Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
At 02:37 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped most Regarding DDT: Banning DDT was not a mistake, as a matter of fact, Mr. Crichton's** insistance that it was a mistake, and that DDT is safe, are mistakes on his part... ...so an internet search of articles with many sources cited will have to do for now: http://www.seaweb.org/background/cetaceans.html http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v375/n6532/abs/375581a0.html http://www.nature.com/nsu/010719/010719-3.html Here is the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) site on DDT: (it is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization) http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:1.8 The physicochemical properties of DDT and its metabolites enable these compounds to be taken up readily by organisms. High lipid solubility and low water solubility lead to the retention of DDT and its stable metabolites in fatty tissue. The rates of accumulation into organisms vary with the species, with the duration and concentration of exposure, and with environmental conditions. The high retention of DDT metabolites means that toxic effects can occur in organisms remote in time and geographical area from the point of exposure. These compounds are resistant to breakdown and are readily adsorbed to sediments and soils that can act both as sinks and as long-term sources of exposure (e.g., for soil organisms). Organisms can accumulate these chemicals from the surrounding medium and from food. In aquatic organisms, uptake from the water is generally more important, whereas, in terrestrial fauna, food provides the major source. In general, organisms at higher trophic levels tend to contain more DDT-type compounds than those at lower trophic levels. [Raptors are particularly susceptible to DDT's thinning of their eggshells, while ducks and chickens are not. This is detailed in the article.] Such compounds can be transported around the world in the bodies of migrant animals and in ocean and air currents This is a very detailed article with summaries of many studies on microbes, fish, amphibians, and birds - also affected were bats. Our national bird, the bald eagle, was threatened with extinction in the lower 48 states by hunting, habitat destruction, and poisoning: The greatest threat to the bald eagle's existence arose from the widespread use of DDT and other pesticides after World War II. (Lead poisoning from hunters birdshot was also a significant problem; its use was phased out by 1991.) http://www.usflag.org/bald.eagle.html ...With these and other recovery methods, as well as habitat improvement and the banning of DDT, the bald eagle has made a remarkable comeback. From fewer than 450 nesting pairs in the early 1960s, there are now more than 4,000 adult bald eagles nesting pairs and an unknown number of young and subadults in the conterminous United States. This represents a substantial breeding population... There are groups who deny the toxicity of DDT; here is one site: http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html But women exposed prenatally to higher levels of DDT have decreased probability of pregnancy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12842376dopt=Abstract The decreased fecundability associated with prenatal p,p'-DDT remains unexplained. [OTOH, DDE exposure seemed to increase pregnancy rates -- these chemicals do have estrogenic +/or antiestrogenic activity; there is speculation that some herbicides, also found to have hormonal activity, may contribute to development of breast cancer.] In trout, DDT and its relatives/metabolites also have both estrogenic and anti- activity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12167306dopt=Abstract And DDT is merely one of the chemical soup contaminants found in the now-endangered Stellar sea lion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12826388dopt=Abstract ..SSL tissues show accumulation of butyltins, mercury, PCBs, DDTs, chlordanes and hexachlorobenzene. SSL habitats and prey are contaminated with additional chemicals including mirex, endrin, dieldrin, hexachlorocyclohexanes, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, cadmium and lead. In addition, many SSL haulouts and rookeries are located near other hazards including radioactivity, solvents, ordnance and chemical weapon dumps... Shrimp larvae exposed to DDT have DNA damage: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12568452dopt=Abstract In vitro DDT exposure damages or induces apoptosis (cell death) in neural clone cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12523960dopt=Abstract Yes, it would indeed be nice if someone
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
At 03:52 AM 12/21/2003, you wrote: At 02:37 AM 12/20/03, Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Yes, it would indeed be nice if someone could find an alternative which was nearly (90%+?) as effective as DDT at killing the insects which spread disease to humans while being much safer (10% as toxic?) as DDT, and also be cheap enough that the people living in some of the areas where diseases like malaria and yellow fever are endemic can afford it. FWIW, is it possible that much of the problem with chemicals such as DDT getting into the system where it is not wanted and causes problems is due to overuse, on the principle if a little is good, a lot is better? -- Ronn! Except, there have been just as many studies showing that DDT is not dangerous when used normally. Most of the negative studies have been with doses that exceed by magnitudes the levels found in nature. Bald eagles and other bird populations were declined before DDT was introduced, yet it became the boogyman. Kevin T. - VRWC Flame on (joking) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
--- Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped most Regarding DDT: Banning DDT was not a mistake, as a matter of fact, Mr. Crichton's** insistance that it was a mistake, and that DDT is safe, are mistakes on his part... ...so an internet search of articles with many sources cited will have to do for now: http://www.seaweb.org/background/cetaceans.html http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v375/n6532/abs/375581a0.html http://www.nature.com/nsu/010719/010719-3.html Here is the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) site on DDT: (it is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization) http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:1.8 The physicochemical properties of DDT and its metabolites enable these compounds to be taken up readily by organisms. High lipid solubility and low water solubility lead to the retention of DDT and its stable metabolites in fatty tissue. The rates of accumulation into organisms vary with the species, with the duration and concentration of exposure, and with environmental conditions. The high retention of DDT metabolites means that toxic effects can occur in organisms remote in time and geographical area from the point of exposure. These compounds are resistant to breakdown and are readily adsorbed to sediments and soils that can act both as sinks and as long-term sources of exposure (e.g., for soil organisms). Organisms can accumulate these chemicals from the surrounding medium and from food. In aquatic organisms, uptake from the water is generally more important, whereas, in terrestrial fauna, food provides the major source. In general, organisms at higher trophic levels tend to contain more DDT-type compounds than those at lower trophic levels. [Raptors are particularly susceptible to DDT's thinning of their eggshells, while ducks and chickens are not. This is detailed in the article.] Such compounds can be transported around the world in the bodies of migrant animals and in ocean and air currents This is a very detailed article with summaries of many studies on microbes, fish, amphibians, and birds - also affected were bats. Our national bird, the bald eagle, was threatened with extinction in the lower 48 states by hunting, habitat destruction, and poisoning: The greatest threat to the bald eagle's existence arose from the widespread use of DDT and other pesticides after World War II. (Lead poisoning from hunters birdshot was also a significant problem; its use was phased out by 1991.) http://www.usflag.org/bald.eagle.html ...With these and other recovery methods, as well as habitat improvement and the banning of DDT, the bald eagle has made a remarkable comeback. From fewer than 450 nesting pairs in the early 1960s, there are now more than 4,000 adult bald eagles nesting pairs and an unknown number of young and subadults in the conterminous United States. This represents a substantial breeding population... There are groups who deny the toxicity of DDT; here is one site: http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html But women exposed prenatally to higher levels of DDT have decreased probability of pregnancy: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12842376dopt=Abstract The decreased fecundability associated with prenatal p,p'-DDT remains unexplained. [OTOH, DDE exposure seemed to increase pregnancy rates -- these chemicals do have estrogenic +/or antiestrogenic activity; there is speculation that some herbicides, also found to have hormonal activity, may contribute to development of breast cancer.] In trout, DDT and its relatives/metabolites also have both estrogenic and anti- activity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12167306dopt=Abstract And DDT is merely one of the chemical soup contaminants found in the now-endangered Stellar sea lion: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12826388dopt=Abstract ..SSL tissues show accumulation of butyltins, mercury, PCBs, DDTs, chlordanes and hexachlorobenzene. SSL habitats and prey are contaminated with additional chemicals including mirex, endrin, dieldrin, hexachlorocyclohexanes, tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, cadmium and lead. In addition, many SSL haulouts and rookeries are located near other hazards including radioactivity, solvents, ordnance and chemical weapon dumps... Shrimp larvae exposed to DDT have DNA damage: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12568452dopt=Abstract In vitro DDT exposure damages or induces apoptosis (cell death) in neural clone cells: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=12523960dopt=Abstract Debbi Only The Ill, The Infantile, The
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
Doug Pensinger wrote: In any case I consider my self an environmentalist, but I don't think we're going to get much accomplished if the fringe groups are able to make it look like the whole movement is driven by pseudo-science. This is the crux of the matter, and the sad fact is that even the major groups are being run as fringe groups in a way that alienates the silent majority - the suburban families who care but who don't want to be protesting in the streets. I know the shame and indignation in the general population when Greenpeace runs blockades every time a US warship enters an Australian port (just in case it might be carrying nuclear weapons). Protesting in the middle of the city just pisses people off - lobby groups and PACs in boardrooms and cabinet rooms is what is needed. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
At 09:54 PM 12/16/03, Michael Harney wrote: P.P.S. Never insult me or what I believe unless you are ready to face a challenge. It was not meant as an insult to you or what you believe. I feel rather strongly about this subject, too, but I don't want to unnecessarily upset anyone or risk disrupting the list. P.P.P.S. I've been in a particularly strange mood for a long while now (a few weeks), perhaps stress induced, and encourage others to keep a safe distance from topics I feel strongly about. I'm sorry you have not been feeling well. I hope you get better soon. As a few here know, I have chronic health issues of my own, and sometimes when I am not feeling well I too get stressed out, and far too frequently I let myself become impatient and short-tempered. If I have offended anyone while in one of those moods, I apologize. And if I do so in the future, please forgive me and realize that I am likely to be in a better mood after I have gotten some rest and get to feeling better. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:54 PM 12/16/03, Michael Harney wrote: P.P.S. Never insult me or what I believe unless you are ready to face a challenge. It was not meant as an insult to you or what you believe. I feel rather strongly about this subject, too, but I don't want to unnecessarily upset anyone or risk disrupting the list. No worries, you didn't write it, you just posted it. Nor did you say where you stand on the topic. It was the people on-list agreeing with it that irked me more than the post itself. P.P.P.S. I've been in a particularly strange mood for a long while now (a few weeks), perhaps stress induced, and encourage others to keep a safe distance from topics I feel strongly about. I'm sorry you have not been feeling well. I hope you get better soon. As a few here know, I have chronic health issues of my own, and sometimes when I am not feeling well I too get stressed out, and far too frequently I let myself become impatient and short-tempered. If I have offended anyone while in one of those moods, I apologize. And if I do so in the future, please forgive me and realize that I am likely to be in a better mood after I have gotten some rest and get to feeling better. Well, for me, it's not so much an issue of physical health. I'm in the better physical health now than I have ever been in my life. It's more about mental health. I've just had a lot of concerns on my mind recently, concerns that I have little/no control over, and it becomes very easy to rub me the wrong way when I get in that frame of mind, especially on topics I feel strongly about. Regretably, I haven't been getting a full night's sleep for most of the last two weeks. Each day there was a different reason why my sleep was disrupted before I got a full night's rest, but it doesn't change the fact that I haven't slept enough. I just wish I had my own place rather than living in a house with my mother, brother, and all my brother's children. 80% of the time, that is the reason my sleep is disturbed. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
Michael wrote: No worries, you didn't write it, you just posted it. Nor did you say where you stand on the topic. It was the people on-list agreeing with it that irked me more than the post itself. Since I'm the only one that said he agreed with anything Crichton wrote, let me modify my statement. I believe that his main point is correct; that we should approach environmentalism from a scientific rather than a religious direction. I don't know that much about DDT, I'm not at all convinced that second hand smoke is harmless and I think that global warming could very well be more disastrous than he does, but on the National Parks thing I think he may be referring to the fact that most of them have _not_ been subject to controlled burns and that is why fires like the one in Yellowstone a few years ago have occurred. In any case I consider my self an environmentalist, but I don't think we're going to get much accomplished if the fringe groups are able to make it look like the whole movement is driven by pseudo-science. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
