Ticks & Paralysis?

July 31, 2003

I can't elaborate on this cause i only caught the tail end of the report, but it was on the news tonight about some little girls suffering from partial paralysis due to tick bites in the southern NJ area.

Lyme disease just wasn't enough huh, now they're paralyzing us!

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

38.2k · July 31, 2003

Babeiosis (spelling?) can also cause this. All the more reason to use a good repellent.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

3.8k · August 1, 2003

make sure to study www.lyme.org

~robert

1.2k · August 1, 2003

The Star Ledger story can be found at nj.com - State issues new tick warning.

August 1, 2003

What this country needs is a good dose of DDT every couple of years. Seriously.

~Rich in NEPA~

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

August 1, 2003

I have a friend who's cat was bitten by what was described as a "paralysis tick" and slowly lost motor function. Not a pleasant thing. Wear Long Pants!

August 1, 2003

What's a good tick repellant? I'm not really keen on the idea of putting a chemical on my skin that may give me cancer a few years down the road but I'm open to suggestions.

August 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:
What this country needs is a good dose of _DDT_ every couple of years. Seriously.

Interesting: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55843,00.html

Rethinking DDT

Thursday, June 20, 2002

By Steven Milloy

June 30, 1972 is a date that lives in junk science infamy. That’s when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the insecticide DDT. The ban survives 30 years later, even as it has helped kill millions of people, mostly children.

Widespread DDT use began in the U.S. in 1945 to control mosquitoes and cotton, soybean and peanut pests. DDT’s efficacy and low-cost were - and remain - unsurpassed.

Rachel Carson inflamed the public against DDT with her book "Silent Spring." She claimed DDT harmed bird reproduction and caused cancer. But Carson misrepresented the then-existing science on bird reproduction and was dead wrong about DDT causing cancer.

Carson wrote "Dr. [James] DeWitt's now classic experiments [show] that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched."

DeWitt's 1956 article in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry actually yielded a very different conclusion.

DeWitt reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT. Carson omitted mentioning DeWitt's report that DDT-fed pheasants hatched about 50 percent more eggs than "control" pheasants.

Carson predicted a cancer epidemic that could hit "practically 100 percent" of the human population. This prediction never materialized, no doubt because it was based on a 1961 epidemic of liver cancer in middle-aged rainbow trout - an outbreak later attributed to aflatoxin, a toxic by-product of certain fungi.

Activists blamed DDT for the disappearance of great birds such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon. Supposedly, the insecticide harmed bird reproduction by thinning egg shells.

But the bald eagle and peregrine falcon were hunted to near extinction decades before DDT was first used in the U.S.

Many human and environmental stressors can contribute to thin egg shells. Laboratory experiments purporting to link DDT with egg shell thinning involved massive doses of the chemical, far in excess of what occurred in the wild.

Moreover, bald eagle and falcon populations were already rebounding during the peak years of DDT use - thanks to laws limiting their hunting.

Still, anti-DDT activism led to hearings before an EPA administrative law judge during 1971-72.

After seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony, the judge concluded "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

Despite the exculpatory ruling, then-EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT anyway.

Ruckelshaus never attended the hearings, didn’t read the transcript and refused to release the materials used to make his decision. He even rebuffed a U.S. Department of Agriculture effort to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming they were just "internal memos."

This wasn’t surprising given Ruckleshaus’ bias.

Ruckleshaus belonged to the Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group formed by the National Audubon Society to lobby for its agenda without endangering the Society’s tax-exempt status. That agenda included lobbying against DDT.

After the ban, Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on personal stationery that read, "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."

Another telling part of the DDT saga was unveiled during a lawsuit by scientists claiming the National Audubon Society and the New York Times defamed them as "paid liars" about DDT. Depositions revealed EDF and National Audubon Society leaders plotted to "silence" and discredit scientists who defended DDT.

DDT use has virtually disappeared. Many countries blindly followed the U.S. ban or succumbed to activist pressure. Activists recently succeeded in pushing a virtual world-wide ban in the form of a United Nations’ treaty signed by the Bush administration, but not yet ratified by the Senate. The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) treaty would permit DDT use only through expensive bureaucratic processes designed to dissuade rather than encourage use.

The activists have done nothing, however, about malaria-causing mosquitoes.

U.S. Government malaria experts wrote recently in the journal Emerging and Infectious Diseases, "Today, DDT is still needed for malaria control. If the pressure to abandon this effective insecticide continues,... millions of additional malaria cases worldwide [will result].... We are now facing the unprecedented event of eliminating, without meaningful debate, the most cost-effective chemical we have for the prevention of malaria. The health of hundreds of millions of persons in malaria-endemic countries should be given greater consideration before proceeding further with the present course of action."

Rachel Carson has been canonized by environmental activists. Ruckleshaus has had a successful business career and advised presidential candidate George W. Bush. The EDF and National Audubon Society raise millions of dollars annually.

They built their "success" on junk science and the bodies of third world children. They are what’s infamous, not DDT.

August 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zhanna:

quote:
Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:
What this country needs is a good dose of _DDT_ every couple of years. Seriously.

Interesting: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55843,00.html

_Rethinking DDT_

Thursday, June 20, 2002

By Steven Milloy

June 30, 1972 is a date that lives in junk science infamy. That’s when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned the insecticide DDT. The ban survives 30 years later, even as it has helped kill millions of people, mostly children.

Widespread DDT use began in the U.S. in 1945 to control mosquitoes and cotton, soybean and peanut pests. DDT’s efficacy and low-cost were - and remain - unsurpassed.

Rachel Carson inflamed the public against DDT with her book "Silent Spring." She claimed DDT harmed bird reproduction and caused cancer. But Carson misrepresented the then-existing science on bird reproduction and was dead wrong about DDT causing cancer.

........

Rachel Carson has been canonized by environmental activists. Ruckleshaus has had a successful business career and advised presidential candidate George W. Bush. The EDF and National Audubon Society raise millions of dollars annually.

They built their "success" on junk science and the bodies of third world children. They are what’s infamous, not DDT.

And if you look long enough you'll find someone who claims that nuclear radiation is not harmful and will provide "proof" using junk science, all the while claiming that the rest of the world's viewpoint is based on junk science. Eco-nuts and anti-eco-nuts are just that, nuts. The truth lies somewhere between the extremes. The difficulty is having the wisdom to determine truth from fanaticism.

Buzz_Lightfoot

Pike County, PA

3.8k · August 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lerch:
What's a good tick repellant? I'm not really keen on the idea of putting a chemical on my skin that may give me cancer a few years down the road but I'm open to suggestions.

no need to spray it on your skin, just get your clothes treated. I treat my hat and boots before going out, as well as my backpack. I use REPEL with 40% DEET.

~robert

Driver carries less than $20 cache.

August 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Buzz_Lightfoot:

Eco-nuts and anti-eco-nuts are just that, nuts. The truth lies somewhere between the extremes. The difficulty is having the wisdom to determine truth from fanaticism.

I don't disagree, and I'm sure than many of us, especially those who have studied the sciences, do have the wisdom to determine what is true. I wanted only to provide another viewpoint. Thanks for your input!

Zhanna

August 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Buzz_Lightfoot:
And if you look long enough you'll find someone who claims that nuclear radiation is not harmful and will provide "proof" using junk science, all the while claiming that the rest of the world's viewpoint is based on junk science. Eco-nuts and anti-eco-nuts are just that, nuts. The truth lies somewhere between the extremes. The difficulty is having the wisdom to determine truth from fanaticism.

Howdy, BL! You make it sound like reason and logic are nothing more than a matter of someone's opinion. Aristotle was the first philosopher to explain that a thing is what it is—that existence exists! That means it is possible to know what's true and what isn't. Either the Earth is flat or it isn't. The truth isn't "somewhere in between." It has been shown that low-level doses of radiation and of even highly toxic substances can have a beneficial, life-prolonging effect on living organisms, including humans. The term for this is "hormesis."

~Rich in NEPA~

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

August 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

quote:
Originally posted by Buzz_Lightfoot:
And if you look long enough you'll find someone who claims that nuclear radiation is not harmful and will provide "proof" using junk science, all the while claiming that the rest of the world's viewpoint is based on junk science. Eco-nuts and anti-eco-nuts are just that, nuts. The truth lies somewhere between the extremes. The difficulty is having the wisdom to determine truth from fanaticism.

Howdy, BL! You make it sound like reason and logic are nothing more than a matter of someone's opinion. Aristotle was the first philosopher to explain that a thing is what it is—that existence exists! That means it is possible to know what's true and what isn't. Either the Earth is flat or it isn't. The truth isn't "somewhere in between." It has been shown that low-level doses of radiation and of even highly toxic substances can have a beneficial, life-prolonging effect on living organisms, including humans. The term for this is "_http://www.discover.com/dec_02/featradiation.html_."

_~Rich in NEPA~_

__--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---__

Of course not. I was just being succinct. What I was commenting on, was the lunatic fring. Unfortunately, without going into tedious details perhaps I made it seem as if I was attacking all logic and reason.

I was reacting to the idiocity of the opinion of the person who Zhanna quoted. People like that who, by making outrageous claims to further their own agendas, disturb me. I fear the harm that they can do because they make their arguments sound so logicical to those who are easily swayed. That is the awful power of fanatics. The power that can lure people into a cult and convice them all to commit mass suicide, for example.

The Earth is flat, or it is not, is not a good example of what I was trying to convey. A woman is either pregnant or not, not somewhere in between. This too is a poor example. However, between the two extremes of people who say incecticide is completely harmless and those who say ALL incecticide should be banned, now THAT is what I am referring to and I stick by my statement that in this case, the truth and wisdom lies somewhere in between those two extreme viewpoints.

Take care,

Buzz_lightfoot

August 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zhanna:

quote:
Originally posted by Buzz_Lightfoot:

Eco-nuts and anti-eco-nuts are just that, nuts. The truth lies somewhere between the extremes. The difficulty is having the wisdom to determine truth from fanaticism.

I don't disagree, and I'm sure than many of us, especially those who have studied the sciences, do have the wisdom to determine what is true. I wanted only to provide another viewpoint. Thanks for your input!

Zhanna

Please don't think I was attacking you personally. I was just deeply disturbed by that person's opinion. I actually thought about it for a good day before posting a reply. I did not want to sound strident but wanted to take the time to express my dismay in a clear manner. I read Rachael Carson's "Silent Spring" in high school and it had a profound effect on me. Her book was the beginning of society's realization that we could not plunder and pollute forever and that we, as a species could destroy the planet. I remember the New York skyline in the 60's. The very air was GREY from all the auto exhaust. We're making good progress now because of the awakenings provided by people like Rachael Carson.

Now I'm not one who believes that all technology is evil. I'm no luddite. Neither can we just plunder and destroy at will. As I stated in my previous post, the true path lies somewhere in between.

Take care,

Buzz_Lightfoot

August 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Buzz_Lightfoot:

I was reacting to the idiocity of the opinion of the person who Zhanna quoted. People like that who, by making outrageous claims to further their own agendas, disturb me. I fear the harm that they can do because they make their arguments sound so logicical to those who are easily swayed. That is the awful power of fanatics. The power that can lure people into a cult and convice them all to commit mass suicide, for example.

The way I see it, BL, (and by your own definition above) it was Rachel Carson who was the lunatic fanatic who seduced millions of people into believing luridly false and misleading claims, and created a worldwide cult following which in effect has committed mass suicide and manslaughter (this topic did start out about the lives of children and others being inflicted with tick-borne diseases, right?). By appealing to raw emotions and relying on the spread of panic and unjustified fears over some (highly dubious) global catastrophe, she (along with her "followers") succeeded in banning the use of DDT and indirectly sacrificed the lives of untold numbers of human beings for the sake of fishes, birds, animals, and "the planet." The sad part is that most of them never knew they were being sacrificed, understood why, or that it was done under the guise of a noble cause! (I suppose you can thank our modern anti-reason, socially progressive, politically correct, government-controlled, tenth rate education system for that.) It's the exact the same method that the mankind-hating eco-freaks of today are applying to a new generation of "believers" with their gloom-and-doom "Global Warming" prophecies. (Oh, and weren't these the same people who 10 years earlier were forecasting total global annihilation due to a coming ice age?!) I happen to agree with Steve Milloy's well-reasoned arguments for the elimination, or at least the temporary suspension of the ban on DDT. Lyme Disease is real, deadly, and it's spreading. I suggest that people think about this carefully the next time they are outdoors trying to enjoy "nature" and have to remove a disease-ridden tick from theirs or their child's flesh.

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

August 4, 2003

quote:
It's the exact the same method that the mankind-hating eco-freaks of today are applying to a new generation of "believers" with their gloom-and-doom "Global Warming" prophecies.

Wow, are you on President Bush's Environmental Commission? I guess we should start producing chlorofluorocarbons again because the Ozone hole is a bunch of crock too. Besides, excessive ultravilot rays are healthy for you!

I think the point at the beginning of this thread is validated. There really are eco-nuts, and anti-eco-nuts; the truth REALLY is somewhere in between.

August 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mxyzptlk:
I guess we should start producing chlorofluorocarbons again because the Ozone hole is a bunch of crock too.

Oh, absolutely!!!

quote:
There really are eco-nuts, and anti-eco-nuts; the truth REALLY is somewhere in between.

Let me add that the environmental-wackos have, at the very least, taken a clear stand, which I consider to be a greater virtue and a more admirable position than being a cowardly, noncommittal, middle-of-the-road "agnostic" about the issues.

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

August 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:
The way I see it, BL, (and by your own definition above) it was Rachel Carson who was the lunatic fanatic who seduced millions of people into believing luridly false and misleading claims, and created a worldwide cult following which __in effect__ has committed mass suicide and manslaughter (this topic did start out about the lives of children and others being inflicted with tick-borne diseases, right?). By appealing to raw emotions and relying on the spread of panic and unjustified fears over some (highly dubious) global catastrophe, she (along with her "followers") succeeded in banning the use of DDT and indirectly sacrificed the lives of untold numbers of human beings for the sake of fishes, birds, animals, and "the planet." The sad part is that most of them never knew they were being sacrificed, understood why, or that it was done under the guise of a noble cause! (I suppose you can thank our modern anti-reason, socially progressive, politically correct, government-controlled, tenth rate education system for that.) It's the exact the same method that the mankind-hating eco-freaks of today are applying to a new generation of "believers" with their gloom-and-doom "Global Warming" prophecies. (Oh, and weren't these the same people who 10 years earlier were forecasting total global annihilation due to a coming ice age?!) I happen to agree with Steve Milloy's well-reasoned arguments for the elimination, or at least the temporary suspension of the ban on DDT. Lyme Disease is real, deadly, and it's spreading. I suggest that people think about this carefully the next time they are outdoors trying to enjoy "nature" and have to remove a disease-ridden tick from theirs or their child's flesh.

Cheers ...

_~Rich in NEPA~_

__--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---__

Yes, she WAS on the edge. As is steve. An alternative can be found to the resumption of the use of DDT. It is a non-specific killer. Yes, it killed insects, yes, stopping its use has had some negative effects but what about the effects of using a general poison on the environment? A poison that kills not only the insects that it targeted but many other species as well? You could kill off ticks with a neutron bomb as well but to what purpose if all other life is eliminated in the process? Remember how Lake Erie used to be dead? Let's not take steps backward towards the world that allowed that to happen. Lets look forward and find an answer that a) eliminates or at least reduces the danger posed by insects that carry dangerous diseases such as lyme diease and west nile virus and is not a cure that is worse than the disease. I have confidence that such an answer can be found. Call me an optimist. Having lived through the cold war, bomb shelters and air raid drills in my school and fallout shelters in the backyard, I can honestly say things are better today. Yes, perhaps someone on that infamous lunatic-fringe may yet set off an A-bomb and trigger WW III. I hope for something better for the future.

Take care,

Buzz Lightfoot

August 4, 2003

For another view on pesticides and DDT from Duke University, click the link below.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/pestindex.html

I bought an invisible fence for my invisible dog.

Buzz Lightfoot

Pike County, PA

Ticks & Paralysis?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation