Stephen Sadler Docshiva at Docshiva.org
Thu Mar 10 14:54:25 EST 2005

DDT is still used in areas where it is a cost-effective anti-malarial
control.  The ban was domestic.  


Info on malaria control from Malaria Foundation International:



This discussion still brought to mind issues of junk science vs. actual


One: people don't generally use science to form belief; rather, people tend
to believe what they want to believe.  As the editor of Scientific American
points out regarding politicians, they tend to "elevate their gut feelings
above the findings of people who devote their lifetimes to a subject."  We
simply disregard fact if it is in opposition to a belief we consider more
socially advantageous.


Two: We tend to divide things into 'good' or 'bad', with no reasonable sense
of compromise.  Asbestos was good, now it's bad.  Realistically, the block
of asbestos someone saw sitting on a desk would only be harmful if used to
hit somebody on the head.  The cited and real danger is breathing in an
airborne suspension of fine particles.  For instance, asbestos insulation in
situ presents no risk unless it is sawn, shredded, or otherwise ground into
fine particles - as happens in asbestos removal.  And now, Vioxx, which was
good, is bad.  The rational approach is to let the physician determine the
risk vs. benefit of such drugs, rather than the extremes of mass marketing
or banning.  


Three:  I swear, when I started writing this, that I had a three.  It is my
belief, scientific or otherwise, that this problem with short-term recall is
directly attributable to a serum caffeine deficiency.  I shall go correct
that.  (topic police please note: the coffee bean is a fruit).


Stephen Sadler, Ph.D.

USDA 9, AHS heat zone 8, 

Sacramento CA - Mediterranean climate


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/private/nafex/attachments/20050310/f03088b5/attachment.html 

More information about the nafex mailing list