Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 4th, 2010 #1
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default DDT as Danger

December 31, 2009

Before we get into the subject for today, it might be well to note that the Dow is in the same place it was at this time a year ago, and gold, even with it's $100 correction, is still 22% ahead of its price a year ago. Silver has done equally as well.

In 1962, "Silent Spring" was published. Written by Rachel Carson, a book which is filled with misinformation about a lot of subjects, but she seemed to have it in for DDT. She claimed that its use would cause cancer, kill birds, and do all sorts of harmful things. In a 1956 study, human volunteers ate DDT every day for over two years, and there were no ill effects then or since.

1962 was the year when the world was in the midst of an anti-malaria campaign, and Silent Spring certainly didn't help. Sri Lanka reported 2.8 million malaria deaths in 1948, but by 1963, thanks to DDT, it had only 17. Malaria was virtually eliminated decades ago, but with the worldwide banning of DDT, thanks to Carson's book, malaria has resurged with a vengeance.

The scientific case against DDT was, and still is, non-existent. Over 60 years have passed since the malaria spraying campaign began, with hundreds of millions of people exposed to large concentrations of DDT. According to international health scholar Amir Attaran, "The scientific literature, has not in even one peer-reviewed, independently replicated study, linked exposure to DDT with any adverse health outcome."

Abundant scientific evidence supporting the safety and importance of DDT was presented during seven months of testimony before the newly formed EPA in 1971, eleven years after Silent Spring had been published, which sprouted the current fake environmental movement, now headed by Al Gore and his book, which is full of exaggerations and outright lies. The presiding judge ruled unequivocally against a ban on DDT. The EPA administrator, who hadn't bothered to attend any of the hearings, overruled his own judge, and imposed the ban in defiance of the facts and evidence. The 1972 ban in the U.S. led to an effective world-wide ban.

Current estimates are that malaria infects 300 million each year, with a million deaths. Why, if this enormous toll of human suffering and death is preventable, to the Al Gores of the world, continue to oppose the use of DDT? I have no idea.

Happy New Year to all of you! Melissa's off skiing, so call David or myself if you need anything today (Thursday) as we're closed New Year's Day.
Old January 4th, 2010 #2
Sam Spears
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 117

DDT would cut down the profits made from selling pesticide. In a few words, it was too effective or too good of a product.

Same thing with Freon, it was so superior that it had to be banned so that Dupont could invent new patented more profit producing replacements that were required by law to be purchased by the public.

Of course you can only buy it from Dupont because they hold the patent. When the patents expire on the replacement products they too will be suddenly found out to be "destroying the environment" and banned as well with new patented products to replace them.


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 PM.
Page generated in 0.10221 seconds.