Greg Boyles

Therefore GPs are scientists even if they do not engage in research. http://medicalsciences.med.unsw.edu.au/somsweb.nsf School of medical sciences - faculty of medicine When I was working at the austin hospital I was not engaged in research, merely routine laboratory work, but I was never the less a grade 1 medical scientist. Exclusive engagement in scientific research does not seem to be a requirement for the title of 'scientist'. But then again the art of diagnosis is very much like research. The GP gather's initial evidence from the patient and formulates a hypothesis as to their illness. He then orders appropriate diagnostic tests, looks at the results and then decides whether his initial hypothesis is correct or not. Eventually he forumulates a conclusion or diagnosis and then embarks on a treatment regime for the patient. How can one argue that this is not a scientific process?

Westerners can't fight off malaria well at all.

I am pretty certain that iron does not form a complex with ammonia.

What about when the human rights of people alive today conflict with the human rights of future genertions? E.G. Around procreation and over population and exhaustion of natural resources.

I thought he meant that the coordination complex itself was insoluble. Interesting, pretty much the same colour as the copper coordination complex. What else apart from Ni, Ag and Cu forms a complex with ammonia? It always intrigued me as to why say iron does not form a complex with ammonia. Why is that?

0.05M is simply 1/20 the concentration of 1M So you would take 5ml of your stock and mix it with 95ml of water.....do that x times to end up with the volume you require. If you need the NaCl then work out the total weight required for the total volume of your working solution and just dissolve it in the working solution.

If africa is not over populated then why does the continent suffer from perpetual famines, war, genocide and political instability etc? Racist slurs are not a substitute for reasoned arguments. And you are wrong anyway. To coin a phrase my brother once jokingly used "I am not racist, I just hate everyone" If westerners were advocating the use of DDT in the west to control malaria and prevent deaths I would be saying EXACTLY the same thing.......that their interests in not dieing from malaria do not trump the interests of future generations in not having their environment and bodies tainted with a toxin. I don't need to provide evidence as it has already been done. DDT is found in the blood of nearly everyone on earth and in wildlife in the artic and antarctic. And there are strong links between DDT and diabetes and other human diseases. If WHO got their way and started wide scale spraying of DDT on houses across africa tomorrow then, at 45 yo, I would be unlikely to be signficantly effected by it. So my concern is primarily with the environment and future generations of both westerners and africans who will have to live in it. Who is to say that you and members of WHO are not being incredibly short sighted and reprehensibly selfish yourselves??? What are they going to do when mosquito resistance to DDT emerges due to its wide scale use? Are they going to try even more noxious chemicals and will you sit here and continue advocating their foolish behaviour. The west really needs to get over this all consuming culture of the individual. And how is saving african lives now only to have them die of starvation later being altruistic. If aid organisations arose that respected ecological balance as it applies to humans and made substantial rather than token efforts to reduce fertility in compensation for decreasing the death rate then I would be all for them and donate willingly. Until such time I remain a consciencious objector.

Because spending their money on disseminating DDT in Africa will ultimately effect me, my children and our local environment and I f'ing well OBJECT. Preventing malarial deaths in an over populated Africa does not justify the long term adverse impacts of DDT across the globe. The interests of individuals in Africa do not trump the interests of future generations across the globe. And more particularly the interest of soft westners who have an unrealistic abhorance of death, and who our out to make a name for themselves in charitable circles, do not trump the interests of future generations across the globe. You had better start getting accustomed to death swansont because before to much longer westerners will be joining africans in a higher death rate and a shorter average life span . In our case due to antibiotic resistant bugs due to our long misuse of antibiotics. Africans have coped with malaria for decades and they will continue to cope. It is not for westeners to tell them they should poison themselves slowly with highly toxic insecticides. A fresh graduate from a BSc is not qualified to undertake research on their own either swansont, so your point is poorly made! They have to continue their studies with honours, masters and phd or, in rare cases, gain decades of research experience before they take the lead in research projects. Just as GP have continue their studies with a speciality at which point they may well engage in research relevant to that speciality. GP's and anyone else with a medical degree is a fully fledged member of the medical science community!

Perhaps they do make a cursory attempt to explain to africans about the risk of DDT. But one may as well go down to the local Ultratune and try to explain to the teenage apprentice motor mechanic about the chemistry and health risks of DDT. It is an exercise in fultility unless you are do so to some one with at least a basic science education. So until they can make africans understand DDT at our/their education level they have no right to thrust it upon them. I have no interest or inclination to donate money to current aid efforts in africa or any where else in the world. None of the aid organisations, so far as I am aware, make any serious attempts to compensate for the decreased death rate that they bring about by decreasing the birth rate by an equivalent amount. I do not and will never donate on principal. Oh yes they were swansont - you don't become an anatomical patholgist without first obtaining a medical degree. The same with any medical specialist. Doctors, including GPs are indeed scientists in every sense. The only difference between a GP and a scientist is that GPs are not engaged in research work and scientists with a medical degree plus specialisation (and involved in research) generally don't engage directly in routine laboratory tasks - that is left to the lesser qualified scientists like me with a BSc.

The best I can do on proof of poor african awareness of DDT is to provide evidence of the poor general education standard in africa: There is plenty of material on the web detailing this. If education standards are low then it is reasonable to assume that few are savy about DDT. And as for the rest of you post swansont...... You are only comparing death rates of malaria and DDT exposure. What about the chronic health effects of DDT exposure? There is ample anecdotal evidence to support that and enough for western countries to pahse out its use. Why then do westerners seek to impose DDT on AFricans when they are not prepared to use themselves. This smacks of double standards. They would rather impose cheap and toxic DDT on Africans rather than supply them with more expensive anti-malarial drugs. Apart from the fact that it is well know that DDT does not just effect the people and communities who spray it. And it is not you place to decide that the chronic health effects on africans and damage to their local environment is justified to reduce their death rate from malaria. That choice should be made by africans WHEN AND ONLY WHEN they are fully savy of DDT. Anatomical pathologists in the depeartment of anatomical pathology at the Austin Hospital in Melbourne were directly involved in medical research on Alzhiemers disease etc when I was working there. They may not have performed the actual lab work but they are fully versed in the scientific process etc and are therefore scientists as well as specialist doctors. But in the walt eliza hall at the university of melbourne there are plenty of medical doctors involved in research rather than general practice. At least in medical pathology spheres, those who do a science degree specialise in performing the technical laboratory work while those with a medical pathology degree specialise is interpreting the results of laboratory tests and have the last say on the conclusions (not us laboratory scientists). So pull your head in swansont and stop prattling on about things you obviously have no direct experience of.

Perhaps it was a combination of environmental wisdom similar to Aboriginal culture, strong resource base, high infant mortaility, short life span and sporadic clan warfare that kept their numbers in check and the civilisation stable on average for so long. I seem to also remember a mention in Tim Flannery's book about the equivalent of aboriginal story places where hunting etc was prohibitted for game conservation purposes and the disruption of this system by christian missionaries.........but was that the central highlands civilisation or was it more the coastal tribes......I am not sure now. But never the less westerners will not be happy with type of ecological balance. If we wish to maintain our current consumption patterns and life styles then there will have to vastly less of us and we will probably have to live with some level of regulation of procreation.

Sorry swansont but I cannot provide you with proof that average africans have no idea exactly what DDT is. But most would agree that it is a reasonable assumption given the general education standards in africa. I actually tried a bit of googling on the subject but all I came up with is dip $%#& westerners telling africans and western opponents that they ought to accept the use of DDT to eliminate malaria. But nothing about them taking the trouble to educate africans about the health risks of and contraversy surrounding DDT. A bit about the Stockholm conevention trying phase out the use of DDT in Africa while WHO is simultaneously trying to promote its use. Here's another example of groups of scientists all heading out in different directions and undermining each other. Here again is an example of why we need a global regulatory body for science so that all scientists are singing from the same hym book. Rubbish! A medical degree follows the scientific method and doctors are indeed trained as scientists before they go on to specific medical training. Well we will see in the next few decades wont we. Given that there is already substantial mistrust of science within the general public and the fact that few of you have or will have lasting answers to our global problems you may find such regulation being increasingly imposed on you whether you want it or not! The problem is that much of the public recognizes there is a major global catastrophe looming (peak oil, peak food, peak fish, climate change, over population.....) Major party politicians want act decisively because they fear losing their cash flow from major business donors. The scientific community exhibits nothing but disunity as to what to do about this problem - some advocate solar voltaics and thermal, others wind power, others nuclear power.........some recognize over population as the problem, some don't and some are just too afraid to acknowledge it due to the very difficult questions that follow. The public wants a unified narrative of what we are going to do about this and they just aint getting it from either source. Outside the scientific community disunity is seen as death. The only way that the scientific community can provide leadership that may have some hope of being respected by the majority of the general public is to present a unified public voice that encompases what do do about over population, dwindling oil supplies, global warming,........ That can only be acheived via a global regulatory body and public face. Have all the scientific debates you want internally, disclose these debates to the public or not but present a consensus global voice to the general public through the regulatory body.

Is nickel diamine what ever insoluble is it? We did the copper ammonia thing in high school and I mucked around with it at home but it never occured to try it with nickel salts or anything else.....not that such salts are easily available at the super market or the garden centre. Chemistry is fun - it was my all time favourite subject at high school. I learned quickly about house hold use of assorted chemicals because I was always on the look out for a cheap source of them to experiment with.

Oops.......reflex action.....will rephrase the post as a non-Cuthber reply

Solubility is ability to dissolve in a solvent. There is no difference between a coordination complex involving water molecules (which many or most salts form when they dissolve in water) and a coordinaion complex involving both ammonia and water molecules. So I have not the faintest idea what you mean by this statement iodine: And Cuthber specifically refered to solubility of Ag2S as determining whether or not ammonia could break the chemical bonds. And I have never once indicated that I believed that the chemical species in ammonia solution would be (Ag(NH3)2)2S

Medical regulatory bodies do not tolerate individualism in GPs in going off and treating people with natural remedies or drugs that they have a hunch will help, rather than scientifically verified drugs and methods. Nor should we tolerate scientists going off and trying to solve global warming etc through their own pet projects. We can no longer afford to continue with this approach. It may have served humanity in the past but now it is increasingly putting humanity and the global ecosystem as we depend on it at risk. The example of DDT and other substances is exactly the reason that scientific regulation is required......so that scientists/business are prevented from making similar mistakes in the future. I can't give you a future reason why regulation is required because I cannot predict what noxious substances scientists/businessx will come up with. But let's implement a comprehensive regulatory safety net before they do come up with the next DDT or what ever. But not just noxious chemical but regulation of all the technologies that are currently being developed as a short term quick fix for climate change and all our other mounting global environmental problems. By reaching for short term quick fixes scientists are pushing us towards a crash in the human population rather than moving us away from it. I.E. Scientists are facilitating society to avoid fixing the underlying structural problems of western society - over population and over consumption. On such matters we need to put an end scientific individualism and start implementing a globally coordinated scientific strategy on climate change etc that gets all scientists singing from the same hym book. Central to that global strategy will be human population reduction and management. And some sort of global regulatory body for science and scientists is required for that.

How do you know how many boom bust cycles there have been in 3000 years? They have certainly lived there for that long but you can't assume that their civilisation has been entirely stable, happy and harmonious for all that time. They may have just been luckier than the esater islanders in disease taking a greater toll on their infants or the resource base being more substantial. And any way. IF you read Tim Flannery's The Future Eaters you would realise that central highlands New Guinea society is far from happy and harmonious. They had fringe dwellers in the surrounding mountains who preyed upon the farmers, i.e. canibals. They had a well developed system of retribution involving entire families and multiple generations that no doubt took a signficant toll on young reproductive males in particular. They was a high level of xenophobia between tribes and familes. This as well as starvation, epidemics, war and genocide etc are mother nature's methods of population control and she will eventually take global human population control out of our hands if we fail to manage it ourselves.

The heart of our problems is that there are two many people burning fossil fuels and felling forrests in the first place. If we were not clearing forests at an astronomical rate there would be no need to attempt to artificially sequester carbon via pyrolysis. They solved nothing. Disease/lack of modern medicine and no ability to increase food production through technology has kept their numbers in check. Perfect ecological balance. Modern medicine and technology disturbs ecological balance, and the sooner westerners acknowledge this the better off we will all be.

I dread to think that you are right calabi, that it will take suspension of democracy for several decades in order to alter are current disaterous path. But that would require we get a very benevolent and environmentall aware dictatorship.......unlikely. Perhaps we will just have to settle for a dictatorship that simply removes much of the incentive to procreate for the majority of people. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like the carbon sequestration that is perpetually just another decade away. The above is a pipe dream rather than a practical possibility. Another technological band aid that will briefly reduce the pain until the global wound becomes positively gangrenous.

The vast majority of humans are not educated in science, or more particularly ecology, and are not even aware that that they behave the same way as any other animal regarding reproduction and food supplies. The human population has continually expanded and crashed in response to food supplies since it evolved. The latest in increase in food supply has resulted from oil derived energy but the 'oil bubble' is not going to last. The vast majority of humans are no longer hunter gatherers/agriculturalists and are not living within their ecological means. The only way that current populations can be sustained is by taking resources from distant parts of the globe, often from less technologically developed peoples. Just another technological band aid that does not address the heart of our problems and that cannot and will not last.

There are currently about 7 billion humans on Earth, perhaps a few billion of whom are affluent and have low fertility. The global ecosystem is already crumbling under the weight of our collective consumption so what makes you think that it withstand further increases in consumption so that you can 'develop' the third world and hopefully reduce their fertility. What makes you think that high standard of living is the sole determinant of fertility? There are many cultural factors that are independant of standard of living. Since Norman Borlaug's green revolution we have dismally failed to develop the third world and reduce its fertility. The global population is triple what it was and poverty and human suffering is more widespread. What makes you think we are likely to be any more successful with development now? Seems like you flogging a dead horse to me. I would suggest that scientists take their focus off providing more food and put it on developing better and cheaper contraceptives and more efficient means of distributing and administering them at the very least.

Drug companies employ scientists to 'clear' new drugs before they can bring them to drug trials. Therefore the medical authorities are effectively regulating the scientists employed by the drug company. My critics do not seem to want to hear this so I will again repeat it! I am suggesting the scientific regulation be fosused on applied science, such as drugs developement and insecticide product development and genetically modified crops, rather than on pure research, such as 'how the world works'. PErhaps if there was adequate scientific regulation in the 1930s then DDT would never have been developed as an insecticide and there would no dilemma as to who to attribute blame for it to now.

"Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity." Population growth has barely been constrained. Check you history Essay. Norman Borlaug intended his green revolution to provide more food for the third world long enough for the west to "tame the third world population dragon" as he put it. But that is not what happened. Rather than successfully taming the third world population dragon, the green revolution caused the global popultion to triple from about 2 billion at the time to around 6 billion. Ecology 101 states that the population of any species will always expand to take up the available food supply and then crash when that food supply is exhausted. Humans are no different. There is every reason to believe that, if scientists successfully increase food production further, the human population will again expand to take up that additional food supply and so further compound our global problems.

You might be able to get old a small cylinder of helium gas, used to blow up helium ballons, and flush out most of the air from your container.

Read my post in "Earth Science" titled "Limits to growth" taken from an article in the Scientific American. The reason for my suggesting this is that the current poorly regulated and wild west nature of the scientific enterprise is accelerting us towards what this article is predicting will happen rather than saving us from it. All our current global problems are caused by our misuse and overuse of technology to treat the symptoms of over population and over consumption. In solving one problem we create a worst problem that future generations must contend with. For example oil energy increased food production etc only to bring about global warming. DDT to reduce crop losses only to threaten the extinction of birds of prey and perhaps increase the instance of diabetes and cancer. Politicians and legislators are continually playing catch up with scientists and the new technologies they develop. And as long as science continues to provide short term ban aid solutions we will collectively never address the underlying structural problems - over population and over consumption. Therefore science and scientists should be subject to self regulation and restraint in a similar way that the medical profession is. Come on swansont. Are you really going to sit here and argue that the average african is as educated and savy about DDT as you are? In advocaing the use of a highly dangerous chemical the onus is on you to prove that africans are adequately aware of the dangers and freely choose to use it. The people whose houses you wish to spray DDT on, not the corrupt african politicians who he tell you that you can use it on their people.