Dave wrote:
I think you need to dig out that old grammar book.

I think you need to dig out some sort of lesson plan on
basic common sense.

.... So malaria is not the result of
banning DDT. The lives are being lost as a result of banning DDT.


No, the lives are being lost as a result of malaria.

An increase in malaria since the ban on DDT could be
considered the result of a ban. It could even be possible
that due to higher population density in the malaria zone,
that there is more malaria than ever.

But it is muddled logic (ie the usual kind employed by
humans) to say that it is caused by, or should be blamed on,
the lack of DDT.

DSK

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:36:19 -0500, Walt said:

But, speaking as one of those dreaded enviros, I could
be persuaded that a limited application in situations where malaria is
particularly bad would pass the cost-benefit analysis test. In North
America, there is clearly no need to lift the ban.


I'm inclined to agree with that. Now you just have to persuade the folks to
whom environmentalism is a religion, and a rather absolutist one at that.

Ok. I'll go out and try to convert your straw men, assuming I can find any.

//Walt

Walt wrote:
DSK wrote:

Dave wrote:


Maybe in a few years, we can start using DDT again.

Heresy to the enviros.


That was a joke. It would probably be healthier in the long run to use
powdered plutonium as an insecticide.


Is plutonium an effective insecticide? If so, do the cockroaches know
that?

You know, some people are actually saying countries should start
using DDT
to save the many of the lives lost to malaria each year as a result of
banning its use..


Why is a malaria the "result" of banning DDT? What did they blame it
on, before DDT was invented?


Whatever local deity was in charge of inflicting misery on the local
population. Didn't you pay attention in religion class?


There are a number of much better answers. One of my sailing partners
is a malaria researcher, currently working for the Army (they have a
HUGE interest in malaria prevention & cure).


I would hope so. But, speaking as one of those dreaded enviros, I could
be persuaded that a limited application in situations where malaria is
particularly bad would pass the cost-benefit analysis test. In North
America, there is clearly no need to lift the ban.

The comeback of bald eagles is one of the great success stories of the
enviro movement - I didn't see one in the wild until I was in my late
30s, now I see several dozen a year. Think about it - several
generations of kids grew up without ever seeing our national symbol, and
we came together as a nation and changed that.

//Walt


Not only eagles but peregrine falcons and condors. Now if they could
just clone passenger picgeions from some stuffed artifact...

katysails wrote:
Not only eagles but peregrine falcons and condors. Now if they could
just clone passenger picgeions from some stuffed artifact...

A couple of the condor species didn't make it.

Among coastal birds, ospreys & pelicans & the Great Blue
Heron were also very hard hit by DDT. When young, I was told
to take a good look at the few Great Blues around because
they would soon be extinct. Fortunately, that was wrong.
There certainly are a lot more pelicans around nowadays than
back then, too.

While I agree with Walt that there are a few special cases
where the benefits outweigh the costs, in general the
reasons for banning it are still most persuasive.

DSK

He didn't exclude that... you did.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:18:26 -0500, "Beauregard"
said:

DDT sprayed on the interior walls and ceiling of a house will kill
mosquetos without polluting the environment, and will save many lives.
Indescriminate spraying out of doors is environmentally harmful and
should continue to be banned.

Your first sentence is right on. Too bad you blew it in the second
sentence.
What about discriminating spraying out of doors?

DSK wrote:
katysails wrote:

Not only eagles but peregrine falcons and condors. Now if they could
just clone passenger picgeions from some stuffed artifact...


A couple of the condor species didn't make it.

Among coastal birds, ospreys & pelicans & the Great Blue Heron were also
very hard hit by DDT. When young, I was told to take a good look at the
few Great Blues around because they would soon be extinct. Fortunately,
that was wrong. There certainly are a lot more pelicans around nowadays
than back then, too.

While I agree with Walt that there are a few special cases where the
benefits outweigh the costs, in general the reasons for banning it are
still most persuasive.

DSK


In remember the mosquito planes flying over when we were kids dumping
DDT around the lakes...I wonder how much cancer in out age group that is
responsible for and how many birth defects,,,

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:03:07 -0500, DSK said:


While I agree with Walt that there are a few special cases
where the benefits outweigh the costs, in general the
reasons for banning it are still most persuasive.


And would you agree that spraying the inside of huts in sub-Sahara Africa
(there aren't likely to be many eagles, hawk or herons in there) to kill the
mosquitoes that spread malaria, and using DDT on mosquito nets in those
countries, would be one of those special cases?

Or do you figure the lives there are worth so little that bending your
environmental principles to save those lives can't be justified?

How is it going to be cotrolled so it's not used on crops, etc when
someone gets the bright idea that it wo;; work outdooesa too? In most
of these places education ahsn't made a snip of difference in regards to
hygiene or birth control so how are they going to be responsible for a
controlled substance? Wouldn't it be better to find some ecologically
safe way to combat the problem? There are plants, the pyrethrums, thatt
can be planted. Get the stagnant water problems under control. Plant
plants that deter misquitos (mosquito plant, citronella, eucalyptus..)...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:00:33 -0500, katy
said:

In remember the mosquito planes flying over when we were
kids dumping
DDT around the lakes...I wonder how much cancer in out
age group that is
responsible for and how many birth defects,,,

How big a plane do you suppose it would take to spray the
walls and ceiling
inside a hut?

How big is the hut?

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:04:16 -0500, katy said:


How is it going to be cotrolled so it's not used on crops, etc when
someone gets the bright idea that it wo;; work outdooesa too? In most
of these places education ahsn't made a snip of difference in regards to
hygiene or birth control so how are they going to be responsible for a
controlled substance? Wouldn't it be better to find some ecologically
safe way to combat the problem? There are plants, the pyrethrums, thatt
can be planted. Get the stagnant water problems under control. Plant
plants that deter misquitos (mosquito plant, citronella, eucalyptus..)...


Yes, Katy, I guess those black Africans in charge of health in their
countries are just too dumb to trust.

My sister0in0kaw has been to Kenya, ine if the mire civilized countries
in Africa, twice with Operation Smile. On one of the trips a nurse died
of a heart attack becasue the ambulance never came to the hotel and they
could not get the police to clear traffic. Malaria medication,
antibiotics, etc. are on the black market and are used as trade items
rather than being distribbuted to where they're supposed to go. Has
nothing to do with black. I am not racially prefudiced. Why foist on
poor people the same ills we foisted on ourselves? Why poison them?
When I still worked at the retirement complex, I had 4 African students
working at the nursing home. 2 were studying to be nurese, one a
hospital administrator, and one a social worker. They are all going back
to their respective countries when they graduate to help their country.
We sat often and discussed the problems in Kenya, Ghana, and South
Afica. Believbe me, they would not accept your soluition for their people.

Pick up the white man's burden and
make sure it's done in a politically correct fashion, and never mind the
black bodies piling up in the meantime.

So kill them with pesticides instead. How civil of you. My personal
opinion about the majority of Africa is that the world has ignored it
and shame on the world. Great Britain, France and Italy all had colonies
and when they left they left for good. Shame on them. They assumed
stewardship, gave it up, and left a mess.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:00:33 -0500, katy said:


In remember the mosquito planes flying over when we were kids dumping
DDT around the lakes...I wonder how much cancer in out age group that is
responsible for and how many birth defects,,,


How big a plane do you suppose it would take to spray the walls and ceiling
inside a hut?

You want to spray DDT in hits where people for the most part already
have compromised lung conditions from TB....brilliant....and compromised
immune systems...more btilliant...pyrethrums, allethreums, and pyrithens
also work on mosquitos and are not toxic to the central nervous syste,
And they're cheap and plant-based or can be synthetically made.
Bringing DDT back would be a dosaster.