It’s spring, and nutcase fancies turn to thoughts of slandering Rachel Carson and making unholy noises toward environmentalists.
Here’s one nutcase who engages in that peculiar nutcase practice of completely rewriting posts of commenters — claims to be Graeme Bird; is he really running for office? His claim is that lack of DDT is causing the spread of dengue in Queensland, Australia. He won’t be swayed by reason or fact (of course — his avatar is a photo of confirmed liar Joe McCarthy). He asks “how many have died,” but is unhappy with the official answer (one, but that’s not clear — an older woman in poor health). Nor does he appear to have any sense of irony that drought-stricken Australia has a plague of mosquitoes due to recent rains. Nor does he appear to understand that dengue is an imported disease in Australia, imported by a traveler, it appears.
Australian officials ask people to drain water from pots, old tires (“tyres” downunder), rain gutters, or any other small pool, which is where the vector mosquitoes breed and mature. The nutcase appears unfamiliar with the concept of simply preventing the mosquitoes from breeding, in his rush to poison Australia. Nor do alternative effective techniques for fighting the disease appear to be on his radar.
Alas, there are a lot of these lone nutcases loose. Watch for updates here for a week or so.
- Commenter “Jake” at a Wall Street Journal site
- An odd Canadian site (another site that censors dissenting comments)
- Peter Foster hyperventilates about Al Gore, at The National Post (Canada)
- Commenters at Listverse take up the erroneous meme
- Commenters at Michelle Malkin’s site (of course — would you expect reason there?)
- Bogus science at Creative Minority Report
- Block Rants
- And, speaking of hyperventilating rants . . .
- Adirondack Musing
- Let’s not forget our old carbuncle, Steven Milloy
- Wake Community Network, with the old “genocide” hoax
- Doug Ross @ Journal, adding a 75% fact-free promise to his snark-free pledge
- Blogger News network
I wonder if it’s a virus that makes them censor any fact or opinion contrary to their own, or whether they simply are complete cranks. I mean, even Bush’s Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne got DDT right.
(Bird’s blog is on WordPress, which will automatically post a link from this post to his blog. Anyone want to wager on whether he has enough cojones to let the trackback stand?)
Right. Testicular cancer on the increase. And so they are blaming it on DDT. Whereas anyone ought to see that as evidence for the opposite point of view.
[...] You’ll find one of the posts I mentioned at P.Z.’s house, here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Heartland on bedbugs: DDT stupidity, all the way [...]
DDT and breast cancer:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080213193738.htm
DDT and testicular cancer:
http://men.webmd.com/news/20080428/cancer-risk-lingers-for-long-banned-ddt
http://www.oncologystat.com/news-and-viewpoints/what_patients_are_reading/DDT-related_Chemical_Linked_to_Testicular_Cancer.html
“A groundbreaking research study coordinated by the non-profit Silent Spring Institute ………..”
Right. That sounds really convincing there. And you wait in vain for a description of this study that would allow one to check their inferences.
“DDT was not banned from use because it was thought to be a carcinogen to humans. Since 1972, evidence has piled up that it is, indeed a human carcinogen. All the evidence suggests the ban on broadcast spraying and overuse was correct.”
Just a straight lie. Idiocy. We wanted the evidence itself. Not some lying claim that there is that evidence.
“It is possible some of the men who later developed cancer of the testicles were exposed to DDE at very young ages — in the womb or through breastfeeding, the researchers said.”
Wow. They really have a handle on this….. (NOT). Surely if you had anything more than this preliminary speculation then you would come up with it. Hence this is evidence for the contrary case.
Yeah right. So it skips a whole generation. In other words you cannot find evidence that DDT has ever given anyone cancer. So you’ve gone in for some speculative JIVE about it skipping a generation.
But it would be misleading, and false, to say that DDT is NOT a carcinogen, since it has been discovered to be carcinogenic to mammals and other creatures (see the stuff Nick refers to above), and since every cancer-fighting agency on Earth lists it as a probable human carcinogen.
The entire “DDT-is-not-a-human-carcinogen” meme is misleading. DDT was not banned from broadcast use because of its carcinogenicity, but because of its supreme toxicity to all living things. DDT kills insects, and fish, and birds, and bats (mammals, by the way — there was a lot of testimony about the use of DDT to get rid of bats at military installations; don’t pretend DDT doesn’t kill mammals when there was so much furor from DDT manufacturers testifying to the efficacy of using DDT to kill mammals that were perceived to be pests). That toxicity cannot be controlled once released, and in most ecosystems, DDT biomagnifies, multiplying the doses received by living things at higher trophic levels, where it does the most damage to beneficial species.
DDT was banned for its damage to wildlife and wild ecosystems, not because of carcinogenicity to humans.
Though, of course, it is also a suspected human carcinogen.
But don’t ignore the links to cancers; it seems DDT might be particularly pernicious in this regard, striking the children of those exposed in very nasty ways:
1. Testicular cancers in children of people exposed:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/ddt-linked-to-testicular-cancers-in-next-generation/
2. Breast cancers have been the most studied, and there is no great evidence that DDT exposure causes breast cancer in a short time; but studies suggest this also goes to the next generation; women exposed to DDT through their mother’s milk, or in utero, have a positive correlation. See here for a start:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54492/
DDT was not banned from use because it was thought to be a carcinogen to humans. Since 1972, evidence has piled up that it is, indeed a human carcinogen. All the evidence suggests the ban on broadcast spraying and overuse was correct.
That is not evidence. You have also not presented any research done by geologists or any related field which supports this assertion.
Here’s some more then. From the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 2002.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.html
From http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm
” The US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that ‘DDT may reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen’. DHHS has not classified DDE and DDD, but the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that they are probable human carcinogens.”
You’re really not very good at this, are you?
So you’re not taking peer reviewed research and journal entries as evidence now? What was that you were saying before about sides wanting handicaps.
Sir, I label you a hypocrite of the highest order. And a base imbecile as well.
And I’m still waiting for you to answer questions posed to you and for you to present peer reviewed evidence or scientific study results of some sort.
*yawns* you can engage in this stupid ad hominen attack nonsense all you want, Graeme, but my sense of morality beats yours any day of the week. You simply don’t have the ability..much less the intelligence to actually insult me.
And if you want to delude yourself into thinking that DDT is perfectly safe and harmless…then use it on yourself. Use it around your family.
But don’t come whining to those who know better then you when your family starts dying horrible deaths.
Right you see we wanted actual evidence that DDT was a carcinogen. You might have thought we wanted you to lie and claim the evidence has already been presented. But what we really were after was the evidence.
You didn’t have any and you won’t find any because its just a eugenicists cover story.
You say that the evidence has already been presented for the holocaust-supporter cover story. So it ought not take you more than a few seconds to track it down if you are not lying about that also.
“Evidence has already been supplied that it is a known carcinogen. It is now either up to you to discredit said evidence or show credible evidence that it is not.”
No its NOT a carcinogen and no such evidence has been supplied. If you think otherwise let us have your evidence. And thats not just linking to google scholar by the way.
Lets have evidence for this eugenicists cover-story.
You are still lying Matt. I pointed out that the continents fit together both ways.
So I take it you are just going to constantly lie and stick to your lie no matter what.
Claim A: That is something you have brought forth but, alas, come forth with no evidence to support said claim.
Claim B: You have yet to produce any credible evidence for the expanding earth hypothesis ( also, please learn what the difference between a hypothesis and theory is).
Evidence has already been supplied that it is a known carcinogen. It is now either up to you to discredit said evidence or show credible evidence that it is not.
I am also waiting for a response to several questions thus far posed to you but you have so far failed to provide any answers for.
“I’m a bit more bemused that Graeme seems to have no problem in exposing Africans, among others, to significantly higher rate of cancer but then turns around and claim we’re the ones supporting a genocide.”
The idea that DDT is a carcinogen is the holocaust-supporters cover-story and he’s sticking with it.
You parroted Wikipedia and claimed that there was no evidence for the growing earth theory. Thats a lie. A blatant one. Since the continents fit both ways, that they fit without the Atlantic was the starting point for evidence for Plate Tectonics in the first place.
So a blatant lie on your part Matt. Compounded by you not coming clean with your lie. I already told you what you lied about you blockhead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Notice this. Nick Kelsier is so genocidal or post-modern he cannot believe that people would be concerned or get how under the collar when leftists decide they want to murder millions of people.
Its astonishing. He is just overcome with disbelief. He cannot even so much as imagine that normal people, non-parasites and non-psycopaths, who understand what the left is doing could disapprove. In his view this is unthinkable and must be some sort of act.
So if leftists are murdering babies. Like if Che Guevara is killing children, or if eugenicists are banning local autonomy and flexibility in fighting malaria and opposing DDT use, so that millions will die, if a normal average Joe, without genocidal leanings catches them doing this…. AND GETS ANGRY ABOUT IT… well thats a fake-up in Nicks view.
Holocaust-deniers and enablers are just so certain that the rest of us want all these black kids dead that telling them to “hey stop that” is thought to be a statement of mixed motives.
Look what we see above. We see Nicks eugenicist and holocaust-denying cover story… the idea that DDT is a carcinogen, which it isn’t…
And we also see the total belief that any body could even be concerned with leftists running slow-motion murder plans.
“I’m a bit more bemused that Graeme seems to have no problem in exposing Africans, among others, to significantly higher rate of cancer but then turns around and claim we’re the ones supporting a genocide.”
Its just unbelievable isn’t it. That I can know that you are hell-bent that these kids be murdered through high-food prices, malaria and energy-deprivation and if I’m not happy about it I’m just faking it in your view.
So you see the holocaust-supporter doesn’t even so much as BELIEVE his opponents. We may be talking 2nd and 3rd generation parasitism here. They talk about an inter-generational underclass. Generations of welfare. But they seldom talk about a similiar phenomenon where people can be public service taxeaters up to the third generation and may not even have met anyone who would think the slightest bit different from them.
Oh and by the way, Grame, if anyone is engaging in “holocaust” denying it’s you. Because you’re the one trying to argue that using DDT is worth the fact that it will cause cancer in people. And for what?
To stop something that can be stopped better through other means?
Ed asks the right question. What problem do you have with Asians and Africans that you want to see them die so?
Graeme…what part of DDT causes cancer did you miss?
And yet the only thing in evidence is the CDC material that calls for stuff other than DDT, the papers that show DDT doesn’t work against dengue. You’ve offered no support whatsoever for the bizarre claim that DDT is useful, Mr. Bird. Can you find any support for your claim? It’s been days now. Even on the wacko exterminator sites, you’ve found no support?
That’s a clue.
Mr. Bird, you offer people eating tiny amounts of DDT — about what a robin gets in a morning after a spraying (but it kills the much smaller robin) — versus the clear demonstrations that DDT can be fatal to humans, as evidenced by its use in suicides across Asia.
Your best claim is that the story of a suicide effort left the poor woman barely clinging to life in a hospital. Your sole defense for DDT: “She wasn’t dead yet.”
You don’t do it as well as Monty Python. Plus, you do it with animus. Shame on you. Why do you mock suicides in Asia? What do you have against Asians and Africans that makes you want to poison them so? We might guess that, since your neighbors refused to send you to the legislature, you’d bear them animus and want to poison them (still the mark of a crazy man). But what has India ever done to you?
What, precisely, did I lie about? And I want specifics, not general and broad statements.
As for evidence; I have presented plenty. Try those links to the peer reviewed journals I provided earlier. It is you who have not actually presented any sort of credible evidence.
Ed has supplied plenty, from health analysis from government bodies to real life examples of where it has caused major headaches when used.
Says the man who has presented zero scientific evidence for his cases and subscribes to completely unsupported quackery as the expanding earth hypothesis. And also discounts supported science such as the Big Bang.
It is to laugh.
Its all a bit too much for you you blockheads. Here is people eating DDT and having no ill effects and still we find these leftist lies demonising this lifesaver. We know that Malaria is the greatest killer of humans in all of history. So DDT was a lifesaver. And blockheads like you guys demonsie it no basis whatsoever.
And its just the same today with CO2. We are cooling. We are not warming we are cooling. Yet mentally slothful boneheads like you guys come up with a tribal position on CO2. A gas we don’t have enough of. A gas which increases net primary production.
So you are dummies. You have no clue about science. There is no use pretending you studied this or that at University. You are too thick for that sort of thing and anyway it wouldn’t matter if you did study it. If you are this much of a blockhead you wouldn’t learn anything.
So you guys won’t come up with anything for your holocaust-denial. You don’t have anything to justify the demonisation of DDT. For the demonisation of CO2. Its just constant parroting of bad unscience that we get from dumb-left-wingers.
So you claimed there was no evidence. You lifted that lie from wiki. And now you cannot justify it. You are a dummy mate.
Do you even know what evidence is.
You are not smart fella. You are too stupid to be having this conversation.
You lied Matt you filth. And you don’t have an argument.
The fact is lied and you had nothing. The continents fit both ways you twit. Or didn’t you get that far in school.
You are a blockhead mate. You are a thick-head. You don’t even know what evidence IS. Dope.
*shrugs* I’m actually finding his incoherent (mixed with complete lack of evidence) frothing at the mouth ranting kind of amusing at this point.
Mr. Bird, your constant viciousness makes us all weary. Please limit your posts to rational responses, and stop substituting vitriol for substance.
In fact, I’ll wager that you can’t keep in the good graces of the most staunch DDT advocates. I’ll bet you can’t keep posting here:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/04/epa-holds-bed-bug-summit.html
“They cannot join both ways on a moonsize planet by sheer coincidence. There must be some explanation.”
Bird has discovered a mysterious new element. We’ll call it Handwaveium.
Oh, and look out! Martians!
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/open-cut-mining-on-mars/
You idiot. If the continents join both ways thats evidence.
At least concede that fact you compulsive liar.
They cannot join both ways on a moonsize planet by sheer coincidence. There must be some explanation.
Matt if you are going to be a constant idiot and a relentless liar just stop talking.
It’s listed by numerous government bodies as such and recognised by biologists as such (links have already been provided for this information by Ed). I guess you lose.
Units studied in 2003 & 2004 (as a minor in another course), Deakin University. IIRC, I received a distinction for the unit overall. If I had a scanner I would post the results transcript for you.
It really is a fascinating subject for study.
I don’t see how that constitutes evidence much at all, sorry. All it does is show that plate tectonics is entirely possible.
On the other hand, the expanding earth hypothesis is blown out of the water by simple GPS measurements which (for example) show that Australia is slowly moving north – closer to other continents (in this case Asia). Whereas if the earth was expanding uniformly, it would be moving away from every other landmass at the same time, much like dots drawn on the face of an expanding balloon move away from each other.
And as someone already asked; where is all the extra matter coming from?
Ed- check your spam filters. I posted links to a few journal articles but I guess the wordpress spam filter caught it.
“But considering the editing process at Wiki, if Wikipedia says it, it’s most likely the best science.”
You moron.
Look you cannot fake it Ed. You could never have any affinity for science or for the practice of history in 1000 years. Since leftists are tribal and intellectual pursuits must be be done as if the individual has to verify all the important building blocks of his claims.
We have Golf for sportsmen who are not athletic. Jump cuts in rock videos for dancers who cannot dance. Mathematical physics for mathematicians who are not natural philosophers. And now we have wiki science for people who don’t understand anything about science.
In wiki-science people like William Connelly take control and obsessively bring the alleged consensus in line with tribal leftist positions. These people are children of the cultural methodology known within the communist party as “democratic centralism” Where though they debated things into the ground when all was said and done “Truth” was the communist part position. All thats happened lately is that the “scientific consensus” is held to be truth. But leftists then rig the game and try and dictate what the consensus is.
None of these shenanigans has anything to do with the truth of with science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
digression:
“’m a bit more bemused that Graeme seems to have no problem in exposing Africans, among others, to significantly higher rate of cancer but then turns around and claim we’re the ones supporting a genocide.”
You idiot. DDT is not a carcinogen. Thats just leftist lying. Leftist lying is not the same as science dummy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anyway if Matt really did study plate tectonics at University, which is probably just another lie, but if he did then clearly he was lying. Because the most striking evidence in favour of Plate tectonics is that if we get rid of the Atlantic Ocean all the continents fit snugly together. And the fossil record backs this observation up so we have convergent evidence in this regard.
So immediately we have marvellous convergent evidence for plate tectonics. But only if we disregard the fact THAT IF WE GET RID OF THE PACIFIC AS WELL THE CONTINENTS ALSO FIT SNUGLY THE OTHER WAY. And the fossil record also backs this up.
That may not be convincing to you but it does constitute evidence. If that doesn’t constitute evidence then someone has decided to swap our language around and he ought to stop it.
So one way or the other Matt lied. And so its only reasonable that he lay low for awhile.
On the subject of expanding earth, try asking Graeme where all that newly created matter is magically coming from.
Hilarity ensues.
But considering the editing process at Wiki, if Wikipedia says it, it’s most likely the best science. If Wiki agrees with Matt, that’s pretty powerful confirmation that Matt’s on the right track.
I’m a bit more bemused that Graeme seems to have no problem in exposing Africans, among others, to significantly higher rate of cancer but then turns around and claim we’re the ones supporting a genocide.
Oh and by the way, Graeme, when it comes to nuclear power you really shouldn’t go blaming it on the environmentalists who have blocked it. First off..if you didn’t happen to notice from 2000 to 2006 we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress. It doesn’t occur to you that if the companies that build nuclear power plants really wanted to build more that would have been pretty much the golden opportunity to do so?
A large part of the reason that nuclear power plants haven’t been built is simple NIMBYism. Speaking as someone who lives within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant…noone with an ounce of sanity wants one in their back yard. Those who want nuclear power plants built all want them built…….in someone elses backyard.
Thankyou for confirming that you have no idea what you are speaking about as well as having no idea about normal debate conventions.
Back up your support of the expanding earth hypothesis. I tried looking for peer reviewed evidence for it but none showed up in any of the science journals or databases I could find. On the other hand, there’s a great deal for tectonic plates/continental drift.
And just for shits and giggles, here’s just a quick selection of journal entries for plate tectonics:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/5473/2002
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5591/207
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119159720/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5347/60
And you have yet to present any peer reviewed evidence for any of your cases. Until you do, I’ll say again, you’re just wasting time.
Look I got to go. But already you appear to want a special handicap for your ideas.
You made a wrong claim. Retract it or back it up. If you are right (you are not right you are wrong) it ought to be easy since you claim to have studied plate tectonics.
Now dumb leftists are always putting their hand out for a special handicap for their ideas. They call this the burden of proof. But I’m not inclined to give it to them since the real universe isn’t the least bit interested in their petty pleas for handicaps.
Please. You seem to have no understanding of the term ‘Burden of Proof’.
You’re trying to establish the credentials of something which goes against all known scientific evidence – and yet you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim. It is not up to me to disprove your claim, it is up to you to prove it.
Which is something you have thus far failed to do with either the expanding earth hypothesis or your DDT claims.
You’re making the claim. Prove it.
Shouldn’t be too hard if you studied Plate Tectonics at school Matt.
I should see some evidence. I’ll be gone for a few hours. What with your education and that amount of time to work with you ought to be able to come up with something.
Best not to rely on silly sentences at the wiki fella.
We are talking about evidence Matt and you made a wrong claim. And now we are hiding behind the cult of peer reveiw.
So lets see that evidence. I say that you were getting your nonsense claim specifically from a sentence in wiki.
But you can try and show me otherwise.
So kindly provide links to/references to the peer reviewed scientific journals/research/papers that have been accepted by the scientific community which verify the expanding earth hypothesis.
Until you do, all you’re doing is wasting everyone’s time.
I was unaware you could see what I am doing on my PC. Amazing. Unless you have psychic powers. Oooeeooooh (insert Mentok the Mind Taker noise here).
Here’s a hint: I didn’t look up plate tectonics on wiki. I actually had to do some environmental science units at University and covered the subject there.
I got to go now but get specific Matt if you are not a bulldust artist. I happen to know that you just lifted that ludicrous comment from wiki. But if not lets see something specific.
I got to go now but get specific Matt if you are not a b——t artist. I happen to know that you just lifted that ludicrous comment from wiki. But if not lets see something specific.
See you lied and claimed that all scientific EVIDENCE pointed away from an expanding earth. And then you get mixed up with scientific opinion, scientific sentiment and scientific evidence. Make sure you know which one of these three you are talking about.
Now you want to say that most scientific sentiment or opinion goes against expanding earth then say that. But the fact is you went to wiki and you repeated their lie. And if I was to ask you to be specific I wouldn’t be able to get a good answer out of you in half an hour and perhaps not ever.
The important thing is for you not to lie and not to pretend you know a lot of stuff that you have no clue about.
No I just agree with the science. Thats all.
I like how graemebird elevates his own personal opinion above that of, say, the entirety of science (here’s a big clue: the entire field of geology says the expanding earth hypothesis is just plain silly) without providing even the semblance of evidence and/or proof.
Lets just go through Eds argument. Ed is a failed history teacher posing as a scientist.
“1. DDT is the wrong pesticide to use against dengue vectors. It kills the predators about ten times as effectively as it kills the mosquitoes.
TOTAL IDIOCY AND LYING ON THE PART OF ED.
Consequently, within a couple of weeks the mosquitoes come roaring back, about ten times as bad as they were before. Do you have dengue? Hey, guess what: You just multiplied the vectors that spread it by ten times.
SINCE ED WAS TELLING LUDICROUS LIES IN THE FIRST PLACE HIS INFERENCE THEREFORE IS IDIOTIC.
2. Wasting time with DDT prevents pesticide appliers from getting to the right stuff, so nothing is done with pesticides to slow dengue.
THERE NEED BE NO TIME WASTED. PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LUNATIC LEFTIST CAN PLAN ACTIVITIES IN PARALLEL.
3. Government agencies who spend time spraying DDT generally don’t get around to doing the non-spray activities that actually prevent dengue. So government prevention programs go by the wayside, too.
THATS JUST ANOTHER LIE. ED LYING CONSTANTLY. AS WE HAVE SEEN WITH FRED SOPER INSECTICIDE USE DOESN’T MEAN ONLY INSECTICIDE USE. TOTAL LIES ON EDS PART IN SUPPORT OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL.
So thats how this moron came up with the total opposite of the truth on my blog. I commented that is was disgraceful that we didn’t have access to DDT. And this moron shows up and reckons that this would mean a catastrophe of infection.
This is how powerful the need to justify the holocaust is. With this sort of loony-toons made up history and science.
All of the above is entirely idiotic.
Totally wrong and idiocy in ever constitutent part of the argument.
Based on these simple premises, I made a projection:
1. DDT is the wrong pesticide to use against dengue vectors. It kills the predators about ten times as effectively as it kills the mosquitoes. Consequently, within a couple of weeks the mosquitoes come roaring back, about ten times as bad as they were before. Do you have dengue? Hey, guess what: You just multiplied the vectors that spread it by ten times.
2. Wasting time with DDT prevents pesticide appliers from getting to the right stuff, so nothing is done with pesticides to slow dengue.
3. Government agencies who spend time spraying DDT generally don’t get around to doing the non-spray activities that actually prevent dengue. So government prevention programs go by the wayside, too.
What’s a good number to figure out how much more dengue there will be? Two times? That seems way too small. Ten times? That’s a conservative estimate.
100 times? That may be more accurate.
Bird offers nothing to suggest DDT would decrease dengue in any way, but complains, again without numbers or logic, or data of any sort, that the projections other make are in error.
Funny that the moron Ed agrees with me. You’re getting it from both sides, Graeme, the morons and the sane average guys. When even the morons know you’re wrong, it’s a clue, Mr. Bird.
Who is this “moron Ed?” He seems like a fine fellow who follows the evidence.
“his expansion theory is incredibly, incredibly daft and has no evidence behind it.”
Thats a flat out lie right there. The opposite of the truth. All known relevant evidence supports the expanding earth theory. So Matt I already know what you’ve done. You gone to wiki and lifted that lie straight from them.
YOu cannot hide from me when you run from science in this way.
Yeah as it turns out the Plate tectonics is an inferior paradigm. Its agreed that the Atlantic wasn’t there 180 million years ago. But the same evidence that shows this tells us also that the Pacific wasn’t there 300 million years ago. You have a responsibility to go with the evidence no matter what social overhead it may cause you. The theory originally comes out of Australia.
Looking at Bird’s blog, it seems the man rejects the scientific theory of plate tectonics and instead embraces Neal Adam’s hypothesis of an expanding Earth.
Now I quite like Neal Adams; his work in the comic book industry has been truly remarkable. However, his expansion theory is incredibly, incredibly daft and has no evidence behind it. Yet graemebird supports it.
I think that is very telling.
No I’m saying the history books are right. And I’m waiting for your alternative history with time-line and causal connections.
I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever about the history so I’m waiting for your version of is. Year by year. What the environmentalist movement did. How that affected spraying and most of all centralisation of the mosquito extermination effort.
My history of the situation is simple. That it was the result of a wider movement, and that they influenced matters everywhere on the basis of both their non-standard pathological fears, and their wish to massively cut down populations. So that what happened in Sri Lanka was repeated everywhere throughout the world with the same results.
Now you have a different theory go for it.
I wan to hear about your make-believe history. So I’ll be ready for your make-believe history of the energy crisis that you guys have engineered for us as well.
We see how you guys operate every day. So its not a great deal of work extrapolating this destructive people-eradication projects backwards in time.
Mr. Bird, you have not made a case that the history books are wrong. Please do not rave like a madman here – children are watching.
If you were concerned about malaria, you’d be talking about how to fight it (Nothing But Nets works okay). If you were concerned with the facts, you’d not recommend the wrong pesticide for use against dengue in your home territory. DDT isn’t the stuff that works.
Why do you insist on wasting money and on poisoning Australia, and Africa? What do you have against Australia and Africa?
Don’t insult retarded people that way. Shame on you.
Matt I think you better find your alternative theory or admit you were wrong. This holocaust-denial is not the least bit amusing. It stinks.
The moron Ed came on to my site and charged that with spraying there would have been ten times as many death from Dengue fever. In his view spraying increases deaths. The fellow is a clear retard. And clearly very happy with all the killing that Malaria causes.
What about operation Keelhaul. This is another holocaust that people don’t wish to believe. Maybe if you tackle that story you’ll cure yourself of this holocaust-denial.
You do know that 2 kids are dying every minute from this curse don’t you? And you do know also that it was almost wiped out in the early sixties. You’ve seen how the left acts with the global warming racket.
If you cannot join the dots with those three facts alone there really isn’t much hope of you ever being able to understand the most basic matters with regards to history.
I’m waiting for any of you holocaust-deniers to present your alternative history. You appear to be on an endless filibuster. This is very much the case with the global warming racket where hey have found out if they never come up with any evidence it can never be proved wrong.
So lets have it Matt. How is your history superior to the old mans recollections of the environmentalist movement going bad in the sixties.
I can’t speak for ED but I am still waiting for you to present credible evidence which establishes the case you present. Until you do so the Burden of Proof means, basically, Ed does not have to reply to anything.
The World Wild Life Fund is still trying to ban DDT. We need something like war crimes trials for this sort of thing. The leftist pro-eugenicists aren’t going to stop their campaigns of lies and killing unless some of the costs are brought home to them. Serious criminal trials with real long prison sentences. And massive fines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai0j6rXpQso
Its pretty hard to argue with someone who refuses to make a case. We need to have an alternative explanation as to why Malaria deaths were in the millions, went down to the thousands, and back up to the millions again.
Until he comes good with his explanation we have to assume he’s openly in favour of this mass murder. After all his endorsement of that stupid book would seem to indicate that if it was up to him he would repeat the murders all over again.
I’m waiting for Eds alternative history. The one where environmentalist action DIDN’T lead to an explosion in Malaria. And the one where DDT was a carcinogen and was just about the bring the whole nature down with one big case of cancer.
Ed is a trasher of history. But in this case he refuses to even put up an alternative point of view.
*shrugs* At least I have more than a rudimentary grasp of English grammar, which appears to be a lot more than you currently possess.
And for all your bluster thus far, I have yet to see you actually meet any of Ed’s challenges or answer any of his questions with credible evidence. Until you do, you shall be considered the loser of this debate.
“I’ll wager you can’t point out a single scientific error in Rachel Carson’s book. The science is against you.”
Hahahahaha. So you are a full-blown believer as well as being a holocaust-denier. And are you backing all of Al Gores science as well? You reckon Al Gore is on the right track fella?
See here it all is. The lying about history. The absolute contempt for evidence. The pseudo-science. The giant outrageous claims of total devastation. Just as we see it now with the global-warming fraud we saw it then with the DDT demonisation. And the killing of black children continues even as we speak under this cover.
HHAHAHAHAHAHAH Fantastic argument Matt. Marvelous. You just aren’t too bright are you. No you are not.
Lets have your argument for this holocaust-denial version of history you have on the fly. Or lets have a retraction.
Tenuous grip on reality, Matt!
Mr. Bird: “frenzy?”
I’ll wager you can’t point out a single scientific error in Rachel Carson’s book. The science is against you.
I think it is now safe to say that gramebird has been exposed to far too much DDT, to the extent where it has now affected his grip on reality.
Nick what brought you first into this holocaust-denial? How did you come about this mode of thought and what do you think it achieves. All you have to do is look at the numbers of Malaria deaths worldwide. And see how they almost went down to zero and then exploded up again in line with Environmentalist action.
And its not as if we are saying that environmentalists were acting any different than today. The same sort of tactics were used then, with the same bogus-science, and the demonisation of good things.
So when did you first get sold on this holocaust-denial caper?
Can you think of the year?
Was it like a conversion of sorts?
No NIck. You are an idiot. And you a holocaust-denier. Get used to a more honest self-assessment.
Now will one of you put up some sort of argument for your alternate history.
You know how extensive this global warming fraud is thats current now right? Well a similar frenzy too place to do with DDT in the early sixties. And these guys went out and murdered tens of millions of black people by all sorts of measures, just as they now obstruct energy production any chance they get. The mass-murder is current. It is not over. Since a lot of restrictions from that era are still in place. So at the same time as you guys are denying the mass-murder you are all in favour of the restrictions staying in place.
Now what is this alternative history you are advocating. Tell me about it. What happened in your view.
Ed, I do believe that Graeme makes Knocky and Jupe seem like rational human beings.
Graeme, if you think you’re accomplishing anything other then making yourself out to be a brainless jackass you are deluding yourself.
My suggestion to you, child, is that you back off. You simply don’t have the intelligence to win any debate with me and certainly not with Ed.
And you can bother to be moral enough and human enough to apologize for your slander and your defamation of character against me.
But don’t worry..I’m not holding my breath on you being anything other then a brainless twit.
Nick Kelsier has confessed to being a holocaust-denier. It never happened he said. Nobody died. Its all rubbish he calls it. Nothing to see here.
I wonder if anyone here ISN’T a holocaust-denier. You guys are just sickening filth. Lower than squashed insects.
I’ve got nothing to engage with. He is filibustering. The holocaust-denier refuses to justify or describe his alternative history. The actual history is clear enough. What happened was like the energy-deprivation crusade today. Its a full spectrum thing. It not just about one law or one book. The anti-science CO2 nutballs have already stalled new energy production and set us up for a disaster. They’ve already caused global food riots and hunger despite bumper crops.
So Ed the holocaust-deniers whole historical argument is to try and claim that I’m claiming it was all about a sheilas book or a single US law. Other than that he refuses to justify his holocaust-denial at all.
At least some of these latterday nazis will put up a story. Black people not important enough even to make excuses for.
And once again Graeme surrenders the debate by spouting that “holocaust denier” nonsense. Pity that Graeme can’t engage in intelligent debate.
Here is a fellow who was old enough to see these lunatics as this DDT hysteria was happening. We know the holocaust-deniers modus operandi because we see then today with these new human eradication program. They’ve decided that CO2 is the problem. So the first hysteria was about the lifesaver DDT. And this on is about the life-giver CO2.
The holocaust-deniers story makes no sense. The claim is that there campaign was restricted only to a ban in the United States. This is Ed lying again. We see now all the myriad ways the anti-CO2 hysteria is with us. We see the bad science being taught in school, affecting all levels of government. It would be as if Ed is claiming that I’m blaming the whole thing on Al Gores crap scientifically-incompetent movie. But we are talking about an entire movement here. And its fundamentally a eugenics movement. Ed just hates African blacks. Get used to it.
Oh yes…youtube is a credible source for anything.
Graeme…pay attention.
Every single time you spout that “holocaust-denier” nonsense you are in effect shouting at the top of your lungs “I lose. I lose. I lose.”
It’s like whoever first calls someone Hitler in a debate is surrendering the debate.
I notice the common trope that the holocaust-deniers use. They claim that we are saying a ban on DDT in the US MAGICALLY affected what was done overseas. But thats not what anyone claimed. What happened is that the bad in the USA and the mass-murder overseas were part of the same hysteria and environmentalist action everywhere.
Lets have your retraction of your alternative historical interpretation:
How is your history different then this fellows above holocaust-denier.
Can you show any link between the environmentalist movement and the US not building more and more nulcear reactors?
In the same way as the environmentalist movement didn’t manage to wipe all nuclear reactors off the face of the earth, nonetheless they have managed to slow down the building of new reactors, and they have managed to obstruct them being built here in Australia.
But supposing in twenty years time it had become clear that energy-deprivation will have killed 100′s of millions of people. You could be bleeding innocent in this exact same way. You could be saying “Nuclear ban. What nuclear ban? There was no nuclear ban. Look the US had nuclear power continuously since the sixties”
Its just the same thing here. You lie and deny that there was a ban. But it was a worldwide campaign that took many forms this anti-DDT hysteria.
And you are in denial of it all. A holocaust-denier. And a trasher of history. A science incompetent who ought not be let anywhere near the kids.
I’ll tell you what. You prove that you are not incompetent in your job of history Professor by talking about the Roosevelt Presidency and with particular reference to Operation Keelhaul.
It will be a chance to set your story right, or further reinforce your status as holocaust-denier.
So. We meet again, Mr. Bird.
1. You continue to try to call me a “Holocaust denier” though my site shows the opposite, but you’ve done nothing against Holocaust denial at your site. I observe, again, it appears you are doing some projecting.
2. Though you cannot show any link between Ceylon’s stopping the use of DDT and any action by any environmental group, you deny the story malaria fighter extraordinaire Fred Soper told, that it had nothing to do with anything other than Ceylon’s own governmental incompetence. Despite his denying your claim, you’ve now posted Fred Soper’s story at some length at your blog, wishing to bask in the glow of a real malaria fighter. Weird. Crank sciencey.
3. You can’t show that DDT was ever banned in Ceylon. But you claim a ban in the U.S. magically affected Ceylon. This despite Ceylon being at least 10,000 miles away from the U.S., and this despite Ceylon’s having stopped DDT use nine years before the U.S. ban on use in the U.S. went into effect. The time travel requirements of your fantasy don’t seem to have affected your zeal for getting the facts wrong, not in any way.
4. Despite your fact chain making no sense, you continue to insist I should depart from the well-established history of Rachel Carson, DDT use, and malaria, and propose something perhaps as crackpotted as your ideas? Bugger off, Bird. Just because you’re acting crazy, I don’t have to follow your act.
5. Did you read that forum at Randi’s site? They’ve got your number. Does that bother you?
So right there the loaust denier is admiting that there is a series of bans on this stuff. As soo as the anti-DDT historia happened the mass-murder going started. There was no one measure they had just as there is no one action the same lunatics take to discourage nuclear power. Look DDT is being used all the same they would say. You could alibi your mass-murder by making excuses of this sort. “What anti nuclear ban. Nuclear power was going all the time.
Ed has ye to put up his alternative theiry. How does his make-believe history differ from this mans.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132385&page=3
Maybe not legally, but you must be getting it from somewhere to be able to be drinking it like you do. What else could possibly explain your extensive brain damage?
Looking at your blog and your ravings here, that sounds like very good policy to me.
I agree with Matt. It looks like Ed has won this debate handsomely.
Looking at the contents of this thread, I am forced to agree with DH. Ed has so far won, mostly due that he has been able to back up his arguments with evidence and not unsubstantiated insults.
No. Ed’s run rings around you. Your argument doesn’t stand up to the most basic scrutiny.
“Current Status
Since 1996, EPA has been participating in international negotiations to control the use of DDT and other persistent organic pollutants used around the world. Under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, countries joined together and negotiated a treaty to enact global bans or restrictions on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which includes DDT, known as the Stockholm Convention on POPs.
The Convention includes a limited exemption for the use of DDT to control mosquitoes which are vectors that carry malaria – a disease that still kills millions of people worldwide. ”
So a flat out lie from this holocaust-denier. A global effort to ration its use and control access to DDT is on the fly. This means that it is not manufactured nor used in a whole string of countries where this might have been possible.
This is what you get when you are taking your facts from the Deltoid Dwarf. Holocaust-denier Tim Lambert. One of the most evil little men in Sydney.
I’ve met him you know. He’s despicable.
No I won the argument. Ed will not give us his alternative history and now he’s taken to lying and claiming that there never was any restrictions on DDT.
Its absolutely typical holocaust-denial. There never was these concentration camps. Hitler knew nothing about them. Only several thousand people died. You cannot prove anything. These are all myths by whoever. These are the sort of things holocaust-deniers claim.
Ed is just acting like the holocaust-denier that he is.
Ed is saying that there never was restrictions on DDT even though he himself cannot buy or manufacture and neither can you or I.
I think Ed’s pretty clearly won this one hands down. Another victory over dumb Birdian anti-science.
So now are you claiming their was absolutely no hindrance to your average person buying DDT. And that there were no international agreements getting in the way of its use and manufacture, in aid programs or elswhere.
You see I’m convinced that you are now just following Tim Lamberts lying.
Right to this day you and I cannot buy DDT. Nor can we manufacture it. So your whole case is now based around lying and wordgames.
“There has never been a central authority controlling the use of DDT. Never. DDT was available from a half-dozen different U.S. manufacturers, cheap, through 1984.”
Thats a lie right there. Of the Lambert kind. I cannot go down to the hardware store and buy DDT. All over the world people find themselves in this position.
Now would you like to retract that lie?
Lets have your alternative history or lets have your retraction.
I take it that even now you do not wish to have the environmentalists measures reveresed.
This is what you teach the children no doubt. That with the technique of filibuster you can make up any history you like.
Aid programs were international and many of them coming from the US. We see the change in behaviour in 1963 once the Environmentalist movement came into being.
This is bad history on your part. You are claiming that the book had to be translated into all these different languages. Then these people had to read it. Then they had to start acting idiotically.
This is characteristic of a bad historian who is not going with the reality of the day. The reality of the day is you had all these Americans running aid programs and advising everyone with Black nations newly independent. A lot of these aid programmes were run through the UN. So a change of policy at the UN and in the US and Britain was all it took for the killing to take off.
Which is what happened.
You are basically just using the Hume-Nuke and have no alternative history. Why has liberty in manufacture and use not been returned if your crowd reckons they are not to blame.
I suppose one needs to point out the errors:
I pointed out to you that it is physically impossible for events to have unfolded as you claim. By 1963, Carson’s book had not had time to become the Bible for every ruler, governor, president and tinhorn dictator in Africa. I issued a simple challenge to you that would save your honor, but which you have not met(and I suspect you cannot meet it, even if you understand it): There is no link between any action on the part of the not-yet-existing environmental movement and the cessation of use of DDT in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in 1963. None whatsoever. Ceylon stopped using DDT for other reasons, having nothing whatever to do with a concern about the harms of DDT. That’s noted in the Gladwell piece I linked to above, and in the other references I’ve given you. You not only have failed to provide a rebuttal, you’ve not offered any support at all for your point. You lose.
Are you really that stupid, Mr. Bird? Why would the government of Ceylon wish to do breed better citizens, and what possible use would stopping DDT use have in getting them to that goal?
I mean, really, Mr. Bird — there must be some plausible cause-and-effect relationships in your claims for anyone to take them seriously. You’re not making sense at all.
There has never been a central authority controlling the use of DDT. Never. DDT was available from a half-dozen different U.S. manufacturers, cheap, through 1984. DDT has been available for more than 30 years (maybe more) from manufacturers in the Peoples Republic of China, and in India. India and China have been over-producing the stuff for years, competing in delivering massive quantities of the stuff cheaply to anyone who has a check book.
Are you really so blind as to fail to see there is no centralization possible? Can you really be that blind?
But, fatally for your argument, DDT remained unregulated except in Sweden for nearly a decade until the U.S. banned broadcast spraying of it inside the U.S., in 1972 — and it remained unregulated in most of the rest of the world until 2001. You’re really toking too hard on that stuff if you are claiming, as you must do to make this argument work, that a 1972 ban on spraying DDT on cotton in Texas, caused Ceylon to stop using DDT against mosquitoes in 1963. Can’t you read a calendar? Doesn’t your map show Ceylon more than 10,000 miles from Texas?
Planned by God and Albert Einstein? The time travel required to make your conspiracy work is probably impossible even for God.
Your argument is so utterly, completely stupid, Mr. Bird, that I cannot believe any seriously brain-damaged person could not see through it. Do you really expect normal people to believe it?
Damnation. You really are map-challenged. Stopping DDT use in Ceylon killed Africans? The non-use of DDT off the coast of India sucked DDT right out of Africa?
I admit your claims are so stunningly stupid that they might make some people hit with them, unconscious, and they might drool in their slumber.
But you’re projecting once again, Mr. Bird. That drooling twit you see is your reflection.
Kindly chill out for a while. Take a vacation from this site, for your own good.
Bird, you’re a hoot!
Got any evidence, Mr. Bird? No? Still? So you’re just sputtering in your own spittle and bile? Fantastic!
Did you bother to search my site for references to David Irving? No, of course not — you’re incompetent (no, I didn’t say “incontinent,” though the effluent level is rather high on the excrement side, from you). You can’t be bothered to check facts — how could make stuff up so fantastically if you were ever bound to actual events?
But you know what? You’re committing libel. You’re making up stuff that is not only wrong, but potentially damaging to others’ reputations.
Enough of the childish pranks. Take a break. Go get a breath of fresh air. In fact, put a bag over your head — you’re hyperventilating.
That’s a joke coming from you Bird, given your known hugs and kisses for the brave lads of the Waffen-SS.
Just to serve you full warning of what I’m saying about you on my site.
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/ddt-nutcases/#comment-70827
Let me link to this incompetent history teacher. Ed is a liar. A holocaust-denier. And a trasher of history. He’s a science incompetent and that doesn’t help his historical interpretation either.
Basically its as if David Irving hadn’t even so much as written a book to argue for his case. This holocaust-denier Ed refuses to put up a case for his alternate history.
So thats what leftists do. They refuse to argue a case and then when you argue the case for authentic known history they simply put on their David Hume Super-Skeptic hat and implicitly use the Bart Simpson excuse. “YOU CAN’T PROVE ANYTHING” is what Ed is saying. Tens of millions of black kids dead and out comes the Hume-Nuke. You cannot prove anything. They would have died anyway. No we are not giving the liberty back for people to deal with their problems. But this mountainload of dead people would have died anyhow.
This is the grave damage government involvement in the education process has caused. About the only thing an idiot holocaust-denier like Ed learns is the one-sided Hume-nuke. I mean the fellow is just a nazi pig when it comes down to it. With his crude nazi version of science and his lying about history. Like any good nazi would.
The Environmentalist pack-animal cannot even come up with a feeble excuse for his holocaust-denial.
Clearly I’ve won the argument. The key year is 1963. Thats when the environmentalist movement got going. It was a return to Eugenics. Eugenics in disguise. Quickly they piggy-backed on certain fears to do with widespread chemical use in agriculture. Then the centralisation of DDT use began. The results were an immediate and catastrophic turnaround in the way Malaria was combated and in the freedom to use DDT and other pesticides.
This was all planned and carried out over decades. And the results are as well known and undeniable. The mass-murder of Africans by these Environmentalist Pack-Animals. Holocaust-enablers and holocaust-deniers. Of whom Ed is one. I’ve seen White Supremacists who make more of an accounting of themselves then this compulsive liar and historical crank ED.
And to think these retarded drooling twits like Ed are lying to the children each day.
“2. You’re the one who advocates ineffective policies for fighting malaria, thereby condemning the black babies you pretend to like. I’ve got the posts to back my side, you can’t read them, it appears.”
A flat out lie. But we would expect nothing more from a trasher of history and a holcaust-denier.
You cannot hide tens of millions of murdered black people under your floorboards Ed. You are a nutjob. A crank. A fullblown tin foil hat dummy.
Lets have your evidence Ed. Holocaust-denier.
So your filibuster continues holocaust-denier.
And still no retraction. You are a trasher of history and a fullblown nutjob. As well as being a zombie and a mindless follower of idiocy. An anti-historian.
I’ve won the argument and largely by default.
Troll of the year? Heck, Bird’s in the running for the Robert O’Brien trophy at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, just on the basis if his posts here.
The Graeme Bird Trophy. It’s a grand idea. My dog is working on the thing even as we speak.
Bird, you have one heckuva an active fantasy life.
1. I’m no Holocaust denier, and I have the posts to prove it. You have no such posts to prove either your side, or that you are NOT a Holocaust denier.
2. You’re the one who advocates ineffective policies for fighting malaria, thereby condemning the black babies you pretend to like. I’ve got the posts to back my side, you can’t read them, it appears.
3. My silence is not a filibuster. It’s patience, waiting to see if you can muster any facts to back any of your claims. So far you’ve shown your avatar with convicted liar Joe McCarthy, and you’ve cited the hoax science site, “Junk Science.” How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
4. You’ve failed to provide an iota of rebuttal to any of the points I’ve made, or any of the experts I’ve cited.
5. You’re a rude boor.
Retract? Retract what?
Would it be inappropriate at this point to nominate little Graeme for Troll of the Year? I mean, I know there’s still a whole lot of year left for people to nominate themselves, but I don’t think anyone will be able to match his persistent spamming, raving and ability to engage in doublethink.
You going to end your filibuster or not Ed.
End the filibuster or make your retraction. Or forever be recognised as a holocaust-denier and black baby hater. Which clearly you are. In fact its really to late to escape that tag.
Heretofore at Deltoid and Quiggins blog your whole sides case has been one of wordgames. Picking people up on the use of the shorthand word “ban”. Pointing out that DDT production was at least going on somewhere all throughout that time so there was no ban.
Check it you will see. Thats been your holocaust-deniers sides entire argument. Check both Quiggin and Lambert. Whereas you are merely filibusting. You and Mark being holocaust-deniers both.
“weren’t murdered as a result of centralizing access to DDT” is what I meant.
How about ending the filibuster Ed and coming good with your alternate history where tens of millions of kids weren’t centralized and there was no obstructions to locals tackling their own problems.
Or whatever make-believe history you are currently backing. You are a trasher of history ED. As your lies about McCarthy emphasised.
Take a time out, Mr. Bird. Fourth warning.
Mr. Bird: See the New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s not an “alternative” history. It’s the real history.
Alternative histories are for suckers. Stick to the facts.
Oh, and thanks for helping my Mrs. Much appreciated, as we both hold you in high regard for your scholarship.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. This always happens. Dumb evidence-free leftist holocaust-deniers hold hands in a motherload of praise as a substitute for any evidence or sholarship. What an idiot you are Mike.
But Mike you dummy. You and Ed have never once engaged the argument since you won’t put up any evidence for your alternate history. You know the history where they didn’t bureaucratise the DDT and tens of millions of people weren’t murderered.
You are just aren’t too bright are you mike you holocaust-denier.
Yoink. Ed, you’re a better man than I am, to keep engaging with this whackjob. I thought the birthers were bad, but this guy takes the biscuit; he makes Orly Taitz look like a balanced individual with well-reasoned arguments.
Oh, and thanks for helping my Mrs. Much appreciated, as we both hold you in high regard for your scholarship.
You can see what went wrong can’t you? DDT was so effective that it was overused. Not in the sense that too much of it was sprayed necessarily. But in the sense that it was cheap an easy to spray and not do the follow-up hard yards like Soper had done in the old days.
The answer was not to restrict DDT. But go overkill on the other activities such that you find sooner or later that the DDT is piling up in local storage.
It is indeed tough and dirty work arguing with nazi-sympathisers and holocaust deniers.
The fact is we can win against Malaria and the mosquitoes. But not if liberty is compromised or if environmentalists are in any way given authority or involved.
I’ll give you are paradoxical example. The Cod. We fished Cod for 100′s of years. And it looked like we would always be able to fish Cod. The amount of Cod we pulled from the water from 1400 to 1900 must have been truly stunning and a marvel. And if you take the Cod the Cods own food supply is enhanced. Hence more Cod. And if you take the Cod the Cods predators are diminished. Hence more Cod.
But we broke the back of the Cod population just the same. And by overfishing ruined one of the most valuable industries in all of history.
Likewise we can destroy Malaria and all of the more serious mosquito-born diseases. Its not an easy undertaking. And it may await hyper-federalism and hard money in Africa since it probably cannot be done by aid alone. But it can be done. The main thing is that restrictions to the weaponry needed to achieve this must be both voluntary and local. Because if you centralise anything the environmentalists will repeat this (still ongoing) murder and this you can count on.
It’s tough and dirty work arguing with this known Nazi sympathiser, Ed. Big ups to you.
Great blog by the way.
Supposing it is fullscale war and you are evenly matched with the enemy. And the news came through that your air-power was less effective then you thought. That it was killing too many civilians, that the enemy had a new class of anti-aircraft resistance weapons coming out of the factories. That some of the bombs were effectively being exploded in midair and that this percentage was set to increase.
Do you work on targeting better and beefing up you non-air warfighting? Or do you scrap your airforce on the grounds that the enemy may adapt to it even a little bit more.
The answer is you adapt but you never throw whole classes of weapons away.
Using less spracying wasn’t the answer. The answer was doubling and tripling the efforts in other areas. And then one fine day you might find that you only need to spray every few years.
Right. And I keep it in mind. And destroying our freedom to deal with problems is where the causation is here. That all began in the early sixties and is still with us. Thats the causal relationship here.
Thats why as wrongheaded as Rachel was, and she was an airy fairy type, we don’t blame her nearly so much as the white-guy bureaucrats who took it upon themselves to reduce local autonomy in myriad ways.
Its just what we see with the Victorian fires. The urge to centralize everything so costs are increased, people are discouraged, and you need to get down on one knee and ask for permission to do anything. Even simple discouragement is a killer.
Its not just a DDT issue. Its an issue of liberty. Its discouragement and encroachment on property rights that killed the people in Victoria. Just having to go to the council to get permission to clear your own trees on your own property is a discouragement. When in the old days you could chop things down for firewood.
I think that one thing that needs to be kept in mind is this, by everyone: Correlation =/= Causation.
Absolutely any pest control at all brings up the issue of diminishing the natural predators of that pest.
Nothing new here. A non-argument unless you think that anti-Malaria crusaders are all intellectually handicapped rather than serious biologists.
Well thats unproven. But on the other hand its a reasonable thesis. If you are going to actually eat the stuff continually one doesn’t suspect its going to be famously good for you.
But the fact that he didn’t die on the spot proves you are wrong and lying about DDT being a dangerous poison for mammals.
Gordon Edwards died of sudden cardiac arrest during extreme physical exertion (mountain climbing), a classic sign of chronic DDT poisoning. This was a week or so after his cardiologist had cleared him of any other heart disease.
Why is it you’re keeping the fate of the Loibls secret? How did they die (as they almost certainly did, since their experiment was in the 1970s)?
One can see the problem you have identified. DDT kills the insects in their grown-up and larval stage. And being as a lot of mosquito-predators rely on these critters for food then the predators of the mosquito are diminished. Hence we face a comeback later on.
This is the same with all pest control and is not specific to DDT use. And it needs to be taken into account by people who truly want to rid the world of Malaria. And these are serious people and they will take all factors into account and don’t need mad leftists to breathe intelligence into their brains.
What is needed is LIBERTY. Yes stern warnings about not using DDT flippantly against insects where no human disease is at issue. But LIBERTY nonetheless. Liberty and local control is what is needed.
Just like with the fires in Victoria. The killing was a result of taking away local property-owners control.
About Sri Lanka:
But of course, you have no link to “the appearance of the irrational anti-human environmentalist movement” and any action in Sri Lanka. So your argument fails.
On the other hand, there is solid evidence that the problem was not environmentalists, but DDT advocates who proceeded to over-use DDT:
http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm
And as Deltoid has conclusively demonstrated, the many causes of the upsurge in malaria in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in the official accounts do NOT include any absence of DDT due to environmentalist pressures. The government of Sri Lanka dropped the ball. That’s most of it.
Its not highly toxic to mammals. Stop lying. Anything is toxic if you have too much of it.
You’ve been proved wrong already on that score you idiot. You are going to have to watch that youtube 100 times to get it through your thick skull.
You can at least fucking retract that lie you —-.
I don’t think thats too much to ask you —- when you’ve been proved wrong outright.
Mid-to-late sixties with an interest in combating Malaria would be closer to the age range I was after.
Isn’t it about time you came up with some sort of evidence for YOUR ALTERNATIVE HISOTRY?
Even now, anybody in their mid to late 50′s saw this coming in advance. They saw the anti-DDT campaign. If they knew about the story of Malaria they would have seen the mass-killing happening like a slow-motion trainwreck before their eyes. Its the same with the Victorian fires. And where my main understanding is is in energy economics. And I’m watching the same slow-motion mass-murder by the same crowd set in motion and happening right before our eyes.
Face it. You are a trasher of history. And you won’t be coming up with your evidence for your alternative make-believe history anytime soon.
DDT as a poison to mammals? It absolutely is. Among other things, it’s a known carcinogen to mammals, and is listed as a “probable human carcinogen” by every cancer fighting agency on Earth. I’ll take the American Cancer Society over a befuddled pro-DDT lunatic every time.
See here for more dope on mammals:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/07/09/another-reason-why-ddt-use-damages-mosquito-control-bats/
And see here for fun:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/ddt-as-snake-oil/
And see this:
.
The claim is that we were beating Malaria, as the stats show, until the appearance of the irrational anti-human environmentalist movement. From that time on Malaria went bad on us and everything centres around 1963. This is obvious to anyone who isn’t themnselves a holocaust-denier.
As each year after 1963 went on we found ourselves with less and less ability to make decisions on a local basis. Now the same evil movement wants to do this with energy. Having already gotten in the way of nuclear energy they now have this idiot-anti-science CO2 demonisation on the fly.
So just as they demonised DDT, then nuclear energy, now its CO2. Their Modus Operandi, motives, and useful idiots are known and are even old hat.
Then what is your claim? If you blame environmentalists for lack of DDT spraying in Sri Lanka, you should be able to indicate a link between environmentalists and the cessation of the use of DDT. So far you have not done that.
Your failure to document your claims does not make me a liar, Mr. Bird. Your continued vitriolic, over the top insults do suggest you’re a complete nutcase, however. Third warning. Dial it down. Stick to the facts.
What evidence is there that environmentalists had anything whatever to do with the cessation of DDT use in Sri Lanka, just a few months after the publication of Rachel Carson’s book? Is there anything?
No its not a deadly poison to mammals. Thats just a holocaust-deniers lie. You didn’t think these people would kill tens of millions of people and not try and cover their tracks. Campaigner has disproved your lie even before you made it.
One fellow used to follow the nutball Rachel around and he would eat spoonfulls of DDT onstage before a live audience. But this was just ignored by the new anti-science movement that had been kicked off.
In tiny amounts, DDT is not acutely fatal to humans. But it is a deadly poison, even to large mammals.
Here, read about humans using DDT for suicide.
I’ve been trying to find someone to explain what happened to the Loibl’s for several weeks. Without knowing their fates, it’s not possible to suggest they were not poisoned by DDT.
“So, it is your claim, campaigner, that the government of Sri Lanka stopped spraying DDT in 1963 based solely on their reading Carson’s book and agreeing with it?”
He didn’t claim that you are lying again. Come off it. We are talking about a wider global movement when we are talking about the environmentalist movement. We are not just talking about some Sri Lankins who read a book.
This is precisely the trick they used in relation to the fires in Victoria. I’d hold the environmentalists responsible for it and some nutcase would say “Look the Greens party isn’t all that strong in local government in country Victoria” or some other excuse like this.
It is in this way that the environmentalist movement taken in its wider sense can murder so many people. These are pack-animals. And no one person has to ever take responsibility for the human eradication that they perpetuate. No-one is going to do anything but via plausible deniability.
Wow. Magnificent YouTube fella. I’m going to steal that one and run like a thief in the night.
If we are going to use YouTube as evidence here is the best example yet. A man and his wife took DDT for three years in order to prove that DDT was either not toxic or marginally toxic to mammals.
You can scarcely get a more comprehensive refutation to the Malthusian racists then this YouTube alone.
There will be no valid gainsaying of this evidence.
Here is a reasonable representation of the known history of this matter. The holocaust-denial side refuse to even put up an alternative to this story or prove that this known history is somehow wrong.
So, it is your claim, campaigner, that the government of Sri Lanka stopped spraying DDT in 1963 based solely on their reading Carson’s book and agreeing with it?
Got any evidence? Where Carson’s book was extremely popular, in English, and where mosquito-borne diseases were extremely rare, it took more than 8 years before DDT was acted against. Your claim is that Sri Lanka led the world in such action?
Got a map? Can you read a calendar?
So far the Malthusian side of the argument haven’t made a real sterling case for their alternative history Mr Bird. 1963 is indeed the critical year. When was Silent Spring published? Somewhere just before or after 1963 no doubt. Except it wasn’t silent. Black women crying everywhere.
Oh, like the position you were denied by your neighbors and the other people of your district who know you?
Dial down the vitriol, Mr. Bird. Second so-explicit-you-can’t-miss-it warning.
You can believe that if you wish. It, however, would be erroneous to do so. As I have stated, I do not know enough about the topic of DDT to speak confidently on it and nor have I spoken on it.
The only topic I have touched on is your incredibly bad presentation style.
An expert on what? The only thing I am an expert/professional on is the english language (which, as I have stated, I teach for a living). That is also all I have commented on thus far; your extremely poor use of it in a debate setting.
I am not a public servant, I do not work for the Australian Government (state, federal or otherwise) in any capacity. I am, however, gainfully employed in a job I tend to quite enjoy. How I can be regarded as some form of ‘parasite’ … well, you shall have to actually explain your statements for once instead of jumping to seemingly random conclusions.
Godwins law is idiocy. You Nazis ought to get yourself a book on logic. And Godwins law, idiocy that it is, was not how Matt would have it.
Godwin’s Law.
“Hm. I think there’s a debate law somewhere that states something along the lines of whoever compares the other side to Nazi’s first loses.”
Thats just rubbish. Get yourself a book on logic nazi. Your support for this holocaust is pretty much established now. You’ve come out of the closet.
Australia dummy.
I have to accept I’m only arguing with third parties. Because if you are ever bigoted and racist enough to be a holocaust-denier in the first place there really is no curing you. The sickening racist Matt was doing the leftist play-dumb-and win trick. Now all of a sudden he is an expert. We can deduce that Matt is an Australian public servant or otherwise a parasite.
Here is a microcosm of the history of it from the Sri Lankin point of view. You racists might notice that the critical year of 1963 looms large. And that the bureaucratisation of DDT lead to mosquitoes getting high levels of resistance as could have been predicted in advance.
Most disgracefully was the 5 years the spraying was scaled back, even though it was known that the malaria was still out there. 17 new cases in 1963.
“In Sri Lanka, after the minimum of 17 cases in 1963, the incidence increased markedly and practically unimpeded, reaching 537 700 registered cases in 1969…”
ANYONE WISH TO TELL ME THE SIGNIFICANCE OF 1963????
“…..There were still 400 700 cases in 1975…..”
“…. These conditions occurred again in late 1967 and in 1968. During the successful eradication period P. falciparum had been eliminated, but in 1975, after the resurgence of malaria, this species constituted 16% of all infections….”
“….The reasons for the upsurge were many. It was certainly facilitated by the backlog of slides accumulated in the laboratories and the comparatively low numbers of blood smears taken by health institutions that permitted a gradual build up of undetected, untreated cases……”
If you centralise DDT availability then you always get a time-lag that will give the mosquitoes their chance to build up and gain immunity.
“….. Intradomiciliary residual spraying with DDT had been withdrawn in the early 1960s because of the low number of cases (in accordance with the criteria for passing from attack to consolidation)…..”
So there we have it. They stop the spraying even though they have fresh cases. The change of plans centered around 1963. In sympathy with the known history of what happened and in contradiction to the holocaust-deniers, Neo-Malthusian and blatant racist view of history.
“….. After the resurgence was recognized, administrative and financial difficulties prevented the purchase of insecticides of which there was no residual stock……”
No residual stock. Thanks to the bureaucratisation of DDT by the environmentalist taxeaters.
“….. and the employment of temporary squads for spraying them when insecticides were donated…..”
Private individuals cut off at the knee-caps. No DDT at the local store.
“….. In 1968, the programme reverted from consolidation to attack phase…..”
5 years of free reign to the mosquitoes. So now when the spraying starts in earnest rather than in a hyper-cautious way, the mosquitoes have had the ability to build up resistance. As could be predicted and was surely predicted at the time. Like everyone not following the doctors prescription for anti-biotics.
“….. but by that time malaria had already taken root again in all previously endemic areas. DDT residual spraying was again applied on a total coverage basis, accompanied in some areas by mass radical treatment. These measures met with limited success, but the malaria situation deteriorated once more between 1972 and 1975. Apart from operational and administrative shortcomings, the main reason for this second increase was the development of vector resistance to DDT, to such an extent that it was necessary to change to the more expensive malathion in 1977. Residual spraying with malathion was the main measure of an intensive plan of operations supported by a consortium of bilateral agencies and WHO. In addition, surveillance was intensified and complementary control measure such as larviciding, space spraying, water management and drug administration were applied as necessary. The situation levelled out in 1978 and 1979 after a dramatic reduction of cases in the first year of the intensive programme, and in 1980, 47 949 cases of malaria were reported of which 3% were due to P. falciparum.
Attempts have been made to estimate the economic losses caused by this resurgence of malaria in Sri Lanka by considering the effect on education, earning capacity, food production and the Government expenditure on treatment*. During the period 1971-75 it was estimated that a total of 4.99 million school days were lost; 6.92 million man-workdays were lost, equivalent to an earning capacity of Rupees 69.19 million; the loss of rice production was equivalent to Rupees 6797 million necessitating the importation of rice at a cost of Rupees 1664 million. No attempt has been made to measure the effect on development projects, but such projects are usually situated in malarious areas and hence the workers and their families are at high risk. The total Government expenditure for treating malaria during the period 1971-74 amounted to Rupees 1034 million for outpatients and another 2395 million for inpatients. The population of Sri Lanka at that time was approximately 13.5 million.
* Country Report on the Malaria Programme in Sri Lanka presented at the WHO Consultative Meeting on Malaria, New Delhi, India 21-24 April 1976.”
Too bad I couldn’t get the original link. 5 years. This is what the environmentalist movement did to the Sri Lankins alone.
So there you have it. Give the enemy a 5 year fighting chance, take the ability away from locals to do anything themselves, and you have let the enemy adapt to your best weapon.
Thats mass murder by the environmentalists in Sri Lanka alone on a shocking scale. And we see that same thing everywhere. And everywhere connected with the year 1963.
Hm. I think there’s a debate law somewhere that states something along the lines of whoever compares the other side to Nazi’s first loses.
But you, as I have stated, need to reread what I have already stated. I have not taken sides in this argument and that is on purpose. I have merely pointed out that your presentation thus far has been done in a woeful manner.
It is a fallacy known as the appeal to emotion.
Get a grip, Mr. Bird. Don’t hyperventilate.
What in the world are you talking about? Victoria, B.C., Victoria, Texas, or the State of Victoria in Australia? What incident in which January? What happened? How does it support your point?
Rant less, give information more.
Bird, check out my posts on Martin Luther King, Jr., on genocides, on Loving v. Virginia.
What’s clear is that you’re an A #1 ass.
I’ve got e-mails from five other bloggers who said you’re such an ass they had to ban you from posting, and they all advised me to do the same. Do you think you can dial down your assness enough to stay civil? Stick to the issues, use real evidence. Use your “send” button less, and your thinking cap more.
You can’t kill all the mosquitoes, period. Did you think you could? That would require an amount of DDT large enough to kill almost all mammals.
You sound eerily like the Holocaust deniers who claimed that the gas chambers in the concentration camps were really for delousing. They never said that it requires much higher concentrations of cyanide to kill the lice than it does to kill a human, so if you kill the lice, the humans die, too.
Is that what you’re arguing for Australia, to poison it to death? That’s what it sounds like. DDT is the wrong pesticide to use against dengue fever, but you call for it. It’s the wrong pesticide to use in any flood situation, since that would spread the stuff and kill a lot of non-target species — but that’s what you call for.
If you’re trying to create a chemical holocaust in Australia, you’re on the right track. Once again, all your “holocaust denial” claims appear to be projecting on your part.
As to immunity of mosquitoes to DDT, check out Weiner’s book. He points out that the immunity and resistance alleles are present in all mosquitoes, worldwide. Now, you could do the world a favor and grind up some of your local insects and check to see if they’ve lost the alleles. But last time anybody checked, the resistance was still there. The problem for getting rid of those alleles is that they also confer resistance and immunity to a number of other pesticides, and so the selection processes favor those alleles.
Your claim is directly contradicted by research — see here, and here, where it is revealed that in those populations of aegypti (found in India in that case) where DDT resistance is lower, there are still better pesticides to use, so DDT is NOT THE PESTICIDE OF CHOICE.
Aegypti resistance to DDT has been found around the world, in research up to the last few months. If you think you have some data to show Australian populations have magically lost that resistance, unlike every other species studied, please present it.
But then, you’ve been basing your argument entirely on emotional rant, and not fact, from the start. Your premises, that Rachel Carson was wrong, that DDT still works, that there is some official ban on the use of DDT, that DDT would be effective against dengue, are all in error.
Nobody can manufacture DDT cheaper than China and India. Expense is not an issue.
There is a particularly tragic link out there to do with the Sri Lankins changing their protocols in line with the new environmentalist irrationality. Within years they were dealing with an explosion of Malaria suffering and DDT-tolerance in the mosquitoes just as you would expect.
Lets have that evidence ED. 1963 is the key year. Thats when the environmentalist takeover of the situation became evidence.
Damn straight, Bird. Let’s have some evidence. When have you ever advocated going after dengue fever with effective means? Never.
You advocate dillying while people die. Your encyclopedia of irrelevant tales and outrageous dodges was old the first time you pulled it. When do you pull your cranium out of your rectum and talk about fighting disease?
We haven’t seen it yet.
What is absurd about the “think of the children” argument Matt?
These guys have murdered tens of millions of kids with malice-affore-thought and still DDT is out of bounds for almost all of us. And your excuse is through mental association with some minor character on the Simpsons.
Its absolutely clear as day that you are a hardcore racist.
We only achieved an anti-Nazi stigma after World War II by a concerted campaign to demonise such attitudes. In the current context the only way to do things is to cut such people off from their public service jobs. So Lambert and Quiggin would have to be fired and sent into look for work in the private sector. Hopefully retrain as sparkies or something useful like that.
We cannot have people getting about pretending that the deaths of all these black kids was inevitable and in no way related to the environmentalist movement.
As pointed out. The people perpetuating this human-eradication can afford to be cool-headed like someone schooled in court by lawyers. They don’t give a damn about all the murdered black children and their fathers impotent to help them, their wailing Mothers. They don’t give a toss about Brian Naylor and all the others that were killed in Victoria recently either. Neo-Malthusianism teaches us that humans are like rats run amok on this planet and despoiling it. Many areas of Africa are still natural and untouched by human agriculture. Hence these people seem secretly and sometimes explicitly happy that the human eradication programs went ahead.
Being a holocaust-denier is no small character-fault Matt. By your own admission you are ignorant of this matter. And yet your first instinct is to jump on board with the Nazi side of the argument.
The appeal to racism as some sort of argument is not one which is based in intellectual merit as far as I can see. It seems much closer to the argument, based on what I have read in these comments, of “Think of the children!” which is absurd to say the least.
Campaigner, it seems your reading comprehension also needs considerable attention. Please note that at no time have I come to the defence of the articles author; I have merely pointed out that graemebird’s presentation is extremely poor and liable to communicate the notion that he has nothing constructive to say and is immature in attitude.
Your own ability to jump to some seemingly absurd racism declaration indicates much of the same, sadly.
Your reading comprehension obviously needs more attention. Please note I have refrained from commenting on the entire DDT issue completely – as I have stated, I have not done the research or looked into the matter to a degree where I can confidently speak upon it.
I am commenting solely upon your presentation of your arguments. Now, as I teach english for a living, this is something I am actually quite qualified to do. Your style does not come across with any sort of authority. You present no evidence to back up your claims. Your low brow name calling does nothing but indicate to the audience that you have nothing of actual substance to say and pretty much annihilates your own credibility.
There is nothing wrong with being passionate about a particular subject. There is, however, something wrong when it interferes with the presentation of your point of view. That is happening in your case, which is something you desperately need to address before people will start to take you seriously.
You might have a valid case. I do not know. But at this time I (and I am forced to assume many others) simply will not seriously listen to you while you endeavour on your course of juvenile name calling, insult throwing and lack of presented evidence.
Matt has to indeed be presumed to be a racist. As do you James. If your first instinct is to jump to the defense of the holocaust-denying side of the argument. If you are ignorant as at least one of you claims to be, the first thing to do was to ask questions. Your flippancy towards millions of black children being murdered has been noted.
Well Matt it looks like you are a failed analyst. And in any case where there are holocaust-deniers on the one side and people who have some human feeling on the other side the other side is INDEED going to be angry about it.
Get a brain transplant Matt and then get back to me. You are indeed ignorant of this problem and more generally.
Graemebird,
Matt criticizes you on how you are presenting yourself here and you respond by calling him a “DDT-bureaucratisation-holocaust denier” and a racist–all with no justification whatsoever. Thanks for illustrating exactly what Matt is criticizing you for. I second Matt’s sentiment. Name-calling will only irritate people, and more importantly doesn’t do anything to help your position. You could actually say something substantive and proactive in place of, say, “holocaust-denier,” which doesn’t actually communicate anything but your personal opinion.
I have no opinion on DDT. It is not a matter I have ever taken the time to research. I am, as far as practical purposes go, an independent person as far as this debate goes.
And my opinion right now is that you, graemebird, are coming across as a belligerent fool of an idiot. Your statements are not evidenced. Your insults are not based on any sort of factual basis. Your rambling style of writing indicates that you have little to no idea of what you are writing on.
I recommend you make a critical evaluation of your own works at this point in time. Currently no one is going to take what you say seriously in the least, simply because of the way you communicate your point of view.
“This was one speech. Over the course of years of hearings, McCarthy had promoted a witch-hunt atmosphere that tarred thousands of innocents, falsely.”
This is the opposite of what happened. Rather the left ran a witch-hunt against McCarthy and his supporters. Whereas McCarthy only went after communist traitors. He didn’t have time to go after anyone else. Since his intelligence source was so solid.
I can see now that you will always be a trasher of history. You are the liar and not McCarthy.
Name one person who McCarthy investigated for being a communist who was not a communist. One person who he hauled into cross-examination for this purpose?
You cannot find one. Since there were too many communists and security risks to send to get a proper job in the private sector it is not plausible that he would have wasted time going after anyone who was not a communist.
“McCarthy waved a “list” that he said contained the names of hundreds of State Department employees who were communists. Turned out he didn’t have a list when he claimed to. ”
No thats all wrong. He had a list of communists. And had he told people how the list had been compiled then that would have revealed to the Soviets how the FBI was intercepting their messages to American traitors. This was all revealed when the Venona files came out and is proven by his 100% hit rate at going after communist traitors. He could not have such a perfect hit rate without either the gift of second sight or alternatively a full-proof intelligence source. The secret of which he took to the grave. He didn’t tell anyone. He didn’t tell anyone at all. Thats what makes him the great American hero he is.
But you on the other hand are a trasher of histroy.
Well I searched you blog Matt. And nothing on DDT. So perhaps you are uncommitted and don’t know this history of horrendous mass-murder.
Hopefully you are not as dumb as you sound here and are rather somewhat closer to being as smart as you sound there. You ought to be able to build your own case from the fact and not get all snooty and rely on impressions.
This is serious mass-murder we are talking about. You ought to be not too dim as to fail to figure out who the bad guys are. They are the same bad guys who got all those people burnt to crispy critters in Victoria by taking away the control a landowner has of his own land and forcing him to go to the council to get anything done.
Lightning, arsonists and other things are sources of ignition. But only environmentalists murdered those people in Victoria last January. And they intend to murder many more through energy rationing and the centralisation of as much power as can be centralised.
So are you a DDT-bureaucratisation-holocaust denier too? That sort of malevolence towards black kids and fear of population increase…… well it appears to be a hard habit to quit. Harder to quit then smack no doubt. But Girl, John Quiggin, Tim Lambert and others. These people are still deeply addicted.
And its only be a series of verbal tricks that they can hide all the black kids under the floar-boards. The latest I’ve identified being the ludicrous notiong that DDT means ONLY DDT.
How about you Matt?
You a DDT-Bureaucratisation Holocaust Denier?
I think you are. And this is an important issue because the same mass-murderers now want to ration energy-use.
I have to say, graemebird, your general behaviour does absolutely nothing for your credibility. At the moment you are coming across as something akin to a frothing at the mouthing lunatic idiot.
Here’s a tip or three: Do not make unfounded accusations. Back up everything you say with actual evidence. Be calm, not angry. Even if you disagree with someone communicate in a manner which is still respectful.
So are you going to retract this claim that spraying means spraying and nothing else?
Which is idiotic as the claim that having an airforce means having no recourse to other military forces?
That appears to be your whole argument. And it in no way changes the known history of the DDT-Bureaucratisation-Holocaust.
“Why don’t you advocate getting rid of the mosquitoes that cause the disease, instead of just calling for DDT?”
See this. This in one of several tricks of the holocaust-denier. He lies and says that the DDT supporter is a person that demands ONLY SPRAYING AND NOTHING ELSE to kill the mosquito.
It would be the equivalent of these same guys wanting to destroy our airforce, and then the advocates of buying new planes, the holocaust-deniers would then pretend that the people who wanted and airforce that EVERYTHING COULD BE DONE WITH AN AIRFORCE.
Lets have some evidence holocaust-denier. Because this Tim Lambert encyclopedia of outrageous dodges is getting old.
If you kill all the mosquitos you cannot get lasting immunity. There is no chance our mosquitoes have any immunity for DDT since it hasn’t been used in this country for decades. So its simply the case of the environmentalists making people sick for no reason at all. By stopping us from manufacturing DDT and buying DDT where we want it. This jacks up the price for DDT.
Don’t be an idiot Holocaust-denier.
Now this Tin Lambert holocaust-denying technique is getting old.
You do know the difference between a COMPLEMENT and a SUBSTITUTE. This was very big with Lambert and the other holocaust-deniers like Bug-Girl. The assumption that only they knew that spraying wasn’t the only thing that needed to get done. The idea that anyone who would use spraying would use only spraying.
And none of these verbal shenanigans can bring back to like the tens of millions of black kids that the environmentalists murdered by the bureaucratisation of DDT.
On McCarthy:
McCarthy waved a “list” that he said contained the names of hundreds of State Department employees who were communists. Turned out he didn’t have a list when he claimed to. Challenged to produce the list, he did — it named many people who had nothing whatever to do with communism, and it contained fictitious names.
This was one speech. Over the course of years of hearings, McCarthy had promoted a witch-hunt atmosphere that tarred thousands of innocents, falsely. His refusal to dial down his vitriol prompted the Senate to act. Arthur V. Watkins, a devout Mormon, headed the committee on the censure. His own constituents loved McCarthy, even with the lies — but the pious Watkins could not brook such dishonesty. Those who led the charge against McCarthy were to a man and woman the most virtuous of the Senate. This was not mere politics, but true Shakespearian tragedy.
They wished he would stop the falsehoods. They did not wish him ill. McCarthy didn’t have a state funeral, but many senators and others attended.
You advocate poisoning Queensland for no good reason. I have nothing to retract. DDT is inappropriate for use in floods. DDT is not the pesticide of choice to use against dengue vectors. Where DDT could be effective, it’s legal and nothing needs to change. Your slams on environmentalists and Rachel Carson are full of calumny and McCarthy-like disinformation. You need to be held accountable for that.
You would do well to study the behavior of mosquitoes and how evolution works. Getting rid of breeding places is how we beat disease — still. DDT, when it was effective, offered a chance to get rid of the disease. It didn’t work.
Not so. Check out Jonathan Weiner’s description in The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time. Most mosquitoes today have many copies of the alleles that make them resistant and immune to DDT. Some of this immunity may fade over time when DDT is not used, but it will never be true in our lifetimes that mosquitoes are not powerfully resistant to DDT.
I wrote about it here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/peregrine-falcons-100-things-about-ddt-77/#comment-50390
The same is true of most other vector mosquitoes, including those species that carry dengue.
Bird said:
Read what Weiner wrote. Evolution is forever, not just for the season. You need to study up.
What we know is that eliminating the breeding areas is necessary to end the disease. DDT can’t do that, doesn’t help at all. Your call for DDT is inappropriate — it’s the wrong stuff to use against dengue. As you correctly caught, DDT was not a panacea way back then, either. Draining the breeding pools was the key component of successful strategies against vectors.
Use of DDT at all risks raising immunity. DDT is the wrong pesticide to use against dengue. It’s inappropriate for the species and the conditions under which they breed. DDT use might supplement other methods, but it is not the method of choice by any stretch.
Why don’t you advocate getting rid of the mosquitoes that cause the disease, instead of just calling for DDT? If you were concerned about getting rid of dengue, you’d not call for DDT at all — it wastes money that could be better spent, it wastes time that could be better spent, it doesn’t do much against mosquitoes under the best of conditions, it’s the wrong pesticide to use against these species, and it kills off predators of mosquitoes, allowing the next generation of mosquitoes to run rampant.
You’re advocating a dengue epidemic. Stop it.
I’ve cut down the link to the points that are most relevant to how a real expert goes about destroying mosquitoes. Spraying isn’t the whole strategy. But its an essential part of strategy. Like artillery barrages. If you cut it out your side will lose and the mosquitoes will win. And thats what did happen. We notice also from the extended quote that 1963 was the key year when things went wrong. This ought to surprise no-one.
“….Fred Soper, who ranks as one of the unsung heroes of the twentieth century. With DDT as his weapon, Soper almost saved the world from one of its most lethal afflictions. Had he succeeded, we would not today be writing DDT’s obituary. We would view it in the same heroic light as penicillin and the polio vaccine.
2.
……. Soper disagreed. Fighting malaria, he said, had very little to do with the intricacies of science and biology. The key was learning to think like the men he hired to go door-to-door and stream-to-stream, killing mosquitoes. His method was to apply motivation, discipline, organization, and zeal, in understanding human nature. Fred Soper was the General Patton of entomology.
While working in South America in 1930, Soper had enforced a rigorous protocol for inspecting houses for mosquito infestation, which involved checking cisterns and climbing along roof gutters. (He pushed himself so hard perfecting the system in the field that he lost twenty-seven pounds in three months.) He would map an area to be cleansed of mosquitoes, give each house a number, and then assign each number to a sector. A sector, in turn, would be assigned to an inspector, armed with the crude pesticides then available; the inspector’s schedule for each day was planned to the minute, in advance, and his work double-checked by a supervisor. If a supervisor found a mosquito that the inspector had missed, he received a bonus. And if the supervisor found that the inspector had deviated by more than ten minutes from his preassigned schedule the inspector was docked a day’s pay.
One of Soper’s greatest early victories came in Brazil, in the late nineteen-thirties, when he took on a particularly vicious strain of mosquito known as Anopheles gambiae. There are about twenty-five hundred species of mosquito in the world, each with its own habits and idiosyncrasies–some like running water, some like standing water, some bite around the ankles, some bite on the arms, some bite indoors, some bite outdoors–but only mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles are capable of carrying the human malaria parasite. And, of the sixty species of Anopheles that can transmit malaria, gambiae is the variety best adapted to spreading the disease. In California, there is a strain of Anopheles known as freeborni, which is capable of delivering a larger dose of malaria parasite than gambiae ever could. But freeborni is not a good malaria vector, because it prefers animals to people. Gambiae, by contrast, bites humans ninety-five per cent of the time. It has long legs and yellow-and-black spotted wings. It likes to breed in muddy pools of water, even in a water-filled footprint. And, unlike many mosquitoes, it is long-lived, meaning that once it has picked up the malaria parasite it can spread the protozoan to many others. Gambiae gathers in neighborhoods in the evenings, slips into houses at dusk, bites quietly and efficiently during the night, digests its “blood meal” while resting on the walls of the house, and then slips away in the morning. In epidemiology, there is a concept known as the “basic reproduction number,” or BRN, which refers to the number of people one person can infect with a contagious disease. The number for H.I.V., which is relatively difficult to transmit, is just above one. For measles, the BRN is between twelve and fourteen. But with a vector like gambiae in the picture the BRN for malaria can be more than a hundred, meaning that just one malarious person can be solely responsible for making a hundred additional people sick. The short answer to the question of why malaria is such an overwhelming problem in Africa is that gambiae is an African mosquito.
………..Soper told Brazilian officials to open the dykes damming the tidal flats, because salt water from the ocean would destroy the gambiae breeding spots. The government refused. Over the next few years, there were a number of small yet worrisome outbreaks of malaria, followed by a few years of drought, which kept the problem in check. Then, in 1938, the worst malaria epidemic in the history of the Americas broke out. Gambiae had spread a hundred and fifty miles along the coast and inland, infecting a hundred thousand people and killing as many as twenty thousand. Soper was called in. This was several years before the arrival of DDT, so he brought with him the only tools malariologists had in those years: diesel oil and an arsenic-based mixture called Paris green, both of which were spread on the pools of water where gambiae larvae bred; and pyrethrum, a natural pesticide made from a variety of chrysanthemum, which was used to fumigate buildings. Four thousand men were put at his disposal. He drew maps and divided up his troops. The men wore uniforms, and carried flags to mark where they were working, and they left detailed written records of their actions, to be reviewed later by supervisors. When Soper discovered twelve gambiae in a car leaving an infected area, he set up thirty de-insectization posts along the roads, spraying the interiors of cars and trucks; seven more posts on the rail lines; and defumigation posts at the ports and airports. ………………….. His goal was to eliminate gambiae from every inch of the region of Brazil that they had colonized–an area covering some eighteen thousand square miles. It was an impossible task. Soper did it in twenty-two months.
……..
Soper’s diary records a growing fascination with this new weapon. July 25, 1943: “Lunch with L.L. Williams and Justin Andrews. L.L. reports that he has ordered 10,000 lbs of Neocid [DDT]and that Barber reports it to be far superior to [Paris Green]for mosquitoes.” February 25, 1944: “Knipling visits laboratory. Malaria results [for DDT]ARE FANTASTIC.” When Rome fell, in mid-1944, Soper declared that he wanted to test DDT in Sardinia, the most malarious part of Italy. In 1947, he got his wish. He pulled out his old organization charts from Brazil. The island–a rocky, mountainous region the size of New Hampshire, with few roads–was mapped and divided up hierarchically, the smallest unit being the area that could be covered by a sprayer in a week. Thirty-three thousand people were hired. More than two hundred and eighty-six tons of DDT were acquired. Three hundred and thirty-seven thousand buildings were sprayed. The target Anopheles was labranchiae, which flourishes not just in open water but also in the thick weeds that surround the streams and ponds and marshes of Sardinia. Vegetation was cut back, and a hundred thousand acres of swampland were drained. Labranchiae larvae were painstakingly collected and counted and shipped to a central laboratory, where precise records were kept of the status of the target vector. In 1946, before the campaign started, there were seventy-five thousand malaria cases on the island. In 1951, after the campaign finished, there were nine.
“The locals regarded this as the best thing that had ever happened to them,” Thomas Aitken says. He had signed on with the Rockefeller Foundation after the war, and was one of the leaders of the Sardinian effort. “The fact that malaria was gone was welcome,” he went on. “But also the DDT got rid of the houseflies. Sardinian houses were made of stone. The wires for the lights ran along the walls near the ceiling. And if you looked up at the wires they were black with housefly droppings from over the years. And suddenly the flies disappeared.”
So all along there has been implied in your story the idea that the pro-spraying crowd needed to be lectured by the holocaust-perpetraters on matters to do with non-spraying combat of mosquitoes. From the above we see that nothing could be further from the truth and this history is consistent with the DDT bureaucratisation holocaust.
Try again.
No he wasn’t a liar. You are a liar. Thats not the same as McCarthy being a liar. The Censure isn’t any way to judge it for goodness sakes. These are politicians making the censure. The same ones who later gave hi a State Funeral.
I’ve read all the pieces and it doesn’t change the history of it. So you are going to have to retract.
By your own admission the fellows who used DDT back in those days were also fanatical about getting rid of breeding grounds. You cannot have it both ways. If you spray and then get rid of the breeding grounds then there is no hope for the mosquitoes to develop immunity since they cannot have immunity since they are all dead.
Immunity is a short-lived phenomenon in any case. When they used to use DDT as a general agricultural spray what would happen is that the mosquitoes would develop immunity SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SPRAYING SEASON.
I don’t know anyone who believes in going to war with only one weapon, nor in throwing whole classes of weapons away. What is implied in what you are saying is that the DDT sprayers didn’t know about draining swamps. But they did. As your links show. DDT spraying and draining the swamps are not competitors by complements. And a bad on dealing with stagnant water might have been just as lethal as a ban on DDT. But the bad (for want of a better word) wasn’t on banning draining swamps. It was rather a set of moves to delay or underuse DDT and make DDT more expensive. And thats all it took to kill all these people.
To not use DDT until the horse has bolted is to ensure adaptation of the malarial agent and the vector to DDT. Thats how you get rising immunity levels. Its akin to only taking a half-course of anti-biotics. You’ve got to wipe all the mosquitos in the area OUT. Which by your own information you can do. Since you can spay and then meticulously deal with the potential breeding areas.
Malaria was listed as beaten in the U.S. in 1939. DDT wasn’t available for another 7 years. Again I wonder, can you read a calendar?
Go read Gladwell’s piece. You’ve got some bad information about the history of fighting DDT, and it has skewed your views. You’ve got bad information about the viability of DDT as a weapon, which also skews your views.
There is no reason to believe we can poison black children in Africa to make them healthy. Your advocacy of such action is horrendous. DDT is no panacea, ineffective when used in abundance, dangerous at all times.
Joe McCarthy was bad news, a certified liar (read the debates on his censure, led by Sen. Watkins, my former neighbor). In the end he was so bad that he’d lie about things that were breaking his way, like the golf cheater who had it so bad that when he scored a hole-in-one, he wrote “0″ on the scorecard.
Oy.
“Why in the world do you use Joe McCarthy as your avatar, Mr. Bird?”
Because he’s a great American hero. And he wasn’t a liar. But you are. You are a trasher of history. You set out to debunk history but this is ridiculous. Since you are a maintainer of historical myth. Everything you are about to say about McCarthy is a lie.
Your choice is to retract, come up with evidence AGAINST this known history. Or to just sit there with egg on your face.
You and Tim Lambert cannot hide tens of millions of murdered black kids under the floorboards you know. There are too many of them.
Malarial rates fell during the twentieth century thanks to DDT. The manufacturing and use of which was not restricted by international agreement, by local laws, with regards to aid programs or in any other way. Nor did anyone worry about using it liberally.
This all changed in the early sixties just prior to the publication of Silent Spring. This was a horror-show for the community fighting malaria even before Silent Spring was published. This was a slow-motion trainwreck. Prior to that hopes were high that malaria would be ended. As smallpox was finished entirely except in a couple of labs just a few years later.
Then the environmentalist movement started and the rest was history. A holocaust via DDT-bureaucratisation which is still on-going. Centralising control is a clear and predictable way to ensure mass-death and to give the mosquitoes a chance to adapt to the DDT.
So what the malaria battlers thought would happen did happen. And that this happened didn’t stop the environmentalist movement from continuing with the mass-murder and this continues to this day.
Hi Ed,
There’s a couple of things you need to know about Mr Bird:
1) He’s completely insane
2) That’s about it
Bird has been infesting the Australian blogosphere for about a decade, and has been thrown off just about every site.
But we now have our revenge. Please, don’t hold back. After you get over the initial outrage it’s very entertaining:
http://graemebirdforum.wordpress.com/
Why in the world do you use Joe McCarthy as your avatar, Mr. Bird?
Then we are at an impasse, Mr. Bird. Your loutish behavior, wild accusations, rude claims and general oafishness produce no reason on my part to retract anything.
You seem affected with Holocaust denial. I don’t know why you falsely accused me of that claim — and of course, I provided you with a link going back some years to show the contrary, while you have nothing to show your own bona fides on the topic.
You falsely accuse people of murder, of mass murder (when only one death is known!). You’ve got no moral ground to demand retractions on such issues from anyone who posts the facts.
As you well know, malaria rates rose dramatically through the 20th century, perhaps as a result of better reporting. WHO engaged in a campaign to “eradicate” malaria, by knocking down mosquito populations for six to twelve months, long enough that malaria would die out in the human reservoir, and thereby disappear. This campaign was frustrated ultimately because farmers and industrialists encouraged gross overuse of the main anti-mosquito weapon of this campaign, DDT. Mosquitoes developed alleles that made them resistant and immune to DDT. WHO ended the eradication campaign in the 1960s as a result. Other advances in malaria control provided methods to reduce malaria further, however, and by about 1975, annual malaria deaths were reduced to under a million people per year. Mostly this was achieved with the use of effective pharmaceuticals, delivered effectively to malaria victims.
The malaria parasites developed resistance to the main pharmaceuticals, however, and malaria rates began to rise again. The introduction of arteminisin-based treatments has knocked back malaria again. Sadly, it now appears the parasites are gaining resistance to these drugs as well.
The tried-and-true methods of fighting mosquito-borne diseases — draining breeding areas near human activities, screening sleeping areas, improving treatments of the diseases — offer some new hope. Bed nets in Africa have reduced malaria by 50 to 85 percent wherever they have been used, in carefully-run tests over the past three years.
There are a few DDT nuts — I believe you count yourself in that category — who argue that poisoning Africa with DDT would be a better solution. DDT has been used despite its dwindling effectiveness, and it has never been banned for use to fight malaria. The DDT nuts argue to the contrary, however, and claim that all we need to do is dump massive amounts of DDT on Africa to save the world from malaria. Now you argue that dumping massive amounts of DDT and poisoning Queensland would be a good idea.
On the basis of those facts, I see nothing to retract on my side.
You have to come up with some evidence or retract your holocaust denial. You refuse to come up with an alternative explanation for the fall and rise of Malarial infection.
I’m not retracting anything. You must retract your holocaust-denial. You are a trasher of history. Your pose as a debunker of historical inaccuracy is now a proven lie.
I see nothing to retract, nor have you suggested a scintilla of an iota of evidence to suggest any error on my part, nor any reason to correct, let alone retract.
In any case, as I noted a moment ago, you are the party who introduced the issue. If you now regret the rash way in which you made wild, unsubstantiated and unanchored accusations, you may say so.
Here is a good history of DDT and malaria, and WHO’s attempts to eradicate malaria, from The New Yorker. It may provide details you would have interest in.
Are you saying you retract your accusation? After all, Mr. Bird, you’re the party who introduced that concept to this thread, this discussion. It was your accusation.
If you’re retracting it, please be clear.
Maybe I should rephrase that. Repent and retract your holocaust-denial. Since you know full well the history of the fall and rise of Malarial infection.
Where is your evidence that the history is not how it appears to be. Malaria was on the way out. Then the DDT stink came up, he environmentalists bureaucratised the thing, and we know what happened next.
So retract you ghoulish holocaust-denying black child hating —-.
Or lets have some evidence.
Retract holocaust-denier.
Put your retraction wherever you want to post it, Mr. Bird. You can post it at your blog, you may post it here — and we’ll take an apology, too. You’ve said many wrong and scurrilous things you need to retract and atone for.
But we will not hold our breath.
Wow. A second post before I could get one response up. Mr. Bird, you are certifiable.
I’m not the one making up stories of Holocaust denial, nor am I the one posting in all caps.
Here, take a look at my post on Mermelstein. Once again, you have no evidence, and you’re fantasizing. Classic nutcase behavior.
And looking, I see you now have nine posts spreading Joe McCarthy’s photo all over my blog. You feel a particular kinship to Joe McCarthy, do you? It shows.
Did Lambert cut you off? He clearly had good reason. Alas, it appears you have no reason at all. Nor do you have any control over your anger, which has nothing to do with DDT, but which probably has blinded you to the facts.
The issue comes up to anyone looking for the cause of dengue in Australia. DDT isn’t necessary for many reasons, but the fact that stopping the importation of the disease is the most effective barrier seems as good a reason as any to ask about it. It popped up in the first news stories I Googled.
Got Google? Ever seen a library? Know anything about public health?
Typical answer of a Holocaust Denier, which I suspect you are, since you’re so absorbed in the claim. Draining water from areas near homes is among the top ways to prevent dengue infection. Mosquitoes don’t migrate long distances. Most vectors that infect humans hatch within about 50 yards of the home of the victim. Flooded fields — which often have water running well enough to be inhospitable to mosquitoes — are less of a problem than the rain gutter outside the bedroom window of a potential victim.
So you dismiss as “dopey” what is in fact one of the most effective measures to prevent mosquito-borne illnesses. That’s a typical way to extend a holocaust while making a very superficial appearance of opposing it. You claim to wish well on the victims, but you ignore, denigrate and obfuscate information that might save lives.
If I made a bad or silly argument at your blog, you should have left it and exposed me. But that’s not what I did. I gave you the cruncher arguments to your entire wrong-headed screed. You censor because you have no answer.
Really? I search your site quickly, and I find nothing about anything other than slamming environmentalists and your cry to poison Australia (and then you have the temerity and gall to call me a Holocaust Denier, even as you advocate a chemical holocaust — damn if you don’t exhibit all the classic symptoms of complete, bat guano insanity).
What alternatives to DDT do you recommend? Give us a link.
By the way, I can’t find anyplace you admit the Holocaust on your site. Am I correct that you are a Holocaust denier? Is this yet one more case where the nutcase doth protest too much?
Have you bothered to check to see whether DDT is avaialable at all? I doubt it. Have you bothered to check to see whether DDT is even effective against dengue-carrying mosquitoes? Evidently not — most mosquitoes in the world now carry multiple copies of the alleles that allow them to digest DDT as food, rather than dying from the stuff.
I suspect you know very little about the disease, or about any diseases in general. I suspect it never occurred to you that DDT would not be the best method of control, your fascination with killing things obviously out of control. I suspect it never occurred to you that, even were poison the preferred method of dealing with these vectors, DDT might not be that poison. We have not even gotten to the most obvious of your oversights, failing to account for the damage that DDT would do to the environment — especially under flood conditions, which would make any control of spreading of broadcast spraying completely impossible.
Do you even think at all, Mr. Bird?
Here’s what the U.S. Centers for Disease Control have to say about fighting dengue — note the absence of any call for DDT from the health professionals:
Spraying for mosquitoes is “a relatively ineffective approach for controlling Ae. Aegypti.” Damn, there’s your entire case, blown out of the water. Now if only we could get Queensland out of the water, too, maybe that would help. DDT won’t.
It’s astounding, folks! The best argument he has is projecting Holocaust denial on me. As often as he repeats the canard, one might be excused for thinking it’s his only claim. And it’s wrong. It applies to him, not me.
I’d be happy to take you on in any science contest. Sputtering isn’t science. Name-calling isn’t experimental results. Projecting isn’t research. The people of Australia were wise not to elect you.
But I can’t post on your site. You shamefully edit my comments to say things I would never say. You won’t allow any facts to be posted. You’ve already demonstrated that. It’s fascinating to watch you deny what you’ve already done. Such denial strikes me as pathological.
Here are the facts, again from CDC — DDT doesn’t appear to be a practical solution:
Mr. Bird, you do evil work. Calling for DDT does nothing to help any victim of dengue, or malaria, but instead creates hurdles for victims, health care practitioners and disease prevention experts to attack the real problems. Every moment of delay, every nickle spent explaining why DDT won’t work, every minute lost from simple, effective action, kills another kid.
Don’t accuse me of holocaust denial when you advocate actions that increase the death toll, rather than actions that would save lives.
I don’t see no retraction here. And I don’t see any evidence either. Just that tired old playing-with-words like “worldwide ban” and attempting to say that those who aren’t holocaust deniers are blaming it all on someone who dies shortly after the book was published. All feeble excuses for mass-murder carried out over decades.
So no retraction?
Well why not try some other unrelated matter of history. See if you can come to grips with the history of Operation Keelhaul. Lets see how deep your holocaust-denying leftism is carved into you.
Then maybe you’ll be able to deal with this DDT business with fresh eyes.
Not only did this mass-murdering crowd pull this off by rationing. But they intend to do even greater damage with hydro-carbon rationing. All these seem to want is some sort of world-wide control of CO2 release.
We’ve seen what happens when you start bureaucratising stuff and rationing it. When you leave power in the hands of leftists and environmentalists. They turn it into a human eradication program. And this is a racist site because you have shown that given the choice you would repeat this history all over again.
“Here’s the nub of the issue, Bird: Rachel Carson didn’t urge a ban on DDT at all…”
No thats not the nub of the issue at all. And total bans are irrelevant. The holocaust was performed by the bureaucratisation and rationing of DDT. Not by a world wide ban.
We all know that history and its not relevant. The focus on Rachel Carson is a Holocaust-Deniers tactic. As is the focus on the issue of TOTAL BAN versus rationing and bureaucratisation.
These are all holocaust deniers tropes.
This is indeed the site of a racist. Since if you could go back in time you would still be supporting the mass-murder of black kids, in the tens of millions, via international agreements to ration and bureaucratise DDT and other chemicals and to use it sparingly when man-kinds oldest and most fearsome enemy loomed.
I don’t know how much more racist you can get then that.
“When dealing with a dishonorable person such as you, Mr. Bird, what expectation could I have that any fact I posted would be left accurate and intact ”
I’m an honourable person and you are a compulsive liar. Its the compulsive nature of your lying that might make the situation difficult. There is to be no lying on my blog. So take a copy of your own work before posting. And then after I’ve edited all your lying away, you might find you have some evidence in favour of your holocaust-denying argument or on the other hand you might not.
Now your claim was that ten times the deaths would have occurred WITH easy access to DDT. Is the implication that we would have had 8310 confirmed cases of Degue fever by April had everyone been conveniently able to buy DDT at the local store?????
Is that your claim. Well if you can make a decent argument for idiotic claims of this nature go right ahead holocaust denier. And if you cannot find the evidence then try and get some assistance from your holocaust-denying/supporting Amigo Tim Lambert.
I notice that you played down the death of some women from Dengue fever. But what about all the sickness? You linked an article where they had had 831 confirmed cases by the beginning of April. This is what I’m talking about. Australia is supposed to be a first-world country and yet it tolerates this sort out damage to the health of its people out of the mindless unsupportable whims of holocaust-denying extremists.
I replaced you LIES. As we have seen you LIE ALL THE TIME. Just above in that little screed of yours you lied constantly. There is to be no lies on my site.
Now you claim that ten times as many people would have died WITH DDT use. Lets have your reasoned argument and evidence for this contention. Since it is a lie, and furthermore a lie of holocaust deniers, the obviously it was going to get wiped on a site that follows a no-lie policy unless you can come up with something to justify it.
Mr. Bird, you replaced my post with crank words of your own. You do not have the honor of a sand flea, and your descent into calumny and name calling is only evidence of that.
When dealing with a dishonorable person such as you, Mr. Bird, what expectation could I have that any fact I posted would be left accurate and intact — since you butchered my statements without noting your contribution. You have tried to take my good name, the act of a codswallop. If you want discussion, it will have to be here — I will not risk letting you change my words again. Such actions are those of dastards, and I will not give you such a forum.
It wasn’t crickets until you gassed the life out of my post. You’re dishonest as well as dastardly.
Here, your words will be left intact so long as they are not profane.
Spend a minute browsing the site, Mr. Bird. You’ll see that this is not the site of racist. My experience is that racists generally hurl that unevidenced epithet when they are bested in discussion, and so I will take your claim as an admission you’ve lost that point.
As for Holocaust denial, you’re really racing turnips to see who can be stupider, aren’t you.
Here’s the nub of the issue, Bird: Rachel Carson didn’t urge a ban on DDT at all. DDT has never been banned in Africa, where the malaria you pretend to worry about occurs. So your claim that she had anything to do with spreading malaria is simply false. But you too easily try to spread falsehoods, where a bit of reason would show your error. WHO stopped spraying DDT against mosquitoes in broadcast spraying, in Africa and Asia, in the middle 1960s, by 1967. U.S. action to ban spraying DDT on cotton crops in Texas and Arkansas didn’t occur until 1972.
Can you explain why you think a U.S. ban on spraying DDT in Texas and Arkansas, caused a decline in DDT use in Africa five years earlier? Can you explain how not using DDT in Texas caused an increase in malaria in Africa, a half-a-world away?
If you can’t read a map, and if you can’t read a calendar, no wonder you’re reduced to sputtering rude epithets.
Got any data? Let’s see it.
NOT ONLY ARE YOU A HOLOCAUST DENIER, YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE LIAR.
“Nor does he appear to have any sense of irony that drought-stricken Australia has a plague of mosquitoes due to recent rains.”
There is nothing Ironic about this. Australia is a big place for one thing.
“Nor does he appear to understand that dengue is an imported disease in Australia, imported by a traveler, it appears.”
The issue never came up. Another lie from a compulsive liar.
“Australian officials ask people to drain water from pots, old tires (”tyres” downunder), rain gutters, or any other small pool, which is where the vector mosquitoes breed and mature.”
As if they are going to get round to doing that when all their fields are underwater. Dopey.
” The nutcase appears unfamiliar with the concept of simply preventing the mosquitoes from breeding, in his rush to poison Australia.”
Thats just another lie on your part. This is why you got edited at my place. It was one constant lie after another. Using DDT when one has been overwhelmed by mosquito-breeding under extraordinary circumstances is hardly “poisoning Australia.” Clearly you are as stupid as you are dishonest.
“Nor do alternative effective techniques for fighting the disease appear to be on his radar.”
No thats rubbish too. But this is a flood. Many people are coping with great property damage, and sensible people never through all their options away.
So its critical we license DDT production and sale in Australia with every tax exemption for its production that we can find.
In summary you are a holocaust-denier, a science-imbecile, a compulsive liar and a believer in idiotic fairy stories. You can post on my site anytime you like but if you tell ludicrous lies you get edited. That will always be the case.
Won’t be swayed by reason or fact Holocaust Denier?
I asked you for evidence for your idiocy and there was just crickets. Your claim was that ten times more would have died if we were free to use DDT. So I wiped that claim because I have a no lies policy on my site. Then instead of backing your claims you just wanked on about censorship.
Fire away. Lets have that reasoning in your own words. You too Lambert. You’ve been a supporter of human eradication far too long. While your supporting the mass-murder of black people how about deal with operational keelhaul. Leftists are full spectrum holocaust deniers and supporters and we see that Jason Soon has never backed away from his full support of keelhaul, just as Tim Lambert would murder all those tens of millions of people over through DDT bureaucratisation.
You guys must really hate black kids.
That’s a relief. He’s easily as great a crank as some we have here in the U.S. Nasty, too.
Bird was the LDP candidate for Dobell at the last federal election. No, he didn’t win.