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 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.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

"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

"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.

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.

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:
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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

"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.