If some Kansans are enthusiastic about the Kansas Energy Council’s proposal to lower the state’s maximum highway speed limit from 70 to 65 mph, they seem to be keeping it to themselves. At a Wichita hearing last week on the council’s 15 policy recommendations, speakers argued for personal freedom and against lowering the speed limit – which “would be like in the 1850s Kansas passing a law that said you couldn’t gallop a horse,” as Wichitan Terry Morris so colorfully put it. Even if the lower speed limit is a nonstarter in these fast-paced times, Kansans should weigh in through Friday on the council’s other ideas to promote alternative energy and pursue fewer carbon emissions.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- dtrabert on Too many exemptions
108 Comments
Inflate your tires properly…
The number one best way to reduce oil imports from the middle east and saving American lives is CONSERVATION of ENERGY RESOURCES. Among the ways to conserve oil is to reduce the speed limit to 60 mph or even back to the old 55 mph. Former disgraced President Richard M. Nixon might eventually be hailed as a great President for that one decision alone.
Those who cry to keep the 70 mph speed limit or greater are part of the “me” crowd who think of themselves first.
I admit I grew up in an era here in Kansas with a speed limit of “safe and prudent,” basically an unenforcable speed limit. In the 1950’s my work crew drove from Meade to Pratt,Kansas, in a new Oldsmobile, a distance of 100 miles in one hour, waving at the highway patrolmen we passed on that sunny Friday PM. But in those days, it looked like oil resources would last forever.
When the speed limit was 55, almost everybody exceeded it. Everybody used either a CB radio or a radar detector, or both. Undoubtedly, driving slower saves gas (and lives). But how do you convince drivers to slow down especially when you consider the distances we have to drive to get anywhere in Kansas?
“XXX” –
Yeah, we all broke the 55 mph speed limit.
But that meant most of us were driving 60, and that reduced fuel consumption.
I suspect a similar speed limit might be more effective these days now that most cars have cruise control.
Back in the days of a 55 limit, someone wrote a piece in the Eagle about just how much time one saves by driving 70 mph instead of 55. I don’t remember the specifics, but it was something like the 70-mph-driver shows up 15 minutes earlier than the 55-mph-driver. BFD.
I suppose most of us can wean ourselves from our inner Steve McQueen and drive a little slower.
How make drivers slow and drive the speed limit? Double the fined ASAP and hire more traffic enforcement State Troopers. Building more lanes encourages faster driving thus making traffic enforcement ever more difficult.
Driving fast and reckless is personal freedom? What a stupid concept. Driving fast and reckless infringes on others personal freedom and safety thus putting their lives at risk.
Driving fast and consuming more gas also endangers the supply of clean air which affects the health of many with respiratory problems = higher health care costs.
There are many states on I-70 with reduced speed limits such as 55-60mph for 18 wheelers and 60-65 for all other vehicles. These speed limits are obviously enforced which is indicated by 18 wheelers staying in the right hand lanes. Enforcement works. We travel to the east frequently.
Instead of more highway lanes for faster driving I say increase the number of state troopers as traffic enforcement to issue tickets for tailgating and violating speed limits.Building more lanes encourages faster driving thus making traffic enforcement ever more difficult.
“would be like in the 1850s Kansas passing a law that said you couldn’t gallop a horse”
Show ignorance of history. There were very few people in Kansas in the 1850’s other than native American local tribes.
But I digress.
WHAT horse galloped at 70 mph?
Look I understand the burning desire to move through and out of Kansas as quickly as possible. Well unless you are going north or south anyway. But a lousy five miles per hour cut back is not some sort of assault on personal liberty. The fuel saved is considerable. It SHOULD be mandated.
Thankfully, I’m past the age of driving at break-neck speed and a 60-65 mph speed limit doesn’t bother me. I drive 18 miles to work and I generally drive about 55 mph.
I drive on I-135 and K 15. Doesn’t it just lock your jaws when someone passes you swerving in and out of traffic obviously running 80 mph or more? There’s never a cop around when you need them. Traffic could be better controlled on the local freeways.
I would hear it at least three times a week, I would stop someone for speeding and the driver would look at me and say. “Why aren’t you out catching real criminals instead of harassing honest citizens!”. My reply was simple and generally did not receive a reply. “ I am sir, if you had not been committing a crime.
I would not have stopped you”.
Yes during the 55 miles an hour speed limit it seemed to take forever to go very far. I have relatives in Oklahoma and the trip seem to take all day to cover the 230 miles. Monkeyhawk is correct, drive the speed limit on any four lane highway and get passed like you are driving 25 MPH.
Being conservative is not an easy road to hold, at times it even goes against natural human nature.
Especially for a people use to being me first and comfortable.
And thank you Regular for the helpful tip on tires, it is good to see you are on board to saving the environment and fuel.
BlueJay
Posted October 5, 2008 at 8:54 am | Permalink
But a lousy five miles per hour cut back is not some sort of assault on personal liberty.
================================================================
It’s the INCREMENTAL APPROACH used by Liberal Socialists that slowly take away Freedoms, inch by inch, so you don’t notice.
First go to 65. Then 55. Then gas rationing tickets. Then licensed to drive every other day only. Then what?
First ban magazines holding more then 10 bullets.
Then ban magazines holding more then 6 bullets.
Then ban semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Then what?
Then Government can do whatever it wants, with the People being disarmed and completely powerless.
Well why not reduce it to 45? Or maybe 40? I’m sure that would save more.
“It’s the INCREMENTAL APPROACH used by Liberal Socialists that slowly take away Freedoms, inch by inch, so you don’t notice”
Reactionary moron.
Hey how about NO speed limits. Not on the open road or in town. They ARE such an assault on the freedom of people to be selfish and reckless.
outlander
Posted October 5, 2008 at 9:01 am | Permalink
Well why not reduce it to 45? Or maybe 40? I’m sure that would save more.
===============================================================
Or 25 mph? There’s no limit to how Liberal Socialists will limit Freedom.
Inch by inch.
BlueJay
Posted October 5, 2008 at 9:07 am | Permalink
They ARE such an assault on the freedom of people to be selfish and reckless.
==============================================================
Doesn’t describe you at all now does it JR?
Selfish.
Reckless.
So generous aren’t you, with other people’s money, that is.
Hide under your bed “Max”.
Big bad BlueJay would like to see governors on cars to KEEP them from exceeding 65 mile per hour.
If ya wanna play Nascar, get a video game.
So BJ would like to make the rules.
And The People say:
F U
Society is not required to indulge your inner “Speed Racer” “Max”.
Get a monkey AND a video game.
Lower them? Hell, Kansas should RAISE the speed limit! Let us drive as fast as we can safely.
The more evil gas we burn, the sooner we run out the supply. The sooner prices hit $5 a gallon, the sooner people start conserving and buying fuel efficient vehicles which they CAN afford.
Let er rip!
And The People say:
F U
Max, people who can only afford to ride the public bus (or small bus), are not concerned with speed. They don’t like cars passing their slow bus.
Fun in traffic with BlueJay.
You’ve seen it. Or you’ve done it.
You are driving the speed limit and some yokel is gesturing, shouting, swerving and otherwise desperate to get around you. They finally get around you.
And then beat you…
to the stop light.
When that happens, I like to congratulate Roger Ramjet for his or her major accomplishment of beating me to a dead stop. They turn the most interesting shades of red and update my vocabulary with the most creative verbage!
That is a daily event here in Wichita. If you want to see how bad people drive get behind the wheel of an ambulance. My experience with that was about 30 yrs ago but I’m pretty sure things haven’t improved
It will take energy to create new speed limit signs.
It will take energy to drive up and down the highway and replace all of the speed limit signs.
If we slow commuters, some “connecting” flights or shipments will be missed. Some “day trips” will turn into “overnight trips” meaning more energy use.
Social engineering and political correctness caused the high gasoline prices.
Drill here, Drill NOW and we will be much better off.
It is not the goal of liberalism to make life better.
It is the goal of liberalism to control.
They sell their controls, claiming that they will make life better, but they routinely fail to deliver on any improvements.
Liberalism WANTED high gas prices, so liberalism would not let us produce our own oil.
Liberalism WANTED everyone to have a home mortgage, as well.
Liberalism does not work.
ah, at least one liberal here has admitted to getting his driver’s license suspended or restricted because of a DUI.
True, such has happened to many, but most who have such troubles, in the past, are humble enough to avoid judging others, today, for less serious traffic issues.
A sober person, at 70 MPH, will almost always be safer than a drunk, at any speed.
Try to avoid the preachy sermons, ok?
“Social engineering and political correctness caused the high gasoline prices.”
Well, there’s our daily dose of stupidity.
XXX
Prove me wrong.
Are you making a blanket statement against the rules of supply and demand?
Drill HERE, Drill NOW, Pay LESS!
Always gotta make sure your masters know that the blog knows just who and what you are there Franklin.
Franklin is a washed up Republican party functionary who has admitted that his posts here are on behalf of the agenda of the Republican party.
He is in essence, a Republican commercial. And his posts are taken no more seriously or credibly than that.
Energy and money saving tips with BlueJay.
Shut off your engine when you (as we often are here in Wichita) stopped at a railroad crossing. In those few to several minutes that your engine is idling, you are getting exactly zero miles per gallon.
“ah, at least one liberal here has admitted to getting his driver’s license suspended or restricted because of a DUI.”
Would you care to name that person and produce proof? Of course not. Because you posted a reactive, defensive, lie. It added nothing other than ad hominem partisan sniping and that was of course exactly your point. Shill.
BJ
It is a matter of record.
You know full well what and who I am talking about.
It was under a different nic, to be sure, but we all know who it was.
That person complained about his fine, about how hard it was for a “working man” to pay such fines.
I was trying to be nice, by not naming names, but I doubt that I am the only person who remembers those posts.
Again, liberals, stop passing judgement on others. Pull the log out of your own eye before you worry about the sawdust, in mine.
We’re seeing the absurd mindset of CONs from “MaxGrobnik” and “American_Way” on this thread.
“If we re-establish a 55 mph speed limit, the socialists will win!”
C’mon.
J R
Posted December 3, 2007 at 7:27 am | Permalink
One DUI and diversion 11 years ago.
Cop pulled me over because I was “driving too carefully”.
The state squeezed 6 or 7 thousand dollars outta me for that one.
This is an incredibly stupid thing to do making even one DUI an unforgivable. Don’t we have enough problems attracting teachers as it is? And are we to become a state of ol’ biddy church ladies?
J R
Posted December 3, 2007 at 10:31 am | Permalink
Question for the legal experts.
I paid a lot of money for diversion. Wouldn’t my diversion 11 years ago be grandfathered out of this? Not that I’d ever want the grief that teachers get. But I have paid for the right to have my record expunged. Do I still have it?
‘Cause if not, I want a refund.
J R
Posted December 3, 2007 at 10:46 am | Permalink
If there is ONE person who can honestly say they have NEVER had a drink and then driven?
I will BUY them a drink. They need it. That and some time outta the belfry.
J R
Posted December 3, 2007 at 11:11 am | Permalink
“There are circles out there, where people just don’t do that. Yes. Ever.”
Damn I’m glad I don’t move in those circles. What a small unfun better than everybody group THAT must be. Wheeee.
” They say there’s heaven for those who will wait.
Some say it’s better but I say it aint.
I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.
The sinners are much more fun.
And only the good die young!”
Billy Joel
The Kansas Energy council is there to make regulations in the name of Greenhouse gases. It’s about control as others say one step at a time. I don’t why they chose the speed limit part which very few want. There is no global warming that man can control. I have not seen the other 15 more items that the greenies has proposed. I wonder who has? Kansas can not save the world forget it. I have e-mail my representatives in opposition to the speed limit bad speed limit idea. I’m not ready to give over my keys and themostat.
NO!!!! I have a hard enough time keeping my speed under control at the present limits!!
Amazing how some people can turn EVERYTHING into a liberal vs con issue. Do you rerally think liberals drive drunk more than conservatives? I’d like to see some proof of that, Frank.
We will never stop global warming because humans as a whole would not be willing to do what it takes to reverse it. It would require much more than lowering speed limits and recycling plastics. The biggest thing we’d need to do is cut the world’s population by about 75%.
Mary
If you read the entire thread, you will see that someone IS, very clearly, lecturing the rest of us about driving.
It was not me.
The, I pointed out the hypocricy, WITHOUT nameing names.
Then, I was called names, by the hypocrite himself.
After being called a “liar” I had no choice but to back up what I had said, previously.
Banning DDT KILLED people.
DDT is now making a come-back, since NOTHING else works as well, in controlling mosquito born malaria, and smart people have started to change the laws again, to reflect some balance and sanity.
Likewise, the global warming fanatics will KILL people, in pursuit if their goals.
Heat in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, energy to produce and transport food and medicine, these things keep us alive.
Liberals want to restrict our very life-blood.
“Liberals want to restrict our very life-blood”.
No, “Liberals” want to find alternatives to fossel fuels. Only those with there blinders on (mostly cons) think there is only one way to skin a cat.
We can heat, cool, and transport anything we want without being totally dependant on oil to do it.
I’m sorry, but spraying DDT to kill mosquitos also killed people. I think you have to think outside the box once in a while to find solutions that do no harm.
#
Franklin
Posted October 5, 2008 at 11:34 am | Permalink
Banning DDT KILLED people.
DDT is now making a come-back, since NOTHING else works as well, in controlling mosquito born malaria, and smart people have started to change the laws again, to reflect some balance and sanity.
Likewise, the global warming fanatics will KILL people, in pursuit if their goals.
Heat in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, energy to produce and transport food and medicine, these things keep us alive.
Liberals want to restrict our very life-blood.
==================================================
EXACTLY, Franklin: We want everyone to live in caves, drink from a polluted stream, dine on road kill, and elect a non-American terrorist Muslim President, who will immediately make all women cover their bodies with sheets, make em walk three steps behind men, ban all Christian churches, schools, and meetings, and re-write the Constitution to reflect the true Taliban teachings in the Koran. Oh ya, he’ll make all non-believers wear tourniquets on their extremities to restrict their very own lifeblood (almost forgot that one).
Ya, I know: I’m an idiot, and you never tell a lie, so I figure we’re even.
Mary,
So when do you plan on buying some better vehicles for the environment?
You can’t say that you can’t afford it like others here do.
When were you planning on making your own home more energy efficient?
Do you run your AC during the summer?
Liberals are not the problem, Frank..those who do the same thing over and over expecting different results are the problem.
Mary,
Show me the proof that DDT killed people.
Mary_Caruso
Posted October 5, 2008 at 11:31 am | Permalink
The biggest thing we’d need to do is cut the world’s population by about 75%.
Mary_Caruso
Posted October 5, 2008 at 11:42 am | Permalink
I’m sorry, but spraying DDT to kill mosquitos also killed people. I think you have to think outside the box once in a while to find solutions that do no harm.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Mary
Wrong on the DDT issue.
Spraying interior house walls with DDT, in poor countries, is the MOST effective way to limit malaria.
NOTHING ELSE works as well.
DDT is relatively harmless, to humans.
Millios died, of Malaria, all over the world, after feel-good liberals, in the United States, banned DDT.
DDT is comming back, now that true science and the human cost caused by the environmental kooks has been realized.
Nathaniel…in case you haven’t noticed..like you seem to notice eveything about my house…we have an electric car in the garage right now. And in case you haven’t noticed, Dave and I are replacing our old windows with energy efficent ones…your father even helped us. I drive an fuel efficent car that has over 130,000 miles on it..when I get another car, it’ll be a hybrid or something else equally as efficent.
Dave has some great ideas about making our house more green…we’ve already seen a significant savings in our energy costs since we replaced the windows and insulated the walls better.
Dave is even selling his airplane in favor of an ultra-lite.
So what are you doing to lessen your demand on our resources?
AM, I’m not suggesting we kill people to get the population down…but the reality is the earth is overpopulated and that’s contributed the most to our global warming problems…and mother nature will eventually deal with us in her own way. We don’t have that much control over the outcome.
100 things you should know about DDT:
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
“”To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT… In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.”
[National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life Sciences; Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs; The World of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.]
There are many things we can do to kill mosquitos besides spraying with DDT.
Granted, in other countries with more tropical environments, it’s takes more to control the problem, but in the USA, we can use less drastic measures to keep the mosquito population down. It’s not all or nothing.
Mary
“most of our global warming problems”???
Even among those who say that man IS contributing to Global Warming, there are very few who claim that man is causing MOST of any such warming.
”To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT… In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.”
Maybe mosquitoes is nature’s way of keeping the world’s human population in check…you have to admit with all our technology, we’ve upset the balance of nature. If we’re going to prevent human death, then we also need to seriously prevent human runaway reproduction. Our survival depends on it.
Mary
EXACTLY!
“ALL OR NOTHING” as you put it, was the misguided policy of American Liberalism. The total ban on DDT killed millions of human beings.
Spraying DDT on farmers fields is one thing, spraying DDT on interior home walls is another.
DDT not only kills mosquitos, it also REPELS mosquitos.
Homes treated with even small doses of DDT are avoided by mosquitos. Nothing else works as well as DDT, in repelling mosquitos that carry malaria and kill people.
Mary_Caruso
Posted October 5, 2008 at 11:31 am | Permalink
We will never stop global warming because humans as a whole would not be willing to do what it takes to reverse it. It would require much more than lowering speed limits and recycling plastics. The biggest thing we’d need to do is cut the world’s population by about 75%.
==================================================================
Are you willing to go first Mary? Or are you advocating SOMEONE ELSE?
Since you don’t have a gun Mary, you’ll have to hang yourself, jump off a cliff, OD on pills, or a number of other things that thousands of people think up every year. You don’t need a gun for suicide you know.
Perhaps some combination of methods would ensure the desired results.
OD on some pills, tie a rope around a tree and your neck, then run off a cliff.
Many scientists state than man IS the cause of global warming.
Mary
Are you saying that death tolls should never be used, to judge the value of a policy?
Are you saying that all of the money we send, all over the world, to combat disease and poverty is wasted?
Are you saying that we should let people die, in order to “save the planet”?
Many “Greens” hate people and love the Earth, or, at least, they would love the Earth without people (other than themselves).
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted October 5, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
Many scientists state than man IS the cause of global warming.
———————
Except it’s not global and it’s not warming right now. :D
Mary
Your word, “most” is a bit over the top.
There is little evidence that man is causing “most” of any such warming.
Even many of the folks on your side of the argument will admit as much.
I’m not suggesting genocide, Max…just seriouslly cutting the birth rate..especially in third world countries where the overpopulation causes starving and disease.
I don’t think people should be coerced to kill themselves…but in your case, I’d make an exception.
Wow, I’m starting to sound like you!
I don’t think so Frank…the experts I’ve heard say it all began with the industrial revolution. And there is little doubt that overpopulation contributes a lot…just look at China.
It doesn’t matter anyway..the earth is warming dispite what we believe causes it, and man isn’[t going to turn it around in our lifetime even if we could.
I plan to enjoy what life I have left and not worry too much about the things I have no control over. You guys should do the same.
“Except it’s not global and it’s not warming right now. :D”
That’s where you’re wrong, Reg. I’ve seen it first hand in the coral reefs. They’ll all be gone in the very near future.
#
Mary_Caruso
Posted October 5, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
“Except it’s not global and it’s not warming right now. :D”
That’s where you’re wrong, Reg. I’ve seen it first hand in the coral reefs. They’ll all be gone in the very near future.
——————–
Coral reefs come and go. Scientists have found that the reefs are indeed affected by man, but not by global warming. It has more to do with beach erosion which clouds the water and prevents nutrients and flowing water reaching the coral.
There is also evidence that the trash and other things deposited by man affects that.
In isolated reefs where there are no men around, they show good health and prosper.
Mary_Caruso
Posted October 5, 2008 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
I’m not suggesting genocide, Max…just seriouslly cutting the birth rate..especially in third world countries where the overpopulation causes starving and disease.
===============================================================
So you’d support Communist China’s one child policy.
Wearing your obligatory Red today?
(See folks, they don’t want to stop at telling you how fast to drive!)
Free Abortions Mary?
Never mind, we already pay for those Free Baby Killings.
Maybe you’d prefer mandatory abortions? Or perhaps just get chastity belts installed on all babies who are allowed to live?
““ah, at least one liberal here has admitted to getting his driver’s license suspended or restricted because of a DUI.”
My license was not suspended or restricted.
So yes, once again, you lied. Just as I knew you would when I offered you the chance.
I know more about you now “Franklin”. I know that you are just as unpleasant a fellow in person as you are here.
Hey SOME truth in your posting anyway. Your lack of character comes through.
BJ
First off, where did I use your name, in the first quote you list? Where did I use any of your various nics?
I did not.
Now, I could make a reasable case, based on what you posted, that you DID get your license suspended or revoked or restricted, even if you claim otherwise.
The expense, that you list, seems excessive, since the City of Wichita web page lists far lower expenses. It sounds like your case was a bit more serious than average.
It is also OBVIOUS that you have no regrets, that you take no responsibility, and that you blame everyone but yourself, on the DUI issue, but that you think you can now tell the rest of us how to drive.
Nope, that is NOT working very well for you.
—Furthermore, I did say “at least one” — there are other lib posters here with DUI issues, not just you. Perhaps YOU got off with just diversion (unlikely with the expenses you list) and perhaps one of the other cases, I know about, had suspension, restriction or revocation issues?
You protest so much you make yourself look guilty.
Besides, you have not weakened my point, in the least: You have no moral standing to tell anyone else how to drive.
Go “laugh with the sinners” and shut up on this topic.
2008 City of Wichita Diversion Program:
“1. PAY ALL COSTS, FINES & FEES: (SEE LAST PARAGRAPH)
Fine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $500.00
Evaluation Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 150.00
Diversion Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 150.00
Wichita Intervention Program Fee . . . . . . . . . . 250.00
Application Fee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00
Court Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.00
TOTAL $1141.00
http://www.wichita.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F4AB018C-7E1A-4553-A0AA-00960534D42D/0/DUIDIVInfoandApp_092807.pdf
—–
BJ/JR’s cost, in 1995 dollars?
$7,000.00
Just try and shut me up beady eyes.
“—Furthermore, I did say “at least one” — there are other lib posters here with DUI issues,”
Let me get this right. You are trying to prove your lie against me.
At the same time suggesting that you were actually talking about someone else?
“Oh what a tangled web we weave…etc. etc, there Franklinpaulie!
Pall,
Yes, DDT killed mosquitos that carry malaria. It also killed off the birds that ate mosquitos that carry malaria. What part of vicious circle do you not understand?
BJ
How on Earth have you made yourself look better, in your eyes, on this thread?
You tell the rest of us how to drive.
Without naming names, I remind all lib posters that they should practice what they preach and “at least one” has DUI issues.
You call me a liar, directly.
I respond, directly, to your insult, and prove, beyond a shodow of a doubt, that you have such issues in your past.
Then, you try to parse words and say that I am not being honest, even though you spent $7000.00 in 1995 on a simple DUI that would only cost you $1,141.00 TODAY?
Now, don’t weasel out and say that was attorney’s fees.
You said “the State” charged you those expenses.
I on the other hand, would not DREAM of shutting you up.
If you didn’t exist Franklinpaulie we’d have to invent you as a characature of all things con.
Jed
You are wrong, on several counts.
There is NO proof that the proper use of DDT “kills birds” as you claim.
And, even if it did, are birds more important than human life?
Did you even try to read the DDT link I gave you, upthread?
DDT can be used in low concentrations, in the home, as a way to prevent mosquitos from landing on the wall, where they like to stay. Such DDT treatment can keep the mosquitos completely out of the house, with very low, very save, concentrations of DDT.
And Jed
Rachel Carson, in her book, “silent spring” did falsely claim that DDT was harming some birds.
She concentrated on Falcons and Eagles.
She was wrong, on those points.
However, even if she had been correct:
Falcons and Eagles DO NOT EAT MOSQUITOS!
Yeah Franklin paulie likes DDT so much.
Hell I’d buy him a big steaming cup of the stuff and help him drink it.
I’ll put my run ins with the law against yours any day there paulie.
I bet you are an angry motorist aren’t you Franklin?
MANY people are slowing down as they understand it saves them fuel and money. What are you gonna do? Ram them from behind to make them go faster?
Heh. Drive faster! Franklinpaulie says so.
JUST the sort of cretin I like to get in front of and then slow down.
DDT does kill mosquitos. It also kills other things. That is the reason it was banned. It interfered too much with the ecosystem.
No one can say what it will kill in foreign environments. No one really knows what the balance is in such environments. It could kill off many types of insects and birds, and could make a huge dent in that ecology. It could actually be more detrimental to humans, because of that, than Malaria is today.
I would like to see solid research (That’s solid research, Franklin, not opinion) on using it in Malaysia and other jungled countries, before I would agree that it could be beneficial.
Hey Jed?
Get yourself a throwaway email so we can get hold of you. We don’t want anyone left out of the loop.
We now return you to the Republican commercial that is Franklin.
Minimax,
The population of the world has doubled in my lifetime. It will double again in about 35 years, and again in less than 20 more and so on at our present rate of increase. That’s 48 Billion (with a “B”)mouths to feed, bodies to house, minds to educate, sewage treatment capacity to increase, not to mention find a job, a parking place and a cemetery lot for, all within the next 70 years. Do you want us to limit our growth or do you want nature to do it for us? Because that’s the choice we face. Nature’s methods are war, famine and pestilence. Wouldn’t you prefer birth control?
Rachel Carson was correct: DDT affected the eggs of both the Bald Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon. While they probably don’t eat Mosquitoes, they are at the top of the food chain, and eat many other creatures that eat Mosquitoes.
DDT is an organochlorine, and is highly persistent in the environment. In soil DDT is reported to have a half life between 2-15 years. Its metabolic products (DDE, DDD) accumulate through the food chain, with top level predators such as raptors having a higher systemic concentration of the chemicals than other animals sharing the same environment. DDE (dichloro-diphenyl-ethylene) is the most stable and toxic of the DDT metabolites.
Because raptors and especially peregrine falcons exist at the top of food chains, regular surveys of their population status can reveal threats to environmental health before they become hazards to human beings. The Predatory Bird Research Group continues to study the peregrine falcon and monitor its breeding status because we believe it is an important indicator of ecosystem health. Our longterm studies of the peregrine falcon population in California could be very important to future assessments of the natural environment and have value for predicting future threats to human health.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/ddt.htm
Pall,
“DDT can be used in low concentrations, in the home, as a way to prevent mosquitos from landing on the wall, where they like to stay. Such DDT treatment can keep the mosquitos completely out of the house, with very low, very save, concentrations of DDT.”
No, I didn’t read your propaganda link and probably won’t- I have too much else that needs to get done to waste time on your stupidity- but even if “safe” concentrations would work for a while, we didn’t use it that way before, and most likely wouldn’t again. Hey, there are almost twice as many people to use it now than when Rachel Carson wrote her book, and DDT adds up!
But then you’re convinced that Jesus and the cavalry will ride in at the last moment to save us from ourselves, so it doesn’t matter if we do nothing. Bye bye, Pall.
Myths and Facts about DDT
Donald E. Waite, DO, MPH
Dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane was first introduced for commercial use in the United States in 1947. It was the most effective of all of the synthetic insecticides, and the least costly to produce. As mentioned previously, it was widely used during World War II to control lice, and thus typhus, by dusting humans with a ten percent powder. It is poorly absorbed from the skin (unless formulated in petroleum distillates). In spite of many studies no evidence has emerged to date that any harmful effects resulted from this application to people. On the other hand our troops were spared the disease and pestilence that could reasonably have been expected. In Naples, Italy in January 1944, during a typhus epidemic, over one million civilians were dusted with ten percent DDT, and the incidence of the disease fell sharply. Subsequently thousands of troops and refugees were dusted to protect against typhus and other diseases. The results were dramatic, preventing any outbreak of typhus in these populations. In contrast thousands of cases of typhus occurred among soldiers in other theaters of the war and among persons in prison camps. Millions of people had been victims of typhus in previous wars.
There is no evidence of any fatal poisoning, or other adverse reaction, in humans from DDT in spite of such widespread and intimate application. In fact all recorded attempts at suicide where DDT was used failed. Workers at the Montrose Chemical Company absorbed 400 times as much DDT as the average American, but not a single case of cancer was reported.[1]
Virtually everyone who lived in that era, and indeed since, has demonstrable residues of DDT in the body fat tissues. Elimination from these stores is slow. The biologic half-life of DDT in cattle is 335 days. During the 1960s when DDT was widely used, levels of 5 ppm were found in human fat tissue. By the late 1960s, after the reduction in the application of DDT and the eventual ban, these levels were down to 2 ppm. By 1982 only trace levels were found in human adipose tissue.[2]
In spite of this evidence of widespread exposure and long-term storage, no adverse health effects have ever evolved. DDT was reported to cause liver tumors in laboratory animals (rats and mice) as early as 1947. Then a nationwide hysteria followed the publication of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring in 1962, in which she labeled DDT a dangerous chemical that might be causing cancer in humans. Experience and scientific studies have proven her wrong. Carson, who was a vegetarian, blamed DDT for her own breast cancer. She was wrong again. Carson resorted to the distortion of facts in her book in a campaign to condemn DDT.[3]
Many others took part in this conspiracy. In EPA testimony that was published in Science, Dr. Samuel Epstein reported that mice that were fed DDT developed cancer. He withheld the fact that the mice that were not fed DDT developed more cancers than those fed DDT (83 versus 68 in the DDT fed mice). In reality, long-term studies of large numbers of people have demonstrated no evidence that DDT caused cancer or otherwise shortened the lives of people exposed to it.[4] Extensive use of this pesticide worldwide ever since that time has failed to demonstrate any significant adverse effects in humans. DDT remains the safest and most effective pesticide ever developed.
Fish are very sensitive to the toxicity of DDT, as they are to most chemicals including soaps and detergents, and to temperature and pH. People who have tropical fish tanks are well aware of this sensitivity. Behavioral changes were among the most obvious evidence of accumulation of DDT in fish. Widespread publicity was given to claims in the 1960s that the survival of certain species of wild birds was threatened through the thinning of their eggshells. This was blamed on DDT. In reality, bird populations increased significantly after DDT was introduced.[5] It was later learned that studies that were done to prove eggshell thinning were fraudulent. The study birds were deliberately malnourished and calcium was withheld, conditions known to produce eggshell thinning.
When Bitman repeated this experiment (Nature 1969, 224:44; Science in 1970; and Poultry Science 1971, 50:657-659) with appropriate calcium in the bird’s diet there was no thinning of eggshells. Subsequent studies have also suggested that other industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have been widely used in electrical transformers, may have played a part in the observed eggshell thinning.[6] Furthermore the bald eagle had been on the verge of extinction in the 1920s long before DDT. Eagles were shot for bounties and for their feathers. An epidemic of Newcastle Disease (avian influenza) during this period also decimated some bird populations.
DDT, as well as chlordane, PCBs and PBBs, are all stored in the fatty tissues of fish and most animals including humans. The environmental zealots claimed that the higher up the food chain that these stores of chemicals were consumed, the greater would become the concentration stored in fat. They again turned to fraudulent studies to prove their claims, selecting only tissue samples that they knew would produce the desired result. In reality honest studies disproved their biomagnification claims.
On June 14, 1972 William Ruckelhaus, Administrator of the EPA, as a result of political pressure from environmental extremists, made a one man decision to ban the use of DDT in United States, a move that was illegal. He took this action ignoring 8,300 pages of testimony and the findings of the hearing examiner and most scientists and in the absence of any honest substantiating science. He subsequently refused to comply with requests made under the Freedom of Information Act and defied the National Environmental Policy Act by refusing to file an Environmental Impact Statement on the disastrous consequences of his decision. After he left the EPA Ruckelhaus affixed his name to letters soliciting membership in the Environmental Defense Fund, the organization that led the fight to ban DDT.[7]
The pesticides that replaced DDT, such as dieldrin and aldrin, are far more toxic, and have been responsible for many deaths. Because of the low cost of DDT and the absence of equally effective substitutes with low toxicity, it continued to be used internationally. When huts were sprayed with DDT only 3 percent as many mosquitoes entered as compared with the most widely used alternative.[8] This effectiveness lasted for six months or more, a feature not matched by alternative pesticides that cost three times as much.
Great pressure has been exerted on those countries to discontinue its use. In some countries such as Sri Lanka, spraying programs that had virtually eliminated malaria were terminated. As a consequence the number of cases of malaria in that country rose to 2.5 million in 1968 and 1969.[9] More than 100,000 people died as a result of malaria epidemics in Swaziland and Madagascar in the mid-1980s after house spraying with DDT was stopped. Since the early 1970s the UN and the WHO have blackmailed developing countries, through the withholding of financial aid, to force them to discontinue the use of DDT. The result has been an upsurge in the number of cases of malaria. The South African government has reported that the annual number of deaths from malaria there have risen from 20,000 to 350,000 since the ban on DDT. Malaria currently kills about two million people each year, and the number is rising.
DDT was used in Ethiopia in 1991 to control a major epidemic of louse-borne relapsing fever among the hundreds of thousands of soldiers in refugee camps.[10] As had been the case in World War II, it was highly effective in controlling the human body louse that transmits the Borrelia recurrentis of relapsing fever. Millions of lives have been saved by the control of mosquitoes, flies and lice that transmit such diseases as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, filariasis and plague. Many residents of West Africa were spared the ravages of river blindness (onchocerciasis) when DDT killed the insect vector (black fly) carrying the filaria for this disease. All of this progress is now threatened by UN politicians who are either totally ignorant of the facts or dedicated to population reduction.
________________________
This article is extracted from Donald E. Waite, Environmental Health Hazards: Recognition and Avoidance, Chapter XIV, “Hazards of Pesticides and Herbicides,” Columbus, OH: Environmental Health Consultants, 2002. Dr. Waite is emeritus professor of public health at Michigan State University, a consultant on environmental and public health, author of Your Environment, Your Health and You, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on chemicals, health and the environment. Reprinted with permission of the author.
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=89
econ posted October 5, 2008 at 11:57 am
Mary
“most of our global warming problems”???
Even among those who say that man IS contributing to Global Warming, there are very few who claim that man is causing MOST of any such warming.
———————-
Emphasized, to help the poor, reading-challenged econ.
SPM at
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.12″
This from they guy that thinks Adam and Eve had a pet Dinosaur.
http://www.onearth.org/article/bad-blood?page=2
“DDT proponents are generally reluctant to acknowledge the complicating and protean factor of mosquito resistance. …
DDT kills by attacking a mosquito’s nervous system. But in any given population, a random smattering of individuals will have a genetic mutation that renders them resistant to certain toxins. At first the number is insignificant, but over time it will grow until the only mosquitoes that continue to breed will be resistant ones.”
———–
More at link re Africa, health problems from use of DDT, etc.
I’ve already kicked your butt at least once before on this issue cosmos, you are just dead wrong once again.
August 9, 2007—NO EXCUSE FOR RESISTANCE
Angela Logomasini—Competitive Enterprise Institute
Anti-DDT activists in the environmental movement often suggest we should stop using this chemical to save people from malaria and other diseases because mosquitoes will eventually develop resistance to the substance. However, a study published in the journal PloS One explains why such arguments make no sense. The study demonstrates that in addition to still being the most affordable product, DDT is likely the most effective over the long term because it repels most mosquitoes—keeping them from ever entering homes. These effects are critical for a couple reasons. First, mosquitoes are most active in transmitting disease at night as people sleep, so keeping these insects out of homes can reduce disease rates significantly. Second, DDT’s repellency effects remain intact—even for mosquitoes that develop resistance to DDT’s toxic effects. Accordingly, while DDT might kill fewer mosquitoes as resistance develops, it still prevents most of them from entering homes in the first place. The other two alternatives did not provide repellency effects, and they are prone to resistance problems. Accordingly, once mosquitoes develop resistance to those products there is little to stop them from freely entering homes and transmitting disease. Hence, the authors note that that DDT offers the best chance of breaking the transmission cycle and controlling the disease. They urge others to consider the repellency benefits rather than toxicity alone before abandoning a very important tool in the battle against malaria and other serious illnesses.
Multi-nic’d,
I’ll let the readers decide who is more credible.
Angela Logomasini at a right-wing think(sic) tank,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Angela_Logomasini
or the multiple sources in my 2:24 pm post.
Also relevant,
‘Bad Chemistry’
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/06win/chem1.asp
“Hundreds of man-made chemicals — in our air, our water, and our food — could be damaging the most basic building blocks of human development. “
I’m sorry, but spraying DDT to kill mosquitos also killed people.
Mary, this time I have to (kind of) agree with Franklin. I heard a story on NPR a few years ago about DDT use in South Africa. It explains how it is being used there now and why. It’s definitely worth listening to.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1251569
cosmos_originally
Posted October 5, 2008 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
Multi-nic’d,
I’ll let the readers decide who is more credible.
Angela Logomasini at a right-wing think(sic) tank,
————
Okay, cosmos check out Predestined
Post at October 5, 2008 at 4:19 pm.
Would you rather people die from malaria just because of people like you with their “if’s and when’s?”
JM
The “solid research” is in.
Your side lost.
DDT is being used, again, in the 3rd world to control mosquitos.
Multi-nic’d Regular posted October 5, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Would you rather people die from malaria just because of people like you with their “if’s and when’s?”
—————-
Would you rather that infants die from diarrhea (contaminated water to make formula) when DDT reduces or stops their mother’s milk output?
If mult-nic’d had read my ‘Bad Blood’ link, he’d know that DDT isn’t the only solution — and that I have not argued that DDT should never be used.
“What’s been missing from this fight is long-term investment and a commitment by national authorities to programs that address the specific needs of affected communities. So, for now and the foreseeable future, DDT will continue to play some role as a front-line weapon in the malaria wars. But it is also a distraction. DDT won’t pave a watercourse or feed a child or provide a job, and at the end of the day, malaria is a development issue. How well we understand this may determine whether the current crusade produces merely one more spool for the newsreel, or — at long last — an epic denouement.”
So DDT & DUI’s has what to do with the thread again? Speaking of DUI’s seems like Mr Gabel the Republican Candidate for County Commission has quite the criminal portfolio. And if it was up to me after three you’d never drive again. and the jackass that killed the mom and kid should be put to death
Jed and JM
YOU LOST!
We ALREADY are using DDT, today, for the control of mosquitos in the home, in tropical areas.
Of course, millions of people had to die of malaria, first, before we got the rules changed.
Hey guys?
You lost. Franklin says so. The truth is whatever Franklinpaulie says it is.
OOPs that’s only in the world according to Franklin. Your real world experience may vary.
cosmos
Your post about resistence is NOT relevant at all!
The major advantage of DDT is its repellent quality.
Even mosquitos who are resistent to DDT don’t particularly like the stuff, and they stay away from huts and houses sprayed with DDT.
I see that BlueJay is once again following Franklin around sniffing his butt.
The world is changing Franklinpaulie.
Attitudes as to environmental stewardship and resource protection are trending positively.
In short? You are the past. Out of time. Obsolete.
The next generation will look at you like something that crawled out from under a rock.
Which, you pretty much did.
The point?
Those with DUI history should not tell ME how to drive.
Another point?
Environuts are often wrong. They were wrong about DDT.
I’ll just get in front of you in traffic and slow down Franklinpaulie.
You can read all my progressive bumper stickers back there. I save gas, you save gas.
Maybe not good for your blood pressure. But your health is not a major concern for me.
Those who think that lowering the speed limit saves gas or lives doesn’t know much about researching things before speaking about them. Lowering the speed limit does neither.
Is that so dontdie?
Care to show your work?
Show your work?
LOL
When have you EVER been burdened by evidence or facts, BJ?
Hey, I have an idea, why don’t we make burning the flag an enviromental crime!
How much CO2 did Obama friend and terrorist William Ayers release, when he was blowing up buildings?
Your spelling is failing again “Franklin”.
Is “dontdie” your next nic “Franklin”?
I’m sure we all remember your previous nics.
Many may even remember you posting under your real name.
I’m curious, is THIS you?
# Mike Says:
September 30th, 2004 at 10:45 am
Paul, I’d pass on this inquiry. Digging up family records is a bit over the top. Besides, I think we’ve (and by that I mean the RatherBiased.com guys) proven that CBS screwed the proverbial pooch on this one already.
# Paul Rosell Says:
September 30th, 2004 at 12:15 pm
Voter registration records are seriously NOT “over the top” — party affiliation records and voting history records are routine opposition research topics. I used to do it all the time in the Republican primaries in my state, when I was more active. The Press expects it, all but the most immature candidates expect it. We need to get it done. This is SOP in almost all political races. Cocco is no longer a private figure, she decided to be a PUBLIC Figure, she has no right to privacy, even as a non-public figure, where her party registration is concerned. She has even less “right to privacy” now that she has decided to become a “PUBLIC FIGURE” — I appreciate all of your work, but I am right on this. I have done this type of opp research in my state for years. It is expected.”
It sure SOUNDS like you Paul. Particularly in light of new information that has come to me.
And I’m just getting started.
Reducing the speed limit is only part of the plan proposed by the Kansas Energy Counsel. The other two parts, as it relates to speed, are to increase speeding fines by 50% and to lower the “buffer” from 10 mph to 5mph. The “buffer” is the speed in excess of the posted maximum that one can be cited for and NOT have it affect driving records and, more importantly, insurance premiums. These other two parts of the proposal indicate to me that the entire plan is being pushed by insurance companies and their desire to reduce risk and to increase their revenue. That is, slower speeds equal less damage and injury in accidents and, slower speeds and more tickets will result in more speeding charges on drivers records thus allowing for increased premiums. I wonder if those on the Kansas Energy Counsel have been lobbied or courted by any insurance companies? NO! NO! NO! to reducing the speed limits. Modern cars do just fine in terms of efficiency and safety at 70 mph! Don’t be fooled Kansans!
“Coral reefs come and go. Scientists have found that the reefs are indeed affected by man, but not by global warming. It has more to do with beach erosion which clouds the water and prevents nutrients and flowing water reaching the coral.
There is also evidence that the trash and other things deposited by man affects that.
In isolated reefs where there are no men around, they show good health and prosper.”
Wrong….the seas are warming and that’s not due to any of the reasons you suggest…I never even had to wear a wetsuit the whole time I was there…unlike when I was there only 5 years ago. I don’t dive in the populated areas either.
Lower the speed limit and up the enforcement. It works to saves lives, property and it lowers my insurance premiums. Why do you think it took so long to raise the speed limits after the mid-70’s fuel crisis was over? Highway fatalities were reduced so much, Congress couldn’t come up with a good argument to remove the federal speed limit caps. Finally, they caved in to arguments that advances in automotive engineering and highway engineering compensated for speed limit caps. Guess they were wrong about that, too. How many people died and how much property damage was done in Sedgwick County this past week compared to murders and property crimes. Find the numbers and you will see that law enforcement needs to dedicate more resources to traffic control in order to keep the communities safe.
Putting smaller, more fuel efficient engines in the vehicles is the answer, not lowering the speed limit. I was a teenager when the 55MPH limit was invoked in the early 70’s and here we are today, still putting gas guzzling V-8’s in our cars. A lower speed limit here in Kansas would hurt folks living outside the urban areas. I’d rather the cops crack down on all the dangerous folks multi-tasking while driving than setting speed traps.
Pall,
You sell health insurance, yet you fight for unlimited guns, air pollution and all sorts of poisons and environmental hazards. There’s a serious psychological disconnect here that you really need some help with. Use your insurance and go see a shrink! Please!
Actually, making all speeding violations for more than 5 mph over the limit a “moving violation” subject to reporting would likely do more (once the realization sets in) than any other single thing to reduce speeds, and thereby fuel consumption and fatalities and injuries, etc.
Back in the days of 55, I was driving 60 on K-42 daily and cars were still piling up behind me. Invariably some jackass would try to pass ten cars in a no-passing zone, and somebody would get run off the road. Sometimes me. I was even pulled over and given a ticket for obstructing traffic while exceeding the posted speed limit.
I’ll be glad to drive 55 or 65 if the rest of you jokers will. I wouldn’t mind saving a few bucks at the pumps, and there’s no place I have to be so soon that I’d risk my neck, and the necks of everybody else on that stretch of road, to get there 5 minutes sooner.