On Apr 7, 2005 12:17 AM, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And, of course, I have _lots_ of family whose life is > at risk from this decision, so it's kind of important > to me as well.
You might like to read this paper by VP Sharma about the ineffectiveness of the use of DDT in India then: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec102003/1532.pdf It's not an issue that I've looked at > superficially - the evidence on the issue, so far as I > can tell, is quite overwhelming. In fact, the best > use of DDT for malaria prevention is as a paste on the > walls of homes (where it can have no environmental > effects) - and the environmental movement has lobbied > very heavily against that, and convinced western > governments not to fund even that use of DDT, as well > as the use of DDT-implanted anti-mosquito netting (DDT > has a secondary effect as an irritant which mosquitos > don't seem to evolve a resistance to, which makes it > very effective when used in doors). > > Finally, no one in favor of DDT usage has an agenda on > this issue, so far as I can tell. Of course they do. It's the same agenda you have: to smear environmentalists. This is the whole reason places like the American Enterprise Institute, Tech Central Station, Junk Science, etc constantly raise the issue - they are paid to attack environmentalists. The lie that there is a ban on DDT use for malarial vector control is just one weapon in their arsenal. It may not be related directly to a specific industry like the lies they peddle about global warming and second hand smoke and so on but the baseless claim that environmentalists have killed 50 million Africans is too good to pass up. > No one makes any > money off DDT - it's an old chemical, and industry has > generally been in favor of replacing it with other, > more profitable, chemicals. You're generally in favor > of using DDT if you think using it is a good idea. > But since some people would rather attack people who > disagree with them than look at the evidence (after > all, no one important is dying, right?) And once again a gratuitous smear. > it's pretty > clear how this one comes out. Of course, if those > people had ever seen what a case of malaria looks > like, they might have a slightly different view. Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
