Did you mean me, jeez? The series of posts from myself started about what is, I think, a very ad hominem attack by Ed when he posted his link to a blog that was a blatant personal attack, albeit on a non-poster. See Ed Darrell (12:28:46). The half-quoting I’m referring to are of my own statements.

My apologies for the harsh tone.

I intended it to be a parting comment/ In the interest of peace, please delete this and my previous post.

DAV

Hmmm…I suppose that may explain your penchant for substituting ad hominem in lieu of cogent counter-argument and perhaps also an explanation of your tendency to half-quote and misquote. I had assumed you didn’t know better. My mistake.

[Reply: Anthony let this one through without comment, but I would like to issue a warning to tone down what is essentially a personal attack~charles the moderator]

Call a librarian. If you go to that 40 CFR designation, you will find nothing at all that will come close.

You could have Googled it — but that appears beyond your ken. How in the hell you’d ever find anything not handed to you on a platter in a library is a great mystery. Well, hell, so far you haven’t.

Here, try this. Quote for us the part that says crapola about DDT, will you?
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title40/40-23.0.1.1.13.2.11.9.html

The wild goose chases the late Gordon Edwards offers are to obfuscate his own research shortcomings. I would encourage you to spend a few hours in a good library and try to find the material those guys refer to. Since I don’t believe Gordon Edwards was completely addled, it seems to me either Lyndon Larouche’s minions worked hard to hide the research they refer to, or Steven Milloy was paid good money to hide the tracks. It took Jim Easter only a few months to find that hearing record — it is unavailable in most EPA libraries.

The article in Barrons is a diatribe. It summarizes a couple of points in the hearing decision, but nothing from the hearing record. It’s an incomplete article, in my opinion, because it fails to make adequate record of the two federal court orders EPA was under to get those hearings done. It also fails to document the difference of opinion between Sweeney and every other official who looked at it — whether EPA had authority to suspend the registration of DDT for spraying of cotton if the manufacturers had changed their instructions to say such spraying was not approved. Sweeney, working under old Agriculture rules, assumed he lacked the authority to make that decision; the two federal courts had ordered EPA to restrict DDT based on the science presented in open court (and in both of those cases the DDT manufacturers were parties). The ONLY POINT upon which Ruckleshaus overruled Sweeney was on the suspension of the modified registration. That decision was immediately appealed, and the federal courts delivered summary judgment that Ruckleshaus had acted correctly. If you know what summary judgment means, you know there was no case whatsoever in favor of DDT, and that Ruckleshaus’s decision was rock solid (for neophytes, under U.S. administrative law, there must be a substantial case on the record in favor of an agency’s ruling; if there is not a substantial case, the decision must be overturned. In the case of DDT, the case was well beyond substantial. It was overwhelming.)

By the way, there is solid evidence that the 1972 ban on broadcast spraying of DDT in the U.S. did nothing whatsoever to limit availability of DDT world wide. How do we know? Because the DDT manufacturers kept making the stuff here in the U.S. for foreign sale. Most of those manufacturing sites were closed down after the Superfund bill was passed and those sites now are sucking up your tax monies in cleanups. The manufacturers declared bankruptcy and stuck you with the bill. But after 1972, they had more than a decade run to pollute, and they took full advantage of that time.

I’d tell you to look up the case of the DDT pollution in Santa Barbara Channel, but you’ll look for it in the CFR.

This isn’t exactly proof of how to properly cite but FWIW I think I can find the pedigree of the citation you are denigrating. The one your blogger is chortling over likely was an abbreviation of the reference contained in http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm footnote 17:

Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)

Note that the citation’s citations cite (ahem) both Barrons and the Oregonian. For one, Steve Milloy may be many things but he isn’t stupid. He was an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and currently one for Competitive Enterprise Institute. It’s unlikely he doesn’t understand proper citation. Secondly, Barrons is the publisher of the Wall Street Journal. An unlikely organization to lack knowledge in proper citation. Likewise the Oregonian.

Of course. The number by itself means the regulatory section.

You are really clueless; are a careless reader; or enjoy missing the point. Which is it? My guess: a mixture. You’re not very careful in your research from all appearances. One example: your Google search technique. Goes against credibility and expertise which doesn’t help your argument.

Sorry, but I’ve read too many sensationlistic claims about this or that chemical causing this or that. If you’re going to play that game, you’re going to end up living on a diet of pure glucose, water, metamucil, vitamin pills, and a cocktail of amino acids (but not too much of either).

The game being played is the sensationalistic claim that there is no evidence of harm for DDT. To the contrary, there is much evidence of harm.

To the specific claim that “DDT is not carcinogenic” I cite the findings of every cancer-fighting agency on Earth that it is a probable human carcinogen — not sensationalistic in any way, quite mild, really, but a direct refutation of the false claim that it is NOT carcinogenic.

Don’t make crazy, sensational claims, or defend them, by claiming my accurate citations are anything other than accurate. If you have evidence that clears DDT from implication in cancers, I would love to have it, and so would the American Cancer Society. If you don’t have that Earthshaking research paper, don’t pretend you do.

The blogger goes on and on about how 40 CFR 164.32 is a section of regulation and obviously couldn’t have Sweeney’s findings.

Apparently, unbeknownst to the blogger, as well as yourself, Ed, this is more or less a standard way to refer to a report required by regulation. The relevant part of that regulation (40 CFR 164.32) is:

At the conclusion of proceedings consolidated under this section, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue one decision under Sec. 164.90

So the footnote is refering to the decision Sweeney was required to make under 40 CFR 164.32. It’s likely part of the title. If you wander on down to the agency you could request a copy by asking for “Sweeney, 40 CFR 164.32 decision, 25 April 1972″ and you would receive it.

That’s not a standard way to refer to any government hearing. Put in “40 CFR 164.32″ into Google, you’ll get the relevant section of the Code of Federal Regulations, but nothing specific to EPA, nothing on DDT. If you used that reference even at the EPA library, you’d get puzzled looks. It’s a faulty citation — I believe done to make it appear more sciency, but make it almost impossible to track down what the author was talking about (originally, Gordon Edwards). It’s a common trick in tinfoil hattery; it suckers in the unwary, and it makes responses difficult.

Don’t take my word for it. Check the Harvard Bluebook for legal citations (or whatever name it goes by these days), or the MLA, or Turabian, or any authority you choose. Check West’s legal publications, on-line or in print. The citation is simply wrong. The citation goes to the section of the code that covers administrative law hearings. Yes, that citation appears on the cover of the report — citing a citation in a report is not citing the report itself.

In fact the hearings presided over by Edmund Sweeney are, by now, difficult to come by. Jim Easter put it on line for those who are source challenged, to overcome the citation fogging done by those Chronically Obsessed With Rachel Carson (COWRC):
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=62

Or, now that the EPA has caught up, check it here:
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/1972_EPA_DDT_hearing.PDF

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?query=NORWAY&field=geo&match=exact

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-04-19-norway-emissions_N.htm

“To only use one station [Hanover, NH] is silly and the delta T is way too big, but I don’t really want to pick his stuff apart, because it will have no effect on him or his followers.”

The object here is to avoid UHI, I don’t have a problem with a small sample here for reasons well established.

“As I have pointed out several times [here and elsewhere] the notion that there are two separate is false. the spread is so large that one cannot make that claim.”

Your preciosity regarding what others can or cannot claim is on occasion amusing. Here you provide an improved criterion of a bifurcation showing that their claim is slipshod because their demonstration is so. Well Ok, you’ve got me there. QED, when all correct predictions follow from slipshod work their serendipity falls from ‘accidence’.

Unfortunately, the proposed bill was effectively blocked by Republican Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, M.D., in a move seeming to represent the interests of the chemical and pesticide industry. Senator Tom Coburn commented that DDT was important for malaria control. How much malaria have you seen in the US lately, Tom? Let me answer that for you; very little. Malaria has been eradicated in the US since the 1950’s. Of the 1,337 malaria cases reported for 2002 in the United States, all but five were imported, i.e., acquired in malaria-endemic countries outside the US. There were 8 reported deaths from malaria in the US in 2002.

Hmmm… so Rachel’s legacy, albeit through good intention, has millions suffering and many thousands dying annually from malaria? I wonder how she would have reacted had she only known.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43460-2004Jul11.html
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/statistics.htm

Hopefully, some day a vaccine can be made available.

You might want to take a look at my (13:55:43) post, jefferey, and the preceding posts to put it in context. It’s like deja vu all over again.

Get those citations, go to a library and see if you can get the sources.

Well, when I come back from Alaska, I figure I will check out the Audubon data that Cao cites and provides that seems to demonstrate that Carson told untruths.

Since her death from breast cancer in 1964, Rachel Carson has come to be celebrated as a hero by environmentalists. The title “Silent Spring” refers to the sad absence of songbirds in springtime because they die from eating insects containing toxic amounts of DDT and other pesticides.

To read more:

Rachel Carson and Silent Spring by Jeffrey Dach MD

Jeffrey Dach MD
4700 Sheridan Suite T
Hollywood Fl 33021
954-983-1443
Web Site Jeffrey Dach MD
Natural Medicine 101

Ed, the ranting at the link you gave is in reference to the following footnote:

31 Sweeney EM. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings. 25 April 1972 (40 CFR 164.32), specifically, the reference to 40 CFR 164.32.

The blogger goes on and on about how 40 CFR 164.32 is a section of regulation and obviously couldn’t have Sweeney’s findings.

Apparently, unbeknownst to the blogger, as well as yourself, Ed, this is more or less a standard way to refer to a report required by regulation. The relevant part of that regulation (40 CFR 164.32) is:

At the conclusion of proceedings consolidated under this section, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue one decision under Sec. 164.90

So the footnote is refering to the decision Sweeney was required to make under 40 CFR 164.32. It’s likely part of the title. If you wander on down to the agency you could request a copy by asking for “Sweeney, 40 CFR 164.32 decision, 25 April 1972″ and you would receive it.

Hopefully, you aren’t as clueless in your other DDT research.

Sorry, but I’ve read too many sensationlistic claims about this or that chemical causing this or that. If you’re going to play that game, you’re going to end up living on a diet of pure glucose, water, metamucil, vitamin pills, and a cocktail of amino acids (but not too much of either).

Because the target audience resides in the First World and fears cancer more than it does malaria. Of course, the real basis for the relative fears is that cancer is a higher risk factor for that group than malaria. So the push is to play on those fears. I think it telling that the millions of annual malarial cases, occurring as we speak, are never mentioned. Obviously to them, the toll in the Third World is regrettable but we must set our priorities straight: the supposed damage to raptors and the off chance that maybe there is an association between DDT and that fearsome cancer must, of course, take precedence. Who cares about those Africans anyway?

Ed Darrell rails against Steve Milloy so he probably thinks it a lie that the DDT ban, despite his own agency’s findings, was used by the Administrator of the EPA to demonstrate EPA muscle and not-so coincidentally create a precedent.

Ed Darrell probably thinks it also a lie that the U.S. ban on DDT put a real crimp in the availability of DDT worldwide. Of course, the Greenies can disingenuously say: “But the use of DDT for health reasons WASN’T banned!” while all the while knowing a single U.S. ban made a ban for health reasons totally unnecessary. The greenies know how badly banning for health reasons would play.

The Green movement might have laudable stated goals but their not-so-uncommon superciliousness, total lack of proportion, and absurd priorities are truly disgusting.

“How to tell is someone is wrong about DDT and Rachel Carson”
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-wrong-about-ddt-and-rachel-carson/

“More DDT poisoning”
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/more-ddt-poisoning/

John M, while remembering that Carson did not claim DDT is carcinogenic, and that EPA’s action against DDT was not based on human carcinogenicity, you’ll notice that none of the official documents suggests that DDT is NOT carcinogenic to humans — so it would be error to claim DDT as not carcinogenic. Fortunately — fortunately — DDT appears to be weakly carcinogenic in humans.

It’ll shrink the testes of your son and maybe give him a woman’s mammaries; if he’s exposed in utero, it may make give him functioning ovaries. We know it does that to sport fish, and other water-dwelling creatures.

Not carcinogenic? Testes-shrinking, chemical-castrating would be enough to make me pause before saying it’s safe.

For example, from the Oxford study abstract: “Conclusions: Increased exposure to p,p’-DDE may be associated with the risk of both seminomatous and nonseminomatous TGCTs, whereas exposure to chlordane compounds and metabolites may be associated with the risk of seminoma. Because evidence suggests that TGCT is initiated in very early life, it is possible that exposure to these persistent organic pesticides during fetal life or via breast feeding may increase the risk of TGCT in young men.”

Imo, the Authors tellingly emphasize the conservative “may be associated with” as opposed to the more definitive “is associated with” or “has been shown to cause” TGCTs. Iow, all the Authors have by their own admission as of this date is an as yet even unverified correlation between certain levels of DDT metabolites and the odds of getting TGCTs – that’s all. Therefore, as I implied earlier, there appears to be even less of a basis at this point to assert that “DDT causes TGCTs”, or “is a significant factor” or that any particular person with a TGCT got it because of DDT metabolites.

[The Authors of this recent study themselves did not say anything of the kind in the Abstract, a fact which I'm giving some weight to since they have probably also reviewed the literature.]

And the issue involving DDT metabolites and Breast Cancer seems to be at about the same stage, involving only a possible correlation in some women. Given the massive amounts of money ostensibly going into Breast Cancer research, where’s the actual beef?

So when you say, May I send you the medical bills for the diseases we could have prevented had we acted sooner [by banning the use of DDT earlier]?, I have to ask again, “What ‘diseases’ are you referring to, and especially in contrast to the disease which we know will actually be prevented by eliminating Malaria through using DDT?”

Once again, just why do the allegedly progressive new “Environmentalists” appear to be so intent upon creating such a large observable debt against Humanity?

http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol53/04-ddt.html

“5.5 Evaluation
There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of DDT.
There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of DDT.

Overall evaluation
DDT is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).”

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s064ddt.pdf
“Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

Like climate science, issues surrounding carcinogenicity often reduce to “how much” and “under what circumstances”.

It is informative to read the complete reports for DDT I’ve linked to above.

Charles Wurster’s and Silent Spring’s stories are for the birds