Thank you, energy companies!

While DDT is probably not a strong human carcinogen, it is a known mammal carcinogen, and it is listed as a “probable” human carcinogen by the American Cancer Society and every other cancer fighting organization on Earth.

Those findings are based on many human studies, not “just two disputed animal studies.” There is no serious dispute that DDT is a carcinogen for animals.

A classic case of overzealous devotees greatly overestimating their own intellect. I don’t imagine they set out to build a website proving that the so called consensus on Global Warming is hooey. No they apparently bought it hook line and sinker and likely their intent was to show what a “fringe minority” the skeptics represented. Clearly it didn’t quite work out.

THis is the hardest I’ve laughed in weeks, a fact that I made sure to share with them via their “Contact” link (which I would expect them to take down in the next 5 minutes).

On the serious side though, I like many posters here submitted rational, scientifically based arguments against this endangerment filing. And I suspect the ratio was more on par with your suggestion. But two things are for sure:
1) They’ll never tell what the ratio was (any pollster will tell you that 10000 people is a good population. The 3-1 margin in this poll roughly mirrors the results of similar polls and is probably an accurate estimate on the responses to the endangerment finding)

2) They didn’t even read 3 of them, this decision was made years ago. It just took time to bring to fruition.

Does make you want to stab your eyes out doesn’t it…?

I wonder whether the EPA 300.000 comments had the same ratio for and against?

This is disturbingly biblical.

Nonetheless, William Ruckelhaus, first EPA administrator, promptly ignored the findings and issued a ban on DDT stating that it WAS a carcinogen–relying on just 2 disputed animal studies.

I don’t think EPA has ever ruled on the carcinogenicity of DDT. Ruckelshaus signed no such order.

Ruckelshaus’s order, which stopped the spraying of DDT on agricultural crops, was based on the harm the stuff does to wild and domestic animals and insects. None of the studies the order was based on have ever been contradicted.

Two DDT manufacturers sued EPA to stop the rule change. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, there must be a sound basis in the science for any such ruling. Were there no support for the rule, the courts would be required by law to overturn it.

In both cases, EPA won on summary judgment. DDT manufacturers did not bother to appeal.

and I completely agree with what you say there… for instance Al Gore’s directorship in, I forget which oil company, but it had a particularly bad human rights record…

Read all about Algore’s work for Occidental Petroleum here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/Columbia/Gore+Oxy.html

EPA:
step 1 – CO2 is pollution
Step 2 – CO2 is a danger
Step 3 – cars and trucks cause and contribute to that pollution, so do power plants using Coal, Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Step 4 – Shut them down, go backwards to the middle ages and US lawmakers be damned.

And 8 more Steps to go??????

Dear White House,
After careful consideration and simple application of the modicum of common sense I was born with (which is really all you need to figure this thing out), I have concluded the people running the show over at EPA are dangerous.

# 2839 counted in so far
# 6662 counted out so far

I wonder whether the EPA 300.000 comments had the same ratio for and against?