Then, of course, they don't want to have a discussion/debate. Don't try to ask about facts or try to present new ones. You see, by this time it is "generally accepted" or "the world's scientists have reached a consensus." If you try to have a debate, you are a "skeptic" or worse, a "heretic." I am a scientist, of sorts. I believe in the scientific theory. When I was earning my chemistry degree, I don't remember any classes that discussed heresy. I think that was over in the social sciences, anyway.
This post, referring to "Silent Spring", by Rachel Carson, describes the same concept. Millions of people have died of malaria who would not have died had people, perhaps well meaning but foolish, not bought into this bad science and agreed to outlaw DDT.
For Rachel Carson admirers, it has not been a silent spring. They’ve been celebrating the centennial of her birthday with paeans to her saintliness. A new generation is reading her book in school — and mostly learning the wrong lesson from it.But they won't. Even the supposedly educated people called teachers (present company excluded, ALa) don't look beyond the information they would like to believe. "DDT kills little baby robins? Oh, No! We should outlaw it! Let's teach our little students that humans have no right to alter their environments!" They don't stop to consider this (WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria):
If students are going to read “Silent Spring” in science classes, I wish it were paired with another work from that same year, 1962, titled “Chemicals and Pests.” It was a review of “Silent Spring” in the journal Science written by I. L. Baldwin, a professor of agricultural bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin.
Each year, more than 500 million people suffer from acute malaria, resulting in more than 1 million deaths. At least 86 percent of these deaths are in sub-Saharan Africa. Globally an estimated 3,000 children and infants die from malaria every day and 10,000 pregnant women die from malaria in Africa every year. Malaria disproportionately affects poor people, with almost 60 percent of malaria cases occurring among the poorest 20 percent of the world’s population.Come on! 3,000 kids a day, dead by Malaria. How many robins is that worth? And the dead robin stuff was claptrap anyway! Don't forget the 10,000 pregnant women a year and the extra 10,000+ unborn babies. (What does it mean that these types of statistics rarely mention the dead men?) This is over a MILLION babies and children every year!
There is good news on the horizon. The world is starting to wake up. From the same WHO article:
Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa."NO health risk." Except to the more than 30 million dead children in Africa and countless more adults. Oh, wait, that was the lack of DDT use that killed them. All because some wackos managed to play on our fears. Wasn't it AlGore that screached, "HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!"?
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. "Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”
This is the same garbage science that is driving the global warming hysteria (GWH). I have no doubt that in 30-40 years we'll see similar articles about the damage GWH has done in our world. How many will die for that? How much will that cost us?
UPDATE: Response to comments:
Rickvid and APV: You appear to be worried about chemical migration through the foodchain. What is a foodchain except chemical migration? When I eat, I get all sorts of chemicals. If I didn't, I would die of chemical deprivation.
The key is to determine which chemicals might be bad for you. The problem with Rachel Carson's approach, the point of my post, is that they don't wait for good evidence, they grab ahold of "trends" or "preliminary data" that, more often than not, turn out to be wrong.
Because of the disinformation of Rachel Carson and her willing accomplices in the media (Useful Idiots, anyone?), no one was willing to examine the true facts. Resulting in the deaths of millions.
Read the post, "DDT represents no health risk when used properly." This by the WHO, certainly no right wing organization.
Is DDT in the food chain a bad thing? Can you answer that? If you can't, you should stop complaining about it as if it were a bad thing.
My whole point is that we should wait and examine the data and not try to discredit those who deviate from the popular line as "heretics."