-
The Deadly Crusade Against E-Cigarettes
November 15, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Free-Riding Lawyers on the Obamacare Bus
June 26, 2009 | 22 comments
-
Jumping Ship From the Rats
March 19, 2008 | 0 comments
A Further Perspective
The Hijacking of Earth Day
It would have been better to observe World Malaria Day.
The last weekend in April saw the confluence of Earth Day and World Malaria Day. The very first Earth Day back in 1970 found many of us devoted to saving the world from polluting corporations and their toxic smog. And in fact, over the course of the next two decades or so, major strides were made in cleaning up our air and water. The sky over Los Angeles was even seen to be blue on occasion, and Hudson River fish were pronounced safe to eat again.
The momentum flowing from the first Earth Day led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that same year. Its first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, was appointed fresh out of an environmental advocacy nonprofit, whose agenda included banning the insecticide DDT.
DDT had become the poster child target of the nascent environmental movement, thanks to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, published in 1962. Ruckelshaus — ignoring the voluminous testimony of his own scientific advisors demonstrating the unique effectiveness and lack of toxicity of DDT — signed the DDT ban in June 1972. He may as well have signed the death warrant for millions of victims of malaria and other insect-borne diseases. Thus was enacted the first triumph for the green movement. The few who at that time realized the deadly consequences of that act were shouted down by those who fancied themselves “stewards of the earth.”
In recent years, the law of diminishing returns has set in: the EPA has fewer serious (or even real) problems to fix, so its bureaucrats must search for “toxins” to justify their bloated budget, and they have become increasingly desperate. So the regulators have expanded their quest for “toxic” problems to fix — even if threats have to be invented.
The most important resource on our earth is the intellect and creativity of its people. But many in the “environmental” movement first manifested on Earth Day forty-one years ago believe that the earth would be a much better place if fewer people lived on it — at least that’s how they behave. The banning of DDT is perhaps the best example of this perverse credo: it led directly to the needless deaths of perhaps fifty million human beings, mostly women and children under the age of five in sub-Saharan Africa. The ban spared those of us in malaria-free North America and Europe, lands where superior sanitation and DDT had already done their job. Worst of all, DDT has been repeatedly shown to be an amazingly safe chemical, free of the heinous but fallacious charges leveled against it by Rachel Carson and her acolytes. Yet activists calling themselves “environmentalists” cling to their dogma as though to a life raft, oblivious to its lethal consequences. Their complacent devotees sit in Brussels and the U.N., placing obstacles against the goal of eradicating malaria.
Is this know-nothing obstructionism what being “earth-friendly” means today? The anti-human trope at the core of today’s environmentalism has other faces as well. Cleverly timed for release on Earth Day, a fusillade of articles appeared impugning certain common pesticides by purporting to show that exposure to them in utero lowered newborns’ IQs years later. Stunned at hearing this long-discredited charge resurrected yet again, I carefully went over the study that lies at the ground zero of media frenzy, done by a group of researchers based at the University of California at Berkeley led by Brenda Eskenazi.
That article, published in a junk-science organ called Environmental Health Perspectives, and distilled for mass consumption in such pseudo-journalistic screeds as Poison Produce and Synthetic Pesticides Sabotaging Our Children’s Health, is riddled with errors of commission and omission. Assumptions are glibly made based on no science at all; missing data is filled in with barely any rationale; allegedly toxic byproducts of a pesticide are acknowledged to be of indefinite source; and potential confounders — factors known to influence IQ that are unrelated to pesticides — as significant as parental smoking and alcohol intake, as well as any paternal characteristics, are ignored. Most egregious, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting the safety of the approved uses of organophosphate (OP) pesticides, including the 100-plus gauntlet of tests our own EPA requires of them (as stringent as pharmaceutical testing mandated by the FDA), is not acknowledged.
What do these well-orchestrated attacks on crop protection chemicals have to do with DDT? They all spring from the same agenda endemic among the current crop of self-styled environmentalists – an agenda that supersedes science and petty human concerns – to be promulgated by any means necessary. The OPs are “neurotoxins,” they say, so of course they affect IQ. But it is well known that, at the minuscule levels found in our food, they are neurotoxic only to pests. (The anti-vaccine fanatics have used this same “logic” to falsely incriminate mercury in a vaccine preservative).
Pesticides kill pests — insects, weeds, and fungi — and increase crop yields as well as the safety of our food. Yet the anti-pesticide, anti-chemical, anti-technology crowd apparently hasn’t noticed — or more likely, cared — that worldwide food shortages and price increases rampant of late have thrown millions in abject poverty, already undernourished, into starvation.
Moreover, these same “friends of the earth” oppose genetically modified (or biotech) agriculture, again for no science-based reason. This technology is another potential method to increase production of desperately needed staple crops. Their opposition is based on a fear of “frankenfoods,” despite these crops’ demonstrated safety over the past fifteen-plus years – echoing the never-ending crusade against DDT.
Until Earth Day can be reclaimed for the precious resource most ignored by Greens — people, human beings — I say, next year give it a pass and pay attention instead to World Malaria Day. It will do much more good for our planet — and its people.
About the Author
Gilbert Ross, M.D., is executive and medical director of the American Council on Science and Health.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Gilbert Ross, M.D.
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/11/the-hijacking-of-earth-day
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Of Wizards and Weapons
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
oldfart| 5.11.11 @ 6:52AM
In typical liberal methods - as long as nameless (to them) people are dying in Africa, Asia etc that is OK. If the deaths were in Washington, DC, New York, San Francisco, London, or Paris - that would be a major world wide disaster.
David W| 5.11.11 @ 9:02AM
only if the deaths in the US were to affect the lily-white [and rich] liberals in these cities. If poor, minority people, or people living in conservative strongholds, were to subcumb that would be okay (by the way, I'm a lily-white conservative).
Doctor Right| 5.11.11 @ 3:33PM
DC, New York, or San Francisco..?
Hmmmm...Well, that WOULD actually solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it?
Appleby| 5.11.11 @ 7:11AM
I have been a conserver all my life, but have worked against all Earth Days beginning with the first one -- because generally speaking they are run by those who think other people should make all the sacrifices while they continue to live like Lords and Ladies of the Manor. In this way they try to assuage the guilt of living with wealthy parents and pigging out at the Best Places, while pretending to save the Earth.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 5.11.11 @ 8:40AM
I was at the Earth Day event in Central Park (in I guess it was in 1990?), and I've got to tell you, we completely wrecked the place. Wherever you looked, Hippies where everywhere, and garbage was everywhere too, and we were trying to save the Planet? I bowed out of my Hippies ways immediately afterwards, because it became clear to me, that the whole movement is a bunch of phonies. Their real slogan should be, "Save the Earth, Fuck the People, as long as those People, are other People". We have a perfectly good solution for Malaria, and it works so well, that America hasn't had an outbreak of that disease for decades now, but the cure's for me, and not for thee. So Africans dying in droves from a controllable disease, that doesn't bother the Liberal Environmentalist, "we can just send them more mosquito nets to sleep under". Umm, what? What about DDT? I'm starting to get this feeling that the Left don't like Black People. They've banned DDT, they hooked them on welfare, which has broken up the Black Family, which has driven up crime rates, which effect Blacks harder percentage wise than anybody else because they're kept poor due to the welfare cycle (murders, rapes, imprisonment), they support Abortion religiously by putting Planned Murderhood Offices exclusively in poor neighborhoods, which once again effects Blacks percentage wise, more than any other group, and let's not forget the whole founding of the KKK (that was the Democrats too), the Jim Crowe Laws, and the Lefts refusal to support Civil Rights (look it up), and the list just goes on, and on. Sorry about the run-on sentence, but I was trying to make a point!! Which is? Malaria kills Black People, and the Left don't really like Black People, here or in Africa!! Their track record doesn't lie!!
If you want to save the Earth, and save the People on it? Then let's destroy the Environmentalists, and vote out all the Commie Democrats that support their Black People hating ways!! Whew!!
Petronius| 5.11.11 @ 8:43AM
Environmentalism is not about protecting anything except the portfolios of the Sierra Club, EDF, Earth First, Earth Island Institute, and the political and litigious parasites who all live high suing oil, mining, logging, chemical, and utility companies and settling out of court for Danegeld. And the rest of us pay for it all in higher commodity prices and utility rates. Want to mine in Utah? Redford's lawyers want 15% off the top. After all, the way to riches is insertion of one self into the revenue stream. But not having to work for a living: Priceless. I'll celebrate Earth Day when it becomes opening day of hippie season with no bag limit.
Steve A| 5.11.11 @ 8:52AM
Every Earth Day I like to needlessly drive my F-350 around, burn some brush, turn on all the lights in the house & crank down the T-Stat. If I see a smart car on the road I merge just a little too close.
LarryK| 5.11.11 @ 9:08AM
Liberalism=Death! Period.
Just logically extrapolate their "desires" and "programs" to the conclusion and it always ends with someone dying!
Louis Jenkins| 5.11.11 @ 9:32AM
At last! Someone has spoken out about DDT. I thought I was the only person who believes that it is a good pesticide. Of course we don't need to worry about all those people the milaria carrying mosquitoes are biting, it is all for the good of the earth!
Rich D| 5.16.11 @ 12:28AM
At last? I've been barking for years and preaching sermons concerning the deaths this stupid ban has caused. Years ago WHO started promoting its use, and even the nets supplied by the Gates foundation are impregnated with it. For Africa alone, the daily death total is equivalent to 6 fully-loaded 747s crashing.
Ed Darrell | 5.16.12 @ 2:56AM
Not "at last," but "sadly once again" some thug has spoken mistruths about DDT, Rachel Carson, malaria and care for the environment. Yes, DDT kills. Sadly, it kills indiscriminately, and for a long, long time.
Let's correct errors:
1. The "voluminous record" from the pesticide registration hearings on DDT established the DDT is uncontrollable in the wild, and that it kills more beneficial life than harmful life.
2. Ruckelshaus could NOT "ignore" that record. Two federal courts had earlier ordered DDT to be banned completely, orders stayed only so EPA could conduct those hearings.
3. In the end, Ruckelshaus's action was much milder than the courts had suggested. EPA banned DDT for use on crops, outdoors. It could, and can, be used for medical purposes (hasn't been necessary in the U.S.) or for other emergencies (the tussock moth case), and the order specifically did NOT ban manufacture of DDT in the U.S. -- instead dedicating all U.S. manufacturing of DDT to export. Ruckelshaus's order increased the amount of DDT available to fight diseases in other nations, and reduced the cost -- had any other nation wished to use the stuff. Few did, because DDT's effectiveness against malaria began to fade in a big way in the 1960s. By 1972 DDT was no panacea.
4. If DDT were not toxic, it wouldn't have been useful as a pesticide. The EPA hearings clearly established that DDT was increasingly toxic as it rose up the food chain in wild ecosystems. DDT's toxicity has always been its beneficial use, and its danger.
5. No death warrant. From peak use of DDT in 1959 and 1960, malaria deaths have declined from 4 million annually, to about 700,000 annually, today. That's a more than 75% reduction. Infections dropped from a half-billion each year to about 250,000, a 50% reduction -- while the population of the Earth doubled, the populations of malaria-endemic nations exploded, and climate change and other factors exposed many more people to mosquitoes that can carry the disease parasites.
It's ironic, really, but deaths and infections from malaria have plunged, the less DDT is used.
Rachel Carson was right. (WHO never stopped using DDT, but as its effectiveness has declined, it has turned to other substitutes; WHO's position has been for 30 years or more, that DDT should be completely banned when and if something as effective comes along, or when DDT ceases to work.)
And you're probably wrong in all your other criticisms of Earth Day, too, for the same reasons -- you don't have the facts.
USSAlabama| 5.11.11 @ 9:37AM
Dear Gilbert Ross,
I'm no earth day worshiping environmentalist sympathizer - but there is plenty of evidence for opposing genetically modified material.
The 'desperately needed stable crops' are stable for Monsanto's Round-Up and the tale of corporate corruption associated with that alone is stunning and far too lengthy to detail in a comment box.
Ask a farmer who has been persecuted and prosecuted mercilessly by Monsanto for saving a seed. Ever have your non-gmo crops contaminated by Monsanto gm pollen? They'll sue you for it.
tjsker| 5.11.11 @ 9:48AM
None of this will change unless we get someone in the Whitehouse that actually understands how much science has been corrupted in the last few decades. I don't think any conservative candidate out there right now even knows the difference between actual risk and relative risk, that most peer reviews are bogus, that most of the scientific studies we hear about are just assumptions and not based on any strong data. When these candidates realized that even our most prestigious universities are putting out absolute CRAP, then maybe things will change.
BTW - if anyone out there actually knows a candidate out there that does understand how much the scientific process has been corrupted and knows how to fix it, I'd like to know his/her name.
AgentRose| 5.11.11 @ 9:50AM
Funny, the United Nations, that other large anti-human agency has contradicted itself in this. (yawn) In 2006, reversing its policy, UN health agency promoted DDT to combat the scourge of malaria. But the "red shirts" of environmentalism must have gottten to them. In 2009 the UN agencies launched a DDT-free anti-malaria initiative. Of course it cost millions in lives as you point out. It also cost millions in DDT initiatives. Then additional millions in anti-DDT initiatives. Ah, but all those bureaucrats it employed!
Ed Darrell | 5.16.12 @ 3:00AM
Check the death toll from malaria. Deaths from malaria are, today, the lowest in human history -- and the reductions have been made largely without DDT.
DDT works only after allowing an invading mosquito at least one bite; bednets prevent the first bite.
Don't confuse poisoning Africa with fighting malaria. It ain't the same thing at all.
AgentRose| 5.11.11 @ 9:55AM
IDEA!!! the SEC always goes after companies on charges of "knew or should have known" for supposed illegal trades. Let's let this be our cry against the radical environmentalists on this and many other flagrant crimes.
Anthony| 5.11.11 @ 9:58AM
Watermelons everywhere, and not a pit to spare.
Hillel| 5.11.11 @ 10:16AM
I took an anti-earth day position on the first earth day also. I was just too suspicious of the movement. It was in a silly phase then "burn candles not electricity" but I saw it morph into the anti-human death worshiping cult it is now. (It is not that hypocritical, it believes in abortion for all. It is a return to baal worship and human sacrifice. Its prophet is Margret Sanger and Peter Singer.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 5.11.11 @ 10:49AM
"Earth Day" is nothing but humanistic worship of the creation instead of God, our creator. God is forever. The Earth will be destroyed by fire through God's will when the appointed time comes. God commanded us to be good stewards of The Earth, not to worship the planet instead of God. Those scrambling to "save the Earth" are in for a surprise when God brings down the final curtain. As for many dying needlessly due to the left getting DDT banned, this is absolutely true. But then again the left enjoys getting blood on its' hands does it not?
LiveFreeOrDie| 5.11.11 @ 11:20AM
"Moreover, these same "friends of the earth" oppose genetically modified (or biotech) agriculture, again for no science-based reason. This technology is another potential method to increase production of desperately needed staple crops. Their opposition is based on a fear of "frankenfoods," despite these crops' demonstrated safety over the past fifteen-plus years..."
Sorry but 15 years of eating GMO food that was never adequately studied or tested in the first place does not demonstrate safety. Think long term as several animal studies have shown health risks including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system as YOU WELL KNOW, DOCTOR. Unfortunately, as almost the entire worlds food supply becomes genetically modified, it will be "too late" to go back. More study and information is needed. Calling GMO food healthy is just as ignorant as the enviro-nuts banning DDT which you fairly criticized.
LiveFreeOrDie| 5.11.11 @ 4:33PM
By the way, Dr. Ross is President of the American Council on Science and Health, a long-standing mouthpiece for corporations interested in quelling any fears of pesticides, food additives and the like. Liars and scumbags. Look it up.
USSAlabama| 5.11.11 @ 7:18PM
On Monsanto's payroll? Under the table payola from them?
Good chance.
USSAlabama| 5.11.11 @ 7:32PM
GMO is the biggest gimmick since global warming. Trace the money trail. Monsanto had laws MADE in their favor - much thanks to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who was once an attorney for Monsanto.
Why did he not recuse himself from this case?
I am writing to Emmett to demand an explanation as to why this person is pushing this stuff on AS.
Dr. Ross - you may possibly have the 'science-based' reason that Monsanto now owns the wind!
If pollen from gm crops pollinates non-gm crops, why is the innocent person who DID NOT plant gm seeds liable? And be careful, BTW if you respond, which you won't - I AM a scientist.
Dan Hirsch| 5.11.11 @ 11:47AM
Why didn't the New York Times run a headline reading:
"DDT BAN! BLACK WOMEN AND CHILDREN HARDEST HIT!!"
It is the truth...
Damn, racist capitalistic pig, anti-green conservative bastards!
You betcha! That's us - just trying to save the evil humans!
How are we ever going to get out of this?
Drunken Sailor| 5.11.11 @ 2:03PM
Ever think about getting into P.R.?
Ed Darrell | 5.16.12 @ 3:03AM
Because it would be untrue. DDT has never been banned in Africa nor Asia. Africans are not stupid -- if it worked miraculously, they'd use DDT. DDT is freely available, and relatively cheap to buy. It becomes expensive only when used safely, and it is not effective unless used safely.
Bednets are cheaper, and more effective.
Al Adab| 5.11.11 @ 12:22PM
Earth Day, interestingly coincident with Easter this year, is fast becoming part of the State Religion. We are in danger of being, if we are not already, an idolotrous nation where we worship Gaia, Diversity, Choice and Tolerance as deities. One even demands the sacrifice of children to the flames. This is dangerous ground.
Richard Baker| 5.11.11 @ 12:53PM
I guess the lefties would rather have the millions of deaths after DDT. That's what their actions seem to say. To lefties, Life, other than their own, is cheap. Where's the Humanity?
Drunken Sailor| 5.11.11 @ 2:08PM
Another Democrat created movement that is a disaster. Gaylord Nelson must be so proud. Google some of his "Population control" statements and you can see this was the intention all along. Environment first, people second
Doctor Right| 5.11.11 @ 3:49PM
A few years back, my wife and I were having drinks with her childhood friend and her friend's husband, both notorious liberals. At that time, they liked to travel the world, and especially delighted in going to the undeveloped places "away from the tourists" (the irony was lost on them, but I digress...).
Anyway, during the conversation, the husband, whom I'll call Jimmy, remarked that it was becoming harder and harder to find "authentic" places to travel and visit because, all too often, the indigenous folks were being corrupted by western influences.
In other words, the folksy natives were being modernized by the 21st century - they were buying cars and refrigerators and radios and CDs and televisions and all the other kinds of things that we take for granted in the west - but in doing so, they were losing their folksy appeal to travelers like Jimmy and his wife, and dang it, that was just such a shame!
When I mentioned to Jimmy that it was only normal for these folks to want the kind of things that make our lives easier and more convenient (and healthy), he just shrugged. "Surely", I said, "You're not suggesting they'd be better off living as primitives?".
I'll never forget his reply:
"In many cases, they ARE better off."
I learned a lot about Liberals from that conversation. Despite their bold pretense of "caring", Liberals don't give a damn about "the people", in so far as the people can serve as props for their liberal schemes and dreams.
And in Jimmy's case, it was quite literally as props. To him, these indigenous peoples existed to serve as quaint, folksy artifacts that made his travels exciting and "authentic". The fact that they might actually aspire to the things in life that he enjoyed and took for granted seemed to completely elude him.
So it's not surprising at all that Liberals would sentence millions of Africans (props) to a slow death from malaria if it fulfills their fantasy of a greener, cleaner, better world...And one with far less people.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 5.11.11 @ 4:10PM
Funny how that works isn't it Doc? If the left can't snuff out Africans & African Americans in the womb through abortion on demand there is always disease & euthanasia. The left don't give a damn about anyone other than their fellow lefties. Everyone else to the left is inferior & a waste of a life. Don't worry though Doc. In the end God will have the final say, not the left. No life is worthless to God.
USSAlabama| 5.11.11 @ 7:22PM
My dad used to say " 'They' would still have us plow with mules if they could."
Occam's Tool| 5.11.11 @ 5:44PM
Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson were two horribly notorious racists.
RCV| 5.13.11 @ 4:18PM
Yes, they were. But, interestingly, Sanger is often erroneously portrayed as "pro-abortion" when she in fact was vehemently against abortion. She saw contraception and family planning as a way to eliminate abortion, as well as restrict reproduction to "the right kind of people."
RCV| 5.11.11 @ 4:52PM
Banning DDT was the most idiotic move. We've had enough evidence now to judge the pros and cons of following Rachel Carson's advice. Millions of human beings have paid the price for that insane decision, and it's time to reverse it.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.11.11 @ 5:23PM
I don't bother with silly over fifty three million abortions on millions of human beings at least AFTER they're born paying the price for insanity irreversibly matters.
RCV| 5.13.11 @ 4:16PM
Zzzzzzzz.....
Occam's Tool| 5.11.11 @ 5:43PM
Correct again, RCV. By the way, on the subject of genetically modified foods, I tend to follow Norman Borlaug's advice on the subject. I figure the World's Greatest Humanitarian of All Time knew what he was talking about on crops.
RCV| 5.13.11 @ 4:13PM
I'm with you. Increasing yields through genetic modification is something they ought to award the Nobel for - it's simply a modernized Mendel exercise. My daughter, who earned her science degree at Cornell and who is another pro-nuclear, pro-common sense environmentalist, spends half her time educating her peers about the nuttiness of their views on genetic modification.
You can catch a lot of diseases hanging around the organic section at the farmer's market.
brainfan| 5.11.11 @ 4:57PM
Ever the fan of hyperbole, it should come as no surprise that Gilbert Ross would do his best to exaggerate his point:
"Ruckelshaus -- ignoring the voluminous testimony of his own scientific advisors demonstrating the unique effectiveness and lack of toxicity of DDT -- signed the DDT ban in June 1972. He may as well have signed the death warrant for millions of victims of malaria and other insect-borne diseases."
As much as people like to think that America is the capital of the planet, the head of the EPA's reach is still limited to the United States.
Rich D| 5.16.11 @ 12:35AM
What you don't know it that certain foreign aid was refused to countries that still used DDT.
Ed Darrell | 5.16.12 @ 3:07AM
I'd like to see evidence of any foreign aid ban to DDT-using nations. That would have been against U.S. policy. Ruckelshaus did not ban the manufacture of DDT in the U.S. specifically leaving it all for export. The ban on using DDT on cotton in the U.S. -- about the only thing DDT was used for in 1972 -- effectively doubled the amount of DDT available for the rest of the world.
DDT has never been banned in Africa, nor in Asia.
Replica Handbags&wallet; | 5.11.11 @ 11:44PM
Well, the post is actually the sweetest on this deserving topic. I agree with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your incoming updates.
http://www.shop-bag.net
Dee See| 5.12.11 @ 1:36AM
GMO food has been developed and IS being
used for 'population control' (ie stealth genocide).
ON RECORD FACT
DO check into the recent Monsanto/Evelyn de Rothchild antics in India.
And then consider the
FACT that the entire spectrum of corn strains
in South America have now been contaminated.
OR the secret government agreed to mass introduction of GMO foods under Harper.
Tens of thousands of complications are
giigled off (organ failure/sterilization'/cancer).
Harper walks free and unchallenged, the issue
unmentioned.
And even this article is apparently pushing the
Bill Gates weaponized mosquito program to
spread terminal illness and sterility.
-------------THOU SHALT NOT KILL--------------
What about these capstone creeps and their centuries long EUGENOCIDE agenda DON'T you understand?
RCV| 5.13.11 @ 4:14PM
OCCAM! Your patient is here.
jacket06| 5.12.11 @ 8:44AM
When DDT was first used it was, unfortunately, applied indiscriminately. Since then, we are more aware of the effects of overuse, and indiscriminate application. After WWII I recall newsreel clips of GI's returning to the U.S. from overseas being literally bathed w/DDT to kill any parasites etc that they may bring into the U.S. But with prudent & controlled application, DDT is an effective tool in our arsenal of protective compounds. The population of the planet is growing by leaps and bounds. Soon, we may not be able to grow enough food and fiber to feed and clothe a starving and naked population. Is it possible that the DDT ban is part of a liberal strategy to control population growth in Africa? In the world?
RCV| 5.13.11 @ 4:15PM
Everything is not the result of a conspiratorial plot. Sometimes it's just the result of stupid decisions.
All kinds of Brands | 5.12.11 @ 10:58PM
Outstanding info it is surely. My father has been searching for this information.
Dee See| 5.12.11 @ 11:36PM
ON this 'Earth Day' pause a moment to remember
the all but fogotten (even while it's happening)
world nuclear disaster at Fukishima.
And as it's now been confirmed, off the charts
reports of radiation ---in Kent England,
try not to giggle.
RCV| 5.13.11 @ 4:16PM
There is more radiation coming out of that banana on your counter than you're getting from Fukishima.
Ed Darrell | 5.16.12 @ 3:08AM
Only if your banana was grown in Fukushima or Chernobyl.
Dee See| 5.15.11 @ 1:44AM
"lots who think they're going to be
'brought through' with the new set-up
are going to be in for a big surpirse."
-Julian Huxley
UNESCO Founder/Globalist/EUGENIST
"Ask yourself, in the new scientific society,
the 'scientific dicatorship' that's underway
---will they need you? ----will they?
We think not. Fact is most 'on board' people,
parroting the Rockefeller catch phrases and
programming have a vastly inflated opinion
of their own value. They are among the first
to go. ---REALLY foks."
-ALAN WATT
('Cutting Through the Matrix' online)
TRUTH HURTS
Carbonicus| 5.16.11 @ 11:15AM
Dr. Ross - Thanks for helping to expose the misanthropic underlying motives of the current breed of "environmentalist" (read: eco-socialist). As a 22 year practitioner in the environmental field, your article is an example of EXACTLY what we need to be stressing to the mainstream populace. Here's the bottom line, folks:
"Environmentalism" has jumped the tracks. It is no longer about clean air, clean water, or a healthy environment. No, that is just the beard for a movement that has seen socialism fail at the polls in the U.S. and so has reconstituted itself under a seemingly-teflon banner of "saving the earth, species and humanity". In this regard, the DDT ban is an instructive example. Ban something that turns out to be safe and effective WHEN USED PROPERLY, under the auspices of saving the plant and humanity, the end result of which is the death of millions and no material impact for the planet or species.
Wake up, western civilization! This is the green road to serfdom!