Original Message: ----------------- From: Martin Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 19:02:19 +0100 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation
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. No, but I did document that it barely escaped being banned, with the imputus for the banning coming from environmental groups. I also documented the stopping of the use in South Africa for a number of years....as well as stopped and reduced in other countries. Why in the world should they do this? My hypothesis is because they thought the use of DDT to interdict malaria was dangerous. In particular, I would argue that the false arguements, put forth by environmental lobbists, that DDT has been shown to be dangerous to humans has been believed. As a result, governments decided to stop the use of DDT. Now, which part of this do you think is illogical. It appears that you think that it was just a coincidence that enviornmentalists have made false statements and governments and NGOs have made decisions that are only logical if you believed those false statements or something very close to them. 1) Environmental groups spread disinformation and the > 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". Look at my origional statement: > > 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. I am saying that, by spreading misinformation, environmentalists have made significant contributions to bad decisions. Environmentalists tend to be trusted a lot more than governments and companies worldwide. I didn't search the 'net for figures, but I've seen them....and I'm sure I can find them if need be. Thus, when they say DDT is a big danger, a significant fraction of the world believes them. In such an environment, since there is no risk to the UN bureaurcats, WHO funding, or EU bureaurcats that result from children in Africa dying of maliara, the safe choice is to not actually oppose DDT, but fund less effective operations. >> 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. OK....how often does WHO decide to ignore cheap effective means of disease control, and pour money into expensive failed ventures. On the whole, WHO has done fairly decently, and this is a monumental blunder. In fact, I'd venture that there is no other disease for which the WHO has eschewed a safe, effective means of disease control that can prevent a million deaths a year. The closest thing is Bush's idea of abstanance only AIDs prevention...and that's not the WHO. > Irrelevent to the issue at hand. Why shouldn't rich, non-malarial >countries ban DDT given the health risks to non-humans? It's relevant because it was a ban based on faulty thinking. >> 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 The relevance is that she has beleived misinformation. I have documented that environmentalists have strongly promoted this misinformation. Is the problem that you don't see the connection between their spreading of misinformation and people believing the same misinformation. Are you arguing that this is a coincidence? >> 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. Sure, I never said it's not banned. It's just not used when it's clearly the cheapest and most effective technique. People won't pay for it, folks in Africa think of it as being as dangerous as DDT. >> 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. So, if governments and NGO follow someone's reccomondations, lobbying, and campaigning, and horrible things happen as a result of following said reccomondations, and those reccomondations include arguements based on falsehoods, the folks making those reccomondations are blameless....and it's a smear to claim that they hold any responsibility for people listning to them? Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
