What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- SuperVepr308, on 10/15/2008, -18/+10Yay! I get to say it today: ***** the UN.
Thanks to the submitter for making this possible.- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/15/2008, -0/+5***** the UN
- coldkill3r, on 10/15/2008, -5/+7Nice to see that someone is doing something proactive.
- svendm, on 10/15/2008, -0/+7Well.. Most if not all of these chemicals are already banned in the western world. If not in the US, then in the EU at least. (and if not in the EU then at least in Scandinavia).
- mr2man07, on 10/15/2008, -1/+2And if not in Scandinavia then at least Connecticut, and if not in Connecticut, then at least a house.
- cybrguy, on 10/15/2008, -1/+1Keep in mind, some of these chemical bans have caused thousands of deaths in 3rd world countries where they cannot afford any alternative. Why do you think things like malaria went ballistic in 3rd world countries once we banned DDT?
International meddling in the past has done far more harm than good, so how is today different?
- svendm, on 10/15/2008, -0/+7Well.. Most if not all of these chemicals are already banned in the western world. If not in the US, then in the EU at least. (and if not in the EU then at least in Scandinavia).
- cyrusuncc, on 10/15/2008, -5/+12They need to add aspartame, sucralose, & saccharine to that list.
- serif69, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1Hey, sucralose is great. Works better than Ex-Lax. Tasty, too!
- jonnyeh, on 10/15/2008, -1/+1Why? There's no evidence that those are harmful, and there's been hundreds of studies.
- cyrusuncc, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1And there were plenty of studies that showed that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Hell, i don't care if people want to ingest the crap, but I wish the things were more clearly labeled. I hate checking each and every item I buy to make sure it's not in there. I guess that's why I shop at Earth Fare.
http://www.earthfare.com/cgi-bin/customize?philoso ...
- cyrusuncc, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1And there were plenty of studies that showed that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Hell, i don't care if people want to ingest the crap, but I wish the things were more clearly labeled. I hate checking each and every item I buy to make sure it's not in there. I guess that's why I shop at Earth Fare.
- datastorageguy, on 10/15/2008, -0/+9..and they will enforce this how?
- samard2002, on 10/15/2008, -5/+10Wow. Another declaration by the UN that will cost us billions of dollars to enforce while the member states of the UN all complain about us acting like the "world police".
- senlei23, on 10/15/2008, -0/+6say goodbye to your favorite chemicals China!
- gobbstopp, on 10/15/2008, -0/+5Considered bans: Pentabromodiphenyl ether, Octabromodiphenyl ether, Chlordecone, Lindane, Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane, Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane, PFOS, Hexabromobiphenyl, and Pentachlorobenzene.
this better not make my deliciously addictive tap water tasteless again. - bentaisan, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3This seems like a good idea to me.
- SilverBlade2k, on 10/15/2008, -1/+3If only Aspartame would go on it..
- jonnyeh, on 10/15/2008, -2/+1If you don't like it, don't eat it. There's no evidence of harm, so move on to more real problems.
- shiftkgb, on 10/15/2008, -3/+4People listen to the UN??
- fatfreddyscat, on 10/15/2008, -0/+4Like DDT.
- datastorageguy, on 10/15/2008, -0/+8Yeah. Millions of third world children dead from malaria. Good call on DDT guys!
- Trent1492, on 10/15/2008, -2/+2DDT was never banned. It was banned from being used as a AGRICULTURAL pesticide but the ban was not total. If you had paid attention to your biology class you would have come across the concept of natural selection and realized that a heavy use of any pesticide will result in the target developing resistance.
If you want a more thorough treatment on this subject please go to the following links:
Why do some people continue to hold Rachel Carson responsible for millions of malaria deaths?
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details ...
Roger Bate's False History of DDT.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/roger_bate ...
But ok, I know you did not read it and will only dismiss a closely reasoned article with heavy citations to primary sources as "leftist propaganda". So let us drill down to a primary source. Here is what The World Health Organization says:
"(6)to ensure that the use of DDT is authorized by governments for public health purposes only, and that, in those instances, such use is limited to government-authorized programmes that take an integrated approach and that strong steps are taken to ensure that there is no diversion of DDT to entities in the private sector;..."
So yea, I know your going to ignore a primary citation to the literature and continue too insist otherwise. So I got just one question for you. Just one question I would like you to answer.
Why do you think that the principles of natural selection have been suspended in regards to indiscriminate use of DDT' in a agricultural setting?
- Trent1492, on 10/15/2008, -2/+2DDT was never banned. It was banned from being used as a AGRICULTURAL pesticide but the ban was not total. If you had paid attention to your biology class you would have come across the concept of natural selection and realized that a heavy use of any pesticide will result in the target developing resistance.
- datastorageguy, on 10/15/2008, -0/+8Yeah. Millions of third world children dead from malaria. Good call on DDT guys!
- tekrat, on 10/15/2008, -0/+11Don't forget Dihydrogen Monoxide.
- nickymouse, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3That ***** is in our lakes, grounds, and large amounts are found in our babies.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/15/2008, -1/+6The U.N. should consider dealing with internal fraud first. Warez sites are more reliable and ethical than the U.N.
- Midtowner, on 10/15/2008, -2/+1I guess this'll be an optional treaty for member states to sign on to. Look for the EU and Canada to sign on right away. The U.S., under Obama, assuming a Democratic Senate happens will probably ratify as well.
I have mixed feelings on such a ban, especially as applied to developing countries. In 1st world countries, where we have access to the means to replace these chemicals as insecticides, other countries, countries which rely on the U.N. for a lot do not have access to such technology.
I hope that the U.N. doesn't apply this sort of "ban" to African countries. Serious famine could be the cost of compliance.- jessehadden, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3I have to disagree heartily with you. I think it is safe to say that natural organic methods like crop rotation, use of helpful pests to control unwanted pests, and natural fertilizers are far more sustainable and cheap. It's easy to rape 10 years of yield out of a plot of land in single season, if you pump it up with chemicals, but there's a huge price to be paid in terms of what you can do with that land over the next 10 years -- and the quality of the food that comes out of it.
Trust me, the reliance on complex chemical$, petroleum, in$ecticide$ et. al. i$n't nece$$arily about helping people, or about making a better end product. - Midtowner, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1Thanks for your reply.
I agree with you that natural, organic methods are ideal. We have to look at other factors though. Africa has plenty of land and far less population density than its European and North American counterparts, so abandoning a field isn't nearly as difficult to do as it would be elsewhere.
Let me ask you this -- compared to teaching a farmer to use insecticides (i.e., you tell him to dilute x amount of insecticide with y amount of water, then spray), how difficult/expensive is it to employ organic methods? And you admit that yields can be great from chemically treated fields, so what initial price do these countries pay to make this switch?
If Europe/NA ban these chemicals, then they'll be able to be purchased on-the-cheap. I think that could do wonders, at least in the short run, for a place like Zimbabwe.
- jessehadden, on 10/15/2008, -0/+3I have to disagree heartily with you. I think it is safe to say that natural organic methods like crop rotation, use of helpful pests to control unwanted pests, and natural fertilizers are far more sustainable and cheap. It's easy to rape 10 years of yield out of a plot of land in single season, if you pump it up with chemicals, but there's a huge price to be paid in terms of what you can do with that land over the next 10 years -- and the quality of the food that comes out of it.
- Ricemanstm, on 10/15/2008, -1/+6Somebody ban the UN. Talk about your greenhouse gas emissions....
- nickymouse, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1If you don't listen to the UN, they'll send you a very nasty letter.
- zombiedepot, on 10/15/2008, -0/+2I feel 75% safer.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is