http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0901h.asp
Anyone know anything on the science of this article? This seems like a crazy thing for the environmentalists to do.
The Wiki article on DDT seems to reject the alleged positive effects of DDT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT)
Thoughts?
Over the years I have failed to find journal papers correlating DDT to harmful abnormalities in species not in the phylum arthropoda.
Carson just wrote some claptrap and people who preferred other people to live in poverty are that shit up.
Wiki says:
In response to an EDF suit, the U.S. District Court of Appeals in 1971 ordered the EPA to begin the de-registration procedure for DDT. After an initial six-month review process, William Ruckelshaus, the Agency's first Administrator rejected an immediate suspension of DDT's registration, citing studies from the EPA's internal staff stating that DDT was not an imminent danger to human health and wildlife.[13] However, the findings of these staff members were criticized, as they were performed mostly by economic entomologists inherited from the United States Department of Agriculture, whom many environmentalists felt were biased towards agribusiness and tended to minimize concerns about human health and wildlife. The decision not to ban thus created public controversy.[17]
This conflicts with the explanation given in the article. The article claims that some big EPA person said that DDT isn't as dangerous as it's made out to be and the Wiki source says that this was said only because of agrobusiness interests.
Also,
Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT
so what was killing the wildlife?
There are lots of harmful things that aren't illegal. Sawdust is harmful if you breathe too much of it. The Panama Canal would not exist without DDT.
Sawdust is harmful if you breathe too much of it
You don't blow sawdust over people's houses.
The Panama Canal would not exist without DDT.
I fail to see how this is a justification of it.
how the ddt is applied matters. i don't like the idea of drones flying and dropping chemicals from the sky.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/nov/10/ddt-monbiot-stewart-brand this is a interesting article.
Lee Doren speaks briefly on the subject here (and possibly in one of the other videos here).
Wheylous:This conflicts with the explanation given in the article.
The Wiki article's sources say nothing towards its depiction, so I don't see why you would believe they are any more trustowrthy.
Wheylous:Reference is often made to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring even though she never pushed for a ban on DDT
What other conclusion were the "environmentally conscious" to draw from her depiction of DDT in the book? That's about as disingenuous as defenders of severely restricted DDT use saying there's no ban on it. There's no de jure ban on DDT in Africa or Asia that I'm aware of, but when third world countries who seek funds from other nations must agree not to use DDT in order to receive them, that is most certainly a de facto ban.
How's that? The canal was opened for business in 1914, something like 25 years before DDT was discovered to be effective as an insecticide.
governments should not be giving out foreing aid, so the conditions of the aid are not the root of the ishue.
with private aid, there could be any condidtion and the place would likley accept the private aid of those who don't ban it.
right now the government would probaly stop the private aid and charge with terrorism or some other investigation that would suck the money out then deem innocent only after the money is sucked out