Chagas: Is tropical disease really the new AIDS?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
But does anybody know if DDT was the actual cause and not some sort of natural explanation? Anything I've found has been straight-up circumstantial.

Yes, it is generally accepted in the scientific world that DDT was a cause for the dramatic decline in Bald Eagles. There were other factors at play, as well, such as habitat loss and hunting. In Alaska, between 70,000-100,000 Bald Eagles were shot and killed from about 1920 - 1930. However, populations there stayed fairly stable through the years, while the lower 48's population dwindled to around 400 pairs by 1950. Why? Likely because DDT was much more widely used in the lower 48. Once DDT was banned, Bald Eagle populations increased to 100,000 by the 1980s and has been increasing ever since.
 
Yes, it is generally accepted in the scientific world that DDT was a cause for the dramatic decline in Bald Eagles. There were other factors at play, as well, such as habitat loss and hunting. In Alaska, between 70,000-100,000 Bald Eagles were shot and killed from about 1920 - 1930. However, populations there stayed fairly stable through the years, while the lower 48's population dwindled to around 400 pairs by 1950. Why? Likely because DDT was much more widely used in the lower 48. Once DDT was banned, Bald Eagle populations increased to 100,000 by the 1980s and has been increasing ever since.

This argument has a familiar ring to it (CO2 rises; temps rise; must be CO2 raising temps) and it is not science. It's just dogma driving conclusions. You can make that stuff up all day (and they do...)
 
Yes, it is generally accepted in the scientific world that DDT was a cause for the dramatic decline in Bald Eagles. There were other factors at play, as well, such as habitat loss and hunting. In Alaska, between 70,000-100,000 Bald Eagles were shot and killed from about 1920 - 1930. However, populations there stayed fairly stable through the years, while the lower 48's population dwindled to around 400 pairs by 1950. Why? Likely because DDT was much more widely used in the lower 48. Once DDT was banned, Bald Eagle populations increased to 100,000 by the 1980s and has been increasing ever since.

And you lose me right there. This kinda reminds me of when California was blaming manufacturing companies for beached animals that wound up dead as a result of natural conditions, not illegal dumping. So there's no proof then? Just assumptions?
 
How many times do I have to say it??? :cuss

Rachel Carson is the archetype for the movement. It started with her and DDT, and nothing has changed.
 
And you lose me right there. This kinda reminds me of when California was blaming manufacturing companies for beached animals that wound up dead as a result of natural conditions, not illegal dumping. So there's no proof then? Just assumptions?

Going from hundreds of thousands to less than 1,000 after the introduction of DDT is enough for me to see a correlation, though I guess not everyone feels that way.

How many times do I have to say it??? :cuss

Rachel Carson is the archetype for the movement. It started with her and DDT, and nothing has changed.

I realize she spearheaded the campaign, but otherwise I'm sorry, I just don't buy the explanation that nothing has changed one bit. :dunno
 
Going from hundreds of thousands to less than 1,000 after the introduction of DDT is enough for me to see a correlation, though I guess not everyone feels that way.

So basically what you're saying is, nobody has ever been able to provide any proof of the claims? Not even a single scientific study correlating with a study of natural events to determine that this weird phenomena was caused by DDT and not something natural?
 
The more, the merrier...

73695588.33qwiKAN.Wolf1178APCS.jpg
 
Back
Top