On Friday, August 2, 2013 12:47:27 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> On DDT, because it hasn't been used in Africa to supress the Anopholes 
> misquito, millions have died. and yeah, Craig, it was to assuage 
> Progressive's sensibilities, so we won't have a "Silent Spring." 

The information that you have been supplied with is false. It has been 
manufactured by paid right wing ideologues to generate fear and anger 
around environmental awareness. You will likely never be able to accept 
this, but it is true.

This recent media blitz has not come from anyone who knows anything about 
DDT, or malaria, or Africa, but from Conservative/Libertarian think tanks 
which exist only to promote purely economic motives. 


"Leading the charge against Carson is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, 
> a Washington think tank "dedicated to advancing the principles of free 
> enterprise and limited government." The CEI maintains a site called "Rachel 
> Was Wrong," whose homepage reads, "[T]oday millions of people around the 
> world suffer the painful and often deadly effects of malaria because one 
> person sounded a false alarm. That person is Rachel Carson." The site 
> displays images of malaria's victims, mostly Ugandan children.
> If these outlets are to be believed, Rachel Carson should be placed in the 
> same category as Stalin and Pol Pot (indeed, a reprint of the FrontPage 
> article on Free Republic does just that). But fortunately for Carson's 
> legacy, her detractors all overlook some crucial evidence exonerating her 
> from the genocide rap. In fact, they're so important, I'll put them in bold:
> 'Silent Spring' never actually called for a ban on DDT. I'm not saying 
> Carson was a fan of the stuff, but she didn't say that its use should be 
> completely prohibited. Instead she favorably quotes a Dutch biologist who 
> says "Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' 
> rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ... Pressure on the pest 
> population should always be as slight as possible."
> DDT was never banned for use against malaria. You'd think all of her 
> critics would have mentioned this, but no. Both the 1972 ban in the United 
> States and the 2001 Stockholm Convention allow the pesticide for use in 
> controlling insect-borne diseases. According to the New Scientist, each 
> year about 1,000 tons of DDT are still released worldwide.
> Overuse of DDT makes insects resistant. Rachel Carson put it best when she 
> wrote in "Silent Spring":
>     No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be 
> ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it 
> is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are 
> rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war 
> against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it 
> has heard little of the other side of the story – the defeats, the 
> short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the 
> insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we 
> may have destroyed our very means of fighting.
> She was right. Already by 1972, when the US ban went into effect, 19 
> species of mosquitoes thought to transmit malaria were resistant to DDT. 
> Had DDT not been banned, it is likely that there would be many, many more 
> such species. To the extent that DDT works today, we have Rachel Carson to 
> thank.
> DDT isn't always the best way to fight malaria. In 1991, Vietnam switched 
> from a DDT-based campaign to one focusing on rapid treatment, mosquito 
> nets, and a different type of insecticide. The World Health Organization 
> reports that malaria fatalities dropped by 97 percent. Similar methods have 
> reduced fatalities by 50 percent in Rwanda and Ethiopia.
> Reasonable people can disagree over how much of a toxic chemical is 
> appropriate for trying to prevent a horrible disease. But if you're going 
> to have a reasonable debate, then you need to acknowledge all the facts.


"This preoccupation with DDT, however, is largely a distraction. 
> Environmental leaders now agree that the pesticide should be used to combat 
> malaria; few nations in Africa ban it; and USAID has agreed to spray DDT in 
> countries like Ethiopia and Mozambique. What’s more, DDT is no silver 
> bullet. Malaria experts agree that it reduces transmission, but emphasize 
> that it must be combined with other interventions, including ACT. The furor 
> over DDT has undoubtedly hampered efforts to provide better access to 
> antimalarial drugs. When another malaria expert met with Senate staffers to 
> discuss malaria in 2004 and 2005, they badgered him about DDT. “I tried to 
> explain the reality,” he says, “and people in the U.S. say ‘That’s not what 
> I was told.’” “DDT has become a fetish,” adds Allan Schapira of WHO. “You 
> have people advocating DDT as if it’s the only insecticide that works 
> against malaria, as if DDT would solve all problems, which is obviously 
> absolutely unrealistic.”

plenty more...



It reminds me of Mao's Great Leap Forward from 1958-62 which caused a 
> famine in China costing 36 million lives. Courtesy, the progressive 
> policies of Mao. If you're going to own environmental safety, then you're 
> going to own the failure of planning conducted by progressive orgs 
> world-wide. This isn't a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact. So much 
> for the scientific socialism that progressives have willingly inherited. 

> Mitch

So disgusting. Do you really think that disregard for environmental safety 
and lack of planning is a better option? What form of social organization 
would you prefer, and how does it differ from Feudalism?


>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>
> Sent: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 12:29 pm
> Subject: Re: The stupid legacy of another crackpot, Roger Clough
> No, it wuz the Libruls and their evil propaganda against delicious DDT. 
> On Friday, August 2, 2013 1:35:31 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote: 
>>  Because of Roger Clough, a less than mediocre Lutheran apologist who 
>> considers himself an astute interpreter of Leibniz, a formerly bright 
>> corner of the internet, the Everything List, has gone mostly dark due to 
>> the intellectual torpor and carelessness that seems to surround everything 
>> Clough says like the clouds of pestilence that surround the four horses of 
>> the apocalypse. 
>> I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Roger is a rather lonely man who 
>> feels empty inside and yet also feels an irrational compulsion to flee this 
>> emptiness by trying hard to wrap it up in pseudo-profound mumbo jumbo and 
>> foist it on poor, unsuspecting readers of reading lists.
>> RIP Everything List 
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to