no, prancing, i don’t believe that is true. DDT is not being used here.
i think the lives of the youngsters are more important than the enviros kicking everyone around other than themselves. how would the enviros like it if they lost a baby or child to malaria? oh, i know, they will say, so patronizingly, that there are too many people in africa, so some babies must die, or that it is natural based on location or other garbage.
the enviros are the most ridiculous group of nuts i have ever heard of. i asked them, right here, if they’d give up their cars and inefficient energy ******* houses and all their conveniences. oh, no! but they do not want the common man in india who has a wife and 3 kids to drive a car instead of putting all of them onto a little scooter!
it’s terrible when a child dies of malaria: you knock out his unique qualities as a human being. you do not know what we lose. you don’t know what he could become later on in life–perhaps the one scientist that discovers the cure, permanently, for cancer.
do you think that losing 500 human beings every day to malaria is worse than using DDT? ugh on you, if you do.
DDT collects, in higher concentrations, up the food chain.
It wreaks havoc on entire ecosystems.
Not only is killing all the birds devestating ecologically, but it doesn’t stop there. People, and anyone else, who eats birds that are filled with poison, consume that poison, too.
Funny about that. We are getting plague and bedbugs and various things we didn’t get back when we used DDT. However, DDT had unintended deletorious consequences. Possibly there could be a safe use. I don’t know.
The third world should decide if they want it, I would think.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
My understanding is that DDT was found to not be as harmful as thought and is being used again.
There’s other stuf you can use that is even cheaper.
Why make this a false dichotomy?
people are replaceable. Birds, well, they tend to be a bit more delicate (species-wise).
Personally I’d prefer that people in the 3rd world learn to eat the birds and make themselves just that much more self sufficient.
What is proven is that when you feed the third world they make more kids.
Nature’s response may be all these diseases which still doesn’t keeps those populations from exploding.
no, prancing, i don’t believe that is true. DDT is not being used here.
i think the lives of the youngsters are more important than the enviros kicking everyone around other than themselves. how would the enviros like it if they lost a baby or child to malaria? oh, i know, they will say, so patronizingly, that there are too many people in africa, so some babies must die, or that it is natural based on location or other garbage.
the enviros are the most ridiculous group of nuts i have ever heard of. i asked them, right here, if they’d give up their cars and inefficient energy ******* houses and all their conveniences. oh, no! but they do not want the common man in india who has a wife and 3 kids to drive a car instead of putting all of them onto a little scooter!
it’s terrible when a child dies of malaria: you knock out his unique qualities as a human being. you do not know what we lose. you don’t know what he could become later on in life–perhaps the one scientist that discovers the cure, permanently, for cancer.
do you think that losing 500 human beings every day to malaria is worse than using DDT? ugh on you, if you do.
You don’t seem to understand the issue.
DDT collects, in higher concentrations, up the food chain.
It wreaks havoc on entire ecosystems.
Not only is killing all the birds devestating ecologically, but it doesn’t stop there. People, and anyone else, who eats birds that are filled with poison, consume that poison, too.
You’ve got a false dichotomy there.
Funny about that. We are getting plague and bedbugs and various things we didn’t get back when we used DDT. However, DDT had unintended deletorious consequences. Possibly there could be a safe use. I don’t know.
The third world should decide if they want it, I would think.