Large tirade against environmentalism by Michael Crichton snipped. (snipped to save bandwidth and keep post length down, besides not much of it was particularly quote-worthy).
Regarding environmentalists being faith-based beliefs: Not here, most of the environmental "beliefs" I have is based on compelling articles I have read through my years at college and thereafter. Perhaps surprisingly, before college, I was *not* an environmentalist, nor even remotely concerned with the environment. Addmitedly, when I first joined the environmentalist movement, I was more inclined to believe what was told to me without researching the topic myself. Honestly, though, how many among us really does research their beliefs? Certainly few voters really research the candidates that they vote for. Most people trust newpapers and TV news sources just as reliable sources of information, but much of what is presented in the news is skewed, biased, and/or having little basis in fact. It is a requirement of our life now. There is very little time for a person to research the topics, and so many contradicting sources that it is hard to know which sources are reliable and which aren't. Does that mean researching is pointless? No, just that, for most, it is impractical. The trick is to find a source that encompases your beliefs and whose facts upon examination, have reliable sources and data backing them. Regarding DDT: Banning DDT was not a mistake, as a matter of fact, Mr. Crichton's insistance that it was a mistake, and that DDT is safe, are mistakes on his part. It shows that his true bias in the situation and reveals that he is either ignorant of much of the facts or is ignoring them. DDT has been the primary culprit in repeated situations and multiple species in cases of immune supression (which has resulted in deaths of animals), reproductive failure (animals unable to reproduce), and premature births. Not just in birds, but in fish, marine mammals, and others as well (including humans). DDT is highly previlant in coastal areas this is the result of a quite natural process, the water cycle. DDT is sprayed on plants, DDT is then wash onto ground by rain. DDT is then washed into rivers by same rain. Rivers then carry DDT into the ocean, where it collects in the coastal areas and is absorbed into the ecosystem. But I will not do like Crichton and simply state that supporting articles exist, I will actually cite some sources: I don't have the time nor resources to research this in more depth right now, so an internet search of articles with many sources cited will have to do for now: http://www.seaweb.org/background/cetaceans.html Even Nature has articles that confirm some of these contentions (a publication refered to but not cited in Mr. Crichton's editorial). A search for "DDT" on the www.nature.com site revealed some abstracts that support the contentions that DDT acts as a factor in reproductive failure and premature births (I did not find support for the immune suppression, but did not have access to all the search results and did not spend a great deal of time searching). http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v375/n6532/abs/375581a0.html http://www.nature.com/nsu/010719/010719-3.html One of these articles is a cost/benefit analysis of DDT, even *it* doesn't say that DDT is safe, only that it may be the lesser of two evils when it comes to human lives. In my book, human lives are not the only ones that should enter the equation, especially since we don't know what kind of effects that the damage to coastal eco-systems can have on humans in the long run. Regarding Global Warming: Denial of global warming, a phenomenon that most of the scientific community now regards as not just theory, but fact, requres rather extraordinary proof, what are Mr. Crichton's sources on global warming that proves it is only fantasy? Regretably, Mr. Crichton provides no real sources for this or any other of his claims. Regarding Antarctic Ice Volume: Even if there is more Ice in Antarctica (Even NASA's site is painfully deficient in this regard, I have searched for good sources on this out of personal interest on the topic, and have found little), how much of the volume is free-floating ice and how much is on land? If the ammount of free-floating ice is increasing but the land-based ice is decreasing, then overall, the ice *on* antarctica is decreasing, and sea-level is rising. I have read documents on the NASA site stating in no uncertain terms that sea level *is* rising at a slow rate (about an inch per decade, IIRC). Surprisingly, the main contributor is not Antarctica, but Greenland, IIRC. A quick search revealed the following page on NASA's site, which talks not only about Sea-level rise but also global warming: http://gcmd4.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/Learning/sealevel.html In defence of Mr.Crichton's claims about Antarctica, my NASA search also revealed this: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2001/20020329.htm In it, it confirms his claim that overall ice mass on Antarctica has indeed increased in recent years. Another article, however, talk about the melting of *other* glaciers contributing to the overall rise of sea-level: http://eob.gsfc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2003/2003101616058.html Regarding Forest Fires: Attempting to control forest fires by any method (either by fire supression or by "controlled" cutting down of trees as George W. Bush has put into action) is directly contradictory to the forest ecosystem. Forest fires are a *natural* part of the forest's evolution. Before humans were here, there were forest fires, and forests still survived. Forest fires are now considered *essential* for clearing dead trees and branches, recycling nutrients, and even helping new plants to grow and wildlife to thrive. http://www.nps.gov/seki/fire/firerole.htm In conclusion, Mr. Crichton asks one to accept on faith that what he says is true without support or proof. Who's belief is based on faith, and who's is based on science and research here? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. As all these topics were ones I had researched and learned about prior to this, most of what I typed on the subjects I typed *before* looking up supporting articles. Having prior knowledge of the subjects made finding the supporting articles a relatively quick process since I already knew what to look for, and only reinforces that what I had previously learned had not been skewed, had not been exagerated, and was accurate. I may or may not be an anomoly when it comes to environmentalists, but I am definate proof that Mr. Crichton is dealing in stereotypes, not facts. P.P.S. Never insult me or what I believe unless you are ready to face a challenge. P.P.P.S. I've been in a particularly strange mood for a long while now (a few weeks), perhaps stress induced, and encourage others to keep a safe distance from topics I feel strongly about. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
