Ethan Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >However, the author of the article does have a point about why we might want to >consider using DDT, or at least look into it. Namely, that West Nile Virus is >probably much worse than low-level doses of DDT. West Nile Virus is killing a lot of >people in this country and it will almost certainly kill more and more per year until >a vaccine is developed. <
Well, I'm not one of those alarmed by lower doses. If it hasn't been shown to be harmful, that's good. Perhaps a small trial could be done to see. But I'm also not sure that West Nile is the bogeyman some say it is. According to a report I heard yesterday, 80 percent of those infected will experience NO symptoms at all. About 19 percent have mild (fever, aches, etc) symptoms and rebound quickly. But something less than one percent have real problems, including those who die (which is a percentage of that 1 percent). What all this suggests to me is that many of us are already infected (myself included) and don't know it. If you're outside a lot and get bitten, you may well have it, and it will never bother you. Now as for those who say, "NO DDT, not one drop, ever!" I would point to Bangladesh. In the late 1950's, about 47,500 a year died from malaria, with another 1.5 million infected. They started a program using DDT, and reduced that number of deaths to something like 32. Now, without DDT, the numbers are way up again. Maybe small doses, carefully applied, would kill the bloodthirsty suckers without causing bird shells to be too thin. It's worth a test, anyway. --M. G. Scratching those bites in Jordan TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
