Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see to no surprise the left not minding at all the hundreds of thousands killed every year by malaria. Simple spray of DDT around the hut would save many lives. But by gosh we gotta make sure the bald eagle eggs don't crack. I'm sure the agenda 21 folks would love for malaria to infest the US again like bed bugs have which someone brought up earlier.
I'm guessing you didn't see my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayneinspain
Quote:
Other defenders point out Carson never actually called for an outright ban on DDT, and part of the argument she made in Silent Spring was that even if DDT and other insecticides had no environmental side effects, their indiscriminate overuse was counter-productive because it would created insect resistance to the pesticide(s), making them (the pesticides) useless in eliminating the target insect populations
Meanwhile, the DDT-based eradication campaign against malaria ran into the trouble Carson had warned about. The high-water mark of the campaign came in 1964. Sri Lanka had reduced its number of malaria cases from millions after the end of the war to just 29. The country declared victory over malaria and suspended spraying. WHO called the eradication programme “an international achievement without parallel in the provision of public health service.”
But then malaria returned to Sri Lanka. In 1968-69, there were half a million cases. The country went back to spraying DDT, but because it had been extensively used in agriculture, mosquitoes had evolved resistance. The insecticide became less and less effective, eventually forcing Sri Lanka to switch to an alternative, malathion, in the mid-1970s. Other countries in the eradication program suffered similar setbacks, and by 1969, the 22nd World Health Assembly concluded that the goal of global eradication of malaria was not feasible.
Easier: Sri Lanka overused DDT. Resistance occurred. Malaria came back in 5 years as if DDT had never been used in the first place.
Quote:
Quote:
In 2001, more than 100 countries signed the Stockholm Convention, a United Nations treaty which sought to eliminate use of 12 persistent, toxic compounds, including DDT. Under the pact, use of the pesticide is allowed only for controlling malaria.
Since then, nine nations—Ethiopia, South Africa, India, Mauritius, Myanmar, Yemen, Uganda, Mozambique and Swaziland—notified the treaty's secretariat that they are using DDT. Five others—Zimbabwe, North Korea, Eritrea, Gambia, Namibia and Zambia--also reportedly are using it, and six others, including China, have reserved the right to begin using it, according to a January Stockholm Convention report.
Easier: DDT is in use today. Malaria still happens. Caveat: DDT can never fully eradicate malaria.
And:
Quote:
Some uses of DDT continued under the public health exemption. For example, in June 1979, the California Department of Health Services was permitted to use DDT to suppress flea vectors of bubonic plague.[28] DDT also continued to be produced in the US for foreign markets until as late as 1985, when over 300 tons were exported.
Thanks to all the doctors who give people antibiotics for the flu and every other little thing a person comes down with.
We need to start allowing people who are sick to get over it themselves, and save the antibiotics for the real problems.
Doctors do not give antibiotics for the flu. They give antibiotics for secondary infections, e.g. pnuemonia, etc that people sometimes get when they get the flu.
Doctors do not give antibiotics for the flu. They give antibiotics for secondary infections, e.g. pnuemonia, etc that people sometimes get when they get the flu.
PLEASE......
I take my son to a doctor for a flu, and they try and give him antibiotics because "well you want to make sure he doesn't get an ear infection".
He doesn't have one, but lets just be sure.
My mother and sister work for doctors, and most people in the medical community know that many people are given antibiotics that do not need them. This trend has lessened over the last few years, but in the past two decades it was a major problem, and has lead to virus's that are resistant to their treatments.
I take my son to a doctor for a flu, and they try and give him antibiotics because "well you want to make sure he doesn't get an ear infection".
He doesn't have one, but lets just be sure.
My mother and sister work for doctors, and most people in the medical community know that many people are given antibiotics that do not need them. This trend has lessened over the last few years, but in the past two decades it was a major problem, and has lead to virus's that are resistant to their treatments.
He was fired, went to a different pediatrician shortly thereafter.
The fact remains, many doctors used to, and some still do this. People go to the doctor, they want a pill. They may feel better later, but its all in their mind. But just handing out antibiotics like candy happens.
I see to no surprise the left not minding at all the hundreds of thousands killed every year by malaria. Simple spray of DDT around the hut would save many lives. But by gosh we gotta make sure the bald eagle eggs don't crack. I'm sure the agenda 21 folks would love for malaria to infest the US again like bed bugs have which someone brought up earlier.
What have you got against Bald Eagles? Bald Eagles live in the United States. DDT use was/is curtailed in the U.S. We don't enforce its non-use in countries like Burma or wherever you are getting all excited over. I mean... DDT was killing Bald Eagles, and other wildlife was it not? If it could kill a Bald Eagle could it not also kill a Roasting Chicken?? Eventually? Hindsight certainly is wonderful, here you are in 2012 second-guessing a decision that was made around the time of your birth. Those people were working with the best of intentions and given the time period I think they did alright. This country... this world... exists today because of the brains and hard work of people that lived 100 years ago. All mankind has been doing for the last 50 years is trying to undo the good work of 3000 years of civilization and exterminate the human species while taking down maybe 30,000 other species, sentient and not, in the collateral damage. Is there no other way forward than to reach backwards 50 years and resurect a pesticide that was banned with good reason? None? If the geniuses of the last century had always gone after the low hanging fruit of cheap, easy fixes you wouldn't be here to carp on about how great it would be to poison this planet in to uninhabitability within yours and my lifetime.
He was fired, went to a different pediatrician shortly thereafter.
The fact remains, many doctors used to, and some still do this. People go to the doctor, they want a pill. They may feel better later, but its all in their mind. But just handing out antibiotics like candy happens.
Luckily, I'm not seeing this in our area (or at least with the physicians at our facilities).
Luckily, I'm not seeing this in our area (or at least with the physicians at our facilities).
And many doctors I've been to will tell you that there is nothing that they can do to help, but to alleviate some of the symptoms.
Hell I remember as a kid I'd get an antibiotic for almost anything. It was that mismanagement that lead to these problems. Viruses don't suddenly become resistant, they take time to do so.
And many doctors I've been to will tell you that there is nothing that they can do to help, but to alleviate some of the symptoms.
Hell I remember as a kid I'd get an antibiotic for almost anything. It was that mismanagement that lead to these problems. Viruses don't suddenly become resistant, they take time to do so.
A lot of doctors are put in a pickle because they don't want to give the antibiotic for a virus, but the parents don't want to hear that, they want "medication" for their kid (or themselves). If the doctor doesn't give the patient what they want then people complain and doctors will get in trouble with their employer or they will lose a patient. They don't want that, so it's easier just to give the antibiotic.
Well..any drug abused and overused soon becomes impotent against the very thing it was meant to fight.
Remember when penicillin was so freely used on people ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Those people were working with the best of intentions and given the time period I think they did alright. This country... this world... exists today because of the brains and hard work of people that lived 100 years ago. All mankind has been doing for the last 50 years is trying to undo the good work of 3000 years of civilization and exterminate the human species while taking down maybe 30,000 other species, sentient and not, in the collateral damage. Is there no other way forward than to reach backwards 50 years and resurect a pesticide that was banned with good reason? None? If the geniuses of the last century had always gone after the low hanging fruit of cheap, easy fixes you wouldn't be here to carp on about how great it would be to poison this planet in to uninhabitability within yours and my lifetime.
