The dictionary defines methodology as “a
set or system of methods, principles, and rules for regulating a given
discipline, as in the arts or sciences.” In short, a methodology is
whatever someone says it is. Let's take a look at this.
This is the first day of 2010 and I watched a show dealing with the mortgage crisis and CDO’s. CDO’s are similar to “a regular mutual fund that buys bonds. However, unlike a mutual fund, most of the securities sold from a CDO are themselves bonds, rather than shares. In simplest terms, a CDO is an arrangement that raises money primarily by issuing its own bonds and then invests the proceeds in a portfolio of bonds, loans, or similar assets. Payments on the portfolio are the main source of funds for repaying the CDO's own securities. CDOs have become a notable feature of the financial landscape.” (Nomura Fixed Income Research)
INVESTOPEDIA outlines the CDO mortgage market in this manner. Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) are a type of structured credit product in the world of asset-backed securities. The purpose of these products is to create tiered cash flows from mortgages and other debt obligations that ultimately make the entire cost of lending cheaper for the aggregate economy. This happens when the original money lenders give out loans based on less stringent loan requirements. The idea is that if they can break up the pool of debt repayments into streams of investments with different cash flows, there will be a larger group of investors who will be willing to buy in. (For more on why mortgages are sold this way, see Behind The Scenes Of Your Mortgage and Why Are Mortgage Rates Increasing?)
These loans would move from a “mortgage originator” to a “mortgage investor”. “Smaller mortgage originators will often sell their mortgages to large scale originators or aggregators, which pool mortgages together and securitize them into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or as private-label securities.” The idea was to make sure that you could create a Triple A rating for that bundle of mortgages. Once they got a Triple A rating they would then sell them all over the world; usually to investors with large amounts of capital but very little understanding of what they were buying. However, this lack of understanding wasn’t exclusive to unsophisticated buyers. Alan Greenspan himself stated in the show that he didn’t understand the complexities of the CDO mortgage market either, and that he just didn’t understand the numbers. The greed involved permeated all levels of the financial world. Although many knew that this couldn’t go on and some made an effort to make this clear to some of the biggest players in the field they continued to cling to the idea that the mortgage market would appreciate six to eight percentage points every year to infinity. Clearly that was insane.
Alan Greenspan was asked; why didn’t they just get out. He claimed that they knew the dangers but thought they were smart enough to get out when it was the right time. Baloney! Greenspan, the moderator and all the people interviewed left out the reason they didn’t get out. They couldn’t. Once they bought into the Community Reinvestment Act (see the subprime pest control link at the end) it became a Catch 22 situation; in for a dime in for a dollar, and in forever.
Since they were in so deep and in forever they refused to see anything else except the potential profits for today. The government forced them into this situation and the government was going to back them through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so they went after the short term rewards without any concern for the long term consequences; after all, they were making tons of money and they had no choice. When you dance with the Devil you won’t call the tune, you won’t choose the dance, you won’t lead, you can’t change partners and you may not be allowed to leave the dance.
What does this have to pest control? While interviewing one of the people who created these Triple A ratings for these mortgage bundles she said she had to get out. She claimed that she obeyed to letter of the law, but ignored to sprit of the law in order to make these bundles Triple A. The company she worked for claimed that these ratings were sound and, among other things, were the result of “rigorous methodologies”.
I keep hearing about the “methodologies” of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Green Pest Management (GPM) and I wonder…..what methodologies? There is no such thing. We will inspect a property, recommend a treatment program and then perform the service. That’s it! You can flower it up with a ton of written claptrap…but that is it.
When I hear someone touting “methodologies” I immediately have the desire to check to see if this is a subtitle to the movie The Sting; because someone is trying to feed everyone else a load of horsepucky. Triple A rated horsepucky to promote and sell subprime pest control to an unsuspecting public. What's worse is that many of the "experts" in our industry have bought into it. Is there any difference between our "experts" and the "experts" who completely failed in their responsibilities from the lending institutions? Yes...there is. They have higher IQ's. I know, I know...... that's a logical fallacy....I'll bet it's true though.
This is the first day of 2010 and I watched a show dealing with the mortgage crisis and CDO’s. CDO’s are similar to “a regular mutual fund that buys bonds. However, unlike a mutual fund, most of the securities sold from a CDO are themselves bonds, rather than shares. In simplest terms, a CDO is an arrangement that raises money primarily by issuing its own bonds and then invests the proceeds in a portfolio of bonds, loans, or similar assets. Payments on the portfolio are the main source of funds for repaying the CDO's own securities. CDOs have become a notable feature of the financial landscape.” (Nomura Fixed Income Research)
INVESTOPEDIA outlines the CDO mortgage market in this manner. Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) are a type of structured credit product in the world of asset-backed securities. The purpose of these products is to create tiered cash flows from mortgages and other debt obligations that ultimately make the entire cost of lending cheaper for the aggregate economy. This happens when the original money lenders give out loans based on less stringent loan requirements. The idea is that if they can break up the pool of debt repayments into streams of investments with different cash flows, there will be a larger group of investors who will be willing to buy in. (For more on why mortgages are sold this way, see Behind The Scenes Of Your Mortgage and Why Are Mortgage Rates Increasing?)
These loans would move from a “mortgage originator” to a “mortgage investor”. “Smaller mortgage originators will often sell their mortgages to large scale originators or aggregators, which pool mortgages together and securitize them into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or as private-label securities.” The idea was to make sure that you could create a Triple A rating for that bundle of mortgages. Once they got a Triple A rating they would then sell them all over the world; usually to investors with large amounts of capital but very little understanding of what they were buying. However, this lack of understanding wasn’t exclusive to unsophisticated buyers. Alan Greenspan himself stated in the show that he didn’t understand the complexities of the CDO mortgage market either, and that he just didn’t understand the numbers. The greed involved permeated all levels of the financial world. Although many knew that this couldn’t go on and some made an effort to make this clear to some of the biggest players in the field they continued to cling to the idea that the mortgage market would appreciate six to eight percentage points every year to infinity. Clearly that was insane.
Alan Greenspan was asked; why didn’t they just get out. He claimed that they knew the dangers but thought they were smart enough to get out when it was the right time. Baloney! Greenspan, the moderator and all the people interviewed left out the reason they didn’t get out. They couldn’t. Once they bought into the Community Reinvestment Act (see the subprime pest control link at the end) it became a Catch 22 situation; in for a dime in for a dollar, and in forever.
Since they were in so deep and in forever they refused to see anything else except the potential profits for today. The government forced them into this situation and the government was going to back them through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so they went after the short term rewards without any concern for the long term consequences; after all, they were making tons of money and they had no choice. When you dance with the Devil you won’t call the tune, you won’t choose the dance, you won’t lead, you can’t change partners and you may not be allowed to leave the dance.
What does this have to pest control? While interviewing one of the people who created these Triple A ratings for these mortgage bundles she said she had to get out. She claimed that she obeyed to letter of the law, but ignored to sprit of the law in order to make these bundles Triple A. The company she worked for claimed that these ratings were sound and, among other things, were the result of “rigorous methodologies”.
I keep hearing about the “methodologies” of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Green Pest Management (GPM) and I wonder…..what methodologies? There is no such thing. We will inspect a property, recommend a treatment program and then perform the service. That’s it! You can flower it up with a ton of written claptrap…but that is it.
When I hear someone touting “methodologies” I immediately have the desire to check to see if this is a subtitle to the movie The Sting; because someone is trying to feed everyone else a load of horsepucky. Triple A rated horsepucky to promote and sell subprime pest control to an unsuspecting public. What's worse is that many of the "experts" in our industry have bought into it. Is there any difference between our "experts" and the "experts" who completely failed in their responsibilities from the lending institutions? Yes...there is. They have higher IQ's. I know, I know...... that's a logical fallacy....I'll bet it's true though.
Rich Kozlovich Monday,
April 12, 2010
I published this some time back, but I think that it is worth publishing once again with some updates. RK
When you start to look at these “studies” touted by the activists you find that there is one common thread. They are full of weasel words and phrases. This gives them a great deal of wiggle room because they never come out and definitively state that things are factual….they are always ‘maybes’, and always scary ‘maybes’. Did it ever occur to anyone that these “Weasel-words and Phrases” are perhaps just somebody’s unfounded printed accusation, or perhaps some professional’s words for guessing? When this stuff makes it into print, they never give the impression that this may be not only a minority opinion, but may be viewed as …..well……whacky……by the rest of the scientific community.
Anthropogenic Global Warming was one such idea that was considered laughable; at least until the government started feeding huge amounts of grant money into studying it and then it became “science”. Especially since only those who promoted it got the money. All the “science” has turned out to be wrong or fraudulent; but what has that to do with grant money? After all, truth is no longer the Holy Grail of science…..The Holy Grail of science is now grant money.
I published this some time back, but I think that it is worth publishing once again with some updates. RK
When you start to look at these “studies” touted by the activists you find that there is one common thread. They are full of weasel words and phrases. This gives them a great deal of wiggle room because they never come out and definitively state that things are factual….they are always ‘maybes’, and always scary ‘maybes’. Did it ever occur to anyone that these “Weasel-words and Phrases” are perhaps just somebody’s unfounded printed accusation, or perhaps some professional’s words for guessing? When this stuff makes it into print, they never give the impression that this may be not only a minority opinion, but may be viewed as …..well……whacky……by the rest of the scientific community.
Anthropogenic Global Warming was one such idea that was considered laughable; at least until the government started feeding huge amounts of grant money into studying it and then it became “science”. Especially since only those who promoted it got the money. All the “science” has turned out to be wrong or fraudulent; but what has that to do with grant money? After all, truth is no longer the Holy Grail of science…..The Holy Grail of science is now grant money.
I have been keeping an updated running list of Weasel-Words and Phrases. You might find them amusing…..You will also notice that these phrases appear in all these “studies” that make outrageous claims against chemicals.
1. Might cause
2. Studies suggest
3. Could cause
4. The long term effects are unknown
5. Linked
6. Voiced concerns about
7. Expressed some concern
8. Experts fear
9. Warning that the chemical could be causing neurological and behavior effects in unborn babies and young children
10. Negligible concern is still expressed
11. Minimal concerns
12. Still leaves doubts
13. Warning of a great cause for concern
14. Some scientists were critical
15. Researchers hypothesize
16. Suspected hormonal imbalance
17. Many scientists say
18. Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious
19. Data is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says we have a problem
20. But government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved and lack of evidence from other studies.
21. May make women more likely to
22. We've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations
23. Probably to blame
24. Ecologists are worried that
25. It has been found through laboratory analysis that (X) substance is present in
26. While further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that
27. While voicing caution on the link to (X), concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, (X) could hurt the environment.
28. Have the potential to significantly promote
This one is my favorite
29. The simple truth is that the way we allow chemicals to be used in society today means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people
30. Factors suggest
31. In sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Human impacts beyond isolated cases are already demonstrable. They involve impairments to reproduction, alterations in behavior, diminishment of intellectual capacity, and erosion in the ability to resist disease. (This turned out to be a lie)
32. Mounting evidence" that these chemicals "may trigger hormonal changes."
33. There is a serious connection to….
34. “scientists are still unsure of the long-term neurotoxicity of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, particularly among children and those susceptible to allergies.”
35. contrary to the overwhelming impression conveyed by scientists and politicians.
36. When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution.
37. "Is'' becomes "may be;'' "proves'' becomes "validates;''
I guess that the
100 to 300 million dollars (and that number keeps going up) spent by chemical
companies to meet the required testing by EPA in order to introduce a pesticide
into the environment is meaningless. Then again....perhaps I am being too
concerned about that which is factual, truthful and provable. Oh...wait! It
just dawned on me. Perhaps I can get in on this 'grant money express'. Let's
give this a try......
There
is something in the environment that might cause something because scientists
state that studies suggest something could cause long term effects which are
unknown due to possible links to some unknown substances that some have
expressed or voiced some concerns over. Experts are issuing this warning for
fear that this something could be causing some effects in unborn babies and
young children. Although negligible or minimal concern is still expressed,
studies still leave doubts; therefore questions remain.
Some
scientists were critical and felt a warning of a great cause for concern should
be issued because researchers hypothesize that something may cause a suspected,
or even an unsuspected something. Many other scientists are quoted as saying
that; “Still, some environmental substances remain suspicious although the data
is yet inadequate to make a judgment, however the weight of the evidence says
we have a problem with something.Although government scientists cautioned that their finding is highly preliminary because of the small number of women and children involved, and lack of evidence from other studies. It is possible that this should make women more likely to be concerned because we've used a new research technology to generate hypotheses and possible associations which suggest something is probably to blame.
Other scientists say that ecologists are worried that it has been found through laboratory analysis that some substance is present in something and while further study is needed to understand the impact, it is unlikely (or likely) that something could have the potential to significantly promote something. While voicing caution on the link to something, concerns were echoed widespread that, if left unregulated, something could hurt the environment.
The simple truth is that the factors suggest that if we allow something to be used in society today, it means we are performing a vast experiment, not in the lab, but in the real world, not just on wildlife but on people; in sum, however, the weight of the evidence says we have a problem. Furthermore, due to the growing body of assertions; there is mounting evidence that something may trigger something.
What do you think? Do you think I could ask for a grant of $150,000,000 to get started to study “something”? It sounds reasonable to me.
Rich Kozlovich Tuesday, April 27, 2010
This is an article inspired by an article by Alan Caruba. Some of the phrases are lifted directly from that article.
This is an article inspired by an article by Alan Caruba. Some of the phrases are lifted directly from that article.
This is an article inspired by an article by Alan
Caruba. Some of the phrases are lifted directly from that article. Spring
is here and pest control is about the take off and there will be little time
for reflection as there is in the winter time. Actually, I love weekends with
really bad weather in the winter months. I can surf the web, read books, write
articles, research information that interests me, watch movies; and no one
bothers me. I love watching movies, especially the old movies. A friend of mine
wrote about this some time back, which made me think back to my youth and my
love for the old movies. I loved everything that was a part of the old movie
scene, especially the great old movie theaters that we had in Cleveland. Even
in the small town in which I grew up the theater was special. The stars were
special then too; John Wayne, Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, and the greatest
swashbuckler of them all….Errol Flynn.
The lights would dim and finally darken, creating that wonderful anticipation that comes when you know that the movie was about to start at last. Even the previews of coming attractions were great. At the end of the movie people actually applauded. I always thought that was a little stupid when I was a kid, after all…the actors couldn’t hear it….why bother? It’s funny, I still wouldn’t applaud today, and for the same reason, but I miss it.
Believe it or not, people actually applauded when the movies started and when they finished. And when the cartoons came on we kids actually cheered, and nothing could get a rise out of a bunch of kids quite as much as seeing Roy Rogers riding headlong into the screen atop Trigger followed by his friends chasing the bad guys. An uncle took me to one of those Saturday matinee Roy Rogers cowboy movies and swore that he would never make that mistake again. I always loved the movie, “They Died With Their Boots On”, with Errol Flynn. Talk about fantasy! That is so far afield from the truth about Custer that someone should have been slapped for it….and yet….I still love it!
Some of the old theaters were real palaces. Cleveland has a number of them that were slated for demolition. I am really pleased that they refurbished them instead. First, because they were magnificent like the Palace…and it really was then, and is now……a palace! And secondly because so much of what was great is torn down and replaced by buildings that are so forgettable, like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Somehow the words Rock and Roll and Hall of Fame shouldn’t be in the same sentence, but that is another story. Lastly, because they made me feel great when I was there, and I get those feelings every time I go back.
The men would wear suits and ties and the women wore dresses with hats, and matching gloves and purses and high heels. The children were dressed in their Sunday best, because going downtown to the movies was a big deal. It was a big deal and everyone acted that way.
They must have had revivals of older movies even back in the 1940’s, because in my mind’s eye I can still see the original Tarzan movies with Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O’Sullivan. They were originally made between 1932 and 1948. I was only 2 when Johnny Weissmuller made his last Tarzan movie. I must have been about five when I saw the original 1932 movie in a neighborhood theater and I never forgot the scene where the pigmies throw everyone down into the pit to be killed by a gorilla and is later shot full of arrows.
Hopalong Cassidy was my ultimate hero though. I was even called Hoppy by my childhood friends in those early years, at least until I moved to the farm. Those years were a large part of my wonder years. I lived in Cleveland and there were a lot of kids in the neighborhood. We were out and about all day every day. Even now, as I look back on those years, being as young as we were, I marvel at the immense freedom we had to wander up and down the streets, play baseball at the playground and best of all…the dump. There was always a potential treasure to be found in the dump. The world was very different then. I didn’t realize it then nor did I realize it for many years, but we were all very much like the “Little Rascals”, which cannot be shown any longer, so I doubt that younger people even know what I am talking about.
The world has changed. A lot! We don’t dare let the children roam to far too often because there are so many unsavory and violent people out there. We don’t dare leave our doors unlocked…even when we are home. In my youth people actually left their keys in their parked cars with the windows open while they shopped. Unbelievable today I know. Good manners were not affectations; they were expected. Please and thank you were expected, and most felt perfectly content to do so.
Then it all changed. Since I am almost 64 I must confess that I was a part of that change. They claim that the Baby Boomer Generation started in June of 1946. I was born in July of that year. I was the beginning of the Baby Boomers. I remember that I disgustedly thought that it was really stupid to applaud movies and I said so. The older members of the family gave me a disgusted look or just shrugged, as if to say….I shouldn’t have to explain this to you.
Although I did get dressed up for some occasions, I didn’t want to get dressed up to go anywhere, least of all the movies. A tee shirt, tennis shoes and blue jeans were good enough for me and if it wasn’t good enough for everyone else…well that was just tough! As if all of those goody-goody two shoes manners really mattered. After all……that was just being a phony. A cover up for how people really felt.
I didn’t realize it then, but all those “phony” manners and descent attire are an important part of what allows for civilized behavior.
What had happened? Everything changed! One of the reasons was that this was the first time in human history the young population became so large that the adult population couldn’t properly absorb them; and we created our own little sub-culture. After all; we teenagers knew that our 16 or so years experience in life was worth far more than the decades of experience in life of all the adults combined.
As this population trend continued this sub-culturing trend continued, and every few years we had another downward spiral of values, until the American culture was altered almost beyond recognition. Clearly beyond the recognition of America’s founding fathers. The most successful culture the world has ever known was now awash with irrational paradigms that are clearly destructive to all of humanity.
What has this to do with pest control you are probably asking? Everything! This irrationality extends into every facet of our business and personal lives. The Green Movement, which became the most irrational movement of them all, was born in this crucible and has now become one of the most corrupting dominant forces of thought and action in the world today.
Fortunately I grew up. I also cringe at many of the things that I said, things I did and laugh at things that I thought in my youth. I always wonder at these famous people who, on their death beds, claim that they “have no regrets”.Well…..I have a lot of regrets. I hope it is because I grew up enough to recognize my failings and made a determination to correct them and to avoid repeating them. Part of that process is being able to see that which is real versus that which is shadow over substance. If we are capable of seeing ourselves as we really are, then we will have a lot less difficulty in seeing the rest of the world as it really is.
Everything we are told in the newspapers and the electronic news media is a lie. These aren’t necessarily lies of commission, (although they are guilty of that also) they are mostly lies of omission. Even many of our history books can’t be called anything less than propaganda in order to promote some view or other. Read two different history books on the same subject from two different people for two different philosophical paradigms and you wonder if they are reporting about the same events. Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. Mostly we are lied to. Virtually everything we are told by the greenies is a lie. If you have a problem with that then get over it! Because those are the facts and we need to start recognizing the greenies for whom and what they are.
Recently I bought a CD of the original Broadway cast of Camelot and I still love it. I first saw the original traveling cast of the Broadway musical Camelot with Kathryn Grayson as Guinevere in 1962 at the Palace; and I walked out feeling just great. I loved Camelot and it is still my favorite Broadway production, and I think the greatest Broadway musical ever produced. I can still sing some of the songs…at least parts of them. I saw it again with, Robert Goulet as King Arthur this time. This was thirty years later, and I walked out feeling just as great as I did after and having seen the original traveling cast, although I knew it wasn’t anywhere near as big or as good a production as the original.
Being insatiably curious is its own reward and its own punishment. I know that nothing can ever be the same once we are grown. When we get old it really becomes clear that nothing was a good as we thought it was, and nothing else can ever be that great again. It wasn’t just the movies that I loved…it was the time, and it was a golden time. But Camelot really is a myth! Coming to that realization may take some of the pleasure out of life, but once we can accept that, it frees us from the shadow of illusion and allows us to see the light of reality.
This is the reward and this is the punishment.
The lights would dim and finally darken, creating that wonderful anticipation that comes when you know that the movie was about to start at last. Even the previews of coming attractions were great. At the end of the movie people actually applauded. I always thought that was a little stupid when I was a kid, after all…the actors couldn’t hear it….why bother? It’s funny, I still wouldn’t applaud today, and for the same reason, but I miss it.
Believe it or not, people actually applauded when the movies started and when they finished. And when the cartoons came on we kids actually cheered, and nothing could get a rise out of a bunch of kids quite as much as seeing Roy Rogers riding headlong into the screen atop Trigger followed by his friends chasing the bad guys. An uncle took me to one of those Saturday matinee Roy Rogers cowboy movies and swore that he would never make that mistake again. I always loved the movie, “They Died With Their Boots On”, with Errol Flynn. Talk about fantasy! That is so far afield from the truth about Custer that someone should have been slapped for it….and yet….I still love it!
Some of the old theaters were real palaces. Cleveland has a number of them that were slated for demolition. I am really pleased that they refurbished them instead. First, because they were magnificent like the Palace…and it really was then, and is now……a palace! And secondly because so much of what was great is torn down and replaced by buildings that are so forgettable, like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Somehow the words Rock and Roll and Hall of Fame shouldn’t be in the same sentence, but that is another story. Lastly, because they made me feel great when I was there, and I get those feelings every time I go back.
The men would wear suits and ties and the women wore dresses with hats, and matching gloves and purses and high heels. The children were dressed in their Sunday best, because going downtown to the movies was a big deal. It was a big deal and everyone acted that way.
They must have had revivals of older movies even back in the 1940’s, because in my mind’s eye I can still see the original Tarzan movies with Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O’Sullivan. They were originally made between 1932 and 1948. I was only 2 when Johnny Weissmuller made his last Tarzan movie. I must have been about five when I saw the original 1932 movie in a neighborhood theater and I never forgot the scene where the pigmies throw everyone down into the pit to be killed by a gorilla and is later shot full of arrows.
Hopalong Cassidy was my ultimate hero though. I was even called Hoppy by my childhood friends in those early years, at least until I moved to the farm. Those years were a large part of my wonder years. I lived in Cleveland and there were a lot of kids in the neighborhood. We were out and about all day every day. Even now, as I look back on those years, being as young as we were, I marvel at the immense freedom we had to wander up and down the streets, play baseball at the playground and best of all…the dump. There was always a potential treasure to be found in the dump. The world was very different then. I didn’t realize it then nor did I realize it for many years, but we were all very much like the “Little Rascals”, which cannot be shown any longer, so I doubt that younger people even know what I am talking about.
The world has changed. A lot! We don’t dare let the children roam to far too often because there are so many unsavory and violent people out there. We don’t dare leave our doors unlocked…even when we are home. In my youth people actually left their keys in their parked cars with the windows open while they shopped. Unbelievable today I know. Good manners were not affectations; they were expected. Please and thank you were expected, and most felt perfectly content to do so.
Then it all changed. Since I am almost 64 I must confess that I was a part of that change. They claim that the Baby Boomer Generation started in June of 1946. I was born in July of that year. I was the beginning of the Baby Boomers. I remember that I disgustedly thought that it was really stupid to applaud movies and I said so. The older members of the family gave me a disgusted look or just shrugged, as if to say….I shouldn’t have to explain this to you.
Although I did get dressed up for some occasions, I didn’t want to get dressed up to go anywhere, least of all the movies. A tee shirt, tennis shoes and blue jeans were good enough for me and if it wasn’t good enough for everyone else…well that was just tough! As if all of those goody-goody two shoes manners really mattered. After all……that was just being a phony. A cover up for how people really felt.
I didn’t realize it then, but all those “phony” manners and descent attire are an important part of what allows for civilized behavior.
What had happened? Everything changed! One of the reasons was that this was the first time in human history the young population became so large that the adult population couldn’t properly absorb them; and we created our own little sub-culture. After all; we teenagers knew that our 16 or so years experience in life was worth far more than the decades of experience in life of all the adults combined.
As this population trend continued this sub-culturing trend continued, and every few years we had another downward spiral of values, until the American culture was altered almost beyond recognition. Clearly beyond the recognition of America’s founding fathers. The most successful culture the world has ever known was now awash with irrational paradigms that are clearly destructive to all of humanity.
What has this to do with pest control you are probably asking? Everything! This irrationality extends into every facet of our business and personal lives. The Green Movement, which became the most irrational movement of them all, was born in this crucible and has now become one of the most corrupting dominant forces of thought and action in the world today.
Fortunately I grew up. I also cringe at many of the things that I said, things I did and laugh at things that I thought in my youth. I always wonder at these famous people who, on their death beds, claim that they “have no regrets”.Well…..I have a lot of regrets. I hope it is because I grew up enough to recognize my failings and made a determination to correct them and to avoid repeating them. Part of that process is being able to see that which is real versus that which is shadow over substance. If we are capable of seeing ourselves as we really are, then we will have a lot less difficulty in seeing the rest of the world as it really is.
Everything we are told in the newspapers and the electronic news media is a lie. These aren’t necessarily lies of commission, (although they are guilty of that also) they are mostly lies of omission. Even many of our history books can’t be called anything less than propaganda in order to promote some view or other. Read two different history books on the same subject from two different people for two different philosophical paradigms and you wonder if they are reporting about the same events. Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. Mostly we are lied to. Virtually everything we are told by the greenies is a lie. If you have a problem with that then get over it! Because those are the facts and we need to start recognizing the greenies for whom and what they are.
Recently I bought a CD of the original Broadway cast of Camelot and I still love it. I first saw the original traveling cast of the Broadway musical Camelot with Kathryn Grayson as Guinevere in 1962 at the Palace; and I walked out feeling just great. I loved Camelot and it is still my favorite Broadway production, and I think the greatest Broadway musical ever produced. I can still sing some of the songs…at least parts of them. I saw it again with, Robert Goulet as King Arthur this time. This was thirty years later, and I walked out feeling just as great as I did after and having seen the original traveling cast, although I knew it wasn’t anywhere near as big or as good a production as the original.
Being insatiably curious is its own reward and its own punishment. I know that nothing can ever be the same once we are grown. When we get old it really becomes clear that nothing was a good as we thought it was, and nothing else can ever be that great again. It wasn’t just the movies that I loved…it was the time, and it was a golden time. But Camelot really is a myth! Coming to that realization may take some of the pleasure out of life, but once we can accept that, it frees us from the shadow of illusion and allows us to see the light of reality.
This is the reward and this is the punishment.
Saturday,
May 8, 2010
Any moronic membrane can tell the world we don’t need
pesticides because being “natural” is sufficient for all of mankind’s needs. No
one will question their right or their sincerity while making these emotion
laden unscientific pronouncements. Why? Because we have all been indoctrinated
by what Bjorn Lomborg calls the “litany” of the environmental movement.
By contrast, anyone who supports the use of pesticides had better watch out. No matter how accurately the information is presented. No matter how much information showing how many lives pesticides save. No matter how wise, their observations are. No matter how intelligently and logically stated their pro-pesticide position might be; their integrity and veracity will be arrogantly challenged. They will labeled as paid lackeys of big business and their views dismissed with a snort and a smirk. Not with any real facts mind you. Most of what will be heard will be unfounded personal attacks and endless debates to divert attention away from the facts. This is often followed by outright lies and cited studies that never occurred or were discredited.
Its philosophy without consequence for all of these armchair philosophers who oppose the use of pesticides but aren’t responsible to provide the protections they afford. They simply don’t have to pay any penalty for being wrong.
What I would like to know is why the burden of proof doesn’t rest upon those who call for the end of pesticides instead of those that have successfully tested the products and are saving lives, property and foodstuffs by use of them? Can we not see the inherent danger of philosophy without form? This is a concept which promotes change for philosophical reasons or “change for change sake”. Doesn’t this compel us to demand that its advocates not just talk the talk, but also actually walk the talk?
When things go down the toilet do the advocates of a certain policy pay the price for being wrong, or are others left with the bill? While the unchallenged and unchallengeable academicians and irresponsible activists live comfortably in western countries expounding endless nonsense and making unscientific claims regarding the dangers of pesticides; who will ultimately suffer when they have their way? Is it the activists or is it the poor people who have to live with the consequences of their feel good philosophies?
People make demands and put burdens on others they would never be willing to carry themselves. Activists have never seen a burden so great they wouldn’t be willing to place on someone else’s back. They feel compelled to demand all sorts of unnecessary things from society and industry.
When will the anti-pesticide fanatics put their own necks on the line for their beliefs? When will they move to the countries they have turned into an environmentalist’s paradise? You know the kind of place I’m talking about. The ones where everyone has had a loved one die from some preventable disease or have had children starve to death because environmental policies prevent them from being able to grow enough food for their families. Of course when environmentalists make statements like “better dead than riotously breeding” you have the tendency to believe they have a “feel good philosophy that is not a do good philosophy.”
I propose that we create a program of “Direct Involvement for Activism”, which is an excellent check of the sincerity and integrity of environmental activists. They can now have the joy of seeing their handy work up close and personal. This is their opportunity to step up where others have truly failed. This is a great opportunity for them to prove their integrity.
Stop crying wolf to the press and go to the paradise you have created. They then can be responsible for the health and welfare of thousands, or maybe millions of people. Step away from the rest. This truly is the chance to be different than those other wimpy protesters. Take on those responsibilities. They can now prove that they are as truly special as they think. They can go to these countries and take their children with them to show how sincere they truly are. Feel good about themselves for more than just a PhD.
Instead of just talking about what we are all doing wrong, they need to be different and make their mark. Show the rest of us how it’s done. Putting themselves and their families on the line will certainly impress me. Move to these countries and prove us all wrong. I’m willing to accept your sacrifice if it turns out you were wrong.
Eventually their moment of truth will come. Your people, who are starving to death, can be ordered to stay away from the genetically modified food because they need to give environmentalism a chance. For that brief, shining moment, you will have had the pleasure of knowing that you stood up for your principles. That is of course just before your followers bust you right in the head on the way to the warehouse. If you're willing to send the poor third worlders off to die in order for you to feel good about yourself, surely you're willing to stand there and defend your latest philosophical flavor of the day.
Let’s see now, how many volunteers do we have?
Thomas Sowell, the nationally syndicated columnist noted “The media continue to take seriously, and provide free publicity for, people who call themselves "consumer advocates" or "environmentalists," even though there are no qualifications required for these roles. All it takes are a big mouth, a big ego, a disdain for inconvenient facts and an ignorance of economics.”
He comments further, “I wish that some way could be found to add up all the staggering costs imposed on millions of ordinary people, just so a relative handful of self-righteous environmental cultists can go around feeling puffed up with themselves.” He goes on to say, “It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else's opinion.”
Before they protest maybe we should see to it that they have some basic requirements. Here is an example as to how to do this. Force them to have a track record of success in the area they are protesting. Perhaps we can set up an “Activist’s Bureau”, where they will have to register before they are allowed to protest. Under this arrangement they must meet the following criteria.
• Require protesters at the various business conferences to have started their own successful companies before we allow them actively involve themselves in public protests of others businesses. Having started businesses that failed will not count.
• Require animal rights activists to start businesses that require them to feed the world or develop medicines without animal testing. Having failed will disqualify this person as an activist.
• We can require anti-energy protesters to start businesses that provide electricity to millions of people without any of the means currently being used. Nor will presenting future possible inventions that may possibly be invented at some future possible date count as a qualification to protest.
• Anti-pesticide activists must be operating a successful business that provides the following;
By contrast, anyone who supports the use of pesticides had better watch out. No matter how accurately the information is presented. No matter how much information showing how many lives pesticides save. No matter how wise, their observations are. No matter how intelligently and logically stated their pro-pesticide position might be; their integrity and veracity will be arrogantly challenged. They will labeled as paid lackeys of big business and their views dismissed with a snort and a smirk. Not with any real facts mind you. Most of what will be heard will be unfounded personal attacks and endless debates to divert attention away from the facts. This is often followed by outright lies and cited studies that never occurred or were discredited.
Its philosophy without consequence for all of these armchair philosophers who oppose the use of pesticides but aren’t responsible to provide the protections they afford. They simply don’t have to pay any penalty for being wrong.
What I would like to know is why the burden of proof doesn’t rest upon those who call for the end of pesticides instead of those that have successfully tested the products and are saving lives, property and foodstuffs by use of them? Can we not see the inherent danger of philosophy without form? This is a concept which promotes change for philosophical reasons or “change for change sake”. Doesn’t this compel us to demand that its advocates not just talk the talk, but also actually walk the talk?
When things go down the toilet do the advocates of a certain policy pay the price for being wrong, or are others left with the bill? While the unchallenged and unchallengeable academicians and irresponsible activists live comfortably in western countries expounding endless nonsense and making unscientific claims regarding the dangers of pesticides; who will ultimately suffer when they have their way? Is it the activists or is it the poor people who have to live with the consequences of their feel good philosophies?
People make demands and put burdens on others they would never be willing to carry themselves. Activists have never seen a burden so great they wouldn’t be willing to place on someone else’s back. They feel compelled to demand all sorts of unnecessary things from society and industry.
When will the anti-pesticide fanatics put their own necks on the line for their beliefs? When will they move to the countries they have turned into an environmentalist’s paradise? You know the kind of place I’m talking about. The ones where everyone has had a loved one die from some preventable disease or have had children starve to death because environmental policies prevent them from being able to grow enough food for their families. Of course when environmentalists make statements like “better dead than riotously breeding” you have the tendency to believe they have a “feel good philosophy that is not a do good philosophy.”
I propose that we create a program of “Direct Involvement for Activism”, which is an excellent check of the sincerity and integrity of environmental activists. They can now have the joy of seeing their handy work up close and personal. This is their opportunity to step up where others have truly failed. This is a great opportunity for them to prove their integrity.
Stop crying wolf to the press and go to the paradise you have created. They then can be responsible for the health and welfare of thousands, or maybe millions of people. Step away from the rest. This truly is the chance to be different than those other wimpy protesters. Take on those responsibilities. They can now prove that they are as truly special as they think. They can go to these countries and take their children with them to show how sincere they truly are. Feel good about themselves for more than just a PhD.
Instead of just talking about what we are all doing wrong, they need to be different and make their mark. Show the rest of us how it’s done. Putting themselves and their families on the line will certainly impress me. Move to these countries and prove us all wrong. I’m willing to accept your sacrifice if it turns out you were wrong.
Eventually their moment of truth will come. Your people, who are starving to death, can be ordered to stay away from the genetically modified food because they need to give environmentalism a chance. For that brief, shining moment, you will have had the pleasure of knowing that you stood up for your principles. That is of course just before your followers bust you right in the head on the way to the warehouse. If you're willing to send the poor third worlders off to die in order for you to feel good about yourself, surely you're willing to stand there and defend your latest philosophical flavor of the day.
Let’s see now, how many volunteers do we have?
Thomas Sowell, the nationally syndicated columnist noted “The media continue to take seriously, and provide free publicity for, people who call themselves "consumer advocates" or "environmentalists," even though there are no qualifications required for these roles. All it takes are a big mouth, a big ego, a disdain for inconvenient facts and an ignorance of economics.”
He comments further, “I wish that some way could be found to add up all the staggering costs imposed on millions of ordinary people, just so a relative handful of self-righteous environmental cultists can go around feeling puffed up with themselves.” He goes on to say, “It is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else's opinion.”
Before they protest maybe we should see to it that they have some basic requirements. Here is an example as to how to do this. Force them to have a track record of success in the area they are protesting. Perhaps we can set up an “Activist’s Bureau”, where they will have to register before they are allowed to protest. Under this arrangement they must meet the following criteria.
• Require protesters at the various business conferences to have started their own successful companies before we allow them actively involve themselves in public protests of others businesses. Having started businesses that failed will not count.
• Require animal rights activists to start businesses that require them to feed the world or develop medicines without animal testing. Having failed will disqualify this person as an activist.
• We can require anti-energy protesters to start businesses that provide electricity to millions of people without any of the means currently being used. Nor will presenting future possible inventions that may possibly be invented at some future possible date count as a qualification to protest.
• Anti-pesticide activists must be operating a successful business that provides the following;
o Actual protection from disease carrying pests without
using registered or non-registered pesticides or chemicals in general.
o Provide protection for homes without using registered or non-registered pesticides or chemicals in general against all the things we currently provide services for.
o Must be able to grow enough food to meet the same capacity that is currently enjoyed in this country. This must be done with the same amount of landmass without fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides.
o This all must be accomplished without grant money from any source or tax incentives of any kind from the government.
o Not meeting these criteria will disqualify the person as a registered activist with the “Activists Bureau”.
o Provide protection for homes without using registered or non-registered pesticides or chemicals in general against all the things we currently provide services for.
o Must be able to grow enough food to meet the same capacity that is currently enjoyed in this country. This must be done with the same amount of landmass without fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides.
o This all must be accomplished without grant money from any source or tax incentives of any kind from the government.
o Not meeting these criteria will disqualify the person as a registered activist with the “Activists Bureau”.
• If they meet the qualifications and are successful in
the protest against any company or system the activists must be willing to
undertake to provide the same service, product or whatever they have
overturned.
o This must be done without using any of the means they
have protested against.
o Failure to protect, feed or provide the services promised by the activist will require the activist to be liable to criminal and/or civil litigation. Failure to be willing to meet this final requirement will require them to “just be quiet.”
o Failure to protect, feed or provide the services promised by the activist will require the activist to be liable to criminal and/or civil litigation. Failure to be willing to meet this final requirement will require them to “just be quiet.”
Rich Kozlovich Saturday, May 8, 2010
For those of who have been reading Green Notes, or this blog, you are aware of how high a value I place on Mr. Driessen’s book, "Eco-Imperialism, Green Power, Black Death".
This is a book that is very readable for the general public and yet has the ability to capture the interest of those who are knowledgeable about scientific and environmental issues. It is a small publication and can be read in a short time. It should also be read more than once. I have just reread this book and I feel compelled to promote it to those who read this blog. In spite of ad hominem attacks and unfounded claims that his book is “unscientific” or that he is a corporate puppet, there are a host of well thought of individuals who have showered praise on this book because of the logic of his arguments and the facts presented. These are listed below. It can be ordered here.
The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. This is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet.” – Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder
“Paul Driessen has given us an amazing tour de force. He explores one of today’s most perplexing problems: the environmentally sensitive rich demanding that the Third World’s poor forego feeding themselves, solving their health and energy problems, and taking their rightful place among the earth’s prosperous people. Eco-Imperialism provides terrific intellectual ammunition and is outstandingly written. Very gripping to read.” – Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition
“Developing countries need to be free to make their own decisions about how to improve their people’s lives. Activists who’ve never had to worry about starvation, malaria and simple survival have no right to impose their fears, prejudices and ideologies on the world’s poor. That’s the central message of this book. It’s a message that needs to be spread far and wide.” – CS Prakash, Professor of plant genetics, Tuskegee University
“The time has come to hold these radicals to civilized standards of behavior, end the tolerance for their lethal policies, and demand that they be held accountable for their excesses, and the poverty, disease and death they have perpetrated on the poor and powerless. Eco-Imperialism is an excellent start. Driessen does a masterful job of stripping away the radicals’ mantle of virtue, dissecting their bogus claims and holding them to the moral and ethical standards they have long demanded for everyone except themselves. And he does so with humor, outrage and passion – and always without pulling any punches.
“Every concerned citizen and policy maker should read this book. The environmentalists will hate it. The world’s destitute masses will love it. And everyone will be challenged by it to reexamine their beliefs and the environmental establishment’s claims.” – Niger Innis, National Spokesman, Congress of Racial Equality
(from his introduction to Eco-Imperialism)
“There is a shrill claim today by those that fill the streets to protest globalization, and by the organizations that put them there, that these white, relatively affluent groups are speaking on behalf of the world’s poor and powerless. This unfortunately, is a message that the Western media have bought uncritically – but not Paul Driessen. He cogently shows how the new Green Eco-Imperialists are seeking to impose their will on developing countries, interfering with their efforts to build dams or grow crops or do any of the things which can lift them out of poverty. These are life-and-death matters for the world’s poor, and Driessen is bold and honest enough to challenge the eco-interference in people’s lives as immoral and the cause of death and devastation in countries that are trying to develop and transform their lives. Both those who have bought the Green propaganda line and those who have not would benefit from reading Driessen’s Eco-Imperialism book.” – Thomas R. DeGregori, PhD, Professor of Economics, University of Houston
“Paul Driessen forcefully makes the case that the environmental movement has been needlessly anti-human. The real moral and technical challenge is to save both planet and people, and we’ve been given the intelligence and societal skills to do it. Hopefully, with the human population surge now ending, we’ll feel free to be humane again.” – Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, author of Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic
“The Developing World is developing! As a South African living and working in South Africa, I see every day the interaction between the modern, very advanced world of international corporate business, and the world of transitional rural people moving up the development ladder from a grass hut existence. This process is complex, and some first world people propagating their own extremely personal agendas ‘to save the world’ frequently do more harm to developing economies than a genuine caring society realises. Paul Driessen has done a superb job of seeing the picture from our side of the ocean.
“A developing country does not need First World ideological oppression. It needs to develop towards its own goals by means of its own self-respect. Driessen makes this clear, with facts and imagery tempered with passion and humour.” – Kelvin Kemm PhD, CEO: Stratek Business Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa.
“Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death is a no-holds-barred critique of what author Paul Driessen calls ‘ideological environmentalism.’ But unlike other books, it challenges eco-activists on what up to now has been the primary source of their strength: their bald assertion that they represent all that is noble, ethical, socially responsible, ‘sustainable,’ and even ordained by God. Rarely mincing words, Driessen demonstrates that – far from being moral – radical Green policies, principles and pressure tactics perpetuate poverty, misery, disease and premature death for hundreds of millions of people.” – Alan Caruba, National Anxiety Center, author of Warning Signs
“Just as environmental groups have blocked proper forest thinning and contributed to the devastating fires in California, the groups have also played a dominant role in denying access to basic tools for protecting and bettering lives of the world’s poorest people in developing countries. The complicity and devastating consequences of environmental NGO actions are clearly and unambiguously documented in Paul Driessen’s book, Eco-Imperialism: Green power - black death.
“Driessen is absolutely correct in his assessment that the actions of environmental groups are accountable to no standard of scientific accuracy, no standard of ethical behavior, no law, and no government. Environmental groups took their model for social/political action from the mode of environmental activism in the 1960s and 1970s, when the wildest claims of environmental damage were accepted without critical analysis. That approach to environmental activism brought about great changes. Some were good, but others were devastatingly wrong.
“The DDT story is one example of environmental activism taken to an extreme and horrific outcome. The model of environmental activism consisted of fabrications, selective use or outright misuse of science, legal actions, intimidation of scientists and corporations, civil disobedience, and an absolute conviction that all political, covert and unethical methods were justified in order to achieve a greater good. The same model is used today, even as the horrible consequences of environmental actions become increasingly apparent. Driessen is correct. It is high time that environmental organizations be held to standards already demanded of for-profit-corporations: namely, ethical conduct, respect for scientific accuracy, accountability and transparency.” – Donald R. Roberts, PhD, professor of tropical public health
Driessen clearly and skillfully shows how many false green claims even become government policy in the first world, resulting in the death of people in the developing world. In essence, the message of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death is: It is time that businesses stopped being so afraid of the extreme greens that they fall all over themselves to be greener-than-thou, and beg forgiveness for doing business.
Business must be socially responsible, and under no circumstances should it have a don’t-care attitude about the environment. But it should not spread extreme green paranoia amongst the public, either. Driessen roundly tells the first world governments and company boardrooms not to sacrifice black lives in the interests of promoting a politically correct green image. – Green & Gold Forum, Pretoria, South Africa
“The world’s poor billions used to suffer from imperialists who ‘exploited’ labour and natural resources in colonies. But they did so by investing in factories and mines, and providing technology and skills. Thus, enriching themselves at least meant that conditions improved in the colonies. Modern imperialists, appropriately called ‘eco-imperialists’ in this seminal book, are much worse. They no longer exploit colonies directly. Instead they ensure that ‘developing countries’ don’t develop. What started in the post-colonial world as the unsustainable ‘limits to growth’ movement has become a quagmire of sustainable nonsense in defence of elaborate stratagems to curtail prosperity in poor countries on the pretext that sustained development is not ‘sustainable.’
“This is one of the few Western books to expose eco-imperialism for what it is. It addresses health, economic and environmental issues from a refreshing developing country perspective. It takes on the anti-prosperity eco-establishment, the EU and other forces that impose their will, standards and distorted ethical principles on the world’s poor.
“Telling destitute people in my country, South Africa, and in countries with even greater destitution, that they must never aspire to living standards much better than they have now – because it wouldn’t be ‘sustainable’ – is just one example of the hypocrisy we have had thrust in our faces, in an era when we can and should grow fast enough to become fully developed in a single generation. We’re fed up with it, and gladdened that Driessen and others are taking up our cause. This book could mark a watershed event in environmental politics, and should be read (and absorbed) by all decent people who truly want to be ‘socially responsible.’” – Leon Louw, executive director, Free Market Foundation of South Africa
“Ideas and ideologies have consequences. Horrid ideas and ideologies have lethal consequences.” This is the central premise of the book Eco-Imperialism - Green power, black death. The lethal consequences of the idea that environmental values take precedence over the value of human lives is its central theme. And it documents these consequences in all their chilling detail…. What Paul Driessen documents in his book is that, by fanatically seeking to impose their agenda upon the whole of society, especially in the developing world, eco-imperialists are directly responsible for advocating policies that literally result in the deaths of countless millions of poor and desperate people about the globe.– Don Newman, senior policy analyst, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
“After listening to you on the Dennis Prager Show, I am compelled to go out and purchase your book, one which should be read by every single non-White and low-income White in America – notably those who largely vote Democrat. The reason I make this statement is that eco-imperialism, although horrendous in Third-World countries, also has an impact here in the United States.
“Notice how radical environmentalists in this country often oppose development. You may even hear some of these folks talk about ‘Affordable Housing’ – yet at the same time they lobby endlessly for regulations and restrictions that are often injurious to the majority of Black and Latino Americans. For example, The Bay Area, due to high taxation and land-use restriction, is one of the most prohibitive areas for minorities to reside – they simply cannot afford to live there. Because of their paranoid fear of sprawl, the elitist eco-imperialists virtually prevent upwardly-mobile people of color from improving their lot in life – only we, the wealthy and privileged, they seem to insist, can live in ‘nice’ homes and safe neighborhoods.
“I look forward to reading your eye-opening account.”– LaTonya Bethea, Southern California
“I recently purchased and read your book Eco-Imperialism. I just wanted to say I was amazed, appalled and disgusted with how the environmental groups have absolutely no regard for human life. Your book helped me realize some things I already knew and gave me much more detail and insight on things I didn’t know about how these environmental policies hurt MILLIONS of people in third world countries. I always believed that environmentalists’ attitude about ‘save the trees not the people’ was wrong. One of the things I learned from your book was how accurate and horrific that quote really is.
“I was completely unaware of the global ban on DDT. I was unaware how un-transparent many of these eco groups are. I also had no knowledge of the CSR practices used by for-profits and NGOs. I also had no knowledge about the debate over GM foods.
“I had been reading your book (in part) during trips to the local Starbucks coffee shop where I live. I'm a regular customer and most of the employees there know me. After a few days of reading and drinking coffee, several of them (some who are pro-eco-group types) began to ask me questions about what I was reading (they thought from the picture it was a book about starvation, which in a way is accurate). There was one girl working there in particular who I thought was going to cry when I started giving her the FACTS about how many children die each year as a result of environmental policy in third world countries. During our talk, it became clear how much the Greenpeace-type-endorsed ‘eco education’ had brainwashed her.
“I also realized that the mission work my local Catholic church does is much more important than I realized in relation to bringing clean water and sewage systems to villages in South America. I’ve truly enjoyed your book and will continue to share my reading experience with other people.” – Mark Allan, San Francisco Bay Area
Millions were left to starve [after Zambia rejected U.S. food aid] because of the unscientific bias of a few relatively wealthy environmentalists. The case is not an isolated one. Such blatant disregard for human life to promote the eco-environmental agenda is common throughout the Third World. To learn more about the havoc caused by environmental extremism the world over, get a copy of Paul Driessen's book, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. This important work clearly illustrates how environmentalists have taken their crusade a step too far. – Plain Facts, “Green policies starve Africa”
It has to be hoped the efforts of Driessen and Innis bear fruit. The moral bankruptcy of the modern environmental movement must be exposed, and their work is a good start. – Business Day, South Africa
Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death is a powerful indictment of environmentalism's many deadly impacts upon millions of struggling people in the Third World. Paul Driessen exposes the horrific body counts in developing nations that mount from green opposition to fossil fuels and hydroelectric power, biotechnology, modern agricultural methods and pesticides. His book convincingly demolishes any “idealistic” pretenses of the environmental movement. – Robert Bidinotto, writer, former Reader’s Digest staff writer (http://www.econot.com/)
Paul Driessen is the author of the book Eco-Imperialism. Green Power, Black Death. As its title suggests, the book illustrates how a putative concern for protecting ecosystems and preserving the planet under the banner of “corporate responsibility” results in just the opposite, not to mention the malnutrition, disease and deaths of millions of third world people. Read the compelling FrontPage.com interview with Paul Driessen in its entirety. Here’s a teaser [excerpts from the interview] There’s a lot more here, and it’s all worth reading. – Brian O’Connor, Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology (retired)
In this masterful and important work, Paul Driessen illustrates how green activists couched in their world of plenty impose their untenable ideas on the Third-World and in the process create suffering and death. – ConservativeBookstore.com
“If you want to listen to the voice of the poor on environmental issues, read Eco-Imperialism. The poor of the world are tired of being led and dictated to by do-gooders who seem determined to keep them mired in poverty for their own selfish ideological and fundraising reasons. This book offers a platform for the voiceless and kicks off a debate that will help facilitate homegrown solutions to Third World problems.” James Shikwati, Inter-Region Economic Network Kenya
“There is no greater way to underline the point of Paul Driessen's brilliant and meticulously footnoted book than to read the [Amazon.com] review that blindly criticizes it (from a brave anonymous reader). Just for a start, the book and its message are endorsed by the man who founded Greenpeace – and that message is that the radical environmental movement has become so entrenched in dogma and a vision of a world without people that it summarily ignores the suffering, famine, disease and death of millions. These radical groups are incredibly well-funded, untaxed, and totally unaccountable. What's worse is that they flatly refuse to engage in any debate whatsoever. They expect their followers to toe the line or be immediately dismissed as corporate ghouls.
“Driessen’s review of their history and tactics is accurate, verifiable and horrifying. Anyone in politics, the media, or even the environmental movement itself ought to read this book and consider what it says. Driessen gives a voice, and a platform, to the people who are actually affected by decisions made by world bodies, NGOs, and pressure groups. What these people speak is the truth as they live it – not conjecture from 2000 miles away.
“Eco-Imperialism is a shocking, profound and desperately needed account of what happens when the privileged Western world decides the fate of millions of people whom they never have to see or hear. Driessen sees and hears, and shares it all.” Sterling Rome, freelance television writer and producer, United States
“I am watching your University of Wisconsin presentation on C-SPAN 2 ‘Book TV.’ I am a Liberian and a graduate of UMASS Boston with a degree in Management Information System. I will buy your book. Your position on how to help poorer countries of the world develop is just what we need!!!! As you know, we are just recovering from 14 years of civil wars, but some of the material you just talked about on TV could go a long way toward helping my people, especially with our great need for electricity, modern farming and education about these issues. I will also recommend you book to other Liberians, so that we can work together using some of your ideas. Maybe someday when Liberia is stabilized, we will invite you to speak at the University of Liberia.” Wilmot Bright, Liberia
“Though a quick read at 163 pages including footnotes, Eco-Imperialism is packed with more facts per square inch than anything I have read in a long time. Even the footnotes are full of interesting tidbits. The book doesn’t pull any punches either, identifying specific governments and corporations that should know better, yet carry out the environmentalist agenda with green blinders on.
“Not only does Driessen accurately delineate the principles, the problems and the players, he then offers up workable solutions. For instance, he demands that we hold the environmentalist non-government organizations (NGO’s) to the same high standards and laws of honesty, integrity, transparency, disclosure and accountability that have long been demanded from the corporate world.
“If you are a modern day environmentalist, you will hate this book. But if you are on the side of humanity and the world’s destitute masses, this book will shock, anger and enlighten you, as it disputes the current accepted wisdom about environmental ethics.” Rolf Penner, Canada (South-East Agripost)
“I enjoyed your book very much. You cover a lot of ground in such a limited frame, but your arguments are coherent and you do not pull your punches. This is particularly true of chapter eight on climate change.” David Knight, United Kingdom
“I happened to catch the discussion of your book Eco-Imperialism this past weekend on C-SPAN. I immediately ordered a copy for myself. It was interesting to see that several of the audience displayed that typical, irrational mindset the environmental movement has taken on – where reason and compromise are not an option. Your responses were calm, measured, and rational. Excellent. I’m sure I’m not the only one appalled at what ‘political correctness’ and the ‘environmental movement’ have wrought for the unfortunate innocents in the third world. Hopefully, your book will provide the education of a broad enough audience to begin the roll-back of these disastrous policies.” Don McGuire, United States
“I saw your U of Wisconsin presentation on C-SPAN this weekend and just wanted to say I can’t wait to read your book, and I applaud your common-sense approach to many Third World problems. Your arguments seem compelling and difficult to ignore. I’ve been waiting for a book exactly like yours to come along. I recently ordered The Skeptical Environmentalist, but I think I’ll read yours first.” John Silver, United States
“It has to be hoped the efforts of Driessen and Innis bear fruit. The moral bankruptcy of the modern environmental movement must be exposed, and their work is a good start.” Business Day, South Africa
“Paul Driessen has written an extremely powerful book that condemns the anti-people, genocidal tactics of ‘big green’ environmentalists. Driessen effectively sheds light on the environmental movement that sees NGOs, large corporations and environmental activists working in concert, under the guise of corporate social responsibility (CSR), to impose the environmental views of wealthy, well-fed people from developed nations onto poor, starving people in third-world countries – leading to prolonged suffering.” Eat First! United States
“My Lord! This is one of those books that has such an immediate and gut wrenching impact that it is hard not to lose your balance after each chapter. The modern, mostly American, environmental movement has gotten it all wrong. Hearing the logic of Doctor Norman Borlaug, who has concluded that organic farming will never be able to feed more than 4 billion people (6.6 is our current population, folks), or that good old fashioned malaria is killing a million people in Africa each year, left me cold. I’ve enjoyed the huge comeback of migratory wildfowl and raptors in the U.S. since we eliminated DDT, but I forgot to appreciate the benefit of not dying of malaria. We eliminated this disease, but won’t let others use the same method.” DB, helicopter pilot, United States (first published on Amazon.com)
“Paul Driessen’s challenging new book recalls the final words of Anna Bramwell’s little 1994
masterpiece, The Fading of the Greens: the environment ‘...is the “Northern White Empire’s last burden, and may be its last crusade.’”Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography, University of London
“The premise of Paul Driessen’s sobering ‘Eco-Imperialism’ is as straightforward as it is chilling: the increasingly radical agenda of the so-called green movement is stifling economic development in the third world and, worse, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions. Is argument is presented with clarity and fact – as well fed affluent bureaucrats of the EU, UN, US and any number of environmental protection groups force their unfounded radical views on developing nations – the basic steps of economic evolution in these nations are being denied, virtually eliminating any hope for improvement.
Issues ranging from alternative energy source, genetically modified food, sweatshop labor, global warming and others are reviewed in enough detail to make the points, sparing the reader of the often endless graphs, charts, and minutia that often accompany books of this type. In an interesting twist, Driessen does not limit this criticism to the political bureaucrats and radical activists, but also points a finger at global corporations. On one hand, rather than standing up to the junk science and extreme positions of the radical green movement, most large corporations are simply rolling over, acquiescing to these economically dangerous demands. On the other hand, a number of corporations – most notably BP, to which Driessen delivers some well-deserved body blows – are allowing the Greens to play into their hands, duping the public into believing their pro-environmental purity, while in fact simply spinning clever PR smoke. BP, for example, would profit greatly from acceptance of the Kyoto accord through their natural gas business, while continuing to grow oil revenues and profits.
“Drinkers of the Green Kool Aid will undoubtedly dismiss ‘Eco-Imperialism’ out-of-hand, falling back on their tired and tiresome accusations of Driessen as simply another ‘corporate pawn.’ However, as Driessen so forcefully articulates, it is in fact the fat cat bureaucrats, environmentalists and politicians who are profiting at the expense of struggling third world nations. This proactive and chilling expose should be required reading in all US public schools, if for no other reason than to balance the steady diet of green pabulum our students are fed today.” Gary Griffiths, USA (first published on Amazon.com)
Before reading this exceptional primer on the negative effects of modern environmentalism, I was clueless of the far-reaching costs that group's policies have had on the Third World. Driessen documents at length the effect radical environmentalism has had on Africa's struggling poor, who want nothing more than to benefit from the same energy sources and standard of living the First World takes for granted. He shows how DDT saved thousands of lives in Africa by protecting families from malaria, while radical Greens fought to eliminate the benign chemical because of a theoretical risk it posed to birds. When families were restricted from using the chemical on their huts in Africa, malaria deaths shot through the roof. Driessen lays the blame for those thousands of deaths at the doorstep of the Sierra Club and other like-minded groups who would rather maintain a politically correct notion of what good environmentalism is rather than save actual lives.
Driessen goes on to show how environmentalists keep the Third World populations in poverty by fighting against the use of traditional, affordable sources of energy like coal and fossil fuels. Instead, Greens think other sources like wind and solar should be the only option for these people, disregarding the fact that the technology is nowhere near advanced enough to provide the energy needs these populations need to pull themselves out of poverty. Ironically, it would take over 10,000 acres of windmills to generate the same amount of electricity a 2-3 acre fossil fuel plant produces. So much for "saving the land."
Driessen does not endorse using fossil fuels forever and ever, amen. In fact, he wants nothing more than for the world to develop and invest in alternative energy because he knows as well as everyone else the day will come when we have no other choice. He simply believes (and rightly so) that, in the mean time, the problems of the Third World are real and not theoretical like so many Green "concerns," and that First World governments should not be intimidated by radical Greens and NGOs in their efforts to employ free-trade and responsible investment in these areas. One of the book’s biggest themes is how unfair it is that NGOs are not held to the same standards of accountability and transparency that they constantly demand from for-profit corporations.
The only problem with the book is that it is poorly edited, which takes away from its overall intellectual package and gives it a slightly amateur vibe. I came across way too many punctuation errors and word omissions for this to be a serious book for serious readers.
But the arguments are strong and the evidence is solid. Anyone interested in understanding why the Third World continues to fail at modernization should read this book. Amzon.com reader, North Carolina, USA
(NOTE: The errors mentioned here have been corrected in the second printing, and spelling errors in the original review were corrected before it was posted here.)
I heard you on Book TV today. Thank goodness for your book. It is what I have been waiting for for years – someone to expose the environmental idiocy that has been an affront to human intelligence and common sense. I intend to do all I can to promote your book. Anne Grossman, USA
Eco-Imperialism, Green Power, Black Death can be ordered here.
For those of who have been reading Green Notes, or this blog, you are aware of how high a value I place on Mr. Driessen’s book, "Eco-Imperialism, Green Power, Black Death".
This is a book that is very readable for the general public and yet has the ability to capture the interest of those who are knowledgeable about scientific and environmental issues. It is a small publication and can be read in a short time. It should also be read more than once. I have just reread this book and I feel compelled to promote it to those who read this blog. In spite of ad hominem attacks and unfounded claims that his book is “unscientific” or that he is a corporate puppet, there are a host of well thought of individuals who have showered praise on this book because of the logic of his arguments and the facts presented. These are listed below. It can be ordered here.
The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. This is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet.” – Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder
“Paul Driessen has given us an amazing tour de force. He explores one of today’s most perplexing problems: the environmentally sensitive rich demanding that the Third World’s poor forego feeding themselves, solving their health and energy problems, and taking their rightful place among the earth’s prosperous people. Eco-Imperialism provides terrific intellectual ammunition and is outstandingly written. Very gripping to read.” – Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Toward Tradition
“Developing countries need to be free to make their own decisions about how to improve their people’s lives. Activists who’ve never had to worry about starvation, malaria and simple survival have no right to impose their fears, prejudices and ideologies on the world’s poor. That’s the central message of this book. It’s a message that needs to be spread far and wide.” – CS Prakash, Professor of plant genetics, Tuskegee University
“The time has come to hold these radicals to civilized standards of behavior, end the tolerance for their lethal policies, and demand that they be held accountable for their excesses, and the poverty, disease and death they have perpetrated on the poor and powerless. Eco-Imperialism is an excellent start. Driessen does a masterful job of stripping away the radicals’ mantle of virtue, dissecting their bogus claims and holding them to the moral and ethical standards they have long demanded for everyone except themselves. And he does so with humor, outrage and passion – and always without pulling any punches.
“Every concerned citizen and policy maker should read this book. The environmentalists will hate it. The world’s destitute masses will love it. And everyone will be challenged by it to reexamine their beliefs and the environmental establishment’s claims.” – Niger Innis, National Spokesman, Congress of Racial Equality
(from his introduction to Eco-Imperialism)
“There is a shrill claim today by those that fill the streets to protest globalization, and by the organizations that put them there, that these white, relatively affluent groups are speaking on behalf of the world’s poor and powerless. This unfortunately, is a message that the Western media have bought uncritically – but not Paul Driessen. He cogently shows how the new Green Eco-Imperialists are seeking to impose their will on developing countries, interfering with their efforts to build dams or grow crops or do any of the things which can lift them out of poverty. These are life-and-death matters for the world’s poor, and Driessen is bold and honest enough to challenge the eco-interference in people’s lives as immoral and the cause of death and devastation in countries that are trying to develop and transform their lives. Both those who have bought the Green propaganda line and those who have not would benefit from reading Driessen’s Eco-Imperialism book.” – Thomas R. DeGregori, PhD, Professor of Economics, University of Houston
“Paul Driessen forcefully makes the case that the environmental movement has been needlessly anti-human. The real moral and technical challenge is to save both planet and people, and we’ve been given the intelligence and societal skills to do it. Hopefully, with the human population surge now ending, we’ll feel free to be humane again.” – Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute, author of Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastic
“The Developing World is developing! As a South African living and working in South Africa, I see every day the interaction between the modern, very advanced world of international corporate business, and the world of transitional rural people moving up the development ladder from a grass hut existence. This process is complex, and some first world people propagating their own extremely personal agendas ‘to save the world’ frequently do more harm to developing economies than a genuine caring society realises. Paul Driessen has done a superb job of seeing the picture from our side of the ocean.
“A developing country does not need First World ideological oppression. It needs to develop towards its own goals by means of its own self-respect. Driessen makes this clear, with facts and imagery tempered with passion and humour.” – Kelvin Kemm PhD, CEO: Stratek Business Strategy Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa.
“Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death is a no-holds-barred critique of what author Paul Driessen calls ‘ideological environmentalism.’ But unlike other books, it challenges eco-activists on what up to now has been the primary source of their strength: their bald assertion that they represent all that is noble, ethical, socially responsible, ‘sustainable,’ and even ordained by God. Rarely mincing words, Driessen demonstrates that – far from being moral – radical Green policies, principles and pressure tactics perpetuate poverty, misery, disease and premature death for hundreds of millions of people.” – Alan Caruba, National Anxiety Center, author of Warning Signs
“Just as environmental groups have blocked proper forest thinning and contributed to the devastating fires in California, the groups have also played a dominant role in denying access to basic tools for protecting and bettering lives of the world’s poorest people in developing countries. The complicity and devastating consequences of environmental NGO actions are clearly and unambiguously documented in Paul Driessen’s book, Eco-Imperialism: Green power - black death.
“Driessen is absolutely correct in his assessment that the actions of environmental groups are accountable to no standard of scientific accuracy, no standard of ethical behavior, no law, and no government. Environmental groups took their model for social/political action from the mode of environmental activism in the 1960s and 1970s, when the wildest claims of environmental damage were accepted without critical analysis. That approach to environmental activism brought about great changes. Some were good, but others were devastatingly wrong.
“The DDT story is one example of environmental activism taken to an extreme and horrific outcome. The model of environmental activism consisted of fabrications, selective use or outright misuse of science, legal actions, intimidation of scientists and corporations, civil disobedience, and an absolute conviction that all political, covert and unethical methods were justified in order to achieve a greater good. The same model is used today, even as the horrible consequences of environmental actions become increasingly apparent. Driessen is correct. It is high time that environmental organizations be held to standards already demanded of for-profit-corporations: namely, ethical conduct, respect for scientific accuracy, accountability and transparency.” – Donald R. Roberts, PhD, professor of tropical public health
Driessen clearly and skillfully shows how many false green claims even become government policy in the first world, resulting in the death of people in the developing world. In essence, the message of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death is: It is time that businesses stopped being so afraid of the extreme greens that they fall all over themselves to be greener-than-thou, and beg forgiveness for doing business.
Business must be socially responsible, and under no circumstances should it have a don’t-care attitude about the environment. But it should not spread extreme green paranoia amongst the public, either. Driessen roundly tells the first world governments and company boardrooms not to sacrifice black lives in the interests of promoting a politically correct green image. – Green & Gold Forum, Pretoria, South Africa
“The world’s poor billions used to suffer from imperialists who ‘exploited’ labour and natural resources in colonies. But they did so by investing in factories and mines, and providing technology and skills. Thus, enriching themselves at least meant that conditions improved in the colonies. Modern imperialists, appropriately called ‘eco-imperialists’ in this seminal book, are much worse. They no longer exploit colonies directly. Instead they ensure that ‘developing countries’ don’t develop. What started in the post-colonial world as the unsustainable ‘limits to growth’ movement has become a quagmire of sustainable nonsense in defence of elaborate stratagems to curtail prosperity in poor countries on the pretext that sustained development is not ‘sustainable.’
“This is one of the few Western books to expose eco-imperialism for what it is. It addresses health, economic and environmental issues from a refreshing developing country perspective. It takes on the anti-prosperity eco-establishment, the EU and other forces that impose their will, standards and distorted ethical principles on the world’s poor.
“Telling destitute people in my country, South Africa, and in countries with even greater destitution, that they must never aspire to living standards much better than they have now – because it wouldn’t be ‘sustainable’ – is just one example of the hypocrisy we have had thrust in our faces, in an era when we can and should grow fast enough to become fully developed in a single generation. We’re fed up with it, and gladdened that Driessen and others are taking up our cause. This book could mark a watershed event in environmental politics, and should be read (and absorbed) by all decent people who truly want to be ‘socially responsible.’” – Leon Louw, executive director, Free Market Foundation of South Africa
“Ideas and ideologies have consequences. Horrid ideas and ideologies have lethal consequences.” This is the central premise of the book Eco-Imperialism - Green power, black death. The lethal consequences of the idea that environmental values take precedence over the value of human lives is its central theme. And it documents these consequences in all their chilling detail…. What Paul Driessen documents in his book is that, by fanatically seeking to impose their agenda upon the whole of society, especially in the developing world, eco-imperialists are directly responsible for advocating policies that literally result in the deaths of countless millions of poor and desperate people about the globe.– Don Newman, senior policy analyst, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
“After listening to you on the Dennis Prager Show, I am compelled to go out and purchase your book, one which should be read by every single non-White and low-income White in America – notably those who largely vote Democrat. The reason I make this statement is that eco-imperialism, although horrendous in Third-World countries, also has an impact here in the United States.
“Notice how radical environmentalists in this country often oppose development. You may even hear some of these folks talk about ‘Affordable Housing’ – yet at the same time they lobby endlessly for regulations and restrictions that are often injurious to the majority of Black and Latino Americans. For example, The Bay Area, due to high taxation and land-use restriction, is one of the most prohibitive areas for minorities to reside – they simply cannot afford to live there. Because of their paranoid fear of sprawl, the elitist eco-imperialists virtually prevent upwardly-mobile people of color from improving their lot in life – only we, the wealthy and privileged, they seem to insist, can live in ‘nice’ homes and safe neighborhoods.
“I look forward to reading your eye-opening account.”– LaTonya Bethea, Southern California
“I recently purchased and read your book Eco-Imperialism. I just wanted to say I was amazed, appalled and disgusted with how the environmental groups have absolutely no regard for human life. Your book helped me realize some things I already knew and gave me much more detail and insight on things I didn’t know about how these environmental policies hurt MILLIONS of people in third world countries. I always believed that environmentalists’ attitude about ‘save the trees not the people’ was wrong. One of the things I learned from your book was how accurate and horrific that quote really is.
“I was completely unaware of the global ban on DDT. I was unaware how un-transparent many of these eco groups are. I also had no knowledge of the CSR practices used by for-profits and NGOs. I also had no knowledge about the debate over GM foods.
“I had been reading your book (in part) during trips to the local Starbucks coffee shop where I live. I'm a regular customer and most of the employees there know me. After a few days of reading and drinking coffee, several of them (some who are pro-eco-group types) began to ask me questions about what I was reading (they thought from the picture it was a book about starvation, which in a way is accurate). There was one girl working there in particular who I thought was going to cry when I started giving her the FACTS about how many children die each year as a result of environmental policy in third world countries. During our talk, it became clear how much the Greenpeace-type-endorsed ‘eco education’ had brainwashed her.
“I also realized that the mission work my local Catholic church does is much more important than I realized in relation to bringing clean water and sewage systems to villages in South America. I’ve truly enjoyed your book and will continue to share my reading experience with other people.” – Mark Allan, San Francisco Bay Area
Millions were left to starve [after Zambia rejected U.S. food aid] because of the unscientific bias of a few relatively wealthy environmentalists. The case is not an isolated one. Such blatant disregard for human life to promote the eco-environmental agenda is common throughout the Third World. To learn more about the havoc caused by environmental extremism the world over, get a copy of Paul Driessen's book, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. This important work clearly illustrates how environmentalists have taken their crusade a step too far. – Plain Facts, “Green policies starve Africa”
It has to be hoped the efforts of Driessen and Innis bear fruit. The moral bankruptcy of the modern environmental movement must be exposed, and their work is a good start. – Business Day, South Africa
Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death is a powerful indictment of environmentalism's many deadly impacts upon millions of struggling people in the Third World. Paul Driessen exposes the horrific body counts in developing nations that mount from green opposition to fossil fuels and hydroelectric power, biotechnology, modern agricultural methods and pesticides. His book convincingly demolishes any “idealistic” pretenses of the environmental movement. – Robert Bidinotto, writer, former Reader’s Digest staff writer (http://www.econot.com/)
Paul Driessen is the author of the book Eco-Imperialism. Green Power, Black Death. As its title suggests, the book illustrates how a putative concern for protecting ecosystems and preserving the planet under the banner of “corporate responsibility” results in just the opposite, not to mention the malnutrition, disease and deaths of millions of third world people. Read the compelling FrontPage.com interview with Paul Driessen in its entirety. Here’s a teaser [excerpts from the interview] There’s a lot more here, and it’s all worth reading. – Brian O’Connor, Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology (retired)
In this masterful and important work, Paul Driessen illustrates how green activists couched in their world of plenty impose their untenable ideas on the Third-World and in the process create suffering and death. – ConservativeBookstore.com
“If you want to listen to the voice of the poor on environmental issues, read Eco-Imperialism. The poor of the world are tired of being led and dictated to by do-gooders who seem determined to keep them mired in poverty for their own selfish ideological and fundraising reasons. This book offers a platform for the voiceless and kicks off a debate that will help facilitate homegrown solutions to Third World problems.” James Shikwati, Inter-Region Economic Network Kenya
“There is no greater way to underline the point of Paul Driessen's brilliant and meticulously footnoted book than to read the [Amazon.com] review that blindly criticizes it (from a brave anonymous reader). Just for a start, the book and its message are endorsed by the man who founded Greenpeace – and that message is that the radical environmental movement has become so entrenched in dogma and a vision of a world without people that it summarily ignores the suffering, famine, disease and death of millions. These radical groups are incredibly well-funded, untaxed, and totally unaccountable. What's worse is that they flatly refuse to engage in any debate whatsoever. They expect their followers to toe the line or be immediately dismissed as corporate ghouls.
“Driessen’s review of their history and tactics is accurate, verifiable and horrifying. Anyone in politics, the media, or even the environmental movement itself ought to read this book and consider what it says. Driessen gives a voice, and a platform, to the people who are actually affected by decisions made by world bodies, NGOs, and pressure groups. What these people speak is the truth as they live it – not conjecture from 2000 miles away.
“Eco-Imperialism is a shocking, profound and desperately needed account of what happens when the privileged Western world decides the fate of millions of people whom they never have to see or hear. Driessen sees and hears, and shares it all.” Sterling Rome, freelance television writer and producer, United States
“I am watching your University of Wisconsin presentation on C-SPAN 2 ‘Book TV.’ I am a Liberian and a graduate of UMASS Boston with a degree in Management Information System. I will buy your book. Your position on how to help poorer countries of the world develop is just what we need!!!! As you know, we are just recovering from 14 years of civil wars, but some of the material you just talked about on TV could go a long way toward helping my people, especially with our great need for electricity, modern farming and education about these issues. I will also recommend you book to other Liberians, so that we can work together using some of your ideas. Maybe someday when Liberia is stabilized, we will invite you to speak at the University of Liberia.” Wilmot Bright, Liberia
“Though a quick read at 163 pages including footnotes, Eco-Imperialism is packed with more facts per square inch than anything I have read in a long time. Even the footnotes are full of interesting tidbits. The book doesn’t pull any punches either, identifying specific governments and corporations that should know better, yet carry out the environmentalist agenda with green blinders on.
“Not only does Driessen accurately delineate the principles, the problems and the players, he then offers up workable solutions. For instance, he demands that we hold the environmentalist non-government organizations (NGO’s) to the same high standards and laws of honesty, integrity, transparency, disclosure and accountability that have long been demanded from the corporate world.
“If you are a modern day environmentalist, you will hate this book. But if you are on the side of humanity and the world’s destitute masses, this book will shock, anger and enlighten you, as it disputes the current accepted wisdom about environmental ethics.” Rolf Penner, Canada (South-East Agripost)
“I enjoyed your book very much. You cover a lot of ground in such a limited frame, but your arguments are coherent and you do not pull your punches. This is particularly true of chapter eight on climate change.” David Knight, United Kingdom
“I happened to catch the discussion of your book Eco-Imperialism this past weekend on C-SPAN. I immediately ordered a copy for myself. It was interesting to see that several of the audience displayed that typical, irrational mindset the environmental movement has taken on – where reason and compromise are not an option. Your responses were calm, measured, and rational. Excellent. I’m sure I’m not the only one appalled at what ‘political correctness’ and the ‘environmental movement’ have wrought for the unfortunate innocents in the third world. Hopefully, your book will provide the education of a broad enough audience to begin the roll-back of these disastrous policies.” Don McGuire, United States
“I saw your U of Wisconsin presentation on C-SPAN this weekend and just wanted to say I can’t wait to read your book, and I applaud your common-sense approach to many Third World problems. Your arguments seem compelling and difficult to ignore. I’ve been waiting for a book exactly like yours to come along. I recently ordered The Skeptical Environmentalist, but I think I’ll read yours first.” John Silver, United States
“It has to be hoped the efforts of Driessen and Innis bear fruit. The moral bankruptcy of the modern environmental movement must be exposed, and their work is a good start.” Business Day, South Africa
“Paul Driessen has written an extremely powerful book that condemns the anti-people, genocidal tactics of ‘big green’ environmentalists. Driessen effectively sheds light on the environmental movement that sees NGOs, large corporations and environmental activists working in concert, under the guise of corporate social responsibility (CSR), to impose the environmental views of wealthy, well-fed people from developed nations onto poor, starving people in third-world countries – leading to prolonged suffering.” Eat First! United States
“My Lord! This is one of those books that has such an immediate and gut wrenching impact that it is hard not to lose your balance after each chapter. The modern, mostly American, environmental movement has gotten it all wrong. Hearing the logic of Doctor Norman Borlaug, who has concluded that organic farming will never be able to feed more than 4 billion people (6.6 is our current population, folks), or that good old fashioned malaria is killing a million people in Africa each year, left me cold. I’ve enjoyed the huge comeback of migratory wildfowl and raptors in the U.S. since we eliminated DDT, but I forgot to appreciate the benefit of not dying of malaria. We eliminated this disease, but won’t let others use the same method.” DB, helicopter pilot, United States (first published on Amazon.com)
“Paul Driessen’s challenging new book recalls the final words of Anna Bramwell’s little 1994
masterpiece, The Fading of the Greens: the environment ‘...is the “Northern White Empire’s last burden, and may be its last crusade.’”Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography, University of London
“The premise of Paul Driessen’s sobering ‘Eco-Imperialism’ is as straightforward as it is chilling: the increasingly radical agenda of the so-called green movement is stifling economic development in the third world and, worse, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions. Is argument is presented with clarity and fact – as well fed affluent bureaucrats of the EU, UN, US and any number of environmental protection groups force their unfounded radical views on developing nations – the basic steps of economic evolution in these nations are being denied, virtually eliminating any hope for improvement.
Issues ranging from alternative energy source, genetically modified food, sweatshop labor, global warming and others are reviewed in enough detail to make the points, sparing the reader of the often endless graphs, charts, and minutia that often accompany books of this type. In an interesting twist, Driessen does not limit this criticism to the political bureaucrats and radical activists, but also points a finger at global corporations. On one hand, rather than standing up to the junk science and extreme positions of the radical green movement, most large corporations are simply rolling over, acquiescing to these economically dangerous demands. On the other hand, a number of corporations – most notably BP, to which Driessen delivers some well-deserved body blows – are allowing the Greens to play into their hands, duping the public into believing their pro-environmental purity, while in fact simply spinning clever PR smoke. BP, for example, would profit greatly from acceptance of the Kyoto accord through their natural gas business, while continuing to grow oil revenues and profits.
“Drinkers of the Green Kool Aid will undoubtedly dismiss ‘Eco-Imperialism’ out-of-hand, falling back on their tired and tiresome accusations of Driessen as simply another ‘corporate pawn.’ However, as Driessen so forcefully articulates, it is in fact the fat cat bureaucrats, environmentalists and politicians who are profiting at the expense of struggling third world nations. This proactive and chilling expose should be required reading in all US public schools, if for no other reason than to balance the steady diet of green pabulum our students are fed today.” Gary Griffiths, USA (first published on Amazon.com)
Before reading this exceptional primer on the negative effects of modern environmentalism, I was clueless of the far-reaching costs that group's policies have had on the Third World. Driessen documents at length the effect radical environmentalism has had on Africa's struggling poor, who want nothing more than to benefit from the same energy sources and standard of living the First World takes for granted. He shows how DDT saved thousands of lives in Africa by protecting families from malaria, while radical Greens fought to eliminate the benign chemical because of a theoretical risk it posed to birds. When families were restricted from using the chemical on their huts in Africa, malaria deaths shot through the roof. Driessen lays the blame for those thousands of deaths at the doorstep of the Sierra Club and other like-minded groups who would rather maintain a politically correct notion of what good environmentalism is rather than save actual lives.
Driessen goes on to show how environmentalists keep the Third World populations in poverty by fighting against the use of traditional, affordable sources of energy like coal and fossil fuels. Instead, Greens think other sources like wind and solar should be the only option for these people, disregarding the fact that the technology is nowhere near advanced enough to provide the energy needs these populations need to pull themselves out of poverty. Ironically, it would take over 10,000 acres of windmills to generate the same amount of electricity a 2-3 acre fossil fuel plant produces. So much for "saving the land."
Driessen does not endorse using fossil fuels forever and ever, amen. In fact, he wants nothing more than for the world to develop and invest in alternative energy because he knows as well as everyone else the day will come when we have no other choice. He simply believes (and rightly so) that, in the mean time, the problems of the Third World are real and not theoretical like so many Green "concerns," and that First World governments should not be intimidated by radical Greens and NGOs in their efforts to employ free-trade and responsible investment in these areas. One of the book’s biggest themes is how unfair it is that NGOs are not held to the same standards of accountability and transparency that they constantly demand from for-profit corporations.
The only problem with the book is that it is poorly edited, which takes away from its overall intellectual package and gives it a slightly amateur vibe. I came across way too many punctuation errors and word omissions for this to be a serious book for serious readers.
But the arguments are strong and the evidence is solid. Anyone interested in understanding why the Third World continues to fail at modernization should read this book. Amzon.com reader, North Carolina, USA
(NOTE: The errors mentioned here have been corrected in the second printing, and spelling errors in the original review were corrected before it was posted here.)
I heard you on Book TV today. Thank goodness for your book. It is what I have been waiting for for years – someone to expose the environmental idiocy that has been an affront to human intelligence and common sense. I intend to do all I can to promote your book. Anne Grossman, USA
Eco-Imperialism, Green Power, Black Death can be ordered here.
Rich Kozlovich Monday, May 10, 2010
The Alar story is a most enlightening account of how
abuse of bureaucratic power, scare mongering by the media, and self enrichment
by the green activists can create a real mess. If you ask most people who are
somewhat familiar with this story how it all got started they will tell you
that it was the 60 Minutes broadcast that did it. That is inaccurate; although
the 60 Minutes segment set the story on fire, if you dig deeply into the whole
Alar story you find that it takes so many twists and turns that it is hard to
believe; but this is how the whole thing started.
In 1982 the EPA got caught up in a superfund scandal. By March of 1983 EPA
Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford resigned after finding herself in a
bureaucratic mess between the EPA and the Department of Justice in an attempt
to deal with this scandal. One prominent EPA staffer was fired and others left.
What has this to do with Alar? Everything! Because of the black eye EPA received over this it was decided that something had to be done to restore their credibility to the public. So what did they do? They felt that they needed to ban something, and since anti-pesticide activists love anyone who wants to ban something, they started looking around and viola; Alar was to be the target.
Why Alar? It had been used successfully as a growth regulator to keep apples from falling off trees since 1963. In 1983 the EPA placed Alar under “special review” and in 1984 they claimed that Alar was a potential carcinogen for children because after administering massive doses of Alar to mice tests showed that that it might cause cancer. It might be noted that rodent testing as a determinate as to what is carcinogenic has come under attack from the scientific community. Although critics of this procedure don’t disavow the value of using rodent testing, they dismiss the idea that EPA should be determining what is carcinogenic based on rodent testing alone.
On August 23, 2005 the American Council on Science and Health petitioned the EPA to “eliminate "junk science" from the process by which it determines whether a substance is likely to cause cancer in humans” under the Information Quality Act (IQA), which requires the government to use the best science available. Nearly five months later the EPA responded by “claiming that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” If their policy guidelines aren’t based on scientific fact, what are they based on? What were they based on in 1985?
The reality is that in 1985 the EPA own “Scientific Advisory Panel” concluded that the laboratory animal studies of Alar were too flawed to use.” However, the anti-chemical people became involved to “help” EPA to ban Alar, because no matter how much they studied the matter EPA couldn’t develop enough evidence to justify banning Alar.
Eventually facts and studies were irrelevant. The NRDC, through Fenton Communications, a public relations firm that seems to specialize in representing radical environmental groups, approached 60 Minutes with this unwarranted health scare.
“Following the release of a report called “Intolerable Risk” — which claimed that Alar was “the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply” and blamed the chemical for “as many as 5,300” childhood cancer cases — Fenton and NRDC went on a five-month media blitz. The campaign kicked off with a CBS 60 Minutes feature seen by over 50 million Americans. Despite the fact that the claims were completely unfounded, hysteria set in. Apples were pulled off of grocery shelves, schools stopped serving them at lunch, and apple growers nationwide lost over $250 million.”
However, “from the standpoint of the NRDC and Fenton Communications, the campaign against Alar had been a phenomenal success. The public had been panicked, the product had been destroyed, and a major media organization, 60 minutes, had been a willing tool in carrying out the operation. Further, membership and contributions to the NRDC increased.” Worse yet, “after the election of President Clinton, the EPA ceased being an unwitting participant in the toxic scare campaign.”
“The Wall Street Journal printed one of David Fenton’s internal memos, after the Alar-on-apples scandal was publicly debunked. Here’s Fenton in his own words: “We designed [the Alar Campaign] so that revenue would flow back to the Natural Resources Defense Council from the public, and we sold this book about pesticides through a 900 number and the Donahue show. And to date there has been $700,000 in net revenue from it.”
What has this to do with Alar? Everything! Because of the black eye EPA received over this it was decided that something had to be done to restore their credibility to the public. So what did they do? They felt that they needed to ban something, and since anti-pesticide activists love anyone who wants to ban something, they started looking around and viola; Alar was to be the target.
Why Alar? It had been used successfully as a growth regulator to keep apples from falling off trees since 1963. In 1983 the EPA placed Alar under “special review” and in 1984 they claimed that Alar was a potential carcinogen for children because after administering massive doses of Alar to mice tests showed that that it might cause cancer. It might be noted that rodent testing as a determinate as to what is carcinogenic has come under attack from the scientific community. Although critics of this procedure don’t disavow the value of using rodent testing, they dismiss the idea that EPA should be determining what is carcinogenic based on rodent testing alone.
On August 23, 2005 the American Council on Science and Health petitioned the EPA to “eliminate "junk science" from the process by which it determines whether a substance is likely to cause cancer in humans” under the Information Quality Act (IQA), which requires the government to use the best science available. Nearly five months later the EPA responded by “claiming that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” If their policy guidelines aren’t based on scientific fact, what are they based on? What were they based on in 1985?
The reality is that in 1985 the EPA own “Scientific Advisory Panel” concluded that the laboratory animal studies of Alar were too flawed to use.” However, the anti-chemical people became involved to “help” EPA to ban Alar, because no matter how much they studied the matter EPA couldn’t develop enough evidence to justify banning Alar.
Eventually facts and studies were irrelevant. The NRDC, through Fenton Communications, a public relations firm that seems to specialize in representing radical environmental groups, approached 60 Minutes with this unwarranted health scare.
“Following the release of a report called “Intolerable Risk” — which claimed that Alar was “the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply” and blamed the chemical for “as many as 5,300” childhood cancer cases — Fenton and NRDC went on a five-month media blitz. The campaign kicked off with a CBS 60 Minutes feature seen by over 50 million Americans. Despite the fact that the claims were completely unfounded, hysteria set in. Apples were pulled off of grocery shelves, schools stopped serving them at lunch, and apple growers nationwide lost over $250 million.”
However, “from the standpoint of the NRDC and Fenton Communications, the campaign against Alar had been a phenomenal success. The public had been panicked, the product had been destroyed, and a major media organization, 60 minutes, had been a willing tool in carrying out the operation. Further, membership and contributions to the NRDC increased.” Worse yet, “after the election of President Clinton, the EPA ceased being an unwitting participant in the toxic scare campaign.”
“The Wall Street Journal printed one of David Fenton’s internal memos, after the Alar-on-apples scandal was publicly debunked. Here’s Fenton in his own words: “We designed [the Alar Campaign] so that revenue would flow back to the Natural Resources Defense Council from the public, and we sold this book about pesticides through a 900 number and the Donahue show. And to date there has been $700,000 in net revenue from it.”
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan states that “the Alar scare was
totally without scientific merit. By the early 1990s, authorities ranging from
the World Health Organization to U. S. surgeon general C. Everett Koop
confirmed that there was never any health risk posed by the use of Alar. Even
the late Don Hewitt, creator of 60 Minutes, told me that he regretted having
done the Alar segment, but Ed Bradley, the producer of the piece, refused to
retract it.”
When junk science becomes policy it is because the policy
was already a conclusion in search of data. And when there is no data
available… then apparently any old conclusion will do.
Everything we are told should bear some
resemblance to what we see going on in reality!
Rich Kozlovich Thursday, May 13, 2010
Recently the Environmental Protection Agency accepted public
comments regarding Ohio’s request for an emergency Section 18 exemption for
propoxur in order to help bring this plague of bed bugs under control. A letter
was sent to EPA from one of the anti-pesticide groups insisting that EPA refuse
this request claiming, among other things, that propoxur causes cancer; in
spite of the fact that the MSDS sheet clearly states that propoxur is not
carcinogenic.
In an article I saved some time back a writer outlined the three pillars of science.
• The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected. .
• The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest.
• The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence.
We shall avail ourselves of these pillars to come to an understanding of the subject of chemicals and cancer. I will state this from the onset. Pesticides do not cause cancer, and that includes DDT. Science is firmly based on these three pillars; these claims about chemicals and cancer are superstition; which is based on mysticism. Let's listen to real scientists and those who have followed this issue for years.
Angela Logomasini, director of risk and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, states that “In recent decades, many have claimed that cancer is rising because of increased use of human made chemicals. But if chemicals were a source of health problems, one might expect that as chemical use increased around the world, there would be a measurable adverse effect on life expectancy, cancer rates, or other illnesses. Yet in developed nations, where chemical use has greatly increased, people are living longer, healthier lives.”
In another article entitled “The True Causes of Cancer” Logomasini observes that, “Environmental activists have long claimed that man-made chemicals are causing rampant cancer rates that could be addressed only by government regulation. Accordingly, lawmakers have passed laws directing government agencies to study environmental causes of cancer, estimate the number of lives allegedly lost, and devise regulations to reduce death rates. However, lawmakers should be aware of some key problems with how this system has worked in practice. First, the claim that chemical pollution is a major cancer cause is wrong. Second, agencies have relied on faulty scientific methods that grossly overestimate potential cancer deaths from chemicals and potential lives saved by regulation. As a result, regulatory policy tends to divert billions of dollars from other life-saving uses or from other efforts to improve quality of life to pay for unproductive regulations.”
An article which appeared in the New York Post by Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health entitled, “A Cancer Non-Epidemic” states; “We have an epidemic of disbelief about cancer in this country -- but it's the opposite of what you probably expect. Cancer death rates have been falling for years, and now are falling even faster. Yet it's still stories about allegedly ignored cancer threats that grab our attention. If death rates were rising, the situation would (rightly) be front-page news. But the new report by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Cancer Society notes that the rate of decline in U.S. cancer deaths has doubled. And that story got buried (A18 in The New York Times, nowhere in the Wall Street Journal). Most people will have forgotten the good news by the next time an activist group talks up "the cancer epidemic."
In 2006 this was published on the National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health web site. “Annual Report to the Nation Finds Cancer Death Rates Continue to Drop; Lower Cancer Rates Observed in U.S. Latino Populations -A new report from the nation's leading cancer organizations finds that Americans' risk of dying from cancer continues to drop, maintaining a trend that began in the early 1990s. However, the rate of new cancers remains stable. The "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2003, Featuring Cancer among U.S. Hispanic/Latino Populations" is published in the October 15, 2006, issue of Cancer*. The report includes comprehensive data on trends over the past several decades for all major cancers. It shows that the long-term decline in overall cancer death rates continued through 2003 for all races and both sexes combined. The declines were greater among men (1.6 percent per year from 1993 through 2003) than women (0.8 percent per year from 1992 through 2003).”
Bjorn Lomborg in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, notes that if you were to compare the cancer rates and demographics from the turn of the last century to the turn of this century you would see two startling statistics. In the early 1900's few people smoked and few people lived to be over sixty five, which is why sixty five was chosen as the retirement age for Social Security purposes.
When the Chesterfield Girl died of lung cancer in 1992, Pulitzer Prize winning nationally syndicated columnist George Will wrote an article about it.
He recited an account where “at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis in 1919, a doctor summoned some medical students to an autopsy, saying the patient’s disease was so rare that most of the students would never see it again. It was lung cancer.”
Cancer is mostly an affliction of smokers and the aged. Yet we see the cancer rates dropping and we have a lot of smokers and a lot of over sixty five people. It those two demographics were taken out of the modern equation the drop in cancer rates would even more impressive.
“Dr. Bruce Ames is the recipient of the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation Prize and of the Tyler Prize for environmental achievement. He has served on the National Cancer Institute board of directors, and he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences” found through his research that naturally occurring chemicals, when fed in extremely high doses to test animals, were as likely to test carcinogenic as synthetic chemicals produced by chemical companies.
“At one time, he was the darling of the environmental movement. But now, the members of that movement have turned on him with a vengeance, accusing him of aiding and abetting "Corporate America," although he accepts no money other than his university salary”. Unfortunately his conclusion “was a very politically incorrect conclusion.” Ames said that, “The environmentalist activists, ‘have a religion’ that says that corporations are behind an exploding epidemic of cancer.”
This idea that “a rodent is a little man” became a valuable weapon for environmental activists and in 1958 the Delaney Clause required the Food and Drug Administration to ban any substance that cause cancer in animals….even when fed doses that could never be reached in a person’s lifetime of massive everyday use. In short, Delaney outlined the idea that if a substance causes cancer at any level, it causes cancer at every level. This is not science. Until then it was clearly understood that the dose makes the poison. At some point the molecular load of any substance becomes too small to impact cells. This “any dose is deadly” mentality lingers in spite of the fact that toxicologists disagree.
In 2005 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) petitioned the EPA to “eliminate "junk science" from the process by which it determines whether a substance is likely to cause cancer in humans.”
“The petition, filed on behalf of ACSH by the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), a public interest law firm, argues that current EPA guidelines violate the Information Quality Act (IQA) -- the law that requires the federal government to ensure the "equality, objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information it dispenses to the public.”
“Specifically, EPA routinely declares chemicals "carcinogens" -- implying a likelihood of a health threat to humans -- based solely on the creation of tumors in lab rodents by the administration of super high doses irrelevant to ordinary human exposure levels. Furthermore, effects in a single species may not be applicable to another species (rat tests do not even reliably predict effects in mice, which are closely related to rats, let alone effects in humans), though similar effects in multiple species might be an indicator of a genuine problem.”
Bruce Ames notes that “there are major problems with this procedure.
• One, animals aren't necessarily the best stand-ins for humans. In fact, 30% of the time, a chemical that causes cancer in mice won't do so in rats and vice versa, even though these species are much closer to each other than they are to humans.
• For another, the dose given the animals is on average almost 400,000 times the dose that the Environmental Protection Agency tries to protect humans against.”
The ACSH went on to “request that EPA eliminate statements that indicate that a substance may properly be labeled a "likely" human carcinogen based solely or primarily on the results of animal studies. Such statements are scientifically unsound, argues the petition, which notes that the great majority of toxicologists share that assessment.”
EPA continually dodged this by extending their deadline for responding. Finally five months later they claimed that their “Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” My question was then and still is; if EPA policy isn’t based on science, then what is it based on?
I think Dr. Elizabeth Whelan answers this best. “This is a free country, and we all have the right to be guided by superstitions, no matter how nonsensical; for example, my mother still forbids me to open an umbrella in her apartment. But we should no longer tolerate the mindless regulatory ritual of banning useful, safe chemicals "at the drop of a rat."
Sources:
1. Leaders & Success: Bruce Ames, by Michael Fumento
2. Cancer Trends , and, The True Causes of Cancer, by Angela Logomasini
3. A Cancer Non-Epidemic, and, We Should Expect More from the EPA, by Jeff Stier, Esq.
4. Annual Report to the Nation Finds Cancer Death Rates Continue to Drop; Lower Cancer Rates Observed in U.S. Latino Populations - National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health.
5. The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjorn Lomborg
This originally appeared in the May Issue of the Ohio Pest Management's quarterly newsletter, The Standard. RK
In an article I saved some time back a writer outlined the three pillars of science.
• The first is fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected. .
• The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the quest.
• The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in confidence.
We shall avail ourselves of these pillars to come to an understanding of the subject of chemicals and cancer. I will state this from the onset. Pesticides do not cause cancer, and that includes DDT. Science is firmly based on these three pillars; these claims about chemicals and cancer are superstition; which is based on mysticism. Let's listen to real scientists and those who have followed this issue for years.
Angela Logomasini, director of risk and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, states that “In recent decades, many have claimed that cancer is rising because of increased use of human made chemicals. But if chemicals were a source of health problems, one might expect that as chemical use increased around the world, there would be a measurable adverse effect on life expectancy, cancer rates, or other illnesses. Yet in developed nations, where chemical use has greatly increased, people are living longer, healthier lives.”
In another article entitled “The True Causes of Cancer” Logomasini observes that, “Environmental activists have long claimed that man-made chemicals are causing rampant cancer rates that could be addressed only by government regulation. Accordingly, lawmakers have passed laws directing government agencies to study environmental causes of cancer, estimate the number of lives allegedly lost, and devise regulations to reduce death rates. However, lawmakers should be aware of some key problems with how this system has worked in practice. First, the claim that chemical pollution is a major cancer cause is wrong. Second, agencies have relied on faulty scientific methods that grossly overestimate potential cancer deaths from chemicals and potential lives saved by regulation. As a result, regulatory policy tends to divert billions of dollars from other life-saving uses or from other efforts to improve quality of life to pay for unproductive regulations.”
An article which appeared in the New York Post by Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health entitled, “A Cancer Non-Epidemic” states; “We have an epidemic of disbelief about cancer in this country -- but it's the opposite of what you probably expect. Cancer death rates have been falling for years, and now are falling even faster. Yet it's still stories about allegedly ignored cancer threats that grab our attention. If death rates were rising, the situation would (rightly) be front-page news. But the new report by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Cancer Society notes that the rate of decline in U.S. cancer deaths has doubled. And that story got buried (A18 in The New York Times, nowhere in the Wall Street Journal). Most people will have forgotten the good news by the next time an activist group talks up "the cancer epidemic."
In 2006 this was published on the National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health web site. “Annual Report to the Nation Finds Cancer Death Rates Continue to Drop; Lower Cancer Rates Observed in U.S. Latino Populations -A new report from the nation's leading cancer organizations finds that Americans' risk of dying from cancer continues to drop, maintaining a trend that began in the early 1990s. However, the rate of new cancers remains stable. The "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2003, Featuring Cancer among U.S. Hispanic/Latino Populations" is published in the October 15, 2006, issue of Cancer*. The report includes comprehensive data on trends over the past several decades for all major cancers. It shows that the long-term decline in overall cancer death rates continued through 2003 for all races and both sexes combined. The declines were greater among men (1.6 percent per year from 1993 through 2003) than women (0.8 percent per year from 1992 through 2003).”
Bjorn Lomborg in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, notes that if you were to compare the cancer rates and demographics from the turn of the last century to the turn of this century you would see two startling statistics. In the early 1900's few people smoked and few people lived to be over sixty five, which is why sixty five was chosen as the retirement age for Social Security purposes.
When the Chesterfield Girl died of lung cancer in 1992, Pulitzer Prize winning nationally syndicated columnist George Will wrote an article about it.
He recited an account where “at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis in 1919, a doctor summoned some medical students to an autopsy, saying the patient’s disease was so rare that most of the students would never see it again. It was lung cancer.”
Cancer is mostly an affliction of smokers and the aged. Yet we see the cancer rates dropping and we have a lot of smokers and a lot of over sixty five people. It those two demographics were taken out of the modern equation the drop in cancer rates would even more impressive.
“Dr. Bruce Ames is the recipient of the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation Prize and of the Tyler Prize for environmental achievement. He has served on the National Cancer Institute board of directors, and he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences” found through his research that naturally occurring chemicals, when fed in extremely high doses to test animals, were as likely to test carcinogenic as synthetic chemicals produced by chemical companies.
“At one time, he was the darling of the environmental movement. But now, the members of that movement have turned on him with a vengeance, accusing him of aiding and abetting "Corporate America," although he accepts no money other than his university salary”. Unfortunately his conclusion “was a very politically incorrect conclusion.” Ames said that, “The environmentalist activists, ‘have a religion’ that says that corporations are behind an exploding epidemic of cancer.”
This idea that “a rodent is a little man” became a valuable weapon for environmental activists and in 1958 the Delaney Clause required the Food and Drug Administration to ban any substance that cause cancer in animals….even when fed doses that could never be reached in a person’s lifetime of massive everyday use. In short, Delaney outlined the idea that if a substance causes cancer at any level, it causes cancer at every level. This is not science. Until then it was clearly understood that the dose makes the poison. At some point the molecular load of any substance becomes too small to impact cells. This “any dose is deadly” mentality lingers in spite of the fact that toxicologists disagree.
In 2005 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) petitioned the EPA to “eliminate "junk science" from the process by which it determines whether a substance is likely to cause cancer in humans.”
“The petition, filed on behalf of ACSH by the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), a public interest law firm, argues that current EPA guidelines violate the Information Quality Act (IQA) -- the law that requires the federal government to ensure the "equality, objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information it dispenses to the public.”
“Specifically, EPA routinely declares chemicals "carcinogens" -- implying a likelihood of a health threat to humans -- based solely on the creation of tumors in lab rodents by the administration of super high doses irrelevant to ordinary human exposure levels. Furthermore, effects in a single species may not be applicable to another species (rat tests do not even reliably predict effects in mice, which are closely related to rats, let alone effects in humans), though similar effects in multiple species might be an indicator of a genuine problem.”
Bruce Ames notes that “there are major problems with this procedure.
• One, animals aren't necessarily the best stand-ins for humans. In fact, 30% of the time, a chemical that causes cancer in mice won't do so in rats and vice versa, even though these species are much closer to each other than they are to humans.
• For another, the dose given the animals is on average almost 400,000 times the dose that the Environmental Protection Agency tries to protect humans against.”
The ACSH went on to “request that EPA eliminate statements that indicate that a substance may properly be labeled a "likely" human carcinogen based solely or primarily on the results of animal studies. Such statements are scientifically unsound, argues the petition, which notes that the great majority of toxicologists share that assessment.”
EPA continually dodged this by extending their deadline for responding. Finally five months later they claimed that their “Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” My question was then and still is; if EPA policy isn’t based on science, then what is it based on?
I think Dr. Elizabeth Whelan answers this best. “This is a free country, and we all have the right to be guided by superstitions, no matter how nonsensical; for example, my mother still forbids me to open an umbrella in her apartment. But we should no longer tolerate the mindless regulatory ritual of banning useful, safe chemicals "at the drop of a rat."
Sources:
1. Leaders & Success: Bruce Ames, by Michael Fumento
2. Cancer Trends , and, The True Causes of Cancer, by Angela Logomasini
3. A Cancer Non-Epidemic, and, We Should Expect More from the EPA, by Jeff Stier, Esq.
4. Annual Report to the Nation Finds Cancer Death Rates Continue to Drop; Lower Cancer Rates Observed in U.S. Latino Populations - National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health.
5. The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjorn Lomborg
This originally appeared in the May Issue of the Ohio Pest Management's quarterly newsletter, The Standard. RK
Rich Kozlovich Sunday, May 30, 2010
Over the years I
have been linking articles to Green Notes that deal with the concept of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In 2006 Steve Forbes wrote an article
dealing with an investment concept promoted by Steve Milloy entitled, Pressuring
Business to Believe in Business which is worth reading.
Somehow we have come to feel we have an obligation to “give back” to something; to society, to the community or to some cause or other because we have been so blessed that we feel grateful and want others to benefit from our success. That success can come in many forms, not just money.
Volunteering for various causes or community activities is rampant in the United States. Why? There are a great many emotional reasons given as to why Americans are so generous with their time and money, and these are all true, but they are only secondary reasons. Everyone seems to keep missing the primary reason.
Because business is allowed to do business, which allows many to profit so much that they have the money, time and freedom to spread their largesse as far as they like; and to whomever they like. But first we have to understand the difference between doing business and doing good.
Somehow we have come to feel we have an obligation to “give back” to something; to society, to the community or to some cause or other because we have been so blessed that we feel grateful and want others to benefit from our success. That success can come in many forms, not just money.
Volunteering for various causes or community activities is rampant in the United States. Why? There are a great many emotional reasons given as to why Americans are so generous with their time and money, and these are all true, but they are only secondary reasons. Everyone seems to keep missing the primary reason.
Because business is allowed to do business, which allows many to profit so much that they have the money, time and freedom to spread their largesse as far as they like; and to whomever they like. But first we have to understand the difference between doing business and doing good.
Forbes makes this point. “Just
think of the phrase "giving back." The implication is that
entrepreneurs or companies took what wasn't rightfully theirs and that they
will make up for their business sins by giving their ill-gotten gains to worthy
causes. Commerce and philanthropy are seen as polar opposites. The opposite is
the truth: Commerce and philanthropy are two sides of the same coin. You don't
succeed in business in a free society unless you meet the needs and wants of
other people. As for "self-interest," it is actually a positive thing
that people pursue their ambitions lawfully and develop their innate talents to
the fullest. Commerce directs these energies in positive directions. The virtue
of democratic capitalism is that one person's gain is also society's gain.
Economics is not a zero-sum game as was once thought, though in many
intellectual and political circles today it is still regarded as such. In
actuality, businesses and entrepreneurs create incomprehensible, complex webs
of cooperation that are all geared toward improving our lives.”
A lady at one of my accounts was thrilled with the idea that the
“rich” were going to be taxed heavily under this new administration because it
was time for them to “give back”. I said that they have always given back and
in point of fact they give back constantly. She laughed and I went on to
explain. They give all the jobs, and they pay 100% of all the taxes collected.
How? Payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. are collected from people who get their
money from the rich. On a personal level they also pay almost all the income
tax collected by the federal government.
When a man builds a $5,000,000 home he is giving back to the community. He doesn’t drive any nails. He doesn’t lay any cement block or cement floors. He doesn’t hang the dry wall, or run the electricity. He hires people to do that; to the tune of $5,000,000. And there are no strings attached except that these people have to perform. And there is no government middleman taking a huge chunk of that $5,000,000.
And after that do you know what this rich person did? He filled it with carpeting! Carpeting which someone had to manufacture, someone had to sell, someone had to ship, someone had to sell again and then finally someone had to lay the carpeting. Then he bought furniture to fill the house! Again, furniture someone had to manufacture, sell, transport, sell again and deliver. I don’t know how many have been to a $5,000,000 house, but the landscaping is done by professionals and there is usually a housekeeper. And I and my friends in the pest control business do the pest control at all of them; all of us collecting salaries he generates.
He not only gave back millions to the community, he gave jobs, he gave dignity and he gave prosperity to people who would in turn build houses, buy carpeting, furniture and even maybe go out to dinner and a movie once in a while. And they would be able to live where they wanted to and go to dinner where they pleased and eat what they wanted to eat. He gave freedom.
Does anyone think that it would be cheaper if you had to go through the federal government as the contractor who hired the actual contractor or if federal employees were used to build the home, which is what they do for all the other “give backs”?
When the earthquake struck Haiti the people of the United States personally gave millions to these poor suffering people, and that didn’t include what they gave via the U.S. government. I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the American public personally gave more than all the self-righteous socialist European finger wagers combined. How much did Cuba and Venezuela give? More importantly….how much did the individual Cubans and Venezuelans personally give?
The evidence of the last century clearly demonstrates this one absolute, irrevocable fact; doing good can only be done if business is done first, and that means profit….lots of it.
Forbes goes on to say; “Yet companies are increasingly assaulted by anti-business groups and social activists operating under the banners of "corporate social responsibility" and "socially responsible investing." Corporations are under pressure to adopt policies that can harm free enterprise and the companies themselves (Citigroup for example, agreed to limit lending in certain developing countries as a result of a campaign by the Rainforest Action Network). Companies are often tempted to appease these groups lest they suffer harmful publicity or hostile regulation."
The green activists make nothing, they are responsible for nothing, and as far as I can tell, they have only been successful at being activist extortionists who insist that everyone owes _________(fill in the blank) to promote their latest Philosophical Flavor of the Day. And as in the case of the Rainforest Action Network, and their greenie partners, forced lending institutions to stop lending for mining, logging and a host of things that would have helped people in the third world to come out of poverty, squalor, misery and suffering. Dystopia is the Sancho Panza of the environmental movement.
When a man builds a $5,000,000 home he is giving back to the community. He doesn’t drive any nails. He doesn’t lay any cement block or cement floors. He doesn’t hang the dry wall, or run the electricity. He hires people to do that; to the tune of $5,000,000. And there are no strings attached except that these people have to perform. And there is no government middleman taking a huge chunk of that $5,000,000.
And after that do you know what this rich person did? He filled it with carpeting! Carpeting which someone had to manufacture, someone had to sell, someone had to ship, someone had to sell again and then finally someone had to lay the carpeting. Then he bought furniture to fill the house! Again, furniture someone had to manufacture, sell, transport, sell again and deliver. I don’t know how many have been to a $5,000,000 house, but the landscaping is done by professionals and there is usually a housekeeper. And I and my friends in the pest control business do the pest control at all of them; all of us collecting salaries he generates.
He not only gave back millions to the community, he gave jobs, he gave dignity and he gave prosperity to people who would in turn build houses, buy carpeting, furniture and even maybe go out to dinner and a movie once in a while. And they would be able to live where they wanted to and go to dinner where they pleased and eat what they wanted to eat. He gave freedom.
Does anyone think that it would be cheaper if you had to go through the federal government as the contractor who hired the actual contractor or if federal employees were used to build the home, which is what they do for all the other “give backs”?
When the earthquake struck Haiti the people of the United States personally gave millions to these poor suffering people, and that didn’t include what they gave via the U.S. government. I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the American public personally gave more than all the self-righteous socialist European finger wagers combined. How much did Cuba and Venezuela give? More importantly….how much did the individual Cubans and Venezuelans personally give?
The evidence of the last century clearly demonstrates this one absolute, irrevocable fact; doing good can only be done if business is done first, and that means profit….lots of it.
Forbes goes on to say; “Yet companies are increasingly assaulted by anti-business groups and social activists operating under the banners of "corporate social responsibility" and "socially responsible investing." Corporations are under pressure to adopt policies that can harm free enterprise and the companies themselves (Citigroup for example, agreed to limit lending in certain developing countries as a result of a campaign by the Rainforest Action Network). Companies are often tempted to appease these groups lest they suffer harmful publicity or hostile regulation."
The green activists make nothing, they are responsible for nothing, and as far as I can tell, they have only been successful at being activist extortionists who insist that everyone owes _________(fill in the blank) to promote their latest Philosophical Flavor of the Day. And as in the case of the Rainforest Action Network, and their greenie partners, forced lending institutions to stop lending for mining, logging and a host of things that would have helped people in the third world to come out of poverty, squalor, misery and suffering. Dystopia is the Sancho Panza of the environmental movement.
Good business is good social policy. Just ask the people
of Haiti.
Rich Kozlovich Wednesday,
June 2, 2010
I know that I am really dating myself, but when I was a
kid my grandfather used to love to watch a weekly news show called The
Ev and Charlie Show. It was a bit like Crossfire, except that they
understood the concept of good manners.
Everett Dirkson was a gravelly voiced smooth tongued Senator from Illinois who died in 1969. He made a statement that is still one of the most famous and much quoted statements when it comes to government taxing and spending. He said: “A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
Dirkson was considered a conservative when it came to fiscal matters, but a liberal when it came to social matters and yet voted consistently to expand regulations. It makes one wonder how anyone can be intellectually honest and think that expanding the size of government and increasing regulations will cost less money, or be spent more wisely on more regulations. Perhaps the statement he should have posed is this: A few regulations here and a few regulations there and the first thing you know you have tyranny.
It is clear that there are many who have two clearly divergent opinions on the same subject in their heads at the same time and believe they are both correct. Is it any wonder we have so many in the pest control industry think that IPM or Green Pest Control is a good thing? Is it any wonder that so many in pest control believe the Montreal Protocol is based on real science, and believe that the Kyoto Accords are about global warming and not global governance? Worse yet, we have many that believe going along and getting along with the activists will be good for our industry. Talk about having two diametrically opposing views in one’s head at the same time and believing they are both correct, this is certainly the case.
In an article by Bjorn Lomborg regarding regulations, legislators, science and activists he states; “Among many activists, regulators and legislators, there is a pervasive myth that a little over-regulation never hurt anybody. But a "little" here and a "little" there adds up. The reality is that today regulation exacts societal costs whose magnitude is almost unimaginable. According to a recent analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, U.S. regulatory costs in 2005 were approximately $1.13 trillion, equal to almost half of all of the government's discretionary, entitlement and interest spending ($2.47 trillion), and much larger than the sum of all corporate pre-tax profits -- $874 billion.
To paraphrase Mr. Lomborg; much of the expenditure on regulation is ill-spent on the most expensive cures that do the least good.”
Enormous amounts of money are being wasted on expensive worthless regulations; and efforts to implement IPM and Green Pest Control are among them. We won’t have to wonder and worry about how much longer this will go on though. The money is fast running out.
Everett Dirkson was a gravelly voiced smooth tongued Senator from Illinois who died in 1969. He made a statement that is still one of the most famous and much quoted statements when it comes to government taxing and spending. He said: “A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
Dirkson was considered a conservative when it came to fiscal matters, but a liberal when it came to social matters and yet voted consistently to expand regulations. It makes one wonder how anyone can be intellectually honest and think that expanding the size of government and increasing regulations will cost less money, or be spent more wisely on more regulations. Perhaps the statement he should have posed is this: A few regulations here and a few regulations there and the first thing you know you have tyranny.
It is clear that there are many who have two clearly divergent opinions on the same subject in their heads at the same time and believe they are both correct. Is it any wonder we have so many in the pest control industry think that IPM or Green Pest Control is a good thing? Is it any wonder that so many in pest control believe the Montreal Protocol is based on real science, and believe that the Kyoto Accords are about global warming and not global governance? Worse yet, we have many that believe going along and getting along with the activists will be good for our industry. Talk about having two diametrically opposing views in one’s head at the same time and believing they are both correct, this is certainly the case.
In an article by Bjorn Lomborg regarding regulations, legislators, science and activists he states; “Among many activists, regulators and legislators, there is a pervasive myth that a little over-regulation never hurt anybody. But a "little" here and a "little" there adds up. The reality is that today regulation exacts societal costs whose magnitude is almost unimaginable. According to a recent analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, U.S. regulatory costs in 2005 were approximately $1.13 trillion, equal to almost half of all of the government's discretionary, entitlement and interest spending ($2.47 trillion), and much larger than the sum of all corporate pre-tax profits -- $874 billion.
To paraphrase Mr. Lomborg; much of the expenditure on regulation is ill-spent on the most expensive cures that do the least good.”
Enormous amounts of money are being wasted on expensive worthless regulations; and efforts to implement IPM and Green Pest Control are among them. We won’t have to wonder and worry about how much longer this will go on though. The money is fast running out.
Rich Kozlovich Thursday,
June 3, 2010
I get a kick out of the talking heads on TV who demand
that “something must be done now”! Whether it is Hurricane Katrina or the BP
oil catastrophe, I think it’s clear that there doesn’t seem to any coherent
plans to handle much of what goes on in life; whether it’s in our private
lives, government or business, because life is so complicated.
Even when plans are prepared far in advance they are often managed so incompetently that you come away with the conclusion that maybe it would have been better if everyone just played it by ear and saved a lot of money. And the further down the road the planning is from the crisis that it was supposed to contain the probability that it will carried out competently is even less likely. The original planners aren’t there any longer. The “institutional memory” and the insights are gone; and quite frankly, things change.
I have found that when the originators of any system are out of the picture it leaves a hole of understanding that is filled with the views, values, concepts and conclusions of others...who may not have the same values as those who created the system.
I believe the primary problem is having and defining goals. This is the key to any kind of planning activity. Goals are broken down into three categories.
Even when plans are prepared far in advance they are often managed so incompetently that you come away with the conclusion that maybe it would have been better if everyone just played it by ear and saved a lot of money. And the further down the road the planning is from the crisis that it was supposed to contain the probability that it will carried out competently is even less likely. The original planners aren’t there any longer. The “institutional memory” and the insights are gone; and quite frankly, things change.
I have found that when the originators of any system are out of the picture it leaves a hole of understanding that is filled with the views, values, concepts and conclusions of others...who may not have the same values as those who created the system.
I believe the primary problem is having and defining goals. This is the key to any kind of planning activity. Goals are broken down into three categories.
• Short term goals,
• Medium range goals.
• Long range goals.
• Medium range goals.
• Long range goals.
What determines what a short term goal is? This can be as
short a time as in the next 5 minutes or as long as 1 or 2 years. Often what
defines a short-term goal is what the medium range and long-range goals are.
Ordinarily I would keep short range goals within two years, medium range goals from 2 to 5 years and long range goals is anything beyond 5 years.
How does one see past 5 years? Anything past your next footstep is speculative. The farther down the road you go the more speculative it becomes. The only way to plan that far ahead is to have a vision as to what you want and how you want to get there. The vision is the touchstone that keeps you on track. Call it “your truth” if you will. Events will naturally change the planning all along the way. This requires adaptability. The ability to alter goals and plans that have seemingly been well laid is the key to surviving until the vision comes to fruition.
Long range planning requires long range vision. This can only be obtained through a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. Having a wide range of knowledge and wisdom is important to tie these things together. Experience in life along with the historical events, along with the consequences of those events is one of the great creators of vision. People throughout the centuries have one thing in common; they are people! People all through the centuries and are pretty much motivated by the same things. These are lessons that can’t be ignored and must be used as a basis for any planning activity including in our private lives.
This requires a depth of thinking. Thinking about great many things (small as well as large) over a long period of time trains the mind. This process goes on automatically. The brain is designed to find patterns. Gathering, storing, filing, analyzing and cross referencing without any real conscious effort on our part, some have this ability better than others, but this ability exists in everyone; but it must be exercised. If we train our mind by thinking deeply on a great many subjects - lo and behold - we get those flashes of insight. How did that happen?
Eventually we will have a brain full of seemingly disparate and useless information that will come together into some cohesive form. The brain, being designed to find patterns, found that last bit of information that allowed it fill in the missing gaps and organize the information properly. A bit here, a bit there and then all of a sudden… SHAZAM... the answer!
Ordinarily I would keep short range goals within two years, medium range goals from 2 to 5 years and long range goals is anything beyond 5 years.
How does one see past 5 years? Anything past your next footstep is speculative. The farther down the road you go the more speculative it becomes. The only way to plan that far ahead is to have a vision as to what you want and how you want to get there. The vision is the touchstone that keeps you on track. Call it “your truth” if you will. Events will naturally change the planning all along the way. This requires adaptability. The ability to alter goals and plans that have seemingly been well laid is the key to surviving until the vision comes to fruition.
Long range planning requires long range vision. This can only be obtained through a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. Having a wide range of knowledge and wisdom is important to tie these things together. Experience in life along with the historical events, along with the consequences of those events is one of the great creators of vision. People throughout the centuries have one thing in common; they are people! People all through the centuries and are pretty much motivated by the same things. These are lessons that can’t be ignored and must be used as a basis for any planning activity including in our private lives.
This requires a depth of thinking. Thinking about great many things (small as well as large) over a long period of time trains the mind. This process goes on automatically. The brain is designed to find patterns. Gathering, storing, filing, analyzing and cross referencing without any real conscious effort on our part, some have this ability better than others, but this ability exists in everyone; but it must be exercised. If we train our mind by thinking deeply on a great many subjects - lo and behold - we get those flashes of insight. How did that happen?
Eventually we will have a brain full of seemingly disparate and useless information that will come together into some cohesive form. The brain, being designed to find patterns, found that last bit of information that allowed it fill in the missing gaps and organize the information properly. A bit here, a bit there and then all of a sudden… SHAZAM... the answer!
• Wisdom is the application of knowledge and
understanding. What are the differences?
• Knowledge is easily understood, it is just data although this is where the work really begins.
• Understanding is more complex. To acquire understanding it requires us to meditate and think in an attempt to put all the knowledge together into some coherent pattern in an attempt to see what it all means.
• Wisdom however, is the hardest quality of them all. All the heavy mental lifting has been done acquiring all of that knowledge and diligently meditating and thinking to acquire understanding. Why then is wisdom the hardest? It requires application. Having knowledge and understanding is of no value if it isn’t applied.
• That means someone has to do something.
• Knowledge is easily understood, it is just data although this is where the work really begins.
• Understanding is more complex. To acquire understanding it requires us to meditate and think in an attempt to put all the knowledge together into some coherent pattern in an attempt to see what it all means.
• Wisdom however, is the hardest quality of them all. All the heavy mental lifting has been done acquiring all of that knowledge and diligently meditating and thinking to acquire understanding. Why then is wisdom the hardest? It requires application. Having knowledge and understanding is of no value if it isn’t applied.
• That means someone has to do something.
The chemical industries need to understand that we need
to stop appeasing those who despise us. If we as an industry are going to stand
up to the forces allied against us, we must develop a common vision. That is
the rub. We don’t see the world in the same way. As an example;
• Do we all agree that we need IPM or Green Pest Control?
• Do we all agree what they actually are?
• Do we all agree that they are good for pest control?
• Do we all agree that pesticides do more good than harm or is it visa versa or that IPM or Green Pest Control is better or worse for the public?
• Do we all agree on the direction of pragmatism (also known as appeasement) the industry is taking with EPA and the environmental movement?
• Do we all agree that the universities and extension departments are in harmony with the pest control industry? This includes the large universities we have been in alliance with in past years.
• Do we all really believe that the environmental activists and their allies in government and the media are willing to stop at anything less the total elimination of pesticides, the companies that manufacture them and those that apply them?
• Do we all believe that if we give them what they want everything will work out to our benefit in some Pollyanna way we can’t understand now?
• Do we all believe that what we have been doing over the last 60 years has been beneficial or harmful to the public?
• How many of us think that those in the pesticide manufacturing and application industries should be suing the EPA to force them to prove their decisions are based on actual science and that suppositions are not science?
• Do we all agree what they actually are?
• Do we all agree that they are good for pest control?
• Do we all agree that pesticides do more good than harm or is it visa versa or that IPM or Green Pest Control is better or worse for the public?
• Do we all agree on the direction of pragmatism (also known as appeasement) the industry is taking with EPA and the environmental movement?
• Do we all agree that the universities and extension departments are in harmony with the pest control industry? This includes the large universities we have been in alliance with in past years.
• Do we all really believe that the environmental activists and their allies in government and the media are willing to stop at anything less the total elimination of pesticides, the companies that manufacture them and those that apply them?
• Do we all believe that if we give them what they want everything will work out to our benefit in some Pollyanna way we can’t understand now?
• Do we all believe that what we have been doing over the last 60 years has been beneficial or harmful to the public?
• How many of us think that those in the pesticide manufacturing and application industries should be suing the EPA to force them to prove their decisions are based on actual science and that suppositions are not science?
We can’t even agree on these ten fundamental questions!
How are we going to plan for the future of our industry when we don’t seem to
even understand who our enemies are? If we are going to start thinking long
range, we had better get a realistic vision and not some ethereal Pollyanna
feel good attitude that will get us sacrificed on the altar of pragmati
Rich Kozlovich Sunday,
June 6, 2010
There is a report published a few years ago called Making
Sense of Chemical Stories, which attempts to point out some very
basic concepts that most people are not grasping about chemicals. We need to
see things clearly and not through a telescope of activism which makes it
impossible to see the whole picture. We live in a world where pollution has
become “the cause” for celebrities of every ilk. Movies, television and sports
notables will come out and take a position on subjects of which they know
little or nothing about. We have been inundated by so many articles and
television shows regarding chemicals that we in the developed world (which owes
so much to chemicals) have become chemophobic.
Malaria in the developed world is thought of as being impossible. Why? DDT largely eliminated it in developed countries! Our economy, which supports a life style that most would not be willing to give up, came about as a result of an innovative chemical industry. Our ability to feed ourselves, and huge portions of the rest of the world, is a direct result of that research. Research that resulted in the Green Revolution, for which Norman Borlaug was largely responsible, literally saved millions of lives with extensive use of high yield varieties of crops, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Chemistry!
During my young years it was not uncommon for mothers to take their dry foods such as pasta, rice and beans and dump them into a boiling pot of water and wait with a strainer to filter out the dead bugs that would float to the top. We would be outraged now if that happened. The chemical industry provided the answers for that. Pesticides were developed that gave us not only abundant foods, but mostly pest free foods.
Why then do we strive to be kept away from “that stuff”? Why do we have the attitude that all manufactured chemicals must be avoided at any cost? The universe (that includes us by the way) is made up of chemicals. I see advertisements that claim something is chemical free. If it is chemical free it doesn’t exist. We can’t survive without them because we are them. In fact Americans live longer, healthier lives than Americans have ever lived as a result of our chemical rich society and environment.
I have great cartoon in my computer that shows two cavemen sitting in a cave and one of them says, “Something is just not right. Our air is clean, our water is pure, we get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free range, and yet nobody lives past 30.”
In 1840 when everything was “natural” the average life span was approximately 40. Today, when everything that is important in our lives was created by manufactured chemicals the average life span is about 80. What part of that is so hard to grasp? We live longer as a direct result of those chemicals and it is obvious that these chemicals, when properly used, are not damaging the environment or us, no matter what the activists say, the BP oil spill notwithstanding.
A cup of coffee contains 11 chemicals that are considered carcinogenic. You will be exposed to more carcinogens in that one cup of coffee than all the carcinogenic potential of all of the pesticide residue on all of the food you will eat in one year.
City councils all over the country have taken up the cause of banning potentially harmful substances that have already been tested, regulated and approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. We have to ask; why they have decided to take up this task? Is it because they spent three hundred million on research and came to a different conclusion than did the EPA? Is it because these city councils are filled with toxicologists and chemists who looked at the original research and decided that the scientists who performed the research were lackeys of the chemical companies and their work should be dismissed? Or is it perhaps a case of merely taking the word of anti-chemical activists who may have even less scientific acumen and less qualified to determine the worth of these products than these local politicians. Then again, they may even number themselves among them. Try and picture a society that would elect all of their officials from the Sierra Club or PETA.
A city council in California wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide because it burns human tissue in its gaseous state and prolonged use in its solid state could cause severe tissue damage. What is dihydrogen monoxide? Water! Were they embarrassed when they found out what it actually was? Probably not, after all, their intentions were good. I would rather their actions were correct.
The EPA is spending a fortune to promote IPM and Green Pest Control. The School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) has been introduced and re-introduced in Congress. Why? Because they “know” so many things that simply aren’t true and they have the power and money to promote these untruths. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM. You can’t. It is indefinable and Green Pest Control is even worse. Everyone has his own ideas about IPM. Such foolishness is seen for what is worth in the third world where children are dying because of a lack of pesticides. Is it our desire to become one with the third world? The actions of anti-pesticide activists indicate that is exactly what they want, and EPA is part and parcel of this outcome.
When we read labels at the grocery store it gives the impression we are being poisoned because we clearly don’t understand the chemical terms. Whether chemicals are naturally occurring or manufactured they have been given names and reading those names do not give most of us any clue as to whether they are safe or not. In short, we don’t know what is good or what is bad. DDT has saved more lives than any chemical naturally occurring or otherwise in human history, and yet we hear how terrible it is. And I will state this again. Everything everyone “knows” about DDT is a lie. Those who actually read books about the “research” done by Rachel Carson realize that she was not a great scientist. She was a great writer, but it turned out to be science fiction.
(I would like to recommend reading Klaus and Bolander’s 1972 issue of “Ecological Sanity” and Roberts and Tren’s “The Excellent Powder, DDT’s Political and Scientific History”, which just came out. )
If we actually look at the facts we will find that most of what comes from the greenies is a lie. Not necessarily lies of commission, which they are guilty of, but mostly lies of omission. The end result is the same. For them to satisfy their egos and enact their entire slate of feel good policies people must die. Why? Because their policies kill people! We have the evidence of science and the truth of history, which proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt. The “conventional wisdom” of the activists was nothing more than the “philosophical flavor of the day”, and has not become traditional wisdom. Wisdom becomes traditional when it stands the test of time.
Greenie wisdom has not stood against the march of time or the uncovering of the facts, that is why they have to move from one "crisis" to another. Something must always be on a back burner for them to exploit because it soon becomes obvious that the latest one is a lie, such as anthropogenic climate change AKA Global Warming. No matter how many times a lie is told (even if everyone believes the lie) it will never become the truth! As Benjamin Franklin said, “truth will very patiently wait for us”. What is of concern is how much damage will be done until we find it. The world has suffered upwards of 90 million deaths from malaria and upwards of 13 billion unnecessary cases as a result of banning DDT in 1972. How much patience can the world afford while truth waits for us?
Recently there appeared a CNN special report called “Toxic America” which falsely claimed “that trace levels of environmental chemicals are causing myriad disease in America, from cancer to diabetes and more. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan from the American Council on Science and Health stated “It was worse than I could have imagine. “ She went on to say that “The most shocking part of it was that they recruited people from certain towns who thought that they were harmed by chemicals, and brought them all together to talk about how dangerous these substances are.” ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross agreed with Whelan saying that, “Their segment about so-called ‘toxic towns’ was bizarrely unscientific. When a physician bills himself as an expert and gathers people in a room who believe they were sickened by chemicals, taking a show of hands to see who believes they were harmed, there’s no scientific basis to that whatsoever.”
These "chemical scare” specials from the media are a no win situation for real scientists unless the entire scientific community stands up and condemns them. The emotional drama of parents who have lost children to cancer, and who believer trace chemical elements are reasonable for their death, will be so emotionally overwhelming to any viewing audience that no matter how accurately you present the actual science and no matter how logical your arguments are; emotions will triumph over actual science every time. And our corrupt media and the green movement knows it.
Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to reality. At the end of WWII the world’s population was approximately 2 billion people. Currently we have about 6.7 billion. It took thousands of years to get to 2 billion and yet in less than 75 years we have soared to 6.7 billion and we live in a chemical rich society. When tested, our bodies will show over 2 hundred different chemicals produced by the chemical companies…and we live longer healthier lives than ever in human history. Somewhere there is a serious disconnect between what we see going on in reality and what we are being told. Is it possible that what we are being told is merely the propaganda of an irrational and misanthropic movement with an agenda? Could be!
This additional link was posted 6/8/2010. Please read my next post Facts Versus Fears: DDT
Malaria in the developed world is thought of as being impossible. Why? DDT largely eliminated it in developed countries! Our economy, which supports a life style that most would not be willing to give up, came about as a result of an innovative chemical industry. Our ability to feed ourselves, and huge portions of the rest of the world, is a direct result of that research. Research that resulted in the Green Revolution, for which Norman Borlaug was largely responsible, literally saved millions of lives with extensive use of high yield varieties of crops, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Chemistry!
During my young years it was not uncommon for mothers to take their dry foods such as pasta, rice and beans and dump them into a boiling pot of water and wait with a strainer to filter out the dead bugs that would float to the top. We would be outraged now if that happened. The chemical industry provided the answers for that. Pesticides were developed that gave us not only abundant foods, but mostly pest free foods.
Why then do we strive to be kept away from “that stuff”? Why do we have the attitude that all manufactured chemicals must be avoided at any cost? The universe (that includes us by the way) is made up of chemicals. I see advertisements that claim something is chemical free. If it is chemical free it doesn’t exist. We can’t survive without them because we are them. In fact Americans live longer, healthier lives than Americans have ever lived as a result of our chemical rich society and environment.
I have great cartoon in my computer that shows two cavemen sitting in a cave and one of them says, “Something is just not right. Our air is clean, our water is pure, we get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free range, and yet nobody lives past 30.”
In 1840 when everything was “natural” the average life span was approximately 40. Today, when everything that is important in our lives was created by manufactured chemicals the average life span is about 80. What part of that is so hard to grasp? We live longer as a direct result of those chemicals and it is obvious that these chemicals, when properly used, are not damaging the environment or us, no matter what the activists say, the BP oil spill notwithstanding.
A cup of coffee contains 11 chemicals that are considered carcinogenic. You will be exposed to more carcinogens in that one cup of coffee than all the carcinogenic potential of all of the pesticide residue on all of the food you will eat in one year.
City councils all over the country have taken up the cause of banning potentially harmful substances that have already been tested, regulated and approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency. We have to ask; why they have decided to take up this task? Is it because they spent three hundred million on research and came to a different conclusion than did the EPA? Is it because these city councils are filled with toxicologists and chemists who looked at the original research and decided that the scientists who performed the research were lackeys of the chemical companies and their work should be dismissed? Or is it perhaps a case of merely taking the word of anti-chemical activists who may have even less scientific acumen and less qualified to determine the worth of these products than these local politicians. Then again, they may even number themselves among them. Try and picture a society that would elect all of their officials from the Sierra Club or PETA.
A city council in California wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide because it burns human tissue in its gaseous state and prolonged use in its solid state could cause severe tissue damage. What is dihydrogen monoxide? Water! Were they embarrassed when they found out what it actually was? Probably not, after all, their intentions were good. I would rather their actions were correct.
The EPA is spending a fortune to promote IPM and Green Pest Control. The School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) has been introduced and re-introduced in Congress. Why? Because they “know” so many things that simply aren’t true and they have the power and money to promote these untruths. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM. You can’t. It is indefinable and Green Pest Control is even worse. Everyone has his own ideas about IPM. Such foolishness is seen for what is worth in the third world where children are dying because of a lack of pesticides. Is it our desire to become one with the third world? The actions of anti-pesticide activists indicate that is exactly what they want, and EPA is part and parcel of this outcome.
When we read labels at the grocery store it gives the impression we are being poisoned because we clearly don’t understand the chemical terms. Whether chemicals are naturally occurring or manufactured they have been given names and reading those names do not give most of us any clue as to whether they are safe or not. In short, we don’t know what is good or what is bad. DDT has saved more lives than any chemical naturally occurring or otherwise in human history, and yet we hear how terrible it is. And I will state this again. Everything everyone “knows” about DDT is a lie. Those who actually read books about the “research” done by Rachel Carson realize that she was not a great scientist. She was a great writer, but it turned out to be science fiction.
(I would like to recommend reading Klaus and Bolander’s 1972 issue of “Ecological Sanity” and Roberts and Tren’s “The Excellent Powder, DDT’s Political and Scientific History”, which just came out. )
If we actually look at the facts we will find that most of what comes from the greenies is a lie. Not necessarily lies of commission, which they are guilty of, but mostly lies of omission. The end result is the same. For them to satisfy their egos and enact their entire slate of feel good policies people must die. Why? Because their policies kill people! We have the evidence of science and the truth of history, which proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt. The “conventional wisdom” of the activists was nothing more than the “philosophical flavor of the day”, and has not become traditional wisdom. Wisdom becomes traditional when it stands the test of time.
Greenie wisdom has not stood against the march of time or the uncovering of the facts, that is why they have to move from one "crisis" to another. Something must always be on a back burner for them to exploit because it soon becomes obvious that the latest one is a lie, such as anthropogenic climate change AKA Global Warming. No matter how many times a lie is told (even if everyone believes the lie) it will never become the truth! As Benjamin Franklin said, “truth will very patiently wait for us”. What is of concern is how much damage will be done until we find it. The world has suffered upwards of 90 million deaths from malaria and upwards of 13 billion unnecessary cases as a result of banning DDT in 1972. How much patience can the world afford while truth waits for us?
Recently there appeared a CNN special report called “Toxic America” which falsely claimed “that trace levels of environmental chemicals are causing myriad disease in America, from cancer to diabetes and more. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan from the American Council on Science and Health stated “It was worse than I could have imagine. “ She went on to say that “The most shocking part of it was that they recruited people from certain towns who thought that they were harmed by chemicals, and brought them all together to talk about how dangerous these substances are.” ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross agreed with Whelan saying that, “Their segment about so-called ‘toxic towns’ was bizarrely unscientific. When a physician bills himself as an expert and gathers people in a room who believe they were sickened by chemicals, taking a show of hands to see who believes they were harmed, there’s no scientific basis to that whatsoever.”
These "chemical scare” specials from the media are a no win situation for real scientists unless the entire scientific community stands up and condemns them. The emotional drama of parents who have lost children to cancer, and who believer trace chemical elements are reasonable for their death, will be so emotionally overwhelming to any viewing audience that no matter how accurately you present the actual science and no matter how logical your arguments are; emotions will triumph over actual science every time. And our corrupt media and the green movement knows it.
Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to reality. At the end of WWII the world’s population was approximately 2 billion people. Currently we have about 6.7 billion. It took thousands of years to get to 2 billion and yet in less than 75 years we have soared to 6.7 billion and we live in a chemical rich society. When tested, our bodies will show over 2 hundred different chemicals produced by the chemical companies…and we live longer healthier lives than ever in human history. Somewhere there is a serious disconnect between what we see going on in reality and what we are being told. Is it possible that what we are being told is merely the propaganda of an irrational and misanthropic movement with an agenda? Could be!
This additional link was posted 6/8/2010. Please read my next post Facts Versus Fears: DDT
Rich Kozlovich Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Those in prominent positions who defend Rachel Carson and
her acolytes are thoughtless elites who have drunk deeply of the Green Kool-Aid
while living in the fever swamps of environmentalism; elitists whose minds are
ablaze with enlightenment; an enlightenment that only they can fully
understand. They revel in “rhetoric filled with unending deposits
of spite, hyperbole, lies and odium” as if they were listening to a
symphonic orchestra playing music that is filled with a grandeur and beauty
that completely mesmerizes and inspires those who are capable of hearing it.
The reality is that this rhetoric, with the aid of government bureaucrats and a false media, is a symphony of discordant notes that has filled the ears, minds and emotions of the uninformed and misinformed, making it impossible for them to think clearly. Just as with bureaucracies and all their regulations, this discordant symphony constantly expands itself into issues such as animal rights, global warming, genetically modified foods, pesticides, private land ownership and hatred of the rich; destroying practical age-old traditional values, while promoting every form of radicalism as a new enlightenment. Unfortunately this is done without any penalty or consequence for them if they are wrong.
This façade of intellectual and moral superiority is actually nothing more than aesthetic snobbery that carries with it a corresponding lack of concern for the poor who suffer needlessly so their egos can be stroked and feel good about themselves, creating fervor and excitement that can only be described as religious in nature. This symphony of environmental rhetoric is their Kyrie Eleison, and these elites are the clergy and high priests of the secular religion known as environmentalism. This started with DDT and Rachel Carson.
We have come through 60 years where marching, breaking windows, burning buildings, shouting insults and chanting slogans are considered intellectual debate. We have come to accept defamation of character as an intellectual argument and that any science out of harmony with the “Litany” is the work of corrupted sycophants of big business. Unfortunately, as in the Middle Ages anyone from business, government or science who disagrees with them is a heretic who must be purged by an inquisition of condemnatory public humiliation through their acolytes in government and the main stream media. It is clear that “some things are so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them”. How will history judge the moralistic ravings of these intellectual elites? How many lives will they destroy?
"There has never been a replicated study published in a peer-reviewed journal showing harm to human health from DDT" after six decades of human exposure, Amir Attaran of the Royal Institute of International Affairs has said.
So why is DDT banned in the U.S.? Blame Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," a book published in 1962 that tried to make a case against man-made chemicals. She made the argument, which has since been discredited, that DDT ingestion caused reproduction problems in birds and caused cancer.
The EPA still lauds her as an environmental saint, in spite of all the studies that have clearly discredited almost everything she stated or claimed or predicted. EPA’s web site states:
The reality is that this rhetoric, with the aid of government bureaucrats and a false media, is a symphony of discordant notes that has filled the ears, minds and emotions of the uninformed and misinformed, making it impossible for them to think clearly. Just as with bureaucracies and all their regulations, this discordant symphony constantly expands itself into issues such as animal rights, global warming, genetically modified foods, pesticides, private land ownership and hatred of the rich; destroying practical age-old traditional values, while promoting every form of radicalism as a new enlightenment. Unfortunately this is done without any penalty or consequence for them if they are wrong.
This façade of intellectual and moral superiority is actually nothing more than aesthetic snobbery that carries with it a corresponding lack of concern for the poor who suffer needlessly so their egos can be stroked and feel good about themselves, creating fervor and excitement that can only be described as religious in nature. This symphony of environmental rhetoric is their Kyrie Eleison, and these elites are the clergy and high priests of the secular religion known as environmentalism. This started with DDT and Rachel Carson.
We have come through 60 years where marching, breaking windows, burning buildings, shouting insults and chanting slogans are considered intellectual debate. We have come to accept defamation of character as an intellectual argument and that any science out of harmony with the “Litany” is the work of corrupted sycophants of big business. Unfortunately, as in the Middle Ages anyone from business, government or science who disagrees with them is a heretic who must be purged by an inquisition of condemnatory public humiliation through their acolytes in government and the main stream media. It is clear that “some things are so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them”. How will history judge the moralistic ravings of these intellectual elites? How many lives will they destroy?
"There has never been a replicated study published in a peer-reviewed journal showing harm to human health from DDT" after six decades of human exposure, Amir Attaran of the Royal Institute of International Affairs has said.
So why is DDT banned in the U.S.? Blame Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," a book published in 1962 that tried to make a case against man-made chemicals. She made the argument, which has since been discredited, that DDT ingestion caused reproduction problems in birds and caused cancer.
The EPA still lauds her as an environmental saint, in spite of all the studies that have clearly discredited almost everything she stated or claimed or predicted. EPA’s web site states:
Silent Spring played in the history of
environmentalism roughly the same role that Uncle Tom’s Cabin played in the
abolitionist movement. In fact, EPA today may be said without exaggeration to
the extend4ed shadow of Rachel Carson. The influence of her book has brought
together over 14,000 scientists, lawyers, managers, and other employees across
the country to fight the good fight for “environmental protections.”
Skeptics then and now have accused Carson of shallow science, but her literary genius carried all before it.”
Skeptics then and now have accused Carson of shallow science, but her literary genius carried all before it.”
So it was her literary genius and not her scientific
genius that did it! At least EPA got that right.
Blame, as well, Richard Nixon and William Ruckelshaus. When judge Sweeney ruled against those wanting to ban DDT he stated that DDT wasn’t a carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man and did not have a deleterious effect of wildlife. President Richard Nixon was furious and stated that he was going to do everything he could to overturn that decision. Ruckelshaus, as the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed by Nixon, banned DDT even though the judge who sat through a scientific hearing on DDT — a hearing that Ruckelshaus did not attend — ruled that it should remain in use.”
Those who still defend Carson and the EPA’s decision are legion and desperate. Studies abound to prove that which is un-provable i.e., that DDT and DDE, a metabolite of DDT, is toxic to people and wildlife and causes all sorts of afflictions. One recently released study called the Pine River Statement was published in the Environmental Health Perspectives entitled, “The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT Use”. Fifteen scientists reviewed almost 500 papers to prove that DDT or DDE caused “cancer, diabetes, fetal underdevelopment, shortened duration of lactation, reduced child growth, reproductive problems and neurodevelopmental problems.
The case they came up with “was weak” and “in order to prove a cause and effect relationship between DDT and human health harm, certain core criteria should be met, such as strength of association, biologic credibility, and consistency with other investigations. Two other important, although sometimes considered weaker, criteria are time sequence (cause must precede effect) and a proportional dose-response relationship. None of the studies presented in the Pine River Statement satisfy these criteria. The studies are un-replicated, contradictory, or statistically insignificant.” Yet the authors conclude that the evidence they present proves that DDT “may” pose a risk to human health.
I find it amazing that they feel compelled to continue spending millions to prove DDT is so terrible. If that was actually so it would have been clear to everyone and settled by now; yet they continue…why? Because everything they have said or written about DDT is a lie and they desperately need to find a way of discrediting this banned product even now. Why? Because their cause against DDT gave them power, influence and money theyhad never dreamed of before. If their DDT claims are lies then all the claims about all the other pesticides are also lies. and a valid case would be made that the rest of their scares are invlaid also.
Nixon wanted to get rid of DDT but he couldn’t because pesticides fell under the legislative authority of the USDA, and they didn’t agree with the idea that DDT should be eliminated. In order to strip that legislative authority from the USDA he created the EPA and appointed an underground greenie to be in charge. EPA was founded in corruption and has operated, from the very beginning, behind a curtain of lies. Nothing has changed.
Blame, as well, Richard Nixon and William Ruckelshaus. When judge Sweeney ruled against those wanting to ban DDT he stated that DDT wasn’t a carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man and did not have a deleterious effect of wildlife. President Richard Nixon was furious and stated that he was going to do everything he could to overturn that decision. Ruckelshaus, as the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed by Nixon, banned DDT even though the judge who sat through a scientific hearing on DDT — a hearing that Ruckelshaus did not attend — ruled that it should remain in use.”
Those who still defend Carson and the EPA’s decision are legion and desperate. Studies abound to prove that which is un-provable i.e., that DDT and DDE, a metabolite of DDT, is toxic to people and wildlife and causes all sorts of afflictions. One recently released study called the Pine River Statement was published in the Environmental Health Perspectives entitled, “The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT Use”. Fifteen scientists reviewed almost 500 papers to prove that DDT or DDE caused “cancer, diabetes, fetal underdevelopment, shortened duration of lactation, reduced child growth, reproductive problems and neurodevelopmental problems.
The case they came up with “was weak” and “in order to prove a cause and effect relationship between DDT and human health harm, certain core criteria should be met, such as strength of association, biologic credibility, and consistency with other investigations. Two other important, although sometimes considered weaker, criteria are time sequence (cause must precede effect) and a proportional dose-response relationship. None of the studies presented in the Pine River Statement satisfy these criteria. The studies are un-replicated, contradictory, or statistically insignificant.” Yet the authors conclude that the evidence they present proves that DDT “may” pose a risk to human health.
I find it amazing that they feel compelled to continue spending millions to prove DDT is so terrible. If that was actually so it would have been clear to everyone and settled by now; yet they continue…why? Because everything they have said or written about DDT is a lie and they desperately need to find a way of discrediting this banned product even now. Why? Because their cause against DDT gave them power, influence and money theyhad never dreamed of before. If their DDT claims are lies then all the claims about all the other pesticides are also lies. and a valid case would be made that the rest of their scares are invlaid also.
Nixon wanted to get rid of DDT but he couldn’t because pesticides fell under the legislative authority of the USDA, and they didn’t agree with the idea that DDT should be eliminated. In order to strip that legislative authority from the USDA he created the EPA and appointed an underground greenie to be in charge. EPA was founded in corruption and has operated, from the very beginning, behind a curtain of lies. Nothing has changed.
Rich Kozlovich
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Much of this article is based on the book, “The Rat Catcher’s Child” by Dr. Robert Snetsinger, and whole paragraphs are replicated here. The Rat Catcher’s Child is currently published by the publishing company of Pest Control Technology magazine. I heartily recommend ordering this book. I have barely touched the surface on the amount of information and insights available in "The Rat Catcher's Child". It is impossible for anyone in structural pest control to understand where we are and how we got here without reading this book…or talking to me. RK
Professional structural pest control is the art, science, technology and business that protects the health and comfort of mankind, and preserves his property from harm and destruction by insects, rodents, birds, weeds, wood destroying fungi and related pests.
At one time pest control was “science”! You would mix this with that and apply it according to directions and things died. That has all changed! Pest control has now become more art than science, even though we know more about pests and their biology than ever in all the history of our industry. This requires a great deal of personal knowledge and initiative. They attempt to call this Integrated Pest Management, but it is still just pest control.
Mankind has always been aware of the need to maintain good health and have a sense of well being. Pest Control, as one of the health related professions and traces its origins into antiquity. The Egyptians' used magic spells as a pest control technique in order to protect the mummies of their kings from poisonous snakes. They believed that some snakes spoke the Semitic language of the Canaanites and included the magic spells in inscriptions on two sides of the sarcophagus in an effort to ward them off. In these times pest control and was the domain of diviners, witchdoctors, priests and other practicers of magic. Pest control and related professions eventually emerged from the realms of magic and religion, but the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) of the day consisted of spears and spells.
Medicine, in the broad sense, encompasses such professionals as physicians, surgeons, dentists, druggists, barbers, sanitation engineers, pest control operators and undertakers.
The religious text of the Mosaic Code of the ancient Hebrews created a concept of disease prevention that was more far-reaching than the after-the-fact treatments of physicians. Concepts that we easily recognize today, such as washing your hands before eating and washing after contact with the sick and the dead, were instituted for the first time in recorded history. We have a common understanding of all of these things now. Another concept introduced by this code was the elimination of parasites by eliminating certain foods from the diet, meat inspection, disinfection of the quarters of the sick, the elimination of dreck (dreck is dung and other filth, which were popular parts of formulas in ancient times) from the pharmacopoeia of Jewish medicine and recognition that flies were carriers of disease causing agents.
Hippocrates began the separation of religion, philosophy and science by declaring medicine to be “an art, science and a profession” yet he ascribed to the idea that “nature is the real healer of disease.” Since many times medicines merely relieve the symptoms until the body can heal itself there is a degree of truth in this. But by our standards and today’s understanding this was not entirely scientific and carries the taint of superstition to it, which for his time and lack of true scientific understanding that would be expected. But it was a start.
The Romans always felt that the Greeks were on a higher cultural plane than themselves, as a result they admired and mimicked everything Greek, continuing with much of Greek medicine, science, art and culture creating civil engineering feats that still marvel us today. The draining of wetlands, sewerage, indoor sanitation, central heating, the constant flow of fresh water into the cities via aqueducts (sections of which are still standing today) fed the baths playing an important role in good health.
All of this changed with the fall of Rome. The Christian church leaders of the time were as ignorant as the population they led regarding these matters. Church dogma contended that the poor should look forward to delivery from misery and sorrow only in life after death and that sickness and pestilence were punishments for sins and that only through fasting and prayer could health be restored.
The medicines of the Greeks, health codes of the Jews and engineering and planning of the Romans were replaced with paternosters and charms. The Monks and clerics were forbidden to practice medicine and science, and as a result, for all intents and purposes, these disciplines disappeared from Europe. Under those circumstances we can see how some poor woman collecting herbs to be the “healer” for her community would be targeted as a “witch” and burned at the stake. This is one of the many features of that very intellectually dark period know as the Middle Ages. Not only was this a time of intellectual darkness it was a time of personal filth. We could easily redub this period as the “Dirty Ages”, because sanitation and the health related arts were largely dismissed for more than 1,000 years.
Monks and other leaders of the church may or may not have been pious, but they rarely bathed and they stunk. Not only did they smell bad they were vermin ridden. They, like all others of this period in Europe had rotten teeth, vile breath, stomach problems, along with sores on their lice infested bodies. These men and women viewed cleanliness with abhorrence and call lice “Pearls of God”. They considered their presence a mark of saintliness. Some believed that a clean body and clean clothes meant an unclean soul. Others took on lice from the dead or less pious so they could suffer more in this life and insure greater rewards in the hereafter. When Thomas a Becket died it was discovered that he wore a lice infested wool undergarment. We must assume that this was a daily garment, unwashed and filthy. He must have truly stunk. And he was the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. Then again…everyone stunk back then.
Some believed that all life was sacred, and since man had the reward of Heaven and the pests did not, the “bugs” should be allowed to enjoy the only life they would have. Now under the dictates and demands of those enforcing the Endangered Species Act we believe all life except human life is sacred. Between 1989 and 2002, over five billion dollars was reported spent on individual endangered species.
Life style determines the outcome. No society can avoid the consequences of its way of living. The decline of medicine, the lack of sanitation and a pious cynicism as to the lot of the sick, the poor and the enslaved had its consequences. Famine, wars, epidemics of plague, leprosy, malaria, smallpox and tuberculosis decimated Europe. The Plague or Black Death appeared in China in 1334 A.D. It spread westward along the routes of the caravan and by boat to the Middle East, arriving in Sicily in October 1347 A.D. Within a few years, plague was rampant through out Europe. It is variously estimated that some 25 to 40 million Europeans died of the disease, about 50 % of the population. Needless to say, such carnage debilitated Europe. With the mentality they had regarding the “sacredness” of the lower species is it any wonder?
Pest control during this time was still very hands on. During the 1400’s “beaters” were hired to brush and beat furs and woolens to control moth larvae. Obviously this could only be somewhat effective, but given the vastness of the problem, any improvement probably seemed pretty good. In 1497, following the religious concepts of the time, the Bishop of Lausanne, Switzerland excommunicated June beetles. I don’t think the beetle must have been able to speak Latin.
What was life like in the 1500’s? I don’t remember from where I got these next few paragraphs, so I can’t accredit the author, but it isn’t my work. RK
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children- last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it - hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw, piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the dogs, cats and other small animals (mice rats, and bugs), lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof-hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could really mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's the reason canopy beds came into existence; along with the fact that there was no central heating in those days…just fireplaces. Even the finest homes were cold and drafty in the winter, this allowed them to enclose the bed for heat retention.
Much of this article is based on the book, “The Rat Catcher’s Child” by Dr. Robert Snetsinger, and whole paragraphs are replicated here. The Rat Catcher’s Child is currently published by the publishing company of Pest Control Technology magazine. I heartily recommend ordering this book. I have barely touched the surface on the amount of information and insights available in "The Rat Catcher's Child". It is impossible for anyone in structural pest control to understand where we are and how we got here without reading this book…or talking to me. RK
Professional structural pest control is the art, science, technology and business that protects the health and comfort of mankind, and preserves his property from harm and destruction by insects, rodents, birds, weeds, wood destroying fungi and related pests.
At one time pest control was “science”! You would mix this with that and apply it according to directions and things died. That has all changed! Pest control has now become more art than science, even though we know more about pests and their biology than ever in all the history of our industry. This requires a great deal of personal knowledge and initiative. They attempt to call this Integrated Pest Management, but it is still just pest control.
Mankind has always been aware of the need to maintain good health and have a sense of well being. Pest Control, as one of the health related professions and traces its origins into antiquity. The Egyptians' used magic spells as a pest control technique in order to protect the mummies of their kings from poisonous snakes. They believed that some snakes spoke the Semitic language of the Canaanites and included the magic spells in inscriptions on two sides of the sarcophagus in an effort to ward them off. In these times pest control and was the domain of diviners, witchdoctors, priests and other practicers of magic. Pest control and related professions eventually emerged from the realms of magic and religion, but the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) of the day consisted of spears and spells.
Medicine, in the broad sense, encompasses such professionals as physicians, surgeons, dentists, druggists, barbers, sanitation engineers, pest control operators and undertakers.
The religious text of the Mosaic Code of the ancient Hebrews created a concept of disease prevention that was more far-reaching than the after-the-fact treatments of physicians. Concepts that we easily recognize today, such as washing your hands before eating and washing after contact with the sick and the dead, were instituted for the first time in recorded history. We have a common understanding of all of these things now. Another concept introduced by this code was the elimination of parasites by eliminating certain foods from the diet, meat inspection, disinfection of the quarters of the sick, the elimination of dreck (dreck is dung and other filth, which were popular parts of formulas in ancient times) from the pharmacopoeia of Jewish medicine and recognition that flies were carriers of disease causing agents.
Hippocrates began the separation of religion, philosophy and science by declaring medicine to be “an art, science and a profession” yet he ascribed to the idea that “nature is the real healer of disease.” Since many times medicines merely relieve the symptoms until the body can heal itself there is a degree of truth in this. But by our standards and today’s understanding this was not entirely scientific and carries the taint of superstition to it, which for his time and lack of true scientific understanding that would be expected. But it was a start.
The Romans always felt that the Greeks were on a higher cultural plane than themselves, as a result they admired and mimicked everything Greek, continuing with much of Greek medicine, science, art and culture creating civil engineering feats that still marvel us today. The draining of wetlands, sewerage, indoor sanitation, central heating, the constant flow of fresh water into the cities via aqueducts (sections of which are still standing today) fed the baths playing an important role in good health.
All of this changed with the fall of Rome. The Christian church leaders of the time were as ignorant as the population they led regarding these matters. Church dogma contended that the poor should look forward to delivery from misery and sorrow only in life after death and that sickness and pestilence were punishments for sins and that only through fasting and prayer could health be restored.
The medicines of the Greeks, health codes of the Jews and engineering and planning of the Romans were replaced with paternosters and charms. The Monks and clerics were forbidden to practice medicine and science, and as a result, for all intents and purposes, these disciplines disappeared from Europe. Under those circumstances we can see how some poor woman collecting herbs to be the “healer” for her community would be targeted as a “witch” and burned at the stake. This is one of the many features of that very intellectually dark period know as the Middle Ages. Not only was this a time of intellectual darkness it was a time of personal filth. We could easily redub this period as the “Dirty Ages”, because sanitation and the health related arts were largely dismissed for more than 1,000 years.
Monks and other leaders of the church may or may not have been pious, but they rarely bathed and they stunk. Not only did they smell bad they were vermin ridden. They, like all others of this period in Europe had rotten teeth, vile breath, stomach problems, along with sores on their lice infested bodies. These men and women viewed cleanliness with abhorrence and call lice “Pearls of God”. They considered their presence a mark of saintliness. Some believed that a clean body and clean clothes meant an unclean soul. Others took on lice from the dead or less pious so they could suffer more in this life and insure greater rewards in the hereafter. When Thomas a Becket died it was discovered that he wore a lice infested wool undergarment. We must assume that this was a daily garment, unwashed and filthy. He must have truly stunk. And he was the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. Then again…everyone stunk back then.
Some believed that all life was sacred, and since man had the reward of Heaven and the pests did not, the “bugs” should be allowed to enjoy the only life they would have. Now under the dictates and demands of those enforcing the Endangered Species Act we believe all life except human life is sacred. Between 1989 and 2002, over five billion dollars was reported spent on individual endangered species.
Life style determines the outcome. No society can avoid the consequences of its way of living. The decline of medicine, the lack of sanitation and a pious cynicism as to the lot of the sick, the poor and the enslaved had its consequences. Famine, wars, epidemics of plague, leprosy, malaria, smallpox and tuberculosis decimated Europe. The Plague or Black Death appeared in China in 1334 A.D. It spread westward along the routes of the caravan and by boat to the Middle East, arriving in Sicily in October 1347 A.D. Within a few years, plague was rampant through out Europe. It is variously estimated that some 25 to 40 million Europeans died of the disease, about 50 % of the population. Needless to say, such carnage debilitated Europe. With the mentality they had regarding the “sacredness” of the lower species is it any wonder?
Pest control during this time was still very hands on. During the 1400’s “beaters” were hired to brush and beat furs and woolens to control moth larvae. Obviously this could only be somewhat effective, but given the vastness of the problem, any improvement probably seemed pretty good. In 1497, following the religious concepts of the time, the Bishop of Lausanne, Switzerland excommunicated June beetles. I don’t think the beetle must have been able to speak Latin.
What was life like in the 1500’s? I don’t remember from where I got these next few paragraphs, so I can’t accredit the author, but it isn’t my work. RK
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor.
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children- last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it - hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw, piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the dogs, cats and other small animals (mice rats, and bugs), lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof-hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could really mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's the reason canopy beds came into existence; along with the fact that there was no central heating in those days…just fireplaces. Even the finest homes were cold and drafty in the winter, this allowed them to enclose the bed for heat retention.
This quote appeared in the Blog Café Hayek regarding this
letter. “Consider, for example, Thomas
Babington Macaulay's description of life in the 17th-century Scottish highlands
-- before anything beyond rudimentary commerce and industry reach there:”
“His lodging would sometimes have been
in a hut of which every nook would have swarmed with vermin. He would have
inhaled an atmosphere thick with peat smoke, and foul with a hundred noisome
exhalations. At supper grain fit only for horses would have been set before
him, accompanied by a cake of blood drawn from living cows. Some of the company
with which he would have feasted would have been covered with cutaneous
eruptions, and others would have been smeared with tar like sheep. His couch
would have been the bare earth, dry or wet as the weather might be; and from
that couch he would have risen half poisoned with stench, half blind with the
reek of turf, and half mad with the itch.”
Use of poisons has been with mankind from the beginning.
Toxic chemicals are part of the make up of our earth. The extraction and
concentration of toxic substances gained a quasi-religious dimension for early
man. Death was mystery, poisons cause death, ergo those who produce poisons
were venerated and probably feared. As the years went by pest control started
to take on the outlines of a profession although their efforts were at best
haphazard.
As we come down into the 1800’s we find that so many concepts of what constitutes modern pest control came out of Europe, especially Germany. Germany was further advanced with regard to chemistry in general than the rest of the world. As an example, when WW I started aspirin became unavailable because it was produced in Germany only. Bayer is still a major manufacturer of medications and pesticides. The fact of the matter is that pest control became a largely immigrant profession especially amongst the German and German Jewish immigrants.
In 1850 advertisements appeared in New York newspapers selling pesticides such as phosphorus paste, arsenic, strychnine, cyanide, pyrethrum and a number of disinfecting compounds were available. In addition….screening, netting, traps and fly paper were produced by American industry. The technology of the profession was nearly advanced as in Europe, because immigrants were arriving daily bringing additional knowledge with them. On the eve of the American Civil War, we find all elements of the infant pest control industry firmly established in the United States and it was based on effective chemistry.
The evolution of the pest control industry followed the advances in communication and technology. At this time secret formulas, lack of scientific knowledge, suspicion and animosity between competitors was the order of the day; especially since there was no national organization. In 1932 the first national publication for the structural pest control industry appeared, called the Exterminators Log. The name changed as the years went by. In 1938 it was renamed “Pests” and in 1939 became “Pests and Their Control” and then “Pest Control” in 1949 (which it maintained until recent years when it was renamed, Pest Management Professional) and then moved to Cleveland, Ohio; where it remains to this day, along with Pest Control Technology magazine, which was first printed in 1973.
This issue of organizing the pest control industry nationally began to be resolved in 1933 when The Society of Exterminators and Fumigators of New York City elected Bill Buettner. They weren’t the only ones who realized the need for a national association. In that same year The Associated Exterminators and Fumigators of the United States with executive offices in the old Hollenden Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio agreed to hold a convention in Cleveland to make a very real attempt to form a national association. Clearly there wasn’t room for two national associations and in October of that year the associated Ohio group endorsed the New York group and formed what eventually became the National Pest Management Association. National representation was born.
I do believe this is an important part of the story and cannot be left out. One of the real driving forces for this action was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration which demanded that business, through its trade associations, establish codes of fair trade practices which had provisions for minimum salaries for employees; determine the number of hours per week an employee could work; insure fair prices for an industry; and prevent unfair competition with an industry. It was generally believe that if an industry failed to produce an acceptable code of its own the bureaucrats at NRA would impose one which would be less acceptable.
Eventually the Supreme Court of the U.S. found this to be unconstitutional, but it was too late, many of the socialist policies of the New Deal became the standard, exacerbating the depth of the depression causing it to become the Great Depression. However, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the formation of a national organization.
Ohio and New York pest controllers brought this industry together because of the vision of a few good men. There is no doubt that Bill Buettner, the first president of the national association, cast a giant shadow. But that was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants who were willing to put the own interests aside for the good of an entire industry. Those people were from Ohio and New York! Some of those families are still in the structural pest control business in Ohio. The passion and dedication these giants had for our industry was and is shared even now. It is almost like a form of osmosis amongst Ohio pest controllers and permeates our state association to this day; and we have a very real sense of founder’s rights!
Even our newsletter, The Standard, has received praise from no lesser light than Harry Katz, by saying that;
As we come down into the 1800’s we find that so many concepts of what constitutes modern pest control came out of Europe, especially Germany. Germany was further advanced with regard to chemistry in general than the rest of the world. As an example, when WW I started aspirin became unavailable because it was produced in Germany only. Bayer is still a major manufacturer of medications and pesticides. The fact of the matter is that pest control became a largely immigrant profession especially amongst the German and German Jewish immigrants.
In 1850 advertisements appeared in New York newspapers selling pesticides such as phosphorus paste, arsenic, strychnine, cyanide, pyrethrum and a number of disinfecting compounds were available. In addition….screening, netting, traps and fly paper were produced by American industry. The technology of the profession was nearly advanced as in Europe, because immigrants were arriving daily bringing additional knowledge with them. On the eve of the American Civil War, we find all elements of the infant pest control industry firmly established in the United States and it was based on effective chemistry.
The evolution of the pest control industry followed the advances in communication and technology. At this time secret formulas, lack of scientific knowledge, suspicion and animosity between competitors was the order of the day; especially since there was no national organization. In 1932 the first national publication for the structural pest control industry appeared, called the Exterminators Log. The name changed as the years went by. In 1938 it was renamed “Pests” and in 1939 became “Pests and Their Control” and then “Pest Control” in 1949 (which it maintained until recent years when it was renamed, Pest Management Professional) and then moved to Cleveland, Ohio; where it remains to this day, along with Pest Control Technology magazine, which was first printed in 1973.
This issue of organizing the pest control industry nationally began to be resolved in 1933 when The Society of Exterminators and Fumigators of New York City elected Bill Buettner. They weren’t the only ones who realized the need for a national association. In that same year The Associated Exterminators and Fumigators of the United States with executive offices in the old Hollenden Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio agreed to hold a convention in Cleveland to make a very real attempt to form a national association. Clearly there wasn’t room for two national associations and in October of that year the associated Ohio group endorsed the New York group and formed what eventually became the National Pest Management Association. National representation was born.
I do believe this is an important part of the story and cannot be left out. One of the real driving forces for this action was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration which demanded that business, through its trade associations, establish codes of fair trade practices which had provisions for minimum salaries for employees; determine the number of hours per week an employee could work; insure fair prices for an industry; and prevent unfair competition with an industry. It was generally believe that if an industry failed to produce an acceptable code of its own the bureaucrats at NRA would impose one which would be less acceptable.
Eventually the Supreme Court of the U.S. found this to be unconstitutional, but it was too late, many of the socialist policies of the New Deal became the standard, exacerbating the depth of the depression causing it to become the Great Depression. However, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the formation of a national organization.
Ohio and New York pest controllers brought this industry together because of the vision of a few good men. There is no doubt that Bill Buettner, the first president of the national association, cast a giant shadow. But that was because he was standing on the shoulders of giants who were willing to put the own interests aside for the good of an entire industry. Those people were from Ohio and New York! Some of those families are still in the structural pest control business in Ohio. The passion and dedication these giants had for our industry was and is shared even now. It is almost like a form of osmosis amongst Ohio pest controllers and permeates our state association to this day; and we have a very real sense of founder’s rights!
Even our newsletter, The Standard, has received praise from no lesser light than Harry Katz, by saying that;
"Rich,
It is a shame that only Ohioans get it.
It is really worthy of national distribution. You did a good job of researching
material for the Cancer story. I will use some of it in a cancer story in my
column in our Village newspaper. Something special about Cleveland: that is
where the son of a Cleveland PCO started the Pest Control Magazine.
Harry”
In 1962 Rachel Carson published her book, Silent Spring.
Carson’s ability to spin a tale was truly amazing. Even though just about
everything she said was either false, misleading or inaccurate the EPA still
praises her as an environmental saint, in spite of all the studies that have
clearly discredited almost everything she stated or claimed or predicted. EPA’s
web site states:
"Silent Spring played in the
history of environmentalism roughly the same role that Uncle Tom’s Cabin played
in the abolitionist movement. In fact, EPA today may be said without
exaggeration to the extend4ed shadow of Rachel Carson. The influence of her
book has brought together over 14,000 scientists, lawyers, managers, and other
employees across the country to fight the good fight for “environmental
protections.”
Skeptics then and now have accused
Carson of shallow science, but her literary genius carried all before it.”
So it was her literary genius and not her scientific
genius that did it. At least EPA got that right. However, this book was the
basis for the ban on DDT and gave the impetus for the formation of the modern
environmental movement, which must be held responsible for tens of millions of
deaths and billions of cases of unnecessary afflictions that could have been
prevented.
In 1970 Richard Nixon stated that he had taken steps to get rid of DDT and formed the EPA. He did this to strip the United States Department of Agriculture of legislative authority regarding pesticides. They knew the science did not justify a ban on DDT and were against it, hence Nixon’s corrupt actions.
The irresponsible ban on DDT can be blamed not only on Richard Nixon, (although he bears the burden of blame) but William Ruckelshaus as well. When judge Sweeney ruled against those wanting to ban DDT he stated that DDT wasn’t a carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man and did not have a deleterious effect of wildlife, President Richard Nixon was furious and stated that he was going to do everything he could to overturn that decision. Ruckelshaus, a “closet” environmentalist and the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed by Nixon, banned DDT even though the judge who sat through a scientific hearing on DDT — a hearing that Ruckelshaus did not attend — ruled that it should remain in use.”
It has been claimed that Ruckelshaus was not responsible and that two court decisions required EPA to ban DDT, but Sweeney’s decision vacated those orders and it was Ruckelshaus who ultimately made the decision to ban DDT; which he admitted two years later to an audience of environmental activists by acknowledging that there was no science to justify the ban and therefore made a political decision.
We have come a long way down that road of regulations. “The Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.” As a result we have continued to lose important tools. In 1996 the Food Quality Protection act passed and we lost important organophosphates and carbamates, and now we have bed bugs reaching epidemic proportions. I keep hearing about the increase in ticks. What happens when children start coming down with Lyme disease on a regular basis? What is EPA’s answer to all of this? Integrated Pest Management (IPM)!
IPM was the brainchild of a number of entomologists, who pioneered the concept in the early 1960’s, including Ray Smith, Dale Newsome, Charlie Lincoln and Bill Luckman, according to George Rotramel, PhD. However it would appear that the whole thing was triggered by an article in the agricultural science journal Hilgardia, (Hilgardia 29: 81-101, 1959) which you will find cited and quoted unendingly in papers up to and including the latest papers regarding pest control solutions in agriculture.
One of the authors of that paper Vernon M. Stern wrote and article in 1985 in “This Week’s Citation Classic” commentaries where-in he notes;
In 1970 Richard Nixon stated that he had taken steps to get rid of DDT and formed the EPA. He did this to strip the United States Department of Agriculture of legislative authority regarding pesticides. They knew the science did not justify a ban on DDT and were against it, hence Nixon’s corrupt actions.
The irresponsible ban on DDT can be blamed not only on Richard Nixon, (although he bears the burden of blame) but William Ruckelshaus as well. When judge Sweeney ruled against those wanting to ban DDT he stated that DDT wasn’t a carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man and did not have a deleterious effect of wildlife, President Richard Nixon was furious and stated that he was going to do everything he could to overturn that decision. Ruckelshaus, a “closet” environmentalist and the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed by Nixon, banned DDT even though the judge who sat through a scientific hearing on DDT — a hearing that Ruckelshaus did not attend — ruled that it should remain in use.”
It has been claimed that Ruckelshaus was not responsible and that two court decisions required EPA to ban DDT, but Sweeney’s decision vacated those orders and it was Ruckelshaus who ultimately made the decision to ban DDT; which he admitted two years later to an audience of environmental activists by acknowledging that there was no science to justify the ban and therefore made a political decision.
We have come a long way down that road of regulations. “The Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.” As a result we have continued to lose important tools. In 1996 the Food Quality Protection act passed and we lost important organophosphates and carbamates, and now we have bed bugs reaching epidemic proportions. I keep hearing about the increase in ticks. What happens when children start coming down with Lyme disease on a regular basis? What is EPA’s answer to all of this? Integrated Pest Management (IPM)!
IPM was the brainchild of a number of entomologists, who pioneered the concept in the early 1960’s, including Ray Smith, Dale Newsome, Charlie Lincoln and Bill Luckman, according to George Rotramel, PhD. However it would appear that the whole thing was triggered by an article in the agricultural science journal Hilgardia, (Hilgardia 29: 81-101, 1959) which you will find cited and quoted unendingly in papers up to and including the latest papers regarding pest control solutions in agriculture.
One of the authors of that paper Vernon M. Stern wrote and article in 1985 in “This Week’s Citation Classic” commentaries where-in he notes;
“The reason this paper has been widely
cited is that, by 1959, the world of pest control needed drastic improvement.
This paper was a significant first step and laid the basis for all that
followed. An author commented recently, “Economic entomology has had nothing
quite so fashionable as integrated control. It gathered momentum from its very
breath. It was all things to all entomologists. Above all, it acquired the characteristics of a religious movement, with its own priesthood, faithful
following, and body of doctrine. Such, indeed, was its strength.” (Source)
Jones D. P. Agricultural entomology (Smith R. F, Mittler T.E. Smith C.N. &
eds.) History of Entomology. Palo Alto, California: Annual reviews, 1973, p.
307-3
He went on to say that during the 1960’s “the entomological concept of integrated control was broadened considerably and soon encompassed nematology, plant pathology, and weed science. This entire field now includes not only biological and chemical control, climatic factors, plant growth analysis, and modeling as well as social ramifications and political aspects. As a result the term “integrated pest management” largely replaced our term “integrated control”. Today, BS, MS, and PhD degrees are offered in this subject. About 20 (in 1985) states now require agricultural pest control advisers to be licensed.”
He went on to say that during the 1960’s “the entomological concept of integrated control was broadened considerably and soon encompassed nematology, plant pathology, and weed science. This entire field now includes not only biological and chemical control, climatic factors, plant growth analysis, and modeling as well as social ramifications and political aspects. As a result the term “integrated pest management” largely replaced our term “integrated control”. Today, BS, MS, and PhD degrees are offered in this subject. About 20 (in 1985) states now require agricultural pest control advisers to be licensed.”
In an article “Renaming (Redefining) Integrated Pest Management: Fumble, Pass,
or Play?”, authors Tom A. Royer, Philip G. Mulder and Gerrit W.
Cuperus of the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State
University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74048. In the American Entomologist
"Postmarked: Extension, U.S.A.", Volume 45. Pages 136-139 commenting
on the book;
“Ecologically Based Pest Management:
New Solutions for a New Century (National Research Council 1996) stated that
the authors “thoroughly examined integrated pest management (IPM) and exposed
some valid criticisms regarding its implementation. After reviewing the book,
we asked the question: "What compelled the authors to re-invent and rename
IPM?" We are convinced that the genesis of ecologically based pest
management (EBPM) was predicated on a genuine concern about how IPM is
practiced. However, we concur with Kogan's (1998) view that IPM practitioners,
educators, and researchers should be troubled by the introduction of
"repackaged" substitutes with new acronyms because the identity of
this fully developed, already recognizable archetype [IPM] may be undermined.”
It is clear from this article the authors believe “IPM
must be able to be defined in a viable framework.” In other words, it first
must work to control pests and it must be “economically feasible and socially
acceptable.” Although it appears clear that the authors are in favor of
seriously reducing pesticide use, their comments are important because it is
obvious from their concerns that IPM was designed for, and is only practicable
in agriculture and constantly redefining IPM to mean whatever anyone wants it
to mean is counterproductive.
Even those definitions that aren’t clearly agricultural in nature show that it is obvious from the content it doesn’t apply to structural pest control. Most importantly, none of them exclude the use of pesticides, with the determinant factors being the applicators understanding of the problem and his judgment as to what should be done. This may be a good time to list some of the many definitions of IPM.
IPM is based on threshold limits, which establishes an economic basis for the application of pesticides. So many pests in a field do so much damage and when that damage passes an economic threshold of losses it is more economical to apply pesticides. That’s IPM! And even in agriculture where IPM can be scientifically defined it isn’t really practiced because it is time and labor intensive to do the surveys and expensive.
So then, what is the threshold limit for cockroaches in a restaurant or ones home? How about bed bugs, fleas, rats, mice, ticks, ants, termites, etc? They answer is zero. There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control. EPA bureaucrats have another program they push called Green Pest Control, which is ever less definable than IPM. In point of fact there are only two states, Georgia and California have any definition.
APSCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) sent out a survey to find out if any states had a definition for green. “Georgia’s definition is that “Green Pest Management can best be defined as a service that employs and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach while utilizing fewer of the earth’s resources as a part of a larger effort to reduce human impacts on the environment”. California’s report of a definition of GPM referenced their existing definition of integrated pest management and did not elaborate further on GPM.
These states are using a defining term to define a term. They can’t do it any better than they were able to define IPM. There will be no end to the changes or demands. Pest control isn't a methodology, it is a practice. Well, IPM and GPM aren't methodologies either; but neither are they a practice. Both IPM and GPM are ideologies disguised as methodologies and that is why they are so hard to find a single definition, which I believe is a Sisyphean task.
We are replacing science with mysticism when we work to "become one with the biosphere" as the green movements demand. EPA has been a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations from its inception. It is clear to anyone who wishes to see that the EPA was born in corruption and operates behind a curtain of lies, just like the Wizard of Oz. Where will all of this take us? I believe that bed bugs are the tip of the iceberg, for no society can avoid the consequences of its way of living. We cannot continue in this direction without serious consequences. Mankind must alter his environment in order to survive. Even those ignorant ancients with their magic spells recognized this as a basic truth. They at least had an excuse; they were ignorant.
Even those definitions that aren’t clearly agricultural in nature show that it is obvious from the content it doesn’t apply to structural pest control. Most importantly, none of them exclude the use of pesticides, with the determinant factors being the applicators understanding of the problem and his judgment as to what should be done. This may be a good time to list some of the many definitions of IPM.
IPM is based on threshold limits, which establishes an economic basis for the application of pesticides. So many pests in a field do so much damage and when that damage passes an economic threshold of losses it is more economical to apply pesticides. That’s IPM! And even in agriculture where IPM can be scientifically defined it isn’t really practiced because it is time and labor intensive to do the surveys and expensive.
So then, what is the threshold limit for cockroaches in a restaurant or ones home? How about bed bugs, fleas, rats, mice, ticks, ants, termites, etc? They answer is zero. There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control. EPA bureaucrats have another program they push called Green Pest Control, which is ever less definable than IPM. In point of fact there are only two states, Georgia and California have any definition.
APSCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) sent out a survey to find out if any states had a definition for green. “Georgia’s definition is that “Green Pest Management can best be defined as a service that employs and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach while utilizing fewer of the earth’s resources as a part of a larger effort to reduce human impacts on the environment”. California’s report of a definition of GPM referenced their existing definition of integrated pest management and did not elaborate further on GPM.
These states are using a defining term to define a term. They can’t do it any better than they were able to define IPM. There will be no end to the changes or demands. Pest control isn't a methodology, it is a practice. Well, IPM and GPM aren't methodologies either; but neither are they a practice. Both IPM and GPM are ideologies disguised as methodologies and that is why they are so hard to find a single definition, which I believe is a Sisyphean task.
We are replacing science with mysticism when we work to "become one with the biosphere" as the green movements demand. EPA has been a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations from its inception. It is clear to anyone who wishes to see that the EPA was born in corruption and operates behind a curtain of lies, just like the Wizard of Oz. Where will all of this take us? I believe that bed bugs are the tip of the iceberg, for no society can avoid the consequences of its way of living. We cannot continue in this direction without serious consequences. Mankind must alter his environment in order to survive. Even those ignorant ancients with their magic spells recognized this as a basic truth. They at least had an excuse; they were ignorant.
Rich Kozlovich Sunday,
June 13, 2010
All too often we hear pest control professionals claim that we must follow the methodologies of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to meet modern structural needs. There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control because it is based on threshold limits and the threshold limits for the pests we deal with in people's homes and businesses is zero. The reality is that IPM exists in structural pest control because some government agency says is exists. That doesn't change the facts, we may be stuck with it, but we need to understand the reality of it. IPM is an agricultural concept, where it can actually be scientifically defined. Definitions of IPM on the Web:
• Here - The use of different techniques in combination to control pests, with an emphasis on methods that are least injurious to the environment and most specific to the particular pest. For example, pest-resistant plant varieties, regular monitoring for pests, pesticides, natural predators of the pest, and good stand management practices may be used singly or in combination to control or prevent particular pests.
• Here -A combination of biological, cultural, and genetic pest control methods with use of pesticides as the last resort. IPM considers a targeted species' life cycle and intervenes in reproduction, growth, or development to reduce the population. Land use practices are examined for possible change; other animals, birds, or reptiles in the ecosystem are used as natural predators.
• Here - A systems approach that combines a wide array of crop production practices with careful monitoring of pests and their natural enemies. IPM practices include use of resistant varieties, timing of planting, cultivation, biological controls, and judicious use of pesticides to control pests. These IPM practices are used in greenhouses and on field crops. IPM systems anticipate and prevent pests from reaching economically damaging levels.
• Here - The control of pests or diseases by using an array of crop production strategies, combined with careful monitoring of insect pests or weed populations and other methods.
• Here - An approach to pest control that includes biological, mechanical and chemical means. The goal of IPM is to produce a healthy crop in an economically efficient and environmentally sound manner.
• Here -A system integrating a range of methods of pest control to produce healthy crops economically and to reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment.
• Here -The procedure of integrating and applying practical management methods, to keep pest species from reaching damaging levels while minimizing potentially harmful effects of pest management measures on humans, non-target species, and the environment, incorporating assessment methods to guide management decisions.
• Here -A pest management strategy that includes using traps to monitor for pests on the farm, using sanitation and beneficial insects to control those pests, and applying pesticides in such a way that they pose the least possible hazard, and are used as a 'last resort' when other controls are inadequate.
• Here -IPM begins with a set of guidelines. The grower monitors pest populations and develops statistical ceilings for the numbers of each pest species that is acceptable for specific crops. The first method of control is preventive -- or cultural (growing healthy plants). Physical (traps, handpicking insects, row covers) and biological (beneficial insects) controls are applied next. If none of these is effective, the grower resorts to chemical controls (such as insecticides).
• Here -A system of controlling insect and diseases by a thorough understanding of the life cycle of the pests and the plants. Chemical controls are used as a last resort.
• Here -A pest management strategy that uses field monitoring of pest populations, established guidelines, and economic thresholds to determine if and when pesticide treatments should be utilized. Emphasizes the use of a number of crop management techniques including the conservation of natural enemies and the use of resistant varieties to manage pests.
• Here - Maintaining pest populations below a level at which economic damage results by using the least toxic methods.
• Here -An ecologically based pest-control strategy that relies on natural mortality factors, such as natural enemies, weather, cultural control methods, and carefully applied doses of pesticides.
• Here -A decision making process for managing pest populations that uses a combination of techniques; it includes preventing pest problems, identification, monitoring, use of injury thresholds for decisions, a combination of controls (cultural, physical, mechanical, biological, chemical, etc.) and an evaluation step.
• Here -IPM is a complete approach to eliminating pest problems. Identifying pests, determining how to avoid or correct problems, and managing pest populations through a variety of chemical, biological and cultural practices are all involved in a successful IPM program.
• Here -Combined use of biological, chemical, storage and cultivation methods in proper sequence and timing to keep the size of a pest population below that which causes an economically unacceptable loss of a crop or livestock animal.
• Here -Pest control strategy employing non-chemical means, such as natural predators, to control crop-damaging pests.
• Here -A package of alternatives to conventional pest control methods, which often involve frequent and extensive use of pesticides. The package consists of one or more of the following: (1) growing a healthy, genetically varied crop (cultural control); (2) use of pest-resistant crop varieties (host plant resistance); (3) use of natural enemies to crop pests (biological control); and (4) occasional use of pesticides as a last resort (chemical control).
• Here -A holistic or integrated approach to controlling the risks and damage associated with natural predators, diseases and pests. It involves using site-specific information to determine the most effective combination of physical, chemical, biological, or cultural practices to reduce damage while reducing impacts on the environment, biological diversity and human health.
• Here -A process (based on scouting) that anticipates and prevents pests from reaching economically damaging levels. Pests are controlled by using all suitable tactics, including natural enemies, pest resistant plants, mechanical management, and judicious use of pesticides. IPM leads to an economically sound and environmentally safe agriculture. It is a component of ICM and a water quality practice.
Points of importance that can be gleaned from this information are as follows:
All too often we hear pest control professionals claim that we must follow the methodologies of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to meet modern structural needs. There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control because it is based on threshold limits and the threshold limits for the pests we deal with in people's homes and businesses is zero. The reality is that IPM exists in structural pest control because some government agency says is exists. That doesn't change the facts, we may be stuck with it, but we need to understand the reality of it. IPM is an agricultural concept, where it can actually be scientifically defined. Definitions of IPM on the Web:
• Here - The use of different techniques in combination to control pests, with an emphasis on methods that are least injurious to the environment and most specific to the particular pest. For example, pest-resistant plant varieties, regular monitoring for pests, pesticides, natural predators of the pest, and good stand management practices may be used singly or in combination to control or prevent particular pests.
• Here -A combination of biological, cultural, and genetic pest control methods with use of pesticides as the last resort. IPM considers a targeted species' life cycle and intervenes in reproduction, growth, or development to reduce the population. Land use practices are examined for possible change; other animals, birds, or reptiles in the ecosystem are used as natural predators.
• Here - A systems approach that combines a wide array of crop production practices with careful monitoring of pests and their natural enemies. IPM practices include use of resistant varieties, timing of planting, cultivation, biological controls, and judicious use of pesticides to control pests. These IPM practices are used in greenhouses and on field crops. IPM systems anticipate and prevent pests from reaching economically damaging levels.
• Here - The control of pests or diseases by using an array of crop production strategies, combined with careful monitoring of insect pests or weed populations and other methods.
• Here - An approach to pest control that includes biological, mechanical and chemical means. The goal of IPM is to produce a healthy crop in an economically efficient and environmentally sound manner.
• Here -A system integrating a range of methods of pest control to produce healthy crops economically and to reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment.
• Here -The procedure of integrating and applying practical management methods, to keep pest species from reaching damaging levels while minimizing potentially harmful effects of pest management measures on humans, non-target species, and the environment, incorporating assessment methods to guide management decisions.
• Here -A pest management strategy that includes using traps to monitor for pests on the farm, using sanitation and beneficial insects to control those pests, and applying pesticides in such a way that they pose the least possible hazard, and are used as a 'last resort' when other controls are inadequate.
• Here -IPM begins with a set of guidelines. The grower monitors pest populations and develops statistical ceilings for the numbers of each pest species that is acceptable for specific crops. The first method of control is preventive -- or cultural (growing healthy plants). Physical (traps, handpicking insects, row covers) and biological (beneficial insects) controls are applied next. If none of these is effective, the grower resorts to chemical controls (such as insecticides).
• Here -A system of controlling insect and diseases by a thorough understanding of the life cycle of the pests and the plants. Chemical controls are used as a last resort.
• Here -A pest management strategy that uses field monitoring of pest populations, established guidelines, and economic thresholds to determine if and when pesticide treatments should be utilized. Emphasizes the use of a number of crop management techniques including the conservation of natural enemies and the use of resistant varieties to manage pests.
• Here - Maintaining pest populations below a level at which economic damage results by using the least toxic methods.
• Here -An ecologically based pest-control strategy that relies on natural mortality factors, such as natural enemies, weather, cultural control methods, and carefully applied doses of pesticides.
• Here -A decision making process for managing pest populations that uses a combination of techniques; it includes preventing pest problems, identification, monitoring, use of injury thresholds for decisions, a combination of controls (cultural, physical, mechanical, biological, chemical, etc.) and an evaluation step.
• Here -IPM is a complete approach to eliminating pest problems. Identifying pests, determining how to avoid or correct problems, and managing pest populations through a variety of chemical, biological and cultural practices are all involved in a successful IPM program.
• Here -Combined use of biological, chemical, storage and cultivation methods in proper sequence and timing to keep the size of a pest population below that which causes an economically unacceptable loss of a crop or livestock animal.
• Here -Pest control strategy employing non-chemical means, such as natural predators, to control crop-damaging pests.
• Here -A package of alternatives to conventional pest control methods, which often involve frequent and extensive use of pesticides. The package consists of one or more of the following: (1) growing a healthy, genetically varied crop (cultural control); (2) use of pest-resistant crop varieties (host plant resistance); (3) use of natural enemies to crop pests (biological control); and (4) occasional use of pesticides as a last resort (chemical control).
• Here -A holistic or integrated approach to controlling the risks and damage associated with natural predators, diseases and pests. It involves using site-specific information to determine the most effective combination of physical, chemical, biological, or cultural practices to reduce damage while reducing impacts on the environment, biological diversity and human health.
• Here -A process (based on scouting) that anticipates and prevents pests from reaching economically damaging levels. Pests are controlled by using all suitable tactics, including natural enemies, pest resistant plants, mechanical management, and judicious use of pesticides. IPM leads to an economically sound and environmentally safe agriculture. It is a component of ICM and a water quality practice.
Points of importance that can be gleaned from this information are as follows:
1. It is the
applicator, farmer, greens keeper or who ever else is responsible for keeping a
pest population in control that decides what is to be done and with what,
including establishing what the threshold limits are to be.
2. Preventative applications may be necessary in agriculture.
3. Plant varieties are immaterial in structural pest control.
4. Biological controls (other than IGR’s) used in agriculture will not work in structural pest control.
5. There are no natural predators to pests in structures except man.
6. Many of these definitions clearly call IPM pest control. Why then do we have to call it anything other than pest control?
7. IPM is an agricultural concept.
8. IPM is an economic concept.
9. IPM was never presented as an environmental concept first.
10. IPM is a concept that outlines a host of tools and techniques that could be used to manage a pest population.
11. A concept that allows the applicator to determine what tools and techniques would used.
12. IPM was never intended for the structural pest control industry.
2. Preventative applications may be necessary in agriculture.
3. Plant varieties are immaterial in structural pest control.
4. Biological controls (other than IGR’s) used in agriculture will not work in structural pest control.
5. There are no natural predators to pests in structures except man.
6. Many of these definitions clearly call IPM pest control. Why then do we have to call it anything other than pest control?
7. IPM is an agricultural concept.
8. IPM is an economic concept.
9. IPM was never presented as an environmental concept first.
10. IPM is a concept that outlines a host of tools and techniques that could be used to manage a pest population.
11. A concept that allows the applicator to determine what tools and techniques would used.
12. IPM was never intended for the structural pest control industry.
This is indicative
as to what the problem with IPM really is. It is indefinable — or if you
prefer, unendingly definable — according to one’s likes, whims or ideology.
Those who promote IPM in structural pest control are actively promoting an
ideology while attempting to disguise it as a methodology; with the ultimate
goal of eliminating pesticides. Those who promote it are known and their track
record is clearly anti-pesticide, irrational and misanthropic. Those in
industry who support and promote it are self-serving and short sighted. That is
the reality of it. Get over it!
Rich Kozlovich Tuesday, June 22,
2010
Man's method of survival –
transforming nature to meet his needs – must be defended against
environmentalism's attack. - Onkar Ghate.
The spraying of pesticides is not needed because they don’t work! How many times have we heard one of the green activists spout this kind of nonsense?
Chikungunya fever is a crippling mosquito transmitted disease that was rapidly spreading on islands of the Indian Ocean. As of February 4, 2006 the French island of Reunion had 50,000 cases of this viral disease with 15,000 in the previous week.
So, what did the local officials do? Did they call Greenpeace to ask their advice and get some financing to help with this growing health problem? Perhaps they contacted Earth Liberation Front, The Sierra Club, Earth Wildlife Federation or Friends of the Earth? Maybe they called the the first head of EPA, Bill Ruckelshaus, the man who banned DDT; or his friends at Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund) and ask them what should be done?
Wait! I just had a thought. These groups collectively claim that their anti-pesticide positions are based on a concern for human health. If so, how many of these environmental groups contacted them? They seem to have all the answers. Why weren’t they on the scene helping to eliminate this problem with some Integrated Pest Management scheme or some natural remedy such as garlic and bay leaves?
The reason they aren’t called by those who actually have the responsibility to solve problems; and the reason Greenies don’t call them is because Greenies are only good at finding fault. They are terrible at finding solutions! Especially solutions that eventually they themselves will find fault with at some later date; which is an important point, since all of their solutions seem to cause a lot more problems than they solve.
What was left to do then? The island government activated the army to spray pesticides to kill the mosquitoes. When it is all said and done there is only one conclusion, one view that bears the weight of science, one action that can stand unashamedly in the spotlight of history and bear the weight of time. The extensive use of pesticides! Pesticides are needed and must be sprayed because pesticides work! Pesticides and pesticide applicators save lives. Let’s say this again. Pesticides and pesticide applicators save lives. Those societies that have flourished are societies that have been heavy pesticide users. This bodes well the question: who are the killers here; pesticide applicators or environmental activists?
When are we going to stop listening to these people? In England they complain that there are too many drugs on the market that have not been child tested. These are the same people that go ballistic when the thought of finding out what the impact pesticides actually have on children through passive testing. Passive testing means that they would just watch the health of children where pesticides are already being used in their homes. What’s wrong with that?
It doesn’t help them to attain their goal, which is to create havoc, not find out whether pesticides, drugs or anything else are safe for children. The most frightening thing for the activists would be that it would be discovered there was no negative health impact on children’s lives as a result of appropriate applications of pesticides. Worse yet, they fear it might show that their health is better than children in homes of the same socioeconomic group where pesticides are not used.
Why do they fear this? They fear it because they know it to be true. If these kinds of studies are allowed they will be out in the cold because nothing appeals to the emotions more than protecting children. Out go their claims of disaster. Out goes their influence in the media. Out goes their ability to sway an uninformed and gullible public. Out goes their influence with government officials. Worse yet, out goes their ability to scare the people, and along with that; out goes their income because funding will dry up. This leaves the worst case scenario for them. Now they would be faced with a real and legitimate disaster. They would actually have to go out and get a real job.
Many of their claims regarding pesticides and good health have been studied and have already been dismissed because these claims were shown to be junk science. Yet they continue to spew them out via the media. It is important that we know in our own minds that most of what we see on the news and read in the newspaper are lies. Not necessarily lies of commission, although they have been guilty of that also, but mostly lies of omission. They have the tendency to leave important information out.
We simply cannot blindly accept what we are told! We cannot blindly go along with the greenies! We cannot blindly follow those in leadership positions who tell us we have to go along with the greenies either. Their misanthropic history has shown that they have been the greatest source of preventable dystopia in the modern history of mankind. Let me repeat that so they you will know this isn’t a slip of the tongue. “Their misanthropic history has shown that they have been the greatest source of preventable dystopia in the modern history of mankind”. With the toll of death, sickness and misery they have exacted around the world, why should we believe anything they have to say regarding what constitutes good health for society?
History is clear as to the multiple benefits pesticides provide. History is also replete with tales of what happens when pesticides are withdrawn. This bodes well the questions; where is the moral compass of those who attack pesticides? Where is the moral compass of those within the industry who go along with the greenies? Pesticides and pesticide applicators are what save lives! Not greenie mysticism!
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.
Have We Lost Our Minds?
The spraying of pesticides is not needed because they don’t work! How many times have we heard one of the green activists spout this kind of nonsense?
Chikungunya fever is a crippling mosquito transmitted disease that was rapidly spreading on islands of the Indian Ocean. As of February 4, 2006 the French island of Reunion had 50,000 cases of this viral disease with 15,000 in the previous week.
So, what did the local officials do? Did they call Greenpeace to ask their advice and get some financing to help with this growing health problem? Perhaps they contacted Earth Liberation Front, The Sierra Club, Earth Wildlife Federation or Friends of the Earth? Maybe they called the the first head of EPA, Bill Ruckelshaus, the man who banned DDT; or his friends at Environmental Defense (formerly Environmental Defense Fund) and ask them what should be done?
Wait! I just had a thought. These groups collectively claim that their anti-pesticide positions are based on a concern for human health. If so, how many of these environmental groups contacted them? They seem to have all the answers. Why weren’t they on the scene helping to eliminate this problem with some Integrated Pest Management scheme or some natural remedy such as garlic and bay leaves?
The reason they aren’t called by those who actually have the responsibility to solve problems; and the reason Greenies don’t call them is because Greenies are only good at finding fault. They are terrible at finding solutions! Especially solutions that eventually they themselves will find fault with at some later date; which is an important point, since all of their solutions seem to cause a lot more problems than they solve.
What was left to do then? The island government activated the army to spray pesticides to kill the mosquitoes. When it is all said and done there is only one conclusion, one view that bears the weight of science, one action that can stand unashamedly in the spotlight of history and bear the weight of time. The extensive use of pesticides! Pesticides are needed and must be sprayed because pesticides work! Pesticides and pesticide applicators save lives. Let’s say this again. Pesticides and pesticide applicators save lives. Those societies that have flourished are societies that have been heavy pesticide users. This bodes well the question: who are the killers here; pesticide applicators or environmental activists?
When are we going to stop listening to these people? In England they complain that there are too many drugs on the market that have not been child tested. These are the same people that go ballistic when the thought of finding out what the impact pesticides actually have on children through passive testing. Passive testing means that they would just watch the health of children where pesticides are already being used in their homes. What’s wrong with that?
It doesn’t help them to attain their goal, which is to create havoc, not find out whether pesticides, drugs or anything else are safe for children. The most frightening thing for the activists would be that it would be discovered there was no negative health impact on children’s lives as a result of appropriate applications of pesticides. Worse yet, they fear it might show that their health is better than children in homes of the same socioeconomic group where pesticides are not used.
Why do they fear this? They fear it because they know it to be true. If these kinds of studies are allowed they will be out in the cold because nothing appeals to the emotions more than protecting children. Out go their claims of disaster. Out goes their influence in the media. Out goes their ability to sway an uninformed and gullible public. Out goes their influence with government officials. Worse yet, out goes their ability to scare the people, and along with that; out goes their income because funding will dry up. This leaves the worst case scenario for them. Now they would be faced with a real and legitimate disaster. They would actually have to go out and get a real job.
Many of their claims regarding pesticides and good health have been studied and have already been dismissed because these claims were shown to be junk science. Yet they continue to spew them out via the media. It is important that we know in our own minds that most of what we see on the news and read in the newspaper are lies. Not necessarily lies of commission, although they have been guilty of that also, but mostly lies of omission. They have the tendency to leave important information out.
We simply cannot blindly accept what we are told! We cannot blindly go along with the greenies! We cannot blindly follow those in leadership positions who tell us we have to go along with the greenies either. Their misanthropic history has shown that they have been the greatest source of preventable dystopia in the modern history of mankind. Let me repeat that so they you will know this isn’t a slip of the tongue. “Their misanthropic history has shown that they have been the greatest source of preventable dystopia in the modern history of mankind”. With the toll of death, sickness and misery they have exacted around the world, why should we believe anything they have to say regarding what constitutes good health for society?
History is clear as to the multiple benefits pesticides provide. History is also replete with tales of what happens when pesticides are withdrawn. This bodes well the questions; where is the moral compass of those who attack pesticides? Where is the moral compass of those within the industry who go along with the greenies? Pesticides and pesticide applicators are what save lives! Not greenie mysticism!
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.
Have We Lost Our Minds?
Rich Kozlovich Friday, July 9, 2010
Some year back Burt
Prelutsky wrote an article entitled “Those poor, poor perverts”. The basis of the article
was a discussion as to how ridiculous are the arguments surrounding pedophiles
and how they are to be treated by society.
He uses the old story of how “intellectuals” (he used the word “nuts”, but they were the intellectuals of the day…..nothing has changed!) would sit around for hours and discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. See… television did cure one thing. The only problem is that so many of those who are in decision making positions apparently don’t waste their time on television, mores’ the pity, because they now sit around and decide how many feet away from a school a convicted pedophile may live who has been released from prison.
Prelutsky makes a point that should be obvious to the most casual observer; “For what reason would any sane society ever release such a person from jail? The notion that kids are safe if the creep lives 2,000 feet away from where they play is perfectly loony. What about the kids walking to and from those parks and playgrounds? “
He points out that it is like releasing all the bank robbers from the prisons and telling them they can’t live any closer that two blocks away from a bank and expecting this to be the solution to their wanting to rob banks. He goes on to say, “judges and lawmakers seem happy to ignore the rates of recidivism among rapists and pedophiles. Is there anyone else, aside from defense attorneys, who would argue that a man who’s raped a six year old child deserves a second chance?” We have ceded our own common sense to the “experts”! Are they really all that credible; so credible that we willingly abandon traditional values, common sense and moral balance? Where is our moral compass?
As unpleasant an issue as this is, I use it to show a peculiar mindset that has permeated society that really is nuts. Concern about pedophiles, bank robbers and other assorted villains of society is the common concern that we all must share. We also have the added concern of those who are destructive to society in a much larger and more insidious way. The green movement! The group that our industry must have concerns about are the greenie activists; those inside as well as outside our industry.
They promote junk and fraudulent science as fact and those who should be at the fore front standing against this nonsense turn into cheerleaders, and everyone eats it up. We are willing to accept nonsense from these people because the media is on their side. The EPA is clearly complicit as they continue spewing out a lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations. They support junk science through grant money; IPM and Green Pest Control being these kinds of endeavors. The green movement even has legislators held hostage to huge amounts of their monetary support. Some years back a California congressman wanted to make changes to the Endangered Species Act…not repeal it as is really needed…..just add some sanity to it; and the Sierra Club spent a ton of money to defeat him and they did. They stated that “this was a lesson” to other legislators. This makes them more deadly to more people over a broader scope of humanity than bank robbers or even pedophiles.
Do we as an industry really believe all the nonsense they spew out? Do we really believe that we can really come to some sort of mutually acceptable final agreement with them? No matter what many of the prominent people in our industry say publically; when I talk to them personally and off the record they all acknowledge that it is all claptrap.
A lobbyist I have known for years makes the point that in any negotiations there must be some compromise; and I agree. The problem we seem to have is being able to understand the difference between compromise and capitulation. If during these discussions we give up something, I would like to know what the other side is giving up. I am not talking about just being quiet for a while either. Or being quiet while their brethren from some other greenie group attacks us, which is what usually happens. There is no command and control system within the green movement. They will not only continue attacking industry they will attack their green brethren as sell outs for not being green enough.
If you give up 25% of something and they go away until next year; they will be back the very next year demanding that you give up another 25% and so on and so on and so on until you no longer have anything to give up. When you dance with the Devil you don't call the tune, you can't name the dance and you don't lead. Why don't we get it?
If you think this is an extreme and unreasonable view; ask Kentucky Fried Chicken. They backed down on point after point and the animal rights people said that this was a “good start”. There will be no end to their demands because the Neville Chamberlain “Policy of Appeasement” philosophy will not work on people with an agenda? They are the anointed! They know best about all things. They truly believe that their individual and collective intellect is far greater than all of the practical experience accumulated by mankind over the centuries. Theirs is the “vision of the anointed”, and must not be ignored, no matter the consequences. As a result of the policies they have promoted; they clearly are the 20th century’s greatest mass murders and are working just as hard in the 21st century to maintain that status.
Ford Motor Company found out the hard way. In a Fox News article Steve Milloy points out that “After Ford caved into pressure from left-wing activist investors and issued a report stating that it “views stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and energy security as critical and related business issues that warrant precautionary, prudent and early action,” the enviros thanked Ford in return by accusing his company of putting “more heat-trapping pollution into our skies each year than the entire country of Mexico”; continuing to “produce more global warming pollution on average than any other automaker”; continuing to make SUVs; and fighting a California law that would require a 30 percent reduction in automobile carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.” Let’s not kid ourselves; what they really want is Ford, and the rest of the automobile industry, out of business. What do they want from us? Well, I am sure that if we would offer to kill ourselves that they would agree that this would be a nice start, and are working hard to accommodate them.
If you look at who has affected people’s health positively and negatively you will find that it is the pesticide application industries that have saved and extended lives and it is the environmental movement who has taken lives. So why do we listen to them? Why does anyone?
I am the last one to decry their desire for a simple life without all the modern conveniences; if that is what someone wants, then I say…enjoy! However, if all of these people think their ideas are so great, why are all the greenies and their supporters living in the developed world and not in the third world where their policies hold sway? If they really believe all of the stuff they spew out they need to take a personal stand and move there. They could really make an impact on everyone’s mind by taking their children with them also. Certainly that must make sense to everyone! After all, why would a greenie want to expose themselves and their children to all of these terrible chemicals? They need to move to one of the many areas of the world where there are no roads, few cars and no running water contaminated with any chlorine or fluoride. No electricity, no vaccinations, no genetically modified foods, no fungicides, no anti-bacterial cleaners, all organic food, no pesticides, no air conditioning. Will there be many takers? Few if any! You can be sure that the greenies will be as close to the modern conveniences and the society they claim to despise as surely as bank robbers will rob banks and pedophiles will hang around children.
To paraphrase the earlier question asked by Burt Prelutsky ; “For what reason would any sane society ever believe anything these people say? The notion that society would be safe if these creeps ideas and philosophies were followed is perfectly loony.” Yes …we really have lost our minds!
He uses the old story of how “intellectuals” (he used the word “nuts”, but they were the intellectuals of the day…..nothing has changed!) would sit around for hours and discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. See… television did cure one thing. The only problem is that so many of those who are in decision making positions apparently don’t waste their time on television, mores’ the pity, because they now sit around and decide how many feet away from a school a convicted pedophile may live who has been released from prison.
Prelutsky makes a point that should be obvious to the most casual observer; “For what reason would any sane society ever release such a person from jail? The notion that kids are safe if the creep lives 2,000 feet away from where they play is perfectly loony. What about the kids walking to and from those parks and playgrounds? “
He points out that it is like releasing all the bank robbers from the prisons and telling them they can’t live any closer that two blocks away from a bank and expecting this to be the solution to their wanting to rob banks. He goes on to say, “judges and lawmakers seem happy to ignore the rates of recidivism among rapists and pedophiles. Is there anyone else, aside from defense attorneys, who would argue that a man who’s raped a six year old child deserves a second chance?” We have ceded our own common sense to the “experts”! Are they really all that credible; so credible that we willingly abandon traditional values, common sense and moral balance? Where is our moral compass?
As unpleasant an issue as this is, I use it to show a peculiar mindset that has permeated society that really is nuts. Concern about pedophiles, bank robbers and other assorted villains of society is the common concern that we all must share. We also have the added concern of those who are destructive to society in a much larger and more insidious way. The green movement! The group that our industry must have concerns about are the greenie activists; those inside as well as outside our industry.
They promote junk and fraudulent science as fact and those who should be at the fore front standing against this nonsense turn into cheerleaders, and everyone eats it up. We are willing to accept nonsense from these people because the media is on their side. The EPA is clearly complicit as they continue spewing out a lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations. They support junk science through grant money; IPM and Green Pest Control being these kinds of endeavors. The green movement even has legislators held hostage to huge amounts of their monetary support. Some years back a California congressman wanted to make changes to the Endangered Species Act…not repeal it as is really needed…..just add some sanity to it; and the Sierra Club spent a ton of money to defeat him and they did. They stated that “this was a lesson” to other legislators. This makes them more deadly to more people over a broader scope of humanity than bank robbers or even pedophiles.
Do we as an industry really believe all the nonsense they spew out? Do we really believe that we can really come to some sort of mutually acceptable final agreement with them? No matter what many of the prominent people in our industry say publically; when I talk to them personally and off the record they all acknowledge that it is all claptrap.
A lobbyist I have known for years makes the point that in any negotiations there must be some compromise; and I agree. The problem we seem to have is being able to understand the difference between compromise and capitulation. If during these discussions we give up something, I would like to know what the other side is giving up. I am not talking about just being quiet for a while either. Or being quiet while their brethren from some other greenie group attacks us, which is what usually happens. There is no command and control system within the green movement. They will not only continue attacking industry they will attack their green brethren as sell outs for not being green enough.
If you give up 25% of something and they go away until next year; they will be back the very next year demanding that you give up another 25% and so on and so on and so on until you no longer have anything to give up. When you dance with the Devil you don't call the tune, you can't name the dance and you don't lead. Why don't we get it?
If you think this is an extreme and unreasonable view; ask Kentucky Fried Chicken. They backed down on point after point and the animal rights people said that this was a “good start”. There will be no end to their demands because the Neville Chamberlain “Policy of Appeasement” philosophy will not work on people with an agenda? They are the anointed! They know best about all things. They truly believe that their individual and collective intellect is far greater than all of the practical experience accumulated by mankind over the centuries. Theirs is the “vision of the anointed”, and must not be ignored, no matter the consequences. As a result of the policies they have promoted; they clearly are the 20th century’s greatest mass murders and are working just as hard in the 21st century to maintain that status.
Ford Motor Company found out the hard way. In a Fox News article Steve Milloy points out that “After Ford caved into pressure from left-wing activist investors and issued a report stating that it “views stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and energy security as critical and related business issues that warrant precautionary, prudent and early action,” the enviros thanked Ford in return by accusing his company of putting “more heat-trapping pollution into our skies each year than the entire country of Mexico”; continuing to “produce more global warming pollution on average than any other automaker”; continuing to make SUVs; and fighting a California law that would require a 30 percent reduction in automobile carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.” Let’s not kid ourselves; what they really want is Ford, and the rest of the automobile industry, out of business. What do they want from us? Well, I am sure that if we would offer to kill ourselves that they would agree that this would be a nice start, and are working hard to accommodate them.
If you look at who has affected people’s health positively and negatively you will find that it is the pesticide application industries that have saved and extended lives and it is the environmental movement who has taken lives. So why do we listen to them? Why does anyone?
I am the last one to decry their desire for a simple life without all the modern conveniences; if that is what someone wants, then I say…enjoy! However, if all of these people think their ideas are so great, why are all the greenies and their supporters living in the developed world and not in the third world where their policies hold sway? If they really believe all of the stuff they spew out they need to take a personal stand and move there. They could really make an impact on everyone’s mind by taking their children with them also. Certainly that must make sense to everyone! After all, why would a greenie want to expose themselves and their children to all of these terrible chemicals? They need to move to one of the many areas of the world where there are no roads, few cars and no running water contaminated with any chlorine or fluoride. No electricity, no vaccinations, no genetically modified foods, no fungicides, no anti-bacterial cleaners, all organic food, no pesticides, no air conditioning. Will there be many takers? Few if any! You can be sure that the greenies will be as close to the modern conveniences and the society they claim to despise as surely as bank robbers will rob banks and pedophiles will hang around children.
To paraphrase the earlier question asked by Burt Prelutsky ; “For what reason would any sane society ever believe anything these people say? The notion that society would be safe if these creeps ideas and philosophies were followed is perfectly loony.” Yes …we really have lost our minds!
Rich Kozlovich Saturday, July 10, 2010
I never read a book, other than a comic book, until I was
fifteen. From that point on reading became a passion for me and I have been an
avid reader ever since. Winston Churchill’s, “The Valiant Years” and “To Kill a
Mockingbird” were two of my favorites at that time. I even gave an oral book
report on, “The Ugly American”, which was extremely popular in the early
sixties. Impossible as an oral book report, although I got a “B” on the report
because the teacher was impressed that I made the attempt and was able to
answer her questions. I still remember giving that report because it was really
stinko.
However, I never liked school and could only be described as a poor student and a trouble maker, so perhaps I missed something in class about profitability, responsibility, intelligence, courage, and persistence, clarity of vision and what those qualities have to do with real leadership. One thing I know for sure; I didn’t miss anything about common sense; so will someone once again please explain to me why we want to be green?
Somehow, everyone has lost sight of what the goal of a for-profit company should be. Profit! The business of business is to do business. Business is not in business to do good! If you do good business then you can distribute those profits and the stockholders can then do whatever darn good they choose. Especially since “doing good” is highly subjective.
This article isn’t really about politics or environmentalism, although both are the vehicles for that which really is the one truly relevant issue always facing us; truth. In an old article of mine I quoted Ben Franklin’s famous saying, “Truth will very patiently wait for us”. A prominent Ohio pest control operator, who can only kindly be described as being “green”, took offence with my article and challenged me with this question, “What is truth?”
Well, here is my view as to what constitutes truth.
Truth is that which is supported by facts, supported by events, past and present. Truth is that which can stand the test of time under the scrutiny of honest researchers…..meaning everyone, not just scientists; especially those who haven’t become contaminated by government grant money. Truth should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. Truth should have a history. Spin and the “latest philosophical flavors of the day” are unlikely to be truth.
This brings me to this point. Who decided we should become green? I see it being promoted in the trades all the time. Why is it we never see articles in the trades that show the devastation that becoming green causes?
Here is an interesting quote that I would like to share with everyone that explains much of what “going green” is all about.
However, I never liked school and could only be described as a poor student and a trouble maker, so perhaps I missed something in class about profitability, responsibility, intelligence, courage, and persistence, clarity of vision and what those qualities have to do with real leadership. One thing I know for sure; I didn’t miss anything about common sense; so will someone once again please explain to me why we want to be green?
Somehow, everyone has lost sight of what the goal of a for-profit company should be. Profit! The business of business is to do business. Business is not in business to do good! If you do good business then you can distribute those profits and the stockholders can then do whatever darn good they choose. Especially since “doing good” is highly subjective.
This article isn’t really about politics or environmentalism, although both are the vehicles for that which really is the one truly relevant issue always facing us; truth. In an old article of mine I quoted Ben Franklin’s famous saying, “Truth will very patiently wait for us”. A prominent Ohio pest control operator, who can only kindly be described as being “green”, took offence with my article and challenged me with this question, “What is truth?”
Well, here is my view as to what constitutes truth.
Truth is that which is supported by facts, supported by events, past and present. Truth is that which can stand the test of time under the scrutiny of honest researchers…..meaning everyone, not just scientists; especially those who haven’t become contaminated by government grant money. Truth should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. Truth should have a history. Spin and the “latest philosophical flavors of the day” are unlikely to be truth.
This brings me to this point. Who decided we should become green? I see it being promoted in the trades all the time. Why is it we never see articles in the trades that show the devastation that becoming green causes?
Here is an interesting quote that I would like to share with everyone that explains much of what “going green” is all about.
"The youthful following, attracted
by the romantic radicalism and emotional appeal of the "movement"
became a significant factor" ... "Youth was indignant over the
difficult and frequently unfair conditions of life, the manifold limitations of
the times. The "movement" provided them with an outlet" ...
"They protested against the seeming inertia of the politicians of the
older generation..." "It was a truly religio-psychological
phenomenon. Just as the concept of "belief" occupied a central
place.." "Hitler appeared as the exponent of a new sense of life.” -
K.D. Bracher
If we were to replace “Environmentalism”, with “Hitler”
would the description be any different? Being “green” in pest control is like
having two diametrically opposing views in your head at the same time and
believing they are both correct. This has been described as insanity, because
to be green is to be irrational and misanthropic….and that is truth
By Rich Kozlovich Monday,
July 19, 2010
I came across an old file folder of my
posts of days gone by. I have been reviewing these posts, links and articles
and other articles that I have written over the last ten years and I find that
I am as upset now as I was then. I have decided to republish this one. This is
a merger of two articles that first appeared in July of 2006. I couldn’t get an
airing by the trade journals then and it is too late now. Since I have a much
broader base of readers now than I did then I wanted to reprint it since I
still view our situation as precarious now as it was then. Possibly worse! RK
A recent article by Alan Caruba appeared in Pest Control’s Buzz Online news service entitled “Endless Environmental Lies” which demonstrated how the environmental movement and EPA are simply somewhat less than truthful and can’t be trusted. I invite you to peruse this article to see if you found anything “glib”, unethical, dishonest or untruthful in this article.
Thereafter Dr. Colleen Cannon, staff entomologist for Fridley, Minn. based Plunkett's Pest Control sent a letter to the editor in Pest Control’s Buzz on Line regarding the importance of embracing science because she decided Alan Caruba’s article diminished us as an industry. Her article was titled “Science Is Our Ally — Not Our Enemy”.
Alan doesn’t really need any help from me, but he also doesn’t normally reply to these types of letters, therefore I felt it was important for someone from the industry to speak up on this matter.
This article criticizing Mr. Caruba’s article implied that those who criticized EPA or the environmental movement were “glib” and were unwilling to “embrace” science. Why? The fact is that so many in our industry reflect this same kind of 5th columnist mentality.
Miss Cannon’s comment that we need to embrace “good science” is a comment we can all embrace. However I would like to point out the following. Miss Cannon was a bit “glib” herself in her challenge of Mr. Caruba’s article. I also found her “Dan Rather Defense” of scientific journals, whose objectivity has regularly come under attack in recent years, rather interesting. Pointing out who receives money from whom is an old environmentalist trick to cast aspersions on someone’s integrity without having to present any evidence of wrongdoing.
Personally, I appreciate the fact that large corporations have decided that enough misinformation is enough. Who would you expect to pay for it; the Environmental Defense Fund, (now known as Environmental Defense) which takes a large deal of the blame for the elimination of DDT and the 10’s of millions of deaths that followed. They have no credibility with anyone in the pest control industry that has followed these issues, so I decided to break her statements and arguments down and analyze them.
I am fascinated by the words these people use and how they use them. I wonder if they ever look them up in a dictionary when they write this stuff. So it is clear that we need some dictionary work here.
Let us start with the word glib. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary glib means: (All definitions are from this dictionary)
A recent article by Alan Caruba appeared in Pest Control’s Buzz Online news service entitled “Endless Environmental Lies” which demonstrated how the environmental movement and EPA are simply somewhat less than truthful and can’t be trusted. I invite you to peruse this article to see if you found anything “glib”, unethical, dishonest or untruthful in this article.
Thereafter Dr. Colleen Cannon, staff entomologist for Fridley, Minn. based Plunkett's Pest Control sent a letter to the editor in Pest Control’s Buzz on Line regarding the importance of embracing science because she decided Alan Caruba’s article diminished us as an industry. Her article was titled “Science Is Our Ally — Not Our Enemy”.
Alan doesn’t really need any help from me, but he also doesn’t normally reply to these types of letters, therefore I felt it was important for someone from the industry to speak up on this matter.
This article criticizing Mr. Caruba’s article implied that those who criticized EPA or the environmental movement were “glib” and were unwilling to “embrace” science. Why? The fact is that so many in our industry reflect this same kind of 5th columnist mentality.
Miss Cannon’s comment that we need to embrace “good science” is a comment we can all embrace. However I would like to point out the following. Miss Cannon was a bit “glib” herself in her challenge of Mr. Caruba’s article. I also found her “Dan Rather Defense” of scientific journals, whose objectivity has regularly come under attack in recent years, rather interesting. Pointing out who receives money from whom is an old environmentalist trick to cast aspersions on someone’s integrity without having to present any evidence of wrongdoing.
Personally, I appreciate the fact that large corporations have decided that enough misinformation is enough. Who would you expect to pay for it; the Environmental Defense Fund, (now known as Environmental Defense) which takes a large deal of the blame for the elimination of DDT and the 10’s of millions of deaths that followed. They have no credibility with anyone in the pest control industry that has followed these issues, so I decided to break her statements and arguments down and analyze them.
I am fascinated by the words these people use and how they use them. I wonder if they ever look them up in a dictionary when they write this stuff. So it is clear that we need some dictionary work here.
Let us start with the word glib. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary glib means: (All definitions are from this dictionary)
Glib 1. “marked by ease and informality” and “showing
little forethought or preparation” clearly “lacking depth and substance” with “
superficial solutions to knotty problems” further “marked by ease and fluency
in speaking or writing often to the point of being insincere or deceitful.”
(Actually, this sounds like an environmentalist to me.)
In this very short article (you don’t get long articles
in trade journals) Alan outlined very succinctly what is going on with the
environmental movement. Miss Cannon failed to refute one point with any
evidence to the contrary. Is that being “glib”? Would one call this a
“superficial” response “lacking depth and substance”? How did she describe the
article? “The general tone and lack of useful content made it little more than
a diatribe.”
Diatribe - a prolonged discourse 2 : a bitter and abusive
speech or writing 3 : ironic or satirical criticism
I defy anyone to find his article to be bitter, abusive,
ironic or satirical, but even if it was; the question that should concern us is
if it was factual or not. The word “diatribe” is an emotional trigger, which
allows her to avoid presenting any evidence that would legitimately contradict
statements made by Mr. Caruba. She presented no evidence other than her
personal philosophy.
Why is it that whenever someone takes a strong stand against the conventional wisdom, in this case the EPA and the environmentalist’s claims, those arguments are called diatribes? Ranting and raving are favorite terms from that side of the room also, implying irrationally screamed nonsense! Again, this allows the accuser the luxury of not having to challenge their adversary’s statements with contrary facts. Why? Since they are clearly and obviously irrational no contrary evidence is necessary. Convenient isn’t it?
I would find it interesting as to what Miss Cannon would consider information that would prepare a technician to answer the questions of customers in the field “accurately and intelligently”. Should they say that what we are doing causes cancer? Should they say that the long-term effects will be detrimental especially to their children? Should they say that pesticides aren’t necessary? That is what the environmental movement is saying and it is all lies. Then again, perhaps this is what she believes, since she offered nothing in rebuttal to all of Mr. Caruba’s comments regarding the safety of our water supplies.
It isn’t “glib” to point out that the EPA and the environmental movement has perpetrated a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations through lies, which the media has helped perpetrate. It isn’t glib! It is tragic! Especially to all those who have died needlessly as a result of actions by the environmental movement and EPA.
She went on to say, “The author (Mr. Caruba) suggests that the EPA, news media, environmental groups and scientific journals are conspiring to spread misinformation and mislead the public on the facts.”
I love it when they use the word conspiracy. This has such a vile connotation that it automatically places the accused person in the category of an irrational nutcase which once again doesn’t require them to provide legitimate information by way of refutation. Alan never once used the word conspiracy. Let’s however explore this concept.
According the dictionary:
Why is it that whenever someone takes a strong stand against the conventional wisdom, in this case the EPA and the environmentalist’s claims, those arguments are called diatribes? Ranting and raving are favorite terms from that side of the room also, implying irrationally screamed nonsense! Again, this allows the accuser the luxury of not having to challenge their adversary’s statements with contrary facts. Why? Since they are clearly and obviously irrational no contrary evidence is necessary. Convenient isn’t it?
I would find it interesting as to what Miss Cannon would consider information that would prepare a technician to answer the questions of customers in the field “accurately and intelligently”. Should they say that what we are doing causes cancer? Should they say that the long-term effects will be detrimental especially to their children? Should they say that pesticides aren’t necessary? That is what the environmental movement is saying and it is all lies. Then again, perhaps this is what she believes, since she offered nothing in rebuttal to all of Mr. Caruba’s comments regarding the safety of our water supplies.
It isn’t “glib” to point out that the EPA and the environmental movement has perpetrated a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations through lies, which the media has helped perpetrate. It isn’t glib! It is tragic! Especially to all those who have died needlessly as a result of actions by the environmental movement and EPA.
She went on to say, “The author (Mr. Caruba) suggests that the EPA, news media, environmental groups and scientific journals are conspiring to spread misinformation and mislead the public on the facts.”
I love it when they use the word conspiracy. This has such a vile connotation that it automatically places the accused person in the category of an irrational nutcase which once again doesn’t require them to provide legitimate information by way of refutation. Alan never once used the word conspiracy. Let’s however explore this concept.
According the dictionary:
Conspire “implies a secret agreement among several people
usually involving treason or great treachery” requiring one to “join in a
secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes
unlawful as a result of the secret agreement” which would require a scheme.
That being a “secret plan or program of action” which implies a plot which is a
“plan secretly devised to accomplish an evil or treacherous end” and “implies
careful foresight in planning a complex scheme” suggests “secret underhanded
maneuvering in an atmosphere of duplicity” implies “a contriving of annoyances,
injuries, or evils by indirect means.”
The question we have to ask now is this. What is the
difference between a secret plan with evil intent and a secret understanding
with evil intent? Is it really any different than an open plan and an open
understanding with evil intent? The difference is the same in the end.
I doubt if there are any, and I have no knowledge of any secret meetings between these groups, or any secret planning sessions either. This is not a secret conspiracy. This is an open paradigm. The EPA, the environmentalists and the media are engaged in a philosophy that is a conspiracy of paradigms to all who are willing look. They contrive to promote policies that will ultimately be detrimental to humanity because they are all true believers who have become imbued with the environmental litany. Their conspiracy is an open conspiracy of paradigms. Since they all think alike they promote the same junk science.
The EPA has never been a true scientific entity since its inception. In February of 1970 then President Nixon stated in a speech that he had taken steps to eliminate DDT. He then formed EPA in December of that same year, nine months after his original declaration. Seemingly, with his marching orders in place the first director of EPA William Ruckelshaus, an environmental activist, banned DDT in December of 1972 in spite of the fact that a federal magistrate ruled that there was no evidence to support claims against DDT. Ruckelshaus admitted two years later that the decision was based on political considerations, not science. EPA has been a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations ever since. The fact of the matter is that almost everything everyone “knows” about DDT is a lie.
Ever since that very successful effort by the environmentalists the pattern has been the same, as Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D. notes that there are seven steps to this process and usually follow this pattern:
I doubt if there are any, and I have no knowledge of any secret meetings between these groups, or any secret planning sessions either. This is not a secret conspiracy. This is an open paradigm. The EPA, the environmentalists and the media are engaged in a philosophy that is a conspiracy of paradigms to all who are willing look. They contrive to promote policies that will ultimately be detrimental to humanity because they are all true believers who have become imbued with the environmental litany. Their conspiracy is an open conspiracy of paradigms. Since they all think alike they promote the same junk science.
The EPA has never been a true scientific entity since its inception. In February of 1970 then President Nixon stated in a speech that he had taken steps to eliminate DDT. He then formed EPA in December of that same year, nine months after his original declaration. Seemingly, with his marching orders in place the first director of EPA William Ruckelshaus, an environmental activist, banned DDT in December of 1972 in spite of the fact that a federal magistrate ruled that there was no evidence to support claims against DDT. Ruckelshaus admitted two years later that the decision was based on political considerations, not science. EPA has been a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations ever since. The fact of the matter is that almost everything everyone “knows” about DDT is a lie.
Ever since that very successful effort by the environmentalists the pattern has been the same, as Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D. notes that there are seven steps to this process and usually follow this pattern:
1. Create a "scientific" study that predicts a
public health disaster
2. Release the study to the media, before scientists can review it
3. Generate an intense emotional public reaction
4. Develop a government-enforced solution
5. Intimidate Congress into passing it into law
6. Coerce manufacturers to stop making the product
7. Bully users to replace it, or obliterate it
2. Release the study to the media, before scientists can review it
3. Generate an intense emotional public reaction
4. Develop a government-enforced solution
5. Intimidate Congress into passing it into law
6. Coerce manufacturers to stop making the product
7. Bully users to replace it, or obliterate it
Peer review, which Miss Cannon rightly points out, is to
eliminate scientific errors and fraud was never part of the DDT saga at EPA.
Rachel Carson’s book first appeared as excerpts in New Yorker Magazine, not a
scientific journal; unfortunately she died before real scientists using real
science shredded her information. Ruckelshaus admitted two years later that he
made the decision for political reasons and there was no science to support
that decision.
The same pattern was repeated when “Our Stolen Future” was released. As a result Endocrine Disrupters were all the rage in the scientific journals and at EPA, which became the basis for part of FQPA. Afterwards it was found that the Tulane study which this was based on was a fraud. The regulations remain in spite of that.
She further comments that “Granted, one may quibble with the objectivity of the news media”. The media is now and has always been muckrakers. The word objectivity and the word media should only appear in the same sentence to show how little objectivity they are capable of. The old adage about never believing what you read in the newspaper didn’t come about by accident. The fact of the matter is; the media lies; not only the lies of commission, but mostly lies of omission. During the Dan Rather exercise in media objectivity a great deal of information came out showing just how the media views objectivity.
The same pattern was repeated when “Our Stolen Future” was released. As a result Endocrine Disrupters were all the rage in the scientific journals and at EPA, which became the basis for part of FQPA. Afterwards it was found that the Tulane study which this was based on was a fraud. The regulations remain in spite of that.
She further comments that “Granted, one may quibble with the objectivity of the news media”. The media is now and has always been muckrakers. The word objectivity and the word media should only appear in the same sentence to show how little objectivity they are capable of. The old adage about never believing what you read in the newspaper didn’t come about by accident. The fact of the matter is; the media lies; not only the lies of commission, but mostly lies of omission. During the Dan Rather exercise in media objectivity a great deal of information came out showing just how the media views objectivity.
A reporter, Brian Ross, asked Marla Mapes (worked
with Dan Rather on the Bush military service story) if she believed
the story regarding Bush’s military service was true. She stated “The story?
Absolutely.” Ross found this incredible and asked is “this story to be up to
your standards”.
This is an important point!
Mapes stated "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that I haven’t seen."
Does this take you back? It should.
Ross asked “"But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?" Mapes responded by saying that “they haven’t been proven false.” Ross asked what most of us would consider obvious, “Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?”
And now the quote of the year!!!! Mapes says - "No, I don’t think that’s the standard."
This is an important point!
Mapes stated "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that I haven’t seen."
Does this take you back? It should.
Ross asked “"But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?" Mapes responded by saying that “they haven’t been proven false.” Ross asked what most of us would consider obvious, “Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?”
And now the quote of the year!!!! Mapes says - "No, I don’t think that’s the standard."
I don’t know how any reasonable person could call this
“quibbling” about media objectivity. This is not an aberration. It is the way
they do business and it seriously affects events.
She intones further by saying, “the EPA may not perform flawlessly.”
Flawlessly? How about fraudulently? We could easily start and end with DDT to show all the fraudulent intentions in the world, but that was just the beginning of their fraudulent actions and they have continued on in this course ever since. The latest exposure of their “less than flawless” work is currently being demonstrated. Let’s note some obvious examples of their less than flawless work.
Second hand smoke.
For the record; I believe smoking, and all tobacco use, is one of the greatest banes of mankind. I also believe that smoking is the leading cause of cancer and that second hand smoke plays a part in this saga or at the very least is unhealthy. However, EPA made claims about second hand smoke in a “1993 report claiming to link secondhand smoke with lung cancer” that was clearly flawed and they had to know it. This “study that was eviscerated and vacated by a federal court in 1998 because the EPA’s science was so poor and contrived in nature.”
Steve Milloy’s article of July 27, 2006, “The EPA's Polluted Science” goes on to say, “The EPA typically decides first whether to regulate, and then it molds and manipulates the science to fit its regulatory decisions. This has long been standard practice at the agency – a 1992 report entitled “Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions” by a blue ribbon panel of scientists reviewing the EPA’s use of science concluded that the EPA “adjusts science to fit policy” – and was one of the reasons given by the federal court for vacating the EPA’s secondhand smoke risk assessment.”
The fact that I believe tobacco in all forms and practices is detrimental doesn’t mean that I wish to embrace junk science and deliberate fraud. This isn’t a little mistake, this is a pattern.
Let’s talk about dioxin.
“Although dubbed "the most dangerous chemical known to man" incredibly this was based entirely on the acute toxicity (poisoning) to a single species of animal -- guinea pigs. In humans incredibly massive doses have never been shown to cause any long-term damage besides severe acne, as was the case with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in 2004.
This article went on to say: “In other words, the EPA can't just choose a formula because it's convenient and serves its political ends. It can't ignore the results of myriad animal and human studies and the determination of how a certain chemical affects human cells in favor of simple mathematics. Nor can it apply that formula because it favors environmentalist groups who make a living by terrifying us into believing that a single molecule of this or that threatens the existence of "peoplekind."
The less than “flawless” performance regarding the EPA’s activities continues:
“That's because while it's long been accepted that for acute toxicity that "the dose makes the poison" the EPA uses as a rule for all potential carcinogens that if exposure to a rat of something at a level of, say, a quart a day for 30 years is cancer-causing then exposure of a hundredth of a gram a day for one week must also be carcinogenic to humans. No matter that FDA doesn't advise against women taking a daily iron pill because if they took 100 daily they would die.”
The American Council on Science and Health article dealing with this subject and EPA’s “science” behind determining what is carcinogenic shows more than just a few errors at EPA. Is it a conspiracy to continue to use science that is recognized as unscientific?
ACSH sued EPA over the manner in which they determined what is carcinogenic. What was EPA’s comment to the ACSH’S lawsuit over this issue? They stalled having to respond for 90 days and then gave themselves and extension to avoid this issue. “Finally, in early March, two weeks before their final self-imposed deadline, EPA replied with a dodge, claiming that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are
not statements of scientific fact –and thus not covered by the IQA – but merely statements of EPA policy. “One might have hoped that science and policy would go together at the world's most powerful regulatory agency “. In my mind at least, EPA is saying; we make it up as we go along according to our whims and desires.
Cannon further states, “one may disagree with the goals of environmental groups”. Well, most people would gladly and willing state they disagree with liars. This discusses the origin of Greenpeace and the kind of people it draws and their goals. Here is a quote.“Hunter would later confess in his book, The Greenpeace Chronicles. Wrote Hunter: "We painted a rather extravagant picture…tidal waves, earthquakes, radioactive death clouds, decimated fisheries, deformed babies. We never said that's what would happen, only that it could happen." Hunter nevertheless justified the organization's calculated mendacity on the grounds that "children all over Canada were having dreams about bombs." A lie was therefore justified by the greater environmentalist good. It would not be the last time that a Greenpeace activist would invoke that rule to justify a deceitful campaign.”
Environmentalists and their philosophies.
Did you ever wonder from what source their philosophical drive is derived? What is environmentalism if not a form of religious fervor? This link is to a commentary that will probably shock those who have not seen this type of information n the past. Below are some interesting quotes.
She intones further by saying, “the EPA may not perform flawlessly.”
Flawlessly? How about fraudulently? We could easily start and end with DDT to show all the fraudulent intentions in the world, but that was just the beginning of their fraudulent actions and they have continued on in this course ever since. The latest exposure of their “less than flawless” work is currently being demonstrated. Let’s note some obvious examples of their less than flawless work.
Second hand smoke.
For the record; I believe smoking, and all tobacco use, is one of the greatest banes of mankind. I also believe that smoking is the leading cause of cancer and that second hand smoke plays a part in this saga or at the very least is unhealthy. However, EPA made claims about second hand smoke in a “1993 report claiming to link secondhand smoke with lung cancer” that was clearly flawed and they had to know it. This “study that was eviscerated and vacated by a federal court in 1998 because the EPA’s science was so poor and contrived in nature.”
Steve Milloy’s article of July 27, 2006, “The EPA's Polluted Science” goes on to say, “The EPA typically decides first whether to regulate, and then it molds and manipulates the science to fit its regulatory decisions. This has long been standard practice at the agency – a 1992 report entitled “Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions” by a blue ribbon panel of scientists reviewing the EPA’s use of science concluded that the EPA “adjusts science to fit policy” – and was one of the reasons given by the federal court for vacating the EPA’s secondhand smoke risk assessment.”
The fact that I believe tobacco in all forms and practices is detrimental doesn’t mean that I wish to embrace junk science and deliberate fraud. This isn’t a little mistake, this is a pattern.
Let’s talk about dioxin.
“Although dubbed "the most dangerous chemical known to man" incredibly this was based entirely on the acute toxicity (poisoning) to a single species of animal -- guinea pigs. In humans incredibly massive doses have never been shown to cause any long-term damage besides severe acne, as was the case with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in 2004.
This article went on to say: “In other words, the EPA can't just choose a formula because it's convenient and serves its political ends. It can't ignore the results of myriad animal and human studies and the determination of how a certain chemical affects human cells in favor of simple mathematics. Nor can it apply that formula because it favors environmentalist groups who make a living by terrifying us into believing that a single molecule of this or that threatens the existence of "peoplekind."
The less than “flawless” performance regarding the EPA’s activities continues:
“That's because while it's long been accepted that for acute toxicity that "the dose makes the poison" the EPA uses as a rule for all potential carcinogens that if exposure to a rat of something at a level of, say, a quart a day for 30 years is cancer-causing then exposure of a hundredth of a gram a day for one week must also be carcinogenic to humans. No matter that FDA doesn't advise against women taking a daily iron pill because if they took 100 daily they would die.”
The American Council on Science and Health article dealing with this subject and EPA’s “science” behind determining what is carcinogenic shows more than just a few errors at EPA. Is it a conspiracy to continue to use science that is recognized as unscientific?
ACSH sued EPA over the manner in which they determined what is carcinogenic. What was EPA’s comment to the ACSH’S lawsuit over this issue? They stalled having to respond for 90 days and then gave themselves and extension to avoid this issue. “Finally, in early March, two weeks before their final self-imposed deadline, EPA replied with a dodge, claiming that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are
not statements of scientific fact –and thus not covered by the IQA – but merely statements of EPA policy. “One might have hoped that science and policy would go together at the world's most powerful regulatory agency “. In my mind at least, EPA is saying; we make it up as we go along according to our whims and desires.
Cannon further states, “one may disagree with the goals of environmental groups”. Well, most people would gladly and willing state they disagree with liars. This discusses the origin of Greenpeace and the kind of people it draws and their goals. Here is a quote.“Hunter would later confess in his book, The Greenpeace Chronicles. Wrote Hunter: "We painted a rather extravagant picture…tidal waves, earthquakes, radioactive death clouds, decimated fisheries, deformed babies. We never said that's what would happen, only that it could happen." Hunter nevertheless justified the organization's calculated mendacity on the grounds that "children all over Canada were having dreams about bombs." A lie was therefore justified by the greater environmentalist good. It would not be the last time that a Greenpeace activist would invoke that rule to justify a deceitful campaign.”
Environmentalists and their philosophies.
Did you ever wonder from what source their philosophical drive is derived? What is environmentalism if not a form of religious fervor? This link is to a commentary that will probably shock those who have not seen this type of information n the past. Below are some interesting quotes.
1. "Saying homo sapiens are a `plague species,' the
London Zoo opened a new exhibit featuring--eight humans. We have set up this
exhibit to highlight the spread of man as a plague species and to communicate
the importance of man's place in the planet's ecosystem." (Human Beings:
Plague Species; WorldNet Daily, 2005)
2. "Human beings, as a species, have no more value
than slugs." (Earth First! Journal editor John Daily)
3. "To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the
world population problem." (Yale professor Lamont Cole)
4. "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States." (Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund)
5. "Until such time as homo sapiens decide to rejoin nature, (we) can only hope for the right virus to come along." (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service)
6. "Nonpersons or potential persons cannot be wronged because death does not deprive them of something they value." (John Harris, Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics, University of Manchester, England
4. "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States." (Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund)
5. "Until such time as homo sapiens decide to rejoin nature, (we) can only hope for the right virus to come along." (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service)
6. "Nonpersons or potential persons cannot be wronged because death does not deprive them of something they value." (John Harris, Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics, University of Manchester, England
She continues to defend her view by saying, “but lumping
peer-reviewed scientific journals, like Science, into this group shows a deep
misunderstanding of science.”
How can one have a deep misunderstanding of science? Science means; “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. “
The implication is that this knowledge is true and factual because it has been proven by use of the scientific method of experimentation and observation. How can one misunderstand something so simple? As Mr. Spock would say in one of the Star Trek episodes, “if I drop a hammer in a positive gravity atmosphere, I don’t have to see it land to know in fact that it did”. Why? Because that is what happens over and over again. What if we now see trade journals (that is what these peer reviewed science journals really are) continue to favor certain philosophical views over others in spite of growing evidence that is contrary to the ones they keep promoting? Can we then lump them together with the environmentalists, the media and the EPA with all their flaws? Is there an issue that clearly shows this to be the case?
Global warming and the hockeystick debacle is exactly such an issue.
This report gives a black eye also to the IPCC and to the peer-review process of the science journals which supported the Hockeystick graph and it’s creators. “You may recall that Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) was much maligned when he wrote a letter to the authors of the Hockeystick (Michael Mann et al), asking for answers about their publicly funded research. He and his US House Committee on Energy and Commerce were accused of McCarthyism, intimidation, and other crimes by Democrats, the “scientific establishment,” and by liberal Republicans. The National Academy weighed in with a report that mildly criticized the Hockeystick (see TWTW June 24 and July 1, 2006).”
“Then the US Cavalry appeared over the hill, in the form of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee appointed a group of statisticians of impeccable qualification and independence, under the leadership of Dr Edward Wegman, Professor of Statistics at George Mason University , who chairs the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. They have now produced a report that devastatingly demonstrates what we sceptics knew all along, that the hockey stick is pure nonsense.
So much information has come out since 2004 showing just how corrupt these “scientists” were then, and how corrupt they and their defenders continue to be. Their intellectual dishonesty smells to high heaven, and yet sanctimony continues within their ranks and of their defenders. Perhaps jail time will change all of that. Fraud is still a crime in most states, and the state of Virginia is perusing this. It is unfortunate that the researchers of the fraudulent Tulane endocrine study weren’t prosecuted. After all, they took public money and produced junk science that has impacted us to this day. As to why they weren’t prosecuted…we can only guess, but since they were producing the very kind of junk science that EPA wanted I have to assume the worst possible collusion.
Should we embrace science? Of course! Science that has been tested through observation and proper peer review without prejudice or preconception is to be prized. Unfortunately so much of what is going on fails to meet these criteria. Those who are a part of the pest control industry who fail to see this and continue to promote and defend junk science and junk scientists must be exposed as 5th columnists who will undermine who and what we are until there is no long any “we” left.
It pains me that we have no one in a position of responsibility in the pesticide application, manufacturing and distribution industries who is willing to take up the shield and sword in defense of our industry and use real science to publicly denounce those inside or outside of our industry who promote junk science.
She is correct, the elimination of pesticides and global warming are the two main issues of the environmental movement. Unfortunately they are lying on both of these issues, and she apparently has bought into all this greenie nonsense lock, stock and barrel. What the heck, let’s add the Montreal Protocol, IPM and Green Pest Control in for good measure.
What we need is a debate. Let’s start with IPM. Let’s do it at an NPMA national forum. Let’s do it before the stakeholders of our industry, the pest controllers, the manufacturers and the distributors and after all has been done and said; let the industry decide.
No, I am sorry, Mr. Caruba’s comments do not reflect badly on our industry. What reflects badly on our industry are those in pest control don’t know whose side they are on and in a effort to appear so much more enlightened than the rest of us end up doing nothing more than undermining us. Embracing the green movement and being in pest control is like having two diametrically opposing views in your head at the same time and believing they are both correct. That is a definition of insanity. When we start embracing science in place of facts, we are embracing a Golden Calf. An irrational and misanthropic one at that!
How can one have a deep misunderstanding of science? Science means; “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. “
The implication is that this knowledge is true and factual because it has been proven by use of the scientific method of experimentation and observation. How can one misunderstand something so simple? As Mr. Spock would say in one of the Star Trek episodes, “if I drop a hammer in a positive gravity atmosphere, I don’t have to see it land to know in fact that it did”. Why? Because that is what happens over and over again. What if we now see trade journals (that is what these peer reviewed science journals really are) continue to favor certain philosophical views over others in spite of growing evidence that is contrary to the ones they keep promoting? Can we then lump them together with the environmentalists, the media and the EPA with all their flaws? Is there an issue that clearly shows this to be the case?
Global warming and the hockeystick debacle is exactly such an issue.
This report gives a black eye also to the IPCC and to the peer-review process of the science journals which supported the Hockeystick graph and it’s creators. “You may recall that Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) was much maligned when he wrote a letter to the authors of the Hockeystick (Michael Mann et al), asking for answers about their publicly funded research. He and his US House Committee on Energy and Commerce were accused of McCarthyism, intimidation, and other crimes by Democrats, the “scientific establishment,” and by liberal Republicans. The National Academy weighed in with a report that mildly criticized the Hockeystick (see TWTW June 24 and July 1, 2006).”
“Then the US Cavalry appeared over the hill, in the form of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee appointed a group of statisticians of impeccable qualification and independence, under the leadership of Dr Edward Wegman, Professor of Statistics at George Mason University , who chairs the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. They have now produced a report that devastatingly demonstrates what we sceptics knew all along, that the hockey stick is pure nonsense.
So much information has come out since 2004 showing just how corrupt these “scientists” were then, and how corrupt they and their defenders continue to be. Their intellectual dishonesty smells to high heaven, and yet sanctimony continues within their ranks and of their defenders. Perhaps jail time will change all of that. Fraud is still a crime in most states, and the state of Virginia is perusing this. It is unfortunate that the researchers of the fraudulent Tulane endocrine study weren’t prosecuted. After all, they took public money and produced junk science that has impacted us to this day. As to why they weren’t prosecuted…we can only guess, but since they were producing the very kind of junk science that EPA wanted I have to assume the worst possible collusion.
Should we embrace science? Of course! Science that has been tested through observation and proper peer review without prejudice or preconception is to be prized. Unfortunately so much of what is going on fails to meet these criteria. Those who are a part of the pest control industry who fail to see this and continue to promote and defend junk science and junk scientists must be exposed as 5th columnists who will undermine who and what we are until there is no long any “we” left.
It pains me that we have no one in a position of responsibility in the pesticide application, manufacturing and distribution industries who is willing to take up the shield and sword in defense of our industry and use real science to publicly denounce those inside or outside of our industry who promote junk science.
She is correct, the elimination of pesticides and global warming are the two main issues of the environmental movement. Unfortunately they are lying on both of these issues, and she apparently has bought into all this greenie nonsense lock, stock and barrel. What the heck, let’s add the Montreal Protocol, IPM and Green Pest Control in for good measure.
What we need is a debate. Let’s start with IPM. Let’s do it at an NPMA national forum. Let’s do it before the stakeholders of our industry, the pest controllers, the manufacturers and the distributors and after all has been done and said; let the industry decide.
No, I am sorry, Mr. Caruba’s comments do not reflect badly on our industry. What reflects badly on our industry are those in pest control don’t know whose side they are on and in a effort to appear so much more enlightened than the rest of us end up doing nothing more than undermining us. Embracing the green movement and being in pest control is like having two diametrically opposing views in your head at the same time and believing they are both correct. That is a definition of insanity. When we start embracing science in place of facts, we are embracing a Golden Calf. An irrational and misanthropic one at that!
bRich Kozlovich Saturday, July 24, 201
I would like to draw your attention to a new page that James Marusek has added to his site called, The Other Side of the Biodiversity Debate, where he lists a number of links to articles that deal with these issues:
I would like to draw your attention to a new page that James Marusek has added to his site called, The Other Side of the Biodiversity Debate, where he lists a number of links to articles that deal with these issues:
• The Science: Is the Diversity Theory Set on a
Foundation of Quicksand
• It’s All About Control
• The Profiteers
• Why is Man to Blame
• It’s All About Control
• The Profiteers
• Why is Man to Blame
By
Rich Kozlovich Friday, July 30, 2010
History is the pathway of the past; and should be the stepping stone to the future. We keep hearing the activists demand that more products be removed from the market because they cause terrible health problems in children. This, in spite of the fact that when this has been done in the past there were terrible consequences to the health of children!
They make all of these claims that it is “for the children” and yet I have to ask; if they are so concerned about the children in the first world, why do they distain the lives and health of the children in the third world?
Huge numbers of children have suffered and died unnecessarily from “green” policies that banned pesticides and genetically modified foods. Yet we only continue to hear all sorts of theoretical, speculative claims about pesticides and GMO’s causing a host of potential disasters from the media. Even if there was a grain of truth in these claims, the benefits would seriously outweigh any potential risks. Why do we keep ignoring the facts?
The events surrounding pesticide bans in the undeveloped world should be lesson enough to show that these types of actions are detrimental to the public health; yet we still go along with the activist’s nonsense. We all want to be green; yet we have no idea what that means today; and I can guarantee you that we will be shocked as to what that will mean tomorrow!
Everyone from my generation remembers that great comic strip “Peanuts”. One scenario was repeated over and over again was Lucy offering to hold the football for poor Charlie Brown to kick. Charlie always knew that Lucy would pull the ball out just at the last minute and he would fall on his back. Why was that funny? Because they would go through this dance about how she “always” pulled the ball out at the last minute and she would swear that this time it would be different; and he fell for it every time. Believing that activists can be believed to keep a bargain is exactly the same.
No agreement made with the activists will be kept by them because they have no command and control structure. If one group makes a deal with our industry another group will attack them and us. No agreement will be honored by them and no matter what agreements are made with governmental authorities; they will be overturned when some activist group demands it.
What probably sickens me the most of all is the worldwide media! In spite of the vast amount of evidence that the activists are directly and indirectly responsible for the death of tens of millions; and the needless suffering of hundreds of millions more because of the implementation of environmentalist’s policies, the media mostly remains silent. By remaining silent or promoting greenie ideas they are as blood guilty as Walter Duranty was when he won the Pulitzer Prize for say that Stalin wasn’t starving his people to death.
Industry information sources also do not challenge these people because they say that we can’t win in the court of public opinion, or they are not in a position to do so. If we never challenge them every time they make outrageous claims, how do we know? At the very least we could make information available to those inside the industry that will give them the ammunition to defend the industry.
It is painfully obvious to me that environmental activists intend to destroy developed societies; no matter what the cost may be in human suffering. It is also painfully obvious to me that the pesticide application, distribution and manufacturing industries will not have any problem compromising; no matter what the cost may be in human suffering.
I can at least understand the youthful following of these groups, “who are attracted by the romantic radicalism and emotional appeal of the ‘movement’”. “The "movement" provides them with an outlet" “They protest against the seeming inertia of the politicians of the older generation." "It is a truly religio-psychological phenomenon.” The clouded vision of the green movement is one of bio-harmony; like a beautiful rainbow. That is romantic nonsense and Industry has no reason, nor excuse for such embracing such delusions.
Greenies demand perfection. The best we can hope for is the most acceptable imperfections. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to improve what becomes the acceptable level of imperfection, but the solutions presented by the greenies ignore and abandon the most effective system for overcoming imperfection the world has ever known. Capitalism! Imperfections are weeded out by the profit motive. If something isn’t working it is dismissed and replaced by something that does. And if the dominant companies refuse to innovate…someone else will come along and innovate and the dominant companies will be out of business or cease being dominant.
IBM gave Bill Gates DOS because “because everyone knows that the money is in the hardware”. Much of what Microsoft and Apple used as the basis for their empires was thrown away by IBM and Xerox.
My mother hates Wal-Mart because it put small businesses out of business. So? Many of those people went to work for Wal-Mart and ended up in a better financial situation than they did working sixteen hours a day for themselves. Wal-Mart is today what Sears was fifty years ago. And fifty years from now someone else will be what Wal-Mart is today.
When Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey monopolized the oil industry did things get better or worse for the nation? Let’s take a look at this. Rockefeller believed it was necessary to take over the oil industry because he believed it was the patriotic thing to do. Shocking isn’t it? In reality he was right! Because the price of oil was based on availability, and no one knew when the next gusher was going to come in. The fluctuation of the price of oil was so dramatic that it was difficult for industry to plan. Rockefeller reasoned that if he controlled all the oil it would stabilize the price; and it did. It might be noted that he didn’t crush all the oil companies…many of them asked to be taken over because it would stabilize their profits. Before he monopolized the oil industry the price of oil in 1860 was $12.00 to $16.00 a barrel. Between 1879 and 1900 it dropped to under $1.00 a barrel in every one of those years.
The Standard Oil of New Jersey story is often touted to show that breaking up monopolies works because the five companies that Standard Oil was broken up into became much, much larger than Standard Oil ever was. That is a logical fallacy because they leave out the most important part of the story. What was the number one product of Standard Oil? Kerosene! And gasoline as a byproduct that was thrown away because they had no use for it. Obviously that changes the values of the story. They didn’t become so much larger because they were the product of a Sherman Anti-Trust Act breakup; they became so much larger because the number one product became gasoline. That is, as Paul Harvey used to say; “the rest of the story!”
We need to start telling the story; the whole story. Our whole story; and we need to do it by attacking the lies told about pesticides. The activists attack us and we remain silent or we try to convince everyone to like us. The activists attack us some more and we adapt and change and continue to tell everyone that we are really nice people. They attack us some more and we appease them all the more with the excuse that at least we had some input in the legislation. They attack again and we still think that we “need to compromise”. Their successes against us breed more attacks, which become even more virulent. We adopt their philosophies and become compliant, subservient and obedient and tell everyone that this is why they should like us. In the meanwhile we have “compromised” so much that we don’t realize that we haven’t compromised; we have capitulated.
What I don’t know is this; does that make us slaves, fools, cowards? Or does that make us all three?
Stepping Stones, Part II
History is the pathway of the past; and should be the stepping stone to the future. We keep hearing the activists demand that more products be removed from the market because they cause terrible health problems in children. This, in spite of the fact that when this has been done in the past there were terrible consequences to the health of children!
They make all of these claims that it is “for the children” and yet I have to ask; if they are so concerned about the children in the first world, why do they distain the lives and health of the children in the third world?
Huge numbers of children have suffered and died unnecessarily from “green” policies that banned pesticides and genetically modified foods. Yet we only continue to hear all sorts of theoretical, speculative claims about pesticides and GMO’s causing a host of potential disasters from the media. Even if there was a grain of truth in these claims, the benefits would seriously outweigh any potential risks. Why do we keep ignoring the facts?
The events surrounding pesticide bans in the undeveloped world should be lesson enough to show that these types of actions are detrimental to the public health; yet we still go along with the activist’s nonsense. We all want to be green; yet we have no idea what that means today; and I can guarantee you that we will be shocked as to what that will mean tomorrow!
Everyone from my generation remembers that great comic strip “Peanuts”. One scenario was repeated over and over again was Lucy offering to hold the football for poor Charlie Brown to kick. Charlie always knew that Lucy would pull the ball out just at the last minute and he would fall on his back. Why was that funny? Because they would go through this dance about how she “always” pulled the ball out at the last minute and she would swear that this time it would be different; and he fell for it every time. Believing that activists can be believed to keep a bargain is exactly the same.
No agreement made with the activists will be kept by them because they have no command and control structure. If one group makes a deal with our industry another group will attack them and us. No agreement will be honored by them and no matter what agreements are made with governmental authorities; they will be overturned when some activist group demands it.
What probably sickens me the most of all is the worldwide media! In spite of the vast amount of evidence that the activists are directly and indirectly responsible for the death of tens of millions; and the needless suffering of hundreds of millions more because of the implementation of environmentalist’s policies, the media mostly remains silent. By remaining silent or promoting greenie ideas they are as blood guilty as Walter Duranty was when he won the Pulitzer Prize for say that Stalin wasn’t starving his people to death.
Industry information sources also do not challenge these people because they say that we can’t win in the court of public opinion, or they are not in a position to do so. If we never challenge them every time they make outrageous claims, how do we know? At the very least we could make information available to those inside the industry that will give them the ammunition to defend the industry.
It is painfully obvious to me that environmental activists intend to destroy developed societies; no matter what the cost may be in human suffering. It is also painfully obvious to me that the pesticide application, distribution and manufacturing industries will not have any problem compromising; no matter what the cost may be in human suffering.
I can at least understand the youthful following of these groups, “who are attracted by the romantic radicalism and emotional appeal of the ‘movement’”. “The "movement" provides them with an outlet" “They protest against the seeming inertia of the politicians of the older generation." "It is a truly religio-psychological phenomenon.” The clouded vision of the green movement is one of bio-harmony; like a beautiful rainbow. That is romantic nonsense and Industry has no reason, nor excuse for such embracing such delusions.
Greenies demand perfection. The best we can hope for is the most acceptable imperfections. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to improve what becomes the acceptable level of imperfection, but the solutions presented by the greenies ignore and abandon the most effective system for overcoming imperfection the world has ever known. Capitalism! Imperfections are weeded out by the profit motive. If something isn’t working it is dismissed and replaced by something that does. And if the dominant companies refuse to innovate…someone else will come along and innovate and the dominant companies will be out of business or cease being dominant.
IBM gave Bill Gates DOS because “because everyone knows that the money is in the hardware”. Much of what Microsoft and Apple used as the basis for their empires was thrown away by IBM and Xerox.
My mother hates Wal-Mart because it put small businesses out of business. So? Many of those people went to work for Wal-Mart and ended up in a better financial situation than they did working sixteen hours a day for themselves. Wal-Mart is today what Sears was fifty years ago. And fifty years from now someone else will be what Wal-Mart is today.
When Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey monopolized the oil industry did things get better or worse for the nation? Let’s take a look at this. Rockefeller believed it was necessary to take over the oil industry because he believed it was the patriotic thing to do. Shocking isn’t it? In reality he was right! Because the price of oil was based on availability, and no one knew when the next gusher was going to come in. The fluctuation of the price of oil was so dramatic that it was difficult for industry to plan. Rockefeller reasoned that if he controlled all the oil it would stabilize the price; and it did. It might be noted that he didn’t crush all the oil companies…many of them asked to be taken over because it would stabilize their profits. Before he monopolized the oil industry the price of oil in 1860 was $12.00 to $16.00 a barrel. Between 1879 and 1900 it dropped to under $1.00 a barrel in every one of those years.
The Standard Oil of New Jersey story is often touted to show that breaking up monopolies works because the five companies that Standard Oil was broken up into became much, much larger than Standard Oil ever was. That is a logical fallacy because they leave out the most important part of the story. What was the number one product of Standard Oil? Kerosene! And gasoline as a byproduct that was thrown away because they had no use for it. Obviously that changes the values of the story. They didn’t become so much larger because they were the product of a Sherman Anti-Trust Act breakup; they became so much larger because the number one product became gasoline. That is, as Paul Harvey used to say; “the rest of the story!”
We need to start telling the story; the whole story. Our whole story; and we need to do it by attacking the lies told about pesticides. The activists attack us and we remain silent or we try to convince everyone to like us. The activists attack us some more and we adapt and change and continue to tell everyone that we are really nice people. They attack us some more and we appease them all the more with the excuse that at least we had some input in the legislation. They attack again and we still think that we “need to compromise”. Their successes against us breed more attacks, which become even more virulent. We adopt their philosophies and become compliant, subservient and obedient and tell everyone that this is why they should like us. In the meanwhile we have “compromised” so much that we don’t realize that we haven’t compromised; we have capitulated.
What I don’t know is this; does that make us slaves, fools, cowards? Or does that make us all three?
Stepping Stones, Part II
By Rich Kozlovich Saturday, July 31, 2010
On July 19th, Gerard Jackson, posted an article with BrookesNews.Com entitled, “Why capital gains taxes retard economic growth”. I couldn’t help being struck by the obviousness of his argument. He outlines historically why capital gains taxes hurt the economy.
I once explained to someone that the demagogues who demand a higher capital gains tax as a matter of fairness know that it is in reality a tax on the poor…who pay no federal income taxes. Why is it a tax on the poor? Because corporations don’t pay these taxes, they raise prices. Taxes are a cost of doing business. The only people who pay taxes are those who can’t pass them along to someone else. Unfortunately, as taxes and regulations increase, prices increase. That in turn diminishes the purchasing power of everyone and as a result only so much of a product or service will be sold.
Eventually people will go out of business and the ones left will have cornered the market; and no matter how high the taxes go up, or how regulations increase the cost of doing business, they will be able to survive because they will be the only ones left to provide those needed products or services. That is why the really large companies and corporations love both taxes and regulations. In combination they do more to stifle competition than anything.
The historical truth of this in the United States goes back to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, which was brought on by an excise tax on whiskey in 1791. This scheme was promoted by the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who was a believer in central planning and an all powerful central government.
Who were the most ardent supporters of this tax? The whiskey distillers in the large metropolitan centers! Why? In those days travel was difficult at best. No roads and bad roads was the rule outside of metropolitan areas and so farmers had to haul their corn into the towns and cities by mule pack. There is only so much corn you can load on the back of a mule and each farmer probably only had a few mules. Needless to say this required multiple trips, so they turned their corn into moonshine. This required less transportation, less work, less time away and the profits were greater. This cut in on the profits of the large distillers and so they loved the idea of added costs via taxes on the farmers.
His article shows that President Nixon, (who created the EPA and OSHA by the way) raised the capital gains tax from 28 per cent to 49 per cent. Nixon was assured by his Treasury Department that a capital gains tax increase would raise $1.1 billion in the first year and then $3.2 billion a year until 1975.
The result: “revenue from the tax dropped sharply with realized gains from the sale of capital assets falling by 34 per cent, and the stock issues of struggling companies fell from about 500 in 1969 to precisely four in 1975.” “High capital gains taxes are a lousy revenue raiser.” Gerard goes on to say:
On July 19th, Gerard Jackson, posted an article with BrookesNews.Com entitled, “Why capital gains taxes retard economic growth”. I couldn’t help being struck by the obviousness of his argument. He outlines historically why capital gains taxes hurt the economy.
I once explained to someone that the demagogues who demand a higher capital gains tax as a matter of fairness know that it is in reality a tax on the poor…who pay no federal income taxes. Why is it a tax on the poor? Because corporations don’t pay these taxes, they raise prices. Taxes are a cost of doing business. The only people who pay taxes are those who can’t pass them along to someone else. Unfortunately, as taxes and regulations increase, prices increase. That in turn diminishes the purchasing power of everyone and as a result only so much of a product or service will be sold.
Eventually people will go out of business and the ones left will have cornered the market; and no matter how high the taxes go up, or how regulations increase the cost of doing business, they will be able to survive because they will be the only ones left to provide those needed products or services. That is why the really large companies and corporations love both taxes and regulations. In combination they do more to stifle competition than anything.
The historical truth of this in the United States goes back to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, which was brought on by an excise tax on whiskey in 1791. This scheme was promoted by the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who was a believer in central planning and an all powerful central government.
Who were the most ardent supporters of this tax? The whiskey distillers in the large metropolitan centers! Why? In those days travel was difficult at best. No roads and bad roads was the rule outside of metropolitan areas and so farmers had to haul their corn into the towns and cities by mule pack. There is only so much corn you can load on the back of a mule and each farmer probably only had a few mules. Needless to say this required multiple trips, so they turned their corn into moonshine. This required less transportation, less work, less time away and the profits were greater. This cut in on the profits of the large distillers and so they loved the idea of added costs via taxes on the farmers.
His article shows that President Nixon, (who created the EPA and OSHA by the way) raised the capital gains tax from 28 per cent to 49 per cent. Nixon was assured by his Treasury Department that a capital gains tax increase would raise $1.1 billion in the first year and then $3.2 billion a year until 1975.
The result: “revenue from the tax dropped sharply with realized gains from the sale of capital assets falling by 34 per cent, and the stock issues of struggling companies fell from about 500 in 1969 to precisely four in 1975.” “High capital gains taxes are a lousy revenue raiser.” Gerard goes on to say:
“In 1978 Congress slashed capital
gains taxes; this resulted in an explosion in the supply of venture capital. By
the start of 1979 a massive commitment to venture capital funds took place,
from $39 million in 1977 to a staggering $570 million at the end of 1978. Tax
collections on long-term capital gains, despite the dire predictions of
big-spending critics of tax cuts, leapt from $8.5 billion in 1978 to $10.6
billion in 1979, $16.5 billion in 1983 rising to $23.7 billion in 1985.
By 1981 venture capital outlays had soared to $1.4 billion and the total amount of venture capital had risen to $5.8 billion. In 1981 the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains was cut to 20 per cent. This resulted in the venture capital pool surging to $11.5 billion. Astonishingly enough, to conventional economists that is, venture capital outlays rose to $1.8 billion in the midst of the 1982 depression.
This was about 400 per cent more than had been out-laid during the 1970s slump. In 1983 these outlays rose to nearly $3 billion. Compare this situation to the period from 1969 to the 1970s which saw venture capital outlays collapse by about 90 per cent. All because of Nixon's ill-considered capital gains tax. But then Nixon never professed to know anything about economics, unlike most of his media critics.”
By 1981 venture capital outlays had soared to $1.4 billion and the total amount of venture capital had risen to $5.8 billion. In 1981 the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains was cut to 20 per cent. This resulted in the venture capital pool surging to $11.5 billion. Astonishingly enough, to conventional economists that is, venture capital outlays rose to $1.8 billion in the midst of the 1982 depression.
This was about 400 per cent more than had been out-laid during the 1970s slump. In 1983 these outlays rose to nearly $3 billion. Compare this situation to the period from 1969 to the 1970s which saw venture capital outlays collapse by about 90 per cent. All because of Nixon's ill-considered capital gains tax. But then Nixon never professed to know anything about economics, unlike most of his media critics.”
So now we see the
same arguments being promoted that have been shown to be historical claptrap.
Those who promote it denigrate those who point this out, just as in time past.
Ignorance cannot be claimed here. The historical record going back centuries is
replete with the evidence to show that this is true.
So what can we glean from all of this? What does this have to do with pest control? This is actually a truly “green” issue. The problem is that this is a mind set. People who should know better promote things that have historical underpinnings that show exactly what happens with a specific thing is done.
We have central planners telling us that;
So what can we glean from all of this? What does this have to do with pest control? This is actually a truly “green” issue. The problem is that this is a mind set. People who should know better promote things that have historical underpinnings that show exactly what happens with a specific thing is done.
We have central planners telling us that;
• We don’t need
pesticides.
• Chemicals all cause cancer, endocrine disruption, AHDH, autism, asthma, etc.
• Genetically modified foods are evil.
• Organic food techniques will feed the world.
• Gasoline driven cars have to go.
• Oil is a scarce commodity.
• Corn is better used as a fuel than a food.
• Wind and solar power can fulfill the needs of a technologically advanced society.
• Manufacturing causes global warming.
• Chemicals all cause cancer, endocrine disruption, AHDH, autism, asthma, etc.
• Genetically modified foods are evil.
• Organic food techniques will feed the world.
• Gasoline driven cars have to go.
• Oil is a scarce commodity.
• Corn is better used as a fuel than a food.
• Wind and solar power can fulfill the needs of a technologically advanced society.
• Manufacturing causes global warming.
And they are all
wrong. Central planners are usually bureaucrats who have never done anything
except be bureaucrats; and they generally know very little about the subjects
to which they are making major decisions about, and have little or no practical
experience in these fields. And
even when they do their decisions have more to do with ideological goals rather
than following the facts, whether they are from history or science. As
Thomas Sowell has noted in his book, Intellectuals and Society, no matter how
intelligent an elite may be they can't possible know as much as the population
as a whole. Furthermore, it is impossible for any small group of people to be
able to anticipate and understand all the possible permutations and respond to
unexpected events that require decision making on a daily basis. It was thus so
in the Soviet Union and it is so everywhere else in the world. Perhaps not to
that extent, but true none the less. It’s even worse when they are in cahoots
with Non Governmental Organizations that are environmental activists such as
Greenpeace and their like.
We have the historical pathways of the past. Are we using these pathways of the past as stepping stones to the future? The answer is no; since it appears that ideology trumps history as well as science.
We have the historical pathways of the past. Are we using these pathways of the past as stepping stones to the future? The answer is no; since it appears that ideology trumps history as well as science.
Conclusions In Search of Data
By Rich KozlovichWednesday, August 4, 2010
Since I sleep so little I am able to do my searches early in the morning. This gives me time without interruption. This morning I came across this article; Cancer cells slurp up fructose, U.S. study finds.
Although I do believe that eating too much sugary products isn’t the basis for a balanced diet or good health, I do insist that I am told the whole story when it comes to “scientific studies”. I have come to the conclusion that insisting on truth in science is a Sisyphean task. There is so much junk science out there with all of these “scientific” studies that none of them can be trusted on face value….and not just the junk science promoted by the greenies. The holy grail of science is no longer truth. The holy grail of science is a Golden Calf; grant money. Government grant money is especially appreciated; and in order to get that money they will give these bureaucratic activists in government what they want. Do we really believe that the Hockey Stick Graph people would have gotten all of that money if they concluded that there was no global warming that was out of line with the rest of the Earth’s history?
This article went on to say that “pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate” and that “Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways.” They further state that "these findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation” and "They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth.”
Industry has taken the position that sugar is sugar, and of course a villain must be identified in all of these types of articles and this one is no different. The American Beverage Association and its members, including “Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda.” They say this as if it is iniquitous for these companies to defend themselves.
So we fill out the requirement for junk science and junk journalism. We now have a villain for this “scientifically proven” villainy! And since states are dying to tax someone or something they will love this “study” and can sort of call this a “sin tax” since we now “know” that the food producers are sinners. Therefore they deserve to pay up to help defray the costs of medical care incurred by society because of their products. Yeah right! That is what the tobacco settlement was supposed to do also. Almost none of the money that went to the states ever paid for any medical care.
I would like to share with you information that I received today from my daily ASCH Dispatch from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) . Information that I receive thankfully I might add! Dr. Gilbert Ross and Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, both of ASCH, put this whole thing in perspective.
Ross states that he was appalled by this “study”. He says that “this assertion is so broad as to be unbelievable. I've never heard of a cancer specialist advising a patient to cut down on refined sugars, nor have I heard that reducing refined sugars helps to prevent or treat any cancer.” Ross went on to say that “In any event, the large majority of our dietary fructose comes from common sugar and fruit — not high fructose corn syrup.”
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who heads the ASCH notes that “The overlying problem with this study is that people will use this as an opportunity to say that high fructose corn syrup is more dangerous than regular sugar or honey, even though the research was conducted on cells in a lab and has minimal relevance to human physiology or nutrition,” Apparently Dr. Ross is quite insistent that “Both the authors and the press need to retract these alarmist and unsupported claims — especially the authors, since such gross over-interpretation of a lab study is inexcusable among academic scientists. They seem to be grasping for headlines and promoting some anti-fructose political agenda.”
Is it any wonder that so many simply ignore these “warnings”? Although further research may show that this is all true, currently it seems apparent that this is just one more study that is nothing more than a conclusion in search of data!
Since I sleep so little I am able to do my searches early in the morning. This gives me time without interruption. This morning I came across this article; Cancer cells slurp up fructose, U.S. study finds.
Although I do believe that eating too much sugary products isn’t the basis for a balanced diet or good health, I do insist that I am told the whole story when it comes to “scientific studies”. I have come to the conclusion that insisting on truth in science is a Sisyphean task. There is so much junk science out there with all of these “scientific” studies that none of them can be trusted on face value….and not just the junk science promoted by the greenies. The holy grail of science is no longer truth. The holy grail of science is a Golden Calf; grant money. Government grant money is especially appreciated; and in order to get that money they will give these bureaucratic activists in government what they want. Do we really believe that the Hockey Stick Graph people would have gotten all of that money if they concluded that there was no global warming that was out of line with the rest of the Earth’s history?
This article went on to say that “pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate” and that “Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways.” They further state that "these findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation” and "They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth.”
Industry has taken the position that sugar is sugar, and of course a villain must be identified in all of these types of articles and this one is no different. The American Beverage Association and its members, including “Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda.” They say this as if it is iniquitous for these companies to defend themselves.
So we fill out the requirement for junk science and junk journalism. We now have a villain for this “scientifically proven” villainy! And since states are dying to tax someone or something they will love this “study” and can sort of call this a “sin tax” since we now “know” that the food producers are sinners. Therefore they deserve to pay up to help defray the costs of medical care incurred by society because of their products. Yeah right! That is what the tobacco settlement was supposed to do also. Almost none of the money that went to the states ever paid for any medical care.
I would like to share with you information that I received today from my daily ASCH Dispatch from the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) . Information that I receive thankfully I might add! Dr. Gilbert Ross and Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, both of ASCH, put this whole thing in perspective.
Ross states that he was appalled by this “study”. He says that “this assertion is so broad as to be unbelievable. I've never heard of a cancer specialist advising a patient to cut down on refined sugars, nor have I heard that reducing refined sugars helps to prevent or treat any cancer.” Ross went on to say that “In any event, the large majority of our dietary fructose comes from common sugar and fruit — not high fructose corn syrup.”
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who heads the ASCH notes that “The overlying problem with this study is that people will use this as an opportunity to say that high fructose corn syrup is more dangerous than regular sugar or honey, even though the research was conducted on cells in a lab and has minimal relevance to human physiology or nutrition,” Apparently Dr. Ross is quite insistent that “Both the authors and the press need to retract these alarmist and unsupported claims — especially the authors, since such gross over-interpretation of a lab study is inexcusable among academic scientists. They seem to be grasping for headlines and promoting some anti-fructose political agenda.”
Is it any wonder that so many simply ignore these “warnings”? Although further research may show that this is all true, currently it seems apparent that this is just one more study that is nothing more than a conclusion in search of data!
By
Rich Kozlovich Saturday, August 7, 2010
Those who know me know that my interests are far ranging and that just about everything fascinates me. I spend a great deal of time reading and researching every issue that faces mankind. I try to dig as deeply as possible into the history of each issue because I believe that if I can understand the history of a problem I will find the answer to the problem. But, while sports is something I enjoy, it isn’t high on my list of priorities.
Normally I don’t read much about sports on-line, although I do follow the local teams through the Cleveland Plain Dealer. When looking for the crossword puzzle I will casually peruse the sports page, but not much because I am no longer a baseball fan and as a result I don’t watch it on TV. I don’t like hockey, soccer, or basketball (which I consider variations of the same game with different jerks) so I don’t watch them on TV either. Although I always hope the Cavaliers and the Indians win; I want that to happen because it is good for my city. The exception is that I do enjoy watching NFL football, and have a strong attachment to the Cleveland Browns; so unless they are talking about my Brownies (who are going to surprise a lot of people this year) I don’t really care overly much.
I like Browns coach Eric Mangini, and I have liked him from the beginning because he demanded that everyone develop a serious work ethic including handing out disciplinary actions for those who broke his rules. I don’t care that some spoiled players whined and stupid sportswriters agreed with them. He expects them to act like professionals and grown men. And I also think that having Mike Holmgren as the president of the Browns will make Mangini (who is only 39 by the way) one of the great coaches of the NFL. They whined about the discipline Mangini imposed, but Holmgren hasn’t changed it as far as I can tell. Mangini must have been doing something right. This may be the perfect synergy for the Cleveland Browns, who have struggled to find an identity since Art Modell moved them to Baltimore and lost any hope of entering the NFL Hall of Fame. (Editors Note: That turned out to be an amazingly stupid prediction. Neither Mangini or Holmgren succeeded in Cleveland. Predicting is exceptionally difficult, especially about the future! Updated 11/10/12. RK)
However, I did read an article by Andrew Cline from the American Spectator entitled, “ A-Rod's 600th (Yawn), Why the fans don't really care”, that hit a nerve.
So many of these people have no regard for anything or anyone else except their own egos. I don’t believe any of these athletes who took steroids should be in the record books, and in point of fact I don’t think they should be allowed in professional sports at all. You can argue about whether steroids should be allowed or not all day long, but they knew when they took these drugs they were breaking the rules and they took advantage of and cheated those who played by the rules. In any real job you are fired when you violate the boss’s rules. In this case the bosses are as guilty as the players. They have winked at this for years because they wanted winners and the money that went with it and didn’t much care how that was obtained. And no one believes them when they say otherwise and deservedly so.
However, while reading this article I also read some of the comments. Two really stood out and both of them were about a man named Albert Pujols. A man who identified himself as LarryK made this point.
Those who know me know that my interests are far ranging and that just about everything fascinates me. I spend a great deal of time reading and researching every issue that faces mankind. I try to dig as deeply as possible into the history of each issue because I believe that if I can understand the history of a problem I will find the answer to the problem. But, while sports is something I enjoy, it isn’t high on my list of priorities.
Normally I don’t read much about sports on-line, although I do follow the local teams through the Cleveland Plain Dealer. When looking for the crossword puzzle I will casually peruse the sports page, but not much because I am no longer a baseball fan and as a result I don’t watch it on TV. I don’t like hockey, soccer, or basketball (which I consider variations of the same game with different jerks) so I don’t watch them on TV either. Although I always hope the Cavaliers and the Indians win; I want that to happen because it is good for my city. The exception is that I do enjoy watching NFL football, and have a strong attachment to the Cleveland Browns; so unless they are talking about my Brownies (who are going to surprise a lot of people this year) I don’t really care overly much.
I like Browns coach Eric Mangini, and I have liked him from the beginning because he demanded that everyone develop a serious work ethic including handing out disciplinary actions for those who broke his rules. I don’t care that some spoiled players whined and stupid sportswriters agreed with them. He expects them to act like professionals and grown men. And I also think that having Mike Holmgren as the president of the Browns will make Mangini (who is only 39 by the way) one of the great coaches of the NFL. They whined about the discipline Mangini imposed, but Holmgren hasn’t changed it as far as I can tell. Mangini must have been doing something right. This may be the perfect synergy for the Cleveland Browns, who have struggled to find an identity since Art Modell moved them to Baltimore and lost any hope of entering the NFL Hall of Fame. (Editors Note: That turned out to be an amazingly stupid prediction. Neither Mangini or Holmgren succeeded in Cleveland. Predicting is exceptionally difficult, especially about the future! Updated 11/10/12. RK)
However, I did read an article by Andrew Cline from the American Spectator entitled, “ A-Rod's 600th (Yawn), Why the fans don't really care”, that hit a nerve.
So many of these people have no regard for anything or anyone else except their own egos. I don’t believe any of these athletes who took steroids should be in the record books, and in point of fact I don’t think they should be allowed in professional sports at all. You can argue about whether steroids should be allowed or not all day long, but they knew when they took these drugs they were breaking the rules and they took advantage of and cheated those who played by the rules. In any real job you are fired when you violate the boss’s rules. In this case the bosses are as guilty as the players. They have winked at this for years because they wanted winners and the money that went with it and didn’t much care how that was obtained. And no one believes them when they say otherwise and deservedly so.
However, while reading this article I also read some of the comments. Two really stood out and both of them were about a man named Albert Pujols. A man who identified himself as LarryK made this point.
Five years from now (six, max) the best
player in the game will also cross the 600 HR mark, at roughly the same age
that A-Rod did. I'm talking about Albert Pujols of course, who like Griffey has
never been linked to steroids (and even has a standing offer for MLB to test
him for steroid use whenever it likes). Pujols is the opposite of Bonds and all
other spoiled stars in character and personality - hard-working, unassuming, a
strong Christian who gives millions to charity every year, and devoted father
who married his childhood sweetheart (who already had a child with severe
disabilities, who he adopted). It's too much to ask any one player to be the
savior of the game, but if anyone can do it Pujols is the man.
This was followed by someone who calls himself TimG who
says:
After Albert met Stan (The Man) Musial
for the first time, he began politely asking people who addressed him as
"El Hombre" to stop, explaining that Stan was the only Man. Now
that's class.
Now that "really" impressed me and since I
don't follow baseball any longer....I had no idea who they were talking about;
so I decided to look him up. Let me tell you about José Alberto Pujols
Alcántara.
He is a nine time All Star, five time Silver Slugger Award winner, Golden Glove winner, three time National League Most Valuable Player, two time National League Hank Aaron Award winner, 2001 National League Rookie of the Year, 2004 National League Championship Series Most Valuable Player, 2007 Marvin Miller Man of the Year (Players Choice Award) winner, 2008 Roberto Clemente Award winner, 2009 TSN Player of the Decade Award, four time Fielding Bible Award, three time TSN Player of the Year, three time ESPY Award winner for Best Major League Baseball Player, three time National League Outstanding Play (Players Choice Award) and three time National League Player of the Year (Players Choice Award). Now I don’t know about you, but that would have the tendency to turn most people’s head. At least swell it up a bit.
One year he even suffered with plantar fasciitis, and hit .331 with 46 home runs and 123 RBIs. Since I suffer from this malady off and on, mostly on these days, I know how painful this can be and I can’t help but respect and admire this man’s grit. Clearly he is one of the truly great players in baseball today, and would be in any era, unlike these steroid packing cheaters.
More importantly is the character of the man. His wife had a Down Syndrome daughter from a previous relationship. This man has a greater sense of dignity, responsibility and compassion than all of these prima donnas of sports. He demonstrated his affection for the child and mother by adopting her and has been active in the Down syndrome cause along with his wife. It is unlikely that this is a put on either as “Pujols and his wife are active Christians; his foundation's website states, "In the Pujols family, God is first. Everything else is a distant second.”
Wikipedia makes these observations about Pujols. There is a great deal more about him here.
He is a nine time All Star, five time Silver Slugger Award winner, Golden Glove winner, three time National League Most Valuable Player, two time National League Hank Aaron Award winner, 2001 National League Rookie of the Year, 2004 National League Championship Series Most Valuable Player, 2007 Marvin Miller Man of the Year (Players Choice Award) winner, 2008 Roberto Clemente Award winner, 2009 TSN Player of the Decade Award, four time Fielding Bible Award, three time TSN Player of the Year, three time ESPY Award winner for Best Major League Baseball Player, three time National League Outstanding Play (Players Choice Award) and three time National League Player of the Year (Players Choice Award). Now I don’t know about you, but that would have the tendency to turn most people’s head. At least swell it up a bit.
One year he even suffered with plantar fasciitis, and hit .331 with 46 home runs and 123 RBIs. Since I suffer from this malady off and on, mostly on these days, I know how painful this can be and I can’t help but respect and admire this man’s grit. Clearly he is one of the truly great players in baseball today, and would be in any era, unlike these steroid packing cheaters.
More importantly is the character of the man. His wife had a Down Syndrome daughter from a previous relationship. This man has a greater sense of dignity, responsibility and compassion than all of these prima donnas of sports. He demonstrated his affection for the child and mother by adopting her and has been active in the Down syndrome cause along with his wife. It is unlikely that this is a put on either as “Pujols and his wife are active Christians; his foundation's website states, "In the Pujols family, God is first. Everything else is a distant second.”
Wikipedia makes these observations about Pujols. There is a great deal more about him here.
“In 2005, Albert and Deidre Pujols launched
the Pujols Family Foundation, which is dedicated to "the love, care and
development of people with Down syndrome and their families," as well as
helping the poor in the Dominican Republic. Pujols has taken several trips to
the Dominican Republic, by taking supplies as well as a team of doctors and
dentists to the poor who need medical care. The Pujols Family Foundation also
holds an annual golf tournament in which members from the Cardinals and other
people play golf to raise money to send dentists to the Dominican Republic.”
“A new center for adults with Down
syndrome that will bear his name ("Albert Pujols Wellness Center for
Adults with Down's Syndrome") is scheduled to open in November 2009 in
Chesterfield, Missouri. He was there when it was launched on November 18,
2009.”
I have largely imposed a Green Issues only mandate on
myself for this blog. I know this isn’t a Green Issue article, but some things
need to be talked about. Since we seem to have lost sight as to what
constitutes a real man; when we find real men we need to talk about them more
often. We seem to be running out of them. And being a great baseball player
isn’t what makes Pujols a real man.
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”. Even if those comments are positive.
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”. Even if those comments are positive.
By Rich Kozlovich Monday, August 9, 2010
When we published the article Chemicals and Cancer last quarter, I didn't realize just how timely it was going to be. About that time a newly published “President’s Cancer Report” came out with this quote from "Sandra Steingraber, biologist and author of the book Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment.”
When we published the article Chemicals and Cancer last quarter, I didn't realize just how timely it was going to be. About that time a newly published “President’s Cancer Report” came out with this quote from "Sandra Steingraber, biologist and author of the book Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment.”
“I believe it is time for a new human
experiment. The old experiment is that we have sprayed pesticides which are
inherent poisons . . . throughout our shared environment. They're in our
amniotic fluid . . .They're in our mothers’ milk. What is the burden of cancer
that we can attribute to these poisons in our agricultural system? We won't
really know the answer until we do the other experiment, which is to take the
poisons out of our food chain, embrace a different kind of agriculture, and see
what happens.”
This kind of stuff scares the beejeebers out of people, but
according the American Council on Science and Health, “the report has
underwhelmed most mainstream cancer experts.” “Even members of Congress who
usually are eager to show they are fighting to protect the public have been
mostly silent. Cancer experts say for the most part that we already know what
causes most cases of cancer and it's not pollution or chemicals lurking in our
water bottles.” Originally I hadn’t intended to make this a two part series,
but this kind of junk science requires a response because this impacts who we
are and what wo do.
First off, this panel consists of two people, Dr. LaSalle Leffall of Howard University and Dr. Margaret Kripke, professor emeritus at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, both of whom are entirely “lacking expertise in cancer epidemiology”. Not much of a panel, especially when they produce a 200-page document on the causes of cancer. Yet, in spite of this, their report concludes that "grievous harm" results from exposure to chemicals and that there is "a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures [to chemicals] to cancer”. “This is a scientific travesty” according to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President of the American Council on Science and Health.
Let’s start out with the idea that we need to “take the poisons out of our food chain, embrace a different agriculture, and see what happens”. Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute clearly outlines the problem with this kind of thinking by stating;
First off, this panel consists of two people, Dr. LaSalle Leffall of Howard University and Dr. Margaret Kripke, professor emeritus at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, both of whom are entirely “lacking expertise in cancer epidemiology”. Not much of a panel, especially when they produce a 200-page document on the causes of cancer. Yet, in spite of this, their report concludes that "grievous harm" results from exposure to chemicals and that there is "a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures [to chemicals] to cancer”. “This is a scientific travesty” according to Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President of the American Council on Science and Health.
Let’s start out with the idea that we need to “take the poisons out of our food chain, embrace a different agriculture, and see what happens”. Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute clearly outlines the problem with this kind of thinking by stating;
“Unfortunately, Dr. Steingraber’s
ignorance of biochemistry and agriculture is breathtaking. We’ve actually been
running a long-term experiment on chemical-free farming for about 5,000 years:
It’s called Africa. Africans don’t produce much food, and the little food they
produce comes at a fearful price in human stoop labor, horrifying soil erosion,
and increasing displacement of wildlife by low-yield crops.
Africans get cancer at an alarming rate even so—though many die too young for the old age cancers. In Kenya…the life expectancy is 20 years shorter than America’s 78 years. Cancer has recently made the “Top Ten Killers” list, but Kenyans worry more about the epidemics of malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis. Don’t look for any new science in this new President’s Report. There isn’t any.
Africans get cancer at an alarming rate even so—though many die too young for the old age cancers. In Kenya…the life expectancy is 20 years shorter than America’s 78 years. Cancer has recently made the “Top Ten Killers” list, but Kenyans worry more about the epidemics of malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis. Don’t look for any new science in this new President’s Report. There isn’t any.
The report includes much talk of the
precautionary principle, and how we might begin to find these “hidden” cancer
sources. It’s just the same old fears and alarms that have circulated since
Rachel Carson. Indeed, Dr. Steingraber has been called “the new Rachel Carson.”
That’s no compliment; Rachel’s rant against DDT has cost more than 50 million
needless malaria deaths.”
We already know what happens; people die! With little
concern for the real costs to society, this report rehashes all of the tired
old clichés promoted by the green movement, i.e. all chemicals are dangerous
because we “don’t know what the long term consequences may be, therefore, any
exposure is too much exposure." That is irrational because everything in
the universe is made up of chemicals, including us. The amount of naturally
occurring chemicals that test carcinogenic is amazing, and usually at a higher
level of carcinogenicity than synthetic chemicals. “Safe, natural foods are
replete with toxins.”
I have to restate that this is all based on rodent testing, and even though the Environmental Protection Agency still uses this as their determining factor as to what is carcinogenic, the rest of the scientific world has come to the conclusion that rodent testing alone isn’t the best science in these determinations. The report also fails to recognize that dose has a relationship to risk. “The dose makes the poison.”
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan and Dr. Henry I. Miller of the American Council on Science and Health state that;
I have to restate that this is all based on rodent testing, and even though the Environmental Protection Agency still uses this as their determining factor as to what is carcinogenic, the rest of the scientific world has come to the conclusion that rodent testing alone isn’t the best science in these determinations. The report also fails to recognize that dose has a relationship to risk. “The dose makes the poison.”
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan and Dr. Henry I. Miller of the American Council on Science and Health state that;
“If the authors had only bothered to
consult a standard textbook on cancer epidemiology, they would have learned
that lifestyle factors such as smoking, obesity, excessive alcohol consumption
and overexposure to sunlight--not chemicals in air, water and food--are the
underlying causes of most preventable human cancers.”
Dr. Graham Colditz of the Washington University School of
Medicine in St. Louis noted that more than 20 percent of Americans still smoke
despite nearly 50 years of cancer warnings. And no state has even come close to
banning smoking, although limits are going into place to restrict smoking in
public. "We know that alcohol causes 4 percent (of cancers) and we deal
with that to too little extent, as well," said Colditz, an expert in the
epidemiology of cancer. Red meat is a known cause of colon cancer, he adds.
"We don't run out and ban all beef just because beef is a cause of colon
cancer."
What in effect they are promoting is the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle demands that we prove everything is safe before we can use it. This is scientifically impossible! It is called proving a negative. You can only prove what something does; you cannot prove what it doesn’t do. Whelan and Miller go on to say;
What in effect they are promoting is the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle demands that we prove everything is safe before we can use it. This is scientifically impossible! It is called proving a negative. You can only prove what something does; you cannot prove what it doesn’t do. Whelan and Miller go on to say;
“This prestigious-sounding panel offers
advice that owes more to celebrity-babble on Oprah than to sound science: Eat
organic foods, filter your water, use only ceramic or glass, rather than
plastic, in the microwave. However, according to the National Cancer
Institute's statistics, smoking accounts for 29% to 31% of cancer deaths, diet
for 20% to 50%, infectious disease for 10% to 20%, ionizing and ultraviolet
light for 5% to 7%, occupational exposure (from high dose exposures to vinyl
chloride, benzene, etc.) for 2% to 4% and pollution (such as radon gas) for 1%
to 5%.”
What is this junk science cancer report is really all
about? I do find it interesting that the Cancer Prevention Coalition was
encouraging people to support the Safe Chemicals Act which would amend the 1976
Toxic Substances Control Act which would require manufacturers to prove what
cannot be proven - the safety of chemicals before they are marketed.
This would in fact impose the Precautionary Principle on American industry. If this had been in place when Edison was alive we wouldn’t have electricity in our homes today. We have to remember that the Precautionary Principle is a tool used by the activist to deny action or activity they oppose. It is rarely or never used to examine the converse. In other words, would more harm be caused by not doing something? The Precautionary Principle is an ideology masquerading as a principle, and has no basis in science.
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”. There have been a number of anonymous comments that were very supportive of my articles. Those comments were not posted because they were “Anonymous”. I thank those who have done so, but I will stay consistent to my rules for posting comments.
This would in fact impose the Precautionary Principle on American industry. If this had been in place when Edison was alive we wouldn’t have electricity in our homes today. We have to remember that the Precautionary Principle is a tool used by the activist to deny action or activity they oppose. It is rarely or never used to examine the converse. In other words, would more harm be caused by not doing something? The Precautionary Principle is an ideology masquerading as a principle, and has no basis in science.
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”. There have been a number of anonymous comments that were very supportive of my articles. Those comments were not posted because they were “Anonymous”. I thank those who have done so, but I will stay consistent to my rules for posting comments.
By Rich Kozlovich Monday, August 9, 2010
"Safety advocates who say that we shouldn't take
chances, but should ban things that might be unsafe, don't seem to understand
that if we banned every food to which somebody had an allergy we could all
starve to death." Thomas Sowell
Recently, there was a naming bill introduced into the
Ohio Senate to officially name a month of the year the “Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome Awareness Month.” Fortunately through
some legislative legerdemain that I don’t understand, this bill was put on
hold. However, as I understand it was done in such a way that may allow for it
to come up again. As a result, I think it worthwhile to explore the whole
concept of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome (MCS).
When someone is diagnosed with “Multiple chemical sensitivities syndrome,” life changes radically. Dr Ronald E. Gots, executive director of Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute in Rockville, Maryland, a clearinghouse for scientific data, notes that “the diagnosis of MCS begins a downward spiral of fruitless treatments, culminating in withdrawal from society and condemning the sufferer to a life of misery and disability. This is a phenomenon in which the diagnosis is far more disabling than the symptoms.”
When someone is diagnosed with “Multiple chemical sensitivities syndrome,” life changes radically. Dr Ronald E. Gots, executive director of Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute in Rockville, Maryland, a clearinghouse for scientific data, notes that “the diagnosis of MCS begins a downward spiral of fruitless treatments, culminating in withdrawal from society and condemning the sufferer to a life of misery and disability. This is a phenomenon in which the diagnosis is far more disabling than the symptoms.”
• One woman “hangs her mail on a
clothesline for weeks before reading it, to allow the toxins in the ink to
dissipate.”
• Another woman tried living in a six-by-nine-foot porcelain hut, but now just spends almost all her time on her porch, no matter how cold it gets.
• Yet another wears a protective mask while shopping but still develops breathlessness, palpitations, and vomiting when she smells gasoline fumes.
• Another woman tried living in a six-by-nine-foot porcelain hut, but now just spends almost all her time on her porch, no matter how cold it gets.
• Yet another wears a protective mask while shopping but still develops breathlessness, palpitations, and vomiting when she smells gasoline fumes.
What exactly are the symptoms? According to one MCS
supporter, “the illness can cause all the symptoms of every disease or disorder
known [in] psychology, psychiatry, and the general medical profession.” One
group studying the claims made by those who support the existence of this
affliction listed the following symptoms:
sneezing, itching, twitching, numbness,
difficulty swallowing, hoarseness, earache, chest pain, easy bruising, high or
low blood pressure, sore muscles, cramps, eczema, heavy eyes, blurred vision,
dyslexia, frequent urination, genital itching, PMS, backache, nausea, belching,
constipation, hunger, thirst, headaches, apathy, forgetfulness, insomnia, IQ
drop, depression, bitter or sweet slime in mouth, heat sensitivity, cold
sensitivity, stiffness, swelling, neck pain, anxiety attacks, agitation, liver
pain, hair loss, premature gray hair, brain fog, and genital sweating.
The paper went on to say, “Unfortunately this is not a
complete list of symptoms.” If you haven’t suffered at least a dozen of the
listed symptoms in the past year, you’re probably an android.
Apparently, there is no limit to the number of symptoms. If the number of symptoms are unlimited; what about the causes? The sky is the limit for causes also! Virtually anything and everything is claimed to be sources of causation.
Apparently, there is no limit to the number of symptoms. If the number of symptoms are unlimited; what about the causes? The sky is the limit for causes also! Virtually anything and everything is claimed to be sources of causation.
“formaldehyde (found in furniture glue,
particle board, and synthetic carpeting, pesticides, solvents, acrylic resins,
mercury compounds, polyester, latex, gasoline, glues, paints, detergents and
other cleaners, tobacco smoke, perfumes, newspaper print, hair cream, oral
contraceptives, dry-cleaning solvents, and bleach. But the etiology of MCS goes
beyond synthetic agents. It is claimed that MCS can be caused by viruses,
molds, bacteria, and pollens.”
According to Herman Staudenmayer, a Denver psychologist
and MCS skeptic, “There’s no chemical that is safe. There’s no food that is
safe.” Gots went on to explain how MCS can become ‘trendy'. “Support groups are
contagious. They tell everybody what all the things are that give them
symptoms, and that’s a contagious thing to do.”
This is an incurable affliction because it cannot be defined by the treatment. Let me explain. If I claim to have a sore throat and the doctor gives me an antibiotic, and the antibiotic works, then I had a sore throat. And the “cure” proves it is a sore throat because it works. “MCS is not considered a curable disease, and the treatments are as diverse as the symptoms and causes.” Those who claim to have MCS are probably more afflicted by the cures than the symptoms. There are about 400 believing practitioners providing services…unending services…to those who claim to be afflicted with this ailment. What do they do?
This is an incurable affliction because it cannot be defined by the treatment. Let me explain. If I claim to have a sore throat and the doctor gives me an antibiotic, and the antibiotic works, then I had a sore throat. And the “cure” proves it is a sore throat because it works. “MCS is not considered a curable disease, and the treatments are as diverse as the symptoms and causes.” Those who claim to have MCS are probably more afflicted by the cures than the symptoms. There are about 400 believing practitioners providing services…unending services…to those who claim to be afflicted with this ailment. What do they do?
• One Maryland physician “prescribes a
combination of the drugs phentermine and fenfluramine for MCS, which are
actually weight loss drugs in the amphetamine family.
• One doctor prescribes a “macrobiotic
diet – based on grains and vegetables, free of wheat and dairy products,”
making the claim that “it works by detoxifying the body, especially critical in
today’s toxin-ridden world.”
• “Another clinical ecologist
reportedly agrees with the macrobiotic diet but also recommends avoiding tap
water, caffeine, and alcohol. He tells MCS sufferers to rid their homes of
toxic chemicals such as cleaners and pesticides, improve the ventilation
system, and avoid all drugs, whether prescription or over the counter.”
• Saunas supposedly ‘sweat out toxins.’
“But you can’t sweat out a toxin, because the sweat glands aren’t connected to
any of the organs that process toxins.”
• “Other treatments include coffee
enemas, something called ‘salt-neutralization therapy,’ gamma globulin,
interferon, vitamins, ginseng, and the patient’s urine (as a beverage or
injection).”
• This is the one I find
most fascinating! “A Sacramento-area specialist treats many of his patients
with injections of ‘the north wind.’ He bubbles air through water, then injects
the water as a ‘neutralizer.’ Why the north wind? Because many of his patients
complain they feel worse when the wind blows from that direction.
Does this give the impression of “witch doctoring,”
versus real doctoring? Impossible to prove, yes! But also impossible to disprove! However, the
most commonly used test for MCS is something called provocation-neutralization.
When this test was subjected to real science in a double blind study it was
found that “the subjects reported the same number of symptoms whether they
received test agents or saline solution.” As one former believer in MCS, and a
designer of the study noted; MCS “is not science.
So what is the problem with just having a naming bill? The American Medical Association (AMA) does not recognize this as a disease. In short the AMA believes that it doesn’t exist! But when the state decides that it wants to make society “aware” of this affliction; they are in point of fact saying it exists. If the state says it exists then it exists, science or lack there-in notwithstanding. So then if it exists, there must be a cause. If there is a cause, then the cause must be addressed. This really is the slippery slope that would ultimately be used by the activists to attempt to ban a host of things; especially pesticides. This bill could have become a nightmare for Ohio’s industry and economy as a whole.
It is unusual for a bill to be set aside in some fashion once it has hit the legislative floor. Fortunately the board of directors Ohio Applicator for Responsible Regulations (OPARR) became aware of the introduction of this bill and along with members of the OPMA board acted on this information. We can thank all those involved for their commitment and activism in behalf of our industry. We also need to recognize just how important OPARR is to our association and all of the application industries.
For source material and additional reading please go to;
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome, American Family Physician, September 1, 1998
Smearing Cosmetics
Senseless Scent Patrol
Scents and Senselessness
Sick of It All
Nocebo Effect: Think Sick and You’ll Be Sick
NEW SYNDROME? OR MORE SILLINESS?
So what is the problem with just having a naming bill? The American Medical Association (AMA) does not recognize this as a disease. In short the AMA believes that it doesn’t exist! But when the state decides that it wants to make society “aware” of this affliction; they are in point of fact saying it exists. If the state says it exists then it exists, science or lack there-in notwithstanding. So then if it exists, there must be a cause. If there is a cause, then the cause must be addressed. This really is the slippery slope that would ultimately be used by the activists to attempt to ban a host of things; especially pesticides. This bill could have become a nightmare for Ohio’s industry and economy as a whole.
It is unusual for a bill to be set aside in some fashion once it has hit the legislative floor. Fortunately the board of directors Ohio Applicator for Responsible Regulations (OPARR) became aware of the introduction of this bill and along with members of the OPMA board acted on this information. We can thank all those involved for their commitment and activism in behalf of our industry. We also need to recognize just how important OPARR is to our association and all of the application industries.
For source material and additional reading please go to;
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Spurious Diagnosis
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Syndrome, American Family Physician, September 1, 1998
Smearing Cosmetics
Senseless Scent Patrol
Scents and Senselessness
Sick of It All
Nocebo Effect: Think Sick and You’ll Be Sick
NEW SYNDROME? OR MORE SILLINESS?
By Rich KozlovichFriday, August 13, 2010
Every so often we will get a notice that some bill or other is being promoted that will severely impact the use of pesticides. The School Environmental Protection Act is one such bill. It keeps getting introduced by Barbara Boxer or one of her co-conspirators every year or so, but these days it is always dead in the water. That demonstrates how bad this bill is. Because almost everything the activist foist on the public it starts out with….”It’s for the children”, and usually legislators just wither when they hear that. No legislative wants to vote against anything “that is for the children”.
When promoting a bill they usually have what are called ‘findings’ to justify the reason for any bill to be considered and acted upon. What is the reason for SEPA (H.R. 4159, at the time) to appear once again? They claim, among other things, that “childhood cancer is continuing to increase at the alarming rate of 1 percent per year; the overall incidence of childhood cancer has increased over the past 30 years, making cancer the leading cause of childhood death from disease.” This simply isn’t true!
As a member of the American Council on Science and Health (ASCH) I receive something called the Daily Dispatch which gives me a daily update on all of the science issues of our time; new and old, legitimate science and junk science.
I sent the link for H.R. 4159 to Jeff Stier and others at ASCH and pointed out the so-called “scientific” justification for the bill. I don’t know that sending it to them made any impact on their actions, but I am glad that they made the effort to include this in the Daily Dispatch the following day.
ACSH staffers were pleased, though not surprised, to learn that cancer rates in the U.S. continue to decline, according to a report from a group of cancer and health organizations including the National Cancer Institute.
“Every day 'environmental' activists refer to the cancer epidemic, claiming that cancer rates are going up,” says ACSH's Jeff Stier. “Once again, we see there that this simply is not the case. On the contrary, cancer rates continue to go down by about one percent each year across the board, thanks to improved screening and early detection. With colon cancer, for example, screening by colonoscopy actually decreases incidence of the disease.”
ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross adds, “I find it instructive that the New York Times dealt with this important story by putting an AP briefing on it on page A24. Imagine where they would have placed a story about rising cancer rates.”
Protecting children is not a negotiable item. That is why the activists use the tact, “it’s for the children”! Whenever you hear that that phrase it’s time to stop and listen very carefully, because an emotional trigger such as that must be viewed with a doubtful eye. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong! However it can mean that they are strong on ideology and weak on facts, and in some cases it means they are lying. That is why you have to pay close attention and question everything.
If they can create the impression that pesticides are causing anything harmful in the nation’s children the public will not be “reasonable” they will not “understand” and they will not listen to the lengthy explanations that many times are necessary to overcome greenie sound bites. The public will demand that something must be done before it is too late. And the activists will make any outrageous claim necessary to make their demands become reality. Which to the anti-pesticide activists means to ban something in some way or another. That is what these bills attempt to do, but in a roundabout way.
Their goal is not to outright ban pesticides, but to regulate pesticides to the point that it becomes impossible to use them. They will not be “banned” on paper but that won’t matter. I often hear how DDT wasn’t banned entirely because there were emergency exemptions that would allow for its use. So what! The fact that DDT wasn’t banned on paper in its entirety doesn’t alter the fact that it was a de facto ban none the less. The end result is that activists see things as a long term goals; which is far different than what industry executives see, i.e., the next quarterly return. This gives corporate executives the false impression that they can deal with the activists.
In reality the activists have incrementally baby stepped their way to where they wished to go sixty years ago. Corporate bigwigs retire and new short term thinkers take their place, but the activists goals and concepts remain. The faces might change, but it really doesn’t matter….they are ideological and philosophical clones of their predecessors.
The anti-pesticide movement needs no individual or group of individuals because their philosophy is timeless. They are like a hydra growing new heads while the body remains the same. Whoever is there, in any time frame, will carry on with the same principles, philosophies and goals that were promoted by those who preceded them. It isn’t just one more issue occurring one more day. It is a crusade that will never stop and can only be defeated by absolute observance of the first rule of science.
“De Omnibus Dubitandum” – Doubt everything!
Every so often we will get a notice that some bill or other is being promoted that will severely impact the use of pesticides. The School Environmental Protection Act is one such bill. It keeps getting introduced by Barbara Boxer or one of her co-conspirators every year or so, but these days it is always dead in the water. That demonstrates how bad this bill is. Because almost everything the activist foist on the public it starts out with….”It’s for the children”, and usually legislators just wither when they hear that. No legislative wants to vote against anything “that is for the children”.
When promoting a bill they usually have what are called ‘findings’ to justify the reason for any bill to be considered and acted upon. What is the reason for SEPA (H.R. 4159, at the time) to appear once again? They claim, among other things, that “childhood cancer is continuing to increase at the alarming rate of 1 percent per year; the overall incidence of childhood cancer has increased over the past 30 years, making cancer the leading cause of childhood death from disease.” This simply isn’t true!
As a member of the American Council on Science and Health (ASCH) I receive something called the Daily Dispatch which gives me a daily update on all of the science issues of our time; new and old, legitimate science and junk science.
I sent the link for H.R. 4159 to Jeff Stier and others at ASCH and pointed out the so-called “scientific” justification for the bill. I don’t know that sending it to them made any impact on their actions, but I am glad that they made the effort to include this in the Daily Dispatch the following day.
ACSH staffers were pleased, though not surprised, to learn that cancer rates in the U.S. continue to decline, according to a report from a group of cancer and health organizations including the National Cancer Institute.
“Every day 'environmental' activists refer to the cancer epidemic, claiming that cancer rates are going up,” says ACSH's Jeff Stier. “Once again, we see there that this simply is not the case. On the contrary, cancer rates continue to go down by about one percent each year across the board, thanks to improved screening and early detection. With colon cancer, for example, screening by colonoscopy actually decreases incidence of the disease.”
ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross adds, “I find it instructive that the New York Times dealt with this important story by putting an AP briefing on it on page A24. Imagine where they would have placed a story about rising cancer rates.”
Protecting children is not a negotiable item. That is why the activists use the tact, “it’s for the children”! Whenever you hear that that phrase it’s time to stop and listen very carefully, because an emotional trigger such as that must be viewed with a doubtful eye. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong! However it can mean that they are strong on ideology and weak on facts, and in some cases it means they are lying. That is why you have to pay close attention and question everything.
If they can create the impression that pesticides are causing anything harmful in the nation’s children the public will not be “reasonable” they will not “understand” and they will not listen to the lengthy explanations that many times are necessary to overcome greenie sound bites. The public will demand that something must be done before it is too late. And the activists will make any outrageous claim necessary to make their demands become reality. Which to the anti-pesticide activists means to ban something in some way or another. That is what these bills attempt to do, but in a roundabout way.
Their goal is not to outright ban pesticides, but to regulate pesticides to the point that it becomes impossible to use them. They will not be “banned” on paper but that won’t matter. I often hear how DDT wasn’t banned entirely because there were emergency exemptions that would allow for its use. So what! The fact that DDT wasn’t banned on paper in its entirety doesn’t alter the fact that it was a de facto ban none the less. The end result is that activists see things as a long term goals; which is far different than what industry executives see, i.e., the next quarterly return. This gives corporate executives the false impression that they can deal with the activists.
In reality the activists have incrementally baby stepped their way to where they wished to go sixty years ago. Corporate bigwigs retire and new short term thinkers take their place, but the activists goals and concepts remain. The faces might change, but it really doesn’t matter….they are ideological and philosophical clones of their predecessors.
The anti-pesticide movement needs no individual or group of individuals because their philosophy is timeless. They are like a hydra growing new heads while the body remains the same. Whoever is there, in any time frame, will carry on with the same principles, philosophies and goals that were promoted by those who preceded them. It isn’t just one more issue occurring one more day. It is a crusade that will never stop and can only be defeated by absolute observance of the first rule of science.
“De Omnibus Dubitandum” – Doubt everything!
By Rich Kozlovich Friday, August 13, 2010
This blog site was created for the following purposes.
This blog site was created for the following purposes.
1. To fight the battles that the pest control industry
refuses to see, or sees but refuses to address.
2. To better inform the pest control industry that
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Green Pest Control is an unscientific
dream of the greenies, government regulators and their fellow travelers in the
pesticide chemical manufacturing distribution and application industries that
will become a constantly recurring nightmare.
3. To present enough information to give those in the
industry who agree with me the intellectual ammunition needed to challenge what
is now becoming conventional wisdom, which I prefer to call the Philosophical
Flavor of the Day.
4. To outline lists of questions that will allow those
who agree with me to have the ability to place the burden of proof on those who
are attempting to impose regulations on our industry that will eventually
destroy structural pest control, and as bed bugs have shown, wreck havoc on the
nation’s people.
Unfortunately, it becomes very apparent that trying to
stay focused on one issue with the environmental activists is impossible. They
ubiquitously stick their noses into everything. As a result all of these issues
overlap. While addressing our industry's concerns I have come to realize these
overlapping issues also present overlapping challenges with overlapping answers
requiring overlapping logic. These issues are presented in such complicated
ways that it takes some time to realize that all of these challenges are
presented with the same lines of logic, because the environmental cabals who
present these issues use the same illogical junk science mentality; which are
the same logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty used by the rest of the
Left. The patterns repeat over and over again.
Climate change is much larger than most realize. Not because of the potential danger to humanity and the world from global warming. It is huge because the warming activists have thrown all their efforts into this and the science is killing them. A large number of the science sites are full of information showing that this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Here is one such site that addresses this issue with an objective eye.
Unfortunately the only information we were, and are, getting from the Main Stream Media (MSM) supports the view that global warming is anthropogenic and as a result we have the ability to make the climate do what we want.
We can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather and so get this; we are going to make the climate do what we want on a worldwide scale? What nonsense! Yet we had people like Al Gore asking the MSM to donate advertising time to promote the global warming scare.
If it had truly been scientific; why did it have to be sold? He announced there would be an upcoming coalition of environmental, labor, religious and other groups that will be raising money to buy airtime for ads over the next three years to address this issue.
Once again, why did it have to be sold? Why was selling this issue to a non-scientific gullible public so important? Because the science didn’t support it then and it doesn’t support it now! However, without being scared to death the public would not demand that something be done by political leaders. And now Al the High Priest of the Warming Globe whines that “our government has failed us".
If the MSM was going to donate airtime, why did it not donate airtime for a public debate on global warming. Let “The Sky is Falling Al”, and his allies present their information against those that see this issue differently in a public forum without any ability for either side to spin. This of course did not happen. The Mother of Junk Science, Rachel Carson led the way with Silent Spring by going public without facing peer review and thereby bypassed all science based safe guards.
How does this apply to structural pest control? This web address takes you to a web site that appears to be a corporation set up by EPA and Cornell University whose goal is to promote IPM. Why does it have to be promoted (sold) to the public? Now we have to ask ourselves:
Climate change is much larger than most realize. Not because of the potential danger to humanity and the world from global warming. It is huge because the warming activists have thrown all their efforts into this and the science is killing them. A large number of the science sites are full of information showing that this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Here is one such site that addresses this issue with an objective eye.
Unfortunately the only information we were, and are, getting from the Main Stream Media (MSM) supports the view that global warming is anthropogenic and as a result we have the ability to make the climate do what we want.
We can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather and so get this; we are going to make the climate do what we want on a worldwide scale? What nonsense! Yet we had people like Al Gore asking the MSM to donate advertising time to promote the global warming scare.
If it had truly been scientific; why did it have to be sold? He announced there would be an upcoming coalition of environmental, labor, religious and other groups that will be raising money to buy airtime for ads over the next three years to address this issue.
Once again, why did it have to be sold? Why was selling this issue to a non-scientific gullible public so important? Because the science didn’t support it then and it doesn’t support it now! However, without being scared to death the public would not demand that something be done by political leaders. And now Al the High Priest of the Warming Globe whines that “our government has failed us".
If the MSM was going to donate airtime, why did it not donate airtime for a public debate on global warming. Let “The Sky is Falling Al”, and his allies present their information against those that see this issue differently in a public forum without any ability for either side to spin. This of course did not happen. The Mother of Junk Science, Rachel Carson led the way with Silent Spring by going public without facing peer review and thereby bypassed all science based safe guards.
How does this apply to structural pest control? This web address takes you to a web site that appears to be a corporation set up by EPA and Cornell University whose goal is to promote IPM. Why does it have to be promoted (sold) to the public? Now we have to ask ourselves:
• If science supports IPM, why does it have to be sold?
• EPA certainly has the authority to impose it by merely changing the labels on pesticides. Why don’t they?
• If there is no science behind this effort, why are they trying to “sell” it to the public?
• At public events, why isn’t anyone who is opposed to IPM invited to present anything at any national forum?
• Why isn’t the idea of a national debate on IPM an idea whose time has come?
• If IPM in structural pest control was based on real science, wouldn’t an open debate be the ideal way to get everyone on board by exposing the flaws in the arguments of those that believe there is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control?
• Why aren’t we seeing articles stating views that are opposed to IPM in the publications of our industries information deliverers? I’m not talking about occasional letters to the editor. I am talking about regular features opposing ipm just as we see regular feature articles promoting IPM.
• EPA certainly has the authority to impose it by merely changing the labels on pesticides. Why don’t they?
• If there is no science behind this effort, why are they trying to “sell” it to the public?
• At public events, why isn’t anyone who is opposed to IPM invited to present anything at any national forum?
• Why isn’t the idea of a national debate on IPM an idea whose time has come?
• If IPM in structural pest control was based on real science, wouldn’t an open debate be the ideal way to get everyone on board by exposing the flaws in the arguments of those that believe there is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control?
• Why aren’t we seeing articles stating views that are opposed to IPM in the publications of our industries information deliverers? I’m not talking about occasional letters to the editor. I am talking about regular features opposing ipm just as we see regular feature articles promoting IPM.
The patterns keep repeating over and over again. All of
these issues, whether it is IPM, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens,
global warming, endangered species, saving the trees, clear air or clean water
issues are in reality the same issue couched in different terms, with the same
goal. Eliminate real science, eliminate people and dominate those that are
left. Since this will be the end result of enacting these policies; this must
be their goal. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a
duck.
Onkar Ghate made this observation; Man's method of survival – transforming nature to meet his needs – must be defended against environmentalism's attack. Do you agree with that? If you do, how can you justify supporting IPM or Green Pest Control? If you are opposed to that concept are you an eco-terrorist? This would be a good time to apply what I call “Sowell’s Critique For Change”. There are three questions to the Critique.
Onkar Ghate made this observation; Man's method of survival – transforming nature to meet his needs – must be defended against environmentalism's attack. Do you agree with that? If you do, how can you justify supporting IPM or Green Pest Control? If you are opposed to that concept are you an eco-terrorist? This would be a good time to apply what I call “Sowell’s Critique For Change”. There are three questions to the Critique.
1. As compared to what?
2. How much is it going to cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?
2. How much is it going to cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?
These three questions by Thomas Sowell could be an
excellent basis for a public debate at one of our industry’s national forums
regarding IPM and Green Pest Control. At some point we must begin to realize
that this just isn’t about business, pesticides and regulations. At some point
we must come to grips with the fact that this is a moral issue. We are part of
that thin gray line that stands in defense of the nation’s health. We are part
and parcel of the public health service. We are “The Rat Catchers Child"!
If we don’t take a moral position on all of this; are we not as lost as the
green activists and their acolytes in government? We are the experts! We are
society’s last best hope in these matters.
But are we courageous enough to reach out and grab the battle standard of our fallen predecessors?
But are we courageous enough to reach out and grab the battle standard of our fallen predecessors?
By Rich Kozlovich Saturday, August 14, 2010
This article has weighed on my mind ever since I started in on Friday. This is Monday and it is the third time I have updated it, and as time goes by I will probably do it again. RK
This has been updated on 2/11/11.
This has been updated on 2/24/11
This has been updated on 3/21/11
Recently I had an interesting conversation with one of my customers who turned out to be an atheist. The conversation started out about how Islam is not a religion of peace (and I don’t care what these idiots in politics say) since their religion requires them not to be moderate. They can kill, rape, steal, lie and do whatever else they like in the name of Islam and its ok. That led to a discussion on the Crusades and the Inquisition. Eventually we came to atheists.
Being an atheist she proclaimed that at least they don’t go around killing people. I looked at her with a smile of incredulity and said…I’m sorry…except for the environmentalists atheists have killed more people than anyone in modern history.
Although under no circumstances should it be construed that I am justifying the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisition; but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao were atheists and killed far more than all of those combined, and with the exception of Hitler, those they killed were all their own people. Mao deliberately starved thirty six million to death because he needed cash to buy armament. How did he get it? He sold the food these people needed to survive. He said that this may only be the beginning and far more may have to die for him to attain his goals. So much for the “people’s revolution”!
These people committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity every recorded in history, yet Hitler is mostly singled out for that distinction. Why? Not that he didn’t deserve it mind you; but that is the rub isn’t it? Who decides what constitutes a crime against humanity?
Hitler proved that killing 6 million Jews is a crime against humanity because his henchmen were charged, found guilty, and many were executed for carrying out his orders. Joseph Stalin killed fifty million of his own people with the help of (among a host of others) Leonid Brezhnev, who became the leader of the USSR from 1964 till 1982. Neither of which were smeared with the epithet of ‘mass murderer’ or charged with crimes aginst humanity by any sitting official of any kind anywhere. In point of fact, neither Nixon, Ford or Jimmy Carter seemed to have any problem at all dealing with this mass murderer.
Then we have the modern Stalin apologists who claim that no one killed all those millions of people in Russia, and if millions did die; it wasn't Stalin's fault. But if millions did die, and Stalin did order those deaths; it was because he was trying to save millions more from the maniacs within his government. Accordingly, Stalin and Baria, his chief of the secret police, were in reality the heros, not the villians, and that all the evidence to the contrary constitutes a conspiracy of lies.
Walter Duranty even received a Pulitzer Prize for writing articles that claimed that Stalin wasn't killing anyone; and everyone in journalism working in Russia knew his work was nothing but lies. A Pulitzer Prize that the New York Times refuses to return; a Pulitzer Prize the Pulitzer Prize committee, in spite of the fact that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Duranty was a fraud, refuses to revoke.
Mao Tse Tung killed even more people yet Richard Nixon along with Henry Kissinger sat around like old buddies with Mao and his partner in mass murder Chou En-lai. Apparently you have to lose a war to be a mass murderer; perhaps that explains why no one in the environmental movement has ever been charged with any crime against humanity. The media and the political element will only stand up for what is right when the agenda fits their needs or view of reality - facts notwithstanding. Thomas Sowell made a worthwhile observation regarding the media and this mass murderer saying; "The mainstream media never expressed half the outrage about Mao Zedong as they did about Ronald Reagan. Yet, when it came to killing millions of innocent civilians, even Hitler was an amateur compared to Mao."
Then let's not forget Hollywood's favorite atheist and mass murderer, Fidel Castro. "According to the Cuba Archive Project, the Castro regime – with firing squads, forced-labor camps and drownings at sea – has caused an estimated 102,000 Cuban deaths. Cuba was a nation of 6.5 million people in 1960. Put your calculator to it and you’ll see that—per-capita wise--Castro and Che were close on the heels of their heroes and mentors Stain and Mao." These men slaughter men, children and even pregnant women; and yet prominent people today, who should know better, have this to say;
This article has weighed on my mind ever since I started in on Friday. This is Monday and it is the third time I have updated it, and as time goes by I will probably do it again. RK
This has been updated on 2/11/11.
This has been updated on 2/24/11
This has been updated on 3/21/11
Recently I had an interesting conversation with one of my customers who turned out to be an atheist. The conversation started out about how Islam is not a religion of peace (and I don’t care what these idiots in politics say) since their religion requires them not to be moderate. They can kill, rape, steal, lie and do whatever else they like in the name of Islam and its ok. That led to a discussion on the Crusades and the Inquisition. Eventually we came to atheists.
Being an atheist she proclaimed that at least they don’t go around killing people. I looked at her with a smile of incredulity and said…I’m sorry…except for the environmentalists atheists have killed more people than anyone in modern history.
Although under no circumstances should it be construed that I am justifying the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisition; but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao were atheists and killed far more than all of those combined, and with the exception of Hitler, those they killed were all their own people. Mao deliberately starved thirty six million to death because he needed cash to buy armament. How did he get it? He sold the food these people needed to survive. He said that this may only be the beginning and far more may have to die for him to attain his goals. So much for the “people’s revolution”!
These people committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity every recorded in history, yet Hitler is mostly singled out for that distinction. Why? Not that he didn’t deserve it mind you; but that is the rub isn’t it? Who decides what constitutes a crime against humanity?
Hitler proved that killing 6 million Jews is a crime against humanity because his henchmen were charged, found guilty, and many were executed for carrying out his orders. Joseph Stalin killed fifty million of his own people with the help of (among a host of others) Leonid Brezhnev, who became the leader of the USSR from 1964 till 1982. Neither of which were smeared with the epithet of ‘mass murderer’ or charged with crimes aginst humanity by any sitting official of any kind anywhere. In point of fact, neither Nixon, Ford or Jimmy Carter seemed to have any problem at all dealing with this mass murderer.
Then we have the modern Stalin apologists who claim that no one killed all those millions of people in Russia, and if millions did die; it wasn't Stalin's fault. But if millions did die, and Stalin did order those deaths; it was because he was trying to save millions more from the maniacs within his government. Accordingly, Stalin and Baria, his chief of the secret police, were in reality the heros, not the villians, and that all the evidence to the contrary constitutes a conspiracy of lies.
Walter Duranty even received a Pulitzer Prize for writing articles that claimed that Stalin wasn't killing anyone; and everyone in journalism working in Russia knew his work was nothing but lies. A Pulitzer Prize that the New York Times refuses to return; a Pulitzer Prize the Pulitzer Prize committee, in spite of the fact that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Duranty was a fraud, refuses to revoke.
Mao Tse Tung killed even more people yet Richard Nixon along with Henry Kissinger sat around like old buddies with Mao and his partner in mass murder Chou En-lai. Apparently you have to lose a war to be a mass murderer; perhaps that explains why no one in the environmental movement has ever been charged with any crime against humanity. The media and the political element will only stand up for what is right when the agenda fits their needs or view of reality - facts notwithstanding. Thomas Sowell made a worthwhile observation regarding the media and this mass murderer saying; "The mainstream media never expressed half the outrage about Mao Zedong as they did about Ronald Reagan. Yet, when it came to killing millions of innocent civilians, even Hitler was an amateur compared to Mao."
Then let's not forget Hollywood's favorite atheist and mass murderer, Fidel Castro. "According to the Cuba Archive Project, the Castro regime – with firing squads, forced-labor camps and drownings at sea – has caused an estimated 102,000 Cuban deaths. Cuba was a nation of 6.5 million people in 1960. Put your calculator to it and you’ll see that—per-capita wise--Castro and Che were close on the heels of their heroes and mentors Stain and Mao." These men slaughter men, children and even pregnant women; and yet prominent people today, who should know better, have this to say;
1. Viva Fidel! Viva Che! Castro is the
most honest and courageous politician I've ever met." Jesse Jackson
2. Meeting Fidel Castro were the eight most important hours of my life." Steven Spielberg.
3. "Very selfless and moral. One of the world's wisest men." Oliver Stone
4. Cuba's Elvis." Dan Rather
5. "A Dream come true." Supermodel Naomi Campbell
6. "Socialism works. I think Cuba can prove that." Chevy Chase
7. "Castro is an extraordinary man. He is warm and understanding and seems extremely humane." Gina Lollobrigida
2. Meeting Fidel Castro were the eight most important hours of my life." Steven Spielberg.
3. "Very selfless and moral. One of the world's wisest men." Oliver Stone
4. Cuba's Elvis." Dan Rather
5. "A Dream come true." Supermodel Naomi Campbell
6. "Socialism works. I think Cuba can prove that." Chevy Chase
7. "Castro is an extraordinary man. He is warm and understanding and seems extremely humane." Gina Lollobrigida
In 1996 when Castro visited NYC he was called the “The
Toast of Manhattan” by Time magazine. Newsweek called him “The Hottest Ticket
in Manhattan” discussing the social swirl he had caused. Humberto Fontova wrote
an article about this called, Happy Thanksgiving! (From Fidel and Che) about
how Fidel is embraced by people that should know better. We are aghast of the
9/11 destruction of the Twin Towers, yet Fidel Castro and Che had planned
something just as heinous, if not more so, in 1962.
“Cuban agents had targeted Macy’s,
Gimbel’s, Bloomingdales, and Manhattan’s Grand Central Station with a dozen
incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT. The holocaust was set for detonation
the following week, on the day after Thanksgiving…. the year’s biggest shopping
day, for good measure. Thousands of New Yorkers, probably mostly women and
children, were to be incinerated and entombed.”
Was he treated as a murderous maniac?
First there was “a luncheon at the Council on Foreign
Relations. After holding court there for a rapt David Rockefeller, along with
Robert McNamara, Dwayne Andreas, and Random House’s Harold Evans, Castro
flashed over to Mort Zuckerman’s Fifth Avenue pad, where a throng of Beltway
glitterati, including Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Bernard Shaw,
and Barbara Walters, all jostled for a photo op, and stood in line for Castro’s
autograph. Diane Sawyer was so overcome in the mass-murderer’s presence that
she rushed up, broke into a toothy smile, wrapped her arms around Castro, and
smooched him warmly on the cheek.”
“God Bless you, Fidel,” boomed Pastor Calvin Butts of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church while introducing Castro on another New York visit four years later. The People’s Weekly World described Castro’s visit as such: “The audience which included New York Democratic representatives Charles Rangel enthusiastically greeted the Communist leader with a ten minute standing ovation. Chants of ‘FIDEL!-FIDEL! VIVA-FIDEL!’ resounded from the rafters.”
“Then with Congressperson Maxine Waters looking on in rapture, a beaming Charlie Rangel waddled up to the podium beside the terrorist (and racist) Castro and engulfed him in a mighty bear hug. Castro had to catch his breath, but he smiled and returned the rotund senator’s passionate abrazo.”
“God Bless you, Fidel,” boomed Pastor Calvin Butts of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church while introducing Castro on another New York visit four years later. The People’s Weekly World described Castro’s visit as such: “The audience which included New York Democratic representatives Charles Rangel enthusiastically greeted the Communist leader with a ten minute standing ovation. Chants of ‘FIDEL!-FIDEL! VIVA-FIDEL!’ resounded from the rafters.”
“Then with Congressperson Maxine Waters looking on in rapture, a beaming Charlie Rangel waddled up to the podium beside the terrorist (and racist) Castro and engulfed him in a mighty bear hug. Castro had to catch his breath, but he smiled and returned the rotund senator’s passionate abrazo.”
In March of 2011 Humberto
Fontova wrote and article entitled, "Women’s History Month and Castro’s Female
Victims" wherein he outlines the
media's complete contempt for truth, reality and the poor innocents who
suffered at his hands. He states; "When Barbara Walters sat quivering alongside Fidel
Castro in 1977 cooing: “Fidel Castro has brought very high literacy and great
health-care to his country. His personal magnetism is powerful.” dozens of
Cuban suffragettes suffered in torture chambers within walking distance of the
hyperventilating Ms. Walters." He went on to say; "I also
apologize for singling out Barbara Walters. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell also had
praise for the tryant: “Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly–even paternal, a
thoroughly fascinating figure!”
And what was Casto's reaction to all of this adoration? “You people are the cream of the crop!” beamed the Stalinist/terrorist to the smiling throng he’d come within a hair of nuking in 1962.”
“Hear, hear!” chirped the delighted guests, while tinkling their wine glasses in honor of the smirking agent of their near vaporization." There really isn't any cure for stupid! Then again, perhaps it is just that this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day? Either way.....there really isn't any cure for stupid.
What if one person is deliberately murdered for philosophical reasons, is that a crime against humanity? We know for sure that it takes somewhere between one death and six million deaths to constitute a crime against humanity and it must fit the media-political pagadigm of the day. What if tens of millions have been killed as a result of policies pursued by the environmental movement and implemented by governmental authorities? Surely that must be considered a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day?
For those who continue to say there are provisions which allows for DDT use in emergency situations and that DDT wasn’t banned in many areas of Africa; baloney, it is all wall paper.
And what was Casto's reaction to all of this adoration? “You people are the cream of the crop!” beamed the Stalinist/terrorist to the smiling throng he’d come within a hair of nuking in 1962.”
“Hear, hear!” chirped the delighted guests, while tinkling their wine glasses in honor of the smirking agent of their near vaporization." There really isn't any cure for stupid! Then again, perhaps it is just that this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day? Either way.....there really isn't any cure for stupid.
What if one person is deliberately murdered for philosophical reasons, is that a crime against humanity? We know for sure that it takes somewhere between one death and six million deaths to constitute a crime against humanity and it must fit the media-political pagadigm of the day. What if tens of millions have been killed as a result of policies pursued by the environmental movement and implemented by governmental authorities? Surely that must be considered a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day?
For those who continue to say there are provisions which allows for DDT use in emergency situations and that DDT wasn’t banned in many areas of Africa; baloney, it is all wall paper.
“Yet African states are still put under
pressure to avoid using DDT. This year the EU warned of possible agricultural
sanctions against Uganda, Kenya and other countries that defiantly use DDT and
vow to continue doing so. An EU official warned the Ugandan authorities that if
indoor spraying of DDT meant there was ‘a risk of contamination of the food
chain’, then while ‘[it] would not automatically lead to a ban of food
products…it will mean that that particular consignment cannot be sent to
Europe’ (5). ‘The EU should be saying that DDT is safe and poses no threat to
EU consumers’, says Innis. ‘Instead they make either direct or oblique threats
about possible trade sanctions. What they’re really saying is, “We’ve benefited
from DDT and gotten rid of malaria but you people in Africa cannot do the
same”.’
“Almost two decades after the country
banned the use of DDT, the Government is under pressure to lift the ban as one
of the effective ways of controlling the spread of malaria. At the same time,
there is pressure on the Government not to lift the ban on the insecticide,
which remains banned in many countries in the world. The pressure comes in the
wake of the heads of state conference in Abuja, which passed a resolution to
put emphasis on and promote the use of indoor residual spraying to help fight
the malaria vector.”
The outside pressure is tremendous on these leaders from
the green movement.
We now know that by not using DDT millions have died unnecessarily and yet the greenies, the EU, United Nations authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency continue to stand against its use. It would appear to me that someone is guilty of crimes against humanity. The world court is hot to try people for all sorts of things, but why is it that no one with the authority to charge greenies with these crimes has noticed that a crime against humanity has been committed? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media political-paradigm of the day!
Depending on who you read, the number that have died from malaria alone runs between fifty and one hundred million since 1972. That doesn’t count the many other mosquito borne diseases that are transmitted to an unprotected population. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
They stand against a genetically modified food called Golden Rice, which would prevent five hundred thousand children from going blind each year in Southeast Asia. In Africa they convinced leaders not to let their starving people eat genetically modified corn because it would cause cancer in their people. Untold numbers died. Thousands died and tens of thousands were sickened in South America when they convinced leaders there to eliminate chlorine in the water supplies because they claimed it caused cancer. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
There are those who arrogantly and smugly scoff at the very idea that anything the green movement does can be considered a crime; and if this was sixty, fifty, forty or even thirty years ago society would have agreed with them. Very few actually knew what was really going on and no one listened. We simply didn't know any better because the media kept the truth from society. But we now have the internet, and that has allowed the evidence of time and science to be made known. We now know that the positions they had taken were not only wrong but evil. Evil because the environmental stands that they have taken have been tested by time; and people are still dying and suffering needlessly because of them, and they know it. Why has no one been charged with crimes aginst humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
They know it! At the heart of the environmental movement they believe that humanity is the planet's greatest disease and must be eliminated. Prince Phillip once said that he would like to be reincarnated as a virus for that purpose. Apparently being detached from reality is a requirement to be a Royal and a greenie. For someone to be aware that they are taking a position that they know will kill untold numbers has to be criminal. Yet they continue to insist on standing their ground on all of their misanthropic postions. How can this not be crimes against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media -political paradigm of the day!
If you don’t want to call these events crimes against humanity, could we at least agree that this certainly represents depraved indifference? That is a crime also, and yet these are the people deciding what pesticides (if any) should be allowed, if genetically modified foods can be grown and sold, if chlorine and fluoride should be allowed in our water supplies, whether we can use fertilizers and herbicides on our fields, what foods we should eat, whether hydroelectric dams can be built and whether oil should be or will be drilled and where.
Does anyone feel any more confident now? Perhaps we can just get a copy of the New York Times to find out how we should feel.
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”, even if they are positive!
We now know that by not using DDT millions have died unnecessarily and yet the greenies, the EU, United Nations authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency continue to stand against its use. It would appear to me that someone is guilty of crimes against humanity. The world court is hot to try people for all sorts of things, but why is it that no one with the authority to charge greenies with these crimes has noticed that a crime against humanity has been committed? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media political-paradigm of the day!
Depending on who you read, the number that have died from malaria alone runs between fifty and one hundred million since 1972. That doesn’t count the many other mosquito borne diseases that are transmitted to an unprotected population. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
They stand against a genetically modified food called Golden Rice, which would prevent five hundred thousand children from going blind each year in Southeast Asia. In Africa they convinced leaders not to let their starving people eat genetically modified corn because it would cause cancer in their people. Untold numbers died. Thousands died and tens of thousands were sickened in South America when they convinced leaders there to eliminate chlorine in the water supplies because they claimed it caused cancer. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
There are those who arrogantly and smugly scoff at the very idea that anything the green movement does can be considered a crime; and if this was sixty, fifty, forty or even thirty years ago society would have agreed with them. Very few actually knew what was really going on and no one listened. We simply didn't know any better because the media kept the truth from society. But we now have the internet, and that has allowed the evidence of time and science to be made known. We now know that the positions they had taken were not only wrong but evil. Evil because the environmental stands that they have taken have been tested by time; and people are still dying and suffering needlessly because of them, and they know it. Why has no one been charged with crimes aginst humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!
They know it! At the heart of the environmental movement they believe that humanity is the planet's greatest disease and must be eliminated. Prince Phillip once said that he would like to be reincarnated as a virus for that purpose. Apparently being detached from reality is a requirement to be a Royal and a greenie. For someone to be aware that they are taking a position that they know will kill untold numbers has to be criminal. Yet they continue to insist on standing their ground on all of their misanthropic postions. How can this not be crimes against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media -political paradigm of the day!
If you don’t want to call these events crimes against humanity, could we at least agree that this certainly represents depraved indifference? That is a crime also, and yet these are the people deciding what pesticides (if any) should be allowed, if genetically modified foods can be grown and sold, if chlorine and fluoride should be allowed in our water supplies, whether we can use fertilizers and herbicides on our fields, what foods we should eat, whether hydroelectric dams can be built and whether oil should be or will be drilled and where.
Does anyone feel any more confident now? Perhaps we can just get a copy of the New York Times to find out how we should feel.
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”, even if they are positive!
By Rich Kozlovich Saturday, August 21, 2010
Paradigms are defined in following manner. - A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. In short; it is how we look at the world. How we perceive reality. It is the basis of how we judge our actions and the actions of others.
Fully 25 percent of all federal regulations that have been passed involve environmental issues and EPA has only been in existence since 1970. Since that time we have a plethora of regulatory bodies at the state level to meet the minimum federal standards and in some states, like California, they go way beyond federal standards, and the Federal Registry increased from 62,000 pages to 75,000 pages in one three year period. President G.W. Bush passed more federal regulations than any president since Richard Nixon; and Nixon created, among other things, the EPA and OSHA.
Now we have a host of federal and state agencies, along with researchers and their universities imposing their views on society without regard to the impact of their actions. Yet we have to ask; what terrible thing happened to impose these kinds of costs and to give state and federal bureaucrats the authority to overturn the protections under the fourth amendment against unlawful search and seizure and self-incrimination under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
I did the research and found that this was fought up to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and it was decided that in these cases state and federal bureaucrats, and their regulations, usurp the protections “guaranteed” by the Constitution. What regulation passed by any regulator to make society safer was not already covered under criminal and civil penalties of state or federal law?
Why is it when you ask everyone if they think it is okay that they say, for the most part; yes it is necessary. Environmental paradigms have become everything! It started with Rachel Carson when she wrote Silent Spring in 1962. Her book, which was lauded and continues to be lauded, launched the modern environmental movement. Yet, almost everything she touted in her book was conjecture, prediction or lies.
Her book was never peer reviewed because it didn’t start out as a published book. I started out as excerpted installments in New Yorker magazine. That presentation was so popular the book followed, and when you read her work you can understand why. She was a magnificent writer. I have been re-reading Silent Spring and I am now amazed at how poor her science was, in spite of the fact that her acolytes praise her as a scientist unendingly.
Her work was not science because it hadn’t been peer reviewed before publication. When it was, after the fact, it was discovered that everything she predicted failed to come true and in at least one case she knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the facts. Her book is full of anecdotal evidence (stories), which may or may not have been true, but there was no way to check it because she didn’t footnote source information for these stories. That isn’t science! She became the Mother Superior of the green movement, but in reality she was the mother of junk science.
Ultimately, this book was the justification for the formation of EPA by Richard Nixon, with the primary purpose of eliminating DDT. Everything you know about DDT is a lie. Yet the regulations and impositions continue! Now we have Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) imposing their will and jumping on the “funding” bandwagon.
In 1790 the fledgling U.S. Federal government passed the Whiskey Tax. The result was that in 1792 they had armed rebellion that President George Washington had to put down with the Federal army. Who were the biggest supporters of this bill? The whiskey distillers in the large cities! Why? Because this would give them the competitive edge they needed over the backwoods farmers who made moonshine, which was easier to transport into the towns than corn was. Far more profitable too!
Apparently having all these government imposed regulators and regulatory agencies aren’t enough to satisfy large industry. We now have regulators for hire who are just like bureaucrats; they need activity to give the impression of accomplishment. And what is the only activity we can expect from a regulator? More regulations! And more regulations and taxes put the largest companies in a position that will allow them to avoid real competition.
Just as was the case with the Whiskey Act. Large companies and corporation love regulations and taxes. That is why they support all sorts of greenie nonsense because they believe they will profit from it and believe they will still survive, even if it is in some other form. But what about the consequences to society for adopting regulations that will restrict pesticides and pesticides applications to humanities detriment? That is the problem. These people never have to pay the consequences for their actions.
In order to generate some heterodoxy, I have four questions I would like to ask.
Paradigms are defined in following manner. - A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. In short; it is how we look at the world. How we perceive reality. It is the basis of how we judge our actions and the actions of others.
Fully 25 percent of all federal regulations that have been passed involve environmental issues and EPA has only been in existence since 1970. Since that time we have a plethora of regulatory bodies at the state level to meet the minimum federal standards and in some states, like California, they go way beyond federal standards, and the Federal Registry increased from 62,000 pages to 75,000 pages in one three year period. President G.W. Bush passed more federal regulations than any president since Richard Nixon; and Nixon created, among other things, the EPA and OSHA.
Now we have a host of federal and state agencies, along with researchers and their universities imposing their views on society without regard to the impact of their actions. Yet we have to ask; what terrible thing happened to impose these kinds of costs and to give state and federal bureaucrats the authority to overturn the protections under the fourth amendment against unlawful search and seizure and self-incrimination under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
I did the research and found that this was fought up to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and it was decided that in these cases state and federal bureaucrats, and their regulations, usurp the protections “guaranteed” by the Constitution. What regulation passed by any regulator to make society safer was not already covered under criminal and civil penalties of state or federal law?
Why is it when you ask everyone if they think it is okay that they say, for the most part; yes it is necessary. Environmental paradigms have become everything! It started with Rachel Carson when she wrote Silent Spring in 1962. Her book, which was lauded and continues to be lauded, launched the modern environmental movement. Yet, almost everything she touted in her book was conjecture, prediction or lies.
Her book was never peer reviewed because it didn’t start out as a published book. I started out as excerpted installments in New Yorker magazine. That presentation was so popular the book followed, and when you read her work you can understand why. She was a magnificent writer. I have been re-reading Silent Spring and I am now amazed at how poor her science was, in spite of the fact that her acolytes praise her as a scientist unendingly.
Her work was not science because it hadn’t been peer reviewed before publication. When it was, after the fact, it was discovered that everything she predicted failed to come true and in at least one case she knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the facts. Her book is full of anecdotal evidence (stories), which may or may not have been true, but there was no way to check it because she didn’t footnote source information for these stories. That isn’t science! She became the Mother Superior of the green movement, but in reality she was the mother of junk science.
Ultimately, this book was the justification for the formation of EPA by Richard Nixon, with the primary purpose of eliminating DDT. Everything you know about DDT is a lie. Yet the regulations and impositions continue! Now we have Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) imposing their will and jumping on the “funding” bandwagon.
In 1790 the fledgling U.S. Federal government passed the Whiskey Tax. The result was that in 1792 they had armed rebellion that President George Washington had to put down with the Federal army. Who were the biggest supporters of this bill? The whiskey distillers in the large cities! Why? Because this would give them the competitive edge they needed over the backwoods farmers who made moonshine, which was easier to transport into the towns than corn was. Far more profitable too!
Apparently having all these government imposed regulators and regulatory agencies aren’t enough to satisfy large industry. We now have regulators for hire who are just like bureaucrats; they need activity to give the impression of accomplishment. And what is the only activity we can expect from a regulator? More regulations! And more regulations and taxes put the largest companies in a position that will allow them to avoid real competition.
Just as was the case with the Whiskey Act. Large companies and corporation love regulations and taxes. That is why they support all sorts of greenie nonsense because they believe they will profit from it and believe they will still survive, even if it is in some other form. But what about the consequences to society for adopting regulations that will restrict pesticides and pesticides applications to humanities detriment? That is the problem. These people never have to pay the consequences for their actions.
In order to generate some heterodoxy, I have four questions I would like to ask.
1. What terrible event or series of
terrible events took place that would justify a SCOTUS decision that would give
bureaucrats and government agencies the right to ignore the rights guaranteed
under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution against illegal
search and seizure and self incrimination?
2. What civil and criminal penalties in state and federal pesticide laws administrated by state and federal agencies were not already covered under criminal and civil law?
3. Have we been lied to regarding the need for all these regulations?
4. Will there ever be enough regulations?
2. What civil and criminal penalties in state and federal pesticide laws administrated by state and federal agencies were not already covered under criminal and civil law?
3. Have we been lied to regarding the need for all these regulations?
4. Will there ever be enough regulations?
The United States Constitution created three branches of
government consisting of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial
branches. The result of all of these regulations is that there are now actually
four branches of the United States government; now we have the Bureaucracy.
After the laws are passed these people are the ones who make the rules, they
change the rules, they make all the decisions as to how the laws that are
passed are to be interpreted; and without consequence. Why? They never have to
answer for their actions.
They were not chosen by the people; they went to college, took a test and got hired. Most of them never have done anything except go to school and go into government, which we call “public service”!
How is it that those who create jobs, meet the payrolls and create the economy that we all enjoy aren’t considered public servants, but those who do nothing except undermine those who do are?
Why in the world would we think these people could possibly have any special insights as to how the economy or anything else should work? I find it interesting that in 1900 “government spending at all levels (local, state, and federal) represented 7.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Out of that amount 66 percent occurred at the local and state levels. Local government spent 55 percent, state government spent 11 percent, and the federal government spent the remaining 34 percent.”
Did it occur to anyone to ask; do we really need all these rules and regulations? Did it occur to anyone to ask; what would happen if these bureaucracies were eliminated and these people were fired?
They were not chosen by the people; they went to college, took a test and got hired. Most of them never have done anything except go to school and go into government, which we call “public service”!
How is it that those who create jobs, meet the payrolls and create the economy that we all enjoy aren’t considered public servants, but those who do nothing except undermine those who do are?
Why in the world would we think these people could possibly have any special insights as to how the economy or anything else should work? I find it interesting that in 1900 “government spending at all levels (local, state, and federal) represented 7.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Out of that amount 66 percent occurred at the local and state levels. Local government spent 55 percent, state government spent 11 percent, and the federal government spent the remaining 34 percent.”
Did it occur to anyone to ask; do we really need all these rules and regulations? Did it occur to anyone to ask; what would happen if these bureaucracies were eliminated and these people were fired?
By Rich
Kozlovich Friday, August 27, 2010
This week CBS interviewed and filmed Lonnie Alonso and his son Brian of Columbus Pest Control in Columbus, Ohio while doing a bed bug job in some poor suffering woman’s home; a home that looked perfectly clean and well cared for. That is the thing with bed bugs. They don’t discriminate in any way. They will infest anyone’s home and they don’t care how dirty or clean your home is and they don’t care how rich or poor you are. You are food to them.
This week CBS interviewed and filmed Lonnie Alonso and his son Brian of Columbus Pest Control in Columbus, Ohio while doing a bed bug job in some poor suffering woman’s home; a home that looked perfectly clean and well cared for. That is the thing with bed bugs. They don’t discriminate in any way. They will infest anyone’s home and they don’t care how dirty or clean your home is and they don’t care how rich or poor you are. You are food to them.
There is a rub though; those with the financial wherewithal can
afford to get rid of them. It is the people at the bottom of the economic
structure that are suffering the most because they are left largely
defenseless. They are also spreading them everywhere they go, and those who can
afford it will find that they are being re-infested, along with the Empire
State Building, Victoria’s Secret, Abercrombie and Fitch and a host of other
businesses, including hotels…and that was just in New York City.
Alonso explained how Ohio (which the producer noted that no state has been as aggressive at fighting this problem as Ohio has) had requested an emergency 18 exemption for propoxur, a carbamate pesticide. Propoxur was the choice because it works and there was a label already in existence. That becomes important later in the article.
It is an admittedly short term solution because it is clear that they are already developing resistance to carbamates such as Ficam in other parts of the world. We used Ficam (which killed bed bugs on contact and as a residual by the way) successfully and safely for many years in this country, but the manufacturer pulled their registration. So why would they do such a thing? Well, first of all this happened before bed bugs exploded in this country and the manufacturer wasn’t selling enough to justify meeting the EPA’s demands.
You see, the EPA requires pesticides to be reregistered after fifteen years. That means more unnecessary and expensive testing. It costs around $300,000,000 to bring a new pesticide to market. Manufacturers want to make sure that re-registration is worth it to them before they spend millions of dollars more on re-testing. Further testing for what you might ask? Who knows, because after a product has been on the open market for fifteen years you absolutely know what, if any, hazards it represents to humanity or to nature. Most importantly after fifteen years these products have probably gone out of patent. That means there is less value to the primary registrant, and in this case, there was no value incentive for the manufacturer to spend millions of dollars more to retest.
This is just another way the EPA has found to eliminate pesticides without banning them, which can be a messy process; a process in which they would probably lose. When you ban something you have to show reasons for the ban. You have to have facts, figures and….most importantly….real science. If there is none; then the product stays. They have avoided all of that through their system of rules, and in point of fact these rules make it a de facto ban without any messy legal stuff.
Organophosphates, such as Dursban absolutely kill bed bugs; on contact and as well as a residual. But in 1996 the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was passed and that changed all the rules again. There had always been a hundred fold safety factor tied up with pesticides. FQPA arbitrarily changed it to a thousand fold. I have tried to find out what science they used to decide that this massive change was necessary…and no one seems to know, because it is all based on assumptions.
Dow Chemical was the primary registrant of Dursban, but this product represented a small part of their overall sales so they decided to let the product go. Besides, it was out of patent and others were producing it. There was little value in fighting this battle. They made a business decision; a bad business decision in my mind, but these corporations are run by bean counters, not visionaries. It is interesting to hear scientists at EPA making claims about data that would have taken this product off the market anyway. Baloney! If they had tried that they would have lost.
In days gone by each pesticide had an evaluation that determined the risk of that product. FQPA changed that. All of a sudden it was decided that the risk attached to individual pesticides would not be enough. They created a “risk cup”, lumping all the pesticides in a chemical category together. Needless to say that risk cup filled up fast. They also didn’t give the manufactures enough time to develop the data they demanded. They told the manufacturers that if they didn’t get the data in the time designated time frame, then EPA would use “risk assumptions”. What did Alfonso Bedoya say in the Treasure of the Sierra Madre? "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges!" Well….EPA don’t need no stinking science.
Propoxur falls
under this new FQPA regulated level of toxicity. We used Baygon (propoxur) for
over twenty years in this nation and it was available to the general public as
well. What terrible things happened? According to the Ohio Department of
Agriculture; nothing terrible happened in Ohio! But when you change the rules
arbitrarily you change the toxicity issues. To arbitrarily change the safety
factor from one hundred to a thousand fold safety factor may not make much sense,
but it makes it easy for EPA to claim that it is too toxic to use.
This brings me back
to the CBS report. Marc Lame, an entomologist out of Indiana University, feels
that the CBS report was “portraying
Propoxur as solution denied is unbalanced and I believe, irresponsible.”
Let’s take a look
at Lame’s rationale. He states “that
the majority of control failures regarding bed bugs are a result of human
error, poor cooperation with exterminators but more, poor technique by the
exterminators." That is contemptible and misdirection! The
discussion involves effective chemistry. While all of these factors may be true
to some degree, these factors are meaningless if we have chemistry that works.
He then goes on to
say “that bed bug control is making unqualified and
unethical exterminators rich”. What is making exterminators “rich” is the fact that people like
Lame promote every fallacious claim there is against pesticides, including one
of his favorite ones, endocrine disruption. We would be more than happy to go
back to normal treatments that are inexpensive, less labor intensive and more
effective.
He derides
exterminators for charging a lot of money and then promotes nonsense that is
labor intensive and expensive. Then when the failure rate is high he claims we
are corrupt. I know he makes a distinction between “qualified” operators versus “unqualified” operators, but the
image the public will take away from that statement is that we are all
incompetent and corrupt. That is contemptible!
Let me make this
absolutely crystal clear…….these
so-called “rich” exterminators aren’t the problem, they are the solution!
However, it is my personal opinion that the real problem lies with self
promoting Ph.D., EPA grant chasers!
There was a bed bug
Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) study done by researchers from Purdue University in 2009 using Diatomaceous Earth, hand removal, bed bug
interceptors, diatomaceous earth dust, mattress encasements and hot steam,
which they called (D-IPM). They also used something they called (S-IPM) using
0.5% chlorfenapyr (Phantom) which also included hand removal, mattress
encasements, hot steam, but no bed bug interceptors.
This was done in a
site was a 15-story apartment building located in Indianapolis, IN. “The building had 225 one-bedroom apartments
occupied by low-income elderly or disabled people. Approximately 87 apartments
experienced bed bug activity since 2007. “
After all these
extensive treatments, re-inspections and retreats the end result was that “By week 10, mean bed bug count reduction by
D-IPM and S-IPM were 97.6 _ 1.6 and 89.7 _ 7.3%, respectively. Bed bugs were
eradicated (based on visual inspections and resident interviews) from 50% of
the apartments in both groups. The maximum numbers of bed bugs found in each
apartment at week 10 was 4 and 32 in the D-IPM and S-IPM groups, respectively.”
In short, after
weeks of treatments and inspections these extremely competent researchers
failed to rid bed bugs from fifty percent of the apartments they treated. Were
these people “unqualified” and
“unethical”? It might be worth
noting this statement from the researchers; “effective
residual insecticides are needed for bed bug elimination”, and this
is from people wanting to seriously reduce the use of pesticides.
Marc derides the
idea that Americans want a “quick
fix” and exterminators for also wanting an “easy fix”. Has he lost his mind?
Of course that is what everyone wants; why wouldn’t they? I have had friends
tell me that they went into people’s homes and the children were bitten so
badly that if they didn’t know what the problem was they would have called
Children's Services. Explain to those people why they shouldn’t want a quick
fix! Explain to me why they shouldn’t have one!
As for his comments
about the “myth” of the “silver bullet”, the “pesticide treadmill” and “dependence on chemical pesticides to eradicate
bed bugs is folly”. Why wouldn’t everyone want a “silver bullet”? When he discusses
Dr. Miller I assume he is talking about Dini Miller, who he cites regarding
comments about resistance developing to propoxur. Did someone think that we
didn't already know that! This nonsense argument about hastening resistance is
the biggest red herring of them all.
Resistance is the pattern in nature. Plants have an arsenal of pesticides they naturally produce to ward off attack by insects, and they need them, because insects develop resistance to what they are using to defend themselves. When that happens they produce other chemicals insects aren't resistant to. Bacteria have developed resistance to many of the antibiotics that we are currently using, and there are some staph infections that are almost uncontrollable. Does that mean we shouldn't use those that still work because it will hasten the level of resistance? If that happened people would die. That would be considered insane! Why then would we use any logic that would be considered insane in another arena as rational in pest control? The problem isn't that resistance will develop; the problem is that unlike plants we have decision makers who create regulations that prevent use of chemistry that works. They also make decisions that make the production of new pesticides unprofitable. I might add that this is the reason new antibiotics aren’t making it to the market either, and people like Marc are enablers of this kind of thinking based on junk science. If this is truly Dini Miller’s position I certainly hope that she will re-evaluate it!
Let's stop these insane arguments about resistance. I keep coming back to this argument. If bed bugs were transmitting some sort of deadly disease we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We would get Dursban tomorrow and bed bugs would be gone by the end of the week.
Resistance is the pattern in nature. Plants have an arsenal of pesticides they naturally produce to ward off attack by insects, and they need them, because insects develop resistance to what they are using to defend themselves. When that happens they produce other chemicals insects aren't resistant to. Bacteria have developed resistance to many of the antibiotics that we are currently using, and there are some staph infections that are almost uncontrollable. Does that mean we shouldn't use those that still work because it will hasten the level of resistance? If that happened people would die. That would be considered insane! Why then would we use any logic that would be considered insane in another arena as rational in pest control? The problem isn't that resistance will develop; the problem is that unlike plants we have decision makers who create regulations that prevent use of chemistry that works. They also make decisions that make the production of new pesticides unprofitable. I might add that this is the reason new antibiotics aren’t making it to the market either, and people like Marc are enablers of this kind of thinking based on junk science. If this is truly Dini Miller’s position I certainly hope that she will re-evaluate it!
Let's stop these insane arguments about resistance. I keep coming back to this argument. If bed bugs were transmitting some sort of deadly disease we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We would get Dursban tomorrow and bed bugs would be gone by the end of the week.
The problem is that
propoxur is all we can ask for. We would love to have Dursban or any one of the
organophosphates, but that wasn’t an option….we settled for what we could
possibly get and what is desperately
needed. WE KNOW this is only a stop gap measure. As for his comment that a “chemical tool can be a useful part of the
management strategy but historically has failed as a stand-alone method”.
Marc should be ashamed of himself. That is blatantly false.
The answer in 1946
was effective, inexpensive chemistry that was available to everyone! And before
we lost so many tools to FQPA we did it with chemistry alone. Let’s not kid
ourselves. Bed bugs have been brought in this country for decades by
international travelers. In the mid 1980’s I did my first bed bug job. Some
people from mainland China was visiting a factory to see how they operated and
when they left they left their bed bugs in their hotel room. I treated the room
with Ficam one time…..one time mind you ….. and the bed bugs were gone. Let’s
get this right……if effective, inexpensive chemistry that is available to
everyone isn’t the answer in 2010 there will be no answer. Let me say that
again….. if effective, inexpensive chemistry that is available to everyone
isn’t the answer in 2010 there will be no answer.
He goes on to say “Fortunately, we now have a number of
technologies which can now be integrated to manage (prevent or control) bedbugs
including monitoring devices, heat treatment, vacuuming, nonchemical pesticides
like diatomaceous earth (hopefully used in the future with pheromone
attractants) and a few reasonably effective chemical pesticides.”
The reality is that
these techniques and “reasonably effective
chemical pesticides” are not working for the vast majority of
people in this nation. If it was otherwise, we wouldn’t be asking for propoxur
and this problem wouldn’t be expanding to the point of being a plague on the
nation. And apparently it didn’t work for him at the Monroe County Community
School Corporation, where they wanted to “put out
traps to see what happens”. I would like to draw everyone’s
attention the Bloomington
Elementary School in that system, where Lame was “was surprised to see them turn up inside the
school.” How did they discover they had them? “A teacher found one of the parasites crawling
on a student's jacket and soon found one crawling on another students
clothing.” But there was to be no chemical treatments. Why? Their
solution was to send out letters and use bed bug traps because as Lame says, “Bed bugs most often strike at night where
people sleep or sit for long periods of time.” He goes on to say, "The kids are not sleeping here,"
Dr. Lame said. "Nobody sleeps here
overnight. The bedding is not here. It's just not a nest for a nest
parasite." Excuse me….but didn’t we just find out that they
were moving from coat to coat. That is despicable! We absolutely know that bed
bugs will live in any area they can, under carpeting, cracks and crevices,
behind pictures, etc.
These self
promoters propound so-called methodologies that are in reality philosophies.
Philosophies that are based on the same kind of junk science Rachel Carson and
the rest of the greenies spew out. When you spew out such ideologies you don’t
need no stinking science.
The answer to bed bugs in 1946 was
effective, inexpensive chemistry that was available to everyone. That was the
answer in 1946 and if that isn't the answer in 2010 there will be no answer!
By Rich Kozlovich Monday, August 30, 2010
As a member of the American Council on Science and Health (ASCH) I receive their Daily Dispatch, which covers all the latest scares promulgated by the greenies back to naturists, and Luddites who believe that modern innovations and everything produced by man is evil, including vaccinations. There were two issues that particularly struck me today, and one of them was titled, “Science Prevails in Courts, But Maybe Not Blogs”.
They note; “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed Friday a conclusion reached long ago by scientists, upholding a decision that there is no link between autism and vaccines.“
This supported the decision made by Special Master Denise Vowell who ruled that all the evidence presented by the anti-vaccine crowd is “weak, contradictory and unpersuasive. Sadly, the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science conducted to support litigation rather than to advance medical and scientific understanding [of autism]."
The Appeals Court stated. “We have carefully reviewed the decision of the special master and we find that it is rationally supported by the evidence, well-articulated, and reasonable.”
Apparently Dr. Whelan of ASCH, has been exasperated by all of these conspiracy theories, junk science, and “quack remedies to make children whole again”. She states; “Finally it’s unanimous that there is no relationship between autism and vaccines, so when will this myth finally go away forever?”
This is an international movement and because of these activists parents have become so concerned that many have stopped having their children vaccinated for measles and whooping cough. In those areas of this country where they have abandoned vaccinations, or only use vaccines without the mercury preservative, the number of autism cases remains much the same. Where parents are eschewing vaccinations the rate of childhood diseases has increased, including whooping cough. I doesn’t seem to matter to these true believers, and the blogosphere will abound with more junk science and conspiracy theories as “long as Jenny McCarthy (another celebrity epidemiologist) keeps selling books.”
No one should have any delusions as to what can happen when society abandons that which has saved untold numbers. Let’s not make any mistake about this; society cannot escape the consequences of their choices. Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. Let’s at least have a clear perspective on the subject based on history and events.
Measles is a highly contagious disease, so contagious that 100 years ago we used to quarantine homes where a family member was stricken with it in this country. Because of complacency and lack of funding in some African countries, vaccination rates dropped dramatically, and as anyone should expect, they are experiencing “the worst outbreaks of measles in years” - afflicting “thousands and killing hundreds across Africa,” and it became so prevalent that some mothers wouldn’t name their children until they survived a bout with measles. “About 164,000 people died from measles in 2008, down 78 percent from 733,000 in 2000, according to the Measles Initiative, which includes groups like the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organisation.” However, UNICEF officials "fear the combined effect of decreased political and financial commitment to measles could reverse the gains, resulting in an estimated 1.7 million measles-related deaths globally between 2010 and 2013."
Who is accountable for these unnecessary illnesses and deaths? Better yet, why is no one accountable? We have a clear vision of the reality of a world without vaccinations. The facts are easily seen, easily found, and easy to understand. Vaccinations save lives in the third world, why would we think that it would be any different here? Why do we listen to these people?
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”, even if they are positive!
As a member of the American Council on Science and Health (ASCH) I receive their Daily Dispatch, which covers all the latest scares promulgated by the greenies back to naturists, and Luddites who believe that modern innovations and everything produced by man is evil, including vaccinations. There were two issues that particularly struck me today, and one of them was titled, “Science Prevails in Courts, But Maybe Not Blogs”.
They note; “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed Friday a conclusion reached long ago by scientists, upholding a decision that there is no link between autism and vaccines.“
This supported the decision made by Special Master Denise Vowell who ruled that all the evidence presented by the anti-vaccine crowd is “weak, contradictory and unpersuasive. Sadly, the petitioners in this litigation have been the victims of bad science conducted to support litigation rather than to advance medical and scientific understanding [of autism]."
The Appeals Court stated. “We have carefully reviewed the decision of the special master and we find that it is rationally supported by the evidence, well-articulated, and reasonable.”
Apparently Dr. Whelan of ASCH, has been exasperated by all of these conspiracy theories, junk science, and “quack remedies to make children whole again”. She states; “Finally it’s unanimous that there is no relationship between autism and vaccines, so when will this myth finally go away forever?”
This is an international movement and because of these activists parents have become so concerned that many have stopped having their children vaccinated for measles and whooping cough. In those areas of this country where they have abandoned vaccinations, or only use vaccines without the mercury preservative, the number of autism cases remains much the same. Where parents are eschewing vaccinations the rate of childhood diseases has increased, including whooping cough. I doesn’t seem to matter to these true believers, and the blogosphere will abound with more junk science and conspiracy theories as “long as Jenny McCarthy (another celebrity epidemiologist) keeps selling books.”
No one should have any delusions as to what can happen when society abandons that which has saved untold numbers. Let’s not make any mistake about this; society cannot escape the consequences of their choices. Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. Let’s at least have a clear perspective on the subject based on history and events.
Measles is a highly contagious disease, so contagious that 100 years ago we used to quarantine homes where a family member was stricken with it in this country. Because of complacency and lack of funding in some African countries, vaccination rates dropped dramatically, and as anyone should expect, they are experiencing “the worst outbreaks of measles in years” - afflicting “thousands and killing hundreds across Africa,” and it became so prevalent that some mothers wouldn’t name their children until they survived a bout with measles. “About 164,000 people died from measles in 2008, down 78 percent from 733,000 in 2000, according to the Measles Initiative, which includes groups like the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organisation.” However, UNICEF officials "fear the combined effect of decreased political and financial commitment to measles could reverse the gains, resulting in an estimated 1.7 million measles-related deaths globally between 2010 and 2013."
Who is accountable for these unnecessary illnesses and deaths? Better yet, why is no one accountable? We have a clear vision of the reality of a world without vaccinations. The facts are easily seen, easily found, and easy to understand. Vaccinations save lives in the third world, why would we think that it would be any different here? Why do we listen to these people?
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”, even if they are positive!
3 BILLION AND COUNTING Opens Friday September 17th
3 Billion and Counting is in the vein of Super Size Me Meets Fahrenheit 911. This film follows the journey of Dr. Rutledge (a preventive medical doctor that grew up on a farm in Mississippi) as he travels the globe in 40 days to discover why so many women and children are still dying needlessly every 12 seconds from malaria as we speak...
He eventually finds himself in Washington DC where it all "went down" during the Nixon ERROR. He discovers that our very own US government, ONE MAN in particular, SCAMMED the American people with lies and deceit causing the death of untold millions.
He leaves no stone unturned in this heart-felt fact-finding mission that is chock full of shocking findings that are sure to open up a virtual BLIZZARD of long overdue debate.
Dr. Rutledge and his team take an in-depth look into a disease that has killed more people than any other: Malaria. Collecting testimonies from African, Indian and US Governments, charitable organizations, scientists, politicians, doctors, clinics, victims and survivors, the film exposes the politics behind domestic and international policies leading to the much-publicized 1972 ban of DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane), believed at the time to be one of the most 'dirty' chemicals ever created by man. Despite DDT's effectiveness in eradicating malaria from the US, its ban was considered a hallmark victory by the early Environmental Movement.
The banning decision, however, was fraught with lies and controversies. DDT has since been proven to be - and always has been - one of the safest, most environmentally-sound and most effective chemicals for fighting malaria, able to save millions of lives in the developing nations. When the EPA, Greenpeace, WWF and the Sierra Club refuse interviews, Dr. Rutledge realizes he is at the epicenter of a little-known force behind the environmental policy-makers, whose political agenda and ideology come with a human cost. Pop star Debbie Gibson composed the original score and original title track "Rise". (Running time 1:42)
3 Billion and Counting is in the vein of Super Size Me Meets Fahrenheit 911. This film follows the journey of Dr. Rutledge (a preventive medical doctor that grew up on a farm in Mississippi) as he travels the globe in 40 days to discover why so many women and children are still dying needlessly every 12 seconds from malaria as we speak...
He eventually finds himself in Washington DC where it all "went down" during the Nixon ERROR. He discovers that our very own US government, ONE MAN in particular, SCAMMED the American people with lies and deceit causing the death of untold millions.
He leaves no stone unturned in this heart-felt fact-finding mission that is chock full of shocking findings that are sure to open up a virtual BLIZZARD of long overdue debate.
Dr. Rutledge and his team take an in-depth look into a disease that has killed more people than any other: Malaria. Collecting testimonies from African, Indian and US Governments, charitable organizations, scientists, politicians, doctors, clinics, victims and survivors, the film exposes the politics behind domestic and international policies leading to the much-publicized 1972 ban of DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane), believed at the time to be one of the most 'dirty' chemicals ever created by man. Despite DDT's effectiveness in eradicating malaria from the US, its ban was considered a hallmark victory by the early Environmental Movement.
The banning decision, however, was fraught with lies and controversies. DDT has since been proven to be - and always has been - one of the safest, most environmentally-sound and most effective chemicals for fighting malaria, able to save millions of lives in the developing nations. When the EPA, Greenpeace, WWF and the Sierra Club refuse interviews, Dr. Rutledge realizes he is at the epicenter of a little-known force behind the environmental policy-makers, whose political agenda and ideology come with a human cost. Pop star Debbie Gibson composed the original score and original title track "Rise". (Running time 1:42)
Rich Kozlovich Monday, September 6, 2010
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C. S. Lewis
Recently I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is outraged that we are attempting to bring propoxur back for bed bug control. He is also outraged at those who are working to do this, which also includes me by the way. I asked why?
His point is that we were going into the past and not into the future. We need to go forward! We were going backward, not forward when we do this type of thing. “Who wants to start using this stuff and then have it hanging over our heads?” I would assume that last part was based on EPA’s recent determination that propoxur was too toxic to use around children, without any real science behind it. Since EPA changed the safety factor from 100 fold to 1000 fold it makes it far easier to declare anything too toxic if they wish to, in spite of the fact that propoxur, also known as Baygon, was used by the general public for over twenty years.
He isn’t alone either. This isn’t an uncommon theme in our industry. Twenty five years ago this would have never occurred, but we have been psychologically prepared to accept this kind of thinking by a constant drumbeat of irrational environmentalism by the greenies, the Environmental Protection Agency, their acolytes in the media, and a host of owners, managers, Ph.D.’s involved with our industry and trainers that are from a different generation. They are much more easily swayed by the environmental litany.
He made it clear that he was willing to stand up in opposition against anyone attempting to bring old products back. I told him that he would then be wrong, and I will say this; anyone who agrees with him is also wrong. I know, I know…I’m right and the world is wrong! Yes…exactly!
Do we think we are going backward in progress if we resort to old technology if that old technology works versus new technology that is failing the nation? When the new technology doesn’t work, or doesn’t work well, should we cling to it with a religious passion because it’s modern and new while refusing to use what works simply because it’s old?
Thirty years ago when I first came into the pest control industry cockroaches were the number one problem in commercial accounts, especially restaurants, bars and apartments. I can honestly say that the majority of these places had roaches. What to do? I really hate being ignorant so I read everything I could get my hands on about roach control. About that time there was a great deal of talk about boric acid in the trade journals. I asked one of my bosses what he thought about it. He smiled, in that self assured way when someone is dealing with an idiot child and said; “that’s old technology” and walked away.
Well, since I was so ignorant I was prepared to try anything that might work. I used it in spite of his lack of enthusiasm and got results in accounts that had been having roach problems for a long time. Being in my early 30’s and having come off a job that required a great deal of physical work I was in great shape, and I didn’t mind crawling or climbing into anything anywhere to get the job done. I got results mostly because I was too ignorant to know any better. I just didn’t know that this wasn’t how it was supposed to be done. I went back to the future…..but I got the job done.
Some weeks later he came back from the Ohio Pest Control Association’s Summer Meeting and informed me that boric acid is all they were talking about for roach control. Why? Because it worked! It was back to the future for everyone at this company, and those who wouldn’t make the adjustment eventually left.
I also made a bunch of money selling roach work in accounts where so many others were failing to get control; at least until the synthetic pyrethroids exploded on the market. After resistance developed in these products we had roach baits that were introduced; and roach work has never been as profitable since. Once again; chemistry that worked was the answer.
Today we have a plethora of techniques and tools that can get rid of bed bugs. We have dry heat, steam heat, hand removal, traps, dusting techniques and procedures, vacuum cleaners designed for pest control and some chemistry that is only partially effective; and this is what makes the whole procedure partially effective. It is true that dry heat will kill everything in a building, but the expense is out of the reach of most Americans and there is no way of preventing a re-infestation with this program. We are in much the same situation as I was in thirty years ago with cockroaches. Not having the right chemistry was failing the nation, so we went back to the future and used boric acid. Bed bugs are spreading rapidly over the nation because current bed bug procedures aren't working for the nation, and for the same reason; we don’t have the right chemistry available.
Our job is more than a job. It is a mission. We are part of the public health service (whether they like to admit it or not) that stands between society and disaster. We are part of that thin gray line that stands on the wall and says, “no one will harm you on my watch”. If we are to succeed in our mission to protect society we must be effective in our treatments! If that means going back to old technology, then that is what we must do. It isn’t our job to be progressive, whatever that may mean, it our job to be effective!
There was a great old movie called “People Will Talk” with Cary Grant portraying a character called Dr. Noah Praetorius. He followed a relatively simple personal philosophy regarding medical treatments for the sick and suffering; “I’m in favor of using whatever makes sick people well”. One of his colleagues had him brought up before a faculty board to answer charges about his qualifications as a doctor. Dr. Praetorius answered one question my simply saying "I made sick people well”.
We need to properly define this issue. It isn’t about science, it isn’t about money; it’s about results, and it is a moral issue. By ridding properties of pest infestations we make sick buildings healthy, and I don’t care what we have to use to do it. I am prepared to use anything that makes sick buildings well! I am more than willing to go back to the future if that’s what’s necessary.
The answer to bed bugs in 1946 was effective, inexpensive chemistry that was available to everyone. If that isn’t the answer in 2010 then there will be no answer.
By Rich Kozlovich Sunday, September 12, 2010
Many years ago (I can’t remember when I started doing this) I started what is now Green Notes. It wasn’t a “newsletter”! It was merely a list of people to whom I would send links on articles that I felt were important to many of the decision and opinion makers in our industry. In fact, many times it wasn’t even a list of articles; I would send one or two links and sometimes at multiple times during the week. I used Green Notes in the “subject” line, and that is how the name came about.
Later I started a blog called Green Notes, which I only wanted to maintain for one year, which I did. After that I restarted my mailing list.
At one point I started sending out so many that I thought it was unfair to the recipients…who I didn’t bother to ask if they wanted Green Notes or not to be sending so many e-mails to them each week. There wasn’t any format then either, until my friend Frank Gasparini, who worked for Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment the time, called it a “newsletter” and that was pivotal for my thinking, because until then I didn’t actually see that a newsletter is what I was doing. I decided to commit myself to making this a real E-Newsletter, and one that was worth reading.
I started the change with this note to everyone;
Many years ago (I can’t remember when I started doing this) I started what is now Green Notes. It wasn’t a “newsletter”! It was merely a list of people to whom I would send links on articles that I felt were important to many of the decision and opinion makers in our industry. In fact, many times it wasn’t even a list of articles; I would send one or two links and sometimes at multiple times during the week. I used Green Notes in the “subject” line, and that is how the name came about.
Later I started a blog called Green Notes, which I only wanted to maintain for one year, which I did. After that I restarted my mailing list.
At one point I started sending out so many that I thought it was unfair to the recipients…who I didn’t bother to ask if they wanted Green Notes or not to be sending so many e-mails to them each week. There wasn’t any format then either, until my friend Frank Gasparini, who worked for Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment the time, called it a “newsletter” and that was pivotal for my thinking, because until then I didn’t actually see that a newsletter is what I was doing. I decided to commit myself to making this a real E-Newsletter, and one that was worth reading.
I started the change with this note to everyone;
There are so many great articles
floating around out there that I couldn't, with good conscience, send them all
piecemeal (at least without making some people mad at me) so I put together a
"blog" page of what I thought to be interesting and thought provoking
articles, giving everyone the opportunity to pick and choose.
There are a whole host of articles dealing with subjects of interest, which are not listed such as the Endangered Species Act, and how it has deprived property owners of use of the property they paid for and pay taxes on. I just can't send them all. The goal of all of this is to promote a new paradigm regarding environmental issues and the pesticide application industry. That paradigm is one based on science, not philosophy.
The amount of information on DDT, ozone depletion and global warming (especially global warming) is unbelievable and impossible to keep up with. I felt these articles were timely and would engage you intellectually. I hope that everyone will use what I call the Sowell Critique during this exercise, that being; what alternatives do you offer; what hard evidence do you have; how much will it cost?
Warmest Regards,
There are a whole host of articles dealing with subjects of interest, which are not listed such as the Endangered Species Act, and how it has deprived property owners of use of the property they paid for and pay taxes on. I just can't send them all. The goal of all of this is to promote a new paradigm regarding environmental issues and the pesticide application industry. That paradigm is one based on science, not philosophy.
The amount of information on DDT, ozone depletion and global warming (especially global warming) is unbelievable and impossible to keep up with. I felt these articles were timely and would engage you intellectually. I hope that everyone will use what I call the Sowell Critique during this exercise, that being; what alternatives do you offer; what hard evidence do you have; how much will it cost?
Warmest Regards,
That was in February of 2007, and it was just a list of
links. By July the format became very similar to what you see now. I also let
those who I had been imposing on for so long know that if they didn’t want to
be on my Green Notes list to let me know and I would stop sending it to them. I
only had two people ask not to be on the list. Interestingly there have been a
number of people ask to be on my list who are not part of the pest control
industry and will e-mail me to say how much they enjoy these efforts.
By September of 2008 the format was settled and has remained mostly unchanged, although I never stopped tweaking it.
I had been touting the DDT issue regularly, long before Green Notes became a newsletter. One editor of one of our trade journals, who is now freelancing, told me that DDT was a dead issue. I said it wasn’t to me, however I was also convinced that everyone ….. and I mean everyone….believed all the lies promulgated by Rachel Carson and her acolytes in the media and government, and with a few exceptions, that I was standing alone on this issue. I not so sure any longer!
Since this bed bug issue has become so dominant in structural pest control – and in the lives of many unfortunate people, DDT has been the rage, and the amount of people demanding its return has stunned me, in spite of the fact that DDT doesn’t kill bed bugs any longer. Apparently this was all that it took for people to start saying how they really felt. After all of these years I should know by now that most people have no desire to be the rock in the current. Most people merely want to live their lives and will just follow the current. However, that doesn’t mean that they don’t see and understand things.
The release of the documentary movie, 3 Billion and Counting, has triggered a host of web articles, and many of them stating those things that my peers thought was ridiculous when I said them a few years ago. Amazing how things can turn around. That is the value of rowing against the tide when you believe you are right; eventually the tide turns and then you are in front, and rowing against the tide puts you in great shape; in this case intellectually.
No….DDT isn’t a dead issue. It is the only issue! All the money, influence and power the green movement has acquired has been as a direct result of their successful efforts to get DDT banned. This is the foundation of the environmental movement. If this can be uprooted then all else they promote can be called into question and people can start thinking critically about what they say, what they do and what their goals really are. And that Silent Majority is now paying attention and is being heard.
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”, even if they are positive!
By September of 2008 the format was settled and has remained mostly unchanged, although I never stopped tweaking it.
I had been touting the DDT issue regularly, long before Green Notes became a newsletter. One editor of one of our trade journals, who is now freelancing, told me that DDT was a dead issue. I said it wasn’t to me, however I was also convinced that everyone ….. and I mean everyone….believed all the lies promulgated by Rachel Carson and her acolytes in the media and government, and with a few exceptions, that I was standing alone on this issue. I not so sure any longer!
Since this bed bug issue has become so dominant in structural pest control – and in the lives of many unfortunate people, DDT has been the rage, and the amount of people demanding its return has stunned me, in spite of the fact that DDT doesn’t kill bed bugs any longer. Apparently this was all that it took for people to start saying how they really felt. After all of these years I should know by now that most people have no desire to be the rock in the current. Most people merely want to live their lives and will just follow the current. However, that doesn’t mean that they don’t see and understand things.
The release of the documentary movie, 3 Billion and Counting, has triggered a host of web articles, and many of them stating those things that my peers thought was ridiculous when I said them a few years ago. Amazing how things can turn around. That is the value of rowing against the tide when you believe you are right; eventually the tide turns and then you are in front, and rowing against the tide puts you in great shape; in this case intellectually.
No….DDT isn’t a dead issue. It is the only issue! All the money, influence and power the green movement has acquired has been as a direct result of their successful efforts to get DDT banned. This is the foundation of the environmental movement. If this can be uprooted then all else they promote can be called into question and people can start thinking critically about what they say, what they do and what their goals really are. And that Silent Majority is now paying attention and is being heard.
Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”, even if they are positive!
Rich Kozlovich Friday, November 12, 201
This first appeared in the fall 2010 issue of the Ohio
Pest Management Association's quarterly newsletter, The Standard.
Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) lived her early years in Springdale, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, and graduated from the Pittsburgh Pennsylvania College for Women (Chatham College) in 1929, later earning a master’s degree in zoology from John Hopkins University. She is the author of “Silent Spring” (her 4th book), published in 1962 and considered by some to be one of the most damaging books of the 20th century.
Her claims in this book about decreases in mammal and avian wildlife as a result of DDT were simply wrong. One of the many claims by Carson was that robins were in danger of extinction as a result of continued use of DDT. The truth was that there were more robins in the DDT era than before. And according to Audubon bird charts, there many have been as many as 47 times more. World renowned Ornithologist Roger Tory Peterson stated that the robin was the most abundant bird in North America around the same time that “Silent Spring” came out.
None of the predictions regarding cancer made by Carson ever came true. She herself died of breast cancer on April 14, 1964, at the age of 56, two years after her book came out. She did not live long enough to see real scientists using real science to shred her claims. Unfortunately, this gave impetus to her unscientific statements.
Considered the mother of the modern environmental movement, her radical naturalism became the standard for the movement. She taught that the environment had done all of the shaping and directing on the Earth and it was an act of arrogance for man to attempt to control nature. She is still lauded in various encyclopedias as a thorough, meticulous, highly qualified scientist. Those that have attacked her are presented as self-serving, large chemical companies.
Although the chemical companies did attack her (rightly so), there were also sincere, dedicated scientists such as Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, who had no ax to grind, philosophically or financially, and was just as concerned as Carson about large corporations and their designs on nature. Dr. Edwards was initially thrilled when her book first appeared. As he read “Silent Spring,” his enthusiasm waned when he realized that there was information in the book that simply wasn’t true. He noted “she was playing fast and loose with the facts.” Dr. Edwards, who considered himself to be an environmentalist, believed that “environmentalism didn’t need fraud to justify itself.”
Over the years, research on Carson’s work has shown this to be so. In spite of all the evidence showing that her work should not have been taken seriously, Carson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1980.
Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) lived her early years in Springdale, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh, and graduated from the Pittsburgh Pennsylvania College for Women (Chatham College) in 1929, later earning a master’s degree in zoology from John Hopkins University. She is the author of “Silent Spring” (her 4th book), published in 1962 and considered by some to be one of the most damaging books of the 20th century.
Her claims in this book about decreases in mammal and avian wildlife as a result of DDT were simply wrong. One of the many claims by Carson was that robins were in danger of extinction as a result of continued use of DDT. The truth was that there were more robins in the DDT era than before. And according to Audubon bird charts, there many have been as many as 47 times more. World renowned Ornithologist Roger Tory Peterson stated that the robin was the most abundant bird in North America around the same time that “Silent Spring” came out.
None of the predictions regarding cancer made by Carson ever came true. She herself died of breast cancer on April 14, 1964, at the age of 56, two years after her book came out. She did not live long enough to see real scientists using real science to shred her claims. Unfortunately, this gave impetus to her unscientific statements.
Considered the mother of the modern environmental movement, her radical naturalism became the standard for the movement. She taught that the environment had done all of the shaping and directing on the Earth and it was an act of arrogance for man to attempt to control nature. She is still lauded in various encyclopedias as a thorough, meticulous, highly qualified scientist. Those that have attacked her are presented as self-serving, large chemical companies.
Although the chemical companies did attack her (rightly so), there were also sincere, dedicated scientists such as Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, who had no ax to grind, philosophically or financially, and was just as concerned as Carson about large corporations and their designs on nature. Dr. Edwards was initially thrilled when her book first appeared. As he read “Silent Spring,” his enthusiasm waned when he realized that there was information in the book that simply wasn’t true. He noted “she was playing fast and loose with the facts.” Dr. Edwards, who considered himself to be an environmentalist, believed that “environmentalism didn’t need fraud to justify itself.”
Over the years, research on Carson’s work has shown this to be so. In spite of all the evidence showing that her work should not have been taken seriously, Carson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1980.
• Carson advocated and promoted ideas that simply are not
true.
• She claimed that DDT was a serious carcinogenic agent that with continued use would eventually impact almost 100 percent of the population.
• She claimed that DDT was causing egg shell thinning and as a result the bird population was decreasing.
• She played fast and loose with the facts and made inappropriate citations.
• She claimed that DDT was a serious carcinogenic agent that with continued use would eventually impact almost 100 percent of the population.
• She claimed that DDT was causing egg shell thinning and as a result the bird population was decreasing.
• She played fast and loose with the facts and made inappropriate citations.
I was born in 1946, and like Carson, I grew up in
southwest Pennsylvania. I can understand Carson’s fears for the environment.
The effects on the local environment from pollution emanating from coal mines,
steel mills and coke ovens in those days would make anyone concerned. Believe
me when I tell you that you haven’t seen water pollution until you see a sulfur
creek, or air pollution until you have see an old time coke oven. Having seen
and experienced all of this, however, is still no excuse for dishonesty.
Approximately five years ago I became aware of a web site, www.3BillionAndCounting.com, created by Dr. D. Rutledge Taylor, who was making a feature documentary film (this film was shot in the purest and most respected form of artistic film making called vérité style, meaning no script and with interaction between the filmmaker and subject). The film debunks the lies about DDT, and makes clear once and for all the devastation the America’s ban on DDT caused worldwide. After posting comments on Doc’s web site for a while, he sent me a personal e-mail asking; who are you? We have communicated and shared information ever since. As a result, I was invited to the world premiere of his documentary movie, “3 Billion and Counting,” in New York City on September 17th, and I was pleased to find that I was listed separately in the credits as the Pest Control Consultant. I also finally got to meet the Doc and his producer Helene Udy, who lost a lifelong friend because of her stand regarding this film and its message.
Approximately five years ago I became aware of a web site, www.3BillionAndCounting.com, created by Dr. D. Rutledge Taylor, who was making a feature documentary film (this film was shot in the purest and most respected form of artistic film making called vérité style, meaning no script and with interaction between the filmmaker and subject). The film debunks the lies about DDT, and makes clear once and for all the devastation the America’s ban on DDT caused worldwide. After posting comments on Doc’s web site for a while, he sent me a personal e-mail asking; who are you? We have communicated and shared information ever since. As a result, I was invited to the world premiere of his documentary movie, “3 Billion and Counting,” in New York City on September 17th, and I was pleased to find that I was listed separately in the credits as the Pest Control Consultant. I also finally got to meet the Doc and his producer Helene Udy, who lost a lifelong friend because of her stand regarding this film and its message.
The research that went into this film was a massive
undertaking. Oftentimes we will read that there were over 9,000 pages of
testimony in the DDT hearing presided over by Judge Sweeney. The Doc managed to
find the original documents that have been stored all of these years at the
National Archives. He knows they were the originals because he cut the
wrappings himself – they had never been opened. He will be posting many of
these 9,000 pages online along with all of the comments made by Judge Sweeney.
. . and I believe that there were 90 pages in that ruling. That testimony makes
it very clear that the ban on DDT was not a scientific decision, but a
political decision made by the first director of the Environmental Protection
Agency, William Ruckelshaus, which he later admitted.
The “stars” in the film included: Doctors Elizabeth Whelan and Gill Ross of the American Council on Science and Health; Dr. Paul Driessen, author of, “Eco-Imperialism, Green Power, Black Death;” Richard Tren, a Director of Africa Fighting Malaria and co-author of, “The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History;” Dr. Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute; Roy Innes and a number of his associates from C.O.R.E. (some of whom have suffered from malaria themselves and lost family members to malaria). All participants outline the real story about the devastation caused by the unscientific ban on DDT.
The “stars” in the film included: Doctors Elizabeth Whelan and Gill Ross of the American Council on Science and Health; Dr. Paul Driessen, author of, “Eco-Imperialism, Green Power, Black Death;” Richard Tren, a Director of Africa Fighting Malaria and co-author of, “The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History;” Dr. Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute; Roy Innes and a number of his associates from C.O.R.E. (some of whom have suffered from malaria themselves and lost family members to malaria). All participants outline the real story about the devastation caused by the unscientific ban on DDT.
Dr. Rutledge Taylor dedicated this film to Dr. Edwards, who single-handedly kept hope alive for millions in the third world by having the courage to be the lone voice in the wilderness in favor of keeping DDT, and that it might not fall prey to the POPS treaty.
Dr. Edwards suffered personal attacks for years because of his unbending stand on DDT, lecturing on this subject for the rest of his life, helping prove that all the claims about DDT were lies. Without his efforts, the fate of so many innocent women and children would have been sealed. Dr. Rutledge Taylor states, “It is why I dedicated this film to him/his tireless efforts. . . He simply could/would not stop, as his wife says in the end of the film, "you just don’t give up on something you KNOW is right.” I have much gratitude for this man. To me, HE should get the Nobel Peace Prize.”
What I find ironic is that Dr. Edwards, who can be credited with saving an untold number of lives because of his stand on DDT, is mostly unknown. Yet Rachel Carson is lauded, praised, and even has schools named after her, in spite of the fact that hundreds of millions have suffered or died as a result of her book.
Dr. Edwards was among that group of scientists who drank DDT every day for a year to prove that there would be no detrimental effects. He finally died at the age of 84 from a heart attack while climbing his favorite mountain in Glacier National Park.
In this feature documentary film, Dr. Rutledge Taylor addresses all the claims, from cancer to bird shell thinning and more. Please see it when you get the chance. This is a film that should be seen by every regulator and legislator, along with their staffs. Her pseudo-science ideologies are still taught in high schools this very day! My hope is that this film will rectify that.
By Rich Kozlovich Wednesday, November 24, 2010
In recent months the bed bug issue has reached headline proportions on the national scene. National television news networks have featured the story, magazines have highlighted the problem nationally and newspapers have focused on local infestations that seem to be out of control and growing. It is almost like one of those overnight movie star sensations who won an award only to find out that he has been in the entertainment business for fifteen years. We, the pest control industry, have known this day was coming for some time, and in point of fact I know one old timer who ominously stated over ten years ago that bed bugs would be back.
After 1994 the Congress made an attempt to fix the Delaney Act, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FFDCA). The Delaney Clause states that nothing can be used if "it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal". But because it was so extremely complicated and convoluted (made mores so by a court case Les v. Reilly) it was implemented in such a way that it basically declared that if something was carcinogenic at any level it was carcinogenic at every level and nothing that tested carcinogenic could be used in any food additives in processed food.
Since Delaney required zero risk versus negligible risk the whole thing became so perverse that Delaney would forbid the EPA from registering new pesticides that were perceived safer if they tested carcinogenic. This was known as the Delaney Paradox. This clearly had created a regulatory nightmare based on a law that had no basis in real science. Because of this the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a statement in 1987 outlining four principles that pesticide law should meet
1. All pesticides should be regulated on the basis of a consistent standard, so that there is no "double standard" for raw vs. processed foods or for old vs. new pesticides. The NAS found no public health reasons for treating residues on raw or processed foods differently.
2. A uniform "negligible risk" rather than a "zero risk" standard for carcinogens in food, consistently applied, would best enable EPA to improve the overall safety of the food supply, and would result in only modest reductions in the benefits of pesticide use to farmers.
3. EPA should set its regulatory priorities by focusing first on the most worrisome pesticides used on the most-consumed crops.
4. The Agency should adopt a comprehensive analytical framework for forecasting the broad-scale impact of its pesticide-specific regulatory actions on the overall safety of the food supply.
This clearly seems to be more than reasonable and justified. Unfortunately the fix ended up being as bad as the problem. Possibly worse because the EPA was being forced by lawsuits to enforce Delaney to its fullest extent, and if that had occurred we might have gotten rid of it entirely, instead we ended up replacing it with another compromise now based on risk assumptions.
The FQPA changed the rules regarding the 100 fold safety factor tied up in pesticides by a potential factor of ten, ratcheting up the safety factor from 100 to a potential of 1000. (This explanation is a “really” shortened and simplified version of this subject. Please go to Frank B. Cross’s extremely well done and lengthy examination of this subject in the article, “THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONSENSUS: DANGEROUS COMPROMISES OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT”)
At this point I think it worthwhile to explore this issue of carcinogenic testing. The EPA bases it judgment on rodent testing. Make no mistake about this; a mouse isn’t a little man and using rodents that are genetically predisposed to growing tumors for testing and then exposing them massive doses of anything to make that determination isn’t the best science as required under the Information Quality Act.
In 2005 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) (As a point of disclosure: I am member of ASCH) petitioned the EPA to “Stop declaring chemicals carcinogens based on rodent tests alone”. ACSH noted that the law permits EPA “to adopt policies that err on the side of caution when faced with genuinely equivocal evidence regarding a substance's carcinogenicity, but the IQA does not permit EPA to distort the scientific evidence in furtherance of such policies.”
The petition argues that EPA ”distorts scientific evidence through its Guidelines' use of "default options," its purported right -- based not on scientific evidence but its regulatory mission to protect human health -- to assume that tumors in lab rodents indicate that much smaller doses can cause cancer in humans. Erring on the "safe side" in regulatory decisions does not, argues the petition, permit EPA to falsely claim that such regulated substances truly are "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." To do so, argues ACSH, is a distortion of both science and law. “
Finally after months of delays the EPA formally responded saying “that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” My question was then and is now. If EPA policies aren’t based on scientific fact, what are they based on?
In 1950 the legal limit for DDT was seven parts per million. Why? Because they couldn’t test below that; so anything below seven parts per million was zero. As the years went by we have learned how to detect substances at parts per billion, then parts per trillion, then parts per quadrillion and parts per…well…even higher numbers that I can’t recite. At some point we will be able to detect everything in anything. But should that matter? No! At some point the molecular load will be so small that cells will not respond to it. Under Delaney that wouldn’t matter. It was later discovered, mostly through the efforts of Dr. Bruce Ames, that the number of naturally occurring carcinogens was shockingly high. Take for an example the traditional Thanksgiving dinner menu which is filled with carcinogens.
So the goal to fix Delaney was a worthy one, but devastating as it was replaced by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in August of 1996 by Congress and the Clinton EPA under Carol Browner. This amended FFDCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and rodenticide Act which the structural pest control industry also falls under. This ended up being one of the most significant environmental and public health bills passed since the Nixon administration, and most of the Congress didn’t really understand what this was going to mean.
As a result of FQPA we lost (in the U.S.) whole categories of pesticides that had been used for years safely and effectively here and around the world.
Along with all else, the EPA requires pesticides to be re-registered after fifteen years. That means more unnecessary and expensive testing. It costs around $300,000,000 to bring a new pesticide to market. Manufacturers want to make sure that re-registration is worth it to them before they spend millions of dollars more on re-testing. Further testing for what you might ask? Who knows, because after a product has been on the open market for fifteen years you absolutely know what, if any, hazards it represents to humanity or to nature. Most importantly after fifteen years these products have probably gone out of patent. That means there is less value to the primary registrant, and if that is the case, there was no value incentive for the manufacturer to spend millions of dollars more to retest. They then simply pull their registration “voluntarily”.
This is just another way the EPA has found to eliminate pesticides without banning them, which can be a messy process; a process in which they would probably lose. When you ban something you have to show reasons for the ban. You have to have facts, figures and….most importantly….real science. If there is none the product stays. They have avoided all of that through their system of rules which can make it a de facto ban without any messy legal stuff.
Organophosphates, such as Dursban absolutely kill bed bugs; on contact and as well as a residual. But in 1996 the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was passed and that changed all the rules. This national policy under the EPA to create uniform regulations with the stated goal to reduce the use of pesticides based on assumed risks cannot occur without compromising the health of the nation. This national bed bug plague is one of those issues, and the tip of the iceberg. Make no mistake about this; if bed bugs were transmitters of disease such as malaria, yellow fever, encephalitis or West Nile virus we wouldn’t be having this national conversation.
I did have a thought that crossed my mind. I wonder if the decline in bed bugs and the decline in leprosy in western countries ran concurrently. Perhaps that could be an interesting area of study.
In recent months the bed bug issue has reached headline proportions on the national scene. National television news networks have featured the story, magazines have highlighted the problem nationally and newspapers have focused on local infestations that seem to be out of control and growing. It is almost like one of those overnight movie star sensations who won an award only to find out that he has been in the entertainment business for fifteen years. We, the pest control industry, have known this day was coming for some time, and in point of fact I know one old timer who ominously stated over ten years ago that bed bugs would be back.
After 1994 the Congress made an attempt to fix the Delaney Act, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FFDCA). The Delaney Clause states that nothing can be used if "it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal". But because it was so extremely complicated and convoluted (made mores so by a court case Les v. Reilly) it was implemented in such a way that it basically declared that if something was carcinogenic at any level it was carcinogenic at every level and nothing that tested carcinogenic could be used in any food additives in processed food.
Since Delaney required zero risk versus negligible risk the whole thing became so perverse that Delaney would forbid the EPA from registering new pesticides that were perceived safer if they tested carcinogenic. This was known as the Delaney Paradox. This clearly had created a regulatory nightmare based on a law that had no basis in real science. Because of this the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a statement in 1987 outlining four principles that pesticide law should meet
1. All pesticides should be regulated on the basis of a consistent standard, so that there is no "double standard" for raw vs. processed foods or for old vs. new pesticides. The NAS found no public health reasons for treating residues on raw or processed foods differently.
2. A uniform "negligible risk" rather than a "zero risk" standard for carcinogens in food, consistently applied, would best enable EPA to improve the overall safety of the food supply, and would result in only modest reductions in the benefits of pesticide use to farmers.
3. EPA should set its regulatory priorities by focusing first on the most worrisome pesticides used on the most-consumed crops.
4. The Agency should adopt a comprehensive analytical framework for forecasting the broad-scale impact of its pesticide-specific regulatory actions on the overall safety of the food supply.
This clearly seems to be more than reasonable and justified. Unfortunately the fix ended up being as bad as the problem. Possibly worse because the EPA was being forced by lawsuits to enforce Delaney to its fullest extent, and if that had occurred we might have gotten rid of it entirely, instead we ended up replacing it with another compromise now based on risk assumptions.
The FQPA changed the rules regarding the 100 fold safety factor tied up in pesticides by a potential factor of ten, ratcheting up the safety factor from 100 to a potential of 1000. (This explanation is a “really” shortened and simplified version of this subject. Please go to Frank B. Cross’s extremely well done and lengthy examination of this subject in the article, “THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONSENSUS: DANGEROUS COMPROMISES OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT”)
At this point I think it worthwhile to explore this issue of carcinogenic testing. The EPA bases it judgment on rodent testing. Make no mistake about this; a mouse isn’t a little man and using rodents that are genetically predisposed to growing tumors for testing and then exposing them massive doses of anything to make that determination isn’t the best science as required under the Information Quality Act.
In 2005 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) (As a point of disclosure: I am member of ASCH) petitioned the EPA to “Stop declaring chemicals carcinogens based on rodent tests alone”. ACSH noted that the law permits EPA “to adopt policies that err on the side of caution when faced with genuinely equivocal evidence regarding a substance's carcinogenicity, but the IQA does not permit EPA to distort the scientific evidence in furtherance of such policies.”
The petition argues that EPA ”distorts scientific evidence through its Guidelines' use of "default options," its purported right -- based not on scientific evidence but its regulatory mission to protect human health -- to assume that tumors in lab rodents indicate that much smaller doses can cause cancer in humans. Erring on the "safe side" in regulatory decisions does not, argues the petition, permit EPA to falsely claim that such regulated substances truly are "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." To do so, argues ACSH, is a distortion of both science and law. “
Finally after months of delays the EPA formally responded saying “that their Risk Assessment Guidelines are not statements of scientific fact -- and thus not covered by the IQA -- but merely statements of EPA policy.” My question was then and is now. If EPA policies aren’t based on scientific fact, what are they based on?
In 1950 the legal limit for DDT was seven parts per million. Why? Because they couldn’t test below that; so anything below seven parts per million was zero. As the years went by we have learned how to detect substances at parts per billion, then parts per trillion, then parts per quadrillion and parts per…well…even higher numbers that I can’t recite. At some point we will be able to detect everything in anything. But should that matter? No! At some point the molecular load will be so small that cells will not respond to it. Under Delaney that wouldn’t matter. It was later discovered, mostly through the efforts of Dr. Bruce Ames, that the number of naturally occurring carcinogens was shockingly high. Take for an example the traditional Thanksgiving dinner menu which is filled with carcinogens.
So the goal to fix Delaney was a worthy one, but devastating as it was replaced by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in August of 1996 by Congress and the Clinton EPA under Carol Browner. This amended FFDCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and rodenticide Act which the structural pest control industry also falls under. This ended up being one of the most significant environmental and public health bills passed since the Nixon administration, and most of the Congress didn’t really understand what this was going to mean.
As a result of FQPA we lost (in the U.S.) whole categories of pesticides that had been used for years safely and effectively here and around the world.
Along with all else, the EPA requires pesticides to be re-registered after fifteen years. That means more unnecessary and expensive testing. It costs around $300,000,000 to bring a new pesticide to market. Manufacturers want to make sure that re-registration is worth it to them before they spend millions of dollars more on re-testing. Further testing for what you might ask? Who knows, because after a product has been on the open market for fifteen years you absolutely know what, if any, hazards it represents to humanity or to nature. Most importantly after fifteen years these products have probably gone out of patent. That means there is less value to the primary registrant, and if that is the case, there was no value incentive for the manufacturer to spend millions of dollars more to retest. They then simply pull their registration “voluntarily”.
This is just another way the EPA has found to eliminate pesticides without banning them, which can be a messy process; a process in which they would probably lose. When you ban something you have to show reasons for the ban. You have to have facts, figures and….most importantly….real science. If there is none the product stays. They have avoided all of that through their system of rules which can make it a de facto ban without any messy legal stuff.
Organophosphates, such as Dursban absolutely kill bed bugs; on contact and as well as a residual. But in 1996 the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was passed and that changed all the rules. This national policy under the EPA to create uniform regulations with the stated goal to reduce the use of pesticides based on assumed risks cannot occur without compromising the health of the nation. This national bed bug plague is one of those issues, and the tip of the iceberg. Make no mistake about this; if bed bugs were transmitters of disease such as malaria, yellow fever, encephalitis or West Nile virus we wouldn’t be having this national conversation.
I did have a thought that crossed my mind. I wonder if the decline in bed bugs and the decline in leprosy in western countries ran concurrently. Perhaps that could be an interesting area of study.
By Rich Kozlovich Thursday, December 2, 2010
Inrecent months the bed bug issue has reached headline proportions on the national scene. National television news networks have featured the story, magazines have highlighted the problem nationally and newspapers have focused on local infestations that seem to be out of control and growing. We, the pest control industry, have known this day was coming for some time, and in point of fact I know one old timer who ominously stated over ten years ago that bed bugs would be among the first vermin to reappear as a national plague.
Since 1962 when Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring came out the world of pest control and pesticides have been turned upside down. As the years went by people seemed to believe that living a pest free life was a right; it was all part of the American Dream and pesticides had nothing to do with it. Instead of society believing that pesticides are life savers, society has come to believe that pesticides are doing all sort of terrible and unknown things. That in spite of the fact that people are living longer and healthier lives than any time in human history, an accomplishment which pesticides have played a major role.
The American Dream was defined as an national ethos by James Truslow Adams in 1931 as , "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth. The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the second sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
(As a side bar: the Declaration really does say “inalienable” and not “unalienable” in spite of the fact that modernists attempt to change It by quoting incorrectly. To be truthful I don’t really know if it may be more correct or not, but the Declaration says ”inalienable”; a point that no one seemed to care about or saw the need to change for over 200 years!)
You will notice that it didn’t say a thing about bed bugs. However, being rid of vermin in our homes and lives is central to everything Adams stated about the American Dream.
Inrecent months the bed bug issue has reached headline proportions on the national scene. National television news networks have featured the story, magazines have highlighted the problem nationally and newspapers have focused on local infestations that seem to be out of control and growing. We, the pest control industry, have known this day was coming for some time, and in point of fact I know one old timer who ominously stated over ten years ago that bed bugs would be among the first vermin to reappear as a national plague.
Since 1962 when Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring came out the world of pest control and pesticides have been turned upside down. As the years went by people seemed to believe that living a pest free life was a right; it was all part of the American Dream and pesticides had nothing to do with it. Instead of society believing that pesticides are life savers, society has come to believe that pesticides are doing all sort of terrible and unknown things. That in spite of the fact that people are living longer and healthier lives than any time in human history, an accomplishment which pesticides have played a major role.
The American Dream was defined as an national ethos by James Truslow Adams in 1931 as , "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth. The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the second sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence which states that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
(As a side bar: the Declaration really does say “inalienable” and not “unalienable” in spite of the fact that modernists attempt to change It by quoting incorrectly. To be truthful I don’t really know if it may be more correct or not, but the Declaration says ”inalienable”; a point that no one seemed to care about or saw the need to change for over 200 years!)
You will notice that it didn’t say a thing about bed bugs. However, being rid of vermin in our homes and lives is central to everything Adams stated about the American Dream.
• Does anyone believe that life isn’t richer and fuller
without bed bugs, rats, roaches and mosquitoes carrying yellow fever and
malaria?
• Isn’t it basic to our American nature to believe that everyone, regardless of social standing, should be able to live a life without vermin in their homes and have the pest control tools available in order to care for their families?
• Isn’t it basic to our American nature to believe that everyone, regardless of social standing, should be able to live a life without vermin in their homes and have the pest control tools available in order to care for their families?
There was a time (and in my lifetime) when mothers used
to stand above a boiling pot of pasta or beans and wait for the bugs to surface
so that they could skim them out with a strainer. We don’t do that anymore
because we developed chemistry that eliminates most pests from our food. Does
anyone wish to go back to those days because they feel it makes their lives
“richer and fuller”? If so, I invite them to go to countries that live that way
and leave the rest of us alone; and as soon as possible if you please.
I have had friends tell me that they have gone on bed bug job only to find children so badly bitten that if they didn’t know what had caused it they would have called Children’s Services on the parents. At the end of WWII when the boys came back bed bugs were ubiquitous, but that was because they were there when they left. After DDT was so extensively used the bed bug population dropped dramatically. After resistance developed in bed bugs to DDT we turned to organophosphate products such as malation. That was the knockout punch.
Now we are almost right back to where we were in 1945! And we are now facing a national plague! Offices at the Wall Street Journal had to be treated, along with a host of well known retailers in New York City. Bed bugs are expanding rapidly and exponentially across the nation. Every person in every state, in every city, in every town, in every village and in every home will eventually face the potential of infestation if they travel, have company in their homes, go to the theater, go to work, go shopping or visit others in their homes or have children that go to school, public or private.
Those are the facts! And they are undisputed!
See The American Dream Didn’t Include Bed Bugs. Part I: The Problem
I have had friends tell me that they have gone on bed bug job only to find children so badly bitten that if they didn’t know what had caused it they would have called Children’s Services on the parents. At the end of WWII when the boys came back bed bugs were ubiquitous, but that was because they were there when they left. After DDT was so extensively used the bed bug population dropped dramatically. After resistance developed in bed bugs to DDT we turned to organophosphate products such as malation. That was the knockout punch.
Now we are almost right back to where we were in 1945! And we are now facing a national plague! Offices at the Wall Street Journal had to be treated, along with a host of well known retailers in New York City. Bed bugs are expanding rapidly and exponentially across the nation. Every person in every state, in every city, in every town, in every village and in every home will eventually face the potential of infestation if they travel, have company in their homes, go to the theater, go to work, go shopping or visit others in their homes or have children that go to school, public or private.
Those are the facts! And they are undisputed!
See The American Dream Didn’t Include Bed Bugs. Part I: The Problem
By Rich Kozlovich
In recent months the bed bug issue has reached headline proportions on the national scene. National television news networks have featured the story, magazines have highlighted the problem nationally and newspapers have focused on local infestations that seem to be out of control and growing. We, the pest control industry, have known this day was coming for some time, and in point of fact I know one old timer who ominously stated over ten years ago that bed bugs would be among the first vermin to reappear as a national plague.
As this national plague of bed bugs continues to grow I find that I am more and more surprised at the reactions of so many. Especially those in the bureaucracies, government and most importantly in pest control. I intend to explore all of the views from each group. I think you will find this examination interesting and frustrating.
My views however are somewhat straightforward. We need effective chemistry that is inexpensive, available to the public and easy to use if we are to rid the nation of this plague. That was the answer in 1946 and that will have to be the answer in 2010 or 2011 or 2102 or there will be no answer.
In April 2009 the EPA held a bed bug summit inviting people from all over the nation to try to work out some kind of solution to this problem. I couldn't help but chuckle and shake my head at the thought of those who are directly responsible for this plague of bedbugs now wanting to find a solution through this big public relations fest. What better way to deflect attention away from the real perpetrators of this mess, themselves. P.T. Barnum would have been truly impressed with this. At the end of it all they came up with these solutions which I outlined in an article, “Bedbug Summit: Activity As a Substitute For Accomplishment”.
There were 34 suggestions that would expand the bureaucracy at every level of government, expand training and licensure requirements and potentially mandate Integrated Pest Management. There were 15 for expanded public information and who should be doing it, 10 for grant money for the professional grant chasers, 5 that would shift the blame, and 9 that actual had some worth, however….. No one blamed EPA.”
At no time did they focus on the issue of effective chemistry that is inexpensive, available to the public. Of all the suggestions at this meeting there were only two that discussed the need for old chemistry that was no longer available.
Recently there was another bed bug “forum” called the Congressional Bedbug Forum, hosted by Reps. G.K. Butterfield, D-North Carolina, and Don Young, R-Alaska.at the capitol. What did they learn? “They are virtually unstoppable,” Dr. Michael Potter, a bedbug expert from the University of Kentucky, told an auditorium full of people concerned about the resurgent tiny bloodsucker.” Didn’t everyone there already know this?
I know Mike personally and he is one of the nation’s lead researchers, if not the leading researcher in bed bug control, and has been magnificent in his efforts to tell EPA, elected officials and bureaucrats, other researchers and anyone else that will listen that the real answer is effective chemistry. Mike was also very supportive of Ohio’s request for a section 18 exemption to use propoxur, which EPA turned down. Although the answer clearly was no they claimed at a conference in Columbus, Ohio that it didn’t necessarily mean no. Even the regulators in the room blasted them for that.
I don’t know where Congressman Butterfield stands on this issue now, but he introduced a bill on May 5th, 2009 called "Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2009". Our National Pest Management Association supported his bill claiming “that this “multi-faceted legislation provides critical resources to state and local officials to combat bed bug outbreaks in lodging facilities, residential housing and other settings.” They went on to say that “His legislation will grant state and local governments, in concert with the professional pest management industry, the necessary resources to more effectively and aggressively manage bed bug infestations.”
No doubt his intentions are good, but his solutions are inadequate. This bill would only foolishly waste fifty million dollars a year, create unnecessary regulations and layers of bureaucracy and do nothing to kill bed bugs, so I wrote an article called, The Butterfield Bill: Activity as a Substitute for Accomplishment, Part II.
The fact that government people believe in more bills and regulations, and more bureaucracy doesn’t surprise me…it disappoints me but doesn’t surprise me….that is who that are and what they do. What I find surprising…and disturbing… is the response from so many in the pest control industry. Bed bug work is probably the most profitable thing the pest control industry has ever experienced in my 30 years in the industry, and there are those who believe that things should continue just as they are.
Of those in pest control doing bed bug work we are divided into two camps; those who want things to stay the same because of the income it generates and those who believe they should fight for effective, inexpensive chemistry that is available to the public and simple to use because it is the right thing to do for society, even if that means returning old technology that works.
Do we think we are going backward in progress if we resort to old technology if that old technology works versus new technology that is failing the nation? When the new technology doesn’t work, or doesn’t work well, should we cling to it with a religious passion because it’s modern and new while refusing to use what works simply because it’s old?
Today we have a plethora of techniques and tools that can get rid of bed bugs. We have dry heat, steam heat, hand removal, traps, dusting techniques and procedures, vacuum cleaners designed for pest control and some chemistry that is only partially effective; and this is what makes the whole procedure partially effective. It is true that dry heat will kill everything in a building, but the expense is out of the reach of most Americans and there is no way of preventing a re-infestation with this program. We are in much the same situation as we were in thirty years ago with cockroaches. Not having the right chemistry was failing the nation, so we went back to the future and used boric acid. Bed bugs are spreading rapidly over the nation because current bed bug procedures aren't working for the nation, and for the same reason; we don’t have the right chemistry available.
Our job is more than a job. It is a mission. We are part of the public health service (whether they like to admit it or not) that stands between society and disaster. We are part of that thin gray line that stands on the wall and says, “no one will harm you on my watch”. If we are to succeed in our mission to protect society we must be effective in our treatments! If that means going back to old technology, then that is what we must do. It isn’t our job to be progressive, whatever that may mean, it our job to be effective!
There was a great old movie called “People Will Talk” with Cary Grant portraying a character called Dr. Noah Praetorius. He followed a relatively simple personal philosophy regarding medical treatments for the sick and suffering; “I’m in favor of using whatever makes sick people well”. One of his colleagues had him brought up before a faculty board to answer charges about his qualifications as a doctor. Dr. Praetorius answered one question my simply saying "I made sick people well”.
We need to properly define this issue. It isn’t about science, it isn’t about money; it’s about results, and it is a moral issue. By ridding properties of pest infestations we make sick buildings healthy, and I don’t care what we have to use to do it. I am prepared to use anything that makes sick buildings well! I am more than willing to go back to the future if that’s what’s necessary.
The answer to bed bugs in 1946 was effective, inexpensive chemistry that was available to everyone. If that isn’t the answer in 2010, 2011, 2012, etc. then there will be no answer.
See The American Dream Didn’t Include Bed Bugs. Part I: The Problem
See The American Dream Didn’t Include Bed Bugs. Part II: The Consequences
In recent months the bed bug issue has reached headline proportions on the national scene. National television news networks have featured the story, magazines have highlighted the problem nationally and newspapers have focused on local infestations that seem to be out of control and growing. We, the pest control industry, have known this day was coming for some time, and in point of fact I know one old timer who ominously stated over ten years ago that bed bugs would be among the first vermin to reappear as a national plague.
As this national plague of bed bugs continues to grow I find that I am more and more surprised at the reactions of so many. Especially those in the bureaucracies, government and most importantly in pest control. I intend to explore all of the views from each group. I think you will find this examination interesting and frustrating.
My views however are somewhat straightforward. We need effective chemistry that is inexpensive, available to the public and easy to use if we are to rid the nation of this plague. That was the answer in 1946 and that will have to be the answer in 2010 or 2011 or 2102 or there will be no answer.
In April 2009 the EPA held a bed bug summit inviting people from all over the nation to try to work out some kind of solution to this problem. I couldn't help but chuckle and shake my head at the thought of those who are directly responsible for this plague of bedbugs now wanting to find a solution through this big public relations fest. What better way to deflect attention away from the real perpetrators of this mess, themselves. P.T. Barnum would have been truly impressed with this. At the end of it all they came up with these solutions which I outlined in an article, “Bedbug Summit: Activity As a Substitute For Accomplishment”.
There were 34 suggestions that would expand the bureaucracy at every level of government, expand training and licensure requirements and potentially mandate Integrated Pest Management. There were 15 for expanded public information and who should be doing it, 10 for grant money for the professional grant chasers, 5 that would shift the blame, and 9 that actual had some worth, however….. No one blamed EPA.”
At no time did they focus on the issue of effective chemistry that is inexpensive, available to the public. Of all the suggestions at this meeting there were only two that discussed the need for old chemistry that was no longer available.
Recently there was another bed bug “forum” called the Congressional Bedbug Forum, hosted by Reps. G.K. Butterfield, D-North Carolina, and Don Young, R-Alaska.at the capitol. What did they learn? “They are virtually unstoppable,” Dr. Michael Potter, a bedbug expert from the University of Kentucky, told an auditorium full of people concerned about the resurgent tiny bloodsucker.” Didn’t everyone there already know this?
I know Mike personally and he is one of the nation’s lead researchers, if not the leading researcher in bed bug control, and has been magnificent in his efforts to tell EPA, elected officials and bureaucrats, other researchers and anyone else that will listen that the real answer is effective chemistry. Mike was also very supportive of Ohio’s request for a section 18 exemption to use propoxur, which EPA turned down. Although the answer clearly was no they claimed at a conference in Columbus, Ohio that it didn’t necessarily mean no. Even the regulators in the room blasted them for that.
I don’t know where Congressman Butterfield stands on this issue now, but he introduced a bill on May 5th, 2009 called "Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2009". Our National Pest Management Association supported his bill claiming “that this “multi-faceted legislation provides critical resources to state and local officials to combat bed bug outbreaks in lodging facilities, residential housing and other settings.” They went on to say that “His legislation will grant state and local governments, in concert with the professional pest management industry, the necessary resources to more effectively and aggressively manage bed bug infestations.”
No doubt his intentions are good, but his solutions are inadequate. This bill would only foolishly waste fifty million dollars a year, create unnecessary regulations and layers of bureaucracy and do nothing to kill bed bugs, so I wrote an article called, The Butterfield Bill: Activity as a Substitute for Accomplishment, Part II.
The fact that government people believe in more bills and regulations, and more bureaucracy doesn’t surprise me…it disappoints me but doesn’t surprise me….that is who that are and what they do. What I find surprising…and disturbing… is the response from so many in the pest control industry. Bed bug work is probably the most profitable thing the pest control industry has ever experienced in my 30 years in the industry, and there are those who believe that things should continue just as they are.
Of those in pest control doing bed bug work we are divided into two camps; those who want things to stay the same because of the income it generates and those who believe they should fight for effective, inexpensive chemistry that is available to the public and simple to use because it is the right thing to do for society, even if that means returning old technology that works.
Do we think we are going backward in progress if we resort to old technology if that old technology works versus new technology that is failing the nation? When the new technology doesn’t work, or doesn’t work well, should we cling to it with a religious passion because it’s modern and new while refusing to use what works simply because it’s old?
Today we have a plethora of techniques and tools that can get rid of bed bugs. We have dry heat, steam heat, hand removal, traps, dusting techniques and procedures, vacuum cleaners designed for pest control and some chemistry that is only partially effective; and this is what makes the whole procedure partially effective. It is true that dry heat will kill everything in a building, but the expense is out of the reach of most Americans and there is no way of preventing a re-infestation with this program. We are in much the same situation as we were in thirty years ago with cockroaches. Not having the right chemistry was failing the nation, so we went back to the future and used boric acid. Bed bugs are spreading rapidly over the nation because current bed bug procedures aren't working for the nation, and for the same reason; we don’t have the right chemistry available.
Our job is more than a job. It is a mission. We are part of the public health service (whether they like to admit it or not) that stands between society and disaster. We are part of that thin gray line that stands on the wall and says, “no one will harm you on my watch”. If we are to succeed in our mission to protect society we must be effective in our treatments! If that means going back to old technology, then that is what we must do. It isn’t our job to be progressive, whatever that may mean, it our job to be effective!
There was a great old movie called “People Will Talk” with Cary Grant portraying a character called Dr. Noah Praetorius. He followed a relatively simple personal philosophy regarding medical treatments for the sick and suffering; “I’m in favor of using whatever makes sick people well”. One of his colleagues had him brought up before a faculty board to answer charges about his qualifications as a doctor. Dr. Praetorius answered one question my simply saying "I made sick people well”.
We need to properly define this issue. It isn’t about science, it isn’t about money; it’s about results, and it is a moral issue. By ridding properties of pest infestations we make sick buildings healthy, and I don’t care what we have to use to do it. I am prepared to use anything that makes sick buildings well! I am more than willing to go back to the future if that’s what’s necessary.
The answer to bed bugs in 1946 was effective, inexpensive chemistry that was available to everyone. If that isn’t the answer in 2010, 2011, 2012, etc. then there will be no answer.
See The American Dream Didn’t Include Bed Bugs. Part I: The Problem
See The American Dream Didn’t Include Bed Bugs. Part II: The Consequences
By Rich Kozlovich Friday, December 10, 2010
Many years ago I became friends with guy who was a manager of a chicken sandwich restaurant. This account was part of a very large franchise business with quality people as their owners and managers. I never met one who wasn’t pleasant and well mannered. I mention this to give impetus to what I am about to say. A number of us were sitting in his dining room one morning having coffee, and solving the world’s problems, when I made some cogent observation that impressed him. He said to me; “Wow, that’s pretty good for a bug man”! In turn I said, “Yeah; if I was any smarter I’d be a restaurateur”. Was he deliberately being insulting? No, we were friends; he just let slip his view of what I did for a living. Not necessarily me, but my profession.
It is unfortunate that people have such a low view of exterminators and I often wonder where this comes from. In Ohio a number of years ago they wanted to give teachers tests to see if they really were qualified to be teachers. I told one teacher at one of my accounts that I didn’t understand why they were so upset; after all, this test was geared to fifth graders. I went on to say that we (exterminators) had to study, take tests and then take continuing education classes in order to be allowed to continue to do our work. She snorted and said; “That’s ridiculous! You could take anyone and tell them to mix this with that and then have them spray it around”. In other words….any stupid person could do what you do! I thought this was particularly ironic because the Vice Principal thought she was an idiot.
Well, maybe I am an idiot, because I just realized that Blogger has a “Stats” section. I found out that my site has been hit over 20,000 times since July. For some reason they claim that the months May and June have had no hits. I also found it interesting where these hits are coming from. Most of the hits naturally come from the United States, but Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have hit my site quite a lot. I also have had hits from Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brazil, Columbia, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, South Korea and quite a few from Russia. I wish to thank you all for your interest in my blog.
Not bad….for a bug man! If I was any smarter I would be a _______ Oh well, you fill in the blank.
The audience and number of hits were upgraded on 12/24/10, and I will upgrade the audience regularly…mostly because that fascinates me. It is clear to see from the hit locations where poverty, tyranny or both exist. RK
Many years ago I became friends with guy who was a manager of a chicken sandwich restaurant. This account was part of a very large franchise business with quality people as their owners and managers. I never met one who wasn’t pleasant and well mannered. I mention this to give impetus to what I am about to say. A number of us were sitting in his dining room one morning having coffee, and solving the world’s problems, when I made some cogent observation that impressed him. He said to me; “Wow, that’s pretty good for a bug man”! In turn I said, “Yeah; if I was any smarter I’d be a restaurateur”. Was he deliberately being insulting? No, we were friends; he just let slip his view of what I did for a living. Not necessarily me, but my profession.
It is unfortunate that people have such a low view of exterminators and I often wonder where this comes from. In Ohio a number of years ago they wanted to give teachers tests to see if they really were qualified to be teachers. I told one teacher at one of my accounts that I didn’t understand why they were so upset; after all, this test was geared to fifth graders. I went on to say that we (exterminators) had to study, take tests and then take continuing education classes in order to be allowed to continue to do our work. She snorted and said; “That’s ridiculous! You could take anyone and tell them to mix this with that and then have them spray it around”. In other words….any stupid person could do what you do! I thought this was particularly ironic because the Vice Principal thought she was an idiot.
Well, maybe I am an idiot, because I just realized that Blogger has a “Stats” section. I found out that my site has been hit over 20,000 times since July. For some reason they claim that the months May and June have had no hits. I also found it interesting where these hits are coming from. Most of the hits naturally come from the United States, but Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have hit my site quite a lot. I also have had hits from Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brazil, Columbia, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, South Korea and quite a few from Russia. I wish to thank you all for your interest in my blog.
Not bad….for a bug man! If I was any smarter I would be a _______ Oh well, you fill in the blank.
The audience and number of hits were upgraded on 12/24/10, and I will upgrade the audience regularly…mostly because that fascinates me. It is clear to see from the hit locations where poverty, tyranny or both exist. RK
No comments:
Post a Comment