Environmentalism: A History of Unintended Consequences

Originally published June 17th, 2007.

in 1874 and then shelved it. Sixty-five years later, in 1939, Dr. Paul Müller made it on his own and found that it was very effective at killing some insects. He patented it in the United States, England and Switzerland. He later won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on DDT.

Environmentalism has been around for a long time. Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to emphasize conservationism. Since then, the environmental movement has gained a lot of followers, and a lot of power.

The chemical was a God-send. Merck & Company produced 500 gallons in 1943 and delivered it to Italy to squash the typhus epidemic. It was being spread by lice. Also in 1943, the U.S. Army started issuing 10 percent DDT dust to its soldiers. This was to fight head, body and crab lice.

And I have to wonder: How can such a large number of well meaning citizens get something so wrong, so often? Environmentalists keep plugging away at the American people, telling them to stop using this or stop doing that, because in one way or another, they are damaging the planet. In 1955, a “Global Malaria Eradication Campaign” was started by the Eighth World Health Assembly. DDT was a major component of this campaign. It was used to limit the mosquito population. By 1967, DDT, used in conjunction with anti-malarial medication, nearly eradicated malaria from all the developed countries where it Looking back, you see a list of actions and trail of tragic, unintended consequences. In 1970, the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research Take DDT. Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) was made for no reason. German chemist Othmar Zeidler put it together way back in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy said: was endemic.

In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable. Then entered the environmentalists.

Several claims were made against DDT. The book Silent Spring said it cause liver cancer. Our Stolen Future said it caused breast cancer. However, science said it didn’t. In 1985, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said: No correlation at the population level can be demonstrated between exposures to DDT and the incidence of cancer at any site. It is concluded that DDT has had no significant impact on human cancer patterns and is unlikely to be an important carcinogen for man at previous exposure levels, within the statistical limitations of the data. And according to the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, primates that were given 33,000 times the estimated human exposure in 1969 and 1972 was : “inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.” Wallpaper advertisement from a mid-1940s “Woman's Home Companion.” Hotels in New York would love to have this today. Bedbugs have become an epidemic.

Environmentalists also said DDT thinned the egg shells of birds exposed to the chemical. Again, science says different. Experiments done with doses far higher than birds would experience in the wild showed no conclusive evidence of thinned shells. Ironically, a 1969 study done by the Journal of Wildlife Management, showed that “shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet…”

it banned?

According to the October 5, 1969 issue of the Seattle Times, The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their power. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level

Environmentalists blamed the population decline of the bald eagle on DDT also. Ignored was the fact that bald eagles were reportedly close to extinction in 1921. They also ignored the over $100,00 in bounties the state of Alaska paid for bald eagles. And finally, every dead bald eagle found between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was reviewed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists. DDT was not found to be the cause of death.

of authority they have never had before.. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.” The Environmental Defense Fund was against the use of DDT. And the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the time, William Ruckelshaus, was a member of the EDF. Ruckelshaus, the man who finally banned DDT 1972, wrote letters requesting donations for the EDF on his personal stationary.

Actually, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists had captive bald eagles they were feeding DDT. They fed them the chemical for 112 days. The results? “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs.” But before being an advocate of prohibiting DDT, Ruckelshaus was a fan. On August 31, 1970, Ruckelshaus was an assistant attorney general. In a U.S. Court of Appeals, he said: “DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, DDT was also blamed for the decline of other birds, but with similar scientific findings. Why then was the chemical a target, and why was does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT

are unproven speculation.” Judge Edmund Sweeney was the EPA hearing examiner for lengthy, comprehensive hearings on DDT from 1971-1972. He found that “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.”

But the egg shells there are in great shape.


At the same time they are organizing the eventual deaths of 100,000,000 people, these brainiacs hatched another great plan. It seems there was an excess of tires in the 50s and 60s. These piles of tires were fire hazards and eye sores, but what are you going to do with them all?

Although he did not attend an hour of the seven months worth of hearings, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus overruled Judge Sweeney and put DDT out of action in 1972. Ruckelshaus aides said he did not even read the transcripts from the hearings. He refused to release the evidence he used to justify his actions and told the USDA, when they tried to get the materials through the Freedom of Information Act, that they were “internal memos.”

Easy. You dump them in the ocean.

In the spring of 1972, hundreds of eager environmentalists climbed aboard hundreds of boats filled with tires and made their way to a point off the coast of Florida. There, the Goodyear Blimps dropped a golden tire into the ocean. It was the first of a million or more tires dumped there. That golden tire was a symbol of the glorious future this artificial reef was suppose to secure. There would be no recycling of tires. They would just be used to create habitats in the ocean for all our aquatic friends. According to a county report at the time, the tire reef would be “A potential grouper haven” But, there were some unintended consequences.

The banning of DDT has had some terrible unintended consequences. The median WHO estimate there are no 300 million to 500 million cases of malaria each year globally. That adds up to close to 14 billion cases since DDT was banned in 1972. Out of those, nearly 100 million have died. In Africa, it is estimated that a child dies from malaria every thirty seconds.

Today, there is no artificial reef. Instead, there is 35 acres of ocean floor covered by radials. And they are killing the natural reefs. The tires roll around under water, subject to the natural movement of the ocean. They roll into the reefs and damage them. Close to two million tires are now playing wrecking ball to the reefs. And the government gets to pay for the clean-up. That translates to: you and I get to pay for the clean up.

consumed and less dependance on foreign oil. Environmentalists claimed that this would improve air quality also.

But, there were some unintended consequences.

To meet this requirement, manufacturers have to make cars that get very high gas mileage. To get those averages, the cars have to be small and light. According to a 1999 USA TODAY analysis of crash data and estimates from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, about 46,000 people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had been traveling in bigger, heavier cars. This is from the creation of the standards in 1975 to 1999. I have not been able to find any newer studies. So, for every mile per gallon gained, the standard has killed 7,700 people. *** At least the air is cleaner, right? Not so much.

Coastal America, described in the Washington Post as “a partnership of federal agencies, state and local governments and private groups” is trying to get military salvage teams to use tire retrieval as training. It is expect to take three years and to cost $3 million to $5 million dollars. So plan on spending at least five years and $10 million to clean up this environmentalist environmental disaster.

In 1975, the Congress felt they had to do something in response to the 1973 oil embargo. So, the enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. The idea here is that car manufacturers have to have an an average fuel economy for all the cars it produces. A higher mile per gallon average would then lead to less gasoline According to a 1992 report from the National Research Council (NRC) in a 1992 report on automobile fuel economy, “Fuel economy improvements will not directly affect vehicle emissions.” The report also suggests that because of the increased usage of plastics and

composites, we are looking at a new set of environmental concerns.

Food prices in America are up also. International Monetary Fund says the price of food increased by 10% in 2006, mainly due to the increased price of corn, wheat and soybeans. Corn is a major part of the diet for cattle, chicken and hog farmers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the supply of food produce in America will fall by one billion pounds this year. The main reason for this is the high price of feed. Generally, the food supply increases by 2% a year.

But at least we are less dependent of foreign oil.


Now the environmentalists are telling us that biofuels are the savior of the planet. Ethanol is being subsidized by the government and ethanol plants are springing up in the Midwest. But what happens when we start using corn for gas instead of food? There are some unintended consequences. And ethanol isn’t really a good solution to begin with. According to ABC News: …emissions from ethanol-fueled cars are no cleaner for the environment. According to atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, a switch to Mexico has seen the price of corn tortillas triple and quadruple in some places, leading President Felipe Calderón to limit the price on tortillas. While that may sound like no big deal, you need to understand that Mexicans get 40% of their protein from tortillas. It is a very important part of the Mexican diet. Amanda Gálvez, a National Autonomous University of Mexico nutrition expert, claims that because of tortillas, Mexican children have a very low incidence of rickets, a bone disease caused by calcium deficiency that is common in developing countries. ethanol won’t do anything to address climate change and ethanol fumes may actually be worse for public health than the fumes from gas-powered vehicles. Emissions from ethanol-fueled cars contain more of the carcinogenic chemicals formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, Jacobson said, and the vehicles will also boost atmospheric levels of ozone, a major component of smog, which will weaken people’s immune systems and cause lung damage.

According to the same minds that brought us these horrifying dangers to humanity and equally, if not more, horrifying solutions, the greatest threat to humanity now is global warming. I cannot see how we can trust the environmental movement with yet another Chicken Little global issue, let alone turn the problem solving responsibilities over to them. The earth may be warming, but so are Neptune and Mars. The ice sheets are melting…and are revealing silver mines and Viking farms. There is even doubt that CO2, the villain of this story, is even the culprit. The Sun may have a hand in this.

The truth is that the environmentalists are using the same tactics they have always won with: smear anyone who disagrees with them and get the politicians in their pockets. Pardon me if I doubt the current call to tax carbon, join Kyoto or drive a Prius. I think I’ll take my chances inhaling DDT.

International Welfare Hurts More than Helps
Originally published July 10 , 2007 Zimbabwe used to be called the breadbasket of Southern Africa. Now, citizens say it has gone from “breadbasket to basket case.” At one time, Zimbabwe exported its surplus food. Now food is so scarce people resort to eating rats and mice.

to native Zimbabweans “disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the grounds of his or her race.” Recently, as many as 216 business owners have been arrested for not complying with national price controls, forcing business to sell their products at a loss. Gas stations have stopped selling gas. It is only available on the black market, but at five times the cost. It seems they plan to do the same thing to business that they did with farming.

The United Nations estimates at least four million people in Zimbabwe will need food aid within the next year. That is a third of This lack of food can be traced to a decision in 2000 by Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe. President Mugabe seized farm land owned by white farmers and declared it would be redistributed to black residents. It went to his sycophants instead. White farmers were beaten and dozens killed because of the farmland redistribution program. Thousands of farmers left the country completely. Most of the land once used to feed the country sits empty. No one farms it now. Zimbabwe’s ambassador to the United States, Machivenyika Mapuranga says the redistribution program is “the greatest thing to ever happen to Zimbabwe.” He says that field mice are a delicacy in Zimbabwe. At the end of last month, legislation was introduced that would mandate a 51% stake in all publicly traded companies be transferred In 2005, President Mugabe defied a European Union travel ban and flew to Rome. An Italian official was quoted as saying “Of course we don’t want him here, but we had no choice. International law says he has the right to attend U.N. summits.” Mugabe was not only the total population. While the common man in Zimbabwe deals with an 80% unemployment rate, a 10,000% inflation rate and a yearly salary holding steady at Z$200,000 (around $818 US dollars), the elite ruling class drive around in “shiny Mercedes and BMWs.” It is Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” on the Dark Continent. And your tax dollars help to finance it, and more.

going to attend, he was invited to speak. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization invited Mugabe to speak at a summit on world hunger. He used the opportunity to blast President George Bush and then Prime Minister Tony Blair. He referred to the duo as “the two unholy men of our millennium” and as “international terrorists.” Tony Hall, the U.S. ambassador to the conference in Rome noted that since 2002, just a little over three years, the U.S. alone had donated almost $300 million in food aid to Zimbabwe, or $100,000,000 a year in food aid to a country that used to feed itself.

In 1998, a World Bank statement titled “Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why” declared: While the former Zaire’s Mobuto Sese Seko was reportedly amassing one of the world’s largest personal fortunes, decades of large-scale foreign assistance left not a trace of progress. Zaire’s (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) is just one of several examples where a steady flow of aid ignored, if not encouraged, incompetence, corruption, and misguided policies. This was in a official report calling for an increase in funding The U.S. is the largest donor to the World Bank, accounting for “about 16 percent of the World Bank’s total shares.” It has no control over who the bank loans money to.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) estimated in 2003 that 15% of Zimbabwe’s GDP comes from international aid. Mugabe takes that aid and uses it to reward his cronies and punish his enemies. In October 2002, the International Crisis Group stated the Mugabe regime was “blatantly using food as a political weapon against opposition supporters.” We responded with $200 million more in food aid. That is food you helped to buy and he used to increase his power. Worse yet, in 2006, Tony Blair, George Bush and other G8 leaders called for doubling aid to African nations. The corruption is not exclusive to Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo claims that African nations have lost $140 billion to looting in four decades.

William Easterly, a former senior World Bank economist, noted in his book on the failure of foreign aid, pointed out that the World Bank and IMF gave 21 loans to the Kenyan government headed by Daniel Arap Moi. This was when Moi was “running his nation's economy into the ground and enriching cronies. His current government even includes a cabinet minister who was accused by an independent inquiry of having ordered the murder of another cabinet minister who was a reformer.”

And do I need to mention the millions in aid America has given to North Korea?

believe he would approve of hundreds of millions to men like Robert Mugabe. Nor should we.

Foreign aid is nothing more than an international welfare program. It does not foster radical reforms or positive progress. Foreign aid gives dictators the ability to reward cronies, punish enemies and embezzle millions into nice, fat retirement accounts in Sweden. It gives them the ability to continue repressing the country the foreign aid is supposed help. It props up corrupt governments. And you and I get to pick up the check.

It is time to end foreign aid.

Foreign aid also goes against the Constitution. There is no basis for it in any way. Rep. Ron Paul nailed it when he said: “Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an unconstitutional burden on America’s working families, but this yearly attempt to buy friends and influence foreign governments is counterproductive and actually results in less goodwill toward the United States overseas.” James Madison, the father of the Constitution, refused to give federal money to individual states in for roads and canals. I can’t

I Have a Right to Affordable Health Care… and a Sig Sauer P229
Originally published on July 25th, 2007. This was my one and only use of footnotes. Complete waste of time. Links are easier and more useful.

yours. You are born with it. They “are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered.”2

Jefferson continues: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” Notice the wording. It was deliberate. “That to secure these rights…” He did not right that “Governments are instituted among Men to provide these rights.”

“I…believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can’t take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right.- Barack Obama 1

Let me put it in context. The Bill of Rights gives you a right to a free press, yet you still pay for a newspaper and Fox News. It gives you a right to choose your own religion, but you have to buy your own Bible. You have a right to bear arms, but have to buy your own gun. According to the Second Amendment, I have a right to a SIG SAUER P229, “the handgun of choice for the FBI, the DEA and the Secret Service…”3 But, I don’t have the right to have the government force someone else to pay. It means the government cannot prevent my acquisition of that beautiful weapon.

He’s right. Every American does have a right to affordable health care. Every American has a right to a lot of things.

The problem is the Democrat’s definition of what a right means.

The federal government does play a role when it comes to rights, but only one. They are there to protect them.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that men were born with certain “inalienable rights.” An inalienable right is

The Democratic candidates for president all think it is the government’s responsibility to provide each citizen with affordable health care. It is not. It is the government’s responsibility to keep your right to affordable health care secure. It is there to make sure nothing impedes your quest, and if something does, to utterly destroy it, then get out of your way as you go about your annual checkup.

treatments have been defended for their action by the Health Secretary. Patricia Hewitt says it is a perfectly legitimate clinical decision for primary care trusts (PCT) to set a collective policy to deny operations to certain patients.5 Do you think it will be different here?

They are not there to provide affordable health care by seizing the property of one to pay for another’s abortion or gastric bypass. They are not there to compel doctors to provide services at a rate lower than they want to charge. They are not there to tell you what treatments you can try and which ones you can’t. Americans need to understand that. Once you allow government into your examination room, you will lose all choice in your treatment.

In Canada, you might not get treatment if you are old. The government doesn’t have a problem with that either. “[Dr.] Nesdoly’s position may be justified by a 2005 Statistics Canada Community Health Survey, which found that 95.2 per cent of people over 65 already have a family doctor, compared to 75.7 per cent for those between 20 to 34. And the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons does not restrict a doctor’s right to reject a person based on age.”6 You can’t really choose another doctor there either. There just aren’t any. Canada is expected to have a shortage of more than 2,800 physicians by 2010.7 Why would you expect the results to be any different here?

In Great Britain, there are drugs the National Health Service will not provide, even though they are safe and effective. 4 Some simply cost too much. If you are fat or smoke, you may not be given health care when you need it: “Certain hospitals in the UK who have imposed a ban on smokers and the obese from receiving particular

As with most anything, more government involvement in health care is the opposite of effective. The government has only one role when it comes to health care: protect our right to choose the best health care available. They are not here to provide health care to me simply because I have a right to it.

If that is the case, I want my government to provide my Sig Sauer P229…with a full magazine, of course. —————————————————–
1 2

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights


4 5 6

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukdrugswont.html http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24508

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060317/d octor_age_060317/20060317?hub=CTVNewsAt11


Understanding Partial Birth Abortion
Originally published on August 29, 2007.

leg. The baby is then pulled from the uterus, leaving only the head still inside the woman’s body. A pair of scissors is then jammed into the base of the baby’s head and opened, creating access to the brain. A vacuum tube is then inserted into the hole and the brain is removed, causing the head to collapse upon itself.

I was talking to a liberal friend of mine and the topic turned to abortion. He, being a pro-choice advocate, said he thought a woman had a right to an abortion. I asked him about partial birth abortions. He said again a woman has a right to choose. I then asked him to describe a partial birth abortion. He had no answer.

A few things to note concerning this procedure that I feel are important if one is going to have an informed opinion.

Dr. Martin Haskell first used the term dilation and extraction. He: I asked myself later, “How many more people out there support the idea in ignorance?” So, I wrote this article about it so those who parrot the pro-abortion talking points can try to defend this atrocity with full understanding of where they stand. I will skip the history and terminology and focus mainly on the procedure itself. According to Dr. Haskell, in a tape recorded interview with the Partial birth abortions, also known as intact dilation and extraction, are late term abortions. There is debate on what constitutes “late term,” but it is generally assumed to be after the 20th week, or five months. In this procedure, the female’s cervix is fully dilated. Then the abortionist locates the baby by using an ultrasound machine. Forceps are then inserted into the female and used to grab the baby’s Brenda Pratt Shafer is a registered nurse who worked for Dr. Martin Haskell. She was pro-choice when she took this job and thought she American Medical Associations official journal, American Medical news, “…the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.” admitted in 1992 of having ‘routinely’ and ‘easily’ performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions himself, and that 80% of them are for purely elective [whimsical] reasons, such a depression or vomiting of the mother.

could handle working there. She witnessed Dr. Haskell perform partial birth abortions. Ms. Shafer testified to The U.S. House of Representative subcommittee on the Constitution on March 21, 1996. She said the following: Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms– everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.

Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial birth abortions. He submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of over 2,000 partial birth abortions. Only about 175 cases, or 9%, involved health concerns in the mother, and most of those were depression.

The Los Angles Times reported in it August 28, 1996 edition that some of the medical reasons for this abortion were cleft palates, cystic hygroma, and cystic fibrosis. The conditions present in the mother’s that dictated abortion were “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting …”

The left is still fighting against the ban on partial birth abortion. It is important to understand what they are fighting for so you do not lend your support for something with which you disagree. It is also important to understand what you are fighting against, to be more motivated to defend the voiceless, unborn children. There is no reason for this practice to again become legal. It is nothing less than infanticide.