Original Message: ----------------- From: Martin Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 20:49:28 +0100 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation
On 5/4/07, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? <snip> > 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. > Well yes, that final point was what I was asking about because there >was nothing in your post to support the claim that "environmental >policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death >of 1 million/year due to malaria." Since I am now sure you are >claiming this surely you agree that the seriousness of the charge >demands at least some supporting evidence? Well, I was thinking of a few facts. 1) There was a push to ban DDT worldwide about 7 years ago, by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I remember that it was a close call, with malaria scientists and some African governments finally able to forstall banning. This was after South Africa reintroduced it after malaria cases shot up after it was banned for a few years. 2) There are reports of threats by EU to ban Uganda agriculture if DDT use is introduced. for 1&2 see http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=37 3) DDT is the cheapest, most effective means of combating malaria. Yet, only a small fraction of funding goes for this. 4) The US, and many other countries banned DDT, even though there is no evidence of damage to humans. I think the arguement that the popularity of Silent Spring had a lot to do with this is valid. Otherwise, why was DDT singled out? I admit, I was one of the ones who wasn't thinking clearly in the '70s. 5) African, like Neli, believe that the risks of DDT are high. Where did they get this information. 6) Groups like Greenpeace have reccomended the total ban of DDT by this year: http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html I remember this from 2000. Are you argueing that these statements were not made, and that the website and my memory are false? Now, in fairness, some of these organizations have backed off these statements, but 30 years of inertia in public opinion is hard to overcome. If they've changed their opinion, I think they have a responsiblity to clearly state it....something I couldn't see at Greenpeace when I went there. When I searched for DDT on their website, I found three articles on the evil of it, but no statement on acceptable use. Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
