On 5 May 2007 at 19:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
Sigh. Most of these places allready have a marginally viable ecosystem. DDT, used properly, is not much of a threat. However, this effectively means not only providing DDT, but providing the people to spray it. This is much, much harder. The moment you provide a pesticide which is effective and no threat to humans, otherwise, it will be sprayed widely. And that, and the resultant ecosystem damage, has frightening potentials for area which are allready marginal. So no, the alternatives, which don't need trained people to spray every drop, are not "less effective". And no, I'm not a treehugging backwards-looking loonie either. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
