Jim Carlock wrote:
"James" posted:
DDT might have lowered the bald eagle population but without
have using it last century you might have been killed by some
disease carrying insect.

Jim Carlock asked:
Such as? Can you cite something in particular?

"James" replied:
No I will not because you don't really want to know. I'm sure
you're smart enough to find anything to support your beliefs.

I hesitated when I posted and answered for Penelope. I don't
know what she wanted to say. I'll let her answer for herself. My
apologies, even if I correctly worded it.

Anyways, you seemed like you knew the answer to the question
above and I asked for the answer. I wouldn't have asked if I knew.
I'm ignorant about the topic. Only you can answer the question
you left open. Don't play word games. Just answer the question.

Specifically, you wrote:
DDT might have lowered the bald eagle population but without
have using it last century you might have been killed by some
disease carrying insect.

Well, there are 2 parts. If you're asking about the bald eagle, it's
concluded that DDT caused thinner egg shells which broke easier. That
resulted in population decline which have recovered some since the DDT
ban. I would have to search for a citation which can take me hours so
I can't give you a cite.

The part about DDT and insects - I thinks it's well know that the flea
carried the disease which caused the plague. It's also known the
common house fly can carry deadly diseases. If not for DDT, many
people would have died just from these. After WWII, Gi's deloused
displaced people with DDT. Again I don't have a cite but I'm sure it
can be found or that there are people out there who can. There may or
may not be an organic preventive but in the interest of public health
at the time the benefits of DDT outweighted the harm.