Comments on: 10,000 U.S. scientists sign-on against political interference http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/ General interest observations and true web-log. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:04:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ron http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-3/#comment-404382 Ron Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:28:45 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-404382 Here's a few more cited sources for Mr. Fusion. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#ref6 I'm sure you can figure out a cut and paste, but it may be hard Here’s a few more cited sources for Mr. Fusion.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#ref6

I’m sure you can figure out a cut and paste, but it may be hard

]]> By: Smith http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-3/#comment-404224 Smith Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:45:57 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-404224 #45 Fusion, that particular book was the reference book in my 1995 post-graduate, toxicology course. Please keep in mind that all of the referenced studies were <i>damn near everything that was available at the time DDT was banned.</i> #45 Fusion, that particular book was the reference book in my 1995 post-graduate, toxicology course. Please keep in mind that all of the referenced studies were damn near everything that was available at the time DDT was banned.

]]> By: Mr. Fusion http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-3/#comment-404217 Mr. Fusion Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:30:41 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-404217 #45, Smith, Have you got any references less then 20 years old? #45, Smith,

Have you got any references less then 20 years old?

]]> By: Smith http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-3/#comment-404180 Smith Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:23:24 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-404180 <i>"Little toxicity is seen following the dermal exposure to DDT, presumably because the agent is poorly absorbed through the skin, a physiologic phenomenon that has contributed to the rather good safety record of DDT, despite careless handling by applicators and formulators (Hayes, 1971). It has been estimated that a dose of 10 mg/kg will cause signs of poisoning in humans. Chronic exposure to moderate concentrations of DDT causes somewhat milder signs of toxicity as listed in Table 18-7."</i> (table located on page 575 in book referenced below) <i>"Although the functional injury of DDT poisoning can be associtated with effects on the CNS, few pathologic changes can be demonstrated in that tissue in animals. However, <b>following exposure to moderate or high nonfatal doses</b> or subsequent to subacute or chronic feeding, major pathologic changes are observed in the liver and reproductive organs. Morphalogic changes in mammalian liver include hypertrphy of hepatocytes and subcellular organelles such as mitochondria, proliferation of smooth endoplamic reticulum and the formation of inclusion bodies, centrolobular necrosis followoing exposure to high concentrations, and an increase in the incidence of hepatic tumors (Hayes, 1959; Hansell and Ecobichon, 1974; IARC, 1974). <b>However, there has been no epidemiologic evidence linking DDT to carcinogenicity in humans (Hayes, 1975, 1982)</b>. . . . Unlike the situation with DDT where there have been few recorded fatalities following poisoning, there have been a number of fatalities following poisioning by cyclodiene and hexachlorocylcohexane type insectides." </i> Casarett and Doull's TOXICOLOGY, the Basic Science of Poisons, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, pages 574-575. Any science coming out of the US Environmental Protection Agency is considered highly suspect by anyone that actually followed the process. “Little toxicity is seen following the dermal exposure to DDT, presumably because the agent is poorly absorbed through the skin, a physiologic phenomenon that has contributed to the rather good safety record of DDT, despite careless handling by applicators and formulators (Hayes, 1971). It has been estimated that a dose of 10 mg/kg will cause signs of poisoning in humans. Chronic exposure to moderate concentrations of DDT causes somewhat milder signs of toxicity as listed in Table 18-7.” (table located on page 575 in book referenced below)
“Although the functional injury of DDT poisoning can be associtated with effects on the CNS, few pathologic changes can be demonstrated in that tissue in animals. However, following exposure to moderate or high nonfatal doses or subsequent to subacute or chronic feeding, major pathologic changes are observed in the liver and reproductive organs. Morphalogic changes in mammalian liver include hypertrphy of hepatocytes and subcellular organelles such as mitochondria, proliferation of smooth endoplamic reticulum and the formation of inclusion bodies, centrolobular necrosis followoing exposure to high concentrations, and an increase in the incidence of hepatic tumors (Hayes, 1959; Hansell and Ecobichon, 1974; IARC, 1974). However, there has been no epidemiologic evidence linking DDT to carcinogenicity in humans (Hayes, 1975, 1982).
. . . Unlike the situation with DDT where there have been few recorded fatalities following poisoning, there have been a number of fatalities following poisioning by cyclodiene and hexachlorocylcohexane type insectides.”

Casarett and Doull’s TOXICOLOGY, the Basic Science of Poisons, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, pages 574-575.

Any science coming out of the US Environmental Protection Agency is considered highly suspect by anyone that actually followed the process.

]]> By: Mr. Fusion http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-3/#comment-404109 Mr. Fusion Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:28:41 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-404109 #39, Ron <i>I’m still waiting for anyone to cite anything to prove I am wrong. Typical of the left. </i> Here let me cite a few examples, #15, ...<i>DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics. </i> #22, ...<i>It is widely known in the pest control world that the mechanism in which DDT works is not directly on the insects themselves. It kills the birds which the mosquito’s eat. </i> #24, ...<i>maybe you should point out that the article conclude that DDT is no longer effective? That there are other more effective pestacides? Or how about, there is no actual DDT ban? </i> #28, <i>...Since Mosquitoes only live in standing water, along with other insects, spraying a small amount of SOAP on the surface is enough to kill millions. </i> (sp-c) Or if you don't like those sources right here, try out Agriculture Canada list of banned chemicals. Canada does its own environmental testing. Then check out the British list of banned chemicals. They also do their own testing. Also try the EPA own's conclusion about DDT <i>Probable human carcinogen Damages the liver Temporarily damages the nervous system Reduces reproductive success Can cause liver cancer Damages reproductive system </i>http://tinyurl.com/yfr36g (Ron, that is called a link, it will take you to the page I took this information from) <i>DDT affects the nervous system. </i> http://tinyurl.com/yjz6bd <i>There is evidence that DDT causes teratogenic effects in test animals as well. ... The evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of DDT is equivocal. It has been shown to cause increased tumor production (mainly in the liver and lung) in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters ... There has been much concern over chronic exposure of bird species to DDT and effects on reproduction, especially eggshell thinning and embryo deaths </i> http://tinyurl.com/ykg6dc You get the message, there is a lot of reference material out there, if you want to look. #39, Ron
I’m still waiting for anyone to cite anything to prove I am wrong. Typical of the left.

Here let me cite a few examples,

#15, …DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics.

#22, …It is widely known in the pest control world that the mechanism in which DDT works is not directly on the insects themselves. It kills the birds which the mosquito’s eat.

#24, …maybe you should point out that the article conclude that DDT is no longer effective? That there are other more effective pestacides? Or how about, there is no actual DDT ban?

#28, …Since Mosquitoes only live in standing water, along with other insects, spraying a small amount of SOAP on the surface is enough to kill millions. (sp-c)

Or if you don’t like those sources right here, try out Agriculture Canada list of banned chemicals. Canada does its own environmental testing. Then check out the British list of banned chemicals. They also do their own testing.

Also try the EPA own’s conclusion about DDT
Probable human carcinogen
Damages the liver
Temporarily damages the nervous system
Reduces reproductive success
Can cause liver cancer
Damages reproductive system
http://tinyurl.com/yfr36g
(Ron, that is called a link, it will take you to the page I took this information from)

DDT affects the nervous system.
http://tinyurl.com/yjz6bd

There is evidence that DDT causes teratogenic effects in test animals as well. …
The evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of DDT is equivocal. It has been shown to cause increased tumor production (mainly in the liver and lung) in test animals such as rats, mice and hamsters …
There has been much concern over chronic exposure of bird species to DDT and effects on reproduction, especially eggshell thinning and embryo deaths
http://tinyurl.com/ykg6dc

You get the message, there is a lot of reference material out there, if you want to look.

]]> By: Gary Marks http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-3/#comment-403957 Gary Marks Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:27:54 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-403957 If only 10,000 researchers are complaining, shouldn't we just call them whiners and ignore them? These people who want to be able to publish and discuss their findings without externally-imposed filters sound very <i>cultish</i>, and not at all like mainstream America. Who would expect a Nobel Laureate to understand how the world really works? If scientists think it's bad working for a politically-motivated government, they should try working for a corporation, like a chemical or drug company. Even better than ignoring them, everyone signing that petition who has a government job should be fired -- that'll teach 'em the lesson they missed in science class! If only 10,000 researchers are complaining, shouldn’t we just call them whiners and ignore them? These people who want to be able to publish and discuss their findings without externally-imposed filters sound very cultish, and not at all like mainstream America. Who would expect a Nobel Laureate to understand how the world really works? If scientists think it’s bad working for a politically-motivated government, they should try working for a corporation, like a chemical or drug company.

Even better than ignoring them, everyone signing that petition who has a government job should be fired — that’ll teach ‘em the lesson they missed in science class!

]]> By: Smith http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-3/#comment-403865 Smith Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:35:00 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-403865 #38 Fusion, you want me to give you a quick link to support my position, except that my position is based upon twenty years of observations, reading, and study. Sorry, but I don't have the time to compile a list of appropriate links that I'm sure you wouldn't bother to read anyway. DDT is a tragic example of environmetalism run amok. There was never any proof that DDT harmed humans, but, by God, we found it in human breast milk so it must be bad. Millions have died as a result, but since they are mostly black from third world countries, their deaths are largely ignored. Fortunately, the World Health Organization is planning to allow DDT to be used again. A little late for millions. I wonder how Rachael Carson can sleep at night? #38 Fusion, you want me to give you a quick link to support my position, except that my position is based upon twenty years of observations, reading, and study. Sorry, but I don’t have the time to compile a list of appropriate links that I’m sure you wouldn’t bother to read anyway.

DDT is a tragic example of environmetalism run amok. There was never any proof that DDT harmed humans, but, by God, we found it in human breast milk so it must be bad. Millions have died as a result, but since they are mostly black from third world countries, their deaths are largely ignored.

Fortunately, the World Health Organization is planning to allow DDT to be used again. A little late for millions.

I wonder how Rachael Carson can sleep at night?

]]> By: Ron http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-2/#comment-403697 Ron Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:27:34 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-403697 I'm still waiting for anyone to cite anything to prove I am wrong. Typical of the left. Fascist: 1. Anyone winning an argument with a liberal. 2. Someone who will not give a liberal anything they want and tell them it’s a right. Liberalism: The ability to stand on your head and tell the world it is upside-down. I’m still waiting for anyone to cite anything to prove I am wrong. Typical of the left.
Fascist: 1. Anyone winning an argument with a liberal. 2. Someone who will not give a liberal anything they want and tell them it’s a right.
Liberalism: The ability to stand on your head and tell the world it is upside-down.

]]> By: Ron http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-2/#comment-403668 Ron Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:56:54 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-403668 Mr. Fusion, I did but it was deleted see #13, if you want the quick version, it is the World Health Organization reports on malaria in Africa, EPA's 1970's hearings on DDT, and the British health journal on malaria in Africa. I also used Wikipedia for how DDT works, since some loon thought it killed birds and not mosquitoes, and we all know mosquitoes only bite birds, not people or other animals. Mr. Fusion, I did but it was deleted see #13, if you want the quick version, it is the World Health Organization reports on malaria in Africa, EPA’s 1970′s hearings on DDT, and the British health journal on malaria in Africa. I also used Wikipedia for how DDT works, since some loon thought it killed birds and not mosquitoes, and we all know mosquitoes only bite birds, not people or other animals.

]]> By: Mr. Fusion http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-2/#comment-403632 Mr. Fusion Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:52:12 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-403632 Ron & Smith, If you want to be credible, please cite your sources. Just ranting that this is all bull only demeans any point you are trying to make. That is if you have a point. And PLEASE, either link or use tinyurl.com. Ron & Smith,

If you want to be credible, please cite your sources. Just ranting that this is all bull only demeans any point you are trying to make. That is if you have a point.

And PLEASE, either link or use tinyurl.com.

]]> By: ECA http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-2/#comment-403451 ECA Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:53:11 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-403451 you dont mix..Much of... Science...the finding of truths threw facts and experiments. Religion.. the finding of truths thru the past Politics.... the truth that I can make you believe.. Some science mix's with religion like archiology.. Some Sci mix's with the past, like what WAS that funny mixture they made that went BOOM.. But Politics dont mix well with EITHER.. you dont mix..Much of…
Science…the finding of truths threw facts and experiments.
Religion.. the finding of truths thru the past
Politics…. the truth that I can make you believe..

Some science mix’s with religion like archiology..
Some Sci mix’s with the past, like what WAS that funny mixture they made that went BOOM..
But Politics dont mix well with EITHER..

]]> By: joshua http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-2/#comment-403353 joshua Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:00:36 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-403353 I feel for these oppressed scientists....I really do....whats a respectable scientist supposed to do....take the money and run or not take the money and actually have to come up with results to get a private investor to back them. Science has no one to blame for it's politicalization other than itself. They have kissed so many goverment butts to get money that half the agency heads in the goverment have mononucliocious of the arse. Scientists used to struggle by on University funding or get regular jobs to pay for their own and they moved the world ahead at an amazing speed. But since WWII, most of them feel that they can't do research unless it's tax payer funded....thats a crock. But, if you want to be truly independent and do truly independent research, you can't have your hand out looking for goverment grants. Edison, Newton, Einstien(pre-US), Galilaio, Da Vinci, the list goes on and on, none of these men were goverment funded, most did it with their own money, the rest got help from Universities. Should grants be politically free of strings....sure.....will it ever happen, no matter which party is in power....yeah....when pigs fly(on their own). I'm already sick of reading all the stories about....***Now that the Democrats have won we are going to get this or that done, this will change, that will change***.....do you people really believe that?? If you do, then some of you aren't as smart as I have believed you were. The only thing that will get done or changed is the party name after the crook is written about, or who's crony's will be getting the good contracts. The Democrats haven't been out of power long enough for you all(since most of you are a lot older and been arouind a lot longer than i) to have collectively forgot all the crooked crap that went on when they were in power. Hell, I almost can't blame the poor Republicans for rushing headlong into corruption, they hadn't been in power for 45 years. These scientists are dreaming, and from the names I read, most come from an era when goverment wasn't the primary funder. I feel for these oppressed scientists….I really do….whats a respectable scientist supposed to do….take the money and run or not take the money and actually have to come up with results to get a private investor to back them.

Science has no one to blame for it’s politicalization other than itself. They have kissed so many goverment butts to get money that half the agency heads in the goverment have mononucliocious of the arse.

Scientists used to struggle by on University funding or get regular jobs to pay for their own and they moved the world ahead at an amazing speed. But since WWII, most of them feel that they can’t do research unless it’s tax payer funded….thats a crock.

But, if you want to be truly independent and do truly independent research, you can’t have your hand out looking for goverment grants.

Edison, Newton, Einstien(pre-US), Galilaio, Da Vinci, the list goes on and on, none of these men were goverment funded, most did it with their own money, the rest got help from Universities.

Should grants be politically free of strings….sure…..will it ever happen, no matter which party is in power….yeah….when pigs fly(on their own).

I’m already sick of reading all the stories about….***Now that the Democrats have won we are going to get this or that done, this will change, that will change***…..do you people really believe that?? If you do, then some of you aren’t as smart as I have believed you were. The only thing that will get done or changed is the party name after the crook is written about, or who’s crony’s will be getting the good contracts. The Democrats haven’t been out of power long enough for you all(since most of you are a lot older and been arouind a lot longer than i) to have collectively forgot all the crooked crap that went on when they were in power. Hell, I almost can’t blame the poor Republicans for rushing headlong into corruption, they hadn’t been in power for 45 years.

These scientists are dreaming, and from the names I read, most come from an era when goverment wasn’t the primary funder.

]]> By: Angel H. Wong http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-2/#comment-403105 Angel H. Wong Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:11:28 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-403105 You need a sexy geek to convince people, try Cindy Crawford; yes Cindy Crawford. She's a Chemical engineer. You need a sexy geek to convince people, try Cindy Crawford; yes Cindy Crawford. She’s a Chemical engineer.

]]> By: ECA http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-2/#comment-402957 ECA Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:20:25 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-402957 Ron, It does work.. There is 1 draw back...soap breaks down quickly...Thats all... But wouldnt it be easy to spray alittle Soap Every day then to spay somehting that means you cant EAT your crops for 6 months?? and guess what? Phosphate based soaps are GREAT fertilizer.. Hmmm, wonder why thet hasnt been said and done either... MAYBE, we just want de-population in an over grown area?? Ron,
It does work..
There is 1 draw back…soap breaks down quickly…Thats all…
But wouldnt it be easy to spray alittle Soap Every day then to spay somehting that means you cant EAT your crops for 6 months??

and guess what? Phosphate based soaps are GREAT fertilizer..
Hmmm, wonder why thet hasnt been said and done either…
MAYBE, we just want de-population in an over grown area??

]]> By: Smith http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2006/12/14/10000-us-scientists-reject-political-interference/comment-page-2/#comment-402913 Smith Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:28:42 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8638#comment-402913 Ron is dead-on with the DDT issue. In the twenty years I've been working as an environmental engineer, I've observed that "environmental science" consists of 95% political BS and 5% of actual science. Imaging my dismay when I learned the American Medical Association was just another environmental group playing loose and fast with the facts. Dioxin -- "the most hazardous substance known to man?" Well, the "science" behind this statement was based upon a ground breaking, '70s research study that raised the bar for toxicological studies. The techniques used by the researchers were highly praised and copied, and environmental groups used the study to begin their crusade against dioxin -- completely ignoring the conclusion of the researchers that there was no link between dioxin and cancer. A sad example of how science is manipulated by those with a political agenda. And then there is Global Warming -- the politicizing of which has nearly destroyed the credibility of science. And I'm not talking about any subterfuge on the part of the Bush administration. Ron is dead-on with the DDT issue. In the twenty years I’ve been working as an environmental engineer, I’ve observed that “environmental science” consists of 95% political BS and 5% of actual science. Imaging my dismay when I learned the American Medical Association was just another environmental group playing loose and fast with the facts.

Dioxin — “the most hazardous substance known to man?” Well, the “science” behind this statement was based upon a ground breaking, ’70s research study that raised the bar for toxicological studies. The techniques used by the researchers were highly praised and copied, and environmental groups used the study to begin their crusade against dioxin — completely ignoring the conclusion of the researchers that there was no link between dioxin and cancer. A sad example of how science is manipulated by those with a political agenda.

And then there is Global Warming — the politicizing of which has nearly destroyed the credibility of science. And I’m not talking about any subterfuge on the part of the Bush administration.

]]>