< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Russell Brown KO'd Again


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Russell Brown KO'd Again

There's a bit of a bun fight going on over at David Farrar's place about Round Table Roger Kerr's remarks concerning the Greens and DDT. RB siezed upon this new opportunity to display his eclectic wisdom but unfortunately he forgot about the last time he was savaged. That pesky Metcalf fellow. Why does he have to remind Brown that Brown talks such a lot of nonsense?

For RB's benefit, here's a wiki extract conderning the foundational wisdom and raison d etre of all econutters, including the present deluded crop. The goddess herself, Rachael Carson, the foundational killer of millions.

Read it Russell and wince. These are the same people who wanted to ban all foodstuffs because they are all potential carcinogens..

  1. I. Advocacy against DDT

    DDT was demagogued out of use.
  2. Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control" pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.
  3. Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."

    [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
  4. See how Brown and his friends the Greens 'really care'?

Posted by Adolf Fiinkensein | 10/11/2005 02:25:00 pm


Anonymous Anonymous said...

adolf..i just read that thread..you guys got bounced all over the place...cor!

it was a right going over....

(are you back here to lick your wounds and to petulantly declare victory..tee hee...we know...)


10/11/2005 03:41:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You just post them in now, dont you phule?


10/11/2005 03:50:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phil U.

Your intrinsic aversion to truth is staggering. Is that why you smoke dope, to prevent reality getting in?

10/11/2005 03:59:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



10/11/2005 04:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me guess, the other part is for health reasons right?

10/11/2005 04:27:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

phil you should try reading Silent Spring while you smoke dope. Then you can have some Carsonogen with your carcinogen. Not sure which one will kill you first.

10/11/2005 04:34:00 pm  
Blogger darren said...

Didn't Sue Kedgely recently fall for a ban of a 'deadly' chemical more commonly known as water!



10/11/2005 05:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no anon..pure sweet decadent pleasure..mmmmmmmmm..!..

which reminds me...


10/11/2005 06:21:00 pm  
Blogger Chefen said...

Ha ha ha, I missed this one. Pity. I loved this one though
That's so funny. Honestly, part of the reason I occasionally kick into these debates is for the sheer, spluttering spectacle those men provide.
Except of course he never comes here, just does it over at Farrar's where he can take his toys and go home when someone with a brain, usually the eloquent Mr Metcalfe, gives him a hiding.

10/11/2005 06:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

um..chefen...there is a fair bit of spluttering and needing to wipe spittle off screens going on around here though..eh..?..all have a box of tissues next to the computor..do we..?



10/11/2005 07:14:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

phil, you have become tiresome.

10/11/2005 07:44:00 pm  
Anonymous Ed Snack said...

Just as DDT is not a "magic bullet"against malaria, the DDT story is not a "magic bullet" against environmental groups including the greens. M uch of the standard "right wing" line about DDT & Malaria is almost certainly incorrect, and by pushing falsehoods the true part of the story is drowned out.

DDT was seriously overused in the 50's and 60's as an agricultural pesticide, with significant side effects and the introduction of a significant degree of resistance. Some countries, perhaps most notably Sri Lanka used DDT as an important part of a huge campaign to almost eliminate Malaria in that country. However they discontinued the use of DDT in 1962, well before the campaigns against it had much weight, and it seems most likely that having reduced malaria to a minor nuisance, the campaign suffered from its own success.

It is true that various groups of "greens" have opposed any use whatsoever of DDT, and have used their influence to prevent the funding of campaigns that proposed to use DDT, however at least some greens groups admit the usefulness of DDT in some circumstances. These groups are in a minority and many major groups continue to push overtly or covertly for a total ban.

I would advise careful research before pontificating on this subject, on either side. My take is that DDT has its place, but on its own it will have an important but limited effect, and that effect will diminish with time as resistance grows. Banning it however will make it harder and more expensive to manage malaria, and as such unless it could be shown unequivocally to cause serious harm, it certainly has a place and a part to play.

10/11/2005 08:41:00 pm  
Blogger Psycho Milt said...

Chefen, Mr Metcalfe doesn't seem to have given him a hiding on this one. Kerr claims massive evidence DDT isn't harmful and RB pointed to studies that suggest it might be harmful. Mr Metcalfe says those studies don't prove DDT is harmful, but the issue was whether there really is massive evidence that it isn't harmful, so how exactly RB got "a hiding" is beyond me.

10/11/2005 09:14:00 pm  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Ed, the ral point of the whole debate/bunfight/schemozzle was the fact that causes are fought on flimsy grounds which have little to do with logic or real care for humankind. DDT was but one example. Yes, of course it was overused. I recall aircraft coming in over the Ord River cotton fielded every bloody ebening spraying DDT and it was useless. Sadly the nutters got it banned and thereby killed millions of people. Today's equivalent example is nuclear power. There is no chance of rational debate on the merits of nuclear power because the nutters have hijacked the gullible public mind. Bob Hawke is absolutely right but he'll be pilloried. There's no real cost benefit analysis - it's just knee jerk scare eeryone shitless with big words.

10/11/2005 09:31:00 pm  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

I agree with Ed that DDT was over-used early on, like many other pesticides and other nasty chemicals back then. In great enough concentrations its major component can certainly be very dangerous. But no-one I can see is arguing those points are not true.

Which is why I am amazed to find out via email that apparently Dim, living up to his name again, has challenged me to drink some DDT diluted in water (or something along those lines). Dim has managed to assign me to the opposing group without my consent, and if that wasn't bad enough offered a completely ridiculous challenge in replace of an argument.

I will do some investigating and locate the comment in question before saying anything else... perhaps the email was exaggerated.

10/11/2005 09:36:00 pm  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

You really are an ungracious prick aren't you Chefen. Nasty to the end.

10/11/2005 10:02:00 pm  
Blogger Chefen said...

Yep, generally nasty at both ends sweety, depending on what I've eaten.

10/12/2005 04:58:00 am  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

You know ther're buggered when they tell you you are ungracious.

10/12/2005 09:46:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Psycho, the fact that a few studies have found ddt to be in some way harmful does not mean that there are not plenty of others that have found no evidence of harm.

I dont think anyone would argue that DDT is completely harmless, even in high doses. But that is what the other side of this debate is insisting is happening. DDT is an insecticide. It is toxic. It should be. Most things are. But the issue is not whether DDT could have continued to be overused in agriculture, the issue is that it could have been used (with much smaller exposure) to help prevent malaria.


10/12/2005 12:05:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home