tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post5116363556394245905..comments2024-03-22T10:01:39.458-04:00Comments on Paradigms and Demographics: DDT and Chlordane Killed By Politics, Not ScienceRich Kozlovichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13745960671409518147noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post-86662341473534515572014-10-20T13:36:46.576-04:002014-10-20T13:36:46.576-04:00P.S. there would not be an American Cancer Society...P.S. there would not be an American Cancer Society if they released a cure. Which does exist by the way. Because cures are not profitable. You probably trust big pharma too. Treating problems is where the big $ are, not solving them. Follow the money. The American Cancer Society wants to continue existing and collecting millions $, so why would they like a cure.... Think about it.Juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12316077716852992767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post-23220228162026915872014-10-20T13:25:22.184-04:002014-10-20T13:25:22.184-04:00Wrong Ed Darrell. The American Council on Science...Wrong Ed Darrell. The American Council on Science and Health in 1998, Harvard and numerous other studies and reports cleared DDT of any safety issue to humans, animals or aquatic life. DDT was a scapegoat to the leftist eugenics crowd setting a precedent for EPA power to control the People. Ruckleshaus admitted that he banned DDT for political reasons while ignoring the facts that DDT was harmless.<br /><br />DDT saved WWII vets. and citizens in Italy during 1943. It saved holocaust survivors infested with lice and fleas from dying. People fed it to their children in the late 1940's that had intestinal worms. Gordon Edwards ate DDT for years.<br />Rachael Carson was a nutcase who wrote a novel based on a gothic tale. Robin populations flourished during DDT use and had healthier clutches. Bird shell thickness was a problem before DDT was ever sprayed. You know too much that is wrong.<br />DDT was exhaustively tested for years for safety, and there is not one single case of it causing cancer or any other illness in a human, animal, or fish. You are in denial my friend. Read truth instead of fiction.Juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12316077716852992767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2556326304729519232.post-34758554954693067572008-12-30T09:31:00.000-05:002008-12-30T09:31:00.000-05:00If we fail to understand the question, we'll get t...If we fail to understand the question, we'll get the answers wrong most of the time.<BR/><BR/>First, DDT was banned because it kills wildlife and destroys entire ecosystems. The "ban" stopped only broadcast spraying of DDT in the U.S., generally agricultural use. There was a specific waiver for emergency use and to protect health (which was used at least once in the U.S.). <BR/><BR/>There is no study that shows DDT can be rendered harmless, but hundreds of studies that show its harmful effects multiply as it bioaccumulates up the food chain. DDT is death on a stick for top predators, especially birds like the bald eagle, osprey, brown pelican and peregrine falcon. Ending broadcast DDT use in the U.S. allowed the recovery of the bald eagle, and its removal from the endangered species list.<BR/><BR/>I don't know where Katz gets the idea that DDT is not carcinogenic. Repeated studies have found it carcinogenic, though weakly so in large mammals (like humans). DDT is a known mammal carcinogen, and it is listed as a "probable carcinogen" in humans by every cancer fighting agency on Earth. Katz may not realize he's calling the American Cancer Society liars, but he is. Frankly, I trust the Cancer Society more -- their record fighting cancer is longer and deeper.<BR/><BR/>EPA regulations don't consider benign tumors to be cancers. There is no regulation on any toxic that comes close to that description. EPA banned DDT because it wipes out ecosystems. Actually, the "ban" involved only a change in registration for the stuff, prohibiting broadcast spraying of DDT on agricultural crops. Broadcast spraying had already caused cataclysms by the middle 1960s. Mosquitoes were resistant to it -- bedbugs were immune, having first shown strong resistance to DDT as early as 1948. The idea was to stop the overuse of DDT.<BR/><BR/>This statement is false: "DDT was banned because EPA thought it was carcinogenic to humans." If we repeat that statement often enough, even good people will believe it to be true. There is a robust campaign to spread that falsehood, and it has achieved some success.<BR/><BR/>But the science against DDT is strong, and it doesn't involve cancers in humans. <BR/><BR/>Truth wins in a fair fight, Ben Franklin observed. Let's scrupulously preserve fairness in scientific debates about the use of poisons to produce our food, fiber and health.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.com