In article
,
Dinosaur_Sr wrote:

On Apr 27, 5:32*pm, "John B." wrote:
On Apr 27, 5:19*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:



On Apr 27, 2:32*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 27, 1:10*pm, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:43*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 27, 9:34*am, Dinosaur_Sr
wrote:

On Apr 26, 6:09*pm, "John B." wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:50*pm, Dinosaur_Sr

wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:26*pm, Carbon
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:46:35 -0700, Doc wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:19*am, Billy wrote:

What? Are you anAynRander, into selfishness, and ****
the world, or
are you a human being?

You're displaying a gross non-understanding of Rand's
thoughts. While
it may require less effort on your part it's incorrect.

Rand was still wrong.

She is right...in every way! More or less!

What, for example is the common good? If everyone benefits,
what are
the costs and how are they paid? Worst issue of all is who
determines
what is the common good?

Eight million children in the developing world die every year
from
infectious diseases. Do we need to sit around and scratch our
heads
about whether doing something about that is to the common good?
Does
anyone in his right mind adhere to the Ayn Rand point of view,
which
would be: tough shit for them?

How many people in developed countries die of infectious
diseases? How
many people die of drowning? How many people die in automobile
accidents? How about lifting the idiot ban on DDT? How many
people
have died of malaria because of the ban on DDT? Despite no
evidence at
all that it harms humans, and limited evidence that it harms
birds
when used irresponsibly....but it had to be banned...by people
like
you! Gonna take responsibility for the ban...think the radical
environmentalists will take responsibility for all those deaths?

So what do *YOU* actually do about it, right now, today...or is
your
only issue what should other people do about it?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll answer one of your questions, which is how many people have
died
of malaria b/c of the DDT ban? The answer is zero, because DDT is
not
banned in Africa. The rest are too stupid to bother with.

Really? There was never a worldwide ban on DDT? And how much DDT has
Africa produced over the years in any event? I'll suggest that
hundreds of millions have died because of the DDT ban. Prove me
wrong!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why don't you prove yourself wrong? The UN has no authority to ban
anything. There is a TREATY by which 160 countries agreed to stop
using DDT. The treaty recognizes that eliminating DDT in countries
with high rates of malaria is not feasible so it is still in use in
those countries. Your estimate that hundreds of millions have died
because of the DDT "ban" is ludicrous, but that's rather par for the
course for you, isn't it?

So you have no information at all.

From the UN's own propaganda:

(http://www.unep.org/PDF/DSSA_Africa.pdf)

"DDT and its residues build up in the food chain,
and it is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not
applied in accordance with WHO
guidelines and recommendations. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
such as DDT, which
became widely used in the 1940s, are slowly metabolized, accumulate in
living tissue, and can
affect the health of humans and wildlife. There is now considerable
debate and increased
suspicion regarding the ability of DDT and other pesticides to disrupt
the endocrine systems of
mammals. New evidence is being published about links between low-level
DDT exposure and
adverse health effects, in particular related to childhood
neurodevelopment, breast cancer in
women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and
to diabetes."

So DDT *may* be harmful, and there is "new evidence" of "links" to
adverse health effects. No real data though. No evidence of any cause
and effect, like we have with say Malaria! Much better to have 300
million cases of malaria a year (the UN number) than expose people to
such potential risks of DDT! And lets put aside the fact that people
have been looking for adverse effects of DDT for 50+ years...and have
found nothing of any real substance.

Typical though...and in the meantime because of poor water quality
people in Africa have to expose themselves to shistosomes...and we
could help with the water...if the money wasted on DDT were spent on
water quality, hundreds of millions would not get malaria and millions
at least would not get schistosomaiasis...but then there's those bald
eagles...their decline *MAY* have been caused by DDT... no real
evidence, but some good links!

...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What the hell is wrong with you? You're rebutting an argument that I
never made.

Water quality has nothing to do with malaria. You don't get malaria
from drinking dirty water, you get it from mosquitoes that breed in
water. They don't care how dirty it is.

As for bald eagles, the evidence is conclusive. You're just too lazy
to go look for it.

I thought you were some sort of science professor. I'm sure glad you
don't teach my kids.

Maybe you should read my post before you respond. One thing for sure.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't understand what I say. For
example, I never said water quality had anything to do with malaria.
Either you are a sack of hammers or a troll.

You said (and I quote):

"if the money wasted on DDT were spent on water quality, hundreds of
millions would not get malaria"

How can that be interpreted in any other way but that you said that
water quality *does* have something to do with malaria?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg