About Africa...

Quote:

---

Due to the large influx of illegal immigrants who, of course, are not tested for disease, as are legal immigrants, mosquito-caused diseases are re-emerging as a U.S. health problem.

---

That lost it for me...

It implies that malaria is contagious, which it isnt.

Unless those illegal immigrants are mosquito's of course.... :blink:



DDT is still widely used in the Developing countries anyway, so to encourage its use when its already being used seems a little pointless.

Unless they're just trying to get it used in the USA again and so spread the disinformation that its banned worldwide to get noticed. :ph34r:

Mosquitos, even U.S. based mosquitos, can bite an infected person and then transfer the disease to the next person it bites. So it is contagious, albeit by proxy.

I'm not sure of the validity of all the points in the piece, it does seem to make sense, however.

Did DDT really wipe out Malaria in N. America and Europe?

There was a bit of an uproar in the 60's about the side effects of DDT, especially on pregnant women. Cant remember the details. But they stopped using it in this country for a while. Probably till after everybody had forgotten about the side effects.:lol:

I'm no expert on this, but from what I can tell when looking around on google and elsewhere, it's very very bad for some if not all species of fish that come into contact with it. And seeing as it takes ages to break down that's not exactly great.

And then there's allegedly evidence of it being carcinogenic and damaging to the liver and so forth.


Having said that, malaria isn't desirable either, so it's a bugger of a choice and not really something I know enough about to have a concrete opinion of.

Not sure that Phyllis-lady does either, though.


EDit: I do know that if you identify where the bugs spend their larval stage you can get them by making it less marshy. Maybe some good old-fashioned development is in order.

Pave everything over, I say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Did DDT really wipe out Malaria in N. American and Europe?

---

Yes.

It actually did what Ms. Schlafly says it did.

Brother Rat sees a profit motive behind the prospect of DDT use, however, and this smacks of blatant U.S. capitalism (which is, of course, really bad, especially if the beneficiary is an underdeveloped state/country).

Such solutions are only to be administered by the U.N., in order that they might be kept free of corruption and profiteering. :)

---

In that case, and presupposing that the rest of the article is free from error; who cares if someone makes a profit out of helping rid Africa from Malaria.

If it's an American company that gets it's tender approved, then it will be because it can maufacture, ship and administer the DDT more cheaply than anyone else. Good for them.

That may be a little idealistic but so long as transparancy is maintained and accountability is paramount, I don't see a problem.


As I mentioned, I'm presuming for this post, because of the article, that DDT isn't actually harmful to humans nor wildlife. I know little about the subject, apart from a few horror stories heard in school about it building up in the food chain and what have you.

They never stopped using DDT in Africa though.

The reason for the increase in Malaria has nothing to do with the use of DDT.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, malaria has been on the rise since the 1970’s. Mosquitoes have been developing resistance to DDT. Plasmodium, the parasite responsible for causing malaria, began to develop resistance against chloroquine. Armed conflicts changed the conditions in countries to promote malaria transmission. Creation of dams and reservoirs provided potential mosquito breeding grounds. The success of commercial air travel meant that more travelers could be exposed to malaria when visiting endemic areas. All these factors contribute to the growing opinion that malaria is a disease that requires the world’s attention once again.

---

Source

In order to develope a resistance.. you have to be using the chemical :blink:

As i said... this guy is implying a world wide ban that was never there.

If he wants DDT to be used in the USA again, he should just say so instead of saying "In Africa"... its already used there, and is no longer effective.

Phyllis Schlafly is on the board of the Ave Maria Growth Fund..

This fund is so Right Wing that they dumped Pepsi shares because Pepsi started offering benefits to their empoyee's unmarried partners.

They avoids companies that are associated with abortion or pornography, as well as corporations that support Planned Parenthood or provide health-care benefits to nonmarried partners of employees. However are quite happy to invest in pharmacutical and weapons/defence companies.



No.. i wouldn't be at all surprised if Ave Maria or Phyllis Schlafly has shares in the Lobel Chemical Corporation, the makers of DDT in the USA.

Call me cynical if you like, but "Follow the money" does seem to be true more often than its false :P

South Africa is one of the few African Nations that stopped using DDT long ago.

It use has been re-introduced there on a small scale since 2001.

South Africa is not Africa as a whole, its comparitivly small and the malaria problem there is also comparitivly small compared to the nations further north (which never stopped using DDT).

It is also in no way going to get any Debt Relief as its nowhere near the poorest 18 nations of the world.

Basically... the poorer the nation, the more likely it is to have never stopped using DDT..

I thought that Quinine was the answer to Malaria. Rather than destroying half the vegetation etc and still not getting rid of the carriers.:(

I actually made this post because I am too old and lazy to lok up the side effects of Quinine. hopefully someone will come back with some answers. Over to you J2 you can be relied upon.:)

Quinine



You'll have to save the Rain Forests then Boab :P



Edit:

J2,

notice i am in no way arguing for or against DDT... just the way that article was written.

I was once in a Growth Fund that specialised in "Fair Trade" etc and had strict policies...

As corporations are now so inter-mixed, its very hard to actually invest in companies on any type of "Moral" criteria and make a profit without trying to influence the share prices of those few companies you have invested in.

I caught people with an interest in the fund i was in making extraordinarily unfair claims to try and do just this and dumped the fund myself.

I therefore take anything written by people with interests in "Ethical Funds" of any type with a pinch of salt, if its somethng that can influence interest in a company thats in that fund.

If they were on the Board of a normal Growth Fund... i wouldnt be nearly so sceptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quinine



You'll have to save the Rain Forests then Boab :P

---

OK I'm on my way. I have been vaccinated against all these diseases so I should be safe. Are you paying my fare through Paypal?:lol:

I have trouble following the train of thought with the likes of Ms.Schlafly's and similar minded peoples "ethics" when it comes to "compulsory medications" such as vaccines, because they say it takes away choice and carries dangers of side effects. Yet here she is suggesting we cover another nation with DDT.

I fear the statement of "junk science" is used too often when it comes to evidence that goes against large corporate interests. For years the tobacco industry called the links to cancer junk science. We hear it now over global warning.

The question here should be would Ms.Schlafly be happy to have her home sprayed with the stuff. Would she be happy for her children and grandchildren to be exposed to it?

I do realise that she isn't in any imminent danger from malaria but if she is so sure it's safe then surely she won't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I have trouble following the train of thought with the likes of Ms.Schlafly's and similar minded peoples "ethics" when it comes to "compulsory medications" such as vaccines, because they say it takes away choice and carries dangers of side effects. Yet here she is suggesting we cover another nation with DDT.

I fear the statement of "junk science" is used too often when it comes to evidence that goes against large corporate interests. For years the tobacco industry called the links to cancer junk science. We hear it now over global warning.

The question here should be would Ms.Schlafly be happy to have her home sprayed with the stuff. Would she be happy for her children and grandchildren to be exposed to it?

I do realise that she isn't in any imminent danger from malaria but if she is so sure it's safe then surely she won't mind.

---

In the article Ms. Schlafly is saying that there is no proof that DDT is harmful to humans, in no way did she unequivocally state that it was harmless.

I imagine that she knows that it could affect some people detrimentally and would have no problem admitting that. However, it appears she thinks the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Her refusing to let her family get covered in DDT would prove precisely nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

In that case, and presupposing that the rest of the article is free from error...

---

This caught my eye-

How is it we go about determining that anything we see/read (anywhere!) is free front error or agenda?

It all comes back to one's own powers of discrimination and discernment; we practice at this in a world that preaches, indeed, insists upon non-judgementalism.

---

Well, this is just it. I really don't know much about DDT and the effects of. Nor any agendas that may be involved with the issue.

Usually I can be discerning about a topic but in this case I felt it necessary to qualify my reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

In the article Ms. Schlafly is saying that there is no proof that DDT is harmful to humans, in no way did she unequivocally state that it was harmless.

I imagine that she knows that it could affect some people detrimentally and would have no problem admitting that. However, it appears she thinks the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Her refusing to let her family get covered in DDT would prove precisely nothing.

---

The article is called...."the myth of DDT" :huh:
I must know more about her and her "way of thinking". :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

Nevertheless, contrary to expert testimony that DDT was not harmful to humans, animals or the environment

---

She didn't say that there was also "expert testimony that DDT was harmful to humans, animals or the environment".... anything that suggests it is or may be is dismissed as "junk science".

I made a point of raising the tobacco/cancer link as for years they called any "proof" junk science.

evolution...junk science.... global warming.... the list goes on and on..

it may well be that she feels the benefits do outweigh the risks, but the point of my post is that she is willing to decide for others but is against others deciding for her when it comes to personal risk assessment.

Even though he was teased for it I remember a British political figure eating a beef burger to prove that British beef is safe....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The article is called...."the myth of DDT" :huh:
I must know more about her and her "way of thinking". :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article

Nevertheless, contrary to expert testimony that DDT was not harmful to humans, animals or the environment

---

She didn't say that there was also "expert testimony that DDT was harmful to humans, animals or the environment".... anything that suggests it is or may be is dismissed as "junk science".

I made a point of raising the tobacco/cancer link as for years they called any "proof" junk science.

evolution...junk science.... global warming.... the list goes on and on..

it may well be that she feels the benefits do outweigh the risks, but the point of my post is that she is willing to decide for others but is against others deciding for her when it comes to personal risk assessment.

Even though he was teased for it I remember a British political figure eating a beef burger to prove that British beef is safe....

---

You're missing my point, vid. I said nothing about junk environmentalism. I'm saying that she shouldn't cover her family in DDT, because she's no need to. Any refusal on her part could be put down to not wanting them to suffer any discomfort - it would prove nothing.

John Gummer ate some beef in front of the media, he never stopped eating it at home, either. He ate it at home because he didn't believe the hype, he was hungry and it tastes nice.

Ms. Schlafly simply has no need to spray her family with DDT. Maybe if she lived in Africa then she would.



Her recommendation that DDT is used more in Africa cannot be rendered useless just because she (probably) wouldn't agree to a pointless publicity stunt. To me that statement smacks of schoolboy reasoning; "We shouldn't have to do homework because the teacher doesn't do it".

Of course, the teacher has already passed GSCEs, so why study. Ms. Schlafly doesn't have malaria ridden mosquitos around her home so why spray herself with DDT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

and Rat wouldn't believe Phyllis Schlafly if she told him the sky was (normally) blue, because she's...well...Conservative. :P

---

If you read back, i said its because she is on a board with a special interest.

I also said i have left a liberal group with a special interest that used similar tactics in the past.

It has nothing to do with her politics... just that those politics affect the special interest group she belongs to, and gave an example of that.

It doesnt matter if those politics are left or right.



In this instance, DDT is not as effective in the poorest countries that didnt stop using it. This means that other pesticides are now beginning to be purchase, and the profits of a certain company are therefore affected.

This is a blatant attempt to take over the agenda of something thats already in the news. Make the countries that are just beginning to stop using it (not because of environmental concerns, but because its no longer effective in those countries) buy it anyway, or deny them aid. If this can increase the sales by selling elsewhere because its now "safe" in their eyes, so much the better.

Notice that it doesnt mention the $73million that firms have agreed to pay to stay out of court in California...

Why pay $73million if theres no risk, and it happened before the ban?

Quote:

---

LOS ANGELES
Montrose Chemical Corp. and three other firms agreed last week to pay $73 million to settle a lawsuit charging the companies with contaminating 17 square miles of ocean floor near Catalina Island with the pesticide DDT.

The suit, filed in 1990, accused now-defunct Montrose of dumping nearly 2,000 tons of DDT-contaminated waste into the ocean and Los Angeles sewers between 1947 and 1971, according to a report form the Reuters news agency.

DDT was banned from use in the United States in 1972 because it damaged the human nervous system and the reproductive systems of animals.

Last week's agreement will be used to fund the rehabilitation of species of fish and birds damaged by the DDT dumping, as well as to clean up the contaminated ocean floor near Catalina Island.

Firms involved in the settlement also include Aventis CropScience USA and Chris-Craft Industries, which jointly owned Montrose, as well as Atkemix Thirty Seven, which now owns the site of the former Montrose DDT plant, according to Reuters.

---

Possibly its because the courts require evidence to convict... and there is plenty around. More than enough to prove DDT is pretty nasty stuff..


However, as i said earlier.... im not going to argue in favour or against DDT as a pesticide. Its the blatent propaganda and false implications in the original article thats pissed me off. Money grabbing bastards trying to force a sale :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

There is also a tendency to rely over-much on "experts".

The presumption of credibility is incredible.

---

so would you be happy to be exposed to DDT? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Manker-

Your comments are appreciated as they weigh on dispassionate reasoning; too little of this is done....studies are slanted, expert testimony is purchased, and Rat wouldn't believe Phyllis Schlafly if she told him the sky was (normally) blue, because she's...well...Conservative. :P

---

On what are you basing her article as having more weight than opposing articles?...has she carried out scientific studies ?

I wonder what it is you feel that the people that wish to ban DDT altogether will gain ? The increase in malaria is hardly something to aspire to is it? :huh:
Are you suggesting that one side has "slanted studies" and not the other and one side has paid for their experts to say what they want to be said?...which side?

But then DDT wasn't banned completely, the ruling allowed for its use to fight malaria in those areas until an alternative could be found...trouble is that profit or lack of is slowing the process down. We have alternatives but they are apparently too expensive for "mass usage".


I would have more respect for Ms. Schlafly's "concern" about malaria if her article hadn't started with pointing out that Africa owes money that it is not going to have to repay..... seems to me she has her priorities in order. ;) That said she does raise a very valid point about how our money is spent


There is indeed a huge problem with this dreadful disease and it deserves attention. DDT as a cure to me seems to be on a level with cutting ones leg off to cure athletes foot..

what is needed is more viable and urgent research into alternatives....and put aside the monetary issue. Ban DDT altogether and force the use of the expensive alternatives and the motivation to find cheaper better alternatives will be supplied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

.You're missing my point, vid. I said nothing about junk environmentalism. I'm saying that she shouldn't cover her family in DDT, because she's no need to. Any refusal on her part could be put down to not wanting them to suffer any discomfort - it would prove nothing.


Ms. Schlafly simply has no need to spray her family with DDT. Maybe if she lived in Africa then she would.


.

---

The whole weight of her arguement for DTT is that it's NOT harmful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article
Nevertheless, contrary to expert testimony that DDT was not harmful to humans, animals or the environment

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

it may well be that she feels the benefits do outweigh the risks, but the point of my post is that she is willing to decide for others but is against others deciding for her when it comes to personal risk assessment.

---

she actively opposes any maditory medications for herself and other Americans, yet is fine with spraying this stuff on Africans

And no one has ever argued that small amounts of DDT are harmfull, except extremists that would have us all in caves still.

The problem with DDT is that it doesnt break down, and accumulates in the foodchain.

Any toxic substance and most non-toxic, in enough quantity is harmful.

Find a way to make DDT break down if its too expensive to find other pesticides.. :rolleyes:


Its not the only chemical that the west developed and stopped using because of its dangers... but continued selling to the 3rd world either.. :frusty:

Plenty of western pharmacutical companies making a fortune on stuff deemed unsafe in the USA and Europe...Phalidomide and Tamazopam for example.

I wonder if the reason for this apparent promotion of DDT could be related to the fact that the Plasmodium Genome sequencing has now been completed. The consequence is that this parasite may well be doomed in a very short space of time.

Once that happens, there is absolutely no reason why the mosquito can't happily continue sucking human blood without the risk of spreading malaria, so any reason for using DDT would be gone along with the profits.

Some people need to face facts, it is a very nasty chemical with long term effects on human systems, otherwise it would not be banned in the western world. The only reason for allowing it's continued use elsewhere is because the alternatives are worse.

Or are they? The immune system is also affected by prolonged exposure to DDT. Aids is now endemic in exactly the same places where widespread use of DDT has continued, and more or less over the same timescale. I wonder what the chances are that there is a link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

On what are you basing her article as having more weight than opposing articles?...has she carried out scientific studies ?

---

I believe her point is that, by dint of sensationalist sentiment created by Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, DDT was the baby that got pitched with the bathwater, so to speak, and never was given it's due as an effective measure against malaria, which, in the beleaguered interim, can be arguably said to have needlessly cost millions of lives, as opposed to possibly a few thousand who reacted poorly to the DDT.

In a nutshell.

---

I think there is more to it than that. Government bodies tend to ask for proof of claims and not just look at the claim itself.

Quote:

---

can be arguably said to have needlessly cost millions of lives,

---

No it cant..

As ive stated numerous times in the thread..

In the areas where malaria is indemnic, DDT has continued to be used. ie: The majority of the African Continent and India.

The example you gave; South Africa, stopped using it in 1996 and started again in 2001 because of an increase in cases.

DDT is banned for agricultural uses in the west.


I do agree that there is undue pressure to stop the use of DDT on those governments that are using it against malaria from some circles... in this case i fully support those governments to continue its use.

For any that use it for agricultural purposes (there are currently still 20 nations that do this), i'd be joining in the campaign to get rid of it.

I would argue that the article is aimed in the wrong direction at Africa, the majority of countries listen to each other here and don't succumb easily to political pressure... the countries that are abandoning it have done so because its no longer effective there because of over-use. The Mosquito's have adapted.

If they changed their aim towards Central and South America where they have started getting rid of DDT because of political pressure and still have malaria... I would not have jumped on it. :P

As i stated earlier though, they are attempting to hijack Africa for their own ends because its in the news atm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Government bodies tend to ask for proof of claims and not just look at the claim itself.

---

I presume we will soon see this dynamic at work in the upcoming Supreme Court nominative? :lol:

---

I have views on this but it is probably too "localised" for the thread to not be hijacked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Due to the large influx of illegal immigrants who, of course, are not tested for disease, as are legal immigrants, mosquito-caused diseases are re-emerging as a U.S. health problem.

---

That lost it for me...

It implies that malaria is contagious, which it isnt.

Unless those illegal immigrants are mosquito's of course.... :blink:



DDT is still widely used in the Developing countries anyway, so to encourage its use when its already being used seems a little pointless.

Unless they're just trying to get it used in the USA again and so spread the disinformation that its banned worldwide to get noticed. :ph34r:

---

i haven't read the thing j2 posted, but that's a bloody good point :pwned:

Sorry if has been said , I didn't read the whole thread . But aren't some stupid people trying to teach farming to Africa with out herbicides ? Yet our Usa and Canadian farmers use them ?


Sorry should have read the thread. My apologies , I see with the aid concert Africa is in the news. But I did read in fridays paper about DDT and African issues. It killed a few birds and everone is up in arms. The story was from an African view point wish I had the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

Sorry if has been said , I didn't read the whole thread . But aren't some stupid people trying to teach farming to Africa with out herbicides ? Yet our Usa and Canadian farmers use them ?


Sorry should have read the thread. My apologies , I see with the aid concert Africa is in the news. But I did read in fridays paper about DDT and African issues. It killed a few birds and everone is up in arms. The story was from an African view point wish I had the link.

---

to add to that. illogical hippy scare mongering caused some governments to reject GM crops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

Sorry if has been said , I didn't read the whole thread . But aren't some stupid people trying to teach farming to Africa with out herbicides ? Yet our Usa and Canadian farmers use them ?


Sorry should have read the thread. My apologies , I see with the aid concert Africa is in the news. But I did read in fridays paper about DDT and African issues. It killed a few birds and everone is up in arms. The story was from an African view point wish I had the link.

---

to add to that. illogical hippy scare mongering caused some governments to reject GM crops

---

If people end up with two or three heads because of GM crops, would that not mean more mouths to feed?:cry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

to add to that. illogical hippy scare mongering caused some governments to reject GM crops

---

If people end up with two or three heads because of GM crops, would that not mean more mouths to feed?:cry:

---

I always liked the term Frankinfood ! :shifty:

I have read one or two of the divine Ms Schlafly's articles ... I find her endearingly dotty.

Nevertheless, the piece, whilst havng a mild foam about environmentalism, does raise a useful point about the endemic nature of disease in Africa. It is precisely this problem that shackles much of Africa and precisely where the West can provide specific and useful aid.

DDT has it's uses but it does kill fish and as mosquitos and water and fish all co-habit this does present difficulties for countries where subsistence fishing occurs. Lynx's point about genetic advances in dealing with Malaria is something that I saw in my newspaper a couple of weeks ago and may prove to be the most effective solution in the longer term.

Not sure what the problem with the World Bank is ... hardly the most Liberal of organs and is currently run by Mr Wolfowitz, as I recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

The immune system is also affected by prolonged exposure to DDT. Aids is now endemic in exactly the same places where widespread use of DDT has continued, and more or less over the same timescale. I wonder what the chances are that there is a link.

---

This is precisely the type of statement that a paranoid would go out and commission an investigation to prove "true".

It is commonly called a "conspiracy spore"; it has the nature of a virus, and propagation of such is responsible for entire generations of defective thought processes.

---

No, it is called correlation. Things rarely happen on their own, there is often some other factor which gets overlooked. It is common practise that when you can't find the cause for something that you look for something else which is happening at the same time, and check to see if the cause is the same.

Your alternative seems to be "stick your head in the sand, don't look, what you might find will only scare you".

Unfortunately, not looking properly has had some devastating consequences in the past, eg Thalidomide. The "excuse" there was that they didn't know about stereo chemistry. Who is to say that there isn't something else we don't know about. "Not looking" won't find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

The whole weight of her arguement for DTT is that it's NOT harmful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the article
Nevertheless, contrary to expert testimony that DDT was not harmful to humans, animals or the environment

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

it may well be that she feels the benefits do outweigh the risks, but the point of my post is that she is willing to decide for others but is against others deciding for her when it comes to personal risk assessment.

---

she actively opposes any maditory medications for herself and other Americans, yet is fine with spraying this stuff on Africans

---

Vid, you're still missing my point. I think you're doing it on purpose, which is a little disappointing.

She says DDT should be used in Africa because she presumably thinks the benefits will outweigh the costs. This doesn't mean she has to qualify the statement by spraying her house with it when she has no need to.

I expect she also thinks that cancer patients should be treated with gamma radiation because the benefits outweigh the risks. Should she book herself in for a 2 month course of chemotherapy now, or do you think that would be a bit silly, like.

Trying to get rid of mosquitos in Africa would be like painting the Forth Bridge. Only you would be required to complete the task quicker and more often. In other words virtually impossible.

The answer IMO is to treat the patient and find a better means of immunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Vid, you're still missing my point. I think you're doing it on purpose, which is a little disappointing.

She says DDT should be used in Africa because she presumably thinks the benefits will outweigh the costs. This doesn't mean she has to qualify the statement by spraying her house with it when she has no need to.

I expect she also thinks that cancer patients should be treated with gamma radiation because the benefits outweigh the risks. Should she book herself in for a 2 month course of chemotherapy now, or do you think that would be a bit silly, like.

---

I am not missing your point at all. I posted again because you said she isn't saying DDT has no adverse effects.

I am also sticking with the "she should take the risk herself" stance because, and I repeat, she actively campaigns against ANY MANDATORY MEDICATION. She is against vaccination programmes for the USA. She feels this is government oppression and states that government should not be making choices for what "she or hers put into their bodies" because it is up to the individual to decide on the risk.
She is not in a malaria risk area but it is possible that she may be in a west nile risk area.

She is making a case that DDT is not harmful to humans...it has no side effects...there is no risk.

so I am not missing your point at all...I am disagreeing with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Vid, you're still missing my point. I think you're doing it on purpose, which is a little disappointing.

She says DDT should be used in Africa because she presumably thinks the benefits will outweigh the costs. This doesn't mean she has to qualify the statement by spraying her house with it when she has no need to.

I expect she also thinks that cancer patients should be treated with gamma radiation because the benefits outweigh the risks. Should she book herself in for a 2 month course of chemotherapy now, or do you think that would be a bit silly, like.

---

I am not missing your point at all. I posted again because you said she isn't saying DDT has no adverse effects.

I am also sticking with the "she should take the risk herself" stance because, and I repeat, she actively campaigns against ANY MANDATORY MEDICATION. She is against vaccination programmes for the USA. She feels this is government oppression and states that government should not be making choices for what "she or hers put into their bodies" because it is up to the individual to decide on the risk.
She is not in a malaria risk area but it is possible that she may be in a west nile risk area.

She is making a case that DDT is not harmful to humans...it has no side effects...there is no risk.

so I am not missing your point at all...I am disagreeing with it.

---

You can repeat the stuff that doesn't detract what I'm saying all you like, but it's not a very effective debating technique.

She doesn't say that it doesn't have side effects. She said that no study has been able to prove that it does have side effects.

The two are entirely different.

I guess you think commentators should qualify their statements in the manner of John Gummer, else they're not valid.

That is patently ridiculous.

Then you are missing what I am saying

nvm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Then you are missing what I am saying

---

I commented on your assertion that Ms. Schlafly should cover her family in DDT.

Which remains ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Then you are missing what I am saying

---

I commented on your assertion that Ms. Schlafly should cover her family in DDT.

Which remains ridiculous.

---

Where did I say she should cover her family with DTT?

If she believes it is a safe product ( and that is exactly what she is saying ) would she be prepared to use it as an insecticide in her own vegetable garden or home? is she prepared to campaign for it's use in the US market? Is she prepared to expose her family to the "non-risk", after all there is according to her "no evidence to prove it is unsafe"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Did DDT really wipe out Malaria in N. American and Europe?

---

...Brother Rat sees a profit motive behind the prospect of DDT use...

---

Isn't there always a profit motive behind everything that we
greedy humans do? :(