Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re Cost of conservation

Expand Messages
  • dsummersminet@houston.rr.com
    ... From: Martin Lewis martin.lewis@gmail.com Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 20:49:28 +0100 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation ... ...
    Message 1 of 90 , May 4, 2007
      Original Message:
      From: Martin Lewis martin.lewis@...
      Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 20:49:28 +0100
      To: brin-l@...
      Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation

      On 5/4/07, Dan Minette <dsummersminet@...> wrote:

      > > I can't quite tell, what is your exact claim about DDT here?


      > I also have the claim that, by spreading misinformation, those people who
      > originate and propagate false information are contributing to preventable
      > deaths that far exceed even the genocide in Danfur.

      > Well yes, that final point was what I was asking about because there
      >was nothing in your post to support the claim that "environmental
      >policy and environmentalist claims is a major contributor to the death
      >of 1 million/year due to malaria." Since I am now sure you are
      >claiming this surely you agree that the seriousness of the charge
      >demands at least some supporting evidence?

      Well, I was thinking of a few facts.

      1) There was a push to ban DDT worldwide about 7 years ago, by the
      Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. I remember that it
      was a close call, with malaria scientists and some African governments
      finally able to forstall banning. This was after South Africa reintroduced
      it after malaria cases shot up after it was banned for a few years.

      2) There are reports of threats by EU to ban Uganda agriculture if DDT use
      is introduced.

      for 1&2 see


      3) DDT is the cheapest, most effective means of combating malaria. Yet,
      only a small fraction of funding goes for this.

      4) The US, and many other countries banned DDT, even though there is no
      evidence of damage to humans. I think the arguement that the popularity of
      Silent Spring had a lot to do with this is valid. Otherwise, why was DDT
      singled out? I admit, I was one of the ones who wasn't thinking clearly
      in the '70s.

      5) African, like Neli, believe that the risks of DDT are high. Where did
      they get this information.

      6) Groups like Greenpeace have reccomended the total ban of DDT by this


      I remember this from 2000. Are you argueing that these statements were not
      made, and that the website and my memory are false?

      Now, in fairness, some of these organizations have backed off these
      statements, but 30 years of inertia in public opinion is hard to overcome.
      If they've changed their opinion, I think they have a responsiblity to
      clearly state it....something I couldn't see at Greenpeace when I went
      there. When I searched for DDT on their website, I found three articles on
      the evil of it, but no statement on acceptable use.

      Dan M.

      myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application
      hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting

    • Deborah Harrell
      ... ... Yep, if you wait long enough, somebody on the List will do your work for you...Thank You
      Message 90 of 90 , Jul 10, 2007
        > Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
        > > Deborah Harrell wrote:

        > >I used to know how much flatulence we humans
        > produced,
        > >but I have long forgotten that! <sigh> Yet
        > another thing to look up...

        > <http://tafkac.org/medical/death_by_flatulence.html>

        Yep, if you wait long enough, somebody on the List
        will do your work for you...Thank You Unka Ronn!

        Pass On The Cowpeas, Please Maru :)

        Need a vacation? Get great deals
        to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.