precisenews.com

ESPN Bottomline

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Harms of DDT exaggerated

The Lantern

Jack Millman

Issue date: 4/25/08 Section: Opinion

I was not planning on revisiting the climate change debate this article, but then I wasn't planning on The Lantern running a counter, or being painted as an ignorant propagandist working for "big oil." Aron Buffen's response, "Reheating Global Warming," was long on personal attacks and awfully short on countering the main argument. I am not going to waste an entire column, but some clarification is necessary...

...Luckily, Buffen's fundamentalism and moral self-righteousness allow a smooth tangent into another environmental tragedy: DDT being banned. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring," which is often credited for its contribution to the modern environmental movement. The fact that the chemical killed millions with bad facts doesn't get mentioned.

DDT was first used during World War II to eradicate malaria, and was wildly successful. It saved so many lives that Dr. Paul Muller won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1948 for DDT's miracles. Then Carson and countless other activists led the charge to ban DDT, claiming it was causing massive environmental damage.

After all the evidence was presented, the EPA judge pronounced that DDT was not carcinogenic and did not have a harmful effect on the environment (including birds). Despite this, EPA administrator and environmental radical William Ruckleshaus banned it anyway. DDT's lifesaving qualities and incredible effectiveness (as well as affordability) were repressed. All so activists could feel good about saving the environment. Never mind the flimsy evidence against DDT or the many lies told about it.

Estimates say two million people die from malaria each year, the majority in Africa. Only after 30 years and the needless deaths of tens of millions has the United States begun to realize its mistake. Recent articles in The New York Times admit the life-saving potential of DDT and argue for its re-introduction...

The young man has it correct! Rachel Carson's book(along with Al Gore's book and movie) is better suited for the "fiction" section of the library and book stores. The supposed facts in each have been disproved over and over. Yet, because of the religious nature of the beliefs they inspire they are continually quoted as if the message is unquestionable. These people are religious zealots who hold their deity to be the earth.

Why would I worship creation instead of it's CREATOR?

No comments: