I think it is important to note that Forbes and others have used language such as "alleged environmental harm" to indicate that he denies the former impacts of wide-spread use of DDT. This suggests to me that any plan to use much smaller doses in parts of the world where there would likely be little or no supervision or in situ regulation of the use of the chemical may be extremely problematic. And it should be noted that Forbes also has taken account negative human health impacts of DDT (such as harm caused to infants through mothers' milk) and justifies those impacts as being relatively less significant that the "benefits" to larger numbers of people by use of the chemical.
When a person's motives and allegations are questionable, I believe their methods are likely to be questionable as well. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I recommend the book "Mosquito: The Story of Man's Deadliest Foe" by Andrew >Spielman, Sc.D., and Michael D'Antonio for people interested in >mosquito-borne diseases and the use of DDT in combating them. It's a few >years old at this point (published in 2002), and to my memory does not >include anything like David mentioned on the potential of mites as mosquito >biological control agents, but it is a quick and thought-provoking >read. The scope of the book is much broader than a judgement on DDT use, >but the authors make a compelling case toward the end that with detailed >understanding of mosquito natural history, DDT could be applied to great >effect at low doses in a manner unlikely to cause much environmental harm >(e.g. inside houses on walls where mosquitoes must land to digest). That >said, more recent studies uncovering human health effects of DDT, such as >developmental delays in children, may render the environmental harm >argument secondary. > >A good read, nonetheless. >KBS > > > >Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences >University of California >Berkeley, CA 94720-4767
