But Skippy, I read it in The Onion, it must be true…
http://www.theonion.com/articles/everyone-involved-in-pizzas-preparation-delivery-p,504/
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by NW
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Michael
Rob,
OK, I’ll put you out of your misery.
It was a typo in the report.
That level of mortality would have been almost like having a spanish flu epidemic every year for 20 consecutive years.
Even the, ‘correct’, 50 million figure, is probably an over-estimate – taking the historical assumed death rate of around 2 mill/yr and further assuming that DDT prevented every single death over that period (which it obviously didn’t).
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Rob Ellison
According to reports, the pizza–a 16-inch black-olive and green-pepper pie mistakenly topped with extra cheese and sausage–was first conceptualized by area stoner Doug Bickell at approximately 11:30 p.m. Sunday…
QED
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Rob Ellison
So Michael is claiming a typo from the NAS? LOL. I am not defending the estimate from 1970 merely reporting it in good faith.
How many millions saved by DDT in the decades before the US ban – and not saved since?
It is not a simple calculation – but the significant public health implications are quite evident.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by NW
Some of the neuroscience folks claim that your brain is actually computing something like expected utilities and comparing them–most definitely not applying the precautionary principle–when you make non-routine decisions. Of course this is supposed to happen very fast and way outside of conscious monitoring. As far as we know, our neurons are deciding by playing massively parallel games of Pachesi.
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by climatereason
Scott
What about ‘risk compensation?’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
It would be my observation as a life long skier that those wearing helmets go substantially faster and take more risks than those not wearing them as they feel ‘safer’ and therefore adjust their behaviour to get the same adrenaline rush.
Combine this with the fact that skiing is mostly carried out by young people who think they are immortal, who like to show off, who are unable to judge relevant closing speeds very well as they may not be car drivers (many skiers are below 21) and the wearing of helmets can cause reckless behaviour
I would also observe that cyclists without helmets tend on the whole to travel in a more sedate fashion.
So I am not convinced that everyone benefits from wearing a helmet. Whether this translates to some sort of risk compensation as regards climate change and emissions I don’t know.
tonyb
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse
bdaabat requests “Perhaps you can explain how test “subjects” experiences translate to usual human exposures [of pesticides]?”
It is a pleasure to respond to your request for scientific information, bdaabat!
Most Climate Etc readers — with the exception of ideology-driven denialists — appreciate that citizens and their families are involuntary participants in a poorly controlled multigenerational “study” being conducted upon the general population by selfishly short-sighted and/or willfully ignorant chemical-manufacturing corporations.
The results of these studies are mighty sobering:
The increasing prevalence
of reported diagnoses
of childhood psychiatric disorders:
a descriptive multinational comparison.“We observe an increase in age-specific prevalence for reported diagnoses of all four disorders across birth-year cohorts in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and (for Autism Spectrum Disorder) Western Australia. Our results highlight the increase in the last 20 years in the number of children and families in contact with health care systems for diagnosis and services for an array of childhood neuropsychiatric disorders
———
Neurobehavioural effects
of developmental toxicityNeurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence.
In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers.
We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered.
To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.
bdaabat, on behalf of the tens of millions of families who live with childhood neurobehavioural disorders, please accept this appreciation of your sustained interest in regard to preventing these devastating global-scale failures of market fundamentalism.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by mosomoso
I’ve done plenty of bush and urban riding, night and day, much of it commuting, some of it sport. All I can say is that I wear a helmet…but I have never seen how strict helmet laws will ever fit with the aspirations of green politicians to make cities like Sydney into new Amsterdams.
I’ve spoken many a time with cycling activists who always feel the pedal revolution is just round the corner. But after massive spending and chaotically imposed infrastructure, especially under current Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, Sydney cyclists are just a trickle, only worsening the city’s transit problems. It’s getting to be like the climate wars, with all sorts of phony figures and factoids to justify the ridiculous expenditures and bloated claims.
Helmet laws are only one reason why this green dream will never come to fruition in many cities. Where cycling does fit well, it’s not a green dream but an old tradition favoured by terrain and long usage. And even in cities like Paris which have no helmet laws, public bikes and favourable terrain…it still kind of sucks.
It’s a fetish. Yet another “issue” for the adolescent of heart. And that’s coming from a keen cyclist.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Michael
Rob is again channeling his inner anti-enviromentalist hysteric.
DDT doesn’t save anyone much.
The historical record is quite clear on this – what works to dramatically cut malaria is a systematic, co-ordinated, appropriately resourced and long-term country/region wide anti-malaria campaign. DDT can be a part of that.
The credulity of the ‘skeptics’ over the 500 million figure is something to behold.
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Rob Ellison
Neither is the question.
How many millions dead because DDT wasn’t used seems to be the relevant point.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Rob Ellison
Again – the figure comes from an NAS from 1970 before which DDT was the primary control. Still largely is – increasingly since the WHO endorsed DDT for indoor residual use in 2007.
‘It is undeniable that rapid control of malaria is vital to free malaria-prone countries from the scourge of this debilitating disease The primary tools used for malaria prevention are long-lasting insecticidal nets, and indoor residual spraying (IRS) in which insecticides are sprayed on indoor walls of homes.’ http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/health-costs-and-benefits-of-ddt-use-in-malaria-control-and-prevention
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by ordvic
Ah Ha, now we know why Bill Gates is so heavily invested in chemical and drug industries: population control. That must be why with DDT they only use vector control and IRS (indoor residual spraying). That and the similarity to estrogen and a suspicion that it causes fertilization problems in both men and women and low birth weights; but that they can’t quite prove it. Ah it’s all coming together now. That and vaccines to control third world population growth makes a nice cocktail all in the name of humanity. Ah what a guy!
hmm whats gmo crop ready for roundup all about? 23 million to monsanto from bill and melinda foundation. Whats that all about? Saving humanity through chemical engineering. Hitler was clueless. Your on the right track Fan but you better be careful they might think your a right wing conspiracy theory nut job.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Rob Ellison
Serious reactions to vaccinations occur. Should we ban them? Health effects of DDT have not been directly detected – malaria results in millions of deaths. Should we ban it? Mercury, lead, asbestos – are all seriously debilitating if ingested. Should we find alternatives – and where there are no cost-effective alternatives learn to manage risk?
The EU REACH programs exists to identify serious threats – to avoid where possible and where not possible to manage risk.
This is not a market failure but the evolution towards a truly global civilization in a relatively short time. The goal is a high growth and high energy future. To allow that to be subverted by fringe extremists would be the true market failure.
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Ordvic, what part of “untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development“ was distressing to you?
Strict market-fundamentalists and/or chemical-harm denialists and/or hired industry-lobbyists might perhaps be upset … few others, eh Climate Etc readers?
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Jeffn
Perfect! Once again we have multiple sources examining the impact of a ban imposed using the precautionary principle. We have findings that the ban had a significant negative impact- in this case prompting the use of a pesticide that may have been worse.
And Joshua denies the ban and claims hippie punching while FAN swears the whole thing is the result “short-sighted market fundamentalism” and prof that we need more government intervention imposing more bans using the precautionary principle.
Let me guess, you’re constantly amazed that just 20% or fewer of Americans self-identify as liberal or progressive. If you guys could ever own your mistakes and learn from them, you’d be a force to be reckoned with instead of a farce to be ridiculed.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by bdaabat
Sorry Fan. What you have responded to is very different from the one that I asked. I asked you to explain your initial presented evidence. In your response, you linked to two different studies instead of answering the direct questions about the original study that you posted. You didn’t share that the previous study wasn’t applicable at all because it was an animal study…yet, you selectively quoted from it to hide that information. Now, you bring up two different studies when you were asked to provide evidence to support your conclusion. The above studies don’t do that either. They show increases in diagnoses, but provide no evidence for why those diagnoses are increasing. They assume that increasing incidence of neurobehavioral disorders is due to “chemical” exposure, but that’s not exactly science.
It’s really simple to stick with the facts. Fan, you’ve demonstrated to me that you are uninterested in an honest and straightforward discussion of the issues. Once again, your conclusions are not supported by your evidence.
Bruce
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Michael
Rob Ellison | August 13, 2014 at 4:53 am |
“How many millions dead because DDT wasn’t used seems to be the relevant point.”
And it ain’t 20 million.
This stems from a two-fold idelogically driven delusion;
1. The cedulous belif in the icirrect 500 million figure. It keeps raising its headlike a zombie, no matter how many times the error is noted
It’s just too goo not to be true for the anti-environmental hysterics.
2. A wilful misunderstanding of how malaria eradication has worked and a obsession over one tool in that – DDT.
I wonder how many people would have died if we’d followed the ‘skeptics’ view that all we need to get rid of malaria is DDT??
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by AK
Another <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/10/a-precautionary-tale-more-sorry-than-safe/#comment-617586" rel="nofollow">comment in moderation</a>.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by naq
Near-zero is what they have had written.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/12/Study-You-Have-Near-Zero-Impact-on-U-S-Policy
Of course it is just a model.
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by wrhoward
Thanks for this Judith. There are comments as well on The Conversation’s website, and I look forward to comments here as well.
Cheers,
Will
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
