of 35 mg, during periods of 21 to 27 months, whitout observing deleterous or harmful effects, either then and after more than 30 years (Hayes, Wayland J., 1956, "Effects of Known Repeated Oral Doses of DDT in Man", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 162, pp. 890-897).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Now this study should be able to teach us a lot. But in this simple statement they don't say how those humans died . How old they were???A true result would be to show the cause of death of each and every one of them. This is the study I am going to look for and see if the followup studies revealed anything new. How did they die???It diesn't show the cause of death of any of them in that statement,.

Its unqualified success came at a price, however, as Rachel Carson chillingly documented in Silent Spring, her 1962 landmark book. Biologists linked DDT's increasingly indiscriminate use to the disappearance of songbirds and raptors. By then, the chemical had permeated the bodies of fish, livestock, and house pets. Health officials indicted the pesticide for causing cancers in people who had applied it recklessly-----
-----------------------------------
Then there is studies like this one that dispute the facts of the one listed above. I will look for this one as well as it claims DDT wiped out two species of life and did cause cancer.

Sept 7, 1999


WWF Study Finds Effective Anti-Malarial Alternatives to DDT
Geneva, Switzerland -- A report released today in Geneva by WWF, the conservation organization, demonstrates that a variety of innovative mechanisms can control malaria and other diseases just as effectively as the notoriously dangerous pesticide DDT. These alternatives would be less harmful to the environment and human health, and just as cheap.


Is this true??
Detailed case studies focused in six areas - Africa (Botswana and Western Africa), India, the Philippines, South America and Mexico - focused on variety of alternative techniques. These are pesticide-impregnated bednets (which reduce the need for indoor spraying); odor-baited cloth targets to attract and destroy disease-carrying insects; lower-risk pesticides used in rotation to avoid the development of resistance; and widespread elimination of mosquito breeding grounds and introduction of natural predators and sterile insects.

The results confirmed that 34 million people in West Africa were protected from river blindness and 700,000 Indians from malaria. There was a 50 percent reduction of malaria in certain Tanzanian villages, and a 50 percent reduction in malaria cases in the Philippines with 40 percent less expenditure.

WWF's New Issue Brief:

Download WWF's new Issue Brief, Successful, Safe, and Sustainable Alternatives to Persistent Organic Pollutants in PDF format.


"If DDT were the only tool to fight malaria, we would not even consider advocating its phase-out," said Clifton Curtis, Director of WWF's Global Toxics Initiative. "However, as these case studies show, people around the world are using innovative methods to fight tropical diseases that do not rely on a pesticide so dangerous it has been banned in most countries."

WWF is pushing for a phase-out of DDT, helped by strong commitments from Western countries of financial and technical assistance to developing countries if they stop relying on DDT. "Helping the developing world achieve their goals of turning away from familiar but dangerous chemicals like DDT is the moral and ethical responsibility of the developed world," said Dr. Richard Liroff, WWF's Malaria Policy Expert. "WWF will be a strong voice in the global POPs treaty negotiations advocating such assistance."

DDT has long been banned in most of the world. It can travel long distances in air and water, and builds up in the fatty tissues of living things. Studies associate it with disrupted hormone systems, and impaired nervous, immune and reproductive functions. In some wildlife species, exposure to DDT and its breakdown products has resulted in population instability or near-extinction.

I wish he would have said what studies??Do you know???

However, due to its ease of use and relatively low cost, DDT is still widely used in developing countries to fight malaria, a deadly disease that kills four children every minute. Public health practitioners are understandably reluctant to stop its use.

DDT is not the only deadly chemical that can be replaced by innovative alternatives. A new issue brief from WWF examines alternatives to all 12 chemicals targeted by the international POPs treaty. PCBs, dioxins, furans, DDT, hexachlorobenzene and others. It discusses techniques such as crop rotations, pest barriers and insect traps, introduction of natural predators and pathogens, release of sterilized pests, pheromones, impregnated bednets and medical treatment.

CONTACT:

Clifton Curtis, tel.: +41 22 909 3909 (Hotel Mon-Repos);

Lee Poston, tel.: + 41 79 221 7834 (mobile) or +41 22 909 3909 (Hotel Mon-Repos);

Olivier van Bogaert, tel.: +41 22 364 9554

SYMPTOMATOLOGY ( ... 2-3 HR AFTER INGESTION): 1. VERY LARGE DOSES ARE FOLLOWED PROMPTLY BY VOMITING, DUE TO LOCAL GASTRIC IRRITATION. DELAYED EMESIS &/OR DIARRHEA MAY OCCUR (THE MECHANISM IS NOT UNDERSTOOD). 2. NUMBNESS & PARESTHESIAS USUALLY 1ST OF LIPS, TONGUE, & FACE. 3. MALAISE, HEADACHE, SORE THROAT, FATIGUE, WEAKNESS. 4. COARSE TREMORS (USUALLY 1ST OF NECK & HEAD & PARTICULARLY OF EYELIDS), APPREHENSION, ATAXIA, & CONFUSION. 5. CONVULSIONS BOTH CLONIC AND TONIC ... MAY ALTERNATE WITH PERIODS OF COMA & PARESIS. 6. IN ABSENCE OF CONVULSIONS, VITAL SIGNS ARE ESSENTIALLY NORMAL, BUT IN SEVERE POISONINGS THE PULSE MAY BE IRREGULAR AND BE ABNORMALLY SLOW. WHETHER DDT, THE SOLVENT, OR THE CONVULSIONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OCCASIONAL DISORDERS IN THE CARDIAC MECHANISM IS NOT CLEAR. ... IF PULMONARY EDEMA SUPERVENES, IT IS PROBABLY AN EXPRESSION OF SOLVENT INTOXICATION ... 9. DEATH IS USUALLY DUE TO RESP FAILURE FROM MEDULLARY PARALYSIS. 10. IN ACUTE EXPOSURES, RECOVERY IS USUALLY COMPLETE WITHIN 1-3 DAYS, BUT SOMETIMES WEAKNESS OR PARALYSIS & ATAXIA MAY PERSIST FOR WEEKS.
[Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1984.,p. III-136]**PEER REVIEWED**

EARLIEST SYMPTOMS OF /ACUTE/ POISONING BY DDT IS PARESTHESIA OF MOUTH & LOWER PART OF FACE. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY PARESTHESIA OF SAME AREA & OF TONGUE & THEN BY DIZZINESS (AN OBJECTIVE DISTURBANCE OF EQUILIBRIUM) PARESTHESIA & TREMOR OF EXTREMITIES, CONFUSION, MALAISE, HEADACHE, FATIGUE, & DELAYED VOMITING. VOMITING IS PROBABLY OF CENTRAL ORIGIN & NOT DUE TO LOCAL IRRITATION. CONVULSIONS OCCUR ONLY IN SEVERE POISONING. ONSET MAY BE AS SOON AS 30 MINUTES AFTER INGESTION OF LARGE DOSE OR AS LATE AS 6 HR AFTER SMALLER BUT STILL TOXIC DOSES. RECOVERY FROM MILD POISONING USUALLY IS ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE IN 24 HR, BUT RECOVERY FROM SEVERE POISONING REQUIRES SEVERAL DAYS.
[Hayes, Wayland J., Jr. Pesticides Studied in Man. Baltimore/London: Williams and Wilkins, 1982. 198]**PEER REVIEWED**
this one is real interesting as he disputes his own study

In order to investigate its effects on humans, groups of volunteers were fed daily DDT doses of 35 mg, during periods of 21 to 27 months, whitout observing deleterous or harmful effects, either then and after more than 30 years (Hayes, Wayland J., 1956, "Effects of Known Repeated Oral Doses of DDT in Man", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 162, pp. 890-897


-------------------------------------------------------
INVOLVEMENT OF LIVER HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN ONLY SMALL PORTION OF CASES OF ACCIDENTAL POISONING BY DDT. IN 3 MEN WHO ATE PANCAKES /WHICH HAD BEEN CONTAMINATED/ WITH DDT ... /THAT RESULTED IN THE INGESTION OF 5,000 TO 6,000 MG DDT/, SLIGHT JAUNDICE APPEARED AFTER 4 TO 5 DAYS & LASTED 3 TO 4 DAYS. ... DEATH HAS BEEN CAUSED ... BY INGESTION OF SOLN OF DDT, BUT IN MOST OF THESE INSTANCES SIGNS & SYMPTOMS WERE PREDOMINANTLY OR EXCLUSIVELY THOSE OF POISONING BY SOLVENT. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TOXICITY OF THE SOLVENT PREDOMINATES. WHAT ... IS KNOWN ABOUT EFFECT OF DDT ON HUMAN HEART FAILS TO SHOW WHETHER CARDIAC ARRHYTHMIA MIGHT BE POSSIBLE CAUSE OF DEATH IN ACUTE POISONING AS IS TRUE IN SOME SPECIES OF LAB ANIMALS. PALPITATIONS, TACHYCARDIA, & "IRREGULAR HEART ACTION" HAVE BEEN NOTED IN SOME BUT NOT ALL CASES OF ACUTE POISONING.
[Hayes, Wayland J., Jr. Pesticides Studied in Man. Baltimore/London: Williams and Wilkins, 1982. 198]**PEER REVIEWED**


disputing his own study again.

A 13-yr-old Mexican was admitted to hospital with anemia, bleeding, high fever, & unconsciousness. His home had been sprayed with dicophane every other day for 4 months preceding admission & repeatedly for the past 2 years. Laboratory investigation showed low hemoglobin, low reticulocytes, low white cell count, & diminished platelets. He started to recover after transfusions of packed red blood cells, & prednisone & tetracycline. But spraying of the hospital room with a 10% solution of dicophane provoked an allergic reaction; he slowly ... /became more ill/ & died about 30 hours later. Post-mortem examination showed hypocellularity of the bone marrow & massive bleeding in the lung.
[Reynolds, J.E.F., Prasad, A.B. (eds.) Martindale-The Extra Pharmacopoeia. 28th ed. London: The Pharmaceutical Press, 1982. 835]**PEER REVIEWED**

Originally posted by Edufer
*Banshee, your claim that GN corn has made virtually impossible growing old strains of corn without specialized techniques*

You think so? I got that information from someone who is working in a lab where they examine genetically modified food. All kinds! Not only corn. I can't find her name back now. I will do a search for this and get back to you with the information.

Because Justagirl has made very clear what a garbage DDT and other pesticides are, I give you something else. Something completely different, as important for the Earrth and human beings as the rest is. Of course you shall argue this. I don't expect anything else. Enjoy...!:(

NASA Listening To Native Elders

The Nome Eskimo elder lamented that nowadays his homeland in winter is too warm for the life system to sustain itself-only 20 degrees below zero instead of 70 below. His people have learned to live in balance with the ice and cold. But now the Bering Strait is sick. Sea ice is forming later, affecting the animals who breed on it. The sea pups aren't ready to leave when the ice melts, so they die or are abandoned. The hunters say the walrus
are skinny, and they have to hunt farther into the tundra because the caribou know the thin ice won't sustain their weight. In the old days, the elders in Alaska could forecast the weather by watching the stars. But now, says one Siberian Yupek elder, "The Earth is so fast now. We can't predict the weather anymore."

Many native prophesies warned of a time when the people would be confused, and the old and the young would die first. The prophesies said the trees would die from the tops down and the world would be in danger.

Using "eyes" from space, NASA officials have seen that the elders are right. Its officials conclude that the "Earth is a living system that is distressed." So now, NASA has turned to native elders for counsel as it examines the effect of climate change on the U.S. population, environment and economy. NASA brought together a gathering of several hundred elders for a five-day climate-change workshop in Albuquerque, N.M., last fall. NASA is seeking to merge the knowing and wisdom of people who understand the
responsibilities that humans have to the Earth with the knowledge of non-native scientists.

The elders who attended the conference, called the Circle of Wisdom Native Peoples/Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop, stated: "It is this spiritual connection to Mother Earth, Father Sky and all Creation that is lacking in the rest of the world. . . . We call upon the people of the world to hold your leaders accountable."

According to documents issued by the workshop, temperatures will become warmer in the Northern Hemisphere by 5 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit within the next 20 years. The primary source of human-induced climate change is the burning of oil, gas and coal. The melting of sea ice "affects the exchange of energy continuously taking place on the Earth's surface," according to
NASA. While it might seem a distant problem to many people in the United States, all life is interconnected.

We have long said that native prophesies are misunderstood. They not only are spiritual visions, but often also come from a life-science observation of the natural world. When people understand that they are not separate from the natural world, they will seek to honor and understand it.
This is why Chief Joseph said long ago that the Earth was part of his body and they were of one "mind."

Native people traditionally have understood that the Earth and universe have a mind and a spirit, a cosmic intelligence that responds to us, to our intentions. "Earth is a living mother, an organism. I know none of us would think of abusing our birth mother. She is a spiritual woman . . . that gives life. Through our ceremonies, we honor her life-giving power so that she can
continue to nourish us," says Cheyenne elder Henrietta Mann.

When people no longer live and learn from the land, their disconnection to it leads to the abuse of Mother Earth. Along with the land, native people's traditions die: their food, their ceremonies, medicinal plants, their fibers for making sacred baskets. And much of it has been through the greed of market economies and the perversions of science and technology that
have claimed or contaminated the land, particularly native lands, through deforestation, pesticides, industrial waste, radioactive poisoning and mining. "What good is an economic system if our children die anyway?" asked a Kanaka Maoli elder from Hawaii. A nearby flip-chart read, "There is no post-environment economy."

There are myriad things to be done, including requiring companies to factor the environmental impact of their projects into their businesses, and demanding that all public projects invest in clean and renewable forms of energy. But most of all, we must begin to value life in all its manifestations.

Corbin Harney, a Shoshone elder, says the spirits of the land and the ancestors are waiting for people to recognize their responsibility to Mother Earth. "They want to hear us pray so that they can work with us, so everything can heal."

Your assistance is needed.

http://www.labyrinthina.com/elders1.htm

As a last remark: This message is also posted in the Parapsychology Forum, in the full version, for those who are interested...

<i>Now this study should be able to teach us a lot. But in this simple statement they don't say how those humans died . How old they were???</i>
The statement you are referring to is from me, not from the study. I must admit that I quoted it without going to my database, (my apologies) so the information I kept there is this:

<i>Tests by Dr. Wayland Hayes for the U.S. Public Service involved feeding human volunteers tremendous quantities of DDT to see if any adverse effects developed. The men ingested up to 35 mg of DDT in their food, <b>every day for 18 months</b>, and had no resultant difficulties either at the time or within the following 6 to 10 years while they remained under observation. (Hayes, Weyland, 1956. <b><i>Effect of Known Repeated Oral Doses of DDT in Man"</b>, Journal of the American medical Association</i>, Vol. 162, pp. 890-897).</i>

I read a comment on that study, saying that the DDT intake was 21 to 27 months, so I quoted that. My database says the duration was 18 months. Even so, 18 months is ample time to show any deleterous effect --especially at the high dose of 35 milligrams (imagine that people were scared when they learned they were intaking 0,065 mg a day), then 35 mg would be a lethal dose. I keep telling you, I am very much alive after 4 years of 25 mg a day.

Quote: <b><I>(Hopefully you recognize your statements regarding DDT helping your cancer are non-scientific.)</i></b>

I did not recognize such a thing. My decision of ingesting DDT for preventing my prostate cancee from making a comeback, was based on the scientific studies I mentioned: (1) Wayland Hayes, (2) Charles Silinskas, (3) Edward R. Laws and Allan E. Okey. And from professor J. Gordon Edwards eating every year a spoonfull of DDT (about 6 grams) before his students at the Opening Class at the Univeristy of California at San Jose. He must be 90 years old by now.

justagirl: <i>Saying eating veggies full of DDT is healthy because of VIT's A and B is not the end as I can say that eating a veggie without DDT is healthier.</I>
Please show me where I said such a thing. i have never mentioned vitamins or anything of that kind. And your claim is a nice example of twisted logic. I have been insisting on the Golden Axiom of Toxicology: <b>"The Dose Makes the Poison"</b>, but you seem to keep forgetting it. If the "full of DDT" means 200 grams a day, I wouldn't recommend it at all. But if it means 25 mg a day, I strongly recommend it.

And justagirl made a point when she stated: <b>"...and you are quoting facts from many years ago ... I find it very interesting all of your facts are "old" ... Your search for the truth seems to be over as you still can't quote a source that is current.".</b>

Facts remain facts even after a million years have passed. There are "eternal, fixed laws" as Gravity, the laws relating to thermodynamics, chemical and physical laws, etc. If you fed DDT to rats back in 1968, and the rats didn't get cancer when treated with carcinogenics, they will keep doing the same thing today, if you repeat the experiment.

But why the scarcity of "new and updated" studies about the innocuousness of DDT? Money talks here. Those researchs were made at the time when the DDT hysteria was on the rise, but the levels of politics in science was still low. There were money for research then, but now there is not a single scientists that would get money from the government if he tried to investigate if DDT is really dangerous. On the contrary, he will get carloads of money if he tried to prove "definitely" that DDT is the worst poison ever made.

Moreover, why make a research that won't be accepted for publishing in "top level" scientific journals as Science, Nature, the New England Journal of Medicine, etc.? In the lecture given by professor J. Gordon Edwards at Dartmouth College in April 1999 he said this, when talking about the "thinning eggshells" studies by Dr. Bitman, widely accepted as "proof" of the effect of DDT on eggshell thinning:
<blockquote>
"<i>In my testimony before Congress, I presented information and I was highly critical of Bitman's work. The next year, Bitman repeated his experiments, and this time he added the adequate doses of calcium in the diets. The avians fed with DDT and DDD did not produce thin eggshells. The study was presented again to <i>Science</i> magazine for publishing. Unfortunately, the editor of Science always refused to print articles favorable to DDT, so this time he rejected Bitman's article. Instead, the article was published in <i>Poultry Science</i>, and poultry industry and honest scientists applauded when they saw the real results. Of course, circulation of that magazine was not as big as <i>Science's</i> so very few scientists had the opportunity of hearing about the retreat by Bitman of the accusations that DDT and DDE caused thinning in eggshells.

Why did <i>Science</i> rejected such studies? His editor, Philip Abelson, had previously informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article that were not contrary to DDT. He even refused to consider for publication a manuscript by the WHO (World Health Organization) favourable to DDT. As a result, articles on DDT were always written by the members of the same brotherhood, and peer-review became a shame. DDT authors were quoting each other and supported each other claims. There wwere not accepted any dissenting views. Without the refuge given by <i>Science</i>, the case of DDT would have been promptly archived!</i>
</blockquote>
But, if you want some "fresh" news about DDT, at the Conference held in South Africa on December 12th, 2000, DDT was removed from the "dirty dozen" (persistent chemicals in the environment) list and it has been approved for use in countries fighting malaria. Even so, the political pressures by US Embassies in those countries will make DDT hard to use. They would lose economic aid by the US. Could we call this blackmail?. It reminds me of Chicago in the 20s...

The DDT myth persists in the news as well as in the scientific literature. On April 21, 1993, Mary G. Wolff and colleagues published a study on DDT residues in blood and breast cancer in the Journal of National Cancer Institute ((Mary S. Wolff et all., 1993, <b<"Blood Levels of Organochlorine Residues and Risk of Breast Cancer"</b>, <i>Jour. Nat. Cancer Inst.</i>, (April 21) Vol. 85, No. 8, pp. 648-652). The findings were seized on by the media, including Associated Press and <i>Time</I> magazine, with headlines <b>"DDT linked to Risk of Breast Cancer"</b>, and <b>"Relentless DDT"</b>. The <i>New Yorker</I>, which had launched <i>Silent Spring"</i> in 1962, exulted on June 6m 1993, that <b>"Rachel Carson Lives"</b>.

One year later, a new study to correct the first was published by N. Krieger and coworkers in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, covering a much larger group of subjects (150 vs. the 58 breast cancer patients in Wolff's report) and drawing on thousands of blood samples collected and frozen during the 1960s, when average DDE levels were four to five times higher. The 1994 report showed <b>no association</b> between serum levels of DDE and the risk of breast cancer.

This disproof of earlier claims did not make the headlines. There were no stories of <b>"DDT Not Linked to Breast Cancer"</b>, or <b>"DDT Relents"</b>. The New Yorker has not said that <b>"Rachel Carson Does Not Longer Lives, After All"</b>. Many activists may be expected to ignore the disproof of the 1993 claims and to link DDT falsely to cancer. The first, desired report is now "locked in" and has become a part of the evaluation of DDT by critics.

The British historian H.R. Trevor-Ropper wrote in 1962:

<blockquote>"<b>Whatever else history may say of Dr. Goebbels, it must credit him with one positive contribution to the science of politics--a terrible but a positive contribution. He created a system of propaganda, ironically styled public enlightment, which persuaded a people to believe that black was white."</b>
</blockquote>
I must add that Goebbels did that advising (ordering) his accomplices to <font color="red"><b>"Lie, lie, and lie! It will there something remain in the people's mind"</b></font>.

Should I mention more studies that would give the same results if they were repeated today? The California Department of Health was concerned about the effects of DDT on reproduction, and Dr. Alice Ottoboni, the department's toxicologist, consequently carried out extensive studies with rats and dogs during the 1960s and 1970. (Alice Ottoboni, 1969 <b>"The Effects of DDT on Reproduction in the Rat</b>", <i> Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.</i>, Vol. 14, pp. 79-81). Rats were fed levels of DDT of 0, 20, and 200 ppm in the diet. There was no apparent effect on fecundity of dams or viability of the young. The females receiving 20 ppm DDT had <b>a significantly longer average reproduction life span</b> (14.55 months) than their littermate controls (8.91 months). If you won't let me say that DDT prolonged the life span of rats, then you must allow me to say that "the lack of DDT in the diet shortened the life span of rats".

Ottoboni's studies with beagle dogs were through four generations, and 650 pups were born to parents that received 1, 5, and 10 milligrams (mg) of DDT <b>per kg of body weight per day.</b> (Here you may find a dose level that it is harmless: 10 mg DDT per kg of body weight.) There was no effect of DDT on survival, growth, and sex distribution of pups, nor was there any influence on morbidity or mortality or gross or histologic findings in any of the dogs. DDT-treated females had their first estrus cycles two to three months earlier then the control dogs. The highest level of DDT, in contrast to the control or 1 mg groups, was associated with <b>freedom from roundworm infection</b> in the pups.

More recently (1994) Unnur P. Thorgeirsson and coworkers reported (Unnur P. Thorgeirsson et al., <b>"Tumor Incidence in a Chemical Carcinogenesis Study of Non Human Primates"</b>, in the <i>Journal of Regulatory Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology</i>, (April), Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 130-151), a 32-year study of chemical carcinogenesis using Old World monkeys, who live about 30 years, to test a variety of chemicals, including DDT.

In his DDT study, 25 monkeys were fed 20 mg/kg of DDT by mouth five times per week for 11 years. So far, 10 monkeys have died of various causes, and the other 15, ages 19 to 25, are in good health. The single cancer that occurred in a 20-year-old monkey cannot be attributed to DDT because of the monkey's age, and the fact that these monkeys have a spontaneous cancer rate of 3.2 percent. On the other hand, the common fungal food contaminant, aflatoxin B, and a compound produced in cooked meat, IQ, induced cancers in more than 60 percent of the animals.

These studies shows that DDT is not as dangerous as alleged by the anti-DDT brotherhood, and most of these studies at least suggest that it can a strong cancer preventive. In view of the factual evidence of its lack of carcinogenicity, and the evidence suggesting it could be a highly beneficial cancer preventive, why don't start doing research in this direction? That high can be the prejudice and hysteria against DDT?. I repeat: this is not sound science, it its pure hysteria. Neurosis and paranoia...

But there is the issue of DDT persistance, that you have mentioned as the main reason for its banning in the US. Because this post is too long --and I don't want to bore you with factual information-- I propose to continue on the subject of DDT persistance in the environment in further posts.

SYMPTOMATOLOGY ( ... 2-3 HR AFTER INGESTION): 1. <b>VERY LARGE DOSES</b> ARE FOLLOWED PROMPTLY BY VOMITING... EARLIEST SYMPTOMS OF /<b<ACUTE</b>/ POISONING BY DDT IS PARESTHESIA ... OR AS LATE AS 6 HR AFTER SMALLER BUT STILL <b>TOXIC DOSES</b> ... THAT RESULTED IN THE INGESTION <b>OF 5,000 TO 6,000 MG DDT</b>
There you go! You keep insisting on <b<VERY LARGE DOSES</b>, that are known to provoke adverse effects, and that applies to ANY KNOWN SUBSTANCE IN THIS PLANET! Do you really understand what means "Large doses", "Acute poisoning" and "toxic doses"?

I beg you to stop doing this and stick to the trifle doses present in the environment!

<i>A 13-yr-old Mexican was admitted to hospital with anemia, bleeding, high fever, & unconsciousness. His home had been sprayed with dicophane every other day for 4 months</i>
Dicophane is not DDT. Try again.

Please go to: <A HREF="http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#16">DDT: FAQs and FACTS</A>

90 percent of the answers and facts have their proper scientific reference. The page is by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards.

<i>"Edufer: Banshee, your claim that GN corn has made virtually impossible growing old strains of corn without specialized techniques"

Banshe: You think so? I got that information from someone who is working in a lab where they examine genetically modified food. All kinds! Not only corn."</I>
I think so. In Bolivia you find 26 original strains of corn (not to mention strains of other crops). How many there are in Argentina, Brasil, Peru, Ecuador, Mexico, etc, etc.? Your friend gave you "rotten meat". You gulped it. No wonder, you believe anything written ink on paper.

<i>The Nome Eskimo elder lamented that nowadays his homeland in winter is too warm for the life system to sustain itself-only 20 degrees below zero instead of 70 below.</i>
Yeap! You believe anyhting. Do you really believe that temperatures in the Artic (or Alaska, Northern Canada, Siberia) had gone from minus 70 degrees Farenheit to minus 20 F.? Take a look at the temperature charts from the Arctic regions (in this page you'll find temperature records from every place in the world):

<A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm">What the Stations Say</A>

That website will make see red! Of course, when you see real science on the screen you get enraged...:D

I'll make it faster for you, and selected the first stations on the long, long list:

<A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/stations/frobishr.gif">Frobisher Bay, Northern Canada. (Up to 1999)</A>

<A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/stations/barrow.gif">Barrow station, Alaska. (2000)</A>

<A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/stations/arctic.gif">Arctic Rim (Four stations: Ostrov Vize, Danmarkshavn, Svalbard and Franz Josef Land, data up to 2000)</A>

Quite curiously, the same NASA you mention is the one that supplied the temperature data taken with their satellites, and used in the "Station" webpage. Now don't tell me they are lying! When they lie? When giving temperature data, or when speaking about eskimo's prophecies?

Please, let's be serious. We are talking about science, not esoteric matters.

Read some remarks on the "global warming" going on (taken from <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/">Still Waiting for the Greenhouse!"</A>:

<b>March Cold</b>
(30 Mar 02)

Some reader comments on the weather this March from the western half of North America -

"I thought I'd update you on our winter weather here in the Seattle area. This year, we are definitely having a colder than normal winter, with above average snowpack in the Cascade Mountains. While much of the U.S. has been basking in record warmth this winter, that is certainly not the case here. As for our past few summers, they also have been cool. On average, we have three days per year that reach 90°F in Seattle. We have not had ANY day reach 90°since 1998, so that at minimum, assuming we have a normal summer this year, we still have a four year streak of cooler than normal summers. As I prefer cooler weather, I hope that this is a trend of future things to come."

<b>`Coldest March on record' </b>
<b>CALGARY</b> - It may be the first day of spring, but it's the coldest one many can remember. Alberta is well on its way to setting a weather record. The average temperature so far this month has been close to minus 16 degrees. "The month of March record is minus 13.0," says Brian Steffora, meteorologist with Environment Canada. "That record was set back in 1899, so its quite an old record, 103 years ago. And like I say, we're at minus 15.6; we're about two and a half degrees below that record yet."

"I live and work in Calgary, Alberta and the month of March has been brutally cold."

"I wanted to let you know that the month of March 2002 has seen many record low temperatures set in the western provinces of British Columbia (BC), Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The cold has lasted longer and was deeper than I have seen in my 30 years in the central part of BC. Many temperatures were in the range of -15°C to -32°C in the interior (continental influence), and Vancouver (west coast) had snow and below freezing temperatures. Highly unusual! We normally refer to the month of March as "break-up", as this is the time of year that the warm weather returns, ice breaks up in the rivers and the ground starts to thaw. Until today, we have been in winter. Today we got to about +8C, which is about normal; spring might finally be close!"

Remeber that I told you that we had in Argentina an exceptionally cool summer? It is still cooler than normal. We made a record of cold temeperatures in Argentina this year. Well, add it up to what's going on in the Northern Hemisphere and prepare for the Global Cooling. :D

Edufer, deciding to use DDT as a cancer preventative based on your interpretation of science papers may or may not be rational. (This hamster chooses to use vitamin supplements based on similar extrapolation from science papers.) Claiming that DDT has kept your cancer from re-occurring is not science. Likewise your ingesting DDT over several years is not scientific evidence that DDT is “safe” for the environment or for the general populace.

Mixing scientific claims with non-scientific claims lowers credibility.

You mentioned several species that don’t seem harmed by modest doses of DDT (this hamster tends to agree humans don’t appear to be harmed) but there do seem to be species that are vulnerable as mentioned in a prior post. Focusing on animal species that aren’t affected while ignoring those that are does not seem reasonable. Possibly if the risks are understood methods to mitigate the worst damage would be possible and that might shift the risk/benefit equation in favor of DDT.

In this hamster’s opinion it is unfortunate that science does not set environmental policy. While this hamster is not convinced DDT is safe for the environment, this hamster does agree with Edufer that the political climate would not support DDT usage in the US even if DDT were completely safe.

This hamster is aware of several cases in which policy was set before good science was available. Once policy becomes entrenched, better science is often not sufficient to change policy.

<i>ImaHamster2: Claiming that DDT has kept your cancer from re-occurring is not science.</I>

Hamster, you are a cool cat ...oops!, I mean, a cool hamster. I appreciate your posts because they show a lot of common sense, one of senses man is losing. About "claiming that DDt kept me safe from re-occurring is not science", I would like to elaborate of that.

The word science comes from Latin: "scientia". A synonym is "notitia" (noticia in Spanish, news in English), and also "cognitio" --- "knowledge" (you might find it familiar because the English word "recongnition"). In Greece, science and knowledge were the same thing. We use the term "science" in a different way, having a more "technical" meaning, that is, not simple knowledge of common things, but the understanding of higher and specialized matters, as maths, medicine, astronomy, etc. Words are like coins, they lose their value (or meaning) with time. The words Democracy, Freedom, Justice, etc, have quite a different meaning todat than say 100, or 500 or 2,000 years ago.

So I received a piece of information on DDT (scientific information, peer-reviewd, for that matter) thta became "knowledge", acquired knowldege, acquired science. Based on that "science" I made a rational decision of ingesting DDT. You have made the same decision when accepting to be injected with penicilin, or subjecting yourself to surgery, or jumping aboard a brand new car. In all those decisions there were some degree of risk involved (when Pasteur tried his rabbies vaccine on a little boy was running a risk, that luckily turned out to be a fortunate decision). Would you say that he use of that vaccine was not based on science, or was unreasonable?

After four years of ingesting such a high dose of DDT (25 mg a day) and seeing there has been not any harmful effects on me, and that the prostate antigen went down from 2 to 0.1, I had collected information (or knowledge) enough to make me claim: (1) DDT is not harmful for humans --at least at 25 mg a day, (2) DDT <b>seems</b> to be the primary agent in my diet and drug regular intake, that has kept cancer from re-ocurring (or perhaps, developing in other organs). I emphasize the word "seems", because my epidemiological study is a "one-man case", and many more patients are needed in order for such a study to be of medical or "scientific" significance.

So, that's all. It served for me. It may be useful for other people. That's why I insist on my question: Why hasn't this line of research kept going? Lack of interest? Don´t think so. Lack of funds and grants? Most probably. Why all those charitable foundations fighting against leukemia and cancer are leaving aside a promising subject as this? Are they informed? If they are, why then don't do something about it?

<i>Focusing on animal species that aren’t affected while ignoring those that are does not seem reasonable.</i>

Here we come again to the subject of dose levels. All experiments made on animals (with any substance) for carcinogenesis, are performed by giving the poor critters huge amounts of the suspected chemical. As Bruce has demonstrated, this kind of experiment will always develop what is known as "mitogenesis", a wild an uncontrolled division of the cells, something known as "tumoral cancer". Current lab tests ordered by the EPA or the FDA are based on this weird approach, and they completely ignore the "threshold" level of substances. Drugs given below the htreshold levels are harmless, while going over that level become toxic. When scientists find that "safe" level", they apply a "precautionary" measure and set the threshold level 100 times below of what found as "safe level". But environmental extremists have been battling for pusihing those levels to unbelievable stupid dimensions. They want 10,000 or 100,000 times lower levels than the known "safe" level. And this leads to unbelievable high costs for anything that is manufactured in the world.

Both print and electronic mass media have confused "safe" with "risk free". This confusion is prepetuated in the public and there is a constituency (in fact an industry) that benefits from the retention or enhancements of such confusion. In a celebrated 1980 case, the Supreme Court of the US defined unsafe as a condition that posses "a significant risk of harm". This is different from saying that safe means zero risk. In fact, the concepto of zero risk defies the rule of probability.

I will give some figures taken from a table in a report by the federal Council on Environmental Quality, It shows ths cost in dollars "per premature death averted" for various governmental regulations designed to protect public safety and health in regard to different risks. The number of premature deaths is calculated for regulatory actions intended by the government to reduce the probability of lost lives for the regulated item.

It is important to note in the table that the items related to radiation, radioactive materials, chemical including asbestos, and similar environmental risks are usually calculated in the upper boundary (the upper 95 percentile) of the cost per premature death averted. The median or "average" values, are often one to several orders of magnitude lower than these upper bound values. Other risks are calculated at "average" values, while the actual values are likely to be much higher. For example, the cost of the hazardous waste disposal ban, which is shown as $4.19 billion (using average values) is likely to be in the range of $20 billion to $80 billion. Even more astonishing is the median cost of putting wood preservation chemicals on the hazardous waste list: $5.7 trillion per premature death averted.

<CENTER><B>THE COST OF SELECTED SAFETY REGULATIONS (1967-1991)</B>
(in millions of dollars)</center>

<b>Regulation ----------------------------- Year issued -- Cost per premature death averted</b>
<HL width=250 height=2>
Unvented Space Heater Ban: ----------------- 1985 ------------------$ 0,10
Aircraft Cabin Fire Protection Std. ------------ 1985 ----------------- $ 0.10
Trihalomethane Brinking Water Std. ---------- 1979 ---------------- $ 0.20
Auto Fuel-System Integrity Std. ---------------- 1975 ---------------- $ 0.40
Children's Sleepware Flammability Std. ------ 1973 ---------------- $ 0.80
Electrical Equipment Stds. (metal mines) --- 1970 ---------------- $ 1.40
Arsenic Emission Stds. (glass plants) --------- 1986 --------------- $ 13.50
Benzene NESHAP (transportation) ------------- 1990 -------------- $ 33.00
Asbestos ban ----------------------------------------- 1989 -------------- $ 111.00
1,2.dichloropropane Drinking Water Std. ------ 1991 -------------- $ 653.00
Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Ban ---------- 1988 -------------- $ 4,190.00
Municipal solid Waste Landfill Std. --------------- 1988 -------------- $ 19,107.00
Formaldehyde Occupational Exposure Limit --- 1987 ------------- $ 86,202.00
Atrazine/Alachlor Drinking Water Std. ------------ 1991 ------------- $ 92,070.00
Hazardous Waste List-Wood Preservation ------ 1990 ------------- $ 5,700,000.00

Remeber: these are <B>MILLIONS OF DOLLARS</B>

Regulators usuallyx consider only two factors: risk and the technology available to reduce it. Typical regulations require the use of best available technology to mitigate risk. Since risk is never zero, and "even one health effect is one too many ", regulations become tighter as soon as a new technology becomres available. What's wrong with that, you might ask?

The problem is nobody asks where it makes the most sense, nationally, to invest the government's or industry's resources to get the greatest reduction in risk. Sssssome industries spend large amount of money to reduce risks that many factors of 10 lower than the risks that are routinely tolerated in other, similar enterprises (for example, nuclear and nonnuclear transportation).

The solution for these astronomical costs would be to establish a more uniformily high economic value for risk reduction --so many dollars to avoid a potential health effect. In other words, setting a range of dollars costs per premature death averted above which and below which no regulation on risk would go. This would give some flexibility but have an upper bound. This may sound cold--but it will save more lives and illness per dollar spent. Such policy would would also redirect some budget dollars now being spent to ameliorate inconsequential environmental risks into programs that can deal with major societal risks.

For example, expenditures of a few million dollars in metropolitan areas to support security and police forces would surely save more lives at less cost than many of the costly regulations in the table. But this would imply that there are politicians and bureaucrats that can actually use their brains. Hopeless cause.

And seen the matter from a quite cynical point of view, seeing the huge amount of deaths produced by crime and drug dealing, pedestrian and home accidents, why spend billions of dollars in trying to avert a hypotetical death from highly exaggerated risks? That person would be free of the asbestos risk, for example, but it will surely be killed by a heroine overdose, or a burglar, or slippng over a banana peel. Those billions of dollars saved could be invested in health care programs, medical research, education programs, etc. Lowering the costs of regulatory enforcement, would make goods cheaper, the commercial activity would increase, the industry would become larger (more employement), and the living standard would increase. Higher living standars means less crime, more security, better lifes for everybody. So, my cynical point of view is not that cynical.

Edufer, your post shows you understand the difference between scientific studies showing efficacy of a treatment and anecdotal accounts of personal cures. Stories of cancer and AIDS cures are particularly pernicious in that there may be no medical treatment and desperate people may grasp at any hope.

This hamster does find your report of the lack of cancer in DDT handling Monsanto employees interesting. However this hamster is skeptical of conspiracy theories in science and medicine. In the case of cancer there are plenty of people willing to ingest poison if it might cure their disease. This hamster guesses this issue has been looked at and discounted. If not, good luck in pushing for research.

“All experiments made on animals (with any substance) for carcinogenesis, are performed by giving the poor critters huge amounts of the suspected chemical.”

This statement is misleading. The issue is not just carcinogens. In a quick search this hamster came across references to geckos, cats, bats, crustaceans, and fish dying due to DDT in the environment. (Humans, rats, quail, and pheasants were pretty much immune.) The statement is also incorrect in that other methods to detect carcinogens exist and are used. This hamster would agree that the Ames test is often used (and misused) to detect potential carcinogens.

This hamster agrees that pushing allowed contaminants to absurdly low levels is poor environmental policy. That does not mean that all low levels are absurd. Requires case-by-case analysis. In the US contentious environmental climate this process may fail. While this hamster is skeptical about the magnitude of the cost estimates you provided (Industry tends to spin the numbers to favor its view.) this hamster largely agrees that much environmental policy is irrational.

(Irrational response to risk is a worth a thread of its own.)

justagirl: Saying eating veggies full of DDT is healthy because of VIT's A and B is not the end as I can say that eating a veggie without DDT is healthier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote

Please show me where I said such a thing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact I do eat legumes and vegetables sprayed with pesticides, because they are more healthy than "organic" ones. Don´t take my word for it; listen to what Dr. Bruce Ames has been telling the world about the toxicity of pesticides since the 1970s. There are lots of information on Bruce Ames --just search the internet under "Bruce Ames" and you'll be overwhelmed with information
-------------------------------
That's where you said it and I did read Bruce Ames theory and made a entry on it. His basic theory is the banning of DDT wil increase the cost of veggies and people will eat less of fresh veggies because of the cost and that veggies provide vits that can prevent cancer.(I think we all agree vits can prevent cancer)


------------------------------------------------------------------
quote

Facts remain facts even after a million years have passed. There are "eternal, fixed laws" as Gravity, the laws relating to thermodynamics, chemical and physical laws, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When someone starts a theory and later we learn something that goes against that theroy it doesn't prove his theory was wrong as we just correct the theory to show the new knowledge. I will take Gravity as NASA is conducting research on it trying to learn more. AS mush as our world likes to think our theorys are correct , future generations will find flaws in it and correct it, and history proves it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote

SYMPTOMATOLOGY ( ... 2-3 HR AFTER INGESTION): 1. VERY LARGE DOSES ARE FOLLOWED PROMPTLY BY VOMITING... EARLIEST SYMPTOMS OF // POISONING BY DDT IS PARESTHESIA ... OR AS LATE AS 6 HR AFTER SMALLER BUT STILL TOXIC DOSES ... THAT RESULTED IN THE INGESTION OF 5,000 TO 6,000 MG DDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There you go! You keep insisting on , that are known to provoke adverse effects, and that applies to ANY KNOWN SUBSTANCE IN THIS PLANET! Do you really understand what means "Large doses", "Acute poisoning" and "toxic doses"?
----------------------------------------------------------------
I introduced that statement because you had said this

quote
"In order to investigate its effects on humans, groups of volunteers were fed daily DDT doses of 35 mg, during periods of 21 to 27 months, whitout observing deleterous or harmful effects, either then and after more than 30 years (Hayes, Wayland J., 1956, "Effects of Known Repeated Oral Doses of DDT in Man", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 162, pp. 890-897
-----------------------------------------------
I found many examples of Wayland Hayes showing harmful effects to humans. In the statement above he also said this "OR AS LATE AS 6 HR AFTER SMALLER BUT STILL TOXIC DOSES ."

... SINGLE DOSE ... OF 10 MG/KG PRODUCES ILLNESS IN SOME BUT NOT ALL SUBJECTS EVEN THOUGH NO VOMITING OCCURS. ... CONVULSIONS HAVE OCCURRED ... WHEN DOSAGE LEVEL WAS 16 MG/KG OR GREATER ... LARGE DOSES LEAD TO PROMPT VOMITING, SO AMT ACTUALLY RETAINED CANNOT BE DETERMINED ACCURATELY. IN ACUTE POISONING SLIGHT DECR IN HEMOGLOBIN & MODERATE LEUKOCYTOSIS WITHOUT ANY CONSTANT DEVIATION IN DIFFERENTIAL WHITE COUNT HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN VOLUNTEERS. THESE FINDINGS ARE CONSIDERED SECONDARY TO NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS.
[Hayes, Wayland J., Jr. Pesticides Studied in Man. Baltimore/London: Williams and Wilkins, 1982. 195]**PEER REVIEWED**


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is some more by Wayland Hayes and personally I don't find it ok to make the population sick. It can and does have harmfull effects and for about the 4th time I remind you, as long as you debate it is unharmful, I will post more more evidence showing it can be harnful, The debate is at what level and not if is harmful.

THe very nature of it proves it is harmful as countries wanting to use it want to use it to kill insects.


Here is what you said he said
In order to investigate its effects on humans, groups of volunteers were fed daily DDT doses of 35 mg, during periods of 21 to 27 months, whitout observing deleterous or harmful effects, either then and after more than 30 years (Hayes, Wayland J., 1956, "Effects of Known Repeated Oral Doses of DDT in Man", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 162, pp. 890-897).
--------------------------------------------------------
He clearly shows doses of less than 35mg makes humans sick and That is considered harmful by many of us. How many more of your facts an I going to find like this???

I would ask you to stop with your facts Edufer. I am getting sick from it. We all know by now that DDT indeed is harmful and that humans get the poison in their bodies without even knowing it. Your statistics and facts have been enough.

Get over it, and admit Justagirl has points here. With the necessarry 'evidence' you want so badly. I don't discuss DDT any more. It's a subject that made me angry and protesting everywhere, some years ago. I am really not in the mood to start all over again.

Justagirl is right! DDT has done much more harm to human and animal life, not to speak about the rest of nature, then is admitted by the so called governments...

(end of message)

Hamster: the figures I posted (you seemed to have doubts about them) were taken from a table in a report by the <b>federal Council on Environmental Quality</b>, a government agency, not by the industry or commercial company.

[quote] Idahamster2: <i>Stories of cancer and AIDS cures are particularly pernicious in that there may be no medical treatment and desperate people may grasp at any hope ... However this hamster is skeptical of conspiracy theories in science and medicine. In the case of cancer there are plenty of people willing to ingest poison if it might cure their disease.</i>

I agree with you on the subject of desperate people seeking "magic" cures and leaving aside medical treatment. You can add to the list of poison ingesting the crotoxin, a treatment discovered and used by Argentine doctor Vidal for treating cancer. This toxin is extracted from crotalus snakes, the "cascabel" (rattle snake).

In a search in Google I run into this page, where the opinions of people are posted alongside (believers at the left, skeptics on the right) where you can compare them. They talk about the risk of SLS, a detergent chemical found in shampoos. It's worth a visit.

http://www.listas.utn.edu.ar/scyt-red/msg00396.html

But my statement about "huge doses of chemicals in animals will always cause cancer" is not misleading. It is a fact. That there are animals with higher sensitivity (to chemicals found in the environment) than other animals does not makes that fact less real. If you have time and interest in the subject, please read what late Aaron Wildavsky said at an interview in France, when he gave a lecture on the subject of risk in a conference of the International Center for Scientific Ecology, in 1993 (He had been teaching at the University of California at Berkeley since 1963):

<b>Question: You have suggested that we should abandon the principle of extrapolating from tests on animals to human beings.</b>
We should abandon the use of rodent tests that extrapolate from huge doses in animals to tiny doses in humans. The reason to abandon them is that they are utterly worthless. They tell you absolutely nothing, When you have finished, you know you are correct within a factor of 4,000 and 4 million.

In order to derive reasonable conclusions, it is necessary to control for the enormous difference in size between humans and rodents and for the enormous difference in dose. There are several dozen models wich will do this, but without understanding the mechanism by which cancer is caused, there is no reasonable way to choose the statistical model. Therefore the choice of model vastly overdetermines the results. If you tell me you want very high results or very low ones, I am able to get what you want by choosing the model.

<b>Question: Can you elaborate on that? </b>
If, in a given field, you have a result, that result has to be filtered through a statistical mechanism. There are 70 mechanisms. Some of them give results millions of times, or hundreds of thousand of times, or ten of thousands of times larger than the others, and you have no basis for choosing among them. Therefore, the choice of model is arbitrary, which means the results are entirely arbitrary.

Nevertheless, I should caution your readers that there are many good uses of animal tests, for example to learn about mechanisms of cancer causation. But, for the specific purpose of predicting between enormously high doses in animals and very low doses in humans, <b><i>such tests are worthless. </i></b>

<b>Question: One of the goals of these tests was to establish regulations on the exposure to certain kinds of chemicals. Are these regulations necessary?</b>
No, they are not. This should be abandoned. Why such an "extreme" position?
First, everybody can see that decade by decade, people are living longer in the United States. That means that we are doing something right. It is not as if we had an epidemic of early deaths. What we want to do is to keep doing what we have been doing and use knowledge of the causes of cancer to reduce its incidence, when we know what we are doing.

Instead of this, we are taking absolutely minuscule risks and building regulations upon them. This is a much more effective method of harming capitalism than the Marxists ever discovered! From the works of Bruce Ames and Lois Gold, we know that the proportion of cancer-causing substances that come from nature is over 99.9 percent. Every plant has to defend itself against predators. <b><i>Why should we pay attention to the 0.1 percent of cancer-causing substances that are synthetic instead of the natural 99.9 percent?</i></b>

The amounts we get from synthetic chemicals, unless we drink them directly --which I certainly am not recommending-- are so tiny, so minuscule, so infinitesimal that it is not rational to be concerned about them. <b><i>This is an obsession, in contradiction to the evidence.</I></B> Another Bruce Ames's discoveries is that there is roughly 10 mg of carcinogenic material in a cup of cofee. That is greater than what I and you would get from all industrial sources as synthetic residues in food in a whole year. If you wish to be safer, if you really wish to reduce risks, <b><i>have one less cup of coffee a year.</i></b>

<b>Question: Are you accusing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Brussles Commission of harming health?</b>
Those who claim to protect people against minuscule amounts of chemicals in the name of health are not only misguided; they are not only causing more money to be spent; <b><I>they are harming health</i></b> by decreasing the standard of living, let alone making people worry when they have no reason to do so. ---

--- <b>Question: Why is it that this courage, the simple act of speaking the truth, is so rare around Brussels and Washington?</B>
The environmentalists have captured the imagination of many people. I think that a fair view would be that if you look at the presentation of harm in the major media, either in France or in the United States, <b><i>people are frightened by what they are told to be frightened about, over and over again...</i></b>

Polls show that around 40 percent of people believe these lies. This is a matter of concern. There are people, I think, who are predisposed to think <b><I>that small amounts of chemicals are bad because it is repeated to them over and over again.</i></b> Moreover, they are thought to regard saving the environment as a great altruistic gesture. But one cannot be altrustic while being stupid and ignorant.

<b>Question: You denounced the precautionary principle, adopted last year at the Earth Summit in Rio, as being directed against public health. You propose to replace it with the criterion of preponderant evidence for probable harm. </b>
Right. If you say we are going to promote health by using the so-called precautionary principle --that if something could <b><i>possibly</I></b> do harm to people, you are going to rule it out-- you are going into a blind alley.

I will give you an example: it is well known and established all over the world that most murders take place in families, among people who loved each other, or once loved each other. So my advice is that you should never love anybody, because if you do, you increase by some minuscule amount the chance of that they will murder you! This whole thing is ridiculous.

The Romans were dying in their 30s. We are dying in our 70s or even early 80s. Why? Because the Romans believed in doing the same thing over and over again, while we abandoned the precautionary principle and believe in trying new things. They believed in <b><i>possibilities </i></b>; we believe in <b><i>probabilities</b></i>.

If you say something might conceivable be harmful, it can never be ruled out. The results is that you have a tremendous number of false positives. That is to say, most of the times you will be wrong. Some will ask: "What's the matter, as long as you protect health?". The answer is that every time you are wrong, there is a huge expenditure and a great deal of fear. That expenditure reduces the standard of living and there is immense evidence that this reduction leads to lower health.

If you don't agree with this, look at the death rates in very poor countries compared to very rich ones. The whole thing is a swindle. The radicals used to criticize conservatives because the conservatives believe in incrementalism. What the environmentalists are doing is not conservative, it is reactionary. They are saying that if there is something infinitesimal that might cause harm, you should stop. That's the most reactionary doctrine in the world. And it's bad for our health.

(End of the interview).

Originally posted by justagirl
... SINGLE DOSE ... OF <b>10 MG/KG</b> PRODUCES ILLNESS IN SOME BUT NOT ALL SUBJECTS ... WHEN DOSAGE LEVEL WAS <b>16 MG/KG</b> OR GREATER ...
[Hayes, Wayland J., Jr. Pesticides Studied in Man.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...and for about the 4th time I remind you, as long as you debate it is unharmful, I will post more more evidence showing it can be harnful, <b>The debate is at what level and not if is harmful. </b>

Here is what you said he said:
In order to investigate its effects on humans, groups of volunteers were fed daily <b>DDT doses of 35 mg</b>...
--------------------------------------------------------
He clearly shows doses of less than 35mg makes humans sick and That is considered harmful by many of us. How many more of your facts an I going to find like this???

You keep refusing to differentiate between "safe normal levels in the environment", and "toxic levels",

When you read my posts or Dr. Wyland's results, <b>please read them carefully:</b> he gave humans doses of <b>35 mg</b> a day, equivalent to <b>2 mg per kg of body</b> weight --for a 70 kg man.

On the other side, 10 mg/kg (of body weight) that caused toxic effects (although not lethal), is a dose <b>10 times higher</b>, that is, for a man of 70 kg it means <font color="red"><b>a dose of 700 mg</b></font>. And there is a huge difference. You are wrong, and simple mathematics proves it.

If you were one of my students, I would send you back to primary school. You owe the members of the board an apology for you carelessness in your appraisal of scientific data and in your criticisms but, if you apologize, then I will admit you back in my class. :D

Originally posted by Banshee
I would ask you to stop with your facts Edufer. I am getting sick from it. We all know by now that DDT indeed is harmful and that humans get the poison in their bodies without even knowing it. Your statistics and facts have been enough.
(end of message)

Banshee: You got sore because I showed you were talking nonsense in the corn strain issue; then again with the eskimo's prophecies and the incresing of temperature in the Arctic rim from minus 70°F to 20°F. I am glad my post made you sick. Facts are a terrible poison for irrational people, and they get immediately sick at first contact.

So you are going away from the board? Good bye, we'll miss you.

Edufer, this hamster is skeptical of all such statistics. Such numbers are inherently subjective as the estimates include hidden assumptions. The numbers may have been provided by the industries facing regulation to “help” a friendly government agency gather data. A similar problem exists with estimates of the economic costs of pollution provided by environmental groups.

“But my statement about "huge doses of chemicals in animals will always cause cancer" is not misleading.”

Edufer, perhaps this hamster wasn’t clear. You answered this hamster’s question concerning species that do seem to be vulnerable to DDT at levels found in the environment with a statement about testing for carcinogens. That is what this hamster meant by “misleading”. (Still waiting for the answer to the question concerning toxicity related to geckos, cats, bats, crustaceans, and fish.)

This hamster does not believe that "huge doses of chemicals in animals will always cause cancer". Edufer, this hamster will usually disagree with such sweeping statements, even when this hamster would agree with your main point. Most chemicals pass the Ames test. The problem is that many chemicals that fail the Ames test are unlikely to cause cancer in humans. The test suffers from too many false positives. The Ames test should be used as a warning that further tests are needed.

This hamster does not agree with Aaron Wildavsky’s conclusion that:

“First, everybody can see that decade by decade, people are living longer in the United States. That means that we are doing something right. It is not as if we had an epidemic of early deaths. What we want to do is to keep doing what we have been doing and use knowledge of the causes of cancer to reduce its incidence, when we know what we are doing.”

This statement is deceptive. People are living longer in the US for reasons that have nothing to do with cancer. Indeed, as people live longer, cancer becomes a more significant threat. Business as usual is not good policy.

quote

If you were one of my students, I would send you back to primary school. You owe the members of the board an apology for you carelessness in your appraisal of scientific data and in your criticisms but, if you apologize, then I will admit you back in my class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well as you know I wasn't one of your pupils but I live in a country where you can not send a pupil back to primary school for doubting scientific data. In fact, my country encourages it. You can take your request for me to apologize and print it out and re-wallpaper your bedroom with it. In case you haven't noticed it is banned in the United States and it wasn't banned because I said so but because many experts agree with me.

Originally posted by justagirl
... I live in a country where you can not send a pupil back to primary school for doubting scientific data. In fact, my country encourages it. ... In case you haven't noticed it is banned in the United States ... because many experts agree with me.

I encourage my studtents to always doubt in scientific data until they can check factes by themselves. That's a basic axiom in science. I would not, of course send you back to first grade, but will <b>beg you</b> to be more careful in your reading when you analyze and evaluate data in scientific papers. You made a human mistake. That's OK. Remember it was me who linked you to Dr. Wayland Hayes, so I am not worried by what Hayes can say.... In 30 years of dealing with the subject, I have yet to read a scientific paper that <b>proves beyond doubt</b> that DDT is harmfull for people or wildlife, at levels that were found in the environment, then and today.

DDT was banned in the United States because there was a wild unscientific campaign geared to ban the "most useful chemical ever discovered" as stated then by the World Health Organization, and similar claims of being harmless to humans and the environment supported by such people as the U.S. National Academy os Science, the National Cancer Institute, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and ALL scientific organization in the world.

In a future post, I will introduce you to the EPA hearings that led to the DDT ban, so you could see how "scientific" was the decision taken by William Ruckelshaus, chief of the EPA at the time. I will only give you a hint of what will come: when announcing the ban in April 1972, Ruckelshaus said in front of an astonished audience: <b>"This decision has nothing to do with science. It is a political decision".</b>

A new world is about to open in front of your eyes.

That is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it but the fact remains I am entitled to mine as well and I am sick and tired of hearing how right you are and how wrong I am. I never claimed to be an expert in this field as my degree is in Business with minors in History and philosophy from the University of Oklahoma which is just an everage College and I admit that. But truthfully my research into the subject matter on this thread has shown me people from both sides are experts and have a way of accepting the research that they agree with and rejecting the research they don't agree with. I am no different from that and neither are you. But it is our rights to think however we want to and express that in this country (maybe in Argentine you do have the right to tell people they are wrong for believing a certain way) The more I learn about this issue the more upset I become as experts on both sides could care less about the truth and make it impossible for concerned citizens to really "know the real truth" and that's my point of view and why I have decided to start funding many of the agencies that are fighting for cleaner air as I see nothing wrong with it.

Sadly, politics is what really affects the world. Politics listens to people. Not necessarly what is good or bad. When the home folks start massing at the door hollering "Do something!" The politicians do. This is not usually based on science, other than what supports the view that they wish to go in. Welcome to the world of reality.

On the other front of disagreement:

This is why the science methodology is so important. People will argue passionately for their cherished beliefs. You can usually find that which supports your position, no matter where it falls, if you look long and hard enough. (Psst! There are people saying there is no Santa Clause!) Sooner or later comes the revelation that sits it straight. Even then you will find the holdouts that support your position. In the end, though, it will become accepted by the majority when it is provable, demonstratable, repeatable, and testable. Till then, the views are opposite side of the same coin. (Did you hear the earth is flat? Why we could fall off!)

We have some strong feelings going here about what is right, who is right, and what data supports whom. Good luck too all; for it is a little to soon to come down and say, "Yeap, I told you so..."

Oh I agree wet and am very upset with our current system in this country. Our concept behind our government is the best in the world, however, Washington DC has been reduced to large corps funding politicians for favours. I went to work for one of the auto makers in Detroit after I graduated from school and saw first hand how our system works. I was there for many of the years that we fought over CAFE. I was there first hand to see "reports" of how some of our cars and trucks were killing people and how the answer was to deny it and lay the blame elsewhere. It wasn't about right or wrong but about money and I retired at 39 over it. I have no regrets about walking away from big business and and openly admit I am unhappy with our system even though I still feel our concept is the best in the world.

Originally posted by Edufer
*Banshee: You got sore because I showed you were talking nonsense in the corn strain issue; then again with the eskimo's prophecies and the incresing of temperature in the Arctic rim from minus 70°F to 20°F. I am glad my post made you sick. Facts are a terrible poison for irrational people, and they get immediately sick at first contact. *

No, I am getting sick of you Edufer, the 'nonsense' you are talking about, I posted is no nonsense at all! It is a fact. Guess you have to do a little research here and come up with more and better statistics, for I am not going to do it! If necessarry I will write to a aquintance to ask for the info, my emails with everything in it, are gone because of a screw up from the computer. So I lost the email from the woman who talked about this and is working in a lab with genetically engineered food. By the way, just because you say so it is true? Interesting! So you are always right?

What about all the poisoning done by air planes and their chem-trails. People get literally sick from the parts that fall down on Earth. Land goes bad and trees, grass and other vegetation grows no longer at certain places. Birds lose their habitats where they used to go in winter because of all the changes in weather and temperature. How you think that's possible? Because of all the pollution humans invented over the years. It is not only so in the U$ no. The U$ is the biggest pollutioner in the world though. Why did they skip the Kyoto Convention? The Shadow Cabinet from bush does more behind the scenes then only their war planning on the war on terrorism. It is outrageous what is happening.

Diseases like cancer and AIDS are diseases without a solution. There are medicine for it yes. It is not curable though. Autistic birth rates have increased by 80% over the last decades and so on and so on. It is just a subject you can discuss for years and years and years. We better find a solution to stop it, if it is stoppable! Guess it's gone too far already. Pollution and human diseases in this society are all a result of this society. Every time a 'solution' is found for one disease, another disease shows up.

Humans have far too much garbage in their bodies and the bodies don't cure themself any more. You know, a human body is capable of overcoming illnesses. It's all destroyed by this consumption civilization and their 'inventions'. You can call me irrational, I don't care. I know what I know and I deal with it in my own way. I see what is happening to the Earth and it makes me sad and sick yes. I don't need statistics for that. Don't need to go back to school either. And I certainly don't have to agree with someone else just because he/she shows up with some statistics! Not all is given by statistics.

It are the governments that have to act here, for there's done a lot of damage by them. The people have to act more together in this, against the decisions made by the government. Guess it is easier to lay back and let it come as it comes. The easy way out. Everyone thinks, "Oh, it will last my life-time." And so the world turns on and gets darker and darker...

Before going into the gloomy details surrounding the DDT ban, let us keep in mind some statements by reknown scientists:

<b>Dr. Dixie Lee Ray</b>, a marine biologist, former head of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, former governor of the state of Washington,, assistant secretary of state in the U.S. Bureau of Oceans, she was a the recipient of many awards of honor, including the United Nations Peace Prize:

<i>"The idea of saving lives and providing for population growth upsets a lot of people ... DDT prevented more human death and disease than any other man-made chemical in all recorded history. ... If we were to believe the statements of some people, including several well known biologists, that was just the problem. DDT saved human lives".</i>

<b>Dr. Edwad G. Remmers</b>, vice president of the American Council for Science & Health:

<i>"There is no evidence that DDT causes adverse human health effects when used as intended ... Most of those opposing DDT today have a strong anti-science, anti-population orientation, calling either for zero population growth or a reduction to 1 billion persons globally. To these individuals the restricetd availability of DDT furthers their intended policy of genocide." </i>

<b>Dr. J. Gordon Edwards</b>, professor of entomology at San Jose State University in California. One of the many scientists that gave scientific testimony at the hearings held by EPA back in 1971-72.

<i>"DDT saved millions of human lifes during the past 25 years, by controlling the insects that transmit disease to people--the mosquitoes that gives us malaria, yellow fever, encephalitis, dengue, esquitosmomiasis, and elephantiasis, the lice that transmit typhus, the flea vectors of plague, and the tse-tse flies that spread African sleeping sickness and nagana."

"...DDT permitted people to occupy and produce food in large areas of Africa, India and Asia that were formerly unihabitable because of disease-bearing insects and other arthropds ... DDT and other pesticides contributed heaviliy to the spectacular agricultural success in the United States and abroad, boosting farm productivity, raising farm income and keeping food costs low."

"In view of these biological and humanitarian considerations, Rachel Carson, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund might have campaigned successfully for the construction of a great monument to DDT ... Their activities doomed millions of acres of forest, ruined the natural habitat by permitting needless devastation of natural vegetation, depleted agricultural productivity, and doomed hundreds of millions of people to death from insect-borne disiease, malnutrition and starvation."</i>

<b>Dr. Albert Schweitzer</b>, to whom Rachel Carson cleverly dedicated his book <i>Silent Spring</i>, "To Albert Schweitzer, who said 'Man has lost the capacity of foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the Earth". Carson suggested that Schweitzer was opposed to pesticides. But on page 262 of his autobiography, the great humanitarian wrote:

<i>"How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us ... <b>but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us..."</b> </i>

In my next post you'll find the loathsome details of the DDT ban (that can also be read in the <i>Congressional Record</i>, July 24th, 1972, pp. S11545-46, introduced by Senator Goldwater).

<center><font size="6" color="red"><B>THE DDT BAN</B></font></center>

<B>BACKGROUND</B>

In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book that falsely alleged that DDT was causing great harm to humans, beneficial animals, and the environment. The hysteria generated by Carson and her disciples forced bans of DDT that have resulted in hundreds of millions of human deaths--and human suffering beyond the hability of statistics to reveal.

A resolution was approved by a large number of concerned scientists at the 22nd session of the WHO Assembly in southeast Asia in 1969 urging manufacturers of DDT to "continue producing the life-saving insecticide so they continue to protect citizens from malaria". A ban on the product in the United states, they said, would deny the use of DDT to most of the malarious areas of the world.

During the 1950s and 1060s, the world's major source of DDT was the Montrose Chemical Company in Torrance, California. If that production were to be shut down, the environmentalists realized, there would be a worldwide shortage of DDT and the malaria eradication effort would fail. Soon, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a private environmentalists think tank, and his cohorts in the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) engaged in a mssive, expensive court fight against DDT in 1971. The "trial" on DDT lasted for nearly seven months , and the transcript of the testimony filled more than 9,000 pages.

<center>
<Font color="red" size="6"><b>THE HEARINGS</b></font>
</center>
The Judge appointed as EPA hearing examiner was Edmund Sweeney. He was even-handed, which provoked the fury of the environmentalists. Sweeney was attacked by <i>The New York Times</i> and <i>Science</I>, neither of which sent a reporter to the hearings at any time. The heaiings lasted for nearly seven months, during which 125 witnesses were heard and 9,262 pages of testimony were recorded.

The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, issued his resommended findings, conclusions, and orders, on April 25, 1972. His concluions of law included:

<font color="red"><b>"DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man ... The uses of DDT under the registrations involved here does not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife ... The adverse effect on beneficial animals from the use of DDT under the registration involved here is not unreasonable on balance with its benefits ... There is a present need for the continued use of DDT for the essential uses defined in this case."</b></font>

He went on stating: <i>"To be considered in the determination of the fate of the ... registration ... there has to be a preponderant showing that the present uses cause an unreasonable adverse effect. <b>The showing has not been made</i></b>."

These pronouncements were greeted with hostility by <i>The New York Times</i> in an editorial on April 29, 1972, headlined: "<b>Apologist for DDT</b>": "<i>Mr. Sweeney has come to his task with no knowledge of pesticides, no understanding of environmental problems ... The hearing examiner has now issued the kind of report that desreves to carry very little weight with EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus who is in no way bound by Sweeney recommendation. He can and <b>surely will read</b> the testimony for himself."</I>

No way! William Ruckelshaus, the <b>attorney</b> who was then EPA adminstrator, with no knowledge of science or pesticides whatsoever, <b>never attended a single day of the hearings, and admitted he did not even read the transcripts</b> He unilaterally overturned the conclusions and findings of his own hearing examiner, rejected the scientific evidence presented at the hearings, ignored recommendations from scientists and health organization all over the world, and single-handedly banned DDT, effective Jan. 1st, 1973, on his speech of June 2, 11972, saying:
<blockquote><b>DDT is concentrated in organisms and transferred through food webs ... the accumulation in the food chain and crop residues results in human exposure. Human beings store DDT. The above facts constitute an unknown unquantifiable risk to man and lower organisms".</b>
</blockquote>
Despite the scientific evidence, the political campaign to ban DDT changed public perception on this substance from that of a safe and effective insecticide to a deadly poison.

<CENTER><FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="RED"><B>THE DDT BAN HERITAGE</B></FONT> </CENTER>

The DDT ban was the Mother of Bans. It opened the Pandora's Box and the door to junk science, and this door has been kept that way since. William Ruckelshaus, the lawyer, was replaced as EPA Administrator by Russel Train, this time <b>a tax attorney</b>, who was equally unqualified to rule on scientific issues. After pledging not to take precipituos actions against pesticides without giving Congress advance notification, Train surprised even his own staff by calling a Christmas Eve press conference to announce his intention of banning chlordane.

A suit by environmental groups urged that dieldrin also be banned. On March 28, 1972, the EPA Advisory Committee unanimously recommended <b<not to ban dieldrin </b> That recommendation echoed the conclusions of the following authorities: the U.S. Food and Drug Administratin (FDA) committee (1965); the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council committee (1965); the Gunther Committee (1967); the USDA Agricultural Research Science committee (1969); the Wilson Committee of the British Department of Education and Science (1969); the Mrak Commission of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1969); and the World Health Organization Food and Agriculture committee (1970). None of these scientific authorities influienced Russel Train, who personally disagreed with them and took upon himself to ban dieldrin.

<center><b>The EPA Redefines Cancer</b></center>

To carry out his political goals, Train next redefined the medical term "<b>cancer</b>", lumping together benign tumors and malignant cancers so that even temporary and harmless swellings could thereafter be referred as "cancer". Invoking the sloppily worded Delaney Clause of the Food and Drug Act, Train could then easily ban <b>any chemical</b> that fit his definition of "cancer". The actual wording of the Delaney Clause is as follows:
<blockquote>
"That no additive shall be deemed safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found, after tests <b>which are appropriate</b> for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animals".
</blockquote>
The shortcomings of the clause are obvious. What is a food additive? How can it be "found to induce cancer" when ingested? What tests are "<b>appropriate</b> for the evaluation of the food additives", and who decides? A perfect example of a carcinogenic chemical that would have to be banned under this clause is common table salt.

Under the Delaney Clause, the FDA was to have the <i>"scientific discretion to decide whether the food additive has in fact been shown to cause cancer".</i> Instead, the nonscientific EPA took over this function, and then used their own non-medical redefinition of "cancer".

<center><Bizarre Testing Standards</B></center>

The Greatest difficulties with the EPA bans, however, have been the absence of any rulings on what tests are <b>"appropriate"</b> for food additives and the position of that insecticides that are used only to protect people from the pests are "food additives"!. A report by concerned government scientists urged that "no bizarre tests" should be the basis for banning an additive. In the case of government tests on saccharin, obviously it was bizarre to force-feed rodents as much saccharin <b<every day</b> of their lives as a human would ingest in 500 cans of diet cola.

Injecting concentrated chemicals into the blood and pumping pure chemicals directly into the stomachs of neonatal mice <b>are certainly bizarre and inappropriate, too.</b> Routinely, animals in all tests were fed the "maximum tolerated dosages" of chemicals (that is, any higher dosages would be acutely toxic and would quickly kill them). Dosages that high would give misleading results because they would overwhelm the normal protective responses of the body.

Another key point is that DDT and chlordane are not food additives, nor were most of the other chemicals that were banned on the base of the Delaney Clause. These are just a few of the reasons that scientists have so bitterly opposed the misapplication of the Delaney Clause. Although it has been under attack by scientists for decades, it is still in place, and the faulty definition of "cancer" is still relied upon by the attorneys who run the EPA.

<center><b>Murky Ties</b></center>

On May 15, 1975, and EPA radio broadcast claimed that "hundreds of thousand of American farm workers are injured every year by pesticides", and "that hundreds of them die annually". That fabricatioon came from a 1970 statement by a spokesman for farm worker organizer <b>Cesar Chavez</b>. (This kind of fabrication is taken by environmental sympathizers and routinely posted in forums like this one.) After strong objections from scientists and health officials, the EPA apologized, saying: <b>"We used those statements in good faith, thinking they were accurate, and they turned out not to be accurate ... they cannot possibly be sustained."</b>

Nevertheless, Train's EPA used that very claim as the excuse to inaugurate a "hot line" that anyone could call, toll-free, to anonymously report the misuse of pesticides. The <i>New York Times,</i> via the Freedom of Information Act, discovered that the toll-free number was not an EPA number, but was in Chavez's National Farmworkers' Information Clearing House. The Times also learned that it was financed by the U.S. Labor Department via Antioch College of Ohio. The reports were used ot initiate legal suits against the offenders and to make huge profits. As a lawyer, Train knew where the money is, and how to get it. After violent congressional criticism, the "hot line" was finally shut down.

Russel Train left the EPA in 1977 and joined the board of directors of the <b>Union Carbide Corportation</b> (he was no too enthusiastical in his intention to <i>"protect the environment and public health"</i> there: remember the explosion of Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, India? Good!) Later, he became president of the <b>World Wildlife Fund</b>, which is now the Worldwide Fund for Nature, (Prince Philip's battle horse against overpopulation), where his salary far exceeds $100,000 annually and his gift for untruthful propaganda has free rein.

Why is this so important? Simply because it reveals the nature of the leadership and the methods of operation of the insanely powerful EPA. Can responsible public health, agriculture, or industry long survive under an EPA whose capricious zeal so greatly surpasses its expertise?

More than a week passed since my last post. What happened? Don't tell me you all have been left without further arguments...