You'd think they had someting to do with with the treatment of those that they make sick maybe even the handling of biohazards left in your body after you die you'd think they'd have control over.

Boycotts are nice.

Boycotts are the only thing that will work.


Then the consumers decide.


Life is a trade off. There is absolutly nothing that is safe. Falling down is one of the leading causes of death in America.

The question now becomes, do you want to go back to the days of sticky pans? Who knows what cooking in cast iron begets?

(A properly seasoned cast iron skillet is non-stick, and begets scrumtious corn bread, among many other things -- yummy-scrum!)

"Don't buy their products anymore and they will go broke and that will be that!"

Would a DDT boycott have worked?

If you can make "killing others quickly with guns" against the law, why can't you make "killing others slowly with chemicals" against the law? What's the difference?

The difference is that death by chemicals is voluntary.


I'm pretty sure the average lifespan of the citizenry has been going up over the decades despite all the evil corporations exist.

As a matter of fact, what happens is that capitalism keeps people alive and well fed long enough to actually sucomb to diseases like cancer. No one lived to be old enough to die of cancer in the past.

Now, thanks to the entrepeneurs who serves the masses, we have better balanced meals. The Engines and the fossil fuels do the back breaking work that used to plain just wear a man out by the time he was 50 in the past.

We no longer have the horse poop and flies that went with them to bring disease and pestulance to our lives.

The ban on DDT has cost millions of African lives.

To you it was worth it. To those who died of mosquito born disease, well , I'm sure they "would have had" a different view if they were still around to express it.

DDT was not all evil. It was a matter of dose. Like all other chemicals.

See the new figures for the air quality? All things have to be taken into account for the increases in cancer and respiratory illness in the world. Plastic's alone might not be the cause but it's not known what happens when combined with the fumes from your carpet, bed and clothes,anything thats man made.
Then the other blocks in the plants, that make these household products, are people making the cure for the side effects of their products. If they fail rest assured that your body might rot but the casket they sold your loved ones will last forever.



ps if they have an accident you'll be dead before they settle and help the people they made sick. courts of LAW not Justice

"The difference is that death by chemicals is voluntary."


No it's not:


"Overall, DDT concentrates in biological systems (particularly in body fat), it is a toxin across a certain range of phyla, and it bioaccumulates up the food chain, reaching its greatest concentrations in higher animals such as humans."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

The people who suffer from DDT are often not the ones who use it.











"I'm pretty sure the average lifespan of the citizenry has been going up over the decades despite all the evil corporations exist."

So have the cancer rates. The lifespan has gone up despite the pollution, (actually, the lifespans have gone up do to what you would call "evil socialism" - things like sewers, fire departments, healthcare systems and other such evil government programs). If there was less pollution, lifespans would be even longer.





"As a matter of fact, what happens is that capitalism keeps people alive and well fed long enough to actually sucomb to diseases like cancer. No one lived to be old enough to die of cancer in the past."

Nonsense. As usual, you have no facts.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1853675.stm
Air pollution cancer fears grow


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-03-05-pollution.htm
Study: Air pollution, lung cancer are linked



Cancer Pollution Report
How Cancer Pollution May Hurt Your Health
http://www.sierraclub.org/toxics/cancer/article.asp
"The journal Environmental Health Perspectives reports that cancer is the "leading cause of disease related death among children in the United States, afflicting approximately 8,000 children under the age of 15 per year. And despite the efforts of researchers to find a cure, childhood cancer rates also appear to be increasing by approximately 1.0 percent each year."



That doesn't sound too "voluntary" to me. It also doesn't appear to have anything to do with "old age" either.







"Now, thanks to the entrepeneurs who serves the masses, we have better balanced meals."

Filled with radioactive food! Thanks, entrepreneurs!

http://www.ourfood.com/Radioactivity_food.html
http://www.acsa.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_tobacco.html




"The Engines and the fossil fuels do the back breaking work that used to plain just wear a man out by the time he was 50 in the past."

Thanks to those entrepreneurs, we arn't allowed to use hemp, which would save us from both the back-breaking work, AND the climate change/pollution/oil wars. Thanks monopolistic entrepreneurs!


"We no longer have the horse poop and flies that went with them to bring disease and pestulance to our lives."

Brian Taylor used to turn his horse poop into fertilizer for the garden - and it wasn't radioactive, either.






"The ban on DDT has cost millions of African lives."

Again, Chris, you're suffering from no-factitis. Try using a search engine once in a while.

1) DDT was banned in DEVELOPED countries, not Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

2) Africans are dying from export agriculture and the resulting poverty. If they weren't being exploited, they could afford less toxic alternatives to DDT like Bacillus thuringiensis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis

3) DDT use creates DDT-resistant mosquitos. What then?



"To you it was worth it. To those who died of mosquito born disease, well , I'm sure they "would have had" a different view if they were still around to express it."

As usual, you don't have any facts to back up what you say, and you didn't bother to spend a minute looking into it. Boy am I glad you've retired from politics.




"DDT was not all evil. It was a matter of dose. Like all other chemicals."

I see. How much dioxin is safe to consume? How much plutonium?

all my grandparents and their parents lived on farms. they lived longer than the average life expectancy we have today.
they had 11 and 13 children..all well fed.
they didnt live amongst their own crap and they drank from clean water. disease was not common.
it was very common to have very large families and if the farm was large enough they could all work the land to put good food on the table.
in the war times the young relatives were able to survive by going and living on these farms where there was plenty of food still available. men would work the land well into their sixties.
productive healthy systems like that could not handle populations like we have today.
i think what happened was that when people moved into cities they sourced and payed for food from such farms and out from the cities came wonderful pesticides and herbicides that helped to produce more food from these farms along with advancements in agricultural machinery.
large farms did very weel with big markets.
we got more food per acre and set ourselves up with poisons a plenty.these days if you were to follow a peice of fruit back to where it came from you would be amazed at the chemicals that go into it arriving at your local shopping centre.

I might suffer from generalizingitis but not the dreded no-factitis you suppose.



Socialism brought all this?

Quote:

---

things like sewers, fire departments, healthcare systems and other such evil government programs). If there was less pollution, lifespans would be even longer.

---

First the comparrision between Soviet Russia and America would tell us who delievered what service to the people.


Sewers were made of cast Iron and trenches were dug will steam and then diesel powered shovels.

Smelters were required. fire dept are all voluntary everywhere in the province of Manitoba except here in the capital. There is no reason the fire dept could not be a free-market enterprize.

Healthcare systems require chemical processing plants, laborotory equipment, electric power, cement, custom frabricated equipment.

The Soviets did dentistry without freezing teeth and their medicine was a little more primitive.

Cuba has a great record of socialist accomplishments too.

Without automobiles, humanity would no doubt resort to the horse.

Horses were responsible for a lot of early deaths for human beings. Everything from simply falling off them to getting horsekicked.

Maybe one horses poop could be taken care of in a garden plot, but millions of them? When horses gotta go, they just go. The streets would stink in no time at all.

And as far as using a search engine goes, I particularly like the one built into the lewrockwell.com site.

The number one reply for DDT Africa.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund28.html

The Mosquito: Environmentalism’s Weapon of Mass Destruction
by Eric Englund


…when one swallows environmentalism, one inescapably swallows poison.

~ Dr. George Reisman

Environmentalists want you dead; and the sooner the better. Did that get your attention? I certainly hope so. For it is the environmental movement’s objective to radically reduce the human population. As mankind seeks to extend the division of labor, to further explore for and utilize natural resources, to develop new life-improving technologies, and to enhance our quality of life, environmentalists view humanity as nothing more than a voracious parasite raping, pillaging, and sucking the life out of Mother Earth. It is within this context – i.e. rescuing Mother Earth from the human parasite, via massive population reduction – that one comes to understand the environmental movement’s nihilistic push to permanently ban the use of DDT always and everywhere. Ultimately, banning DDT (a safe and cost-effective insecticide) is tantamount to cheering on the mosquitoes to kill as many people as possible with such diseases as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and West Nile virus.

Of the aforementioned diseases, malaria causes the most deaths and illnesses worldwide. According to Malaria Foundation International (MFI):

Malaria is responsible for about 500 million clinical cases of disease and about 2.7 million deaths a year, mostly those of children under five and pregnant women. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, malaria destroys 70% more years of life than do all cancers in all developed countries combined. It therefore follows that even a tiny loss in the efficiency of a national malaria control program, occasioned by the loss of DDT or otherwise, would result in a tremendous number of additional deaths from the disease. (emphasis in the original)

Yes, you read that correctly. That is 500 million acute illnesses per year resulting in as many as 2.7 million preventable deaths every year. More about these preventable deaths later (hint: the United States’ outright ban of DDT, in 1972, has had a hand in this large-scale death and misery).

Speaking of bans, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is pushing for a worldwide treaty aimed at permanently abolishing persistent organic pollutants (POPs) – of course greenies are fully backing this treaty. DDT, which is still manufactured and utilized in some parts of the globe, is on UNEP’s list of POPs. Organizations such as MFI, Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) are concerned about this ban as no safe and cost-effective replacement has been found for DDT. These groups argue that millions more will die needlessly if the POPs treaty is ratified and enforced.

"I might suffer from generalizingitis but not the dreded no-factitis you suppose."

Then why not cite something with sources and footnotes rather than just the opinion of Lew Rockwell?



"Socialism brought all this?"

Quote:
things like sewers, fire departments, healthcare systems and other such evil government programs). If there was less pollution, lifespans would be even longer.







"fire dept are all voluntary everywhere in the province of Manitoba except here in the capital. There is no reason the fire dept could not be a free-market enterprize."

They used to be - but people decided it wasn't very efficient:


"Often fights would break out between the runners and even the responding fire companies for the right to fight the fire and receive the insurance money that would be paid to the company that fought it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter


"Healthcare systems require chemical processing plants, laborotory equipment, electric power, cement, custom frabricated equipment."

You don't need employers to create these things. I'm not so sure our healthcare system couldn't use less chemical processing plants and more herb gardens, either.





"The Soviets did dentistry without freezing teeth and their medicine was a little more primitive."

You read that where? Is that opinion or fact?






"Cuba has a great record of socialist accomplishments too."

1) It's not socialism if the workers arn't in control - and they arn't.

2) Even though it's not socialism, Cuba has a better health care system than any other Latin American country.






"Without automobiles, humanity would no doubt resort to the horse."

Who said "no automobiles"? I just think we can do without employers and fossile fuels.







"Maybe one horses poop could be taken care of in a garden plot, but millions of them?"

We could have millions of gardens, too.






"When horses gotta go, they just go. The streets would stink in no time at all."

How do you feel about hemp-fuel?





"And as far as using a search engine goes, I particularly like the one built into the lewrockwell.com site."

Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact?













"Environmentalists want you dead; and the sooner the better. Did that get your attention? I certainly hope so. For it is the environmental movement’s objective to radically reduce the human population."

Actually, that was originally planned by the Eugenicists - a branch of science created by the Harrimans and the Rockefellers:

www.cannabisculture.com/news/gwbayer








"As mankind seeks to extend the division of labor, to further explore for and utilize natural resources, to develop new life-improving technologies, and to enhance our quality of life, environmentalists view humanity as nothing more than a voracious parasite raping, pillaging, and sucking the life out of Mother Earth."

No quotes. Perhaps some environmentalists do, but more often than not this is an elite white male perspective:


http://www.infowars.com/articles/life/population_reduction_top_scientist_cull_90_percent.htm

http://sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/



From eugenics to population control

The Rockefeller Foundation continued to support eugenics programs well into WW2. (196) By 1940, most of the wealthy patrons of began to pull their money from "eugenics" - the Nazi's having forever associated that term with white supremacy and genocide. (197)

In 1952 it began again - this time they would call it "population control" Sounds nicer than "eugenics" - like young people handing out free condoms or something nice like that. JD Rockefeller the Third (JDR3 to his friends) hired an expert in eugenics - Frederick Osborn - to head the Population Council. (198) Despite its new name, "population control" was and is still all about eugenics, white supremacy and genocide.

On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger (Nelson Rockefeller's right-hand man and long-time CFR member) completed a classified 200-page study, "National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called "lesser developed countries" was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Kissinger's study stated:

"Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth? ... It is questionable, whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis." (199)

If the first world wouldn't rob the third word blind with export agriculture if the third world had its own manufacturing base and "fair trade" instead of "free" trade, they wouldn't need "aid" anymore - that's the fact most left out of discussions on "aid."

Half of you people must die

Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations recently published an article stating that the US population should be reduced to "about it's size in the 1940's" (200) - in other words, cut it back by at least half. It goes without saying that similar (if not more drastic) "cuts" are called for in the rest of the world. Most of their attention is with the "less developed" countries. (201)

As ecologist Murry Buckchin (202) so eloquently put it;

"All too often, alas, the overpopulation message is also focused on Third World countries. (This, although the number of people who occupy a square mile in the Third World is actually immensely smaller than the numbers for Europe and the United States)."

The facts are that population growth decreases as social services increase. (203) That makes sense. Poor people have lots of kids so that a few survive to look after them in their old age. If the "population control freaks" were really serious about reducing the population growth rate the decent way (instead of the quick, racist and profitable way), they would see to it that the whole world had the same social safety net that exists in near-zero population growth countries like Italy or Japan.

Further, if we all change how we consume - away from unsustainable like fossil fuels and harsh chemicals, and towards wind/wave/sun/bio fuels and sustainable technologies, we could quite easily support double today's population. In other words, it's not "how many" of us their are, but "how smart" we all are with our limited resources.

During the aptly named Rockefeller Hearings before the U.S. congress in 1994, government officials admitted;

."..to more than 50 years of bio-warfare experiments carried out on hundreds of thousands of American citizens." (204)

Let's end this bio-genocidal experiment before some moron does something quick, racist and profitable.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/gwbayer








"It is within this context – i.e. rescuing Mother Earth from the human parasite, via massive population reduction – that one comes to understand the environmental movement’s nihilistic push to permanently ban the use of DDT always and everywhere. Ultimately, banning DDT (a safe and cost-effective insecticide)"

Where is the citation that DDT is safe? This is why opinions without facts are dangerous.






" is tantamount to cheering on the mosquitoes to kill as many people as possible with such diseases as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and West Nile virus."

Ahh yes. West Nile. Perhaps the key to avoiding problems with West Nile comes not from using DDT, but rather stoping experiments with West Nile as a weapon of war:



Rockefeller & Farben's West Nile Virus weapons and vaccines

By now, everyone has heard of "West Nile Virus" - that biological weapon of mass destruction that the USA sold Iraq in 1985. (108) The virus that keeps appearing all over North America. (109) The Rockefeller Institute had been working on this particular virus since at least 1943. (110) Incidentally (or maybe not), it was also in 1943 that encephalitis (of which West Nile Virus is a form) was being worked on as a weapon by the US government at their Fort Detrick weapons laboratory - with "insects" used as delivery systems (111) - just like the WNV-bearing mosquitoes of today.

During the 1994 U.S. Senate Hearing investigations over Gulf War Syndrome, Dr. Joshua Lederberg was exposed for sending West Nile to Iraq. Dr. Lederberg is former President of Rockefeller University in Manhattan - home to West Nile since the 1950's (112). It was Lederberg who attempted to sell President Clinton millions of dollars worth of West Nile vaccine back in 1998 - a year before the first outbreak. (113)

Way easier to sell the vaccine these "post-outbreak" days. Dr. Lederberg is also on Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations, facilitating the bio-weapons study group. (114)

Dr. Thomas Monath - another expert on West Nile - once worked at Fort Detrick. He now works at Acambis - maker of the West Nile vaccine and owned by the Hoechst (Farben)/Rhone-Poulenc life-science department "Aventis" (115) and the American Home Products (Farben) subsidiary known as "Baxter" (116). The other maker of West Nile Vaccine is the American drug company Merck - another Rockefeller interest. (117)

Rockefeller & Farben's anti-West Nile Virus mosquito sprays

Dr. Monath told the Center for Disease Control and New York City mayor Ralph Guilliani to spray the West Nile Virus-carrying mosquitoes. Of course the recommended spray happened to be "Malathion" - produced by American Cyanamid, owned by I.G.'s American Home Products. (118) In Canada, the city of Winnipeg, officials decided to spay for West Nile Virus mosquitoes - against the protests of many of the inhabitance. (119)

Due to reports of "highly-toxic" and carcinogenic ingredients, "immune-suppressing," "flu-like," even "respiratory arrest" effects on humans in the "spray-zone" (120), New York health officials stopped using Malathion. Instead they used "Anvil" - an equally toxic and carcinogenic biocide spray produced by Chevron - another Rockefeller company. (121) American Cyanamid has since sold it's agricultural science department - including the Malathion patents - to none other than Farben's BASF. (122)

http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/gwbayer






"Of the aforementioned diseases, malaria causes the most deaths and illnesses worldwide. According to Malaria Foundation International (MFI):

Malaria is responsible for about 500 million clinical cases of disease and about 2.7 million deaths a year, mostly those of children under five and pregnant women. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, malaria destroys 70% more years of life than do all cancers in all developed countries combined. It therefore follows that even a tiny loss in the efficiency of a national malaria control program, occasioned by the loss of DDT or otherwise, would result in a tremendous number of additional deaths from the disease. (emphasis in the original)

Yes, you read that correctly. That is 500 million acute illnesses per year resulting in as many as 2.7 million preventable deaths every year. More about these preventable deaths later (hint: the United States’ outright ban of DDT, in 1972, has had a hand in this large-scale death and misery).

Speaking of bans, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is pushing for a worldwide treaty aimed at permanently abolishing persistent organic pollutants (POPs) – of course greenies are fully backing this treaty. DDT, which is still manufactured and utilized in some parts of the globe, is on UNEP’s list of POPs. Organizations such as MFI, Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM), and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) are concerned about this ban as no safe and cost-effective replacement has been found for DDT. These groups argue that millions more will die needlessly if the POPs treaty is ratified and enforced."


I guess you missed my last post regarding DDT (do you ever read the responses people give you? It's hard to tell.) ... I'll keep posting it until it appears that the information has sunk in:



1) DDT was banned in DEVELOPED countries, not Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

2) Africans are dying from export agriculture and the resulting poverty. If they weren't being exploited, they could afford less toxic alternatives to DDT like Bacillus thuringiensis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis

3) DDT use creates DDT-resistant mosquitos. What then?