Search this Site!
    Dedicated to the return to the constitution as written by our forefathers, The return of common sense in our laws, the return of morality in our
    Decisions, and the proliferation of environmental truth.

    Seldom Heard Quotes – Population Extremism, DDT & Pesticides – Part 6.3

    “We feel that DDT has become one of the “dirty dozen” that the New Age environmentalists have picked on.”

    “DDT was banned primarily on the basis of myths–myths having to do with cancer in humans and thin eggshells… Certainly, the millions of people who have died unnecessarily from malaria and typhus and other diseases that can be readily controlled through the use of DDT, these people really face a silent spring.”

    Dr. Ed Remmers, Vice President
    American Council on Science and Health

    This statement was made at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., where a number of panelists described the United States ban on DDT in 1972 as genocide.



    “We eat roughly 1,500 milligrams of them per day [natural pesticides]. “We eat 0.09 milligrams of synthetic pesticide residues.”

    “There are 10 milligrams of known carcinogens in a cup of coffee and that’s more carcinogens than you’re likely to get from pesticide residues for a year!”

    Dr. Bruce Ames
    Professor of the Graduate School
    of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
    University of California at Berkley
    “Reason On Line” Interview

    Excuse my math but are we eating over 15,000 times of natural pesticides than we do man made?

    What average American knows that plants, vegetables and fruits manufacture natural pesticides that are 10,000 times more powerful than man made pesticides?

    The anti-synthetic pesticide gang, another wing of the socialist environmental extreme far left, has done everything in its power to scare us into believing pesticides will kill us, our children, harm a fetus, or prevent men from being men.

    What average American knows that fourteen scientific societies representing over 100,000 microbiologists, toxicologists and food scientists have stated, “The risk of pesticide residues to consumers is effectively ZERO.”

    Considering true scientists will not make statements that imply “certainty” one way or another, Dr. Ames’ statement is highly reliable.


    “In the 1920′s, given good soil and animal fertilizer, an exceptional yield was 75 one hundred pound sacks of potatoes.”

    “By the 1940’s, the best methods were producing 82 sacks per acre. Then came the introduction of modern agriculture, with its chemicals and pesticides.”

    “The results look like this:

    Year            100-Pound Sacks Per Acre

        1950                          165

        1960                          208

        1970                          247

        1980s                         275

    Dixie Lee Ray
    Trashing The Planet, page 74

    If we ban pesticides, Paul Ehrlich will get his world famine, Jacques Cousteau and all the other anti-human greens will get the earth’s population down to what they have asked for in writing, one billion humans.

    They should all be tried for crimes against humanity.


    “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”

    Statement printed on every pack of Sweet N Low

    To accomplish this they gave the lab rats the equivalent of a human drinking 800 cans of diet soda a day for the duration of the test. I wonder what happened when they only gave them the equivalent of 400 cans a day?

    The bottom line is, their scam is working and the American people are being duped into believing this false science. What’s worse is, the American people are also paying to be duped either by direct contributions to the Greens or by the corporate grants to the Greens, (which are created from profits made from higher prices), or by more government regulation. In 1992 EPA regulations alone cost America an estimated $130 billion. All this at a time when we should be cutting the deficit by cutting EPA.

    The ban on saccharin has since been lifted. More proof that the psuedo-scientists can’t keep the scam up forever.


    “What are you doing to our children?”

    Meryl Streep
    Alar congressional committee

    Alar had been presented as a cancer causing pesticide. It is neither cancer causing nor is it a pesticide. The NRDC scientists claimed there was a link between Alar and tumors found in laboratory mice, when in fact there was no such link. They had exposed the mice to mega doses of Alar, which in humans would be equal to eating 28,000 pounds of apples per day for 70 years. What they didn’t tell us was that the mice that were given half the dosage, in humans being equal to 14,000 pounds of apples per day for 70 years, produced no tumors.

    As far as what Alar is, it is a growth regulator that helps keep the apples on the trees longer giving them more time to develop and firm up being less prone to bruises. Dr. John A. Moore, the acting EPA administrator at the time said, “In the Alar case, the public was very prone to give credence to the selective and inappropriate use of data regarding consumer risks and to believe ‘the worst,’ despite a counter statement by the EPA.” 60 Minutes chose to ignore the EPA’s news releases rejecting the NRDC’s claims.

    The NRDC report was finally rejected in peer review.

    Yet the apple industry lost over $200 million, Alar was removed from the market, apples are now deteriorating faster and Meryl Streep is still around to help brainwash us again with the next myth. As for the NRDC, they are now heading up an attack on more pesticides in America. They are attempting to have the markets in California remove any item grown with the use of pesticides.

    A pesticide to a plant is what medicine is to a human. Pesticides protect crops and animals; they repel or destroy insects, diseases and weeds. They do not harm humans and are the primary reason we have been able to increase the production of food. Instead of eliminating pesticides we should be sharing them with all countries to increase their food production. But some NRDC scientist will come up with some wild statement that will also be rejected in peer review, hopefully before we make another mistake.


    “300,000 acute illnesses and injuries (in farm workers) a year from pesticides.”
    USA Today Editorial
    April 14, 1985

    The following is a response Answer to the USA Today editorial by Dr. J Gordon Edwards.

    “Your pesticide editorial (14 April) cited an erroneous figure of “300,000 acute illnesses and injuries (in farm workers) a year from pesticides.” That figure was attributed to a ” congressional study last month, ” but actually came from a World Resources Institute (WRI) press release seven years ago. The two WRI researchers who made the study (Robert Wasserstrom and Richard Wiles) quit the WRI because of the untruthful figure of 300,000 in that release, which Wasserstrom said, “tells a story substantially different from what Richard Wiles and I found in the epidemiologic record.” (Chemical Engineering News, Sept. 1985)

    The propagandistic 300,000 figure was based on an official report of 235 cases of farm worker illnesses in California in 1982. Dr. Molly Coye (NIOSH) extrapolated from that figure to the awesome 300,000 allegations, as follows. Because Dr. Ephriam Kahn had estimated in 1976 that “California doctors report only 1% of such cases,” Dr. Coye multiplied 235 by l00 and concluded that 23,500 California farm workers suffered from pesticide illnesses in 1982. Since that was 7.8% of California’s farm workers, and there were four million farm workers in all of the United States, she extrapolated to 312,000 poisoned workers (7.8% of 4 million annually).

    Dr. Coye and WRI avoided mentioning Dr. Kahn’s 1977 article that stated 80% of the pesticide-related illnesses are reported (based on his twelve-month study that followed his earlier estimate). They also avoided mentioning that roughly half of the 235 illnesses were skin irritation caused by sulfur, which is not a man-made pesticide.”


    “Everything is a poison, nothing is a poison, the dose alone makes the poison,”

    16th century

    There isn’t an engineer, scientist, inventor, or any other human being that walks this earth that can tell you, “It is impossible to die as a result of flying in an airplane.” The main reason is because people have died in aircraft accidents and people will continue to die in aircraft accidents. And yet while we know the possibility is there, we still fly because we know it’s one of the safest ways to travel. People have been killed while traveling on everything from the horse to the automobile and we continue to travel.

    I bring this up because of the mind set that has risen in the scientific community about the effect synthetic pesticides has on humans. It seems like every evening there is a new report of how pesticides are cancer-causing enemies of humans. The main reason for this is the extreme regulation the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) keeps popping up with.

    If the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and other transportation agencies operated with the same mindset as the EPA, all forms of travel would probably be banned. They would most certainly require all airline tickets to be stamped “Flying has been determined to cause death in humans.”

    There has been a scientific proposition that has been accepted for hundreds of years that states, “The Dose Determines the Poison.” What that means is, because everything in life “can” be poisonous, only the amount determines what will kill you. All things around us can kill us if we eat or drink too much of it. Turkey has natural mutagens that are toxic to humans. The only problem is you’d have to eat 3.8 tons of turkey for it to affect you.

    In fact scientists have identified natural carcinogens (cancer causing) in 57 food varieties that exist naturally in quantities thousands of times greater than synthetic (man made) carcinogens. And a carcinogen is a carcinogen.

    The pseudo-scientists and the national media know that the average American doesn’t know all this so they attack “man made” pesticides and proceed to release their version of the truth. I call it using an ounce of truth in ten pounds of data, media science. The media and pseudo-scientists feel as long as there is the ounce of truth, it doesn’t make any difference how far they stretch it.

    The best example of this is the number they did on Americans in The Great Alar Scare of 1989. Every media outlet from 60 Minutes to Donahue frantically announced that Alar (a growth regulator) was causing a high degree of cancer risk in our children. The Greens know humans are kind and we can’t stand anything happening to our children. So if you’re going to perpetrate a hoax, use our kids as the target and if the hook is swallowed you’ll get all kinds of compassionate hysteria. One woman had the local police intercept her son’s school bus, after hearing about Alar one morning, because she put an apple in his lunch box.

    The entire case revolved around the proposition at Alar caused tumors in laboratory rats. If you were to judge that statement, it would have to be judged “true.” It’s what I call the one-ounce of truth. Given that, the pseudo-scientist can create any doom story he wants around that one fact. A media type can create all kinds of scenarios about thousands of children dying with scenes of graveyards and weeping parents, all because Alar caused tumors in lab rats.

    What they didn’t tell you is, the Alar they gave the lab rats was in amounts equivalent to a human eating 28,000 pounds of apples per day for 70 years. Another thing they didn’t tell you was, when they cut the dose in half, that is the equivalent to 14,000 pounds of apples per day for 70 years, no tumors developed.

    On the basis of that kind of science the EPA continues to stick by their “1989 decision. ” It seems the EPA, in some cases, wanders off the scientific track that accepts the premise that the dose determines the poison and leans towards any amount is bad. Some feel that if penicillin or aspirin were introduced today, they may not pass the EPA’s strict regulations.

    No one in their right mind would want to put people at risk, ever, but when’s the last time you kissed a loved one good-bye at the airport? The attacks on pesticides that are coming from the Greens, and their paid scientists, have a far greater significance.

    One of these attacks is collecting enormous amounts of money from the people they are scaring to death with stories that contain one ounce of truth. These attacks are aimed at YOU! These attacks are all part of a formula to insure the destruction of a way of life. YOURS!

    People like Paul Ehrlich must be praying to be proven right with a great famine. He’s been predicting it for thirty years now. In his 1968 book “The Population Bomb,” he predicted America would run out of food in the 70′s. He’s now moved the date out to the middle of the next century. How do people like him keep their jobs?

    Consider that between 1940 and 1980 America’s output of the 17 most important food, feed and fiber crops increased from 252 million metric tons to 610 million metric tons. The increase was accomplished with only a 3% increase in cultivated area. New farming techniques and pesticides account for most of that increase. Without pesticides we could go back to an era where we would not be able to support America’s food requirements. Ehrlich would finally be right!

    Another interesting statistic is that between 1900 and 1982 the average life expectancy in the U.S. increased 27.2 years from 47.3 years to 74.5. How many of you or your friends and family would still be alive if we were living with 1900 technology?

    If all these cancer causing pesticides are killing us why did the Journal of the National Cancer Institute conclude, in 1981, that “there is no evidence of any generalized increase [in U.S. cancer rates] other than that due to tobacco.” In 1990 a Nationa1 Research Council committee reported that the “overall age-adjusted cancer rates have remained fairly stable over the last 30 to 40 years. Exceptions to this are increases in respiratory tract cancer related to cigarette smoking.” The fact is, according to the American Council on Science and Health, “There is no scientific evidence that residues in food from the regulated and approved use of pesticides has ever been the cause of illness or death in either adults or children.”

    Besides all this, the new “organic” fad can cause more harm than one might realize. In an article in the May 19, 1989 issue of Science Magazine, Dr. Bruce Ames of the University of California, stated apples, not treated with Alar, could be more susceptible to mold toxins that occur in naturally grown food. These mold toxins could be in the organic food you are eating tonight.

    If you are a Green, take a bigger bite. Anyone who believes natural is always better should enjoy drinking the water in Mexico.