Bush & Putin Clash Over Missile Defense

[CPL.Luke]

crap I must leave this thread now to avoid exposing my eyes to spoilers (I need a bit of entertainment with my philosophy).

 

However it does appear that in the first part of the book (up to where Ive read) she does argue that her philosophy should not be taken to far. For instance Dagny and Reardon always felt that they were missing out on love, and were at times miserable because of this. I don't know if this is solved later on or not, but it does seem to indicate something with Eddie almost as the temper to Dagny's actions.

 

This is shaping up to be in my top two books of all time, along with stranger in a strange land.

[Pangloss]

DDT poisons fish, affects fecundity in top predators, especially birds, and is persistent in the environment. How can you possibly not know this?

 

Except that it doesn't. How can you possibly not know this?

 

(That's a subtle hint that on this forum you either provide sources or you agree to disagree.)

 

Apart from the fact that there are plenty more (research it yourself)

 

No, I expect you to research it, and that expectation will be met, or you won't post.

 

This is not MichaelMoore.com or MoveOn.org or DemocraticUnderground.com. On ScienceForums.net, ideology does not constitute fact. You're welcome to post an opinion, but if you want people to accept those opinions as facts then you will back it up or you'll be feeding the trash can.

 

Exactly. Like I said' date=' the position you're espousing is that what's best for people in other countries is more important than what's best for the United States and its citizens. In all things, and at all times.

[/quote']

People in Third World countries are just as important as US Citizens my friend.

 

They certainly are, but that's not what we're discussing here, and changing the subject isn't going to save you. You're right, it's probably best that you do bow out of the discussion at this point. First good choice you've made in this thread.

[Pangloss]

It depends what you're looking for. When I read it (circa age 15) I loved it. I also loved Battlefield Earth.

 

My philosophical/moral foundations as well as taste in literature have grown considerably since then.

 

Speaking as someone fully versed in the classics (I've read everything from Homer to Joyce and am currently reading a new translation of The Iliad) as well as highly regarded modern fiction (Eco, Rushdie, Atwood, and Ishiguo are all on my "recent" list), it seems a bit shallow and unfair to state flatly that Ayn Rand can ONLY be taken as juvenile fiction.

 

Where I might agree with you would be if you said that she has to be read in context and with the understanding that she's not a Joyce or a Keats. I do understand where that expectation comes from -- great works of philosophy are often also great works of literature. But I don't understand why that HAS to be the case. Surely it's possible to espouse the mysteries of the universe in a cheesy limerick on the back of a napkin.

 

I remember that you dislike television and I suspect you're one of those people who can't separate their feelings about the real world from their capacity to be entertained. Nothing wrong with that, it's a free planet, but I know a lot of folks like that and I've always felt that it doesn't serve them in the long run. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

[Sisyphus]

Oh, well, as long as we're going there: About Ayn Rand. My experience is actually pretty similar to what bascule described. I also read Atlas Shrugged around age 15. Even then I knew it had no more literary value than a cheap thriller. I did think it was really insightful and amazing philosophy, though, and I have changed my mind greatly since then. Not that I think she's wrong about everything, per se; We disagree profoundly on several important fronts, but the majority of it is pretty common sense. What she's guilty of is oversimplification and irresponsible use of melodrama and some of the most intense strawmanning out there. She also tends to not leave any middle ground (you're with me or you're evil and an idiot), which is why people who are into her get really into her, and those people are just annoying. And they tend to preach. And they're selfish and proud of it and still somehow manage to develop martyr complexes. Annoying. It's often said that reading Ayn Rand turns everyone into an asshole for about three months, except for the people who are naturally assholes, who take it as divine license to be an asshole for life.

 

Well, anyhoo...

[Pangloss]

THAT assessment I agree with completely.

 

There's a big difference between selfishness and self-interest. But as you say, many people who take to Rand just use it to justify selfishness. Altrusim can be a virtue. It's just a dangerous one when not taken with the blue pill of what-you-have-to-do-to-avoid-having-to-take-a-handout-again.

 

I think it's interesting that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are associated with the current movie effort. I've always assumed they were far left types, what with all their trips to Africa. But maybe they plan to put a more interesting, reality-oriented spin on Rand. (Boy would she be piffed....) (grin)

[bascule]

Speaking as someone fully versed in the classics (I've read everything from Homer to Joyce and am currently reading a new translation of The Iliad) as well as highly regarded modern fiction (Eco, Rushdie, Atwood, and Ishiguo are all on my "recent" list), it seems a bit shallow and unfair to state flatly that Ayn Rand can ONLY be taken as juvenile fiction.

 

I'm not saying that it's juvenile fiction, I'm just saying it's not particularly good fiction, and it's certainly one of the worst historical allegories I've ever read.

 

Where I might agree with you would be if you said that she has to be read in context and with the understanding that she's not a Joyce or a Keats. I do understand where that expectation comes from -- great works of philosophy are often also great works of literature.

 

Great works of philosophy are generally non-fiction.

 

I remember that you dislike television and I suspect you're one of those people who can't separate their feelings about the real world from their capacity to be entertained.

 

I don't have TV but I sure do like Joost. Joost is like TV, but on-demand with only one 15-30sec advertisement every 10-15 minutes.

 

I don't think you can draw any conclusions about me from my disliking of television beyond that I hate ads and prefer my content delivered to me on my time rather than the network's.

[Pangloss]

Great works of philosophy are generally not found on Joost either.

[bascule]

Great works of philosophy are generally not found on Joost either.

 

Au contraire, ever watched Lexx?

[armygas]

we are learning a lot about organophosphates ........

I have read many of your posts and you need to learn alot more than just organophosphates............. your rememberance of historical facts is very poor as well.

 

For example, why would we have support from China and the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War? We were in a Cold War and they were our adversaries.

 

You ask people to "research it yourself" put really you should do that before you present a point because it makes someone look foolish to be discredited.

[bombus]

I have read many of your posts and you need to learn alot more than just organophosphates............. your rememberance of historical facts is very poor as well.

 

For example, why would we have support from China and the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War? We were in a Cold War and they were our adversaries.

 

That's my point! It couldn't have been sanctioned by the UN then could it as China and Russia have the power of veto.

 

You ask people to "research it yourself" put really you should do that before you present a point because it makes someone look foolish to be discredited.

 

I disagree. If you think I'm talking rubbish, show me why.

[bombus]

Except that it doesn't. How can you possibly not know this?

 

(That's a subtle hint that on this forum you either provide sources or you agree to disagree.)

 

Because it was like someone not knowing that the Earth is round! Would you like proof of that as well?

 

 

 

No, I expect you to research it, and that expectation will be met, or you won't post.

 

If you have done no research on a point, why are you arguing with me? If you don't know, find out! I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

This is not MichaelMoore.com or MoveOn.org or DemocraticUnderground.com. On ScienceForums.net, ideology does not constitute fact. You're welcome to post an opinion, but if you want people to accept those opinions as facts then you will back it up or you'll be feeding the trash can.

 

Like I said, if you don't know any better just say so. If you want to know more find out. If you're not interested then stop posting.

 

 

 

They certainly are, but that's not what we're discussing here, and changing the subject isn't going to save you. You're right, it's probably best that you do bow out of the discussion at this point. First good choice you've made in this thread.

 

What subject have I changed?

[Pangloss]

your rememberance of historical facts is very poor as well.

 

Like I said, if you don't know any better just say so. If you want to know more find out. If you're not interested then stop posting.

 

Ok folks, subtle and not-so-subtle hints aren't working, so I'm laying down the law on the "if you don't agree with me then you must not know anything about that subject/history/life/civilization/etc" type comments. Knock it off. Further comments to that effect will be deleted AND infractions (with points) will be issued. There WILL be civil discourse here, according to the rules we all agreed to. 'Nuff said.

 

<mod hat off>

[Pangloss]

Ok, I felt that mod stuff needed to be in a separate thread. Now let me address your questions, bombus, and let me just say (since the above may have seemed like I was cracking down on you) that I do appreciate that you're making some effort to be more compatible with this board's specific debate culture.

 

Because it was like someone not knowing that the Earth is round! Would you like proof of that as well?

 

No, I'd like proof that DDT poisons the environment, which was your claim. "Silent Spring" is opinion, not proof. Proof would consist of evidence such as a scientific study, and I suggest you look carefully because as far as I know what evidence there is has been refuted by other scientists.

 

No more rhetoric. No more asides. No more slipping and sliding. Just proof, please. Provide it.

[bombus]

No, I'd like proof that DDT poisons the environment, which was your claim. "Silent Spring" is opinion, not proof. Proof would consist of evidence such as a scientific study, and I suggest you look carefully because as far as I know what evidence there is has been refuted by other scientists.

 

No more rhetoric. No more asides. No more slipping and sliding. Just proof, please. Provide it.

 

OK. The reason I mentioned Silent Spring was because it was the first time the possibility of pesticides harming the environment came to the attention of the wider public. It was not intended as a reference in and of itself. Also, it is opinion based on fact

 

Also, I disagree with your interpretation of the rules of the forum to some degree. There are some things which for the purposes of general discussion we accept without citation e.g., the speed of light, existence of gravity, the world being a globe, arsenic being a poison, CO2 being a greenhouse gas etc. I wrongly assumed that DDT being damaging to the environment was one of these, and was genuinely surprised that you did not know.

 

Now, I will add some references below, and quotes if I can find them easily, like this from wikipedia (of all places!).

 

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant with a half life of between 2-15 years, and is immobile in most soils. Its half life is 56 days in lake water and approximately 28 days in river water. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and biodegradation (aerobic and anaerobic). These processes generally occur slowly. Breakdown products in the soil environment are DDE (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-dichlorodiphenyl)ethylene) and DDD (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane), which are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties.[17] These products together are known as total DDT.

 

DDT and its metabolic products DDE and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptors having a higher concentration of the chemicals (stored mainly in body fat) than other animals sharing the same environment. In the United States, human blood and fat tissue samples collected in the early 1970s showed detectable levels in all samples. A later study of blood samples collected in the later half of the 1970s (after the U.S. DDT ban) showed that blood levels were declining further, but DDT or metabolites were still seen in a very high proportion of the samples. Biomonitoring conducted by the CDC as recently as 2002 shows that more than half of subjects tested had detectable levels of DDT or metabolites in their blood,[18] and of the 700+ milk samples tested by the USDA in 2005, 85% had detectable levels of DDE.[19]

 

DDT is a toxicant across a certain range of phyla. In particular, DDT has been cited as a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s[20] as well as the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption thereby impairing egg-shell quality.[21] Studies in the 1960s and 1970s failed to find a mechanism for the hypothesized thinning,[22] however more recent studies in the 1990s and 2000s have laid the blame at the feet of DDE,[23][24] but not all experts accept those claims.[citation needed] Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically that eggshell thinness remains 10–12 percent thinner than pre-DDT thicknesses.[25] In general, however, DDT in small quantities has very little effect on birds; its primary metabolite, DDE, has a much greater effect.[citation needed] DDT is also highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure to high concentrations.

 

From http://www.ces.clemson.edu/ees/lee/organochlorines.html:

 

DDT is highly toxic to many aquatic invertebrate species. Reported 96-hour LC50s (concentration which causes mortality in 50% of test animals) in various aquatic invertebrates (e.g., stoneflies, midges, crayfish, sow bugs) range from 0.18 ug/L to 7.0 ug/L. Forty-eight-hour LC50s are 4.7 ug/L for daphnids and 15 ug/L for sea shrimp (Johnson and Finley, 1980).

 

DDT is also highly toxic to fish species. Reported 96-hour LC50s are less than 10 ug/L in coho salmon (4.0 ug/L), rainbow trout (8.7 ug/L), bluegill sunfish (8.6 ug/L), largemouth bass (1.5 ug/L), and fathead minnow and channel catfish are 21.5 ug/L and 12.2 ug/L respectively (Johnson and Finley, 1980). DDT is also moderately toxic to some amphibian species and larval stages appear to be more susceptible than adults (Hudson et al. 1984; WHO, 1989).

 

In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure. This occurs mainly through uptake from sediment and water into aquatic flora and fauna. A half-time for elimination of DDT from rainbow trout was estimated to be 160 days (WHO, 1989).

 

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc83.htm#SectionNumber:1.8

 

1.4 Toxicity to Aquatic Invertebrates

 

Both the acute and long-term toxicities of DDT vary between species

of aquatic invertebrates. Early developmental stages are more

sensitive than adults to DDT. Long-term effects occur after exposure

to concentrations ten to a hundred times lower than those causing

short-term effects.

 

DDT is highly toxic, in acute exposure, to aquatic invertebrates at

concentrations as low as 0.3 µg/litre. Toxic effects include impair-

ment of reproduction and development, cardiovascular modifications, and

neurological changes. Daphnia reproduction is adversely affected by

DDT at 0.5 µg/litre.

 

The influence of environmental variables (such as temperature,

water hardness, etc.) is documented but the mechanism is not fully

understood. In contrast to the data on DDT, there is little

information on the metabolites DDE or TDE. The reversibility of some

effects, once exposure ceases, and the development of resistance have

been reported.

 

1.5 Toxicity to Fish

 

DDT is highly toxic to fish; the 96-h LC50s reported (static

tests) range from 1.5 to 56 µg/litre (for largemouth bass and guppy,

respectively). Smaller fish are more susceptible than larger ones of

the same species. An increase in temperature decreases the toxicity of

DDT to fish.

 

The behaviour of fish is influenced by DDT. Goldfish exposed to

1 µg/litre exhibit hyperactivity. Changes in the feeding of young

fish are caused by DDT levels commonly found in nature, and effects on

temperature preference have been reported.

 

Residue levels of > 2.4 mg/kg in eggs of the winter flounder result

in abnormal embryos in the laboratory, and comparable residue levels

have been found to relate to the death of lake trout fry in the wild.

 

Cellular respiration may be the main toxic target of DDT since

there are reports of effects on ATPase.

 

The toxicity of TDE and DDE has been less studied than that of DDT.

However, the data available on rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish show

that TDE and DDE are both less toxic than DDT.

 

1.6 Toxicity to Amphibians

 

The toxicity of DDT and its metabolites to amphibians varies from

species to species; although only a few data are available, amphibian

larvae seem to be more sensitive than adults to DDT. TDE seems to be

more toxic than DDT to amphibians, but there are no data available for

DDE. All the studies reported have been static tests and, therefore,

results should be treated with caution.

 

1.7 Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates

 

There have been few reports on the effects of DDT and its

metabolites on non-target terrestrial invertebrates.

 

Earthworms are insensitive to the acutely toxic effects of these

compounds at levels higher than those likely to be found in the

environment. The uptake of DDT by earthworms is related to the

concentrations in soil and to the activity of the worms; seasonally

greater activity increases uptake. Thus, although earthworms are

unlikely to be seriously affected by DDT, they pose a major hazard to

predators because of the residues they can tolerate.

 

Both DDT and DDE are classified as being relatively non-toxic to

honey bees, with a topical LD50 of 27 µg/bee.

 

There are no reports on laboratory studies using DDE or TDE, in

spite of the fact that these are major contaminants of soil.

 

1.8 Toxicity to Birds

 

DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by

causing eggshell thinning (which leads to egg breakage) and by causing

embryo deaths. However, different groups of birds vary greatly in

their sensitivity to these chemicals; predatory birds are extremely

sensitive and, in the wild, often show marked shell thinning, whilst

gallinaceous birds are relatively insensitive. Because of the

difficulties of breeding birds of prey in captivity, most of the

experimental work has been done with insensitive species, which have

often shown little or no shell thinning. The few studies on more

sensitive species have shown shell thinning at levels similar to those

found in the wild. The lowest dietary concentration of DDT reported to

cause shell thinning experimentally was 0.6 mg/kg for the black duck.

The mechanism of shell thinning is not fully understood.

 

1.9 Toxicity to non-laboratory Mammals

 

Experimental work suggests that some species, notably bats, may

have been affected by DDT and its metabolites. Species which show

marked seasonal cycles in fat content are most vulnerable, but few

experimental studies on such species have been made. In contrast to

the situation in birds, where the main effect of DDT is on

reproduction, the main known effect in mammals is to increase the

mortality of migrating adults. The lowest acute dose which kills

American big brown bats is 20 mg/kg. Bats collected from the wild (and

containing residues of DDE in fat) die after experimental starvation,

which simulates loss of fat during migration.

[Sayonara]

I think it is slightly misleading to say that DDT harms "the environment". Rather it harms trophic networks, as bombus's fine lit research shows, which is not the same thing.

 

So perhaps saying that "the claim DDT harms the environment is opinion" is not that outrageous.

 

I know semantic arguments are not as fun as a big row, but in this case the terminology does make a difference. Call this one a semantic armistice.

[Pangloss]

Also, should add that I am genuinely surprised you seem to not know about DDT being harmful in the environment. It was one of the basic things I was taught in school, and university.

 

And I'm surprised that you seem not to know about the common and generally accepted refutations to the alleged harmfulness of DDT in the environment. You'll note that I don't follow-up on that surprise by expressing any suggestions about what kind of reading you should do, your knowledge level about environmental matters, or your IQ in general. I hope we've finally put that mode of yours behind us.

 

 

Now, I will add some references below, and quotes if I can find them easily, like this from wikipedia (of all places!).

 

Sounds great.

 

 

(pages of data about DDT toxicity)

 

This is all well and good but I think you missed the point. DDT is toxic, that's it's job. It's supposed to be toxic. It wouldn't be any good if it wasn't. You're not supposed to dump it in your mouth (or anyone else's mouth), you're supposed to use it properly.

 

Are you planning to stop purchasing gasoline for your car because it's toxic?

 

What you need to be demonstrating is why it's worse to use it than to not use it.

 

Let me elaborate by quoting from the very same Wikipedia article you quoted from:

 

In September 2006, the World Health Organization announced that DDT will be used as one of the three main tools against malaria. WHO is hence recommending indoor residual spraying (IRS) in epidemic areas, as well as in places with constant and high malaria transmission.[12] The USAID subsequently announced that it would fund the use of DDT.[13]. Both statements confirmed existing policies, but with a greater emphasis on the benefits of DDT.

 

And specifically regarding the US ban:

 

The 1970s ban in the U.S. took place amid a climate of public mistrust of the scientific and industrial community, following such fiascoes as Agent Orange and use of the hormone diethylstilbestrol (DES). In addition, the placement of the bald eagle on the endangered species list was also a strong factor leading to its being banned in the United States. The overuse of DDT was claimed to be a major factor in the bald eagle population decline — a claim that has fallen into dispute.[15]

 

The ban and Carson's book have subsequently been vigorously criticized by pro-DDT advocates, including Steven Milloy, Roger Bate and Richard Tren, whose critiques draw on the work of entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, a witness at the hearings who stated that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims that DDT posed a threat to human health. They report that, at the end of the hearings, hearing examiner Edmund Sweeney ruled that the scientific evidence provided no basis for banning DDT. In the summer of 1972, Ruckelshaus reviewed evidence collected during the agency's hearings as well as reports prepared by two DDT study groups (the Hilton and Mark Commissions) that had come to the opposite conclusion. Milloy and Edwards claimed that Ruckelshaus did not actually attend any of the EPA commission's hearings, and (citing unnamed aides) that he did not read any transcripts of the hearings. Ruckelshaus overturned Sweeney's ruling, arguing that the pesticide was "a warning that man may be exposing himself to a substance that may ultimately have a serious effect on his health."[14][16]

[bombus]

And I'm surprised that you seem not to know about the common and generally accepted refutations to the alleged harmfulness of DDT in the environment. You'll note that I don't follow-up on that surprise by expressing any suggestions about what kind of reading you should do, your knowledge level about environmental matters, or your IQ in general. I hope we've finally put that mode of yours behind us.

 

I am aware of these refutations, but they are in the minority, and usually backed by the pesticides industry! There are similar refutations relating to the Global Climate Change issue.

[bombus]

This is all well and good but I think you missed the point. DDT is toxic, that's it's job. It's supposed to be toxic. It wouldn't be any good if it wasn't. You're not supposed to dump it in your mouth (or anyone else's mouth), you're supposed to use it properly.

 

If DDT wasn't so persistent in the environment it would actually be a very good pesticide. The problem with it is that it does not readily break down into harmless substances - unlike many organophosphates.

 

It's actually not that harmful to humans if ingested btw (unless you eat loads of it of course!)

[Sayonara]

It's also quite harmful if you throw a tub of it at someone's head.

[Pangloss]

I am aware of these refutations, but they are in the minority, and usually backed by the pesticides industry! There are similar refutations relating to the Global Climate Change issue.

 

It isn't a vote.

 

If DDT wasn't so persistent in the environment it would actually be a very good pesticide. The problem with it is that it does not readily break down into harmless substances - unlike many organophosphates.

 

It's actually not that harmful to humans if ingested btw (unless you eat loads of it of course!)

 

This is a far different argument than your initial reaction, and in fact corresponds more or less to my opinion. See how much more productive it is when you don't leap to conclusions about the people you're speaking with?

[bombus]

It isn't a vote.

 

Well, it kinda is...

 

This is a far different argument than your initial reaction, and in fact corresponds more or less to my opinion. See how much more productive it is when you don't leap to conclusions about the people you're speaking with?

 

It's not a far different argument. I said that DDT was harmful to the environment, you said it was not. The reason why it is harmful is because it is persistent, and is thusly prone to biomagnification along food chains

 

However, at least we more or less agree on this issue now!

[Saryctos]

Still on about the missle defense...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_re_eu/russia_arms_control_treaty;_ylt=ApLPjvWNSzTHU1hMVpHxSvCs0NUE