On 4 May 2007 at 19:53, Ronn! Blankenship 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.
And disrupting the eco-system of sub-Saharan Africa by untrained use of DDT has the potential of making the region substantially less liveable if it affects certain critical and weak links in the eco-web in the area. That's my problem with it - DDT is appropriate to use only when applied properly. And it won't be, in the area. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
