On 5/4/2007 7:53:47 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > At 01:42 PM Friday 5/4/2007, Martin Lewis wrote: > >On 5/4/07, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Indeed, Gautam made a good argument here that environmental > > > policy > and > > > environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death of 1 > > > million/year due to malaria. The US used DDT as part of its > elimination of > > > malaria. No human deaths were attributed to DDT. Instead, > > > there was > an > > > extremely strong correlation that, in all likelihood, was due to > > > the > DDT > > > use, between this use and the drop in the death rate. > > > > <snip> > > > > I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here? > > > > Martin > > > Using it saves human lives. Banning it cost human lives. Banning > it > says that obviously the eggs of a few raptors in California are more > valuable than the lives of myriads of little black human babies in > sub-Saharan Africa. >
I don't think it is a binary question at all. DDT, like many other chemicals can be used safely (WRT wildlife *and* humans) if it is used judiciously and not just dumped on the landscape as a general pesticide. I recall Gautam specifying DDT impregnated mosquito netting as a way to save many thousands of lives. Even if the netting were to be disposed of carelessly(after it has become useless for whatever reason), it would carry only a small payload into the ecosystem. It seems to me that the real problem is the greed of the chemical industry, they promote ariel spraying of pesticides and other unsecure methods. A secondary problem is the desire of farmers to protect a greater share of their yield from pests. Both of these examples reveal a mindset that unjudiciously causes large amounts of useful chemicals to leak into areas (of the biosphere) that are owned by others and/or are beyond human control. xponent Rambling Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
