Drill baby, drill!

[02ep3]

OK. Go for it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304252704575155593396721772.html?m od=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsCollection

I have mixed feelings about it as i would like to see us reduce our dependence of foreign oil through increased development of energy efficiency and renewable sources, domestic production also helps. It's also a bonus to see haters try to say this isn't what they wanted. We're going to get more strict regulation on greenhouse gas emissions, it's just a matter of time. But this helps balance things out.

[Ablev1]

Bring it.

[Butthead]

this limited additional drilling, along with barry's trip to the sandbox last week, are only diversions from the h/care monstrosity.

[MrBlah]

this limited additional drilling, along with barry's trip to the sandbox last week, are only diversions from the h/care monstrosity.

lol did you even read what he did?


Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska

I guess all those pundits were wrong when they said the price of oil would drop if a president opened up drilling, bush could have, but did not do it, obama did it, price of oil, up so far today

but our resident partisan posters will spin it I'm sure, even though they look like fools

[02ep3]

Ha ha ha. Even if he could cure cancer, create cold fusion, and nail down precisely how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, you would still find something to gripe about.

[Butthead]

i am all for drilling, but still a diversion. timing is everything.

and the cost of crude is not going to affected today for anything any US president does, unless he comes out and says we have 20 years of crude under the white house and plan to start pumping tomorrow.

[TarzanMan]

Ha ha ha. Even if he could cure cancer, create cold fusion, and nail down precisely how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, you would still find something to gripe about.

Butthead is an unrepentant partisan. Nothing is okay if a party other than the elephant party does it

[Butthead]

not true -- i dislike many of the elephants too. lindsey graham has my particular disgust of late.

but it is true that elephants are 99.9% always a better choice than a jackass.


Butthead is an unrepentant partisan. Nothing is okay if a party other than the elephant party does it

[MrBlah]

and the cost of crude is not going to affected today for anything any US president does

that's what I said when hannity and rush and all the republican partisan hacks were saying the price of oil would drop the day they announce drilling off the east coast and alaska

they were wrong, very wrong, but none will admit that, I would bump the threads from here a couple years ago, if they had not been wiped out

[Butthead]

i don't remember that but will defer to your memory. mine sucks.


that's what I said when hannity and rush and all the republican partisan hacks were saying the price of oil would drop the day they announce drilling off the east coast and alaska

they were wrong, very wrong, but none will admit that, I would bump the threads from here a couple years ago, if they had not been wiped out

[Dan43]

i don't remember that but will defer to your memory. mine sucks.He's right. When gas was in the $4 gal territory everybody was up in arms about opening up areas to drilling so the the price of crude would go back down.

[Butthead]

yeah, i remember that, but did they really say that crude futures would drop the day of the announcement?


He's right. When gas was in the $4 gal territory everybody was up in arms about opening up areas to drilling so the the price of crude would go back down.

[MrBlah]

yeah, i remember that, but did they really say that crude futures would drop the day of the announcement?

yeah, the funniest part was hannity parroting that every friggin day

[Lazarus]

So does this mean that gas will or wont go down?

[Butthead]

if the market beleives there will be additional supply, the price should drop. the magnitude of that supply, that price drop and the timing of both is unknown.


So does this mean that gas will or wont go down?

[Ablev1]

yeah, i remember that, but did they really say that crude futures would drop the day of the announcement?

Don't be redonkulous. Palin's theme was "drill baby drill". As the artist formerly known as Megadeath said, if the threads were available we could go point by point on the arguments from a year and more ago.

[wbeck257]

So does this mean that gas will or wont go down?

It isn't like they are going to start drilling tomorrow.

[MrBlah]

It isn't like they are going to start drilling tomorrow.

that's what I said 2 years ago!

[Butthead]

fine, but you will agree that greater supply over time will reduce price, right?


Don't be redonkulous. Palin's theme was "drill baby drill". As the artist formerly known as Megadeath said, if the threads were available we could go point by point on the arguments from a year and more ago.

[Phatmax]

that's what I said 2 years ago!

It is just too bad that drilling did not start 10 years ago, then we would be enjoying the fruits of that labor today.

[winmutt]

What do they pump into the void created I wonder. I second the bit about 10years ago because thats how long its going to take to fix it.

Now if only 50% of the country would start driving diesels we wouldn't have to deal with the middle east or commies in south america.

[Phatmax]

What do they pump into the void created I wonder. I second the bit about 10years ago because thats how long its going to take to fix it.

Now if only 50% of the country would start driving diesels we wouldn't have to deal with the middle east or commies in south america.

That and stop using petroleum products for generation of electricity, and go nuke. Such a waste of natural gas, etc...

interestingly I heard that China is now the Saudi's biggest customer.

[MrBlah]

for the record, any land that's US property I think they should leave the oil in, as a strategic reserve. The exception to this is oil that can be pumped from land we do not control, or private property.

[winmutt]

That and stop using petroleum products for generation of electricity, and go nuke. Such a waste of natural gas, etc...

Yup. I am all for it. What happened to the sand pebble reactors we heard about?

interestingly I heard that China is now the Saudi's biggest customer.
I am certainly not surprised about it. Many argued that that was a major contributing cause for the Iraq war. That and the fact the Saddam moved everything over to the Euro. Personally I think it is WAAAY in our best interest to be self sustainable or we WILL end up in a war with China and I don't care who says what, we ain't winning that one.

[02ep3]

not true -- i dislike many of the elephants too. lindsey graham has my particular disgust of late.

but it is true that elephants are 99.9% always a better choice than a jackass.

Man, you only serve to illustrate my point. You are disgusted with Lindsay Graham because he's been working with democrats as of late? Or he could be your champion because he's actually trying to make sure what legislation passes runs --at least-- closer to the middle. But my guess is that you hate him because he doesn't a priori HATE Barack Obama and everything he does.

[Phatmax]

for the record, any land that's US property I think they should leave the oil in, as a strategic reserve. The exception to this is oil that can be pumped from land we do not control, or private property.

Problem with that, is that a strategic reserve is there for immediate use in time of disaster or military actions. Undrilled oil would take too long to extract.

I understand that you might mean for when oil gets REALLY high in price, but also, the delay in getting the crude out would cause economic disaster. Maybe on some of the easier areas, make capped wells.

Being the the government owns 25% of the land in the US, there is potentially massive amounts of oil in the ground.

One other item of note, as countries such as India and China begin to consume more commercially made products, such as TVs and cars, etc. the demand for oil fo use in plastics, paint, tires, etc. will climb. For the US 7 gallons out of every 42 gallon barrel of crude is used for products.

I would be interested to see the Chinese breakdown of that, what will all the goods manufactured there.

[Phatmax]

Man, you only serve to illustrate my point. You are disgusted with Lindsay Graham because he's been working with democrats as of late? Or he could be your champion because he's actually trying to make sure what legislation passes runs --at least-- closer to the middle. But my guess is that you hate him because he doesn't a priori HATE Barack Obama and everything he does.

So you support Cap and Trade, which will destroy American industry through taxation?

[MrBlah]

Problem with that, is that a strategic reserve is there for immediate use in time of disaster or military actions. Undrilled oil would take too long to extract.


not a problem for me, that's even better, it should be hard to get out, and it should not be used like bush did, to try to control markets, it's for the military and our war machine when the rest of the world runs out of oil

[Butthead]

i don't hate democrats or barry -- i hate liberal policies. when lindsey works to pass liberal issues, in this case bullshit carbon cap and trade and carbon credit legislation, i shall hate that too.


Man, you only serve to illustrate my point. You are disgusted with Lindsay Graham because he's been working with democrats as of late? Or he could be your champion because he's actually trying to make sure what legislation passes runs --at least-- closer to the middle. But my guess is that you hate him because he doesn't a priori HATE Barack Obama and everything he does.

[Phatmax]

not a problem for me, that's even better, it should be hard to get out, and it should not be used like bush did, to try to control markets, it's for the military and our war machine when the rest of the world runs out of oil

The strategic oil reserve WAS meant to control oil prices in the US:

Congress authorized the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA, P.L. 94-163) to help prevent a repetition of the
economic dislocation caused by the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo. The program is
managed by the Department of Energy (DOE). The capacity of the SPR is 727
million barrels, and it currently holds around 704 million barrels of crude oil. In
addition, a Northeast Heating Oil Reserve (NHOR) holds 2 million barrels of heating
oil in above-ground storage.
The SPR comprises five underground storage facilities, hollowed out from
naturally occurring salt domes in Texas and Louisiana. EPCA authorized drawdown
of the Reserve upon a finding by the President that there is a “severe energy supply
interruption.” Congress enacted additional authority in 1990 (Energy Policy and
Conservation Act Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-383), to permit use of the SPR for
short periods to resolve supply interruptions stemming from situations internal to the
United States. The meaning of a “severe energy supply interruption” has been
controversial. However, EPCA intends use of the SPR only to ameliorate discernible
physical shortages of crude oil.

[02ep3]

In my opnion, he's bending the curve. Neither he, nor can republicans, completely change the direction of legislation. (for now at least, we'll see how things play out in november). All i'm saying is that perhaps it's better to have SOME influence, than none at all.

[Ablev1]

100% agree unless "peak oil" becomes a topic again.

edit: this was a response to BH asking if I agreed that more oil would lower prices over time. I forgot to hit the quote button.

[Ablev1]

So you support Cap and Trade, which will destroy American industry through taxation?

American industry was destroyed by unions.

[Phatmax]

American industry was destroyed by unions.

Well... remaining industry, private sector business of any sort. Heavy industry, clothing, electronics,...yeah those got killed a long time ago.

[Ablev1]

I agree. My company will pull every last manufacturing job and headquarters out of the US if Cap N Trade passes. I know it.....and my company is a legit socialist company!...from a socialist country. Disclaimer: My statements are probably idiotic and do not represent anyone or anything.

[Spicoli]

[QUOTE=Phatmax;11658]It is just too bad that drilling did not start 10 years ago, then we would be enjoying the fruits of that labor today.[/QUO

Yeah that. If we would have done it then we would have been in better position to thumb our nose at the middle east post 9/11. Without oil they can't hold us over a barrell (pun intended).

Since 10 years ago is 2000, I guess that's something that's not W's fault for once.

[winmutt]

AFAIK the technology for deep deep offshore drilling is fairly recent.


Since 10 years ago is 2000, I guess that's something that's not W's fault for once.
Not W, but a Bush none the less.


In 1990, President George H. W. Bush issued an executive moratorium restricting federal offshore leasing to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Alaska. The moratorium banned federal leasing through the year 2000 off the East Coast, West Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico (offshore Florida Gulf Coast), and the Northern Aleutian Basin of Alaska. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the moratorium through 2012. In July 2008, President George W. Bush rescinded the executive order.

[wallypiper]

Wow. Some basic number here folks to put all this in perspective.

We use 20 million barrels of crude oil a day and have for quite some time.
We use 62.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day. (highly variable by season, but that's an annual daily average)

According to the USGS (who knows who knows but they publish data), total US reserves are 19.1 trillion barrels of oil (about a 3 year supply) and about 244.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (almost an 11 year supply).

If we dramatically shift from oil to gas, we might stretch our reserves to a combined 5 or 6 years. Then it's gone. We will have to import ALL of our petroleum products. Those numbers include all the reserves that have just been opened up and all that are known that might be opened up. 5 or 6 years.

Some people are going to get a lot of money out of this move by Obama. But it won't have a long term effect on our energy independence. We will never become energy independent while we continue to burn oil and gas for energy. Never. If energy independence is the goal drilling for oil in US coastal waters is a distraction. It won't get us there.It won't even make a dent in our imports. The areas that Obama has opened up amount to a few days supply. A few days.

[Phatmax]

Wow. Some basic number here folks to put all this in perspective.

We use 20 million barrels of crude oil a day and have for quite some time.
We use 62.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day. (highly variable by season, but that's an annual daily average)

According to the USGS (who knows who knows but they publish data), total US reserves are 19.1 trillion barrels of oil (about a 3 year supply) and about 244.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (almost an 11 year supply).

If we dramatically shift from oil to gas, we might stretch our reserves to a combined 5 or 6 years. Then it's gone. We will have to import ALL of our petroleum products. Those numbers include all the reserves that have just been opened up and all that are known that might be opened up. 5 or 6 years.

Some people are going to get a lot of money out of this move by Obama. But it won't have a long term effect on our energy independence. We will never become energy independent while we continue to burn oil and gas for energy. Never. If energy independence is the goal drilling for oil in US coastal waters is a distraction. It won't get us there.It won't even make a dent in our imports. The areas that Obama has opened up amount to a few days supply. A few days.


These are KNOWN reserves. Not total existing. That huge Brazilian find was totally unknown just a few years ago. Even if we tapped everything we would still have to purchase oil, but we would be in a better bargaining position, to pick and choose suppliers.

It costs money to explore, and why would petro companies even bother exploring places they are excluded from?

[02ep3]

So you support Cap and Trade, which will destroy American industry through taxation?

I do. If you think it will "destroy" american industry, I give you Europe as an example. They've had carbon cap and trade and their industry has not been "destroyed." The Eurozone and US GDP's are ~3X larger than China. While globalization allows some industry to flow to China, it takes more than cap and trade to destroy it.

You're free to add a few premises to your argument, otherwise i cannot effectively respond to your comment. Do you offer a measure for "destroy?" Or are you just spouting hyperbole, per the usual?

[Phatmax]

I do. If you think it will "destroy" american industry, I give you Europe as an example. They've had carbon cap and trade and their industry has not been "destroyed." The Eurozone and US GDP's are ~3X larger than China. While globalization allows some industry to flow to China, it takes more than cap and trade to destroy it.

You're free to add a few premises to your argument, otherwise i cannot effectively respond to your comment. Do you offer a measure for "destroy?" Or are you just spouting hyperbole, per the usual?

You DO understnad that ANY tax on corporations gets passed on to the consumer? Look up just how much Cap and Trade will actually cost "corporations" and realize that "cost" is actually going to be reflected in their product sales price.

That means in a any economy, consumer goods will increase in price. We have an economy that is in a very strong down cycle

With more unemployed every day, increases in taxation for healthcare, and then higher costs of goods, people will be forced to buy less, and companies will be forced to downsize, or stop producing as much, or simply close. This will add MORE people to the unemployment lines or shrunken paychecks.

Theory is great, but it DOES NOT WORK in the real world.

[wallypiper]

Even if we tapped everything we would still have to purchase oil, but we would be in a better bargaining position, to pick and choose suppliers.

We would be in that position for a very short period of time. The "huge Brazilian find" is 2 billion barrels, equal to about a 100 day supply of US oil. The US may become energy independent when the cost of recovering oil from oil shale deposits, which we have a lot of, makes them economical. Here's a very long report on oil shale: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/publications/npr_strategic_significancev1.pdf Some analysis has said $60/bbl would make oil shale worthwhile but so far that hasn't proved true. But there is a big initial capital investment which, so far, is not really happening. THAT would be a smart strategic move by the US, to somehow encourage that investment.

[winmutt]

If we should be spending money on anything its investing in better education and energy.

[Phatmax]

If we should be spending money on anything its investing in better education and energy.

Mostly energy. I know several teachers and I am understanding what has happened with our educational system.

My neighbor teaches in Cherokee, 8th grade history. He is forced by curriculum to spend the same amount of time teaching about the Vietnam War, as he does about Rachel Carson's fully DIScredited book, Silent Spring. There is a push from North Carolina legislators to STOP teaching US History prior to 1876. Yes, EIGHTEEN seventy-six.

Billions spent on schools and kids and THIS is considered education?

[winmutt]

Rachel Carson's fully DIScredited book, Silent Spring
By who and when?


There is a push from North Carolina legislators to STOP teaching US History prior to 1876. Yes, EIGHTEEN seventy-six.

That is crap.

[Phatmax]

By who and when?





http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Jukes.html This is a good read.

[Phatmax]

Another.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

[winmutt]

Wiki has some good info as well. Seems the only smoking gun is eggshell thickness which has been proven, everything else is a "linked to". Considering it is toxic to humans and has lost much of its effectiveness (certainly more had it not been banned) its probably just as well that it was banned. Seems to be linked to decline of the Bald Eagle but I couldn't find any explicit proof of that.

The first article you posted doesn't do a good job of backing up specific claims that refutiate consequent findings after Carson's book was published. Eggshell thickness being the one I was looking at.

Whether banning DDT was the right thing or not, her book did have some good outcomes. It did raise environmental awareness and that is a good thing in many cases.

[impalanar]

The first article you posted doesn't do a good job of backing up specific claims that refutiate consequent findings after Carson's book was published. Eggshell thickness being the one I was looking at.

Whether banning DDT was the right thing or not, her book did have some good outcomes. It did raise environmental awareness and that is a good thing in many cases.

The end justifies the means?

[winmutt]

The end justifies the means?

Her book was not entirely discredited. DDT did have a negative effect on the environment.

[Phatmax]

Her book was not entirely discredited. DDT did have a negative effect on the environment.

3000 people die per day from Malaria. Mostly children in Africa.

There is no real proof of ANY environmental damage.

[winmutt]

3000 people die per day from Malaria. Mostly children in Africa.

There is no real proof of ANY environmental damage.

There is scientific proof that eggshell thinness and subsequent effect on breeding particularly that of raptors (falcons, eagles etc.) and nobody is questioning that as far as I know. Was silent spring overhyped by the media? Remind me of global warming? Yes. Doesn't mean that either didn't uncover real issues.

[BUD]

3000 people die per day from Malaria. Mostly children in Africa.

There is no real proof of ANY environmental damage.Don't you know that any negative impact on humans has to be absorbed? The environment is all that matters.

[winmutt]

Don't you know that any negative impact on humans has to be absorbed? The environment is all that matters.

I have to wonder if preventing children from dying is thwarting Darwinism or reinforcing it.

[Phatmax]

There is scientific proof that eggshell thinness and subsequent effect on breeding particularly that of raptors (falcons, eagles etc.) and nobody is questioning that as far as I know. Was silent spring overhyped by the media? Remind me of global warming? Yes. Doesn't mean that either didn't uncover real issues.

Yet again, this was actually DISPROVEN (the thinning) as the studies conducted where manipulated in the lab. The birds laying the eggs were intentionally malnourished and were underfed their usually diet of calcium:

Myths and Facts about DDT
Donald E. Waite, DO, MPH.
Dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane was first introduced for commercial use in the United States in
1947. It was the most effective of all of the synthetic insecticides, and the least costly to produce. As
mentioned previously, it was widely used during World War II to control lice, and thus typhus, by
dusting humans with a ten percent powder. It is poorly absorbed from the skin (unless formulated in
petroleum distillates). In spite of many studies no evidence has emerged to date that any harmful
effects resulted from this application to people. On the other hand our troops were spared the disease
and pestilence that could reasonably have been expected. In Naples, Italy in January 1944, during a
typhus epidemic, over one million civilians were dusted with ten percent DDT, and the incidence of
the disease fell sharply. Subsequently thousands of troops and refugees were dusted to protect against
typhus and other diseases. The results were dramatic, preventing any outbreak of typhus in these
populations. In contrast thousands of cases of typhus occurred among soldiers in other theaters of the
war and among persons in prison camps. Millions of people had been victims of typhus in previous
wars.
There is no evidence of any fatal poisoning, or other adverse reaction, in humans from DDT in
spite of such widespread and intimate application. In fact all recorded attempts at suicide where DDT
was used failed. 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.1
Virtually everyone who lived in that era, and indeed since, has demonstrable residues of DDT in
the body fat tissues. Elimination from these stores is slow. The biologic half-life of DDT in cattle is
335 days. During the 1960s when DDT was widely used, levels of 5 ppm were found in human fat
tissue. By the late 1960s, after the reduction in the application of DDT and the eventual ban, these
levels were down to 2 ppm. By 1982 only trace levels were found in human adipose tissue.2
In spite of this evidence of widespread exposure and long-term storage, no adverse health effects
have ever evolved. DDT was reported to cause liver tumors in laboratory animals (rats and mice) as
early as 1947. Then a nationwide hysteria followed the publication of Rachel Carson's book, Silent
Spring in 1962, in which she labeled DDT a dangerous chemical that might be causing cancer in
humans. Experience and scientific studies have proven her wrong. Carson, who was a vegetarian,
blamed DDT for her own breast cancer. She was wrong again. Carson resorted to the distortion of
facts in her book in a campaign to condemn DDT.3
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 Extensive use of this
pesticide worldwide ever since that time has failed to demonstrate any significant adverse effects in
humans. DDT remains the safest and most effective pesticide ever developed.
Fish are very sensitive to the toxicity of DDT, as they are to most chemicals including soaps and
detergents, and to temperature and pH. People who have tropical fish tanks are well aware of this
sensitivity. Behavioral changes were among the most obvious evidence of accumulation of DDT in
fish. Widespread publicity was given to claims in the 1960s that the survival of certain species of wild
birds was threatened through the thinning of their eggshells. This was blamed on DDT. In reality, bird
populations increased significantly after DDT was introduced.5 It was later learned that studies that
were done to prove eggshell thinning were fraudulent. The study birds were deliberately malnourished
and calcium was withheld, conditions known to produce eggshell thinning.When Bitman repeated this experiment (Nature 1969, 224:44; Science in 1970; and Poultry
Science 1971, 50:657-659) with appropriate calcium in the bird's diet there was no thinning of
eggshells. Subsequent studies have also suggested that other industrial chemicals such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have been widely used in electrical transformers, may have
played a part in the observed eggshell thinning.6 Furthermore the bald eagle had been on the verge of
extinction in the 1920s long before DDT. Eagles were shot for bounties and for their feathers. An
epidemic of Newcastle Disease (avian influenza) during this period also decimated some bird
populations.
DDT, as well as chlordane, PCBs and PBBs, are all stored in the fatty tissues of fish and most
animals including humans. The environmental zealots claimed that the higher up the food chain that
these stores of chemicals were consumed, the greater would become the concentration stored in fat.
They again turned to fraudulent studies to prove their claims, selecting only tissue samples that they
knew would produce the desired result. In reality honest studies disproved their biomagnification
claims.
On June 14, 1972 William Ruckelhaus, Administrator of the EPA, as a result of political pressure
from environmental extremists, made a one man decision to ban the use of DDT in United States, a
move that was illegal. He took this action ignoring 8,300 pages of testimony and the findings of the
hearing examiner and most scientists and in the absence of any honest substantiating science. He
subsequently refused to comply with requests made under the Freedom of Information Act and defied
the National Environmental Policy Act by refusing to file an Environmental Impact Statement on the
disastrous consequences of his decision. After he left the EPA Ruckelhaus affixed his name to letters
soliciting membership in the Environmental Defense Fund, the organization that led the fight to ban
DDT.7
The pesticides that replaced DDT, such as dieldrin and aldrin, are far more toxic, and have been
responsible for many deaths. Because of the low cost of DDT and the absence of equally effective
substitutes with low toxicity, it continued to be used internationally. When huts were sprayed with
DDT only 3 percent as many mosquitoes entered as compared with the most widely used alternative.8
This effectiveness lasted for six months or more, a feature not matched by alternative pesticides that
cost three times as much.
Great pressure has been exerted on those countries to discontinue its use. In some countries such as
Sri Lanka, spraying programs that had virtually eliminated malaria were terminated. As a consequence
the number of cases of malaria in that country rose to 2.5 million in 1968 and 1969.9 More than
100,000 people died as a result of malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s
after house spraying with DDT was stopped. Since the early 1970s the UN and the WHO have
blackmailed developing countries, through the withholding of financial aid, to force them to
discontinue the use of DDT. The result has been an upsurge in the number of cases of malaria. The
South African government has reported that the annual number of deaths from malaria there have risen
from 20,000 to 350,000 since the ban on DDT. Malaria currently kills about two million people each
year, and the number is rising.
DDT was used in Ethiopia in 1991 to control a major epidemic of louse-borne relapsing fever
among the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in refugee camps.10 As had been the case in World War
II, it was highly effective in controlling the human body louse that transmits the Borrelia recurrentis of
relapsing fever. Millions of lives have been saved by the control of mosquitoes, flies and lice that
transmit such diseases as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, filariasis and plague. Many residents of
West Africa were spared the ravages of river blindness (onchocerciasis) when DDT killed the insect
vector (black fly) carrying the filaria for this disease. All of this progress is now threatened by UN
politicians who are either totally ignorant of the facts or dedicated to population reduction.
________________________
This article is extracted from Donald E. Waite, Environmental Health Hazards: Recognition and
Avoidance, Chapter XIV, “Hazards of Pesticides and Herbicides,” Columbus, OH: Environmental
Health Consultants, 2002. Dr. Waite is emeritus professor of public health at Michigan State
University, a consultant on environmental and public health, author of Your Environment, Your Health
and You, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on chemicals, health and the environment.
Reprinted with permission of the author.
REFERENCES
1 Arch Environmental Health, 15:766-775 (1967).
2 Klassen CD, Amdur MO, Doull JD. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, Columbus,
OH (1996).
3 Rachel Carson quoted Albert Schweitzer as saying, “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will
end by destroying the earth.” Carson made it appear that he was referring to pesticides, and DDT in particular.
She knew that he was referring to nuclear weapons and atomic warfare. In fact, in his autobiography he wrote
“How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause us ... but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is
now held out to us.” (p. 262)
4 Austin H, Keil JE, Cole P. A prospective follow-up study of cancer mortality in relation to serum DDT.
American Journal of Public Health, 79(1):43 (1989). See also Key T, Reeves G. Organochlorines in the
environment and breast cancer. British Medical Journal, 308:1520-1521 (1994).
5 Bird counts in 1960 (after DDT) vs. 1941 yielded 12 times more robins, 21 times more cowbirds, 38 times
more blackbirds and 131 times more grackles. Diseases of birds carried by mosquitos were eliminated, and food
supply and protective cover were increased by DDT.
6 Edwards, JG. “DDT effects on bird abundance and reproduction,” in Lehr JH (ed) Rational Readings on
Environmental Concerns. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 195-216 (1992).
7 Lee Ray D, Guzzo L., Trashing the Planet. Regnery Gateway, Washington, DC (1990).
8 Research by Dr. Don Roberts, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences.
9 Green, MB, Pesticides: Boon or Bane? Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1976.
10 Sundnes K, Haimanot A., “Epidemic of louse-borne relapsing fever in Ethiopia,” The Lancet, 342:1213-1215
(1993).

[impalanar]

There is scientific proof that eggshell thinness and subsequent effect on breeding particularly that of raptors (falcons, eagles etc.) and nobody is questioning that as far as I know. Was silent spring overhyped by the media? Remind me of global warming? Yes. Doesn't mean that either didn't uncover real issues.

And just because I am paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me.

[02ep3]

You DO understnad that ANY tax on corporations gets passed on to the consumer? Look up just how much Cap and Trade will actually cost "corporations" and realize that "cost" is actually going to be reflected in their product sales price.

That means in a any economy, consumer goods will increase in price. We have an economy that is in a very strong down cycle

With more unemployed every day, increases in taxation for healthcare, and then higher costs of goods, people will be forced to buy less, and companies will be forced to downsize, or stop producing as much, or simply close. This will add MORE people to the unemployment lines or shrunken paychecks.

Theory is great, but it DOES NOT WORK in the real world.

You should actually pay attention. GDP has been growing the last two quarters. The Dow just had it's best quarter since 1999 and has been on a strong bull trend for the past year. Unemployment, though high, is stabalizing. Strong down cycle, eh? I'll ask you DO you understand ANY metrics on how to measure the economy?

Cap and trade will have a price impact. That's the point. The market cannot effectively price the cost of carbon. It will unleash the power of the marketplace to acheive the goal of limiting carbon emissions. ACTUAL EVIDENCE: WE HAVE HAD CAP AND TRADE ON NOx and SOx for some time. It has actually worked, do you hear much about acid rain anymore? Did it destroy our economy?

[Phatmax]

You should actually pay attention. GDP has been growing the last two quarters. The Dow just had it's best quarter since 1999 and has been on a strong bull trend for the past year. Unemployment, though high, is stabalizing. Strong down cycle, eh? I'll ask you DO you understand ANY metrics on how to measure the economy?

Cap and trade will have a price impact. That's the point. The market cannot effectively price the cost of carbon. It will unleash the power of the marketplace to acheive the goal of limiting carbon emissions. ACTUAL EVIDENCE: WE HAVE HAD CAP AND TRADE ON NOx and SOx for some time. It has actually worked, do you hear much about acid rain anymore? Did it destroy our economy?

Honestly, you believe WAY too much of what you are fed, to the point that discussing issues with you is pointless. I don't know what industry you work in, but I work in commercial construction. The REAL economy is down. The MSNBC/Obama economy is doing great.

Believe what you want. CO2 is NOT a poison, problem, however the emissions of CO2 dwarf that of NOx and SOx. Just go google "financial impact of Cap and Trade" Read what you want, but I am sure you will only believe the ones that say it will be roses.

[wallypiper]

Wow. Well, preventing anybody from dying due to disease is "thwarting Darwinism", especially a naturally occurring disease like malaria. Of course, using pesticides to increase crop yields by a few thousand percent is probably thwarting it too as is feeding all those people that would otherwise starve. Darn it. It is a tangled web, this life thing. The earth, and it's ecosystem and it's climate and even it's geology are like huge balloons filled with jello. You push in here and somewhere, maybe everywhere, there's a bulge.

You know that enhanced geothermal energy plants cause earthquakes? No BS. from Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/does-geothermal-power-cause-earthquakes)

[winmutt]

Yet again, this was actually DISPROVEN (the thinning) as the studies conducted where manipulated in the lab.
Your looking at the wrong tests....
http://reason.com/archives/2004/01/07/ddt-eggshells-and-me


Kestrels, commonly called sparrow hawks, are small falcons. Lincer noted that the "inverse correlation between DDE in North American raptor eggs and eggshell thickness is clear but does not prove a causal relationship since other chemicals or factors could be involved." So to find out what effect DDE might have, Lincer fed captive kestrels a DDE-laced diet and then compared their eggs with those taken from the nests of wild kestrels. Lincer found that dietary levels of three, six, and 10 parts per million (ppm) of DDE resulted in eggshells that were 14 percent, 17.4 percent, and 21.7 percent thinner respectively. "Despite the recent controversy, there can be little doubt now as to the causal relationship between the global contaminant DDE and the observed eggshell thinning and the consequent population declines in several birds of prey," concluded Lincer. As best as I can tell, he's right.

Find me someone disproving or even questioning Lincer.

[winmutt]

Wow. Well, preventing anybody from dying due to disease is "thwarting Darwinism", especially a naturally occurring disease like malaria.

But does it? Or is the development and use of DDT just part of the whole strongest survive routine? That is a decent philosophical debate.

[winmutt]

And just because I am paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get me.

Send me $10 and I will take you off my hit list.

[impalanar]

Send me $10 and I will take you off my hit list.

I do not negotiate with terrorists.

[winmutt]

I do not negotiate with terrorists.

Who's a terrorist? I'm just an opportunist. Seriously you haven't heard that joke before?

[impalanar]

Who's a terrorist? I'm just an opportunist. Seriously you haven't heard that joke before?

Speaking of jokes...

[Hammerhead]

Mark Levin's take on it...

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xcscj0_mark-levin-explains-obama-oil-decep_news"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xcscj0_mark-levin-explains-obama-oil-decep_news" width="480" height="360" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcscj0_mark-levin-explains-obama-oil-decep_news">Mark Levin explains Obama oil deception</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/therightscoop">therightscoop</a>. - <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/us/channel/news">Watch the latest news videos.</a></i>

[wallypiper]

Good stuff.

[Butthead]

i like mark, but i think he is jacking my material. :D


Mark Levin's take on it...

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xcscj0_mark-levin-explains-obama-oil-decep_news"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/video/xcscj0_mark-levin-explains-obama-oil-decep_news" width="480" height="360" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcscj0_mark-levin-explains-obama-oil-decep_news">Mark Levin explains Obama oil deception</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/therightscoop">therightscoop</a>. - <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/us/channel/news">Watch the latest news videos.</a></i>

[G_MAN]

fine, but you will agree that greater supply over time will reduce price, right?

Butthead under normal circumstances with normal goods this is true "99.9%" of the time, but we have seen that OIL writes it's own rules. In those threads Megadeath referenced earlier I know I posted numerous links to the supply vs demand numbers for US oil and our prices never came down. We don't have to rehash all the quirks that were discussed that seemingly "allowed" for this defiance of supply vs demand rules, but it was clear that OIL is it's own BEAST.

For the record I'm all for opening up our shores for drilling, let the states that have oil reserves of their coasts decide whether or not to drill. The only thing I would say should be mandated is that oil produced on public land HAS to be sold in the USA.

[winmutt]

For the record I'm all for opening up our shores for drilling, let the states that have oil reserves of their coasts decide whether or not to drill. The only thing I would say should be mandated is that oil produced on public land HAS to be sold in the USA.
+1 but I want to see more investment in alternative energy. The market is going to be way to slow to meet the demands of a future without oil. They will keep stalling and creating half assed solutions until it is too late.

[Phatmax]

+1 but I want to see more investment in alternative energy. The market is going to be way to slow to meet the demands of a future without oil. They will keep stalling and creating half assed solutions until it is too late.

I think this is fine. In fact, I have no problem with electric cars, etc. I have a major problem with people who want to ram electric cars down our throats, with no increase in generating resources. The only way to get 100 million electric cars on the road is to build nuke plants and get honest "rapid filling" batteries and stations or "outlets" to provide it. And the fact that 50% of electricity is generated by coal, which is certainly worse then a modern car's exhaust gases.

As it is our ability to provide for the electrical need is stretched thin.

Imagine you home electrical bill if the demand on electricity quadrupled nationally.

But "nuke is bad" in the eyes of many, and they think that windmills and fairy dust will be a good steady source of energy for a country that is growing.

[winmutt]

I don't think electricity is the answer either. I do think a better mass transit system is the place to start.

[Phatmax]

I don't think electricity is the answer either. I do think a better mass transit system is the place to start.

This is a very good idea on the surface, but the costs to cover enough geography to make "mass transit" worthwhile would be in the trillions. The US is simply far too large and spread out. Unless you are willing to force people to live in geographically smaller areas and force their employers into a simliar "zone", it is not feasible or even remotely profitable. I think it is only part of the Japanese transit system that actually operates without taxpayer subsidies. Every other mass transit system world-wide needs taxpayer money to support it.

When you start looking and comparing cities such as Atlanta to London or Paris or NYC, the population density, and physical size is tremendously different.

In a perfect world, mass transit is a great idea, however in practice in this world, it simply does not work as efficiently as theory promotes.

Here is a decent preview of what highspeed rail costs. IN the UK a 335 mile highspeed rail line is being proposed and the cost is ESTIMATED (meaning the real cost is higher) at 30 Billion Pounds..... or $45,668,316,822.54

That is 136 MILLION USD per mile. 335 miles doesn't even get you to Orlando from here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257042/30billion-high-speed-rail-plans-unveiled-Lord-Adonis.html

And then if you talk about rail and buses around a Metro area such Atlanta, every mile of radius from the center is an exponential increase in area that needs to be covered with bus routes or rail.

Take my subdivision, for example. A couple hundred houses, and say each has two workers in it. So you have 400 people that get up every morning and go to their individual workplaces around the city. Some people work within a few miles, some people work 50 miles away. Some people don't work at the same place every day. Supplying them with a mass transit ride would be nearly impossible. Considering that 3.5 to 4 million people live outside of the city proper and the city proper is losing money on MARTA, with as small a system as it is... it is just not feasible.

America is not a place that mass transit is possible.

ETA: Oh and the fuel, labor, raw materials, land used, etc. used to construct enough mass transit to get cars off the road would probably total enough to develop an alternative fueled road vehicle and allow people the indepenence they are used to and simply pave a few more roadways along existing right of ways.

[steve c]

Oil is at $87. Gooooo USO. At $42 a share its easy to become an evil speculator in the global oil market.
Come on in guys, the water is warm.
Help Uncle Steve retire early :) :) :)

H8rs, communists, socialist, and able-bodied people receiving money from the federal govenment...:nanananana::

- Steve

[winmutt]

This is a very good idea on the surface, but the costs to cover enough geography to make "mass transit" worthwhile would be in the trillions.

Your basing too much on existing technology which are nothing more than bandaid fixes for the real issue. We need new technology which we won't get without research and development. I am talking about reinventing the wheel. Mass transit does not necessarily remove the "car" from the equation.

What do we do when the oil runs out? How many soldiers have to die to get there? How long will we be at war with China? How many billions will die from nuclear holocaust? Don't think it's going to happen? Think again. We aren't prepared for it and nobody is doing anything to prepare us for it. On top of it all we are killing our selves and polluting the air we breathe. China is the largest auto market in the world and is only going to grow and grow as more of the population becomes middle class.

More oil is a great answer for now, I am thinking long term. China is going to Mars in 2050, we're going sitting here still arguing about SS and healthcare by then.

[impalanar]

More oil is a great answer for now, I am thinking long term. China is going to Mars in 2050, we're going sitting here still arguing about SS and healthcare by then.

You are wrong, SS will not be around in 2050.

[winmutt]

You are wrong, SS will not be around in 2050.
You're just assuming they don't start taking alot more, now. I think my point was made though. We just don't have the wearwithal to plan that far ahead. Historically, wars and military have given us the greatest technological advances. EG, the government has been responsible for most of our R&D. Unfortunately it has been a while since war or the military have given us anything noteworthy. It is a major concern for me since I see that space should be giving us more technology but we are not putting anything into it.

[Phatmax]

You're just assuming they don't start taking alot more, now. I think my point was made though. We just don't have the wearwithal to plan that far ahead. Historically, wars and military have given us the greatest technological advances. EG, the government has been responsible for most of our R&D. Unfortunately it has been a while since war or the military have given us anything noteworthy. It is a major concern for me since I see that space should be giving us more technology but we are not putting anything into it.

This I agree with, space exploration is extremely important for our growth technologically and our growth as a civilization. I am not pleased that we can spend trillions for bailouts, social welfare, social medicine, etc. which do nothing to boost innovation.... and then kill Constellation, lunar exploration, Martian exploration, etc. which, amazingly enough would CREATE jobs and create spinoff tech that would create more jobs.

I must say that the current administration's stance on space is counter-productive.

[winmutt]

Its a small world after all!