23 October 2010
DDT and Muslims and others
Rachel Carson still kills - humans - Every f*ckin day.
RACHELTJIE DE BEER:
Nic S and KeesKennis support any DDT initiative.
I want it even if it kills all the f*ckin eagles and other birds, but this is not even true.
Save humans rather than animals.
And then while I am watching the Crime Channel about a person that could see into the future, I realise, VOTE for whom SARAH PALIN will vote for, he or she can't be more stupid than the Rachels above.
ANOTHER RACHEL
OR
RACHELTJIE DE BEER:
Geen groter liefde...
I often wonder how leftist peeps wank themselves, that is if there is no Government dictate, that you must do it at 3 in the afternoon (rule no 199933776 [b])
A slice of Cheese can tell you all about
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane he will even be able to tell you about RACHEL
Novembwr 2, kut HIS purs strings, OK!
If yoo dom't no whoom do vote for rbember that voting ends on Noveber 3-2011 about 10:99 in the morning, so der is no rusch - HOPE IS OBAMA, relax.
Comments:
<< Home
[ ... {NOT} lots of comment code here, BLOGGER IS EFFING YOU, Leave your comment RIGHT HERE... ]
22 comments
Why in the world would you trust anything presented by a group that calls itself "junk science?"
Rachel Carson was absolutely correct in her assessment of DDT. You should read Silent Spring sometime, and check it out by following her citations.
Stephen Milloy, the guy who puts out the junk science you enjoy, is paid to assassinate the character of good people like Rachel Carson.
You can get more facts at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub.
Help us fight malaria, will you? Slandering dead women is not a help.
Rachel Carson was absolutely correct in her assessment of DDT. You should read Silent Spring sometime, and check it out by following her citations.
Stephen Milloy, the guy who puts out the junk science you enjoy, is paid to assassinate the character of good people like Rachel Carson.
You can get more facts at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub.
Help us fight malaria, will you? Slandering dead women is not a help.
If you would like something more than ad hominem attacks and bathtub science try the DDT link at DebunkOSaurus.
http://www.debunkosaurus.com/debunkosaurus/index.php/Debunked_%26_Exposed
http://www.debunkosaurus.com/debunkosaurus/index.php/Debunked_%26_Exposed
Ed, you fatuous mental midget, the point that has whizzed by your head unnoticed is that "Junk Science" is about DEBUNKING JUNK SCIENCE< like the BS Rachel Dipstick promoted. No normal human being with more than six functioning brain cells can read "Silent Spring" without throwing it against a wall in disgust; it's filth, and lies, and stupid. DDT is orders of magnitude less dangerous than Rachel's ignorance.
But you keep on "believing" that horseshit, it's appropriate for someone as ignorant as you,.
But you keep on "believing" that horseshit, it's appropriate for someone as ignorant as you,.
Can't debunk junk science without doing real science. Every substantive claim against DDT at the "Junk Science" site is dead wrong -- that is, it's junk science.
You don't seriously think the Audubon Society screwed up its own bird count, and the reporting of that bird count, do you?
Have you read the Junk Science site, or are you just blowing air.
You don't seriously think the Audubon Society screwed up its own bird count, and the reporting of that bird count, do you?
Have you read the Junk Science site, or are you just blowing air.
By the way, Og, I get a lot of mileage out of a standard challenge: You claim Silent Spring to be in error?
Where? What error is made, on which page?
Show us.
Funny. In ten years of issuing that challenge, no one has ever been able to respond with an error actually in the book.
Your turn. Can you show us one?
Where? What error is made, on which page?
Show us.
Funny. In ten years of issuing that challenge, no one has ever been able to respond with an error actually in the book.
Your turn. Can you show us one?
"Show us."
Sure. Flip to any page, and there's your error. Every fucking word is bullshit.
Sorry you're too fucking stupid to understand that. Maybe there's an opening for a riddler in your town.
Sure. Flip to any page, and there's your error. Every fucking word is bullshit.
Sorry you're too fucking stupid to understand that. Maybe there's an opening for a riddler in your town.
I'll take that as a concession that you can't find an error, Og. Not a graceful concession, but evidence enough.
Confess: You've never read anything by Carson, have you.
Confess: You've never read anything by Carson, have you.
"Confess: You've never read anything by Carson, have you."
I've never eaten a dog turd either. Let me explain, and I'll use small words so you;re sure to understand.
Rachel wrote a book about how bad DDT is, mmkay?
DDT is not bad.
Therefore the premise of the entire book is flawed. Therefore everything in it is bullshit.
Like you.
I've never eaten a dog turd either. Let me explain, and I'll use small words so you;re sure to understand.
Rachel wrote a book about how bad DDT is, mmkay?
DDT is not bad.
Therefore the premise of the entire book is flawed. Therefore everything in it is bullshit.
Like you.
Okay, Og, I'll type this slowly, so you can read all of it: Carson was absolutely correct in her assessment of DDT -- scientifically correct as the Nobel winners on the President's Science Advisory Council reported in May 1963; scientifically and legally accurate as testified by the failure of DDT manufacturers to follow through on their threat to sue her, and by the two federal trial courts that ordered DDT off the market prior to 1972.
You're confusing your absolute ignorance and bigotry against science with fact. Rachel was right, and you know it, and so does everyone else.
You're confusing your absolute ignorance and bigotry against science with fact. Rachel was right, and you know it, and so does everyone else.
Ed: If I spent all my time reading that drivel, I might believe the bullshit too.
No, wait, that's not true, because I have the brain that you lack.
You cite research as flawed as the original tome, which of course proves my point: it's all bullshit, and people that point to the bullshit, be it the president of Chasing marilyn monroe naked through the white house, or the pseudoscience of other idiots, and call it truth, are just as deluded as you yourself are. but keep it up. Don't bother to arm yourself with a fact or two, continue to believe the bullshit of your intellectual equals- rachel carson, the president's council, piles of dung, and keep spouting it. I'm confident the world is full of people as intellectually bankrupt as you, you'll find hundreds of people to follow you.
No, wait, that's not true, because I have the brain that you lack.
You cite research as flawed as the original tome, which of course proves my point: it's all bullshit, and people that point to the bullshit, be it the president of Chasing marilyn monroe naked through the white house, or the pseudoscience of other idiots, and call it truth, are just as deluded as you yourself are. but keep it up. Don't bother to arm yourself with a fact or two, continue to believe the bullshit of your intellectual equals- rachel carson, the president's council, piles of dung, and keep spouting it. I'm confident the world is full of people as intellectually bankrupt as you, you'll find hundreds of people to follow you.
Og, you can't find any research in Carson's book that is flawed. I've challenged you -- you keep dodging.
You know that it was pored over by lawyers, who badly wanted to sue, who couldn't find any problem. You know it was pored over by Nobel prize winners in chemistry, physics, and physiology -- and the criticism they had was that it was too soft on DDT.
You know that the National Academy of Sciences surveyed the literature and published in 1970 exactly what Carson found -- that although DDT had offered great benefits, its harms outweigh them, and DDT needs to be phased out as soon as possible.
I dare you to cite a problem with Carson's research. Kozlovich can't. Milloy can't. Edwards couldn't, and so started making stuff up.
Carson was right. She still is.
DDT isn't pixie dust, and it's not magic. It has a small and decreasing role to play fighting malaria today -- but its role has always been just to temporarily knock down a local mosquito population while the medicines worked. DDT is absolutely useless without a highly-disciplined, well-working program to improve medical care and do everything possible to prevent bites.
We can beat malaria without DDT -- the death toll today is the lowest in human history -- but we can't beat malaria with DDT alone, nor with DDT in increasing amounts, nor with DDT displacing other, more necessary and more effective means.
You know that it was pored over by lawyers, who badly wanted to sue, who couldn't find any problem. You know it was pored over by Nobel prize winners in chemistry, physics, and physiology -- and the criticism they had was that it was too soft on DDT.
You know that the National Academy of Sciences surveyed the literature and published in 1970 exactly what Carson found -- that although DDT had offered great benefits, its harms outweigh them, and DDT needs to be phased out as soon as possible.
I dare you to cite a problem with Carson's research. Kozlovich can't. Milloy can't. Edwards couldn't, and so started making stuff up.
Carson was right. She still is.
DDT isn't pixie dust, and it's not magic. It has a small and decreasing role to play fighting malaria today -- but its role has always been just to temporarily knock down a local mosquito population while the medicines worked. DDT is absolutely useless without a highly-disciplined, well-working program to improve medical care and do everything possible to prevent bites.
We can beat malaria without DDT -- the death toll today is the lowest in human history -- but we can't beat malaria with DDT alone, nor with DDT in increasing amounts, nor with DDT displacing other, more necessary and more effective means.
Damn. What does that kool-ade taste like, you moron? I can't imagine being so invested in lies that I would act like you.
I like how it's about me "dodging".
Dodge this: Everything you 'believe" is wrong. I have no beliefs, only facts. man, that pisses you off, doesn't it?
I like how it's about me "dodging".
Dodge this: Everything you 'believe" is wrong. I have no beliefs, only facts. man, that pisses you off, doesn't it?
BTW, just because my friend pascal might visit here, I'm going to rename you "Malthus Jr". I'm sure he'll be amused at the reference.
Malthus Jr is too kind. Malthus gave up his misanthropy. Today's radical greens seek to eliminate 12 out of every 13 humans alive today. I like "Wild Deuce" for Eds who hate humanity.
Everything I "believe" is wrong?
Og, you really miss the point. I've noted the research. No faith required, just stick to the facts.
Carson was right. You've not been able to cite a single error, not least, I suspect, because you've never read her work.
DDT is not pixie dust. DDT is not a magic cure for malaria, nor any other disease (it doesn't even touch the malaria parasite).
Continuing the campaign to poison Africa, as you do, is not helping any child survive. Where DDT is still in heavy use, malaria appears to be doing just fine, thank you. The serious malaria fighters do not ask for more DDT.
Facts are stubborn things, John Adams observed. Ronald Reagan noted that for every difficult problem there is a solution that is simple, easy, and wrong. For malaria, the facts show that "more DDT" is the wrong solution.
Og, you really miss the point. I've noted the research. No faith required, just stick to the facts.
Carson was right. You've not been able to cite a single error, not least, I suspect, because you've never read her work.
DDT is not pixie dust. DDT is not a magic cure for malaria, nor any other disease (it doesn't even touch the malaria parasite).
Continuing the campaign to poison Africa, as you do, is not helping any child survive. Where DDT is still in heavy use, malaria appears to be doing just fine, thank you. The serious malaria fighters do not ask for more DDT.
Facts are stubborn things, John Adams observed. Ronald Reagan noted that for every difficult problem there is a solution that is simple, easy, and wrong. For malaria, the facts show that "more DDT" is the wrong solution.
Ed, Ed, Ed... the proper use of is the operative word in the case of any incecticide.
Yes I give you one... DDT was often used willy nilly BUT the way we now use it is totally diffrent to way back in the early days.
We use it inside the living spaces mainly and it has shown remarkable efficacy... more so than most insecticides, together with all other preventative measures it is a a handy tool in the fight against prophylactic resistant malaria... or should we stop that treatment too and let nature take it's course here in Africa?
I just love these armchair experts from overseas...
Yes I give you one... DDT was often used willy nilly BUT the way we now use it is totally diffrent to way back in the early days.
We use it inside the living spaces mainly and it has shown remarkable efficacy... more so than most insecticides, together with all other preventative measures it is a a handy tool in the fight against prophylactic resistant malaria... or should we stop that treatment too and let nature take it's course here in Africa?
I just love these armchair experts from overseas...
RobC said: Yes I give you one... DDT was often used willy nilly BUT the way we now use it is totally diffrent to way back in the early days.
We use it inside the living spaces mainly and it has shown remarkable efficacy... more so than most insecticides, together with all other preventative measures it is a a handy tool in the fight against prophylactic resistant malaria... or should we stop that treatment too and let nature take it's course here in Africa?
I just love these armchair experts from overseas...
Ah, then there is no need for more DDT. Then there is no need to change any rules.
Since the present use of DDT, under the guidelines of WHO, the agency which leads the world in calling for the total phase-out of DDT, is done under the rules Rachel Carson urged in 1962, then all we need do is tip our hat to Carson's being 48 years ahead of us, and lament she died so young.
That wasn't the thesis the blog owner started out with here, but you're right. Now, all you have to do is convince that hardhead.
We use it inside the living spaces mainly and it has shown remarkable efficacy... more so than most insecticides, together with all other preventative measures it is a a handy tool in the fight against prophylactic resistant malaria... or should we stop that treatment too and let nature take it's course here in Africa?
I just love these armchair experts from overseas...
Ah, then there is no need for more DDT. Then there is no need to change any rules.
Since the present use of DDT, under the guidelines of WHO, the agency which leads the world in calling for the total phase-out of DDT, is done under the rules Rachel Carson urged in 1962, then all we need do is tip our hat to Carson's being 48 years ahead of us, and lament she died so young.
That wasn't the thesis the blog owner started out with here, but you're right. Now, all you have to do is convince that hardhead.
Armchair Expert Ed.
My Thesis is/was that she "Carson" was bad, as in stupid, but still evil.
Come and see that RobC is right, we need DDT. It is saving many many many lives and we have to break Carson's and the UN's fucking rules to get it.
ED, how many people have you personally saved in the last year.
I have saved a hundred at least.
My company and others have saved thousands, illegally, of course.
You are a stupid fucking dick.
My Thesis is/was that she "Carson" was bad, as in stupid, but still evil.
Come and see that RobC is right, we need DDT. It is saving many many many lives and we have to break Carson's and the UN's fucking rules to get it.
ED, how many people have you personally saved in the last year.
I have saved a hundred at least.
My company and others have saved thousands, illegally, of course.
You are a stupid fucking dick.
And you are so correct and right that, despite your utter and complete failure to provide any evidence of your claims, your blustering profanity will surely show the size of your testes!
A legend in your own mind!
It must be hell growing obsolete.
A legend in your own mind!
It must be hell growing obsolete.
Re Ed's: "It must be hell growing obsolete."
You have no idea. Who exactly are the useful idiots?
Could you be carrying water for monsters that you don't believe exist? Could you possibly be conscientious enough to consider that a possibility, let alone a likelihood?
Ed, you choose to ignore, or claim not to believe (whatever), that the radical green priests who are orchestrating the denial to human beings their the right to live -- unless they are deemed useful -- are the threat implied by their chosen moniker NeoMalthusians.
You choose not to see that it's Utilitarianism on steroids. Or are you going to claim that you have no idea of what Malthusianism or Utilitarianism is? Plausible deniability Ed? These are real schools of thought. Yet there is a total lack of acknowledgement by people such as yourself that they do exist. Worse -- where are the leaders who speak against such thinkers? Where Ed? Why is there silence except from someone you never heard of before? I am just a nut you have nothing to learn from.
Og presumes that you presume you are among the chosen, that your knowledge somehow protects you, that you are among the elite.
You will be among the first they go after once they come to power. That is because when their methodology becomes too out of sync with what they have always claimed to be representing, it will shock the majority of those who once believed they were honest in the studies they published. (I'm assuming your honest here Ed. I could be wrong.) And they will not be nice to you unless you die before they turn on you.
Ed, you wrote to Kees "It must be hell growing obsolete." That's Utilitarianism coming into its own Ed.
They're gonna tie you to a bed.
and they're gonna take from you what the need, a piece at a time.
You've heard of vivasection? That's been done to animals; and rumored to have been done to Chinese that are out of favor. Well, you're an old man, so maybe they'll just take an old man's kidney or two presuming yours are still useful and of the right blood type. Or maybe they'll do it to your granddaughter while you watch. These are monsters Ed. This is the brave new world you are blissfully ignorant of, you plausible denier you.
Post a Comment
You have no idea. Who exactly are the useful idiots?
Could you be carrying water for monsters that you don't believe exist? Could you possibly be conscientious enough to consider that a possibility, let alone a likelihood?
Ed, you choose to ignore, or claim not to believe (whatever), that the radical green priests who are orchestrating the denial to human beings their the right to live -- unless they are deemed useful -- are the threat implied by their chosen moniker NeoMalthusians.
You choose not to see that it's Utilitarianism on steroids. Or are you going to claim that you have no idea of what Malthusianism or Utilitarianism is? Plausible deniability Ed? These are real schools of thought. Yet there is a total lack of acknowledgement by people such as yourself that they do exist. Worse -- where are the leaders who speak against such thinkers? Where Ed? Why is there silence except from someone you never heard of before? I am just a nut you have nothing to learn from.
Og presumes that you presume you are among the chosen, that your knowledge somehow protects you, that you are among the elite.
You will be among the first they go after once they come to power. That is because when their methodology becomes too out of sync with what they have always claimed to be representing, it will shock the majority of those who once believed they were honest in the studies they published. (I'm assuming your honest here Ed. I could be wrong.) And they will not be nice to you unless you die before they turn on you.
Ed, you wrote to Kees "It must be hell growing obsolete." That's Utilitarianism coming into its own Ed.
They're gonna tie you to a bed.
and they're gonna take from you what the need, a piece at a time.
You've heard of vivasection? That's been done to animals; and rumored to have been done to Chinese that are out of favor. Well, you're an old man, so maybe they'll just take an old man's kidney or two presuming yours are still useful and of the right blood type. Or maybe they'll do it to your granddaughter while you watch. These are monsters Ed. This is the brave new world you are blissfully ignorant of, you plausible denier you.
<< Home
