Australian Politics Forum - Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #15 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:41am

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

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

blackadder

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 1977

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #16 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 8:49am

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

Back to top

The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln

IP Logged

bobbythefap1

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #17 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:18am

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.

Back to top

A day without sunshine is like night.

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia Reply #18 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:21am 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.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

bobbythefap1

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #19 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:30am

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

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.

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.

Back to top

A day without sunshine is like night.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #20 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:47am

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #21 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:48am

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

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

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.

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)

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Dooley

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 345

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #22 - 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

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......

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 5^th, 2012 at 2:40pm by Dooley »

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #23 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 3:10pm

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....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

NBNMyths

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 560
Gender: male

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #24 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 7:11pm

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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 5^th, 2012 at 7:25pm by NBNMyths »

Debunking the FUD on the NBN

IP Logged

Dooley

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 345

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #25 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #26 - Feb 5^th, 2012 at 9:17pm

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...

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....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #27 - Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:58am

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

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...

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?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #28 - Feb 6^th, 2012 at 9:08am

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

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

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...

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....

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Dooley

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 345

Re: Banned chemical 'Ractopamine' legal in Australia
Reply #29 - 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.....................

Back to top

IP Logged