On Apr 6, 2005 11:25 PM, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Except, of course, that's not true. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.who.int/malaria/vectorcontrol.html > > > > > > > > > > Nice smear though. > > > > > > Oh, I just found an interesting long article on it > > > > > > http://www.cis.org.au/policy/Spring01/polspr01-1.pdf > > > > An article by Roger Bate of the American Enterprise Institute. Great. > > OK, you don't like his political position.
My point was that I complained about DDT being used as a tool to smear environmentalists and as a counterexample you linked to someone who is paid to smear environmentalists. > Can you find falsehoods. Would > you accept > > http://www.fightingmalaria.org/research.php?ID=20&month= > http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2003/0529malaria.htm > > The first is an African group, and the second is the Christian Science > Monitor. In particular, we should note the lack of international funding > for DDT. Do you think this is unconnected with the political power of the > environmental movement? There's certainly nothing in the articles to suggest that. In fact they support my view: 22 countries use DDT to fight malaria, the World Health Organisation endorses its use, not all Africans agree that the use of DDT is the best option. Martin _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
