U$ ecology dramatically altered by fertilizers and acid rain...

Animal tests

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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...

 

An introduction to the Political side of the DDT ban

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?

 

Hey! Is anybody out there?

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