In response to:

Environmentalism and Human Sacrifice

Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 8:18 AM
"The" DDT myth? The "DDT myth" is that it weakens bird egg shells. What would the total death toll be if DDT had been used? Is 900,000 okay with you? Do you disagree with the World Health Organization finding? I know you dislike Prager, but, gee...
Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 11:06 AM
Well, again, you haven't answered my question. I guess there is no reason I deserve an answer, but the big issues remain. Do you favor DDT use, despite your difference with Prager over the so-called "myth"?

Your 900,000 statistic could have been reduced by use of DDT, even as it lost effectiveness. By the Obama reasoning ("if even one life can be saved") you would have argued for its use.

On the other hand, if you buy into the cost-benefit reasoning of Lomborg and other rational humans, perhaps you think that developing resistent strains of mosquitos would be too dangerous (like pennicilin losing its effectiveness against pneumonia), and you don't favor its use?

Any comment?
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 10:15 AM
My point was that, Prager citing a commentary by Lukas said that there was a ban on DDT use worldwide. This is not so. WHO did place restrictions on its use, called Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), to make sure it was not being abused. However the main reason that the widespread use of DDT was halted was that is was losing effectiveness.

That said, DDT is still available for limited use, along with other insecticides and control measures (like insecticide impregnates mosquito nets)--always has been.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 10:05 AM
I apologize for the typo. I meant "...declined WITH DDT..."

Deaths declined even with use of DDT just as competency in the U.S. schools declined even with the use of text books. What evidence have you not shared with us that shows a decline in the effectiveness of DDT and/or an increase in resistence among mosquitos? There are other factors which could possibly act as surrogates for resistent strains of mosquitos, are there not?

Going for more coffee.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 9:55 AM
You apparently conclude that because malaria deaths declined without DDT that DDT became less effective. You may know this to be true, but you haven't helped us with any evidence. What we do know is that mosquito nets and medical treatment have been used, and probably account for the reduced death toll.

By your reasoning we should stop using books in school because competency declined even as they were used.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 9:50 AM
" September 2006, the World Health Organization announced a change in policy: It now recommends DDT for indoor use to fight malaria."

Do you disagree with the World Health Organization finding?

On what basis?

Seriously, you always seem to know a lot about your subjects, but you are quite selective in participating in any discussion, especially in answering questions posed as part of the "debate."

I agree with Prager that there is an element of irrationality in most environmental organizations and activists. Sure, we don't want to foul our own nest. But there is no balance in the positions of Greenpeace, et al.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 8:42 AM
"What would the total death toll be if DDT had been used?"

As I noted, DDT became increasingly less effective due to mosquitoes developing resistance, not because it was banned. So the death toll is not related to the lack of DDT use and, in fact, deaths dropped even after DDT use declined.

Last week, Bjorn Lomborg, the widely published Danish professor and director of one of the world's leading environmental think tanks, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, published an article about the Philippines' decision, after 12 years, to allow genetically modified (GM) rice -- "golden rice" -- to be grown and consumed in that country.

The reason for the delay was environmentalist opposition to GM rice; and the reason for the change in Philippine policy was that 4.4 million Filipino children suffer from vitamin A deficiency. That deficiency, Lomborg writes, "according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind...