On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[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.
So DDT is not banned. > 2) There are reports of threats by EU to ban Uganda agriculture if DDT use > is introduced. > > http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=37 This is an industry lobby group and the article is also low on supporting evidence. The wider point is that I also don't see how the UN and the EU are "environmentalists". > 3) DDT is the cheapest, most effective means of combating malaria. Yet, > only a small fraction of funding goes for this. Again, this is a WHO descision. > 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. Irrelevent to the issue at hand. Why shouldn't rich, non-malarial countries ban DDT given the health risks to non-humans? > 5) African, like Neli, believe that the risks of DDT are high. Where did > they get this information. Again I fail to see the relevence and anecdotal evidence isn't very compelling. > 6) Groups like Greenpeace have reccomended the total ban of DDT by this > year: > > http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html So once again you agree that there is no ban. > I remember this from 2000. Are you argueing that these statements were not > made, and that the website and my memory are false? I'm arguing you have failed to make any link between environmentalists and dead Africans and that the emotive dead Africans line is a deliberate attempt to smear environmentalists. Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
