Reef Central Online Community

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community Archives > General Interest Forums > Responsible Reefkeeping

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01/02/2008, 10:52 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by Live504
Thats bull.... C02 what is causing the earth to heat up is 98% from volcanoes... The other 2% is from us... The earth has a cycle I believe... This is what prob happened years before us... Its a recurrent event, most of everything what happened in the past is going to happen again intel the sun burns out in 10 million years or whenever that is...
aaahahahahaha


who told you that? where you tripping when they told you it?
  #102  
Old 01/02/2008, 10:58 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
Poor Polar Bears.
Give yourself a pat on the back there big man.

You copy and paste a load of dubunk science and misinformation and then come out with that statement. great one. You're a real cool guy.
  #103  
Old 01/02/2008, 01:06 PM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Why do you have to get personal? I disagree with the "concensus science" and scare mongering. I have not tried to take it to a personal level like you just did.
  #104  
Old 01/02/2008, 10:06 PM
Skepperz Skepperz is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 342
Send a message via ICQ to Skepperz Send a message via Yahoo to Skepperz
Ok guys take it easy, we are all open to everyones thoughts here, we don't want to ruin a good thread.

Thanks guys

Skepperz
__________________
40g Main display
10g Sump
Lifereef Overflow
Rio 2600 on a Scwd return

LIGHTING
4x36w Pl
2x30w PC
Lotts of natrual sunlight
  #105  
Old 01/03/2008, 05:40 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
I'm absolutley sick of people still trying to deny man made global warming. still clinging to bits of misinformation left over from the denial industry that came from Exxon Mobil,and a large US tobbaco company,and the US government.

The scientific conseous is as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer and HIV causes AIDS.

We have till 2030 to sort things out and stop a +2C temperture increase. yet we still have many people laughing it off and brining up debunk misinformation to support there denial.

It's a disgrace. We have wasted the best part of ten years because of the denial industry and its tricks,now they have been exposed and the information we have to start acting.

The thing that alot of people dont realise is its for everyones sake that we act and curb emmisions. the global economy included. there will be massive economic problems if we go into runaway climate change,these massive problems are well documented now.

we have the chance to stop it. cleaner technologys will boost economys. no-one is saying we turn off the heating and put our animal skins back on. but we have to move forward. when will certain people start listening,and get there heads of the sand.

And anyone who laughs at the most probable exinction of the Polar Bear,because of its habitat melting away through global warming should be ashamed of themselves. Really really ashamed.
  #106  
Old 01/03/2008, 07:04 AM
billsreef billsreef is offline
Moderator
10 & Over Club
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 12,688
Send a message via ICQ to billsreef Send a message via AIM to billsreef Send a message via Yahoo to billsreef
Folks, remember, feel free to debate the science, the data, the conclusions, but please remember to keep the personal jabs out of it. I'd really hate to start having to temporarily ban people or close the thread.
__________________
Bill

"LOL, well I have no brain apparently. " - dc (Debi)
  #107  
Old 01/03/2008, 10:53 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
I don't feel ashamed, the polar bears are not threatened, and thier number continue to increase.
Its about the same as DDT killing birds. It was a great book, but very wrong.
  #108  
Old 01/03/2008, 11:31 AM
Rekonn Rekonn is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Francisco CA
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally posted by Rossini
I'm absolutley sick of people still trying to deny man made global warming.
Science is made stronger by constant questioning, it's a good thing. Don't feel offended, just offer evidence pointing to the contrary if you have it. It does no good to call people that don't come to the same conclusion that you do "deniers". That's just name calling, and doesn't help convince anyone.
  #109  
Old 01/03/2008, 11:50 AM
HippieSmell HippieSmell is offline
I hug trees, not Bushes
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
Its about the same as DDT killing birds. It was a great book, but very wrong.
It doesn't kill birds, it makes their egg shells thin and fragile. It also bioaccumulates all the way up the food chain, not good. Back on topic.
__________________
The Sand People are easily startled, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

All statements have been peer reviewed.
  #110  
Old 01/03/2008, 02:47 PM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by HippieSmell
It doesn't kill birds, it makes their egg shells thin and fragile. It also bioaccumulates all the way up the food chain, not good. Back on topic.
This is an Environmental Myth. Should we start a new thread on DDT or do it here? But you can't get mad because you don't like the message.
  #111  
Old 01/03/2008, 03:51 PM
greenbean36191 greenbean36191 is offline
Soul of a Sailor
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Huntsville/ Auburn, AL
Posts: 7,859
Send a message via AIM to greenbean36191
I can't say I know anything about what the scientific literature says on DDT and birds, but I'd love to hear why you think it's a myth.

As for polar bears, from what I know (which isn't a lot) there's not enough global population data to tell whether numbers are increasing or decreasing. There are better records for some local populations and some seem to be decreasing. AFAIK none appear to be increasing. If sea ice continues to shrink and thin though, there's not much question they'll be in bad shape in the future. In any event, the fate of polar bears isn't evidence for or against anthropogenic warming.
__________________
Lanikai, kahakai nani, aloha no au ia 'oe. A hui hou kakou.
  #112  
Old 01/03/2008, 08:00 PM
billsreef billsreef is offline
Moderator
10 & Over Club
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 12,688
Send a message via ICQ to billsreef Send a message via AIM to billsreef Send a message via Yahoo to billsreef
Like most things in science, there are published experiments on both sides of the DDT vs. bird issue. From my own observations living in one of the heavily studied areas in regards to DDT in the environment, I've seen tremendous increase in Osprey (the heaviest hit) populations and several other raptors since DDT was banned. There have been no environmental changes that would support such increases that could be used to support other theories. In fact quite the opposite, reduced open spaces, shore line hardening, reduced fish populations, increased devolpment...
__________________
Bill

"LOL, well I have no brain apparently. " - dc (Debi)
  #113  
Old 01/04/2008, 05:00 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
I don't feel ashamed, the polar bears are not threatened, and thier number continue to increase.
Its about the same as DDT killing birds. It was a great book, but very wrong.
Show me the proof that there numbers are increasing?
  #114  
Old 01/04/2008, 05:06 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by Rekonn
Science is made stronger by constant questioning, it's a good thing. Don't feel offended, just offer evidence pointing to the contrary if you have it. It does no good to call people that don't come to the same conclusion that you do "deniers". That's just name calling, and doesn't help convince anyone.
The time for questioning is over. 99% of scientists around the world are in agreement. Its only a select few that dont. We need to act now,time is running out.

I'm afraid some people no matter what evidence they are shown,will still never be convinced. they dont want to be. This is my point.

The denial game is or WAS an industry. This is why I mention it. Millions of U.S dollars were spent over the years trying to cover man made global warming up.
  #115  
Old 01/04/2008, 09:40 AM
Buckeye ME Buckeye ME is offline
Always a Buckeye
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Evansville, IN
Posts: 793
1000 years ago, 99% of scientists were convinced the world is flat.

Do you have a statistic to prove "99% of scientists"? If not, you are reverting to hyperbole. Not that it would surprise me.
__________________
"Nothing cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
  #116  
Old 01/04/2008, 09:49 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by greenbean36191
I can't say I know anything about what the scientific literature says on DDT and birds, but I'd love to hear why you think it's a myth.

As for polar bears, from what I know (which isn't a lot) there's not enough global population data to tell whether numbers are increasing or decreasing. There are better records for some local populations and some seem to be decreasing. AFAIK none appear to be increasing. If sea ice continues to shrink and thin though, there's not much question they'll be in bad shape in the future. In any event, the fate of polar bears isn't evidence for or against anthropogenic warming.
My understanding is that there are about 19 different polar bear populations. One of which is in decline, due to hunting.

Putting an animal on the endangered species list because of what might happen in the future, seems silly to me. If you look at the rate of species extinctions, you could say the same for every animal including man.

Last edited by samtheman; 01/04/2008 at 10:16 AM.
  #117  
Old 01/04/2008, 09:57 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
My understanding is that there are about 19 different polar bear populations. One of which is in decline, due to hunting.

Putting an animal on the endangered species list because of what might happen in the future, seems silly to me. If you look at the rate of species extinctions, you could cay the same for every animal including man.
so we just have to take samthemans word for it do we? brilliant
  #118  
Old 01/04/2008, 09:59 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by Buckeye ME
1000 years ago, 99% of scientists were convinced the world is flat.

Do you have a statistic to prove "99% of scientists"? If not, you are reverting to hyperbole. Not that it would surprise me.

To doubt,today,that manmade climate change is happening,you must abandon science and revert to some other means of understanding the world:alchemy perhaps,or magic.

Ice cores extraced from the Antartcic show that the levels of co2 and methane in the atmosphere (these are the two principal greenhouse gases) are now higher than they have been for 650,000 years. Throughout that period,the concentration of these gases has been closely tracked by global temperatures.

Co2 levels have been rising over the past century faster that at any other time over the past 20,000 years. The only means by which greenhouse gases could have accumulated so swiftly is human action:carbon dioxide is produced by burning oil,coal,gas,and by clearing forests,while methane is released from farms and coal mines and landfill sites.

Both gases let in heat from the sun more readily than they let it out. As their levels in the atmosphere increase,the temperature rises. The concentration of co2,the important of the two,has risen from 280ppm in Marlowes time to 380ppm today. Most of the growth has taken place in the past fifty years. The average global temp over the past century has climbed,as a result,by 0.6C. According to the World Metorological organization, "the increase in temperature in the 21st century is likely to have been the largest in any century during the past 1000 years".

If you reject this explanation for planetary warming,you should ask yourself the following questions:

1. Does the atmosphere contain co2?

2. Does atmospheric co2 raise the average global temperature?

3. Will this influence be enhanced by the addition of more co2?

4. Have human activities led to a net emmision of co2?

If you are able to answer "no" to any of them,you should put yourself forward for a Nobel Prize. You will have turned science on its head.
  #119  
Old 01/04/2008, 10:20 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by Rossini
so we just have to take samthemans word for it do we? brilliant
I would hope not. Not thinking for yourself is what keeps the environmental movement alive. Running around picking up bottles while the earth dies, makes many feel better.
Try doing some research on polar bears and not from the New York Times. You will be suprised.
  #120  
Old 01/04/2008, 10:24 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by Rossini
To doubt,today,that manmade climate change is happening,you must abandon science and revert to some other means of understanding the world:alchemy perhaps,or magic.

Ice cores extraced from the Antartcic show that the levels of co2 and methane in the atmosphere (these are the two principal greenhouse gases) are now higher than they have been for 650,000 years. Throughout that period,the concentration of these gases has been closely tracked by global temperatures.

Co2 levels have been rising over the past century faster that at any other time over the past 20,000 years. The only means by which greenhouse gases could have accumulated so swiftly is human action:carbon dioxide is produced by burning oil,coal,gas,and by clearing forests,while methane is released from farms and coal mines and landfill sites.

Both gases let in heat from the sun more readily than they let it out. As their levels in the atmosphere increase,the temperature rises. The concentration of co2,the important of the two,has risen from 280ppm in Marlowes time to 380ppm today. Most of the growth has taken place in the past fifty years. The average global temp over the past century has climbed,as a result,by 0.6C. According to the World Metorological organization, "the increase in temperature in the 21st century is likely to have been the largest in any century during the past 1000 years".

If you reject this explanation for planetary warming,you should ask yourself the following questions:

1. Does the atmosphere contain co2?

2. Does atmospheric co2 raise the average global temperature?

3. Will this influence be enhanced by the addition of more co2?

4. Have human activities led to a net emmision of co2?

If you are able to answer "no" to any of them,you should put yourself forward for a Nobel Prize. You will have turned science on its head.
Number two is based on a correlation between untestable models and unproven base temperatures. How does a correlation, however aquired, prove causation?

Now lets here how the models are tested, how high a confidence factor is used, how the temperature estimates are accurate, and then that last big jump,,,,,,,causation. This is not science.
  #121  
Old 01/04/2008, 10:33 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring: Environmentalist Mythology Killing Us Softly
by Steven Brockerman (August 11, 2002)

Theirs is the disease you don't hear about on the nightly news. Newspaper editorialists, too, are silent about the death toll from this ailment -- nearly 9 ½ million people since 1999, of which 8½ million were pregnant women or children under the age of five. No, the disease isn't AIDS. It's mosquito borne malaria, and we've had the means for wiping out this affliction for over a century. However, thanks to environmentalist mythology, the tool, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), has been banned in most countries worldwide.

The ban on DDT, like the modern environmentalist movement itself, grew out of the book, Silent Spring, by Rachael Carson. As almost any school child today can parrot, Carson claimed DDT thinned the eggs of birds. Pointing to a 1956 study by Dr. James DeWitt published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, Carson wrote: "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments [demonstrate] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction."

DeWitt, however, concluded no such thing. Indeed, he discovered in his study that 50% more eggs hatched from DDT fed quail than from those in the control group.

Following Carson's lead, hippie environmentalists began claiming that raptor populations -- eagles, osprey, hawks, etc. -- were declining due to DDT. They failed to note that such populations had been declining precipitously for years prior to the use of DDT. Indeed, according to the yearly Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, 1941 to 1960, years that saw the greatest, most widespread use of DDT, the count of eagles actually increased from 197 in 1941 to 897 in 1960. A forty-year count over roughly the same period by the Hawks Mountain Sanctuary Association also found population increases for Ospreys and most kinds of hawks.

Finally, after years of study, researchers at Cornell University "found no tremors, no mortality, no thinning of eggshells and no interference with reproduction caused by levels of DDT which were as high as those reported to be present in most of the wild birds where ‘catastrophic' decreases in shell quality and reproduction have been claimed" ("Effects of PCBs, DDT, and mercury compounds upon egg production, hatchability and shell quality in chickens and Japanese quail").

Carson, her book's affected prose designed to create optimum public panic, heralded, too, a coming cancer epidemic among humans. Her assertion was based on the high incidences of liver cancer found in adult rainbow trout in 1961 -- a result, not of DDT, but of a fungi produced carcinogen, aflatoxin.

Once again, environmentalists followed Carson's lead. A 1969 study ("Multigeneration studies on DDT in mice.") concluded that mice fed DDT developed a higher incidence of leukemia and liver tumors than unexposed mice. Epidemiology data of the preceding 25 years, though, showed no increases in liver cancer among the human populations in the areas where DDT had been sprayed. Upon further examination of the data, moreover, researchers discovered high incidences of tumors in the control group, too. Apparently, both groups had been feed food that was moldy, contaminated by aflatoxin.

Since then, in 1978, after a two-year study, the National Cancer Institute has concluded that, indeed, DDT is not carcinogenic. Even more recently, a study ("Plasma organochlorines levels and the risk of breast cancer") published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 1997 found nothing to indicate that the risk of breast cancer is increased by exposure to DDT or DDE (a byproduct of DDT).

None of this evidence, though, would have swayed William Ruckelshaus, head of a brand new Environmental Protection Agency in 1971. Ruckelshaus not only refused to attend EPA's 1971-72 administrative hearings on DDT, but also refused to read even one page of the 9,000 pages of testimony. Not surprisingly, Ruckelshaus ignored the findings of the hearings' judge -- ""DDT is not a carcinogenic … a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man -- and banned DDT anyway. It's not surprising because William Ruckelshaus was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund -- later his personal stationery would have printed on it the following boast: "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."

Since 1971, pressured by specialized environmentalist organizations like the International Pesticide Action Network, much of the rest of the world has banned DDT, too. Those countries now rely on pesticides that are neither as effective nor as safe as DDT. Meanwhile, the death tolls from malaria in tropical Third World countries silently climbs. Heedless of this, environmentalists are now pressuring governments to preserve wetlands, i.e., swamps, which are the foremost breeding grounds of disease carrying mosquitoes. One would have to conclude, given the facts, that environmentalists are either insane or intent upon eradicating every human being from the face of the planet. At a UN sponsored earth summit in 1971, a delegate's remark gives us the answer: "What this world needs is a good plague to wipe out the human population."

If the death toll from malaria begins to mount in this country, we'll certainly hear about it on the nightly news. Malaria will be blamed, of course, but the real culprit will be environmentalist mythology, which has been killing us softly for decades.
  #122  
Old 01/04/2008, 10:40 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Mosquitoes, DDT, and Human Health

A leading entomologist describes the death and suffering caused by insect-borne diseases, and tells why we must bring back DDT.

(Excerpts of text from Fall 2002 issue of 21st Century)

by J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Links to other related articles:

To Control Malaria, We Need DDT!

The Lies of Rachel Carson

Bring Back DDT, and Science With It!

Anopheles, the mosquito that carries malaria, which today kills 2 to 3 million people a year.
(Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization )

During the war in Europe, in 1944, we went to sleep every night while being fed upon by bedbugs and fleas, and there was no way to escape them. We had heard about “cooties” (body lice) causing typhus, which killed more than 3 million people in Europe and vicinity during and after World War I.
One day, I was ordered to dust every soldier in our company with an insecticidal powder that had just been received. For two weeks I dusted the insecticide on soldiers and civilians, breathing the fog of white dust for several hours each day. The body lice were killed, and the DDT persisted long enough to kill young lice when they emerged from the eggs.

Fortunately, no human beings have ever been harmed by DDT. I later learned that the material was produced by a German chemist, Othmar Zeidler, in 1874. He had made hundreds of chemical compounds but he never suggested uses for any of them. Sixty years later, in Switzerland in 1939, Dr. Paul Müller was seeking chemicals that might kill insect pests, and he followed Zeidler’s written directions for preparing several compounds. One of them was a compound that Zeidler had labelled dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane. Müller called it “DDT,” and in 1948, he received the Nobel Prize for his work with that chemical.

Dr. Joseph Jacobs later described his role in producing the first DDT made in the United States. At Merck & Company in New Jersey, he was assigned the task of duplicating Zeidler’s procedure, but on a much larger scale. He commandeered a huge glass-lined reactor, and produced the first 500 pounds of DDT made in the United States. An Army truck rushed it to an airport, and it was flown to Italy, where it halted a developing epidemic of typhus in our troops. The Surgeon General telegrammed thanks from President Roosevelt, and stating: “It is estimated that 5,000 lives were probably saved by destroying the typhus-carrying body lice infesting our soldiers.”1

After the war, I entered Ohio State University to study entomology. Insects are the most abundant forms of life on Earth; fortunately, only about 1 percent of them compete with human beings for food, fiber, and space. A small part of that 1 percent threatens our health with stings or bites, and a few transmit serious diseases.

I received my Ph.D. for research on beetles, and was hired to teach entomology at San Jose State University in California. There I spent much time studying parasitic insects, and taught medical entomology courses for more than 30 years. In addition to louse-borne typhus, our students were required to learn about diseases caused by mites, ticks, fleas, kissing bugs, black flies, chiggers, sand flies, eye gnats, tsetse flies, and mosquitoes.




DDT has saved more millions of lives than any other man-made chemical.
(Courtesy of Gordon Edwards)

Insect-borne Killer Diseases
At least 80 percent of human infectious diseases are arthropod-borne—transmitted by insects, mites, or ticks.2 They have caused the death of hundreds of millions of people by infecting them with the pathogens that cause typhus, bubonic plague, yellow fever, malaria, dengue fever, sleeping sickness, encephalitis, elephantiasis, leishmaniasis, and yaws.
Flea-borne Diseases
Typhus. In Europe there have been more than 150 typhus epidemics. During the Thirty Years’ War, typhus reduced the population from 30 million to just 13 million, killing 14 times more people than died in battle.

Scientists named the pathogen that causes typhus Rickettsia prowazeki, after two researchers who lost their lives because of their work: While studying a Mexican typhus epidemic, Howard Ricketts died of typhus three weeks after becoming ill, and Stanislas von Prowazek died of typhus in Poland.

The Saturday Evening Post, in an August 1942 article titled “Blitz Plague,” referred to the body louse as “the mass killer which has slaughtered 200 million people in Europe and Asia alone, diverted the stream of history, and done more than any other single factor to determine the outcome of wars.” It reported:

This year, in the Polish town of Vilna, where typhus once killed 20,000 of Napoleon’s troops retreating from Russia, railway employees were forbidden to approach trainloads of infected German soldiers returning from the Russian front. When infected, a person’s fever often reaches 107 degrees, with excruciating headaches and delirium. Mortality rates may be as high as 70 percent.

Bubonic plague. In the 14th Century, fleas that sucked blood from sick rats ingested pathogenic bacteria that were later named Pasteurella pestis. When those fleas then bit humans, they transmitted bubonic plague to them. That plague (the “Black Death”) killed one-fourth of the population of Europe and two-thirds of the population of the British Isles.



U.S. Department of Agriculture

In World War II, troops and refugees were dusted with DDT powder to kill the lice that carried typhus.

Mosquito-borne Diseases
Mosquitoes have been the worst of all the disease carriers!
More than 3,000 species of mosquitoes have been described in scientific journals. Most of them are in tropical areas, where as many as 150 species have been found in a single square mile. The United States contains about 170 species, Canada 70, and Arctic lands less than two dozen. In the Canadian Arctic, researchers who bared their arms, legs, and torsos in an experiment reported as many as 9,000 bites per minute. Unprotected human beings there could lose half of their blood in two hours, and die. Hundreds of cattle and horses have been killed by just such exsanguination, in our southeastern states.

Yellow Fever is caused by a virus transmitted by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Perhaps the disease was brought into America with slaves in the 1500s, but it also could have originated in monkeys in Central America, which still harbor it.

The name of this disease refers to the yellowing of skin that results after the infected mosquito bites. After a 10-day gestation period, there is a sudden onset of fever, with aching, nausea, bleeding from digestive tract, lungs, nose, and mouth, and severe vomiting (frequently bloody). Mortality rates from yellow fever often exceed 50 percent of the cases.

In 1542, Hernando DeSoto suffered with it and almost half of his troops died of it, in what is now the state of Florida. In 1741, England sent Admiral Edward Vernon with 27,000 men to Mexico and the Louisiana Territory. They retreated after 20,000 were killed by yellow fever. In 1802, Napoleon’s brother-in-law, Charles LeClerc, came to the Louisiana Territory with 33,000 soldiers, but gave up after 29,000 of them died of yellow fever.

Napoleon had envisioned a French colonial empire in the New World, but after such severe losses he did an about-face and sold the Louisiana Territory to the American colonists for $15 million, nearly doubling the size of our country. Some historians say that the sale was a result of yellow fever killing 40,000 French troops.

In 1900, in Cuba, the U.S. Yellow Fever Commission investigated the disease, under the guidance of Walter Reed, James Carroll, Jesse Lazear, and A. Agramonte. Their research with human volunteers proved that the fever was transmitted only by the bites of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, rather than by personal contact.3 Attempts to eradicate those mosquitoes almost succeeded in Central America and the Caribbean, but failed in southeastern United States, where Aedes aegypti still abound. Their larvae thrive in junk yards and auto wrecking yards, where they live in used tires and other small containers of water.

Yellow fever vaccines have been available since 1942, but must be kept refrigerated. That is a problem in hot countries, especially because Freon was unwisely banned by pseudo-environmentalists in the great ozone hoax. More than 400 million people have been given the vaccine.

In Central America a pretty native mosquito, Haemagogus spegazinii, transmits the virus from monkey to monkey in the tree tops. If a tree falls in the jungle and human beings are nearby, the Haemagogus can transmit the virus to them. These individuals may then serve as reservoirs of the fever in their villages.

Encephalitis Viruses. Mosquitoes transmit many other kinds of viruses, causing illnesses such as Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE), Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE), St. Louis Encephalitis (SLE), Japanese B Encephalitis (JBE), Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis (VEE), and West Nile Encephalitis. An epidemic of SLE in 1933 devastated St. Louis and several other cities as far east as Louisville, Ky. More than 1,000 cases there resulted in 266 deaths.

Japanese B Encephalitis has been very deadly in Japan and Korea. In 1924, Tokyo had 6,000 cases, and 3,800 died. In 1948, Japan had 8,000 cases and 4,750 died. The vector, the Asian Tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus), is now well established in the United States, and has already transmitted fever viruses to children in southeastern and midwestern states, and in Texas. Transovarial transmission may pass encephalitis viruses from female mosquitoes to their larvae, via infected eggs.

Dengue Fever is also known as “Breakbone Fever” because the virus causes extreme aching of joints, even the joints between plates in the skull. Many kinds of mosquitoes transmit the virus, but Aedes aegypti is the major vector. In Guam, 98 percent of the American troops were infected. Some of my students served with the U.S. Navy and had been infected with dengue. They told me that the pain was “indescribable,” and one said: “When I had malaria I was afraid I might die, but when I had dengue I almost wished that I could die.” The only medication they had was aspirin, which gave very little relief.

In addition to the fever and other symptoms, the dengue virus causes great pain in the eyes, “like someone has his fingers behind your eyeball and is trying to pull it out.” A first exposure to dengue is not often fatal, but re-exposures are more serious, with about 15 percent mortality caused, especially in children

The Asian Tiger Mosquitoes, Aedes albopictus, are efficient carriers of the dengue virus. When they first invaded Brazil, there were only 6 dengue cases in Rio de Janeiro (in 1985). In just one year, the mosquitoes spread the fever to 350,000 people! In 1985, some of these mosquito larvae were shipped into Houston Texas from Japan, in old automobile tires—they can breed successfully in as little as a quarter inch of water. In Evansville, Indiana, they were also breeding in piles of old tires. The piles were sprayed with insecticides every day, for 11 days, but swarms of adult mosquitoes still emerged. In early July 2001, Tiger Mosquitoes were found in the San Francisco Bay area of California. They had just arrived from China, in a shipment of live bamboo plants. The larvae had matured in the water surrounding the plant roots. This mosquito will probably extend its range from coast to coast, and many encephalitis cases should be anticipated. . . .



The author, featured in Esquire magazine, September 1971, eating a tablespoon of DDT, a feat he repeated publicly almost every week in his public campaign to show the safety of DDT.
(Courtesy of J. Gordon Edwards)

DDT: Safe, Effective, and Inexpensive
To control Anopheles mosquitoes, DDT was sprayed on inside walls once or twice a year. In 1959, spraymen applied 60,000 tons of DDT to the inside walls of 100 million houses. There was never any need to wear masks or protective clothing while doing DDT spraying. No adverse effects were ever experienced by the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million people living in the sprayed houses.8
In house spraying, the amount applied was 2 grams of DDT per square meter of wall, every 6 months.9 Also, no wildlife was injured by DDT in those areas. The World Health Organization Director concluded, “The discontinuation of the use of DDT would be a disaster to world health.”

Montrose Chemical Company workers in California, who wore no masks or goggles, were never harmed by their constant exposure to DDT. When their fatty tissues were analyzed, they were found to contain up to 647 parts per million (ppm) of DDT residues. The fatty tissues of the general population at that time contained only 5 or 6 ppm of DDT.10 There were no cancer cases in those workers, even after 1,300 man-years of heavy daily exposure to DDT. Dr. Edward R. Laws, of the U.S. Public Health Service, found that those Montrose workers still were healthy after 10 to 20 years of that exposure.

In addition to its effectiveness, DDT is inexpensive. The cost of spraying in 1959 was $205,000, but if substitutes had to be used, malathion would have cost $637,000, and propoxur would have cost $1,762,000 for the same control. A 1.5 oz. whisky jigger full of 70 percent wettable DDT covers 144 square feet of wall surface, killing all mosquitoes that land there during the next six months.

In the 1960s, the World Health Organization tested more than 1,300 pesticides, seeking effective substitutes for DDT in mosquito control. Only four approached DDT’s effectiveness: Malathion, Aprocarb (Baygon), fenthion, and fenitrothion, but all were more hazardous to humans than DDT and were 4 to 20 times more expensive than DDT.11

Because, over the years, I kept hearing propagandist claims that DDT is toxic to people, I studied all of the relevant scientific and medical literature. Here I mention only some details on DDT’s safety:

Evidence That DDT Fights Cancer
• Drs. Charles Salinskas and Allan E. Okey reported that DDT in rodent diets inhibited development of induced mammary cancers and leukemia.13

• A.E. and E.K. McLean determined that after animals had ingested DDT, the highly toxic aflatoxins they had been fed were not fatal, perhaps because they were converted to non-toxic metabolites by the liver.14 DDT was also known to induce the formation of hepatic microsomal enzymes which, in turn, inhibited the growth of tumors and cancers.

Dr. Wayland Hayes performed tests for the U.S. Public Health Service, feeding human volunteers up to 35 milligrams of DDT in their food every day for 18 months. (The average human intake of DDT in the United States at that time was about 0.03 mgs per day, or 0.36 mgs per year.)15 No adverse effects resulted, either at the time of the study, or during the next 10 years.

As a result of such studies, I felt that it was safe for me to ingest DDT. I was delivering addresses to various audiences almost every week. I carried a commercial box of DDT onto the stage, dug out a tablespoon of DDT (about 12 mgs), swallowed it, and washed it down with water before beginning my talk about DDT’s lack of toxicity to vertebrate animals. Esquire magazine, in September 1971, pictured me ingesting a tablespoon of DDT. The text explained that I had “eaten two-hundred times the normal human intake of DDT, to show it’s not as bad as people think.”

At the same time, the pseudo-environmentalists were going wild against DDT. Clifton Curtis of the World Wildlife Fund, for example, wrote that “DDT is so potent that as long as it is used anywhere in the world, nobody is safe”—and provided no data to back up his assertion. Dr. Gilbert L. Ross, of the American Council on Science and Health, characterized Curtis’s remarks as “typical of the dangerous environmental disinformation masquerading as science that has been stirring DDT hysteria ever since the 1960s.” Ross pointed out that “Extensive scientific studies have not found any harm to humans, even during the massive overuse of DDT in agriculture in the 1950s and 60s.” Furthermore, the scientific reports show that there is no indication of DDT use harming people, birds, bird eggshells, or other vertebrate animals.16

During the 1960s, the World Health Organization proposed the possible eradication of malaria, worldwide, and malaria control was achieved in areas with a population of 279 million people. Thirty-six formerly malarious countries totally eradicated the disease. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated in 1970:

To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable. . . .17




Home Current Issue Contents Sample Articles Subscribe Order Books News
Shop Online Contribute Statement of Purpose Back Issues Contents Español Translations
Order Back Issues Index 1988-1999 Advert. Rates Contact Us
21st Century, P.O. Box 16285, Washington, D.C. 20041 Phone: (703) 777-6943 Fax: (703) 771-9214
www.21stcenturysciencetech.com Copyright © 2005 21st Century Science Associates. All rights reserved.
  #123  
Old 01/04/2008, 10:48 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
Number two is based on a correlation between untestable models and unproven base temperatures. How does a correlation, however aquired, prove causation?

Now lets here how the models are tested, how high a confidence factor is used, how the temperature estimates are accurate, and then that last big jump,,,,,,,causation. This is not science.
I think you better shout this to the world of science then fella. Samtheman has solved it,after years and years of research hes solved it. You will be collecting that Nobel Prize very soon,I can feel it.
  #124  
Old 01/04/2008, 10:59 AM
Rossini Rossini is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally posted by samtheman
I would hope not. Not thinking for yourself is what keeps the environmental movement alive. Running around picking up bottles while the earth dies, makes many feel better.
Try doing some research on polar bears and not from the New York Times. You will be suprised.
There numbers have plummeted since the 80's becauase of shrinking ice and early ice break up. In one area however in the last couple of years numbers are up. This is because the governments have banned hunting them and harp seal pups obvisouly both benefiting the bears greatly.

I find it hard to believe how you can still cling to little peices of misinformation to try and support your argument. sadly for you the argument is over where it counts. although sadly for me,action is far too slow coming and I doubt it ever will come quick enough,not untill its too late.
  #125  
Old 01/04/2008, 11:42 AM
samtheman samtheman is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally posted by Rossini
There numbers have plummeted since the 80's becauase of shrinking ice and early ice break up. In one area however in the last couple of years numbers are up. This is because the governments have banned hunting them and harp seal pups obvisouly both benefiting the bears greatly.

I find it hard to believe how you can still cling to little peices of misinformation to try and support your argument. sadly for you the argument is over where it counts. although sadly for me,action is far too slow coming and I doubt it ever will come quick enough,not untill its too late.
Thanks for all the data! I knew you wouldn't just respond with unsupported opinion. Thanks for taking the time to do the research.
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef Central™ Reef Central, LLC. Copyright ©1999-2009