Ractopamine has been banned in over 160 countries worldwide, excluding the US, Canada and of course Australia
The chemical ractopamine is a beta agonist agent given to Pigs to increase protein synthesis. The public has not been made aware of this dangerous chemical and continue to eat it when dining on Australian pork.
Ractopamine is responsible for
Quote:

responsible for hyperactivity, muscle breakdown and 10 percent mortality in pigs.

The problem with allowing this chemical to be given to pigs on such a large scale is that there has been no proper testing to show the short and long term effect to both new generations of pigs and even humans.
Although it is just one of the many thousand dangerous chemicals we encounter every day, it should be brought attention to none the less.

Quote:

As much as twenty percent of Paylean, given to pigs for their last 28 days, Optaflexx, given to cattle their last 28 to 42 days and Tomax, given to turkeys their last 7 to 14 days, remains in consumer meat says author and well known veterinarian Michael W. Fox. Ractopamine is used in 45 percent of US pigs, according to Elanco Animal Health, which manufactures all three products. Ractopamine is even banned in China (not famous for its food protection). Note that its handling instructions are: “Not for use in humans. Individuals with cardiovascular disease should exercise special caution to avoid exposure. Use protective clothing, impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a NIOSH-approved dust mask”. Yet the FDA has classed it as safe to swallow!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/06/why-does-fda-allow-banned-drugs-to-be-fed-to-livestock.aspx

Here is a CSIRO paper completely ignoring the dangerous side to this chemical now known by the public to be a reality:http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AN09076

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ractopamine

It is a vacuum in the political landscape that has been ignored for a long time - starting in my lifetime when they  sprayed the back streets schools and playgrounds wit the chemical DDT to kill mossies, flies, lice and ticks.

Having a system that demands the public prove a chemical used in OZ is dangerous before they will remove it ensures there is countless numbers of innocent bystanders in the body count.

Thalidamide and the consequences of it's side effects is a reminder to anyone over the age of 50  of how well this policy protects Oz citizens from the predatory nature of corporate chemical and drug companies.

It is surprising to the least, that the Greens don't agitate more heavily in this arena than they presently do. Surprising to say the least because inherent within the tagline name of the party is an expectation of pursuance of a more harmonious and integrated lifestyle with nature and a clean lifestyle.
Even more surpising that pursuing the development of legislation and promotion of public dalogue on this issue is left in the political knackery while social engineers inside the party alternately kneejerk/goosestep into promotion of increasing Oz population through increasing our intake of zealous pro-develo[pment rightwing refugees - the antipodian version of Cuban refugees in the Northern Hemisphere. It must hurt Brown sometimes when he rolls over in bed at night. Toffler being a darling of the original Green movement and the advocay of ZPG - Zero population Growth - by Brown (and his appaRatchicks) I sure I can recall him declaring such in the distant past would refute the logic that underpins the Green parties position on this issue. As one of the other darlings of the Green movement philosophical ethicists might declare in pragmatic flare - least harm for the greater good, a paraphrase of the Singers controverisial mainstay position.

If the Greens started actually listening to the groundswell support for a governing accredition authority that paralleled the approval process for new and existing drugs and chemicals eg extensive testing with open examination and scrutiny of scientific results of testing along with removal of substance if ANY doubt surrounds the toxicity of the compound whether it is on the shelves of the supermarkets or not - would ensure we would no longer be the worlds' septic tank dumping ground of second rate inferior and more often than not toxic chemicals and medications for predatory chemical and drug companies. This would ensure the safety to a higher and much more tolerable level of damage than what exists at present.

It makes you wonder if any drug or chemical companies donate funds to the Greens the way they have shied away from the issue.  :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/

Dooley wrote on Jan 31^st, 2012 at 6:14pm:

It is a vacuum in the political landscape that has been ignored for a long time - starting in my lifetime when they  sprayed the back streets schools and playgrounds wit the chemical DDT to kill mossies, flies, lice and ticks. Having a system that demands the public prove a chemical used in OZ is dangerous before they will remove it ensures there is countless numbers of innocent bystanders in the body count. Thalidamide and the consequences of it's side effects is a reminder to anyone over the age of 50  of how well this policy protects Oz citizens from the predatory nature of corporate chemical and drug companies. It is surprising to the least, that the Greens don't agitate more heavily in this arena than they presently do. Surprising to say the least because inherent within the tagline name of the party is an expectation of pursuance of a more harmonious and integrated lifestyle with nature and a clean lifestyle. Even more surpising that pursuing the development of legislation and promotion of public dalogue on this issue is left in the political knackery while social engineers inside the party alternately kneejerk/goosestep into promotion of increasing Oz population through increasing our intake of zealous pro-develo[pment rightwing refugees - the antipodian version of Cuban refugees in the Northern Hemisphere. It must hurt Brown sometimes when he rolls over in bed at night. Toffler being a darling of the original Green movement and the advocay of ZPG - Zero population Growth - by Brown (and his appaRatchicks) I sure I can recall him declaring such in the distant past would refute the logic that underpins the Green parties position on this issue. As one of the other darlings of the Green movement philosophical ethicists might declare in pragmatic flare - least harm for the greater good, a paraphrase of the Singers controverisial mainstay position. If the Greens started actually listening to the groundswell support for a governing accredition authority that paralleled the approval process for new and existing drugs and chemicals eg extensive testing with open examination and scrutiny of scientific results of testing along with removal of substance if ANY doubt surrounds the toxicity of the compound whether it is on the shelves of the supermarkets or not - would ensure we would no longer be the worlds' septic tank dumping ground of second rate inferior and more often than not toxic chemicals and medications for predatory chemical and drug companies. This would ensure the safety to a higher and much more tolerable level of damage than what exists at present. It makes you wonder if any drug or chemical companies donate funds to the Greens the way they have shied away from the issue.  :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/

Yes, marvelous idea......What's a few million malaria deaths per year, compared to using an effective insecticide.....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2012 at 9:46pm:

Dooley wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 6:14pm: It is a vacuum in the political landscape that has been ignored for a long time - starting in my lifetime when they  sprayed the back streets schools and playgrounds wit the chemical DDT to kill mossies, flies, lice and ticks. Yes, marvelous idea......What's a few million malaria deaths per year, compared to using an effective insecticide.....

Oh rather - I can't understand whats come over me deary deary me....... Let me reconsider, mmm it prolly is better to poison millions to save a few thousand souls. Yes, yes definately yes I can see your logic - especially if you are convinced like most right to lifers and other anti quality as a opposed to quanity type of people it makes much more sense to have millions of people who suffer the lifelong irreversible chomosonal (and consequently birth defect promoting adverse reaction poison chemical) adverse affect of a chemical so that other more useful long term investigations can be carried out by quacks to see if they can solve the nastiness of DDT and other chemicals like 245T and AGENT ORANGE. I really wasn't thinking about all those poor shareholders of the wonderfully humane chemical companies either and their medical scientistics that would miss out on something to study and write about in Lancet and other wonderfully heart warming subjects........


IF you are going to try sarcasm next time with me - as opposed to simply address the subject (and I will remember your nick) in a logical fashion, then I will be the proverbial burr in your sock every time you make a post on this board. Dimwit. You have been duly advised. Mate. Don't try it again with me  :D :o >:( ::)

IF you are going to try sarcasm next time with me - as opposed to simply address the subject (and I will remember your nick) in a logical fashion, then I will be the proverbial burr in your sock every time you make a post on this board. Dimwit. You have been duly advised. Mate. Don't try it again with me


Sheesh I bet Gizmo is shaking in his ugg boots. BTW my money is on Gizmo.

You are a 1,000 to 1 shot.

Dooley....please ignore the idiots and continue posting. We have had many valuable posters on this and the Yahoo forum that have left over the years because of 'anti debaters'.

As you have probably already noticed there are a handful of posters who have nothing sensible to add to any debate, their sole purpose is to interfere by dropping lame one liners and personal attacks.

I, and I'm sure many others value your sensible opinions Dooley, thanks.

Dooley....please ignore the idiots and continue posting.


Speaking of which or is it witch, here comes Pansi.

blackadder wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 7:39am:

Dooley....please ignore the idiots and continue posting. Speaking of which or is it witch, here comes Pansi.

There was no need to give an example to prove my point, but well done.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 7:49am:

blackadder wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 7:39am: Dooley....please ignore the idiots and continue posting. Speaking of which or is it witch, here comes Pansi. There was no need to give an example to prove my point, but well done.

Lets put it another way old girl. If Dooley was saying something the opposite  to your twisted thinking would you have welcomed him/her? Be honest now.

BTW i have heard that Fiji has cleansed itself since you left.

Dooley wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 4:45am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 1st, 2012 at 9:46pm: Dooley wrote on Jan 31st, 2012 at 6:14pm: It is a vacuum in the political landscape that has been ignored for a long time - starting in my lifetime when they  sprayed the back streets schools and playgrounds wit the chemical DDT to kill mossies, flies, lice and ticks. Yes, marvelous idea......What's a few million malaria deaths per year, compared to using an effective insecticide..... Oh rather - I can't understand whats come over me deary deary me....... Let me reconsider, mmm it prolly is better to poison millions to save a few thousand souls. Yes, yes definately yes I can see your logic - especially if you are convinced like most right to lifers and other anti quality as a opposed to quanity type of people it makes much more sense to have millions of people who suffer the lifelong irreversible chomosonal (and consequently birth defect promoting adverse reaction poison chemical) adverse affect of a chemical so that other more useful long term investigations can be carried out by quacks to see if they can solve the nastiness of DDT and other chemicals like 245T and AGENT ORANGE. I really wasn't thinking about all those poor shareholders of the wonderfully humane chemical companies either and their medical scientistics that would miss out on something to study and write about in Lancet and other wonderfully heart warming subjects........ IF you are going to try sarcasm next time with me - as opposed to simply address the subject (and I will remember your nick) in a logical fashion, then I will be the proverbial burr in your sock every time you make a post on this board. Dimwit. You have been duly advised. Mate. Don't try it again with me  :D :o >:( ::)

Dooley ol son....
The number of deaths ( or illness ) directly related to DDT are pretty much non-existent.....it MAY cause cancer (like everything else in the world), it MIGHT cause other things, from diabetes to premature birth to low sperm counts and many different problems....but so far not one of these has been directly linked to DDT...

As for the insecticide use....
In Sri Lanka, when DDT was first used to fight malaria (by killing mosquitos), the number of cases dropped from about 3 million...to a total of 29 cases in 1964...When they stopped using it (to save money) the number of cases went up to 600,000 in 1968/69....

In 2008, there were 243 million cases of malaria, with 863,000 deaths...mostly children under 5....

Gizmo the main problem with the chemicals is a Trojan horse.
There is never enough testing done be it on insecticides, pesticides, food additives, medications, fluoride, vaccinations etc... To be even 10% sure that we are not going to ruin the human race.
With the amount of dangerous chemicals we have been exposed to in the few centuries it’s very possible future generations could face some very serious health problems.

It’s easy to look at one chemical and justify it but the fact is we have been surviving for millions of years without it, its just one in a million chemicals and its really not worth the potential risk.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

Gizmo the main problem with the chemicals is a Trojan horse. There is never enough testing done be it on insecticides, pesticides, food additives, medications, fluoride, vaccinations etc... To be even 10% sure that we are not going to ruin the human race. With the amount of dangerous chemicals we have been exposed to in the few centuries it’s very possible future generations could face some very serious health problems. It’s easy to look at one chemical and justify it but the fact is we have been surviving for millions of years without it, its just one in a million chemicals and its really not worth the potential risk.

The banning of chemicals is the Trojan horse in this argument...
You ban a chemical simply on 'suspicion' of being harmful....and ignore the fact that it's 99% effective in stopping a disease vector that IS lethal to man...

There are times when the risks are justified....DDT is one of those times...

[/quote]

The banning of chemicals is the Trojan horse in this argument...
You ban a chemical simply on 'suspicion' of being harmful....and ignore the fact that it's 99% effective in stopping a disease vector that IS lethal to man...

There are times when the risks are justified....DDT is one of those times...[/quote]

if of course you are going to take the end result as the reason for proceeding with an unknown you could be accussed of putting the horse before the cart. In the case of DDT - as there was no long term sequential examination of the widespread effects on the population and it's long term health due directly to the use of DDT there are therefore no "official figures" for those numbers due to it's almost universal appeal in effectively allowing the masses to continue to live and work in areas that no sane personwould given a chance.

As to the "effectiveness" of the use it is also worth noting that most of the lower-classes or castes live in areas not chosen by the rich or powerful eg swamps and mangroves, areas where DDT was widely used. But these people need to live nearby to work in factories and high intensity agri-business enterprises that disturb ecosystems and produce unnatural breeding conditions and environments for these insect borne diseases to find a niche. So, effectively while the dimishing vector of contamination through insect control may have been achieved through the use of a chemical, it is once again the rich and powerful who invariabley are not the sector of the community who suffer the effects of it's use or in this case it's mis-use and it as a consequence also promotes the advancement of having squalor and ghettos in swamps and other unhealthy ecosystems that humans given a chioce don't usually inhabit excepting out of lack of choices

Besides no-one is promoting the idea of universally discounting the methods of science - gathering evidence making logical rational decisions based on that evidence - and that I believe is the main thrust of the argument here. The method of true science - the advancement of humankind, not corporate non-human entities - is not being allowed due diligence, and it cannot achieve it's declared aim, while assumptions or figurative arguments in support of widespread use of anything remotely suspected of having widespread negative outcomes.

The chemical as detailed - and supportive arguments and documentation is proffered to underpin the declaration - is noxious and is clearly a threat to the health of humans.

Additionally it may seem at first worthwhile to promote the idea and practise of believing anything chemical and drug manufacturers advertise - but is that a reality you really believe in the best interests of humankind? Do you really think drug or chemical manufacturers are above the prevails of any other industry that promotes its products through advertising media such as magazines TV or Radio? Are you really advocating that it is in our best interests that we simply take for granted the glimmer and gloss of roling TV advertising campaigns by Anyone of thing and take their advise as always being in our and our families best interests?????????  Do you really advocate that we just believe everything that is proffered as the next great cure or additive or medical procedure as always being in our best interests and making decisions about how good that decision was until AFTER the decision has been made?????? Are you really advocating that we simply ignore facts and evidence that supports the argument certain products - no matter if they are chemicals or drugs or any other product or service for that matter - are BAD and we should just continue to proceed as if nothing comes to light regards that path????  I would find this form of life to be a very short one indeed and might wonder how many people you know who live this style of existence and for how long. Not very long I'm sure.


While you dramatise the proposition to remove chemicals and other hazards to human health is a kneejerk reaction, I diametrically contend and dramatise the proposition to ignore the facts and evidence is ignorant and not the true way of science.....

Your reply? Pardon the typos

In the case of DDT - as there was no long term sequential examination of the widespread effects on the population and it's long term health due directly to the use of DDT there are therefore no "official figures"


While you dramatise the proposition to remove chemicals and other hazards to human health is a knee jerk reaction, I diametrically contend and dramatise the proposition to ignore the facts and evidence is ignorant and not the true way of science.....

Your reply? Pardon the typos[/quote]

Which facts??? As you yourself have said...there "was no long term sequential examination of the widespread effects on the population and it's long term health"...If there is no actual proof of effects on human health....then there is no basis (other than the 'knee jerk' one) to justify the ban....

Like the 'Coca Cola' scare of the 1960s (or 70s) and the vaccination = autism and all the other urban myth type horror stories, there isn't any basis for any of it....

Balancing an untested supposition (i.e DDT might cause health effects) against a proven effect (malaria kills people) the proven effect must triumph over the untested supposition...
Malaria DOES kill, DDT isn't know to.....so using DDT to combat malaria is the right way to go.....

as long as your willing to ignore the surrounding evidence to the contrary.

you still maintan that it is worthwhile to ignore growing anecdotile evidence and other studies that support the reasons to stop using poisons and other chemicals simply because they have a known effect. Where is DDT still used? NOWHERE. Why? Because it has negative impacts and long term consequences to the food chain and human health. No-one, anyway still uses DDT.

On the other hand while you maintain your stance on this issue I'd like to know why you we shouldn't take the same PRECAUTIONARY stance that other government agencies worldwide when it comes to allowing the profiteering of substances from a human weakness to seek cures for illnesses and disease. How do rationisle supporting quackery in the sciences?

Dooley wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 12:02am:

as long as your willing to ignore the surrounding evidence to the contrary. you still maintan that it is worthwhile to ignore growing anecdotile evidence and other studies that support the reasons to stop using poisons and other chemicals simply because they have a known effect. Where is DDT still used? NOWHERE. Why? Because it has negative impacts and long term consequences to the food chain and human health. No-one, anyway still uses DDT. On the other hand while you maintain your stance on this issue I'd like to know why you we shouldn't take the same PRECAUTIONARY stance that other government agencies worldwide when it comes to allowing the profiteering of substances from a human weakness to seek cures for illnesses and disease. How do rationisle supporting quackery in the sciences?

DDT is still used in China, India, assorted Asian countries and throughout most of Africa....

As of 2006 the WHO was recommending the use of DDT to combat disease vectors...
As for health effects in humans:
"Humans
> The EPA has categorized DDT as a B2 carcinogen (9). This means that DDT has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals, but there is inadequate or no evidence which shows that it may cause cancer in humans (1). See box on Cancer.
> A group of workers studied for 19 years employed at a DDT manufacturing facility did not develop cancer (1).
> Studies have shown that there is no correlation between an increased risk of breast cancer in women exposed to DDT"

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ddtgen.pdf

I'm not entirely sure what you mean in the third paragraph...
I'm against 'quackery' in science....and I'm against banning or stopping the use of medicines based on purley financial reasons ,as with the anti-vaccination push that's around now.

The anti-vaccination movement has been started and maintained by the 'natural medicine' groups/websites, simply to boost their business and increase  their profits....
Sadly, there are enough gullible, ignorant people around who will quite happily expose their children to Diphtheria, Whooping Cough, Measles, Polio, Small Pox and other lethal diseases on the recommendation of anyone with a lab coat and a smooth speech.......P.T Barnum was right it seems....

And Anecdotal evidence should never take the place of Empirical evidence

DDT is still used in China, India, assorted Asian countries and throughout most of Africa....

As of 2006 the WHO was recommending the use of DDT to combat disease vectors...




Told you my money was on Gizmo. Trouble is he is now 1/25. may have a dollar on you Dooley seeing as you have blown out to 5,000/1

HAHAH the WHO is not a credible organization when they recommended the wide use of a chemical without proper and methodical testing.
They have not even the slightest ideas what problems it could or has caused because no one with enough funding has ever tried to find out.

A lot of the anti vaccination idea is way out there but research the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them and you can understand why people think they are capable of such things.
At the end of the day not enough testing goes into vaccinations and that is enough reason for all vaccinations to be stopped. They have recently been linked to many of health problems and at the end of the day we do not know what effect this is going to have on our species as future generations develop.

I m not claiming this vaccinations or chemicals do anything but there is no reason to be using them without know that they are 100% safe.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:18am:

I m not claiming this vaccinations or chemicals do anything but there is no reason to be using them without know that they are 100% safe.

Nothing is 100% safe, but encouraging people en masse not to vaccinate their kids is tantamount to homicide.

muso wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:21am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 9:18am: I m not claiming this vaccinations or chemicals do anything but there is no reason to be using them without know that they are 100% safe. Nothing is 100% safe, but encouraging people en masse not to vaccinate their kids is tantamount to homicide.

Right and when future generations cant reproduce or something it will be worth it right?
Its not homicide, people have lived for millions of years without them and I would like to see the police try and lock up natural selection.

Well, if you want to bring these diseases back in Australia, the surefire way is to reduce the immunised population below the protection threshold:

1 Eradicated
    1.1 Smallpox
    1.2 Rinderpest
2 Global eradication underway
    2.1 Poliomyelitis (polio)
    2.2 Dracunculiasis
3 Regional elimination established or under way
    3.1 Malaria
    3.2 Lymphatic filariasis
    3.3 Measles
    3.4 Rubella
    3.5 Onchocerciasis
    3.6 Yaws

If you want to go back to natural selection, it comes at a price - a life expectancy of about 45. That's fairly typical of many third world countries where they can't afford immunisation.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:30am:

muso wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 9:21am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 9:18am: I m not claiming this vaccinations or chemicals do anything but there is no reason to be using them without know that they are 100% safe. Nothing is 100% safe, but encouraging people en masse not to vaccinate their kids is tantamount to homicide. Right and when future generations cant reproduce or something it will be worth it right? Its not homicide, people have lived for millions of years without them and I would like to see the police try and lock up natural selection.

And when hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people begin to die again from diseases that vaccines exist for, that'll be worth it to, right??

Some numbers for you to think about..

In roughly the last 150 years, measles has been estimated to have killed about 200 million people worldwide. During the 1850s, measles killed a fifth of Hawaii's people. In 1875, measles killed over 40,000 Fijians, approximately one-third of the population. In the 19th century, the disease decimated the Andamanese population. In 1954, the virus causing the disease was isolated from an 11-year old boy from the United States, David Edmonston, and adapted and propagated on chick embryo tissue culture. To date, 21 strains of the measles virus have been identified. While at Merck, Maurice Hilleman developed the first successful vaccine. Licensed vaccines to prevent the disease became available in 1963.
There was a pandemic of rubella between 1962 and 1965, starting in Europe and spreading to the United States. In the years 1964-65, the United States had an estimated 12.5 million rubella cases. This led to 11,000 miscarriages or therapeutic abortions and 20,000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome. Of these, 2,100 died as neonates, 12,000 were deaf, 3,580 were blind and 1,800 were mentally retarded. In New York alone, CRS affected 1% of all births
And if people can't have children it'll be more likely due to non-vaccination for a disease like 'mumps'..which can cause infertility in teenage males and adult males...

So far, there has been no proven major effects from vaccines....(the MMR vaccine - Autism link was shown to be a deliberate fraud in 2010)

I have this love hate relationship with WIKI. but it has it's uses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

It is worthwhile noting the cumulative base of knowledge that has been gathered on the for AND the against arguments are outllined far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve. I always prefer to let facts speak for themselves - they will almost always outweigh arguments when the aim is to promote Human health - not corporate bottom lines.

I have no vested interest in promoting this or any other argument and will only ever engage as an individual on this or any other topic because I am not recieving any financial benefit from any body or person ie I am not a lobbyist.

Can you make the same declaration, on this subject anyway? Gizmo

It is interesting to note that the countries you mention are all countries that have are considered developing countries. I am curious to see how Oz has the same existing financial or other political reasons as to why we should amble along with these despardos or continue to walk proudly alongside other jurisdications that err or the side of caution rather than gamble with the lives of their citizens?

B 1 and 2 carcinogens from the EPA website

Likely to be carcinogenic to humans. This descriptor is appropriate when the weight of the evidence is adequate to demonstrate carcinogenic potential to humans but does not reach the weight of evidence for the descriptor “Carcinogenic to Humans.” Adequate evidence consistent with this descriptor covers a broad spectrum. As stated previously, the use of the term “likely”as a weight of evidence descriptor does not correspond to a quantifiable probability. The examples below are meant to represent the broad range of data combinations that are covered by this descriptor; they are illustrative and provide neither a checklist nor a limitation for the data that might support use of this descriptor. Moreover, additional information, e.g., on mode of action, might change the choice of descriptor for the illustrated examples. Supporting data for this descriptor may include:

    an agent demonstrating a plausible (but not definitively causal) association between human exposure and cancer, in most cases with some supporting biological, experimental evidence, though not necessarily carcinogenicity data from animal experiments;
    an agent that has tested positive in animal experiments in more than one species, sex, strain, site, or exposure route, with or without evidence of carcinogenicity in humans;
    a positive tumor study that raises additional biological concerns beyond that of a statistically significant result, for example, a high degree of malignancy, or an early age at onset;
    a rare animal tumor response in a single experiment that is assumed to be relevant to humans; or
    a positive tumor study that is strengthened by other lines of evidence, for example, either plausible (but not definitively causal) association between human exposure and cancer or evidence that the agent or an important metabolite causes events generally known to be associated with tumor formation (such as DNA reactivity or effects on cell growth control) likely to be related to the tumor response in this case.

it might also occur to you that the reason there are no longitudanal studies is as a result of the immediate and know effects of the pioson DDT and it simply wasn't neccesary to uneccesarily waste taxpayers dollars to onvestigate the propensity for long term effects on humans when it has clearly been established it has widespread levels of impact over the entire ecosystem. As well it is has a very long residual fingerprint in the environment
Residues in food
DDT is very fat-soluble and is therefore found in fatty foods such as meat and diary products.
Even in countries across North America and Northern Europe, where its use has been banned for over a decade (see restrictions) DDT residues are still often found in food
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm

what is missing from this argument however is the overall view encapsulating the wider and more wholistic interpretation of why we shouldn't allow B1 or B2 and their lessor judged harmfull agents to be widely used.

From what I understand, while on their own points may be made for and against any one B1/2 type poison to be allowed use, there is also the cumulative and more less known understandings of how a cocktail of these tens of thousands of chemicals and their derivatives react with each other and what effects they will cumulativley result in. 

It is upon these more broader terms that this argument is subsumed by, and as the argument for the resumtion of this insidious pesticide would no doubt promote the reintroduction of other harmful chemical and drug related products into the surrounding environment it is prudent to err on the safe side.
If on the other hand we decide to gamble recklessly we are assured the resultant enormous toxic cloud of gases and other second grade harmful agents in our cities and suburbs would resemble the wasteland scenarios predicted by those who oppose the use of these poisons in our environment.

???


My typo's are really bad sorry for the breach, I'm not really rich in time at the mo'at am doing this on the run......

Dooley wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 1:39pm:

I have this love hate relationship with WIKI. but it has it's uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT It is worthwhile noting the cumulative base of knowledge that has been gathered on the for AND the against arguments are outllined far more eloquently than I could ever hope to achieve. I always prefer to let facts speak for themselves - they will almost always outweigh arguments when the aim is to promote Human health - not corporate bottom lines. I have no vested interest in promoting this or any other argument and will only ever engage as an individual on this or any other topic because I am not recieving any financial benefit from any body or person ie I am not a lobbyist. Can you make the same declaration, on this subject anyway? Gizmo It is interesting to note that the countries you mention are all countries that have are considered developing countries. I am curious to see how Oz has the same existing financial or other political reasons as to why we should amble along with these despardos or continue to walk proudly alongside other jurisdications that err or the side of caution rather than gamble with the lives of their citizens? B 1 and 2 carcinogens from the EPA website [i][b]Likely to be carcinogenic to humans. This descriptor is appropriate when the weight of the evidence is adequate to demonstrate carcinogenic potential to humans but does not reach the weight of evidence for the descriptor “Carcinogenic to Humans.” :     an agent demonstrating a plausible (but not definitively causal) association between human exposure and cancer, in most cases with some supporting biological, experimental evidence, though not necessarily carcinogenicity data from animal experiments;     an agent that has tested positive in animal experiments in more than one species, sex, strain, site, or exposure route, with or without evidence of carcinogenicity in humans;

Quite happy to make the declaration, on this and any other subject......I don't receive financial assistance from any company (except perhaps Centrelink)...

I just have a galloping aversion to 'do-gooders' who fly in the face of medical evidence 'for the betterment of mankind'.....

I look at it like this......if 1 person in 10 in an affected area will get a disease (malaria in this case), and there's a chance that 1 person in 5000 might be affected by DDT, then DDT should be used.....the certainty trumps the possibility...


These days (and probably for the last 50 years) there has been a romanticised ideal of getting back to nature, little or no technology, 'natural medicines', growing our own food, building our own houses etc....
It's a load of crap, personally.....
It took thousands of years for mankind to get to a point where we won't starve, die of a broken leg (or in childbirth), eat the wrong mushroom or die from a natural accident like a flood or fire...
90% of people would starve under those conditions, and most of the loudest voices would throw up if they had to salughter their own meat, (and probably starve to death surrounded by edible plants anyway)...
Dumping medical advances and other technology is a slower way to end the species than a mass cliff jump, but it's just as certain....

bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:18am:

A lot of the anti vaccination idea is way out there but research the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them and you can understand why people think they are capable of such things. At the end of the day not enough testing goes into vaccinations and that is enough reason for all vaccinations to be stopped. They have recently been linked to many of health problems and at the end of the day we do not know what effect this is going to have on our species as future generations develop. I m not claiming this vaccinations or chemicals do anything but there is no reason to be using them without know that they are 100% safe.

Oh dear. When I saw the link to that quack Mercola (who isn't actually a medical Doctor, BTW), I was concerned. Now there's the standard BS about vaccines not being "100% safe", etc etc blah blah.

Nothing in life is 100% safe. Sometimes seatbelts kill you, but in the vast, vast majority of cases they prevent injury and death. Would you argue then that seatbelts should be banned, because they aren't 100% safe? Is the 1:1,000,000 seatbelt-related injury/death more important than the 1,000,000:1 occasions when they cause serious injury or death? Now transpose that argument to vaccines.

It's all about risk assessment. The fact is that vaccines have long been shown to greatly reduce morbidity and mortality from disease. The risk of a serious adverse reaction is orders of magnitude lower than the risk from the diseases vaccines prevent.

There is simply no evidence to link vaccines to any major illness or condition, other than the incoherent ramblings of the anti-vaccination crowd. Their laughably inaccurate scare mongering was beautifully illustrated following the Australian Measles Control Campaign

In and of itself the argument to throw caution to the wind and use a declared poison to eliminate a unmeasured percieved threat, where the only increase in it's use is of corporate profits, is decidely counter to the logical rational measure of prudent and measured consideration of any action to reverse a scientifically validated logical and justified position.

In your reply you indicate your reluctance to agree with "do-gooders", well I have the same aversion to the lies and knee-jerk fear response reactions promoted usually by PR types and the corporate evangilists who crave profits against the welfare of humankind.

Dooley wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

In and of itself the argument to throw caution to the wind and use a declared poison to eliminate a unmeasured percieved threat, where the only increase in it's use is of corporate profits, is decidely counter to the logical rational measure of prudent and measured consideration of any action to reverse a scientifically validated logical and justified position. In your reply you indicate your reluctance to agree with "do-gooders", well I have the same aversion to the lies and knee-jerk fear response reactions promoted usually by PR types and the corporate evangilists who crave profits against the welfare of humankind.

Dooley, what you seem to miss is that malaria is NOT an 'unmeasured perceived threat'....it's a very real threat, existent today, and approximately 1.2 million people died from it in 2010 alone.....
The 'unmeasured perceived threat' is the 'danger' of DDT.....

It is unfortunately very easy to influence public opinion on 'dangers' like these......It doesn't take evidence, it just takes a slick talker to convince people of the dangers of chemicals....all you need are the buzz words 'Environmental Contaminate' and Carcinogen' and it's possible to get soccer mums, advertising executives, university students, plumbers and street sweepers bombarding politicians with demands to ban chemical 'X'...

As an example, watch this 'campaign' to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi1LU45Nip0

It's not about whether or not the chemical (or whatever) is dangerous..it's about whether or not you can convince people that it is....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:17pm:

Dooley wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:56pm: In and of itself the argument to throw caution to the wind and use a declared poison to eliminate a unmeasured percieved threat, where the only increase in it's use is of corporate profits, is decidely counter to the logical rational measure of prudent and measured consideration of any action to reverse a scientifically validated logical and justified position. In your reply you indicate your reluctance to agree with "do-gooders", well I have the same aversion to the lies and knee-jerk fear response reactions promoted usually by PR types and the corporate evangilists who crave profits against the welfare of humankind. Dooley, what you seem to miss is that malaria is NOT an 'unmeasured perceived threat'....it's a very real threat, existent today, and approximately 1.2 million people died from it in 2010 alone..... The 'unmeasured perceived threat' is the 'danger' of DDT..... It is unfortunately very easy to influence public opinion on 'dangers' like these......It doesn't take evidence, it just takes a slick talker to convince people of the dangers of chemicals....all you need are the buzz words 'Environmental Contaminate' and Carcinogen' and it's possible to get soccer mums, advertising executives, university students, plumbers and street sweepers bombarding politicians with demands to ban chemical 'X'... As an example, watch this 'campaign' to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi1LU45Nip0 It's not about whether or not the chemical (or whatever) is dangerous..it's about whether or not you can convince people that it is....

You begin to wonder why these people start these campaigns. Are they just sociopaths?

muso wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:58am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 9:17pm: Dooley wrote on Feb 5th, 2012 at 8:56pm: In and of itself the argument to throw caution to the wind and use a declared poison to eliminate a unmeasured percieved threat, where the only increase in it's use is of corporate profits, is decidely counter to the logical rational measure of prudent and measured consideration of any action to reverse a scientifically validated logical and justified position. In your reply you indicate your reluctance to agree with "do-gooders", well I have the same aversion to the lies and knee-jerk fear response reactions promoted usually by PR types and the corporate evangilists who crave profits against the welfare of humankind. Dooley, what you seem to miss is that malaria is NOT an 'unmeasured perceived threat'....it's a very real threat, existent today, and approximately 1.2 million people died from it in 2010 alone..... The 'unmeasured perceived threat' is the 'danger' of DDT..... It is unfortunately very easy to influence public opinion on 'dangers' like these......It doesn't take evidence, it just takes a slick talker to convince people of the dangers of chemicals....all you need are the buzz words 'Environmental Contaminate' and Carcinogen' and it's possible to get soccer mums, advertising executives, university students, plumbers and street sweepers bombarding politicians with demands to ban chemical 'X'... As an example, watch this 'campaign' to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi1LU45Nip0 It's not about whether or not the chemical (or whatever) is dangerous..it's about whether or not you can convince people that it is.... You begin to wonder why these people start these campaigns. Are they just sociopaths?

No, they 'just' know better than us, what is good for us....
I'm not sure, but I think it's closer to either narcissism or egocentrism....

so to recap

you totally ignore any scientific evidence that supports the reasoned argument to maintain the ban of B1/2 poisons because you and a cadre of self-proclaimed "truthseekers" believe you all know better tha the accumalated knowledge of ""scientist know-it-alls who simply want whats best for humankind

Your willing to throw caution to the wind wen it cmes to the use and promulgation of poisonious chemicals and drugs in food for humankind - for what reason we haven't clearly established yet. More than likely it is prolly because you have vested financial interests somewhere in this debate.

You'd prefer to ignore direct questions regarding the greater debate on the widespread allowance of releasing neo-corporate non-human profit generating entities to use and proliferate poisons in the general community.

I guess that sort of sums up the argument for me.

One question you might like tto answer though, if DDT is so bloody good - how is it the only places left in the world that have a problem with "disease vector control" are the countries still using DDT?  I mean all the evidence supports the argument that the apart from being a B class poison that remains in hte fat tissue of mammals and has shown to be carcinogenic amongst other nasty stuff it doesn't even effectively do the job that it's supposed to. There is copious amounts of research that clearly shows that "disease vector control" with DDT is an uphill battle. It's the equivilant of stading at the edge of the problem and throwing money at it with unabounded joy with your eyes shut shouting the mantra "I believe and so therefore it is".

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.....................

Dooley wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

so to recap you totally ignore any scientific evidence that supports the reasoned argument to maintain the ban of B1/2 poisons because you and a cadre of self-proclaimed "truthseekers" believe you all know better tha the accumalated knowledge of ""scientist know-it-alls who simply want whats best for humankind Your willing to throw caution to the wind wen it cmes to the use and promulgation of poisonious chemicals and drugs in food for humankind - for what reason we haven't clearly established yet. More than likely it is prolly because you have vested financial interests somewhere in this debate. You'd prefer to ignore direct questions regarding the greater debate on the widespread allowance of releasing neo-corporate non-human profit generating entities to use and proliferate poisons in the general community. I guess that sort of sums up the argument for me. One question you might like tto answer though, if DDT is so bloody good - how is it the only places left in the world that have a problem with "disease vector control" are the countries still using DDT?  I mean all the evidence supports the argument that the apart from being a B class poison that remains in hte fat tissue of mammals and has shown to be carcinogenic amongst other nasty stuff it doesn't even effectively do the job that it's supposed to. There is copious amounts of research that clearly shows that "disease vector control" with DDT is an uphill battle. It's the equivilant of stading at the edge of the problem and throwing money at it with unabounded joy with your eyes shut shouting the mantra "I believe and so therefore it is". The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.....................

Oh dear...
There is NO evidence that DDT is dangerous to humans...other than anecdotal (because someone 'says so') evidence....
And that seems to be your whole argument....

Your entire argument seems to be based on the invented danger of DDT...
Sad really....

I can appreciate how hard it is for you to acknowledge the truth. Rather than trying your trick of evoking pity I'll hope that one day you'll learn to open your eyes and think of others before yourself.

But I am still interested in knowing your thoughts on why you maintain the use of DDT in the developing countries is of any use when clearly there is no evidence to suggest that it is doing anything other than filling some neocorp slump guts pockets.... Any idea why they still use that useless poison DDT Gizmo? I'm plum outta any logical rational reason why.   ?????

Dooley wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

I can appreciate how hard it is for you to acknowledge the truth. Rather than trying your trick of evoking pity I'll hope that one day you'll learn to open your eyes and think of others before yourself. But I am still interested in knowing your thoughts on why you maintain the use of DDT in the developing countries is of any use when clearly there is no evidence to suggest that it is doing anything other than filling some neocorp slump guts pockets.... Any idea why they still use that useless poison DDT Gizmo? I'm plum outta any logical rational reason why.   ?????

Because it is the cheaper, and most effective insecticide available...

If it was all about filling 'neocorps' pockets, they'd have forced the use of a more expensive, less effective insecticide....so the countries would have to use a greater volume of a more costly chemical...

What you keep missing is that the 1B and 2B categories are used for 'possible' carinogens, not actual ones....
I'll give you an example......Citrus Red 2 is a class 2B carinogen, but is used in the US to enhance the colour of oranges...

I assumed you'd use the correct language for qualitatively describing the poison, follows is a direct C+P from U.s. EPA

Group B - Probable human carcinogen. This group includes agents for which the weight of evidence of human carcinogenicity based on epidemiologic studies is "limited" and also includes agents for which the weight of evidence of carcinogenicity based on animal studies is "sufficient." The group is divided into two subgroups.

      Group B1 is reserved for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity from epidemiologic studies.
      Group B2 is used for Agents for which there is "sufficient: evidence from animal studies and for which there is "inadequate       evidence" or "no data" from epidemiologic studies.

However the International Agency for Research on Cancer is controverisially accused of "susceptible to industry influence and suffers from a lack of transparency" quote WIKI.

If you think using a source that is a supporting stink tank of the organisation you propose (in this particular instance WHO) has some authority on this issue is gonna fly, then I think you'd better reassess how you present your information.

What you've done in this particular little foray is say something like "free economy policies are good for the world" and then support that by saying "the liberal party tells me so" and then further to that you declare "it must be so because The Wall St Journal and The Economist tells me so"

The fact is "vector disease control" use is being phased out - as you would well know - and it is not surprising as it is a poisonous substance that harms human health. It's use is as a last resort measure. Sort of like Hitler in WWII when he burnt and destroyed everything his troops had left as they retreated.

And nothing you can write can change those facts. No matter how hard you close your eyes and wish otherwise.

Oh and just for arguments sake - it may be cheap to manufacture, as is the case for most of the deadly crap that is manufactured by all of the chemical companies. However it's cost to human health and the wider enviroment is well known, documented, studied, expounded upon, deliberated upon and has been determined as one of the most far reaching toxilogical poisons known to humans. Hence quite logically, it is banned in nearly every country in the world. Except India and NORTH KOREA - for crissakes.

What was it you were supporting we do again with this poison???

As for the poison 1-(2,5-Dimethoxy-phenylazo)-naphthalen-2-ol that you charmingly refer to as "citrus red" it has as part of it's makeup napthalen. Look it up and see how inert that is will ya? Anyway I'll leave you to your own devices - you never know if you repeat this to yourself often enough........