Denial of Environmental Disasters
- Thread starter Bar Sinister
- Start date
You never seen a commercial where a big titted women gets wet because two skinny goofs blew their lawn mowing money on bus fare to show up at a cottage with 75lbs of ice and six pack of cans?
Hmmm? Must have been a Molsons ad?
Scientists agree that malaria has never been indigenous to Canada. The bug cannot survive Canadian winters because it is a tropical bug. So if malaria occurs in Canada it is because it has to be brought in each year.
Cut the crap, Wally.
You forgot about the part about spewing crap into the atmosphere.
Anyway, yes climate change happens naturally, but it also ends naturally. The natural cycle has been broken, though. At this period in time, the cycle has stopped cycling and has reached a relative plateau.
And, BTW, China has decided it likes green energy so it is researching alternatives. I doubt it will take very long for China to surpass North Am in formulating and utilizing green tech.
Scientists don't agree about that. As a matter of fact they do agree that the environmental conditions to support all kinds of exotic speices did exist in Canada at various times.
MALARIA AND THE ANOPHELES MOSQUITO IN CANADA
But then I am not surprised that you can think of some "scientists" that would disagree. You seem to have a skewed idea of what science is.
CFC's is simple chemistry Walter. I know the science illiterate have a problem with basic science, but here's a simplified reaction:
The decomposed CFC reacts with ozone:
Cl + O3 <===> ClO + O2
Now Ozone is always decomposing, and then reforming, as the ozone bonds are slightly weaker than the oxygen bonds:
O3 + h v <= = => O + O2
The problem is that the chlorine intermediate product up in reaction number one interferes with the reactions which generate ozone from oxygen. Putting the two together:
O3 + h v <= = => O + O2,
ClO + O <= = => Cl + O2
O + O3 <= = => O2 + O2
Two ozones have been consumed to produce three diatomic oxygen molecules, and the chlorine is free after the second reaction above.
This problem is further exacerbated at the poles, where colder stratospheric temperatures cause crystals to form, and the surface chemical reactions which are more complicated (and won a Nobel prize in Chemistry) produces reactions which are more severe in their depletion of ozone.
It's not perpetuated to make anyone less prosperous, it's well founded and observed science which has shown the harmful effects of pollution, such as the ozone depleting substances. Maybe you're fine with scrambling your DNA... you shouldn't be.
As to DDT? Mosquitoes adapt, and it may be axiomatic amongst the science illiterate, but alternatives to DDT are just as expensive, and persist longer before populations adapt to the chemical.
DDT is used to this day to save people, because it is no longer sprayed onto fields as North American farmers would add fertilizer. That would have yielded more resistant mosquitoes. That is what Silent Spring prevented. DDT can be used intelligently, but was not. Sri Lanka stopped using it because the mosquitoes became resistant, and an epidemic of malaria ensued.
This is all public knowledge, but you are getting your information from people who earn a living by sowing disinformation, and preying on the ignorance of the lay public.
Walter, you are without a doubt the perfect example of this phenomenon.
When we moved into our home in Florida, there was an old bottle of DDT in the garage. Thought of keeping it as a collectors item, but had the town dispose of it. By the way, good explanation you did.
I found this article buried on page 11 of the local rag. Thought it might add something to the thread.
‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data
‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data
Are you trying to say toxins are only toxic part of the time?
Isn't DDT a cholinesterase inhibitor that can store in fat?
Is that like your claim of mercury in shots being safe even though safety baselines of mercury are comprised from a group eating shelf fish and it passing through their digestive system which were designed by evolution to deal with contaminated food and water not having it cranked straight into their bloodstream?
.... and so-and-so refutes MacIntyre who refuted Penn State and so-and-so is refuted by whatsisname and whatsisname is refuted by whatchacallhim and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Big deal.
That is what happens yes. Chlorine is usually a pretty nasty bit of stuff but people eat it every day. And sodium is not any more palatable than chlorine. But combined they make regular table salt. The applications of nasty things can be decidedly beneficial.
No, and I have no idea how what I said could be implying that. What I was saying is that there are responsible and irresponsible uses of chemicals. Spraying them onto fields where they are transported away to bioaccumulate, and produce resistance very quickly would not be responsible.
Does that clear it up?
Oh, but toxins do become toxic at certain doses. So I guess you could say that toxins are only toxic given the specific circumstances where they become toxic.
Yes. Hence the reason that indiscriminate spraying on fields would be irresponsible.
Well no, that's not something I have ever claimed.
Not in this thread but the Flu Shots and the ingredient Thimerosal.
Toxins are always toxic. A dose of toxin is a dose of toxin. Just because the first cigarette doesn't kill doesn't mean go ahead and start smoking.
If you want to get rid of mosquitos why would you also attack the tens of thousands or creatures that kill more by eating than DDT ever could?
You'll have to find the post where I said that. I don't believe that I have ever said anything about thimerosal being safe. I know I have said the evidence linking it to autism is lacking.
DDT isn't technically a toxin. My mistake for following your lead. Toxins are biologically produce molecules. DDT is synthetic. Anyways, dose is important. Below certain thresholds, chemicals won't cause deleterious effects. A single cigarette will not give you a disease. Chronic exposure can.
Good question. Why don't you ask the people who spray chemicals onto fields. It's not my intention, nor was I suggesting that.
You really ought to slow down; you're no comprehending the message of my earlier post.