The death toll is mounting.

Cameraman’s Response to Dr. Rutledge Drinking DDT

Advertisements

10 responses

  1. The last guy to get famous from drinking DDT died from what could be described as classic DDT poisoning symptoms. Dr. Gordon Edwards used to drink it before his increasingly disoriented rants against environmentalists, in college lectures and other appearances.

    A few days after having been pronounced perfectly fit, he died when mountain climbing, the sort of exertion that pulls DDT out of fat and poisons animals. This is the classic way DDT kills bats and migrating birds. Everything seems fine, until there’s some fat-burning exertion.

    Figures. First Taylor swallowed the poisoned Kool-Aid, then he swallows DDT.

    December 24, 2010 at 1:28 am

    • XPD

      Oh gee, You are sooooooo smart! Could it be that the man who ate a tablespoon of DDT before every lecture for 40 years, and died while climbing a mountain….AT 84 YEARS OLD!……possibly just died of old age???

      Who do you work for Ed? The EPA?

      The reason DDT is banned, is because it is too effective and too cheap to produce. The chemical companies can’t make enough money off of DDT.

      The fledgling EPA needed a culprit in the 1960s, they found it in DDT. Rachel Carson’s book is full of mis-information and (whether she knew it or not at the time) outright lies!

      XPD (Environmental Protection Specialist)

      November 29, 2011 at 8:50 am

      • Sure, it’s possible Gordon Edwards died of old age. Unlikely, considering his physical a few days earlier, but possible. No more possible than his dying of DDT poisoning. It is a poison, you know.
        http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/suicide-attempt-with-ddt/

        It’s impossible that a man over the age of 40, taking a teaspoon a day of DDT (and Edwards didn’t take that much) would suffer the sorts of damage that DDT is famous for, in infants and pre-pubescents, and in fetuses. It’s impossible that Edwards’ ingestion of DDT could establish DDT as safe.

        No, I’ve never worked for the EPA.

        You could look at the history books, and the law books. DDT was not banned for being too effective. Malcolm Gladwell explained in his profile of super-mosquito fighter Fred Soper that by 1965 WHO had discovered large populations of malaria-carrying mosquitoes in Africa that were resistant or immune to DDT. DDT was increasingly less effective in fighting malaria. The 9,000+ pages of testimony at EPA determined that DDT is an uncontrollable poison in the wild, and that it bioaccumulates in ecosystems to kill off the top predators. That’s why DDT use on crops was banned in the U.S. in 1972.

        DDT was not “too cheap to produce,” especially with modern concerns for pollution control. In fact, the U.S. is spending tens of millions to control leftover pollution.

        DDT was never banned in Africa, so we know that its effectiveness and cost had nothing to do with a ban there — there never was a ban.

        DDT is still produced today in China, North Korea, and India. In India, the world’s leading DDT producer, it’s made by private companies, for a profit. So we know it’s not too cheap nor too expensive to produce.

        EPA refused to move against DDT until instructed to do so by two separate federal courts. Claiming EPA was looking for bogeyman only indicates you don’t know the history. Both courts had ordered a complete ban on even production of DDT, stayed only on the promise from EPA that it would analyze the stuff as required by the pesticides laws. EPA’s first attempt was deemed too friendly to DDT producers, and the agency was ordered to do it again. Ruckelshaus’s final order banned DDT use ONLY on agricultural crops, and left DDT production, so companies could export the stuff. EPA was not looking for a culprit, nor did they treat DDT and its manufacturers like a culprit.

        Rachel Carson’s book has more than 50 pages of citations to science papers. Chemical companies spent $500,000 in public relations to claim the book was inaccurate — a massive sum in 1962. President Kennedy asked the President’s Science Advisory Council (PSAC) to check the book out. The review panel included two Nobel winners, and the best entomologists and pesticides scientists the nation had. They reported, on May 15, 1963, that Carson got everything right.

        Who to believe, you or some of the most distinguished scientists in the nation? I’ll choose to give credence to PSAC.

        You claim she erred? I’ll call your bluff. Tell us what error she made, on what page of the book. We’ll look to see.

        Your turn. Show us.

        May 2, 2012 at 10:24 pm

  2. Answer1

    Ed – when was the last time you wrote factual information? This kind of raving, gives environmentalists a bad name. DDT, as used for indoor residual spraying, is not in the least harmful to man or the environment.

    January 2, 2011 at 1:19 am

  3. At least a hundred times since the last time anyone involved with this movie got a fact right.

    DDT used for indoor residual spraying poses less risk than outdoor use — and has never been stopped as Rutledge Taylor claims, and is increasingly ineffective, contrary to Rutledge Taylor’s claims.

    U.S. EPA banned spraying DDT on cotton fields in Texas. Rutledge Taylor claims that ban caused an increase in malaria, but malaria cases have consistently declined since that ban.

    Don’t lecture me about accuracy until you find some for yourself, okay?

    Can you pinpoint any inaccuracy in my last post?

    When do you start writing factual information?

    January 3, 2011 at 12:36 am

    • Answer1

      Now that you mention it – how about “The last guy to get famous from drinking DDT died from what could be described as classic DDT poisoning symptoms”? Is this fact or fiction? I put it to you this is fiction. Where is the factual basis for this statement?

      January 4, 2011 at 12:05 am

  4. Gordon Edwards famously took at least a teaspoonful of DDT before each lecture.

    DDT concentrates in fat tissues — it’s not soluble in water, as you know. Consequently, the ornithologists and other observers of zoology say, DDT tends to kill migratory creatures in the midst of migration. A non-predatory bird gets a load of DDT that is stored in its fat. No fatal dose on any given day — but then, when the bird migrates, say across the Gulf of Mexico like a hummingbird would, the fat is burned. The DDT comes out, forms a dose significantly higher than the bird can tolerate — it has a heart attack and falls from the skies.

    Bat experts say this is the same way DDT kills bats, especially the Mexican free-tail.

    Gordon Edwards visited his cardiologist, the week before, I’ve been told by other DDT advocates. Clean bill of health. Heart especially strong. No history of heart trouble.

    He went mountain climbing. Sudden heart attack.

    You can look it up.

    January 4, 2011 at 3:14 am

  5. Answer 1 — can you tell us now when you or Taylor will start writing factual stuff?

    January 4, 2011 at 10:47 pm

  6. Answer1

    @Ed. So, now you’re claiming that ingesting DDT causes heart attacks in humans, and the peer reviewed science to prove this is….Where?

    February 1, 2011 at 11:37 pm

  7. You could look up the research — call Rutledge Taylor. He claims to have it all.

    Generally DDT kills by poisoning the brain, one hypothesis holds. Creatures can live for years without well functioning brains, though — see Ken Ham or any other creationist, for example. Necropsies are not foolproof, but the animals poisoned by DDT, mostly flying creatures like birds and bats, simply fall out of the air dead. Heart attack, though there may be an intermediate path through the brain.

    Confess, now — you didn’t even bother to read the link on the bats, did you.

    Is there any peer reviewed study that claims DDT doesn’t cause heart attacks? No. Any peer reviewed study that says DDT isn’t poisonous? No. Any peer-reviewed study that says DDT doesn’t kill birds through three or four different paths and devastates especially any creature in the top trophic levels of an ecosystem? Well, no, all the research says exactly that.

    So, if you’re going to ignore all peer-reviewed research on DDT on every other possible issue, what’s your sudden interest in real research?

    February 2, 2011 at 12:22 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s