Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461






Cool. Now find me a recipe for 2,4,D that doesn't stink. 2,4,D is banned in
my area, now, so I can't spread what I've got in case my environut neighbor
snitches on me.

And what works better on grubs, carbaryl or DDT?


--
Tegger

On 5/9/2010 7:59 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461


Very simple to make but chloral hydrate is a hypnotic and sale is highly
restricted.

On 5/9/2010 8:17 PM, Tegger wrote:
wrote in
m:

Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461






Cool. Now find me a recipe for 2,4,D that doesn't stink. 2,4,D is banned in
my area, now, so I can't spread what I've got in case my environut neighbor
snitches on me.

And what works better on grubs, carbaryl or DDT?


2,4D is simple to make from dichlorophenol and chloroacetic acid. It is
a herbicide, not an insecticide. Carbaryl probably better for grubs.

I've heard on the radio, that DDT is a lot more effective,
and a lot less toxic to humans than what the government
says. Certainly, a trace of DDT is a lot less dangerous than
malaria, and other insect bourne diseases.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I've heard on the radio, that DDT is a lot more effective,
and a lot less toxic to humans than what the government
says. Certainly, a trace of DDT is a lot less dangerous than
malaria, and other insect bourne diseases.

Actually, I don't think the government has ever said DDT *IS* toxic to
humans. I recall there were people who were EATING DDT to prove its benign
nature.

For example, the toxicity secion of the Wikipedia article on DDT lists
several situations. In most, some weasel word is used:
* "might cause preterm birth"
* "studies suggest..."
* "some evidence to suggest..."
* "exposure is associated..."
* "may affect thyroid levels..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Dev...ctive_toxicity


But why was DDT banned? As I recall, laboratory rats, when force-fed five
pounds of DDT per day, developed distended bellies and became lethargic.
There was some evidence that the Star-faced mole (who doesn't REALLY have a
face) developed teats when DDT was used in its environment.

Pic of Star-faced mole:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/973/s...le1360x673.jpg

On Sun, 9 May 2010 20:55:18 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've heard on the radio, that DDT is a lot more effective,
and a lot less toxic to humans than what the government
says. Certainly, a trace of DDT is a lot less dangerous than
malaria, and other insect bourne diseases.

I thought the ban on DDT was to save the birds? The carrot in front of
the stick.

HeyBub wrote:

But why was DDT banned? As I recall, laboratory rats, when force-fed five
pounds of DDT per day, developed distended bellies and became lethargic.
There was some evidence that the Star-faced mole (who doesn't REALLY have a
face) developed teats when DDT was used in its environment.

Pic of Star-faced mole:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/973/s...le1360x673.jpg

It was banned largely because of a book written by Rachel Carson
called Silent Spring. This might be a good example of PR overwhelming
science. Some commentary here from Junk Science:

http://tinyurl.com/2xzquc

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

But why was DDT banned? As I recall, laboratory rats, when force-fed five
pounds of DDT per day, developed distended bellies and became lethargic. There
was some evidence that the Star-faced mole (who doesn't REALLY have a face)
developed teats when DDT was used in its environment.


DDT is still used around the world. It was banned in the U.S. by the first
director
of the EPA, out of spite, when the court cases against its use were lost. These
cases were brought after some idiot of a wench used anecdotal evidence and
shear BS in a book detailing the horrors of DDT. Pure, unadulterated crap.

Sort of like the drivel being peddled by Al Gore and his gang of envirofrauds,
today.

cDean Hoffman wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

But why was DDT banned? As I recall, laboratory rats, when force-fed
five pounds of DDT per day, developed distended bellies and became
lethargic. There was some evidence that the Star-faced mole (who
doesn't REALLY have a face) developed teats when DDT was used in its
environment. Pic of Star-faced mole:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/973/s...le1360x673.jpg

It was banned largely because of a book written by Rachel Carson
called Silent Spring. This might be a good example of PR
overwhelming science. Some commentary here from Junk Science:

http://tinyurl.com/2xzquc

DDT was banned because it was effective at reducing malaria-related deaths.
In the part of the world where people die from malaria, it is more humane to
let nature run its course than to get in the way and have all of those
people breed uncontrollably and end up starving themselves to death (which
they do anyway).

Jon

What I remember back then, the birds were getting DDT in
their system from the insects, and the rest of the food
chain up to people were getting dosed with DDT. I'd rather
have less mosqitos, and take my chances with the food chain.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 May 2010 20:55:18 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've heard on the radio, that DDT is a lot more effective,
and a lot less toxic to humans than what the government
says. Certainly, a trace of DDT is a lot less dangerous
than
malaria, and other insect bourne diseases.

I thought the ban on DDT was to save the birds? The carrot
in front of
the stick.

that sounds some how familiar.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

DDT was banned because it was causing eagle egg shells to be
too thin
to survive. It had nothing to do with harming humans

wrote in message
...

DDT was banned because it was causing eagle egg shells to be too thin
to survive. It had nothing to do with harming humans

It also wasn't completely banned, it continues to be used in some parts of
the world especially in forms where it is applied to limited areas to
control dangerous insects rather than being sprayed over the whole
landscape.

"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...

DDT was banned because it was effective at reducing malaria-related
deaths.

Mosquitoes eventually became DDT-resistant requiring the use of other
chemicals like malathion. The more widely DDT is used in agriculture, the
more resistant mosquitoes in the same area become thus reducing the
chemical's effectiveness in disease control. In some areas of the world DDT
use was largely discontinued not for political reasons but because DDT had
become ineffective as mosquitoes developed resistance--this happens in as
little as six or seven years. Somehow the historical revisionists who like
to believe everything that has gone wrong in the world in the past century
is due to "liberals" miss this little fact.

http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/curtiscf.htm

On May 9, 7:17*pm, Tegger wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote innews:X9ednewVT_wd0XrWnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink. com:

Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461

Cool. Now find me a recipe for 2,4,D that doesn't stink. 2,4,D is banned in
my area, now, so I can't spread what I've got in case my environut neighbor
snitches on me.

And what works better on grubs, carbaryl or DDT?

--
Tegger

Grubs, "Milky Spore" it only attacks Grubs not all the good stuff in
the soil that makes soil healthy like worms, microbes and beneficial
insects. Poisons kill everything, and your soil.

On May 9, 6:59*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Make your own DDT

Full instructions:http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461

Just making it will make you sick

On Mon, 10 May 2010 04:05:12 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

On May 9, 7:17*pm, Tegger wrote:
...


And what works better on grubs, carbaryl or DDT?

--
Tegger

Grubs, "Milky Spore" it only attacks Grubs not all the good stuff in
the soil that makes soil healthy like worms, microbes and beneficial
insects. Poisons kill everything, and your soil.

In my experience milky spore works fine, but it does take a
few years to give good contol. After that, you don't need to add any
more as it feeds on the grubs.

I have not applied any more for about five years. No grub
problems.

MIB wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

But why was DDT banned? As I recall, laboratory rats, when force-fed
five pounds of DDT per day, developed distended bellies and became
lethargic. There was some evidence that the Star-faced mole (who
doesn't REALLY have a face) developed teats when DDT was used in its
environment.


DDT is still used around the world. It was banned in the U.S. by the
first director
of the EPA, out of spite, when the court cases against its use were
lost. These
cases were brought after some idiot of a wench used anecdotal evidence and
shear BS in a book detailing the horrors of DDT. Pure, unadulterated crap.


I wonder whether you can understand that the book being crap does not
imply that DDT is safe.


Sort of like the drivel being peddled by Al Gore and his gang of
envirofrauds,
today.


Do you suppose that if Al Gore peddles drivel, it implies that people
should be free to go on dumping CO2 into the air indefinitely?

Just curious.

HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I've heard on the radio, that DDT is a lot more effective,
and a lot less toxic to humans than what the government
says. Certainly, a trace of DDT is a lot less dangerous than
malaria, and other insect bourne diseases.

Actually, I don't think the government has ever said DDT *IS* toxic to
humans. I recall there were people who were EATING DDT to prove its benign
nature.

For example, the toxicity secion of the Wikipedia article on DDT lists
several situations. In most, some weasel word is used:
* "might cause preterm birth"
* "studies suggest..."
* "some evidence to suggest..."
* "exposure is associated..."
* "may affect thyroid levels..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Dev...ctive_toxicity



Good link.

That Wikipedia article is very enlightening and would easily convince
most people that spraying DDT is generally a bad idea.



But why was DDT banned? As I recall, laboratory rats, when force-fed five
pounds of DDT per day, developed distended bellies and became lethargic.


I wouldn't be surprise if you do remember that.


There was some evidence that the Star-faced mole (who doesn't REALLY have a
face) developed teats when DDT was used in its environment.

Pic of Star-faced mole:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/973/s...le1360x673.jpg

Matt wrote:


I wonder whether you can understand that the book being crap does not
imply that DDT is safe.

The good that DDT was doing was immense, provable, and demonstrable. The
allegations against DDT in the book were apocryphal, unscientific, and
insupportable. Millions, literally, have died because of reliance on
"feel-good" environmental action.



Sort of like the drivel being peddled by Al Gore and his gang of
envirofrauds,
today.


Do you suppose that if Al Gore peddles drivel, it implies that people
should be free to go on dumping CO2 into the air indefinitely?


Absolutely. The amount of CO2 in the air is roughly in the same ratio as the
chalk outline of a football referee's body after he was stabbed eleven times
by irate fans responding to three consecutive bad calls against the home
team is to the entire field, end zones included. The amount of CO2 being
added to the atmosphere is likewise equivalent to the increasing size of his
blood stain as the ******* bleeds out.

One of the tenets of "Quality Control Thinking" is this: "I don't care what
you BELIEVE. The only thing that counts is what you can PROVE." The "good"
of additional CO2 - from machines that drive industry - is provable to a
middling-quick child. The "belief" that something's amiss is pure
conjecture.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

The good that DDT was doing was immense, provable, and demonstrable. The
allegations against DDT in the book were apocryphal, unscientific, and
insupportable. Millions, literally, have died because of reliance on
"feel-good" environmental action.

Are you claiming that there is no scientific evidence that DDT is dangerous,
that it was banned simply because of hysteria resulting from one book
(written, incidentally, by a biologist)? Odd that JFK's Science Advisory
Committee confirmed the claims made in the book, and scientific review by
the EPA (under Nixon) came to the same conclusion, and that when the federal
courts reviewed what the EPA had done they ruled the agency had acted
properly, isn't it.

One of the tenets of "Quality Control Thinking" is this: "I don't care
what you BELIEVE. The only thing that counts is what you can PROVE." The
"good" of additional CO2 - from machines that drive industry - is provable
to a middling-quick child. The "belief" that something's amiss is pure
conjecture.

And yet the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is very
different.

The consensus opinion at the Center for Global Change Science at MIT:

http://mit.edu/cgcs/www/

The Institute of Physics:

http://www.iop.org/News/Community_Ne...file_38336.pdf

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position
that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities":

* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* American Meteorological Society
* American Physical Society
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* British Antarctic Survey
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Environmental Protection Agency
* European Federation of Geologists
* European Geosciences Union
* European Physical Society
* Federation of American Scientists
* Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
* Geological Society of America
* Geological Society of Australia
* International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Royal Meteorological Society
* Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the
consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the
consensus position:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

[ http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf ]

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to the US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate
change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates
that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary
driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of
evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective
assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The 18 organizations a

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

And so on. Your claim of "pure conjecture" is laughable. Yes, as in any
area of science there are disputes, errors, theories advanced and abandoned
or modified--that's how it is supposed to work, science is a process. But
to claim that most of the scientific world simply doesn't know what it's
talking it on this issue is a purely political stance.

HeyBub wrote:
Matt wrote:

I wonder whether you can understand that the book being crap does not
imply that DDT is safe.

The good that DDT was doing was immense, provable, and demonstrable. The
allegations against DDT in the book were apocryphal, unscientific, and
insupportable.


Maybe you missed the part about DDT becoming ineffective within six or
seven years due to the evolution of strains of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.
So it seems there is little left of the potential good you mention.


Millions, literally, have died because of reliance on
"feel-good" environmental action.


Do you really believe that DDT use has been curtailed or banned in every
country through some kind of conspiracy or deception or stupidity?

By the way, I wonder whether you've heard that men's sperm counts are
not even half what they were in 1940. Check it out:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q="sperm+count"+decline+p ercent+year&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=



Sort of like the drivel being peddled by Al Gore and his gang of
envirofrauds,
today.

Do you suppose that if Al Gore peddles drivel, it implies that people
should be free to go on dumping CO2 into the air indefinitely?


Absolutely.


I see, so it would make sense for those denying MMGW (eg oil producers)
to pay Algore to peddle drivel, since, when the drivel is shown to be
drivel, there would be justification to keep producing CO2. You are
saying that if Gore's reasoning is wrong, then his conclusion must be
wrong. Similarly two plus three does not equal five in case the
argument is based on Gore drivel.


The amount of CO2 in the air is roughly in the same ratio as the
chalk outline of a football referee's body after he was stabbed eleven times
by irate fans responding to three consecutive bad calls against the home
team is to the entire field, end zones included. The amount of CO2 being
added to the atmosphere is likewise equivalent to the increasing size of his
blood stain as the ******* bleeds out.


Hmmm ... I don't think you would need that idiosyncratic analogy to help
me understand your argument. If you were to simply and clearly state
your point in terms of actual numbers and ratios of amounts of CO2 and
rates of CO2 production, I think I could understand better what you are
trying to say.

But despite having a pretty good general-science education, I don't
think I am equipped to understand much about MMGW or argue very well for
or against. Obviously there is some disagreement among those actually
educated and established as climate scientists, so I don't know how I
would be able to decide about MMGW using my general knowledge of
chemistry, physics, or statistics. Unless maybe most of climate experts
are idiots or liars and I am neither.


One of the tenets of "Quality Control Thinking" is this: "I don't care what
you BELIEVE. The only thing that counts is what you can PROVE."


Do you believe that everything that is true is provable?


The "good"
of additional CO2 - from machines that drive industry - is provable to a
middling-quick child. The "belief" that something's amiss is pure
conjecture.

Frank wrote in
:

On 5/9/2010 8:17 PM, Tegger wrote:
wrote in
m:

Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461






Cool. Now find me a recipe for 2,4,D that doesn't stink. 2,4,D is
banned in my area, now, so I can't spread what I've got in case my
environut neighbor snitches on me.

And what works better on grubs, carbaryl or DDT?


2,4D is simple to make from dichlorophenol and chloroacetic acid.



Simple, maybe, but I can't use it because its odor gives it away.

All we're allowed now is glyphosate. It works, but you need to be REALLY
precise with delivery or you kill your grass, which is probably what the
environuts want.



It is a herbicide, not an insecticide.


And a darn good one, too.


Carbaryl probably better for grubs.


That I can spread. It's probably not illegal. Yet. I get grubs just about
every year unless we spray.



--
Tegger

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

The good that DDT was doing was immense, provable, and demonstrable.
The allegations against DDT in the book were apocryphal,
unscientific, and insupportable. Millions, literally, have died
because of reliance on "feel-good" environmental action.

Are you claiming that there is no scientific evidence that DDT is
dangerous, that it was banned simply because of hysteria resulting
from one book (written, incidentally, by a biologist)? Odd that
JFK's Science Advisory Committee confirmed the claims made in the
book, and scientific review by the EPA (under Nixon) came to the same
conclusion, and that when the federal courts reviewed what the EPA
had done they ruled the agency had acted properly, isn't it.

Yes, I am claiming that. Virtually everything is harmful to one degree or
another. Aspirin. Water. Jell-O. In the case of DDT, its risk-to-reward
ratio is better than petroleum jelly, the amount of "harm" done to humans by
DDT is no more than so much noise. Let me put it another way: The harm
attributable to DDT is such a vanishingly small number as to be
undetectable.

Here's an example: No one has ever died from DDT. I doubt that anyone has
even gotten sick. That's on one side of the scale. On the other, there have
been literally millions who have died from Malaria. So, on balance, you have
zero (or something very, very close, versus uncountably many deaths. Which
way is this scale going to tip?


One of the tenets of "Quality Control Thinking" is this: "I don't
care what you BELIEVE. The only thing that counts is what you can
PROVE." The "good" of additional CO2 - from machines that drive
industry - is provable to a middling-quick child. The "belief" that
something's amiss is pure conjecture.

And yet the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is very
different.

Science does not operate by "consensus." Only in those disciplines where
"truth" is determined by majority vote (history, English Literature, Opera,
etc.), does "consensus" live up to its roots of "con" and "(c)ensus."

[...]


And so on. Your claim of "pure conjecture" is laughable. Yes, as in
any area of science there are disputes, errors, theories advanced and
abandoned or modified--that's how it is supposed to work, science is
a process. But to claim that most of the scientific world simply
doesn't know what it's talking it on this issue is a purely political
stance.

The bulk of the folks you cited claim that the climate is changing. With
that I have no quarrel. The climate has changed, even dramatically, in the
past. It will no doubt do so in the future.

What is asinine is the claim that the change is directly attributable to
human activity, specifically due to a gas in less than trace amounts, and
that unless actions approaching that of the entire industrial revolution -
except in reverse - are undertaken forthwith, we're doomed.

Let us know how you make out, "HeyBub".

Most insecticides are nerve toxins, and I suspect the damage you'll do to
your central nervous system will make you stupider than you are now, if
that's even possible.

Not to mention Parkinson's.




"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461

What is asinine is the claim that the change is directly attributable to
human activity, specifically due to a gas in less than trace amounts, and
that unless actions approaching that of the entire industrial revolution -
except in reverse - are undertaken forthwith, we're doomed.


It is becoming clear to me know why it's impossible for people to think
clearly and make rational choices, when their thought patterns are so rigid.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Make your own DDT

Full instructions:
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=2461



I should have paid more attention to the source of this revelation. Good
God, have you looked at the crap on this website? The fact that you even
waste your time on these websites seals the deal for me.

Matt wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Matt wrote:

I wonder whether you can understand that the book being crap does
not imply that DDT is safe.

The good that DDT was doing was immense, provable, and demonstrable.
The allegations against DDT in the book were apocryphal,
unscientific, and insupportable.


Maybe you missed the part about DDT becoming ineffective within six or
seven years due to the evolution of strains of DDT-resistant
mosquitoes. So it seems there is little left of the potential good
you mention.

Millions, literally, have died because of reliance on
"feel-good" environmental action.


Do you really believe that DDT use has been curtailed or banned in
every country through some kind of conspiracy or deception or
stupidity?

Sure. In that regard, the banning of DDT would be no different than the
furor over global warming or crop circles. But your words of "conspiracy"
and "deception" and "stupidity" are not the ones I would have chosen.
Instead I would use "true believer," "self-deception," and "group-think."

Not every country, certainly, but most. Banning is only necessary in a few
countries with the capability of manufacturing DDT or whose charitable
contributions could provide for its use (U.S., Germany, UK, etc.).


By the way, I wonder whether you've heard that men's sperm counts are
not even half what they were in 1940. Check it out:


Yet fecundity is greatest in those countries where DDT was most used (India,
Turkey, Africa). Interesting.

Still, use or non-use of DDT serves the purposes of the anti-DDT masters?
Cool.

"I am against DDT because eradication of Malaria increases the
overpopulation" - A. King, Chairman, Club of Rome

"There are too many people and banning DDT is as good a way as any of
getting rid of them" - C.F. Wurster, Enviornmental Defense Fund