In article ,
outsider wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:47 AM, Billy wrote:
In ,
wrote:
On 8/6/2011 9:05 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
jay wrote:
Wirgin explains, it was a surprise that they could accumulate such
hefty contamination without becoming poisoned. His team now reports
that the tomcodıs protection traces to a single mutation in one gene.
The gene is responsible for producing a receptor protein needed to
unleash the pollutantsı toxicity.
Great news! Now that we know the gene, we can get it too.
Dioxin won't be considered a toxin anymore.
There was one incidence of a public report stating that the early
tests for DDT didn't distinguish between DDT and PCB's, and that's
what led to the entire "silent spring" debacle.
And of course what people miss completely is that PCB's were
outlawed at the same time that DDT was, so the effect on birds
could have come from either, or both, being reduced. I doubt that
anyone will ever own up to this mjor error after so many years
of condemning DDT.
Why aren't you over with the social scientists, or did they send you
over here?
Billy, I've had these discussions before in a.s.d. and I've been here
more than a year discussing diabetes as well as the (mis)behavior of
the local gentry. So what's with the smart aleck comment?
DDT, PCB, Dioxin, PBDE among others are called "persistent
organic pollutants". Because they don't break down.
They don't seem to break down in nature is different from they don't
break down. Since there is no accurate measure of the persistence, we
only suspect things, but don't actually know them.
In the past few decades, the methods of destruction have grown. My
look at the problem some decades back revealed that the only method
available for destruction was passing the product through a molten
sodium bath. While the method works, it is today not the only successful
means for destroying the "persistent" chemicals you're complaining about
here.
They are even found
in penguins, although there hasn't been a mosquito problem in Antarctica
for years. DDT hasn't been outlawed, it has been restricted. Thing is,
if you keep using the same poison, the little buggers build-up a
resistance. And don't you worry about the makers of biocides, twice as
much is being produced today, than back when Rachel Carson published
"Silent Spring". It's all bad ****.
We've not been able to create "magic bullet" toxins that affect only one
lifeform. The likelihood of doing so is minute, perhaps nonexistent. In
the meanwhile I'd rather see penguins in the antarctic experience a
reduction in numbers than a million humans a year lose their lives to
infection by the lowly mosquito. Ans since the mosquito develops a
resistance to the effects of DT, for example, so will the penguins, and
other lifeforms, over time.
But it seems that humans are not developing an immunity to the
infections dispensed by mosquitoes.
All that's left is to select our victims. So far we've selected the
human being.
Your premise is wrong. DDT hasn't been band, and how much will it cost
us to throw away one of our best defenses to the mosquito by allowing
the mosquito to quickly develop a resistance to DDT? DDT is used, but
selectively with other practices, and insecticides to control mosquitos.
Global warming will bring more mosquitos. Exposure to the bubonic plague
seems to have imbued some with resistance to HIV. Is this the price you
want us to pay, not to mention the further loss bio-diversity? You
really should look into a subject before you start pronouncing on it.
--
- Billy
Both the House and Senate budget plan would cut Social Security and Medicare, while cutting taxes on the wealthy.
Kucinich noted that none of the government programs targeted for
elimination or severe cutback in House Republican spending plans
"appeared on the GAO's list of government programs at high risk of
waste, fraud and abuse."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...is-kucinich/re
p-dennis-kucinich-says-gop-budget-cuts-dont-targ/
[W]e have the situation with the deficit and the debt and spending and jobs. And itıs not that difficult to get out of it. The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. Thatıs hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they donıt get away with no taxation.
- Ralph Nader
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/ralph_naders_solution_to_debt_crisis