The Church of Deep Ecology

*Nod*

 

Sexaaaaaaay.

 

thanks. but if i were a true bodhi, i must resist all advances

 

Not when it comes to Buddha love. I too am Buddha. And so are certain things hanging about my body.

 

Me and Buddha are ridin dirty.

 

this is true, in that many ancient holy buddah women were held sacred in sexual ceremonies; the woman holds the fruit of the world, and the world is held within the mind, and the mind is all reality.

 

I will when I get home to my apartment and dig up my references for this.

I'm at my parents tonight, and my dad walked out of the house today right when all of my extended family came over for Easter dinner and were all present to his disparture. That was six hours ago and he hasn't come home yet. So I've finished doing all the dishes and getting the house back in order, just made a tea and I'm tired. Not tonight, perhaps tomorrow.

 

DDT is NOT safe. read the book "Silent Spring". DDT is a false estrogen (estrogen mimic) which fits into estrogen receptors and triggers a "false" horomonal secretion. this can be fatal for many species of birds, in that it thins egg shells and causes a decrease in reproductive success (ex: California condor). DDT also builds up more and more at each trophic (feeding) level, so by the time it reaches a polar bear (who ate a fish who lived in water contaminated with DDT), it has grown to a significant level to cause harm. etc. etc. :/

 

and precisely how, pray tell little birdey, would kissing the ass of those corporatocracies which do not pretend to be green, or only pretend rather flimsily at best, make this world a better place, for anyone?

wake up and smell the reality.

in 50 to 100 years, almost no one will be able to afford to drive and automobile on a regular basis, while almost everyone will be able to afford to generate their own electricity with solar cells on their roofs and windmills in their back yards.

the sooner combustion based and dependent tecnologies are replaced by those that are not, the better off we, and our whole world will be.

so why defend the robber barrons of the oil and automotive industries, who'se days are numbered anyway?

only an idiot would want to spend the next 200 years dying of asthma while driving a coal fired automobile.

not when minivan sized narrow gauge mu's, powered by stored energy, recharged from a clean grid, or onboard solar, could completely erplace any usefulness of their function.

hydrogen was a pie in the sky, but wind, solar and geothermal are entirely real.

and while even storage battery chemestry may have some environmental problems, flywheels, escarpments and compressed air are also ways of storing energy that require only lubricants.

and while i would not force anyone to return to beasts of burden, some may actually wish, and even enjoy, doing so.

the world always changes, but progress is not always in the direction of chemical fueled rockets, nor best exemplified by urban living.

it isn't that i have any faith in marxism, but simply that i have none at all in capitolism and cannot understand for the life of me, other then brainwashing, why so many others seem to.

i do have faith however, in rocks, trees, and little furry creatures with big sharp teeth, which, if allowed to remain in nature's complexly diverse balance, will continue to make possible our own existence, as nothing else can.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I know it's not safe. I have read several articles, watched documentaries, spoken to activists, professors and other students about the effects of DDT. Scientists have found traces of high levels of DDT in orca whales on the Northern shores of Vancouver.

I'm just really tired from the day and put off tonight by my father. I don't feel like fighting. Just not tonight. But thanks for the information. I'd like to read that book, actually.

 

Eh, homeboy claims DDT and that book are part of a globalist agenda to prevent it's malarial fighting effects, and to be used as a form of population control.

To which I posted that DDT used as an aid to kill mosquito in malaria heavy zones is not illegal and is promoted by the world health organization. It is banned from agricultural use because of the many prominent health issues associated with it's over use.

I've been trying to make that distinction clear. It's a really important one in my mind.

 

lol!

 

Glad someone liked that.

 

I obviously have a different outlook on environmental issues than most of everyone else in here. And seemingly a different philosophical view...

I don't believe humans are better than animals or above nature. That's all I'm saying. I hate arguing with people...especially when it's about BELIEFS...everyone has a different set, obviously. I do blame the human race for the destruction of our environment since, unlike other animals, we do things that seem to work AGAINST nature, instead of with it.

Nature has a delicate balance...and one, seemingly insignificant, event can alter the entire ecosystem. It's scary...especially as biodiversity is declining...because the fewer animals in the ecosystem, the less healthy, and the more probable complete collapse will be.

 

As far as DDT, I would just like to see someone attempt to refute this article, written by Dr. Donald E. Waite, professor emeritus of public health at Michigan State University, and one one the world's leading experts on chemicals and the evironment.

​

 

Sorry, Sarah, but much of that has been debunked many times over.

LOOK, I am not defending the use of chemicals here. Frankly, I like to live as chemical-free as I can, which is why I use mostly ORGANIC products. So it's not like I am here defending the unrestrained use of toxic chemicals. I am just trying to point out the sheer hypocrisy of DDT (which did in fact save millions of lives from malaria and other airborne illnesses like typhus) being banned, while being replaced with agents that are far more toxic and far less effective. It seems like people would rather flat out ignore this fact.

As far as the estrogens you mentioned, I think this is very important because many people living in the Western world are exposed to large amounts of these synthetic estrogens, and a major source of this is in plastic. Most people who drink water out of plastic bottles and drink tap water from plastic pipes don't know that they're consuming potentially harmful levels of these synthetic estrogens. This can result in arrested development in boys and early development in girls. It also can cause cancer, as well as a number of other problems.

So I am not defending DDT as much as I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of it being banned, which really had nothing to do with its toxicity (or rather lack thereof), because all studies prior to 1970 showed DDT to be basically safe for both humans and animals. It wasn't until the campaign against DDT -- which was politically-motivated -- that we began to see all this negative stuff being written about it by government-funded "experts."

 

Well yes. I mean, if you microwave soemthing with plastic wrap over it, it released false estrogens into your food. Plastic can be bad, too. But to say that "Sorry, Sarah, but much of that has been debunked many times over." ??? I'm sorry, but we're just not going to agree here. Talk to any true ecologist or wildlife biologist about this. They will give you the same answer: DDT and Dioxins are harmful to the enviroment, hands down. They have been a contributing factor to the decline of multiple endanered species. Sure, DDT may save human lives, but it kills animal lives. When we eat those animals and drink contaminated water, we are only poisioning ourselves in the end. You're not going to convince me on this one, Matt. sorry.

 

Ugh. Here I am debunking. Bunk, bunk, bunk.

1) So, the first first citation "Workers at the Montrose Chemical Company absorbed 400 times as much DDT as the average American, but not a single case of cancer was reported." is a source dated from 1967. It's extremely outdated when you look at the techonolgy we have today that we use to detect and treat cancer patients. Remember when we found holes in the ozone? Yeah, that was only 1982. This source was 41 years ago. I'd like an updated statistic please.

Why would Mr. (oh, excuse me) Dr. Donald E. Waite, a supposed MD practicing medicine use this as a valid source? Biased, much?

2) Montrose Chemical Company had a nice little lawsuit for continuing to sell DDT illegally. Link "From 1947 to 1982, Montrose Chemical Corporation of California (Montrose) manufactured the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichlorethane (DDT) at its facility in Torrance, California. During the 1960's conservationists began to raise serious concerns about the effect of DDT on the environment (see, e.g., Carson, The Silent Spring (1963)), and in 1972 the federal government prohibited its use within this country. Montrose continued to manufacture DDT for export at the Torrance facility until it closed the plant in 1982." Pretty biased not to mention that, Dr. Waite.

I will continue...

 

This thread should be named something like "the safety of DDT"

 

3) The citation "[size=-1]Many others took part in this conspiracy. In EPA testimony that was published in Science, Dr. Samuel Epstein reported that mice that were fed DDT developed cancer. He withheld the fact that the mice that were not fed DDT developed more cancers than those fed DDT (83 versus 68 in the DDT fed mice). In reality, long-term studies of large numbers of people have demonstrated no evidence that DDT caused cancer or otherwise shortened the lives of people exposed to it.[4]"[/size][size=-1] Doesn't make sense to me. Was this study in 1962 as well? Why isn't this citation clear and have the studies to back up the last sentence? It's assumption. I can't find any evidence to back this up, nor disprove it - so I'm writing it off as an invalid fact that can't be counted as evidence that DDT is neither safe nor hazardous.

EDIT: When did Dr. Samuel Epstein report this in EPA testimony? I cannot find when.

I can find when the EPA has ruled did a few more studies to mice in 1987:

[/size]"The EPA, in 1987 , classified DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen based on "Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE." Regarding the human carcinogenicity data, they stated "The existing epidemiological data are inadequate. Autopsy studies relating tissue levels of DDT to cancer incidence have yielded conflicting results." Source

I see no evidence of any kind of level of safeness in DDT so far by reviewing the sources and debunking this article thus far.