Green Power, Black Death

[Flightful]

{snip}

Green power, black death. It's axiomatic. Environmental colonialism started in the late 19th century, when wealthy Victorians began to see Africa as Eden, and created what is known as "fortress conservation." Fortress conservation requires the absence of actual people, so over the ensuing 100 years, vast areas of Africa were cleared of tribes, grazing rights were confiscated and -- presto! -- the current game reserves frequented by the compassionate rich looking for a little Happy Valley or Meryl Streep ("I had a faa-arrrm in Aaaaffriiiikkka") buzz.

Ask Niger Innis, the leader of CORE, the Congress for Racial Equality, one of the four organizational pillars of the civil rights movement in the States, what he thinks of our "compassion."

"It's time to hold these zealots accountable for the misery and death they cause," Innis states. Groups like Greenpeace, he says, and he includes the European Union and the United Nations in his criticism, serve their own "ideological agenda, and want to keep the Third World permanently mired in poverty, disease and death. So far, it has succeeded."

How? Let me count the ways. The near-global restrictions on the production, export and use of DDT has led to the re-emergence of malaria, which has killed many more millions than have died to date, from AIDS. The clearing of grazing lands for Africa Theme Parks has defrauded millions of Africans of land whereon they traditionally grew food and grazed cattle. And let's not get started on biotech foods. Late in 2002, the United States shipped 26,000 tons of corn to Zambia, where 2.5 million were on the verge of starvation. Parroting the Greenpeace, EU, Sierra, etc., shakedown line, President Levy Mwanawasa decreed it unsafe for consumption because it had been genetically modified to make it resistant to insects. The EU accused the United States of using Africans as guinea pigs. Hundreds of thousands continued to starve. Yet, Americans and Canadians have been consuming this corn for years. Biotech experts Gregory Conko and Dr. Henry Miller denounce the EU, UN and radical greens. Their "self-serving involvement in excessive, unscientific biotechnology regulation will slow agricultural R&D, promote environmental damage, and bring famine to millions." Patrick Moore argues that "the banning of Golden Rice, a GMO that may help prevent blindness in half a million children every year is rejected out of hand by these anti-humanists."

{snip}


http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=d6493809-fdcc-4320-a481-626cdbab65e3

[Kolesar]

1. I don't really get the point of that commentary

I feel guilty, ok, so is Ms. Nickson happy now? What does she propose doing about it?

Further, I don't at all see how "Greenpeace, Sierra, etc." are culpable in 19th century "environmental colonialism" or in 21st century free trade methods that exploit third world nations.

[Flightful]

3. What free trade?

The biggest complaint from developing nations is agricultural subsidies and protectionism in the USA and Europe.

[treepig]

6. probably just wanted to get in a mention of niger innis, or

as msnbc calls him:

[Kolesar]

2. National Post: featuring "Commentary" by Anne Coulter

The editorial article about Harvey Pekar was alright, but that Johnathon Kay was no inspiration.

[Flightful]

4. How original

Can't dispute any facts, so disparage the source. It's getting pretty old. The fact is that some of the positions being taken by the environmental movement amount to a campaign of genocide against the people of Africa, who are being condemned to poverty, starvation and disease because we deny them the benefits of technology that we enjoy for ourselves.

[cprise]

5. Food production is high in some African countries, and yet they starve

So having DDT "on the market" would have scarcely helped. The usual political contortions would have prevented proper distribution. I take that hypothetical as a fact, because food and medicine are not distributed equitably.

And look at how they mis-handled the AIDS crisis: Stonewalling, silence, taboos, and then a widespread disregard for whether health professionals were even using clean or dirty needles for vaccination. Devastating.

There is no excuse. Become embroiled in fascist and communist politics for decades, and suffer the consequences.

If Europeans in general are guilty of anything, it is for treating Africans like children and foisting extremist politics on the region. Begging for the same treatment from America is just asking to continue the carnage.

Perhaps you should consider what oil companies have done for Africa. Is anyone there looking forward to puppet governments and climate change?

[treepig]

7. don't suppose there's any great need to repost ddt comments

since they're in a fairly recent thread,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=3681

but the bottom line is that ddt is the most effective (and safe) agent currently available for malaria control in the third world. saying it would scarcely have helped is a gross distortion of reality.

[cprise]

8. That's not what I got from that thread

The best pro-DDT argument was that SAND was also 'proven' to be carcinogenic. But sand does not accumulate in living tissue like DDT, nor does it prevent birds from producing offspring.

When you get rid of malaria, then you're up against other problems like hunger AND your environment is contaminated.

And there's still no answer to the distribution question.

[treepig]

9. i suspect that someone with a different level of reading comprehension

than you would be able to get a different message from that thread.

in any event, i urge anyone to do their own search (so i can't be accused of biasing the results) using a combination of keywords such as "ddt" "malaria" and "environmentalist"

further, if you were to get rid of malaria, that'd be a big step towards confronting problems like hunger (the environment is not contaminated by the use of ddt for malaria control!!) - considering that hunger is the direct result of over-population, and a big factor behind over-population is disease. for example, when infant mortality is high, parents have more children than they would/should to ensure that some of them will survive to care for them in old age.

[Flightful]

10. Carson's big lie

Rachel Carson's claim about eggshell thinning is completely wrong. Several studies have failed to discern any change in eggshell thickness resulting from DDT exposure. In fact, bird populations actually INCREASED while DDT was in widespread use because fewer birds were succumbing to insect-borne diseases.

[Kolesar]

11. bereft of facts or links or documentation as usual, I see

Get back to me when you have some real solutions. You never answered my first response either (I will remind you).

[Flightful]

13. Check on DeWitt experiment

Rachel Carson supported her thin-egg claim by lying about DeWitt's findings. In Silent Spring, she stated "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched."

This was the opposite of what DeWitt actually observed. DeWitt detailed his experiments in a 1956 article in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the "control" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control" pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.

[cprise]

12. DDT has not been proven safe

...and lest we forget that if studies show a link to environmental damage then that is an opportunity for the manufacturer to prove the safety of their product. Or to use language that may fall hard on libertarian ears, the manufacturer has the burden of proof. What's more, DDT and DDE are proven hormone disruptors: There's no reason to believe that escalating concentrations due to continued use would not have ill effects.

The source of this DDT controversy is beginning to look like more Lomborg-ism (from an interview at Environmental Review):


DA: No, although DDE is toxic, it usually takes large amounts to kill birds (and even embryos) directly. It mainly affects the avian shell gland but there are other effects. There are also other residues in wild bird eggs - PCBs, dioxins, other pesticides and other chemicals which have toxic or physiological effects on embryos. But if you isolate out DDE, it has consistently been shown to have the best relationship to eggshell thinning.
(snip)
It is interesting that Dixie Lee Ray talks mostly about quail and pheasants. "Quail fed 200 parts per million in all their food...hatched eighty percent of their chicks. No shell-thinning was reported." (page 72). These two bird "species" (she doesn't say what pheasant or what quail) are somewhat resistant to eggshell thinning except at very high levels of DDE. They produce multiple and large clutches of eggs and their eggshell gland is more resistant to eggshell thinning.
(snip)
This is another step to the scientific process, the elucidation of the mechanisms of the toxin. There have been three or four mechanisms demonstrated experimentally that affect eggshell thinning. So, the physiological mechanism of how DDE affects the shell gland also does not involve just a single mechanism or explanation. A lot of work has been done on the physiology of DDE and the avian shell gland. Dixie Lee Ray did not talk about any of that work in her book - not one study!

(more)
http://www.environmentalreview.org/vol01/anderson.html


In other words, ignore predatory birds (the ones with the highest bio-accumulation of DDT) and everything looks hunky-dory. It' OK because we have "more birds" for the time being, except they will probably also become threatened when DDT and DDE levels elevate to the point where animals with a lower bio-accumulation profile (lower in the food chain) are also affected.

[Flightful]

14. Not proven dangerous either

Classic trick to ban useful products- make the producer prove a negative.

[cprise]

26. So the whole premise behind FDA, USDA and EPA is unsound?

Sorry, but if you're introducing a new substance then you have the burden of proving that it is safe or answering evidence that suggests a risk.

Safety is a positive, and it's proven every day in an ongoing process. Precaution may be a drag to some, esp. those with money. Too bad.

[treepig]

15. hopefully at least a few readers of this thread

will be able to grasp the (actually not even very subtle) point that there's a huge difference between the application of ddt at one ton per acre for indiscriminate inscectide use (probably not wise) and its use at one pound per house to prevent malaria (probably criminal if not done!!).


here's a few more points from: http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/ddt2002.html


No DDT-related human fatalities or chronic illnesses have ever been recorded, even among the DDT-soaked workers in anti-malarial programs or among prisoners who were fed DDT as volunteer test subjects — let alone among the 600 million to 1 billion who lived in repeatedly-sprayed dwellings at the height of the substance's use. The only recorded cases of DDT poisoning were from massive accidental or suicidal ingestions, and even in these cases, it was probably the kerosene solvent rather than the DDT itself that caused illness. Reports of injury to birds could not be verified, even when one researcher force-fed DDT-laced worms to baby robins. Reports of fish kills have been greatly exaggerated, resulting from faulty data or aberrant, massive spills or overuse of the chemical that do not hint at a general danger in its use.

Europe and North America have not harbored malarial mosquitoes since the 1940s. In one of the most miraculous public health developments in history, Greece saw malaria cases drop from 1-2 million cases a year to close to zero, also thanks to DDT. Meanwhile, in India, malaria deaths went from nearly a million in 1945 to only a few thousand in 1960. In what is now Sri Lanka, malaria cases went from 2,800,000 in 1948, before the introduction of DDT, down to 17 in 1964 — then, tragically, back up to 2,500,000 by 1969, five years after DDT use was discontinued there.

In all, DDT has been conservatively credited with saving some 100 million lives.

[Flightful]

17. You hinted at the real agenda behind the ban

During the 1960s many population control advocates thought that the only way to prevent overpopulation in Africa was to ensure that 40% of children continue to die from malaria. The DDT ban had little to do with protecting the environment- it was an act of genocide.

[cprise]

27. He also hinted that DDT is dangerous re: neglect and abuse

And it brings us back to the issue of politics and distribution.

It's always the same argument from the Right: If used "responsibly" then XYZ is safe. It does not take warring factions and actively genocidal movements into account.

Devil-may-care... now where's my dividend???

[milliner]

31. Actively genocidal movements,

and I am soooo sorry what are you refereing to?

And this proves the point that although the quote makes no sense at all, it did provide the opportunity use the word 'genocidal' in a thread

[milliner]

16. Good link

You have two people with doctorates in the same field. I wonder that if an article was written rebutting the arguments of Dr. Anderson, continually refereed to him as Daniel W. Anderson instead of his Title Dr. Anderson , what he would he think ER: When did they make the changeover to landfill disposal?

DA: It started in about 1970. And within a year the DDE residues began a long decline in the pelicans and other wildlife of the bight and the pelicans (and other species too) started to show signs of recovery.

I thought that high concentrations in the environment were not the problem. I keep seeing that these compounds stay for years and years in the fat of the birds, but the biggest problem was that DDT/DDE stayed in the fat of the birds prey.What is refereed to as biological magnification. Now Dr. Anderson said improvement was immediate. Remember that the greens always tell us we don't have time to prove something because by the time we do and stop an activity it will take decades for the effected species to respond.


ER: Dr. Ray said DDT was not shown to be responsible for eggshell thinning in birds. She said eggshell thinning predates the use of DDT and has many other causes: diet poor in calcium or Vitamin D, fright, high nocturnal temperatures, toxic substances and diseases. Is that true?

Anderson never responds to Dr. Rays assertion that egg shell thinning predates DDT.

The issue is that environmentalist will quote facts to make their case in the most emotional manner possible.And then when the numbers they quote are disproven you get this response. 'oh well sure the numbers are cooked but what about your children?'

And you don't suppose that the magazine Environmental Review, has and agenda do ya.

Bald Eagles are almost never mentioned in an article without the mandatory mentioned that the species was all but extinct until DDT was banned. When a young park ranger were I lived, was talking to the 5th grade class I was chaperoning on a field trip and displaying a Bald Eagle, she made the mandatory statement. When I asked when the last nesting pair of Bald Eagles was documented in this state before the population started to first come back, she was forced to admit that the last nesting pair was 1917. When I asked that since DDT did not come into wide spread use until after WWII how did it affect These populations, I was told to leave my name and they would send me the info. I was not surprised when none ever showed up

[blindpig]

20. one more nail in the coffin

true, raptors were in decline for years before the use of DDt began. Indiscriminate shooting of "varmints" was wide spread despite the Migratory Bird Act. At least some people have developed better ethics. If the ban hadn't happened eagles and falcons(at least) would have been toast.

[Rich Hunt]

22. emotionalism

You don't think that unsubstantiated claims of an 'overpopulation' problem and excessive use of the word 'genocide' constitute 'emotionalism'?

[blindpig]

18. what?

Please explain the crash in raptor populations and subsequent rebound after the ban. More corporate newspeak.

[AbsolutMauser]

19. post hoc ergo propter hoc? NT

NT

[blindpig]

25. sorry, my latin translator is malfunctioning n/t

[AbsolutMauser]

29. After a thing and therefore because of the thing

It's logical fallacy. I am not saying DDT didn't hurt the raptors, just that the simple fact that one follows the other doesn't mean the latter was caused by the former.

~AbM

[blindpig]

30. ah, a tautology?

true, but generally where there's smoke.................

[enki23]

24. bullshit. chickens aren't raptors

birds are birds are birds right? wrong. raptor populations, it seems, *were* significantly affected by DDT, while the majority of other birds were not harmed as much, if at all. this claim is based on several empirical studies, not merely the mountains of sometimes-problematic epidemiological evidence.

here's a *pro* ddt anti-environmentalist who agrees with me:
http://reason.com/rb/rb010704.shtml

i've never actually said what my stance on DDT would be. i've just responded to the consistently *wrong* assertions made by other DUers (it's not a carcinogen, it's known to be completely harmless to humans, etc. etc.) and they've taken that as my complete disapproval of the substance. i think that DDT could have a place in an insect management program if properly handled. it still *is* in use in much of the world, something people here seem not to be willing to admit. while it's true that it *does* help combat malaria, it is not the magic bullet the wannabe skeptics make it out to be. i'd be cautiously pro-DDT so long as it was used *very* judiciously.

but "rachel carson's big lie...?" bullshit. watch your sources.

[milliner]

28. You want to quote

someone with an opionion to buttress your opinion?

OK.

But not a soul has explained why raptor populations started to decline more than 50 years before DDT.

An earlier link that was an interview with Daniel W Anderson, Anderson
is quoted, that perigrine falcon numbers where in a rapid decline since the 1890's and that was due to hunting and loss of habitat. Anyone is free to correct my assumption but I thought Parigrine Falcons habitat are shear cliff faces with serveral hundred feet to the ground to allow the falcon to hunt its prey, other birds and by the nature of this given habitat those would be other birds that were not raptors. These would be birds that had not eaten much in the way of being contaminated with DDT. I don't recall the boom in leveling cliffs and/or building into them. By the nature of the habitat humans didn't have much use for cliffs, so I don't understand what the habitat was lost to.

My understanding that raptors were more susceptible because they ate things like fish that accumulated DDT in their fat and the reason raptors were so highly effected was because of biomagnification. Again why were raptor populations declining 50 years before DDT, and Why did the population rebound before DDT was no longer used?

Rachel Carsons Big fat lie?
Not realy a lie, but, none of her predictions have come to be.

[enki23]

32. opinion? no... it was a secondary source, i admit...

but it referenced studies that i didn't have the time or drive to go to directly for for a website argument. it should have gained credibility for being mostly non-environmentalist.

anyway... i'm right, you're wrong. so there.

[milliner]

33. pithy response

even being devoid of a response trying to defend the inconsistancies in the facts I mentioned. You remember dont ya the stuff I put in the post you non-responded to?

[AngryAmish]

34. I can't believe you said that

Do you really think Africans are better off dead from malaria than alive and fending for themselves? Are their lives so meaningless to you?

They may look different or may be from a place with more poverty, but they are human beings. Get a grip.

[progressivejazz]

35. But you brought it up.

Consider this part of your post: "Ask Niger Innis, the leader of CORE, the Congress for Racial Equality, one of the four organizational pillars of the civil rights movement in the States, what he thinks of our "compassion."" (emphasis added) It sure seems to me that the part I've highlighted is in your post in order to bolster the "racial" credentials of Innis. And yet he has virtually no credibility in the mainstream african-american community. You were asking for his Republican connections to be pointed out. And now they have been. Focus on the part of the screen just below the disgusting miss-spelling.

How would the rest of the article have gone over if that sentence had been replaced by the more accurate; "Ask Niger Innis, a man generally considered to be an Uncle Tom, what he thinks of our 'compassion'"?

Please consider also the excellent post #21 in this thread.

[Rich Hunt]

21. misleading

Niger Innes is a conservative. The author is being intellectually dishonest in not disclosing this fact, and it is clear from the wording that she / he would rather that you not be aware of that.

Why is 'considering the source' relevant? Because, in a debate about science, you should not resort to propaganda tactics and logical fallacies.

Like this:

http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/testify.htm

According to the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we encounter this device.
Who or what is quoted in the testimonial?
Why should we regard this person (or organization or publication) as having expert knowledge or trustworthy information on the subject in question?
What does the idea amount to on its own merits, without the benefit of the Testimonial?
You may have noticed the presence of the testimonial technique in the previous paragraph, which began by citing the Insitute for Propaganda Analysis. In this case, the technique is justified. Or is it?

This device cheapens the argument, as it assumes the reader cannot be persuaded through reasoning alone.

[enki23]

23. of course we're going to come into conflict over this

our family's growing. the chickens aren't laying enough eggs to feed us all. some of the little ones are going hungry. we have to kill off most of the roosters to make room for more hens. kill off those who don't lay enough eggs. in the process, we'll reduce our genetic variability in the flock, leaving it weaker, and more susceptible to disease. we'll have to put antibiotics in its water. we'll have to increase production by putting hormones in its feed. we'll have to clone the best layers, removing the issue of genetic diversity from our flock entirely. we need chickens optimized for laying, not for survival. best hope we can get them to survive anyway, because we only have a few pet ducks and geese left.

and the farm just isn't as interesting as it used to be. just chickens now, mostly. it'll be worse after we get rid of the horses to make room for more cages. but we can't just let the little ones starve, can we?

it's easy to moralize, whichever side you take, but i've never seen a moralizer with a likely solution to the long-term problem.