http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/16/MNGKQL6N581.DTL&feed=rss.news
The World Health Organization reversed a 30-year-old policy Friday and declared its support for indoor use of the pesticide DDT to control mosquitoes in regions where malaria is a major health problem.
The Geneva-based WHO, which provides advice to many developing countries, believes the benefits of the long-acting pesticide far outweigh any health or environmental risk it may pose. About 1 million people die each year of malaria, most of them African children younger than 5.
Go read all the articles on this, millions upon millions have died because of faulty science. Why should the Enviro's not have to pay for their mis-deed? What rights do they have in being the direct cause of slaughting these people, when there was a remendy and extermination of a disease as horrific as marlia? This makes me sick!
2006-09-19 00:39:50 · 6 answers · asked by kickinupfunf 6 in Environment
Completely different uses of DDT are involved.
When DDT was banned it was being used in huge amounts outdoors. The environmental impact was devastating.
The new information says to use small quantities indoors. Completely different use.
Could the ban have been done smarter, with exceptions made? Sure. But overall it was a good thing, not an occaision for shame. For one thing everyone used DDT, while only a minority of countries have a serious malaria problem. And the vast majority of DDT use at the time of the ban was done in countries that had no malaria problem at all. It's still unjustified there.
The reference given above for examples of bad science is for a fringe website, well outside the mainstream of science. The author is more political than scientific.
2006-09-19 07:07:51 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Isn't that a bit unfair - surely not all environmentalists should hang their heads in shame? If you weigh up the pros and cons of DDTand also have a 30 year time scale then you should be able to make a more informed decision. It doesn't mean that the science is necessarily faulty - they did the best that they could at that particular time
2006-09-19 07:47:10 · answer #2 · answered by Geo 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting that you bring this up. I watched a show on TV last year that was about the 10 deadliest creatures on the planet. Lion? No. Poisonous snake? No. Ahhh.... gotta be the great white shark, right? Nope. Now you're getting it, it was the itty bitty mosquito. Kills far more people than all the other deadly creatures combined.
2006-09-19 07:52:43 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Peachy® 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey! Hind-sight is 20/20. NOW we know what it does, but back then a real threat was detected and dealt with. Take your way of thinking and you might think we should keep war around because it leads to so much death that it actually conserves resources for future generations.
2006-09-19 07:48:26 · answer #4 · answered by morrowynd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
some solutions have to be accepted in the short term.
For example, many people object nuclear power.
But if youre really running out of fuel, surely you must resort to that while research is going on to find a better alternative
2006-09-19 09:41:08 · answer #5 · answered by Mark T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great comment. Check out this site:
http://www.junkscience.com/
He's even got T-Shirts that read: "DDT - weapon of mass survival". He's also got some great stuff on the hysteria over so-called global warming.
2006-09-19 08:55:18 · answer #6 · answered by Sheik Yerbouti 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋