----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 3:25 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> On Apr 6, 2005 5:16 PM, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > he does. One could argue that it seems like a big > > part of the environmental movement as well, for > > example (why else prevent the use of DDT, for example? > > Rich white liberals could demonstrate how moral they > > were - they were _Concerned_ about the environment - > > without really giving up anything, because malaria had > > already been wiped out in their countries, and if poor > > brown people far away die in order to emphasize their > > moral purity, well, so what?). > > Except, of course, that's not true. > > http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html > > Nice smear though. > > Martin Except, of course, it isn't done very much. They don't spray in Zambia and Neli has had malaria four times. They sprayed a good deal until the '70s when environmentalists have convinced Africans that the dangers outweigh the risks. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/1677073.stm It has just been restarted in South Africa because the malaria epidemic was getting much worse. DDT is cheap and effective, and the environmental damage from targeted spraying, while real, needs to be weighed against hundreds of thousands of deaths/year. Other hits on that google discuss spraying as controversial. Why should it be? Now, if you can find articles that says groups like Greenpeace support DDT spraying in African, then I stand corrected. But I don't think you will. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
