When an ideology really kills...

[Yonivore]

Queensland floods: but at least the 'endangered' Mary River cod is safe, eh? (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100071290/queensland-floods-but-at-least-the-endangered-mary-river-cod-is-safe-eh/)


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/01/flood4_1800701d.jpg


Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett on Wednesday said he made the interim decision to reject the controversial $1.8 billion plan to dam the Mary River because evidence showed it could kill off endangered species. He made the interim decision to reject the controversial $1.8 billion plan to dam the Mary River because evidence showed it could kill off endangered species

“The project would have serious and irreversible effects on national listed species such as the Australian lungfish, the Mary River turtle and the Mary River cod – both of those endangered.
Well, Minister Garrett can't hold a candle to Rachel Carson...


DDT: the story of a scandal that has killed millions (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article847896.ece)

[ChumpDumper]

EXACTLY the same floods occurred in EXACTLY the same places back in 1974, with much the same tragic loss of life and destruction of property.So why do people still live there?

[Winehole23]

Rachel Carson did what again?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I see!!! Australian eco-politics vindicate Palin's use of crosshairs on a map.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't see yoni bitching when neoconservatives like him killed tens of thousands of people with their ideology.

[jack sommerset]

lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

I didn't see yoni bitching when neoconservatives like him killed tens of thousands of people with their ideology.

But they are better off!

[boutons_deux]

The U.S. Ban on DDT

A Continuing Success Story

Posted: 04-Apr-2005; Updated: 28-Dec-2006


Why was DDT banned originally in the U.S.?

The pesticide DDT was banned in the United States in 1972 because it contributed to the near extinction of birds, including the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. DDT is a persistent chemical that becomes concentrated in animal tissues, rising in concentration in animals that are higher in the food chain. It is particularly toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates and insects (including some that are beneficial). While not immediately toxic to birds, DDT causes long-term reproductive problems by causing eggshells to weaken and crack, threatening the survival of many bird species. Because of its chemical nature, once DDT is applied in a field or other environment, it remains in an active form for decades. People throughout the United States still carry DDT and its metabolites in their bodies, 30 years after the pesticide was banned in this country. Most other developed countries have also banned DDT, but it is still used in many developing countries.

Did the U.S. ban on DDT do any good?

Since the nationwide ban took effect, there has been a gradual decline in DDT levels in humans and in wildlife. There has been no resurgence of malaria or any of the other diseases that DDT was used to fight in the United States. Moreover, farmers have found effective alternative means to control insect pests. The DDT ban is one of the very few actions directly responsible for the recovery of species once in danger of extinction, including the peregrine falcon, the bald eagle and the brown pelican. It also has clearly helped other bird species that were not yet endangered but whose populations were declining due to DDT. As Russell Train, chairman emeritus of the World Wildlife Fund put it, "The banning of DDT was one of the most important legal victories ever won for wildlife."

Recent studies have not found an association between DDT exposure in adults and breast cancer. This means DDT isn't toxic to humans, right?

Wrong. Chronic low dose DDT exposure has been shown to be associated with premature birth and low birthweight in babies who were exposed before birth, and with decreased duration of milk supply in nursing mothers. Most of what we know about DDT's toxicity to humans (as with many chemicals) is derived from laboratory-animal studies, which have demonstrated that DDT is likely to cause cancers and other health problems. Although recent studies have not established a link between DDT exposure and breast cancer in adults, they do not address whether prenatal or early childhood exposures to DDT cause breast cancer or other cancers in later life.

Is there truth to the claim that the DDT ban has harmed people?

The resurgence of malaria in certain regions of the developing world has been related to many factors, such as increases in international travel, population growth and ecosystem shifts that bring people more into contact with mosquitoes, and growing resistance of the malaria parasites to medicines. Most important, there have been widespread decreases in funding for the public health measures that had successfully controlled malaria earlier, including tracking and treating malaria cases, educating people on mosquito-avoidance measures and implementing integrated mosquito management plans.

To attribute the resurgence in malaria to a failure to use one specific pesticide is not only misleading, it's incorrect. Prior to the bans on DDT in the U.S., Europe and other developed countries, mosquitoes were already becoming increasingly resistant to DDT. As a result, mosquito control experts in those countries were already searching for more effective alternative pesticides and other mosquito-control measures. Recent articles in Science magazine document that mosquitoes throughout the developing world are also now increasingly resistant to DDT. Thus, its effectiveness is limited, and its use will not accomplish public health goals in the absence of a comprehensive pest management program.

http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4407

[coyotes_geek]

Thank you boutons. That's very relevant.

[101A]

Thank you boutons. That's very relevant.


It is.

(you might want to read Silent Spring)

[Yonivore]

Rachel Carson did what again?
Can you not use a search engine?

[Winehole23]

Already did. Thanks for nothing.

[Yonivore]

Already did. Thanks for nothing.
You're welcome.

[SnakeBoy]

When an ideology really kills...

What ideology is it that drives development in flood zones?

[Yonivore]

What ideology is it that drives development in flood zones?
In this case, an ideology that valued a fish over people. Those are generally espoused by liberal, left-wing, or socialist ideologues.

Thanks for asking.

[ChumpDumper]

So why do people still live there?

[Yonivore]

What ideology is it that drives development in flood zones?
I was in a rush when I responded to this the first time and, obviously, I missed your point.

Brisbane is the third largest city in Australia. I don't know how long it's been a city or how often it floods but, your question suggests they should just move if this is going to be a problem.

One could counter the dam was an easier solution.

Take a look at New Orleans. Many have criticized New Orleaners for establishing a city below sea level. However, when it was founded, it was small and the portion settled was less likely to flood than the city that built up around it.

The federal government poured money into Louisiana and other states, through which the Mississippi runs, in order for them to build elaborate levee systems to defeat nature.

Unfortunately, Louisiana diverted much of those funds through political corruption and cronyism, leaving their levee system antiquated and inadequate.

Would you tell New Orleaners to move?

I would counter it would have been better if they would have used the levee money as intended.

[ChumpDumper]

The levee system is maintained by the federal government, so your charges of local corruption's affecting it mean shit.
I don't know how long it's been a city or how often it floodsLooks like that part floods about every 30 years or so.

I wouldn't live that area.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

No fucking way Yonivore just used liberal hippy wildlife conservation, no dam, and death due to a flood as an example of ideology killing human people.

No fucking way

He has to be trolling

He couldn't possibly think it's an example.


Because then that would invalidate roughly 60% of anything Yonivore has ever posted on SpursTalk political in his entire career.

It would reveal him to be a hypocrite with no concrete, defensible core of ideals...that his ideals are actually fool of bull shit, and holes, and he is no smarter than Palin's retarded baby.


omg