If you support the ban on DDT, you're guilty of genocide. Here's why.

Rather than me tell you again and again, and hearing the same old foolish and discredited arguments from the same old discredited people, here's a good summary of why and how DDT was banned, what the science was and is, and why to this day DDT hasn't given a single person cancer or stopped a single bird breeding. Check it out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauld...n_and_counting

And here is a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004 explaining how the socalled science was cooked:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Prepare to be astounded, even stunned, by a truth so diametrically opposed to the myth you believe.

For a start, the beatified Rachel Carson is the patron saint of a monstrous genocide.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Claudius Germanicus

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Rather than me tell you again and again, and hearing the same old foolish and discredited arguments from the same old discredited people, here's a good summary of why and how DDT was banned, what the science was and is, and why to this day DDT hasn't given a single person cancer or stopped a single bird breeding. Check it out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauld...n_and_counting

And here is a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004 explaining how the socalled science was cooked:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Prepare to be astounded, even stunned, by a truth so diametrically opposed to the myth you believe.

For a start, the beatified Rachel Carson is the patron saint of a monstrous genocide.


I was at SJSU when Edwards was doing his DDT eating schtick and pursuing his lawsuit against the Audubon Society. And that journal, groan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associ...s_and_Surgeons

My entomology professor at SJSU was Ron Stecker. Equally well-regarded and far less political. There are many similar scientists who are able to look at the data and make reasonable public health decisions -- and to review decisions made many years earlier in light of scientific developments. Even the EPA rule is capable of being challenged based on new science. Apparently, nobody in the last 45 years thought that it was a worthy challenge.

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

Amazing, DDT kills everything thing then Jute the rich Euro distiller of poison shows up to write DDT is good for you.

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 6:01:52 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Rather than me tell you again and again, and hearing the same old foolish and discredited arguments from the same old discredited people, here's a good summary of why and how DDT was banned, what the science was and is, and why to this day DDT hasn't given a single person cancer or stopped a single bird breeding. Check it out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauld...n_and_counting

And here is a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004 explaining how the socalled science was cooked:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Prepare to be astounded, even stunned, by a truth so diametrically opposed to the myth you believe.

For a start, the beatified Rachel Carson is the patron saint of a monstrous genocide.


I was at SJSU when Edwards was doing his DDT eating schtick and pursuing his lawsuit against the Audubon Society. And that journal, groan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associ...s_and_Surgeons

Sneer all you like; it's what you do when you can't answer a single point. Ruckelshaus agreed with Edwards: two years before he outlawed DDT, Ruckelshaus (August 31, 1970 U.S. Court of Appeals hearing) stated unequivocally that “DDT has an amazing, an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation.� After exhaustive hearings and 9000 pages of reports, Ruckelshaus's appointee, EPA Hearing Examiner Sweeney, ruled that DDT should not be banned, based on the scientific evidence: “DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to man [and] these uses of DDT do not have a deleterious effect on fish, birds, wildlife, or estuarine organisms,� Sweeney concluded. Ruckelshaus banned DDT all the same. He admitted that he made the decision for “political� reasons. “Science, along with economics, has a role to play . .. .. [but] the ultimate decision remains political,� Ruckelshaus said.

That sequence, and further actions to enforce it worldwide, make the American government and people the chief instigators of a monstrous genocide. Your sophistry in another thread is simply a lie: "Not true. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/...ct/19901148796 The World Bank has also supported DDT programs in Madagascar and Eritrea, among other places. Even WHO is recommending it in some countries for interior treatment of structures. You can get your fill of DDT in these countries: http://www.pops.int/documents/registers/ddt.htm Noncomplying countries no longer qualify for GEF funds, which makes sense since GEF funds are to assist countries in complying with the Stockholm Convention, but there is no other enforcement mechanism. As indicated above, countries can opt out and a number have opted out."

Lovely bit of footwork there, Jay. With a generation dead and disabled, the World Bank gave them some ineffective nets. Meanwhile... "The U.S. decision had a rapid effect in the developing sector, where the US State Department ***made U.S. aid contingent on countries not using any pesticide that was banned in the United States***. The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support for DDT spraying programs.... Other Western nations—Sweden and Norway, for example—also pressured recipient nations to stop the use of DDT. Belize abandoned DDT in 1999, because Mexico, under pressure from the United States and NAFTA, had stopped the manufacture of DDT, which was Belize’s source. Purchases of replacement insecticides would take up nearly 90 percent of Belize’s malaria control budget. Mozambique stopped the use of DDT, “because 80 percent of the country’s health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT,� reported the British Medical Journal (March 11, 2000)." By now it is 40 years on and the avoidable death count is between 220 million and 3 billion, with 500 million new cases a year.. Despite all this, In 1995, despite the official documentation of increases in malaria cases and malaria deaths, the United Nations Environment Program began an effort to make the ban on DDT worldwide. UNEP proposed to institute “legally binding� international controls banning what are called “persistent organic pollutants� or POPs, including DDT."

But you say they can spray DDT all they like, nothing to do with the United States.

My entomology professor at SJSU was Ron Stecker. Equally well-regarded and far less political. There are many similar scientists who are able to look at the data and make reasonable public health decisions -- and to review decisions made many years earlier in light of scientific developments. Even the EPA rule is capable of being challenged based on new science. Apparently, nobody in the last 45 years thought that it was a worthy challenge.

Wow. There was no science in the decision, only lies and politics, as I demonstrated above from the mouths of the main parties. There certainly is no need for new science being developed while millions more die: we know DDT works; we know it isn't dangerous to anyone except pests. The EPA regulation was not challenged because no American politician had the balls to take on the environmental lobby to right a monstrous wrong perpetrated in the large and in detail, as I've just demonstrated, by Americans and the American government, for the most despicable of reasons, appearances: “If the environmentalists win on DDT,� Environmental Defense Fund scientist Charles Wurster told the Seattle Times, “they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.� (From http://townhall.com/columnists/pauld...n_and_counting ) On the contrary to your quaint belief that the US has nothing to do with this genocide, in 2002, while the UN's total ban treaty was still in the Senate, President Bush endorsed the U.S. signing on to the POPs Convention.

Are you surprised that billions of people hate America and Americans?

Andre Jute
Meanwhile the American government concerns itself for years about which men can pee in the Ladies' lavatory

Exactly !

Yhat's why no one comes here, DDT is illegal.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311081/

On 12/20/2016 8:45 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Rather than me tell you again and again, and hearing the same old foolish and discredited arguments from the same old discredited people, here's a good summary of why and how DDT was banned, what the science was and is, and why to this day DDT hasn't given a single person cancer or stopped a single bird breeding. Check it out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauld...n_and_counting

And here is a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004 explaining how the socalled science was cooked:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Prepare to be astounded, even stunned, by a truth so diametrically opposed to the myth you believe.

For a start, the beatified Rachel Carson is the patron saint of a monstrous genocide.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Claudius Germanicus


Much like the modern slave trade, otherwise sensible people
stick their fingers in their ears at mention of the DDT debacle.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Rather than me tell you again and again, and hearing the same old foolish and discredited arguments from the same old discredited people, here's a good summary of why and how DDT was banned, what the science was and is, and why to this day DDT hasn't given a single person cancer or stopped a single bird breeding. Check it out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauld...n_and_counting

And here is a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004 explaining how the socalled science was cooked:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Prepare to be astounded, even stunned, by a truth so diametrically opposed to the myth you believe.

For a start, the beatified Rachel Carson is the patron saint of a monstrous genocide.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Claudius Germanicus

Andre - I think that you're beating a dead horse. The environmentalists smelled power and are hardly likely to relinquish it without putting the fear of God in them so great that they can't even speak.

It is like the anti-vaccination crowd. In the absence of disease there is the infinitesimal chance of negative reactions to vaccinations that is more likely than the disease. But the reason there is an absence of the disease is because of the vaccinations. They are incapable of understanding this circular reasoning.

We used to also pour oil on the dead waters in which mosquitoes breed and that too has been outlawed. Death of others to liberals mean nothing. Only their own idealism TAUGHT to them by incompetent teachers.

On 12/21/2016 12:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Rather than me tell you again and again, and hearing the same old foolish and discredited arguments from the same old discredited people, here's a good summary of why and how DDT was banned, what the science was and is, and why to this day DDT hasn't given a single person cancer or stopped a single bird breeding. Check it out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauld...n_and_counting

And here is a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004 explaining how the socalled science was cooked:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Prepare to be astounded, even stunned, by a truth so diametrically opposed to the myth you believe.

For a start, the beatified Rachel Carson is the patron saint of a monstrous genocide.


I was at SJSU when Edwards was doing his DDT eating schtick and pursuing his lawsuit against the Audubon Society. And that journal, groan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associ...s_and_Surgeons

My entomology professor at SJSU was Ron Stecker. Equally well-regarded and far less political. There are many similar scientists who are able to look at the data and make reasonable public health decisions -- and to review decisions made many years earlier in light of scientific developments. Even the EPA rule is capable of being challenged based on new science. Apparently, nobody in the last 45 years thought that it was a worthy challenge.

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.


When I first talked with Africans many years ago and then
pursued the subject, I was aghast at the complete
discounting of actual research and statistics in favor of a
political witch hunt. No one here abjures actual science
(rare though it may be now) but when Rachel Carson, a
virtual Lysenko, was able to set public agenda despite the
facts, scientific inquiry was not well served nor human
culture in general IMHO.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 1:06:24 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 6:01:52 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Rather than me tell you again and again, and hearing the same old foolish and discredited arguments from the same old discredited people, here's a good summary of why and how DDT was banned, what the science was and is, and why to this day DDT hasn't given a single person cancer or stopped a single bird breeding. Check it out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauld...n_and_counting

And here is a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004 explaining how the socalled science was cooked:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

Prepare to be astounded, even stunned, by a truth so diametrically opposed to the myth you believe.

For a start, the beatified Rachel Carson is the patron saint of a monstrous genocide.


I was at SJSU when Edwards was doing his DDT eating schtick and pursuing his lawsuit against the Audubon Society. And that journal, groan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associ...s_and_Surgeons

Sneer all you like; it's what you do when you can't answer a single point.. Ruckelshaus agreed with Edwards: two years before he outlawed DDT, Ruckelshaus (August 31, 1970 U.S. Court of Appeals hearing) stated unequivocally that “DDT has an amazing, an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation.� After exhaustive hearings and 9000 pages of reports, Ruckelshaus's appointee, EPA Hearing Examiner Sweeney, ruled that DDT should not be banned, based on the scientific evidence: “DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to man [and] these uses of DDT do not have a deleterious effect on fish, birds, wildlife, or estuarine organisms,� Sweeney concluded. Ruckelshaus banned DDT all the same. He admitted that he made the decision for “political� reasons. “Science, along with economics, has a role to play . .. .. [but] the ultimate decision remains political,� Ruckelshaus said.

That sequence, and further actions to enforce it worldwide, make the American government and people the chief instigators of a monstrous genocide. Your sophistry in another thread is simply a lie: "Not true. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/...ct/19901148796 The World Bank has also supported DDT programs in Madagascar and Eritrea, among other places. Even WHO is recommending it in some countries for interior treatment of structures. You can get your fill of DDT in these countries: http://www.pops.int/documents/registers/ddt.htm Noncomplying countries no longer qualify for GEF funds, which makes sense since GEF funds are to assist countries in complying with the Stockholm Convention, but there is no other enforcement mechanism. As indicated above, countries can opt out and a number have opted out."

Lovely bit of footwork there, Jay. With a generation dead and disabled, the World Bank gave them some ineffective nets. Meanwhile... "The U.S. decision had a rapid effect in the developing sector, where the US State Department ***made U.S. aid contingent on countries not using any pesticide that was banned in the United States***. The U.S. Agency for International Development discontinued its support for DDT spraying programs.... Other Western nations—Sweden and Norway, for example—also pressured recipient nations to stop the use of DDT. Belize abandoned DDT in 1999, because Mexico, under pressure from the United States and NAFTA, had stopped the manufacture of DDT, which was Belize’s source. Purchases of replacement insecticides would take up nearly 90 percent of Belize’s malaria control budget. Mozambique stopped the use of DDT, “because 80 percent of the country’s health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT,� reported the British Medical Journal (March 11, 2000)." By now it is 40 years on and the avoidable death count is between 220 million and 3 billion, with 500 million new cases a year. Despite all this, In 1995, despite the official documentation of increases in malaria cases and malaria deaths, the United Nations Environment Program began an effort to make the ban on DDT worldwide. UNEP proposed to institute “legally binding� international controls banning what are called “persistent organic pollutants� or POPs, including DDT."

But you say they can spray DDT all they like, nothing to do with the United States.

My entomology professor at SJSU was Ron Stecker. Equally well-regarded and far less political. There are many similar scientists who are able to look at the data and make reasonable public health decisions -- and to review decisions made many years earlier in light of scientific developments. Even the EPA rule is capable of being challenged based on new science. Apparently, nobody in the last 45 years thought that it was a worthy challenge.

Wow. There was no science in the decision, only lies and politics, as I demonstrated above from the mouths of the main parties. There certainly is no need for new science being developed while millions more die: we know DDT works; we know it isn't dangerous to anyone except pests. The EPA regulation was not challenged because no American politician had the balls to take on the environmental lobby to right a monstrous wrong perpetrated in the large and in detail, as I've just demonstrated, by Americans and the American government, for the most despicable of reasons, appearances: “If the environmentalists win on DDT,� Environmental Defense Fund scientist Charles Wurster told the Seattle Times, “they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.� (From http://townhall..com/columnists/paul...n_and_counting ) On the contrary to your quaint belief that the US has nothing to do with this genocide, in 2002, while the UN's total ban treaty was still in the Senate, President Bush endorsed the U.S. signing on to the POPs Convention.

It was never ratified. http://chm.pops.int/Countries/Status...0/Default.aspx It is not the treaty law in the United States.


Are you surprised that billions of people hate America and Americans?

US Agencies do not have the kind of global authority you imagine. Federal regulations come, and federal regulations go -- all the time. Suits against the EPA keep the DC Circuit busy.

Which billions hate Americans? I'll send them Christmas cards and apologize for our global domination through one EPA regulation. I'll also apologize for sending them billions of US taxpayer dollars, directly or indirectly.

-- Jay Beattie.

P.S. My grandfather, William C. Steere, save more from malaria than your grandfather. http://botany.si.edu/colls/expeditio...m?ExpedName=17