I'm very, very interested in history. Excuse me if I get a bit techy about stupid, reactionary comparisons.
I can't believe I'm a moderate on the internet... That being said, you've made a few gaping errors, Sarge. I appreciate that you are reasonable enough to see that comparing Bush to Hitler is rediculous.
DDT is harmful to the environment, Sarge. In most third world countries, it is still legal, since it is the cheapest, most feasable way to fight malaria. However, there is no reason for it to be legal in America or the developed world, where malaria has basically become an unknown.
DDT is particularly harmful to predatory birds and aqatic life, and did almost drive the bald eagles to extinction (their population surged about a decade after the stuff was banned, actually leading to overpopulation). It's also fat soluble, and stays in the human body for between 15-20 years. It gets passed on and concentrated as it's consumed by something higher up on the food chain.
This comes from The Lancet.
Quote:
Although DDT is generally not toxic to human beings and was banned mainly for ecological reasons, subsequent research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning, abrogating the benefit of reducing infant mortality from malaria. ... DDT might be useful in controlling malaria, but the evidence of its adverse effects on human health needs appropriate research on whether it achieves a favourable balance of risk versus benefit.
Future perspectives
Although acute toxic effects are scarce, toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation. The research focus on human reproduction and development seems to be appropriate. DDT could be an effective public-health intervention that is cheap, longlasting, and effective. However, various toxic-effects that would be difficult to detect without specific study might exist and could result in substantial morbidity or mortality. Responsible use of DDT should include research programmes that would detect the most plausible forms of toxic effects as well as the documentation of benefits attributable specifically to DDT. Although this viewpoint amounts to a platitude if applied to malaria research in Africa, the research question here could be sufficiently focused and compelling, so that governments and funding agencies recognise the need to include research on all infant mortality when DDT is to be used.
|
This comes from wikipedia.
Quote:
In people, DDT use is generally safe; large populations have been exposed to the compound for 60 years with little acute toxicity apart from a few reports of poisoning. Doses as high as 285 mg/kg taken accidentally did not cause death, but such large doses did lead to prompt vomiting. One dose of 10 mg/kg can result in illness in some people. Subclinical and subtle functional changes have not been meticulously sought until the past few decades.
Occupational exposure to DDT was associated with reduced verbal attention, visuomotor speed, sequencing, and with increased neuropsychological and psychiatric symptoms in a dose-response pattern (ie, per year of DDT application) in retired workers aged 55–70 years in Costa Rica. Although DDT or DDE concentrations were not determined in this study, they probably were very high.
Although extensively studied, there is no convincing evidence that DDT or its metabolite DDE increase human cancer risk. Mainly on the basis of animal data, DDT is classified as a possible carcinogen (class 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and as a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program.
Breast cancer has been examined most closely for an association with p,p'-DDE. In a study in 1993, 37 breast cancer patients had higher serum DDE concentrations (11·8 μg/L) than controls (7·7 μg/L), and results from several subsequent studies supported such an association. However, large epidemiological studies and subsequent pooled and meta-analyses failed to confirm the association.
With detailed work history of chemical manufacturing workers to estimate DDT exposure, a nested case-control study reported occupational DDT exposure associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk. A weak association of self-reported DDT use with pancreatic cancer was reported in another case-control study. A report indicated a higher standardised mortality ratio for pancreatic cancer in outdoor workers with a history of DDT exposure of less than 3 years, but the standardised mortality ratio of DDT workers with exposure of 3 years or more was not significantly raised
|
I read Silent Spring a few years ago. I found it to be tedious and repetative, but important nonetheless.
DDT is classified as a strongly possible carcinogen by the EPA. Some studies have observed high occurences of panceatic and liver cancer, as well as glandular abnormalities. However, no acute toxic effects have been found.
Another problem with DDT is that many mosquitos are now resistant, which is the main reason malaria hasn't been completely wiped out.
Have you actually read either of the Kinsey reports, Sarge? Aside from potentially questionable statistical information, I'd hardly say he was advocating sexually predatory behavior, or pedophilia. I think his biggest message was that homosexuality is quite normal. I suppose that you, as a conservative, wouldn't be particularly fond of that, but I happen to think that such a frank discussion was revolutionary and important. Also, he revealed the fact that masturbation doesn't cause hairy palms and the like, and that many women masturbate, which I also consider an important public announcement. Prior to this, women who masturbated were genitally mutilated, or worse, because it was thought that they were diseased. Kinsey was certainly not a founding member of NAMBLA, although he did act questionably with his data on the sexuality of children. He did not collect the data himself, but took data from one man who was most definitely a sexual predator (Statistically questionable indeed). He probably should have turned the bastard in, but I hardly think a single action like this outweighs all of the good that his studies produced for the feminist and the gay rights movements... Which as a conservative, you are probably opposed to, but I most certainly am not.
Thanks for bringing up that point about the times the books were published, and Nietzche. I actually just started reading Nietzche for one of my classes recently, and he was a protofascist.
The Road to Serfdom promoted individuality? Er... No... It promoted class conciousness in the worst way. Also, The Wealth of Nations was a fundamentally liberal text, in the old sense of the word. Without it, there would have never been nothing for socialism to rebel against. It's one of those "you need light to realize that darkness exists" sorts of things.
Anyway... I agree with Sarge on the last point. Comparing Bush to Hitler is just downright ignorant. It shows that you have little conception of history, and it seems like mudslinging. I wish I could find that Daily Show clip where Jon Stewart talks about how stupid it is to compare people to Hitler.