Now, produce for me one environmentalist that says that banning DDT in the US had no effect on the use of DDT in other countries, and / or a statement that DDT use has no direct correlation to reducing malaria.

Oh, OK.
Here’s one.

If I tell you where it came from, you ll say it  doesn t count :

Are you admitting to using a bogus source?

Now, produce for me one environmentalist that says that banning DDT in the US had no effect on the use of DDT in other countries,

Pass. You brought it up. You support it.

I m tired of running around documenting every sentence I write while you lefties couldn t find a link to support your opinions if it was in your back pocket.

Don’t pull stuff outta there, Frank. I gave you links here, here, and here, plus Bush’s remarks on POPs.

And now for something completely different:

Have you been working out, Frank? You didn’t used to be able to carry the goal posts that far.

If I tell you where it came from, you’ll say it “doesn’t count”:

DDT use has virtually disappeared. Many countries blindly followed the U.S. ban or succumbed to activist pressure. Activists recently succeeded in pushing a virtual world-wide ban in the form of a United Nations treaty signed by the Bush administration, but not yet ratified by the Senate. The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) treaty would permit DDT use only through expensive bureaucratic processes designed to dissuade rather than encourage use.

Now, produce for me one environmentalist that says that banning DDT in the US had no effect on the use of DDT in other countries, and / or a statement that DDT use has no direct correlation to reducing malaria.

I’m tired of running around documenting every sentence I write while you lefties couldn’t find a link to support your opinions if it was in your back pocket.

And now for something completely different: alar

The ASCH article begins:

Today, the Senate is poised to enact an international treaty (the so-called POPs treaty) banning all use of DDT, despite the millions of people who have already died as a result of the U.S. EPA’s ban on the chemical.

But those radical environmentalists at the American Chemical Society disagree:

Under the draft treaty, nearly all intentional production of these chemicals would be banned. Last year, negotiators agreed that DDT should be phased out over the long run, but that developing nations could continue to use this organochlorine pesticide for controlling mosquitoes that transmit malaria.

Go back and carefully read the stories you linked, Frank. See if you can find even one piece of evidence that the EPA ban on domestic production of DDT prevented any other nation from producing, acquiring, or applying it.

Yeah, it’s called Epidemiology.

So, then,must we assume that any environmentalist organization (GreenPeace, Sierra Club) that points to an environmental hazard caused or aggravated by a corporation is automatically right? Of course, then we assume the scientists in the employ of corporations are suspect, so they’re lying.

But don’t environmentalists have an agenda, even if it is only to survive as an organization and receive donations?

Would you believe that a very famous scientist questions global warming?

And he’s not beholden to big business?

And, zappa, I will tell you noothinbg about my income except that it come from the Federal Government.

my point was that the ban on DDT killed millions of people. Did it or did it not?

Honest answer? I have no idea. And neither will you if you get all your information from outfits like the one you linked us to.

Perhaps, a combination of the two.

There is no ban in Africa on DDT.

Doesn’t anybody get it? Jeebus, folks, there are dozens, if not hundreds of environmental regulations, that have put people out of business, caused unemployment, turned out to be totally unnecessary, and the like.

Stop being marionettes of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

BTW, Jademold: Remember this:

You may occasionally have something interesting to say, but mostly you like to call names, question people’s patriotism and good faith, etc.

The ACSH article cites this quote:

Around the time of the DDT ban, Dr. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, may have revealed how some environmentalists really feel about human beings when he was asked if people might die as a result of the DDT ban: “Probably…so what? People are the causes of all the problems; we have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.”

Problem is, the quote is phony.

what s important is whether the messenger wears oxfords or birkenstocks.

No, what matters is whether the messenger is delivering an honest assessment of the facts or is presenting a distorted, paid-for version that’s intended to misprepresent the facts.

The position of the ACSH is at odds with the position of the Bush administration on this. Not a lot of “Birkenstock wearers” in the Bush administration, are there?

For starters, the ACSH asks you to believe that African nations don’t have access to DDT because it’s no longer being made or sold by companies in the U.S.

Codswallop.

South Africa uses DDT widely to combat malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Neighboring Zimbabwe doesn’t. The difference in malaria rates is clear cut.

However, the ACSH is more interested in promoting the agenda of its funders than in telling the truth.

Is it true that the ecological imbalance caused by DDT is not nearly as catastrophic as the millions of deaths caused by malaria?

So, the deaths don’t matter — what’s important is whether the messenger wears oxfords or birkenstocks.

The comment isn t about DDT, and stop with the McCarthyesque  guilt by association , factcheck.

Bull.

The quote is about POPs–persistent organic pollutants. And DDT is one.

And quit you whining about “attacks” on you. You posted up some industry-funded propaganda. Even the Bush administration doesn’t buy it.

Isn’t it amazing how quickly this turned into an attack on me. There are many more citations for the malaria deaths in Africa. The ideology is irrelevent. If I may paraphrase Rep. John “Sgt. Fury” Murtha: “Those mosquitos aren’t Democrat or Republican!”

As was pointed out above: [The company] acted outside of the law, and was punished accordingly

Move along, nothing to see here.

I was just pointing out that when the lumber industry suffers from protecting the spotted owl’s bungalows, nobody cares. When GE employees and stockolders suffer over PCB’s, not a peep. But catch a corporate guy using “plastic instead of paper”, and suddenly capitalism’s gone wild.