[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What I'm arguing for is a hard nosed cost/benefit analysis. I don't see > that in the POP site that I quoted. The fact that there are problems with > using DDT doesn't make overstating the risks valid. It's the mirror image > of "if a little is good, a lot is better" falacy: "if a lot is bad, any is > bad."
IOW, the dose makes the poison?
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
