Daffodil Lane

I am reminded of the wholesale ban on DDT that those kind planet-loving compassionate folks foisted on the rest of the world. True, falcons and eagles were benefitted. But where was the compassion for people living in 3rd world countries where malaria is a major source of mortality, and where DDT had been so effective in controlling the mosquito population?

Perhaps, unlike the environmental activists, they do not live in this country and can't vote for Democrats. If the enviro-nazis were constituents of the Republican party, no doubt the left would be screaming charges of racism, and that the Republicans wanted to kill off those folks so megacorporations could take their land.

I can see it now. Michael Moore would be in Panama, video recorder in hand to document the whole evil plot.

You're crazy if you think DDT isn't just as bad for human beings. DDT is a persitent toxic chemical that builds up through biomagnification throughout the food chain. DDT was rightfully banned in America and should be banned throughout the world. You should pick up a copy of Silent Spring and educate yourself.

Where did I say DDT was completely safe? Even so, most people will take their chances with the side effects of chemotherapy rather than certain death by cancer. Perhaps whether DDT is used or not should be determined, I don't know, democratically maybe by those affected?

No. Absolutely not. DDT has become increasingly ineffective over the years due to genetic adaptability of mosquitoes for resistance against the DDT. There is no reason to spray something that is so harmful that doesn't work that well. Plus those people who don't have the benefits of education don't know that DDT is so harmful. The health risks are too diverse and too severe. It should be banned globally.

Granted mosquitoes adapt over time. But should we abandon the use of antibiotics just because resistant strains will eventually render the antibiotic in question ineffective? It seems to me that the right choice is the one that saves lives.

I think it interesting that you would deny people people the right to make choices because of lack of education. Now I actually don't disagree that voters should be reasonably educated on the issues that they are going to be voting on. But I would be interested to know if you would support denying people the right to vote here in the USA if they do not meet certain education requirements. Once again I can hear cries of discrimination, racism and disenfranchisement.

PS. I will refrain from posting and gove you the last word, far be it from me to not let a topic go. :)

Environmentally sound policies are NOT discriminatory, racist or disenfranchising. Concern over global health, not only our planet's health but also human health, is in everyone's best interest. Think globally, act locally. It's the basic tenet of environmentalism and it rings true in more ways than one. We should all be stewards of the earth and those countries whose technology is more advanced (i.e. those that know better) should help educate the rest of the planet. We all live here. We all have responsibility to protect Mother Earth. The Gaia Theory is the perfect example of this.

There are safer alternatives to DDT that don't pose as serious of a health risk as DDT. The simple fact of the matter is that corporations still make a lot of money off of DDT and even though it's banned for use here in the US there are still US corporations that make the toxin right here on US soil. These companies fight tooth and nail to ensure that they convince people in developing countries that DDT isn't that bad instead of spending time finding and designing alternative methods and products that aren't as dangerous.

I've read up on both sides of the story, being that this is in my field, and I'm sorry but DDT needs to be banned globally. Your arguments are weak at best and misguided at worst.