For example, > pesticides have come back with this idea DDT saved lives from malaria, > and when it was banned the environmentalist killed millions. So the > 'argument' of logic is widespread of cause and effect that still has > great popular support in how knowledge in public information is > generated.
huh? -- there is a whole subculture of DDT nuts out there; my mate Tim Lambert documents them a bit on his website. Basically, around the time of the earliest tobacco litigation, the same people who were trying to fund tobacco-lung-cancer-sceptics in the scientific and epidemiological world, were persuaded to throw a few quid at the project of discrediting environmentalists. Part of this project was the generation of the factoid that DDT was banned worldwide (it wasn't) because of Rachel Carson (who didn't advocate a ban) and that if it hadn't been banned (did I mention it wasn't), it could have formed the basis of an effective anti-malaria program all over the world (it couldn't). In the face of the facts, this myth has survived for like twenty years now, displaying almost as strong resistance to the truth as some mosquito species have to DDT. best dd
