> I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here?
I think one can find several here. 1) DDT was used on a massive scale in the United States in the 20th century. 2) The use of DDT in the US, as well as other parts of the world was strongly correlated with the decrease in insect related diseases, e.g. malaria. I can repost websites that give the number of human lives saved when DDT was introduced to be in the tens of millions. 3) While the US of DDT in the US was seen to have a negative effect on wildlife high in the food chain (e.g. bald eagles), there was no measurable rise in human deaths as a result of US use. Even in the story of the idiot who took a bath in DDT to get rid of crabs resulted in him getting rather sick, but not dying. 4) The proposed use to combat malaria (spraying the walls of houses once every year or two) in Africa has been field tested and has proven a cheap, effective way of reducing malaria. 5) This use will represent a far lower exposure than seen in the US during the '50s and '60s....where the death rate (if any) was below measurement and the death and illness rate from nominal use was below our ability to measure. Thus, the danger to humans from the proposed program must be even smaller. 6) The effects on the environment, in general, will be far lower than that seen in the US, since the relative amount of DDT that would be used is far lower. 7) Thus, this use of DDT is of high net benefit, saving hundreds of thousands of human lives at a minimal cost. I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur. Hope that's clear enough. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
