Shutting down the EPA

The headlines on the Net told me that Mitt Romney got the most votes in yesterday’s New Hampshire primary. That’s more than I wanted to know because I already knew this:

No matter who wins the coming presidential election both major political parties can avoid eliminating, or even downsizing Socialist bureaucracies, if they play their media cards right. All they have to do is hand out the shopworn line “We arrived at a bipartisan solution,” which always means bigger government after the solution is put in practice. The truth is: We have the illusion of a two-party system, but for all practical purposes it is a one party system. For discussion purposes let’s call it the Beltway party.

The Beltway party is committed to bigger and bigger government, diminished freedoms resulting in no personal choices for private sector Americans; Socialist indoctrination for every child that is lucky enough to see life in the first place; no property Rights for anyone except Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats; judges wielding the sword of eminent domain; a universal currency somewhere down the line, and just for good measure —— the occasional old-fashioned jackbooted stomping whenever unarmed natives get restless.

The Beltway party’s agenda would be dead in the water without big government muscle behind it. Ditto Internationalism funded by American tax dollars though the UN. And, surprise, surprise, a totalitarian government controlled and administered by none other than everyone’s favorite organization —— the United Nations.

Both major political parties are experts at slight of hand. (Cardsharps and magicians call it misdirection.) The media has American voters focusing on this or that issue so voters never boil the rhetoric down to the basic issue: Should there be more government? Until a political party swears an oath on the Constitution that it will make limited government its number one priority, no party can be trusted to reduce government control over every aspect of private sector life —— then spin a tale that Hans Christian Andersen would be proud of.

Parenthetically, you can name all of America’s political misfits you’d care to list and Ross Perot still comes up Number One because he put the Clintons in office in ‘92.

Split government slowing, or even reversing, government growth is obviously impossible when there is only one party using two names: Democrats and Republicans. If enough voters want to test the two party illusion elect Republicans to everything —— then sit back and watch government control continue to increase in size in every area as it did the last time they had it all. Maybe the Republicans will expand the government at a slower rate than the Democrats, but expand it they will. When enough voters finally see the way it works they might say “It’s time we had an authentic second party in this country.”

Don’t try the test with those who identify themselves as Democrats because we all know where they will take the country in a hurry now that extremist Communists/Socialists run their half of the Beltway party.

I have no faith in Republicans dismantling Socialism wherever it has taken root; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in particular. Telling voters exactly how they will shut down the EPA should be a major topic among the Republican candidates, yet it is only referred to in passing.

Incidentally, Americans have been told for as long as I can remember that if a criminal is not given a fair trial we all lose our Rights, but have you ever seen that same principle applied to timber farmers, mine owners, and ranchers when their property Rights are diminished or confiscated by the EPA? If their Rights are taken away it must follow that my Rights are also lost.

Don’t listen to Hussein in the following video if you just ate. You might barf.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/435/2701920/Obama-praises-EPA-staff-for-pursuit-of-vital-mission

The sickest joke of all is Hussein thanking EPA parasites for their hard work. First off, parasites toiling away in any bloated bureaucracy do not work hard, and they most certainly do NOT work for the American people. The EPA works for the United Nations —— in reality the EPA is a UN bureaucracy. Every person “working” for the EPA would betray this country faster than you can say “Global warming.”

Notice that Hussein did NOT mention the EPA’s “work” in confiscating private property Rights:

Justices rap EPA, Obama praises it
Published: Jan. 10, 2012 at 5:07 PM

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...a-praises-it/UPI-11141326187800/?spt=hs&or=tn

If you read the article you saw this:

U.S. President Barack Obama said Tuesday he doesn't buy the notion Americans must choose between growing the economy and what is good for the environment.​

That piece of environmental claptrap came from a guy who thinks individual liberty and private sector wealth are incompatible so he wants to eliminate both.

Hussein was preaching to the choir. Long before he came along the EPA convinced idiots that it would “save the planet,” no small thing even for Socialists. While in the process of saving the planet average American homeowners ended up in the same boat as ranchers, mine owners, and the timber industry.

Socialists like Hussein disguise their confiscatory policies behind legal beards like the EPA. No matter how clever the spin real property owned by average Americans is the target of the EPA’s grasping hands.

The environmental movement should be examined in a much different light than the light its advocates use. To even begin to understand that so-called environmental movement, one must look at the United Nations’ plan to become a federal government to the world. Begin with the failed League of Nations. (The UN succeeded the League of Nations soon after WWII ended. The League was formally dissolved in 1946.)

In 1945 the UN’s task of becoming a global government at some future point in time was monumental. The UN is only an organization, yet it had to convince the governments of every sovereign nation to subjugate their people to UN rule. It didn’t take UN social engineers long to realize that voters in First World countries had to be conned into surrendering their sovereignty and accepting a totalitarian UN government as supreme. The environmental movement is part of that con job.

First things first.

The first step in the UN’s long-term agenda was to transform itself from an organization and into a bona fide government. Almanacs and encyclopedias still insist that the UN is not a world government. They are partially right for now, but at the same time they promote the myth that the UN is not a government they scrupulously avoid any details pointing to where the UN is really trying to go. The battle between sovereignty and environmental fraud is never connected to the UN for very good reasons.

As time went by, UN supporters realized that they had to do a better job than the League of Nations had done in areas where national governments appear powerless. The International Court of Justice is one such area. The World Court was established by the UN in order to legitimatize itself as a government. The message is: By God! If national governments refuse to punish the bad guys then the World Court will do it for them in the name of justice. And besides, how can the UN ever claim to be a government if it doesn’t have a judicial system in place?

The World Court could not do much by way of convincing many people that the UN is an authentic government without actually coming out of the closet and claiming government status. Indeed, the World Court has not convinced many people that the UN is even legitimate —— let alone a government. Something more effective was required; so environmental concerns which have been around since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and possibly longer, were selected as a very good way for the UN to establish its legitimacy.

Various environmentally concerned organizations that existed prior to the ascent of the UN could not in any way be considered a movement; any more than today’s isolated primitive tribes living with nature in a South American jungle can truthfully be defined as environmental activists. Mainly those groups in the more advanced cultures in pre-UN days kept themselves occupied, and privately funded, with saving this or that; eagles, wolfs, whales, etc.

Continued in part two.

 

PART TWO:

Environmental concerns as they are promoted today were conceived to improve the UN’s image with that type of person who is always looking for a cause to rant and rave about. Hence, the global warming and protect the oceans environmental movement originated at the UN. It was never more than a scam designed by UN planners. It is also much more dangerous than the World Court.

The genius behind the scam is to first give the UN absolute legislative authority over the earth’s atmospheric temperature and the oceans because those two areas are not national—— no country owns them. Even if the people in one or more countries decide to live “in harmony with nature” the world will still have to be controlled by the UN in order to protect the tree-huggers from the nasty polluters.

Having control over the atmosphere and the oceans is a sure thing. That is why activists who are busy saving the trees, or a threatened species, within any country’s national boundaries further cloud the true global objectives of UN advocates. The more doomsday talk there is about the environment the better it is for the UN.

The trick is to make most Americans say to themselves “What good will it do for us to pass environmental laws that don’t apply to the rest of the world?” Once enough people are thinking along those lines the next step in the con job is easy: “The UN is the way to go. It will see that every country obeys.” The fallacy inherent in that thinking is in the fact that large powerful countries will produce energy and supply goods to their people no matter what the UN says. That is as it should be. The simple truth is: The real needs of living people must always come before correcting any questionable damage to the environment as defined by a pack of UN hustlers and second-rate scientists paid to say what the UN tells them to say.

Once environmentalists convinced enough people that the UN will protect oceans and guarantee comfortable thermometer readings it is only a small step to UN interference in the sovereign affairs of every nation. That includes the United States more than any other country. The UN already interferes in the daily lives of the American people with the help of its supporters in high places. It can only get worse as the UN gets stronger. It is the wealth, the success, and the power of the United States that most foreign governments seek to diminish through the environmental movement even though well-intentioned, influential, American environmentalists refuse to see it that way.

The environmental movement in Third World countries can be summed up with one simple slogan: Down with the United States.

It is fair to ask why any American would take part in diminishing American power? The answer is simple: Those wealthy individuals whose incomes are derived from tax dollars and favorable legislation will not hand their own freedoms over to UN. They are trying to establish a new world order, administered by them and their counterparts in other nations, that will add global power and privileges to their national omnipotence. It is the private sector, including prosperous private sector wealth creators, that lose the most in a one government world. Tax dollar parasites in every country will become more opulent and infinitely more powerful when national sovereignty becomes a thing of the past. A global police state will see to that.

Identifying the major groups most often associated with environmental concerns is important in understanding the food chain involved in the UN scam.

The dominant level in the scam is composed of prominent UN supporters in every layer of government in every country in the world, UN social engineers, publishers looking to sell books, and Hollywood movie producers. (When did you ever see a movie that portrays environmental hogwash as the fraud that it is?)

Mainstream media is also an integral part of this politically formidable group. When the UN has all of the governmental powers it longs for every environmental concern will be shunted aside by these same people wielding unlimited clout.

The second highest level in the scam is populated by low income unpaid stooges and wealthy Hollywood dilettantes who demonstrate at the drop of a hat; who complain to their elected representatives almost daily; sign petitions; talk it up whenever anyone will listen; and in general make a nuisance of themselves because of some inner-need to show the world they “care.”

Many of the environmentalists who have acquired wealth and fame want to protect their wealth by supporting more government control over the poor and middle class even though they convinced everyone they support the movement for altruistic reasons.

Wealthy American UN stooges usually own property in pristine “nature preserves” and would like to keep the unwashed masses at arms length through environmental laws. Without the stooges operating in the world’s richest democracies the movement would disappear. At its current level of funding, the UN cannot afford to pay for the grunt work that a very small percentage of the American population performs free of charge. Just imagine how successful you would be if you could run a business with an unpaid labor force?

The lowest level, but not the lowest paid level, in the UN’s environmental scam consists of political opportunists and well-paid professional agitators who control specific causes at the national level.

In addition to direct tax dollar funding for various environmental groups, I fear that the UN secretly helps fund many of these causes at the management level with American “UN dues.” If true, as I suspect, that is one very good example of UN interference in American life. Whenever the unpaid stooges make a dent with an environmental cause of one kind or another at the national level the opportunists figure out how to make a buck from it and move right in. Laws, environmental regulations, or both, are soon passed. The opportunists and the paid agitators get rich or run for elected office; the stooges move to the next crusade while UN supporters move that much closer to achieving their objective.

Of course, no matter what environmentalists do to help the UN accomplish its “supreme government” objective, the oceans will continue salinizing at a faster rate than all industrial pollution can conceivably attain. And let’s not overlook the ever-present promise of another Ice Age should an unprecedented number of volcanic eruptions send their volcanic ash into the stratosphere within a brief time period. If that happens, environmentalists of every stripe will be drilling for oil over at UN Plaza between prayers for a little global warming.

Finally, whenever the private sector in any country has no Rights and precious little bread to eat, Socialism is an indisputable tragedy as in the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, et al. With those Socialist horror stories in mind isn’t it aggravating knowing that contemporary Socialists thrive whenever freedom and real property is available to take away from private sector individuals in order to save the planet?

 

I don’t take a back seat to anybody in my dislike of both the EPA and the UN, but I can barely follow this screed.

 

To Taxcutter: You responded just to tell you me you didn’t get it! Either read it over and over again until you do get it, or forget about it and move on.

 

What a bunch of insane drivel from someone who obviously must hate clean breathable air and clean drinkable water. Seems like just more nutzoid junk from the Koch brother's anti-regulation propaganda machine, being parroted off some rightwingnut blog, I suppose.


View of the George Washington Bridge through heavy smog in New Jersey and New York.


Pollution from the burning of discarded automobile batteries in Houston, Texas.


Water pollution flows sluggishly down the Androscoggin River from the International Paper Company Mill in Jay, Maine.

Here's just some of the highlights of the EPA's very real and valuable accomplishments over the last 41 years.

Removing lead from gasoline—and from the air
Removing the acid from rain
Clearing secondhand smoke
Vehicle efficiency and emissions control
Controlling toxic substances
Banning widespread use of DDT
Rethinking waste as materials
A clean environment for all/Environmental justice
Cleaner water
The “Community Right to Know” Act​

Or, if you want to see the other side of this as compared to the drivel in the OP, here it is, straight from the EPA itself:

40 Years of Achievements, 1970-2010
(excerpt)

During the first 20 years of the Clean Air Act, health benefits increased steadily from 1970 to 1990. In the year 1990, clean air programs prevented

205,000 premature deaths
672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis
21,000 cases of heart disease
843,000 asthma attacks
189,000 cardiovascular hospitalizations
10.4 million lost I.Q. points in children from lead reductions
18 million child respiratory illnesses

 

So you really believe the EPA's inflated and undocumented figures?

They got rid of the lead in gasoline in 1975. They've done nothing but kill jobs since.

 

That's some really ignorant BS, dude. Try jerking your head out of that rightwingnut echo chamber and actually studying it yourself instead of falling for such simple minded propaganda.

 

To livefree: All of your talking points refer to environmental scams. Here’s a quick look at the worst of them:

Unleaded gas

This excerpt from a previous thread covers it:

“Unleaded gas remains the most profitable money law to date. The media back in 1970 was instrumental in pushing for the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act was the environmental scam the media pushed, but platinum producers were the true beneficiaries when catalytic converters on passenger cars became mandatory in 1975.

The government prohibiting foul air entitled platinum producers and the auto industry. The Los Angeles area had smog before the auto was invented. Whether or not catalytic converters made a dent in smog is questionable. One thing is certain. Catalytic converters did not prevent auto industry jobs from being outsourced. I guess unemployment is okay so long as the unemployed breathe clean air.

NOTE: Increasing the ratio of ethanol to unleaded gas will eventually eliminate the need for catalytic converters. Don’t count on it happening. The auto industry and the platinum producers would flip out. To be fair, catalytic converters only increases the cost of buying and maintaining an auto; whereas, ethanol increases retail food prices for everybody.

It’s probably a little far-fetched, but the Clean Air Act always makes me think of God prohibiting the breaking of wind in church in order to entitle the preacher.

For those who are not familiar with the topic, the monolith, or ceramic pellets, inside a catalytic converter’s metal cover contains platinum. That platinum is put there when the converter is manufactured. I believe the converter also picks up small traces of platinum from the exhaust fumes that pass through it, but I can’t swear to that.

Catalytic converters are accumulated in much the same way that used tires are accumulated before a truck picks them up for delivery to a reclamation point. The rubber in used tires is recycled. The platinum used in converters is also reclaimed.

The number of catalytic converters that are manufactured and replaced worldwide each year is astronomical. The entire process is very profitable to platinum producers and the auto industry; auto dealerships in particular. Whenever a state governor makes noises about raising auto emission standards, look into the money the governor got from auto dealerships in campaign contributions.

Higher emission standards requires that converters be replaced after approximately thirty thousand miles of use, instead of fifty or sixty thousand miles. That amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars a year that automobile owners have to shell out in that state. That’s big-time money law in anybody’s ballpark.”

http://www.politicalforum.com/media-commentators/153238-media-moderates-promote-business-usual.html

Acid rain

This article pretty much covers it:

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n15.htm

DDT

More than a million proven deaths a year caused by malaria far outweighs the unprovable claim that says the UN’s ban on DDT saves lives.

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

And this about Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring:

Much of her so-called scientific basis for a DDT ban was soon proven either wrong or exaggerated, and the 1972 edition of her book admitted as much.​

The myth of DDT versus the reality of malaria in Africa
Phyllis Schlafly
June 20, 2005

http://townhall.com/columnists/phyl...f_ddt_versus_the_reality_of_malaria_in_africa

If you want more try this:

The Lies of Rachel Carson
by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards
(Full text, without tables and illustrations, from the Summer 1992 21st Century)

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

Not one item on your list of the “. . . EPA's very real and valuable accomplishments. . .” can be PROVED. Anything the EPA says is no more reliable than the stuff East Anglia University and the UN’s pseudo-scientists put out.

Did you ever ask yourself why there is no agency protecting anything else? The answer is in the OP:

“The genius behind the scam is to first give the UN absolute legislative authority over the earth’s atmospheric temperature and the oceans because those two areas are not national—— no country owns them.”

In other words protecting the environment leads to United Nations control. That’s why no other “protection” agency was setup, and given law enforcement powers.

NOTE: The EPA was established by executive order. It can be abolished the same way.

The EPA was supposed to oversee the implementation of one law. That concept, in itself, is highly suspect. The EPA has no constitutional authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. Anybody that breaks the law should be arrested by real law enforcement officials then given their day in court as the Constitution guarantees. Instead, the EPA levies fines and confiscates the real property Rights of law-abiding citizens. Anyone the EPA accuses has less protection than the protections given to the most heinous criminals. In addition, the EPA has relentlessly expanded its authority far beyond the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is also claiming taxing authority. The following is from a previous thread. The link to Lisa P. Jackson’s speech has been updated:

“Back in early April 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced that she would tax industries to enforce the Clean Air Act. The question is: Where does a bureaucrat get the authority to tax anyone? Certainly not from the Constitution. No police chief in this country can go to a local business, or an individual, suspected of breaking a law and impose a tax. Yet Jackson is doing just that. No arrests for breaking the law, no day in court for the accused, just the EPA —— in the person of Lisa P. Jackson —— ordering a private business to pay a tax. I will not be surprised if some of those tax dollars find their way to the United Nations in a backdoor approach to giving the UN taxing authority over the American people.

In a speech Jackson gave at an E-Waste meeting on May 25, 2010, she said:

I would especially like to thank Interpol and their Global E-Waste Crime Group for your continued efforts and partnership. I also want to thank the Environment Agency of England and Wales and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency for your continued support.​

https://www.interpol.int/Public/EnvironmentalCrime/Meetings/Ewaste2010/USEPASpeechAdmLisaJackson.pdf

Just who the hell is Jackson working for? For years, I’ve been saying that the EPA is a UN bureaucracy. Now that the relationship between INTERPOL and the UN is less obscure than it was in the past, Hussein’s reasons for inviting INTERPOL into this country are obvious. INTERPOL is here to oblige everything environmental freakazoids in organizations like Global E-Waste Crime Group want to label a crime.

And what the hell is a Global E-Waste Crime Group in the first place? The name sounds like Dick Tracy’s Crimestoppers from the old comic strip. It’s certainly not crime as Americans understand crime, but crime as defined by America’s enemies. Inevitably, so-called environmental crimes will be tried in the UN’s judicial system. Boy, is that a surprise!”

 

Actually Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments allows the EPA to impose emissions fees to finance enforcement.

A tax by any other name...

Another piece of legislation that has to go.

 

To Taxcutter: Exactly.

Btw, add this to list of reasons the EPA should be shut down:

No longer does the federal government merely arm the U.S. Marshall’s service, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Border Patrol, DEA, BATF and the military. Today the IRS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, the Forest Service and even the Small Business Administration are carrying firearms.​

http://www.npri.org/publications/arms-and-the-man

It seems that the government is arming bureaucrats while it works on overturning the Second Amendment without bothering to amend the Constitution.

 

I don't recall being sick back in the bad old JFK years.

 

To Flanders: all of your talking points are rightwingnut anti-environmental "scams" and lies. You are apparently too brainwashed to check up on this nonsense before making a fool out of yourself by posting such lies.

I certainly have neither the time nor the inclination to debunk all of the drivel you posted but let's take one example that should demonstrate the deliberate deceptions behind the kind of braindead propaganda you're fallen for and are now trying to push off on others. All of your 'talking points' are utter crap but let's just look at your myth about DDT.

DDT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"[19] and dramatically reducing mortality in Sri Lanka and India.[20] However widespread agricultural use led to resistant insect populations. In many areas, early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased.[21] The program was successful in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".[22]

DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease's resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969, and attention was focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation, but mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.[21] Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.[22][23]

...The EPA then held seven months of hearings in 1971–1972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus announced the cancellation of most uses of DDT—an exemption allowed for public health uses under some conditions.[12] Immediately after the cancellation was announced, both EDF and the DDT manufacturers filed suit against the EPA, with the industry seeking to overturn the ban, and EDF seeking a comprehensive ban. The cases were consolidated, and in 1973 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the EPA had acted properly in banning DDT.[12]

The U.S. DDT ban took place amidst a growing public mistrust of industry, with the Surgeon General issuing a report on smoking in 1964, the Cuyahoga River catching fire in 1969, the fiasco surrounding the use of diethylstilbestrol (DES), and the well-publicized decline in the bald eagle population.[25]

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.[27] DDT also continued to be produced in the US for foreign markets until as late as 1985, when over 300 tonnes were exported.[1]

Restrictions on usage

In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[28] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the United States in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. Vector control use has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.

The Stockholm Convention, which took effect in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted DDT use to vector control. The Convention has been ratified by more than 170 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that total elimination in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, public health use is exempt from the ban pending acceptable alternatives. Malaria Foundation International states, "The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations...For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."[29]

Despite the worldwide ban, agricultural use continues in India[30] North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.[14]

Today, about 3-4,000 tonnes each year are produced for vector control.[13] DDT is applied to the inside walls of homes to kill or repel mosquitoes. This intervention, called indoor residual spraying (IRS), greatly reduces environmental damage. It also reduces the incidence of DDT resistance.[31] For comparison, treating 40 hectares (99 acres) of cotton during a typical U.S. growing season requires the same amount of chemical as roughly 1,700 homes.[32]

Environmental impact

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant that is extremely hydrophobic and strongly absorbed by soil. Depending on conditions, its soil half life can range from 22 days to 30 years. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. When applied to aquatic ecosystems it is quickly absorbed by organisms and by soil or it evaporates, leaving little DDT dissolved in the water itself. Its breakdown products and metabolites, DDE and DDD, are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties.[1] DDT and its breakdown products are transported from warmer regions of the world to the Arctic by the phenomenon of global distillation, where they then accumulate in the region's food web.[33]

Because of its lipophilic properties, DDT has a high potential to bioaccumulate, especially in predatory birds.[34] DDT, DDE, and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptor birds concentrating more chemicals than other animals in the same environment. They are very lipophilic and are stored mainly in body fat. DDT and DDE are very resistant to metabolism; in humans, their half-lives are 6 and up to 10 years, respectively. In the United States, these chemicals were detected in almost all human blood samples tested by the Centers for Disease Control in 2005, though their levels have sharply declined since most uses were banned in the US.[35] Estimated dietary intake has also declined,[35] although FDA food tests commonly detect it.[36]

DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects, including marine animals such as crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals, but may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stage. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle,[7] brown pelican[38] peregrine falcon, and osprey.[1] Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent than DDT.[1] Even in 2010, more than forty years after the U.S. ban, California condors which feed on sea lions at Big Sur which in turn feed in the Palos Verdes Shelf area of the Montrose Chemical Superfund site seemed to be having continued thin-shell problems. Scientists with the Ventana Wildlife Society and others are intensifying studies and remediations of the condors' problems.[39]

DDT and DDE have been linked to diabetes. A number of studies from the US, Canada, and Sweden have found that the prevalence of the disease in a population increases with serum DDT or DDE levels.[49][50][51][52][53][54]

(continued)

 

(continued from previous post)

DDT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

DDT and DDE, like other organochlorines, have been shown to have xenoestrogenic activity, meaning they are chemically similar enough to estrogens to trigger hormonal responses in animals. This endocrine disrupting activity has been observed in mice and rat toxicological studies, and available epidemiological evidence indicates that these effects may be occurring in humans as a result of DDT exposure. The US Environmental Protection Agency states that DDT exposure damages the reproductive system and reduces reproductive success. These effects may cause developmental and reproductive toxicity:

* A review article in The Lancet states, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[23]
* Human epidemiological studies suggest that exposure is a risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, and may harm a mother's ability to breast feed.[55] Some 21st century researchers argue that these effects may increase infant deaths, offsetting any anti-malarial benefits.[56] A 2008 study, however, failed to confirm the association between exposure and difficulty breastfeeding.[57]
* Several recent studies demonstrate a link between in utero exposure to DDT or DDE and developmental neurotoxicity in humans. For example, a 2006 University of California, Berkeley study suggests that children exposed while in the womb have a greater chance of development problems,[58] and other studies have found that even low levels of DDT or DDE in umbilical cord serum at birth are associated with decreased attention at infancy[59] and decreased cognitive skills at 4 years of age.[60] Similarly, Mexican researchers have linked first trimester DDE exposure to retarded psychomotor development.[61]
* Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from IRS).[62][63][64]
* Studies generally find that high blood DDT or DDE levels do not increase time to pregnancy (TTP.)[65] There is some evidence that the daughters of highly exposed women may have more difficulty getting pregnant (i.e. increased TTP).[66]
* DDT is associated with early pregnancy loss, a type of miscarriage. A prospective cohort study of Chinese textile workers found "a positive, monotonic, exposure-response association between preconception serum total DDT and the risk of subsequent early pregnancy losses."[67] The median serum DDE level of study group was lower than that typically observed in women living in homes sprayed with DDT.[68]
* A Japanese study of congenital hypothyroidism concluded that in utero DDT exposure may affect thyroid hormone levels and "play an important role in the incidence and/or causation of cretinism."[69] Other studies have also found the DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function.[70][71]

Occupational exposure in agriculture and malaria control has been linked to neurological problems (i.e. Parkinsons)[72] and asthma.[73]

DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as "reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen," the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a "possible" human carcinogen, and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 "probable" carcinogens. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.[1][23]

There is evidence from epidemiological studies (i.e. studies in human populations) that indicates that DDT causes cancers of the liver,[23][35] pancreas[23][35] and breast.[35] There is mixed evidence that it contributes to leukemia,[35] lymphoma[35][74] and testicular cancer.[23][35][75] Other epidemiological studies suggest that DDT/DDE does not cause multiple myeloma,[23] or cancers of the prostate,[23] endometrium,[23][35] rectum,[23][35] lung,[35] bladder,[35] or stomach.[35]

The question of whether DDT or DDE are risk factors of breast cancer has been repeatedly studied. While individual studies conflict, the most recent reviews of all the evidence conclude that pre-puberty exposure increases the risk of subsequent breast cancer.[35][76]

Mosquito resistance

Resistance has greatly reduced DDT's effectiveness. WHO guidelines require that absence of resistance must be confirmed before using the chemical.[90] Resistance is largely due to agricultural use, in much greater quantities than required for disease prevention. According to one study that attempted to quantify the lives saved by banning agricultural use and thereby slowing the spread of resistance, "it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria."[21]

Resistance was noted early in spray campaigns. Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed in 1956 that "resistance has appeared [after] six or seven years."[19] DDT has lost much of its effectiveness in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Turkey and Central America, and it has largely been replaced by organophosphate or carbamate insecticides, e.g. malathion or bendiocarb.[91]

In many parts of India, DDT has also largely lost its effectiveness.[92] Agricultural uses were banned in 1989, and its anti-malarial use has been declining. Urban use has halted completely.[93] Nevertheless, DDT is still manufactured and used,[94] and one study had concluded that "DDT is still a viable insecticide in indoor residual spraying owing to its effectivity in well supervised spray operation and high excito-repellency factor."[95]

DDT can still be effective against resistant mosquitoes,[97] and the avoidance of DDT-sprayed walls by mosquitoes is an additional benefit of the chemical.[95] For example, a 2007 study reported that resistant mosquitoes avoided treated huts. The researchers argued that DDT was the best pesticide for use in IRS (even though it did not afford the most protection from mosquitoes out of the three test chemicals) because the others pesticides worked primarily by killing or irritating mosquitoes—encouraging the development of resistance to these agents.[97] Others argue that the avoidance behavior slows the eradication of the disease.[98] Unlike other insecticides such as pyrethroids, DDT requires long exposure to accumulate a lethal dose; however its irritant property shortens contact periods. "For these reasons, when comparisons have been made, better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT."[91] In India, with its outdoor sleeping habits and frequent night duties, "the excito-repellent effect of DDT, often reported useful in other countries, actually promotes outdoor transmission."[99]

(continued)

 

(continued from previous post)

DDT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

Human exposure

People living in areas where DDT is used for IRS have high levels of the chemical and its breakdown products in their bodies. Compared to contemporaries living where DDT is not used, South Africans living in sprayed homes have levels that are several orders of magnitude greater.[35] Breast milk in regions where DDT is used against malaria greatly exceeds the allowable standards for breast-feeding infants.[101][102][103] These levels are associated with neurological abnormalities in babies.[91][101][102]

Most studies of DDT's human health effects have been conducted in developed countries where DDT is not used and exposure is relatively low. Many experts urge that alternatives be used instead of IRS.[23][35] Epidemiologist Brenda Eskenazi argues, "We know DDT can save lives by repelling and killing disease-spreading mosquitoes. But evidence suggests that people living in areas where DDT is used are exposed to very high levels of the pesticide. The only published studies on health effects conducted in these populations have shown profound effects on male fertility. Clearly, more research is needed on the health of populations where indoor residual spraying is occurring, but in the meantime, DDT should really be the last resort against malaria rather than the first line of defense."[104]

Illegal diversion to agriculture is also a concern, as it is almost impossible to prevent, and its subsequent use on crops is uncontrolled. For example, DDT use is widespread in Indian agriculture,[105] particularly mango production,[106] and is reportedly used by librarians to protect books.[107] Other example include Ethiopia, where DDT intended for malaria control is reportedly being used in coffee production,[108] and Ghana where it is used for fishing."[109][110] The residues in crops at levels unacceptable for export have been an important factor in recent bans in several tropical countries.[91] Adding to this problem is a lack of skilled personnel and supervision.[98]

Criticism of restrictions on DDT use

Critics claim that restricting DDT in vector control have caused unnecessary deaths due to malaria. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands,[111] to millions. Robert Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health said in 2007, "The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children."[112] These arguments have been dismissed as "outrageous" by former WHO scientist Socrates Litsios. May Berenbaum, University of Illinois entomologist, says, "to blame environmentalists who oppose DDT for more deaths than Hitler is worse than irresponsible."[83] Investigative journalist Adam Sarvana and others characterize this notion as a "myth" promoted principally by Roger Bate of the pro-DDT advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM).[113][114]

Criticisms of a DDT "ban" often specifically reference the 1972 US ban (with the erroneous implication that this constituted a worldwide ban and prohibited use of DDT in vector control). Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT. John Quiggin and Tim Lambert wrote, "the most striking feature of the claim against Carson is the ease with which it can be refuted."[115] Carson actually devoted a page of her book to considering the relationship between DDT and malaria, warning of the evolution of DDT resistance in mosquitoes and concluding:

It is more sensible in some cases to take a small amount of damage in preference to having none for a time but paying for it in the long run by losing the very means of fighting [is the advice given in Holland by Dr Briejer in his capacity as director of the Plant Protection Service]. Practical advice should be "Spray as little as you possibly can" rather than "Spray to the limit of your capacity."

It has also been alleged that donor governments and agencies have refused to fund DDT spraying, or made aid contingent upon not using DDT. According to a report in the British Medical Journal, use of DDT in Mozambique "was stopped several decades ago, because 80% of the country's health budget came from donor funds, and donors refused to allow the use of DDT."[116] Roger Bate asserts, "many countries have been coming under pressure from international health and environment agencies to give up DDT or face losing aid grants: Belize and Bolivia are on record admitting they gave in to pressure on this issue from [USAID]."[117]

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the focus of much criticism. While the agency is currently funding the use of DDT in some African countries,[118] in the past it did not. When John Stossel accused USAID of not funding DDT because it wasn't "politically correct," Anne Peterson, the agency's assistant administrator for global health, replied that "I believe that the strategies we are using are as effective as spraying with DDT ... So, politically correct or not, I am very confident that what we are doing is the right strategy."[119] USAID's Kent R. Hill states that the agency has been misrepresented: "USAID strongly supports spraying as a preventative measure for malaria and will support the use of DDT when it is scientifically sound and warranted."[120] The Agency's website states that "USAID has never had a 'policy' as such either 'for' or 'against' DDT for IRS. The real change in the past two years [2006/07] has been a new interest and emphasis on the use of IRS in general—with DDT or any other insecticide—as an effective malaria prevention strategy in tropical Africa."[118] The website further explains that in many cases alternative malaria control measures were judged to be more cost-effective that DDT spraying, and so were funded instead.[121]


***

 

To livefree: The World health Organization is a United Nations agency. Nothing more needs to be said.

Your entire response is a compilation of the usual environmental talking points. You got them all in —— in my thread! Be happy, but do not expect anybody who understands the scam to believe, or even read, anything the WHO, or the EPA and its advocates, offers in defence of their position.

Incidentally, how come you did not include the mosquito net solution to malaria deaths?

 

LOLOLOL....I guess when you have no facts to back up your lies, this kind of drivel is what you're left with...."nothing more needs to be said" may be true for brainwashed dupes and rabid jingoists, I suppose, but for normal people with even average intelligence, blanket condemnation of anything connected with the UN reveals only rightwingnut insanity and a blind, unthinking hatred of the United Nations based on myths and propaganda.

Why don't you tell us all about your personal accomplishments in the field of world health, Flanders, and we can compare them to the accomplishments of the World Health Organization and we'll see if you have any standing to criticize them.

Achievements of the World Health Organization

Since its creation in 1948, the World Health Organization has contributed to major accomplishments resulting in a healthier world. For example:

In 1967, smallpox was endemic in 31 countries. In that year alone, between 10 and 15 million people were stricken with the disease: of these, some 2 million died and millions of survivors were disfigured or blinded for life. The last known case of smallpox was detected in Somalia on 26 October 1977. Since that time, had it not been eradicated, at least 20 million people would have died from the disease.

Yaws, a crippling and disfiguring disease afflicting some 50 million people, was one of the first to claim WHO's attention. A scientific break-through came in 1948 with long-acting penicillin, a single injection of which was enough to cure the disease. By 1965, 46 million yaws patients had been successfully treated in 49 countries.

Onchocerciasis (river blindness) is a parasitic disease of the tropics that particularly affects much of West Africa. In 1974, WHO, together with three other United Nations agencies, launched the Onchocerciasis Control Programme. Its main strategy is to aerially spray the river breeding sites of the disease-carrying blackflies. About 10 million children born in the operational area since the programme began no longer risk contracting the disease. A new drug, Ivermectin, has been available since 1987 for those infected with the parasite.

The fight against infectious diseases is one of WHO's priorities. Millions of children have been saved annually from death and disability, in part owing to global immunization programmes. Already, eight out of ten of the world's children are protected against six major childhood diseases — diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, tuberculosis and poliomyelitis. Thus, child mortality has been greatly reduced, from 134 per 1000 live births in 1970 to about 80 in 1995. The world's infant mortality rate has fallen by more than 37% since 1970.

Among the other major accomplishments in global health are the provision of health services, reduction in mortality and increase in life expectancy, delivery of essential drugs, introduction of environmental sanitation measures, and provision of guidelines for healthier cities.

WHO is at the threshold of eliminating other major diseases in the next few years, such as poliomyelitis, guinea-worm disease, river blindness, Chagas disease, neonatal tetanus, and leprosy.


As far as your nutsoid myths about the supposed ban on DDT, the facts are the facts and I presented the facts in an article containing 132 citations and references to the primary scientific sources that verify those facts, and you meanwhile have nothing to counter those facts but a lot of blind ignorance, a big helping of rightwingnut myths and some determined willful avoidance of the truth.

 

EPA regulations prevent unauthorized and uncompensated trespass on my land. What about my rights as a landowner? Apparently only corporate rights are important to you, and not individual rights.

 

From OP:
“Socialists like Hussein disguise their confiscatory policies behind legal beards like the EPA. No matter how clever the spin real property owned by average Americans is the target of the EPA’s grasping hands.”

To Poor Debater: Had you comprehended what I said you would know that my concern is for average Americans.

And how much does the EPA pay when it confiscates a Right? Here’s the article I linked in the OP that you obviously did not read:

Justices rap EPA, Obama praises it
Published: Jan. 10, 2012 at 5:07 PM

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama said Tuesday he doesn't buy the notion Americans must choose between growing the economy and what is good for the environment.

Obama took a short ride over to the Environmental Protection Agency to thank EPA staff members "for their hard work" to make sure " the air we breathe, the water we drink, the foods we eat are safe."

"Because of you, across the board, we're cutting down on acid rain and air pollution," Obama said as he praised EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for her leadership. "We're making our drinking water cleaner and safer. We're creating healthier communities. But that's not all. Safeguarding our environment is also about strengthening our
economy.

"I do not buy the notion that we have to make a choice between having clean air and clean water and growing this economy in a robust way. I think that is a false debate."

The comments came as the U.S. Supreme Court accused the EPA of overreaching. Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the agency's "high-handedness" when dealing with private property and Justice Samuel Alito described some EPA measures as "outrageous."

Several conservative Supreme Court members criticized the agency during oral arguments Monday, accusing the agency of heavy-handedness when it told an Idaho couple they could not challenge an order declaring their future home site a "protected wetlands."

Mike and Chantell Sackett wanted to build a home on a 0.63-acre lot near Priest Lake, in the northernmost portion of the Idaho Panhandle, 80 miles north of Spokane, Wash. After three days of bringing in fill dirt and preparing for construction in 2007, they were ordered by EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials to stop the project because there was a possibility the land contained wetlands.

Six months later, the EPA sent the Sacketts a "compliance order," saying the land must be restored as a wetlands before the couple could apply for a building permit.

The Sacketts sought to challenge the order, but the EPA and lower courts said they couldn't.

The EPA issues nearly 3,000 compliance orders a year, records indicate.
The government acknowledged to the court Monday fines for failing to comply with the orders could be as much as $75,000 a day.

"If you related the facts of this case ... to an ordinary homeowner, don't you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can't happen in the United States?" Alito, nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005, asked Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who represents the EPA.

"You buy property to build a house," Alito continued. "You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: You have filled in wetlands, so you can't build your house. Remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants ... and for every day that you don't do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000."

Chief Justice John Roberts, also nominated by Bush in 2005, pointed to what he said was the property owners'
dilemma.

"What would you do, Mr. Stewart, if you received this compliance order?" Roberts asked. "You don't think your property has wetlands on it and you get this compliance order from the EPA. What would you do?"

Stewart said: "I think at that stage your options would be limited. You could apply for an after-the-fact permit."

Roberts immediately said: "You wouldn't do that, right? You know you will never get an after-the-fact permit if the EPA has sent you a compliance order saying you've got wetlands."

The court said it would decide whether the EPA's use of non-reviewable compliance orders violated the Sacketts' right to "due process," which orders a government to respect all the legal rights owed to a person under the law.

"For 75 years, the courts have interpreted statutes with an eye toward permitting judicial review, not the opposite," Justice Stephen Breyer said Monday.

 

Nope, you have misunderstood what I said. It's not the EPA that trespasses on my land, it's unregulated power and industrial plants who, absent EPA, would be free to dump their toxic and radioactive coal ash out of their smokestacks and onto my land without my consent. How does the non-EPA America prevent that brazen and illegal corporate usurpation of my rights as a landowner?

Except for those thousands of average Americans who would be sickened, and some die, every year from unregulated pollution of our air and water. Those average Americans, apparently, can just go to hell in your version of America. You have no concern for them at all.

 

Nobody is dying from dirty air or water in the US and haven't since about 1976.

Nobody was dying in 1970, either.

Just another strawman.

 

Flanders.

As a rather right-wing kind of guy, I feel I must tell you that you're gettin' a bit crazy here with the conspiracy stuff.

Perhaps the EPA is due for some "optimization," but in no way do I want it completely axed. Any true capitalist has to admit that there are no intrinsic reasons for corporations to restrain themselves when it comes to pollution. The market is set up so that they must compete with each other, and so we should expect them to use every method available to them to gain an advantage.

For the most part this is a good thing, but it does not leave them with a lot of reason to protect the environment. Therefore, environmental regulation is a necessity, or we would go back to the days of flammable rivers.

 

Clean air act passed in 1970.
Clean water act passed in 1972.

No deaths since then? Just a coincidence?

Prior to the passage of the clean water act, industrial wastes discharged into Chesapeake Bay caused $3 million a year (1968 dollars) in losses to commercial fishermen. Of course, Taxcutter doesn't care about the rights of those fishermen at all. He only cares about the rights of corporations to usurp the rights of others without compensation.

Prior to the passage of the clean water act, 87% of swordfish had levels of mercury so high that it made them unfit for human consumption. Taxcutter doesn't care about those who ate that fish: corporations have a right to pollute your body for free, he says, and your rights to your own health are zero. Corporate rights are everything, and you have no rights to your own body if some corporation wants to dump mercury into your food.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of conservative America: Corporations have all the rights. You have none.

 

To Poor Debater: That’s absurd. If there was any truth in what you say voters in every state would not elect anybody who criticized the EPA.

To Taxcutter: Right on!

Did you know that every liberal strawman goes by the same name? SCARE TACTIC

To Haplo: Enforceable laws are necessary —— the EPA is not.

 

You're not just criticizing the EPA: you're wanting to eliminate it. Since the EPA hasn't been eliminated by the voters, then by your own logic, you're the one who's being absurd. EPA hasn't been eliminated because the majority of Americans, thankfully, still believe in individual rights. In your vision of America, they don't.

The fact is, you don't give a hoot about my rights as a landowner. You never have and you never will.

Welcome to conservative America, where corporations have all the rights and you have none.

 

ONe of my major concerns about environmentalism not only in the US but around the world, is that it's generally more effective at keeping the poor poor than at curbing actual pollution.

Before the EPA, a single male breadwinner could get a job at a factory and live a decent lifestyle. But since the anti-pollution measures came in, most of those jobs have left our shores to other countries. Before the rampant growth of "protected areas", land was cheaper and could be used for a lot of things. Building infrastructure to make that land more valuable was cheaper because you didn't have to build hydroelectric in such a way that it has no impact on fish, you could build roads without having to make sure that the road wouldn't accidentally pass through a wetland.

The rich, of course, can generally afford to have such regulations. He works in an air-conditioned office, on a computer, so he's not going to lose his job when some new regulation makes it impossible to make some product in America. He's not going to lose the use of his land because a federal agent discovers a mud-puddle on his ranch. His electrical rates won't be affected when the cost of building a hydroelectric plant triples due to the need to build little fish-channels lest some fish not reach the spawning grounds. Their experience of the EPA is that they get lots of national parks, and don't see any unsightly factories with smoke.