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.
Bookmarks