In case you were wondering what you're supposed to fear...

**rb336** · April-27-09, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

I saw my first Bald Eagle a few years back while canoeing in Pennsylvania. Thanks DDT ban!

i'll never forget seeing one by the zoo, and one on belle isle

ccbatson · April-27-09, 03:29 PM

In the lab, with Drosophola [[lab flies), not real world Mosquito's. Science being misapplied by liberals..again.

The view of the bald eagle in the zoo was likely much better absent the tens of millions of human beings dead from Malaria.

**Johnlodge** · April-27-09, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

In the lab, with Drosophola [[lab flies), not real world Mosquito's. Science being misapplied by liberals..again.

The view of the bald eagle in the zoo was likely much better absent the tens of millions of human beings dead from Malaria.

The use of DDT for public health use in Malaria prone countries is not restricted by any sort of international ban. So what is the point of your argument?

**Detroitej72** · April-27-09, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

The use of DDT for public health use in Malaria prone countries is not restricted by any sort of international ban. So what is the point of your argument?

He has no reply, his neo-con handlers didn't provide him a script for this line of questioning!

**rb336** · April-28-09, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

In the lab, with Drosophola [[lab flies), not real world Mosquito's. Science being misapplied by liberals..again.

The view of the bald eagle in the zoo was likely much better absent the tens of millions of human beings dead from Malaria.

Drosophola are fruit flies, not relegated to labs. is it reasonable to assume the same possibility exists in flies outside the lab? certainly. have malarial mosquitos developed the ability to metabolize DDT? yes:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/26/8...f-029149d0215b

"Anopheles gambiae, which has been the major mosquito vector of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum in Africa, has over the years developed resistance to insecticides including dieldrin, 1,1-bis[[p-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethane [[DDT), and pyrethroids."

and from the journal Pest Management Science:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

the fact remains that:
1) Malaria was beaten by screens in the US
2) DDT is nasty stuff, and YOUR claims about it being banned are wrong, and its use is supported by the very groups you claim banned it
3) The increase in malaria can be traced to invasive water plants and the demise of larvae-eating fish caused by them
4) good mosquito netting has shown to be more effective than DDT and has fewer side effects

**rb336** · April-28-09, 09:51 AM

Game, set, match

ccbatson · April-28-09, 03:04 PM

"Possible"? Sure...."Actual"? Not so....hence the description of this being a misapplication of science or pseudoscience.

Read Mark Steyn's book "America Alone", and Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" for an introduction to this liberal quagmire.

**Johnlodge** · April-28-09, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

"Possible"? Sure...."Actual"? Not so....hence the description of this being a misapplication of science or pseudoscience.

Read Mark Steyn's book "America Alone", and Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" for an introduction to this liberal quagmire.

Batson, DDT is not banned for prevention of Malaria. End of argument. No where else to go with it, moot point. Thanks for playing.

ccbatson · April-28-09, 03:12 PM

Not in the US, but circumstances led to the unavailability in Africa...WHERE IT WAS/IS MOST NEEDED.

Furthermore, your argument suggests that because it was not banned in the US [[technically), that the sham that indicted it as a poison is OK? Not so moot in that light.

**Detroitej72** · April-28-09, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

"Possible"? Sure...."Actual"? Not so....hence the description of this being a misapplication of science or pseudoscience.

Read Mark Steyn's book "America Alone", and Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" for an introduction to this liberal quagmire.

There are some good examples of pseudo science for you.

**rb336** · April-29-09, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Not in the US, but circumstances led to the unavailability in Africa...WHERE IT WAS/IS MOST NEEDED.

Furthermore, your argument suggests that because it was not banned in the US [[technically), that the sham that indicted it as a poison is OK? Not so moot in that light.

once again, it is NOT a sham that indicated it was poison [[first off, it is, BY DEFINITION, poison), that it was wiping out valuable species, etc. was very well founded science. interesting that the species it was blamed for endangering [[esp. bald eagles and ospreys) started bouncing back at the same time DDT levels in fish started to decline

ccbatson · April-29-09, 04:51 PM

Sorry...a bug poison? Yes....a mammal [[or Human) poison? No way.

**d.mcc** · April-29-09, 05:06 PM

Mad Cow...Bird Flu, Swine flu...

What's next? Cat scratch fever???

Stosh · April-29-09, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Sorry...a bug poison? Yes....a mammal [[or Human) poison? No way.

I'd be willing to ask the goverment for a special permit to allow you to use DDT in your yard only, as you love it so much. Let your kids and dogs roll around on the grass, have picnics, then we'll see how you feel about it.

**rb336** · April-30-09, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Sorry...a bug poison? Yes....a mammal [[or Human) poison? No way.

Wrong again.
From http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...cts.html#human

"When DDT gets into our bodies, it is stored primarily in such fatty organs as the adrenals, testes, and thyroid. DDT is also stored in smaller concentrations in the liver and kidneys.

DDT concentrations are especially high in human milk. Milk production depends heavily on the use of stored body fat, and this is where DDT tends to stay in our bodies.

So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors. "

If it sounds, walks, quacks, etc. etc.

so go ahead, Bats, spray your lawn with DDT, let your children play in it, let your wife be exposed to it, let her nurse your children
QED

ccbatson · April-30-09, 04:01 PM

Inert fat soluble materials are still inert [[not poisonous to humans).

Guess what? lots of inert stuff is stored in human fatty tissue, are you worried about that as well?

**Detroitej72** · April-30-09, 06:01 PM

Let's all just drink a glass of DDT tonight!

**Flanders** · May-01-09, 01:12 AM

[[What kind of people would take a photo of their kid licking an ugh!! pig's snout anyway??)

Attachment 948

**rb336** · May-01-09, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Inert fat soluble materials are still inert [[not poisonous to humans).

Guess what? lots of inert stuff is stored in human fatty tissue, are you worried about that as well?

you just keep blathering on bats. all the evidence, yet again, clearly contradicts you

ccbatson · May-01-09, 02:55 PM

It is only blather to those that can't comprehend it, or are in denial, or both. Those are simple scientific truisms applied to the situation via deductive reasoning.

**rb336** · May-01-09, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

It is only blather to those that can't comprehend it, or are in denial, or both. Those are simple scientific truisms applied to the situation via deductive reasoning.

deducing from what to what? every time someone provides verifiable info directly contradicting what you say, you decide that that wasn't really the topic. DDT is not inert. it is harmful, and the studies linked to in this forum attest to that. what do you have to offer? nothing but blather [[voluble nonsensical or inconsequential talk or writing m-w dictionary. in other words you use volume of posts and make proclamations that are inconsequential because they ignore the facts) and thinly-veiled insults

ccbatson · May-01-09, 03:21 PM

That inert materials are stored in fat as well as water soluble body stores, and that DDT is an inert material in humans...that is the from what too what that you are asking for [[and was clear in the first post on the subject).

**rb336** · May-01-09, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

That inert materials are stored in fat as well as water soluble body stores, and that DDT is an inert material in humans...that is the from what too what that you are asking for [[and was clear in the first post on the subject).

DDT is harmful to humans, not as much as some pesticides, but it is harmful. to claim otherwise is just plaine moronic. it was classified by REAGAN'S EPA as a carcinogen, it has been shown to be an endocrine disrupter in humans. I'll take the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants' word over yours any day

ccbatson · May-02-09, 02:41 PM

A bureaucratic political entity like the EPA is not a scientific source [[to them, CO2 is a pollutant). Easily debunked as there is no research supporting DDT in reasonable levels [[or any levels) to be a human carcinogen. No data exists pertaining to human endocrinologic abnormalities with In Vivo levels either. Some endocrinologic effects were observed in Avians [[birds), and these results were blown way out of proportion.

Try again libs.

ccbatson · May-03-09, 12:18 PM

Same argument..one coerced, politically biases and motivated bureaucracy, or 1000...consensus is not science.

It is true that it isn't banned, but it is also true that it is not in use to any significant degree. Why? Nobody is willing to produce it in volume and at an affordable cost because of the radical environmentalists here.

The argument that you make regarding the fact that it isn't banned strongly contradicts your arguments that it is poisonous [[and therefore should be banned). Thought I would point that out to you, as you missed it while being distracted by your foot getting lodged in your mouth.