|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 13:17:57 GMT 1
That may be an over simplification No it wasn't. I showed that there are numerous scientific studies that show that mosquitoes became resitant to DDT. I also showed that this resistance is actually used to illustrate the theory of natural selection in text books. You linked to wikipedia Not really the same level of argument now is it? I was responding to a post that was suggesting that eco-hippies had led to the death of millions of people by demonstrating the science (after all - this is a science board) However, as you seem to like wikipedia, how about this " Resistance has greatly reduced DDT's effectiveness. WHO guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before using the chemical.[85] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use, in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, " it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[19] Resistance was noted early in spray campaigns. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that " resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years." [17] DDT has lost much of its effectiveness in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, and it has largely been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb.[86]" from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Mosquito_resistance (my emphasis in bold)
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 13:49:13 GMT 1
Now, read it again properly....I accept Your apology in advance, it pays to re-read stuff to try to extract the real meaning. The 'current rates' bit refers to it's continued agricultural use. Notwithstanding all that, failure to take into account other factors in life [after all that is what we are dealing with] along with science, luckily, this time, has only let to a message confrontation, not death for some dismissed thousands.
"largely been replaced by organophosphate" Yeah, I saw that too, but didn't want to expand the argument too far.....
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 14:00:44 GMT 1
Responding to this post The eco-hippies did better than taxing mossie nets, they got DDT banned. Estimated body count - 2 million per year. Marvellous. I have shown that Mosquitoes were becoming resitant to DDT long before the ban* and so the above post is not factual. I have shown this by linking to scientific reports and wikipedia for those that like that as a source. Is there really any more to say on this subject? [BTW - this is not a worldwide ban and the World Health Organisation still recommends use of DDT in areas where the mosquitoes have not yet developed a resistance - once again showing the above post by rsmith7 to be untrue]
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 22:30:06 GMT 1
Look as though the eco loonies is not far wrong..... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/1118344.stm'Her [Mrs Carson] warnings about the hazards of DDT to animal wildlife turned DDT into a villain and a threat to human health. A controversy which now seems ludicrously overblown, developed between fishermen and eaters of fish. The fishermen wanted more DDT sprayed on fish and the people who came to be known as greens demanded none at all. The Food and Drug Administration stepped in and after severe testing announced that fish sold in the United States contained less than one part per million of DDT and was no conceivable threat to human life. By that time the progressives - the animal rights advocates and the greens - were allied into a regiment which began to suspect almost any chemical that came near food. '
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 22:37:39 GMT 1
Stuart - that is an opinion piece, not a scientific report. The internet is awash with them, on both sides of any argument. As this is a science board, I think sticking to science is a better way to approach debate.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 22:51:19 GMT 1
Havelock, It's an account of what happened, an history by A Cook. It doesn't need to be scientific, it's events dear boy, events. No test tubes were involved in the writing of this piece. The web may well be awash, this is a decent one.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 22:55:18 GMT 1
Here You are then, put this one up again, in the right place this time....
'And this from a chap that believed 'eco-hippies got DDT banned and caused 2 million deaths a year' DDT is banned for agricultural use - not against malaria outbreaks/ mosquitoes. A very easy fact to check.'
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 22:57:48 GMT 1
Sorry Stuart but it is still only one (media) person's view of events, even if it was written at the time. It doesn't make it factually correct. Look at some of the stuff our current media produce - why should this one carry any weight on a science board?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 23:05:01 GMT 1
"Look at some of the stuff our current media produce - why should this one carry any weight on a science board" You seem happy to quote IPCC/BBC/Guardian tripe. Double standards old sprout?? I'll accept your apology now since stuart has illuminated matters. Or are you such a graceless oik that you cannot admit your mistake.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 23:13:15 GMT 1
I have not linked to IPCC, BBC, Guardian or any other media to illustrate any point. I have been very careful not to do so to avoid any accusation of bias.
Your accusation of double standards and name-calling do not further the debate and are, I think, what is known as a 'distraction technique'
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait
You were wrong when you said DDT had been banned and has led to 2 million deaths a year and I showed that you were wrong, something you find difficult to accept.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 23:42:35 GMT 1
Nope, I'll blunder along quite happily being corrected. Part of the learning process. You constantly link to "environmental" websites. You're a little green lobbyist aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 23:48:35 GMT 1
"You were wrong when you said DDT had been banned and has led to 2 million deaths a year and I showed that you were wrong, something you find difficult to accept." "Worldwide, an estimated 200 million to 300 million malaria infections occur each year, with 2 million to 3 million deaths." "The eco-hippies did better than taxing mossie nets, they got DDT banned. Estimated body count - 2 million per year. They did get it banned, TOTALLY at the time. I was a kid, I even had a flit gun, the one with the soldier on. StuartG
Marvellous."
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 23:51:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 1, 2010 12:06:00 GMT 1
Third world socialist countries have a very high birth rate. Not true - Cuba has a very low birth rate 10.3 births per 1000 population per year (UK is at 12) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rateMany of the former Soviet Block countries have birth rates less than 10 too whilst many Scandinavian countries (known for the socialist tendancies such as Finland and Sweden) have rates less than the UK and America.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 1, 2010 12:20:42 GMT 1
Third world socialist countries have a very high birth rate. Not true - Cuba has a very low birth rate 10.3 births per 1000 population per year (UK is at 12) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rateMany of the former Soviet Block countries have birth rates less than 10 too whilst many Scandinavian countries (known for the socialist tendancies such as Finland and Sweden) have rates less than the UK and America. Is Cuba a third world country I would think not Third world countries are perhaps characterised by the absence of infrastructure and typical pointers might include the absence of: Universal education universal health care Public health systems (sewerage, clean water) the absence o famines at regular intervals Lack of any suport for the impoverished Half-decent housing for the poor (large sprawling squalid slums of shanty-towns are commonplace) Extreme gaps between the wealthiest and poorest I would think that Cuba does not meet many, if any of these indicators of third-worldness
|
|