Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] An Inconvenient Truth

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>
  • To: <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>, <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] An Inconvenient Truth
  • Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:15:08 -0800

Bob, So. Africa uses DDT for MALARIA. Last time I looked we don't have a whole bunch of malaria here in the U.S. DDT was being used on just about every crop there was and everywhere there *might* have been anything that resembled a mosquito. The problem is that DDT was used indiscriminately and in excess. When used properly, it *may* have a place but not unsupervised and not for everything and its uncle.

The *may* includes the side-effects of DDT and the fact that using it around humans means it gets into the blood and being fat soluable, it stays in the body. The DDE levels in women in S. Africa is high. The results since the spraying program was resumed indicates that infant mortality has increased. 10 or 20 years down the road, what are going to be the results since the spraying is done in the house? What about the adverse health conditions through life?

And you are falling into the either/or argument. Nuclear is not the *only* answer and shouldn't be the answer UNTIL someone figures out what to do with nuclear waste AND stops building the blooming things on water supplies sources. Oh, and another thought, stop buildign them on earthquake faults.

The same applies to wood. Woodstoves and the big scrap wood burning electric plants don't have to send out particulate matter.

Lynda
----- Original Message ----- From: "bob ford" <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>


The problem with propaganda is the problem of the fable of 'the little boy who cried wolf'. I agree that we should conserve resources and protect the environment. I have been trying my part for a long time. But , there are trade-offs.

How many millions of small children should die to balance out the good for the bird population (DDT/Malaria)? How many forests should burn for one misguided group's misfired efforts to save one of a bird's species habitat (mexican spotted owl)? Should we burn more wood to keep warm (more hard pollution) or build more nuclear power plants (*clean*
energy?) to provide heat for homes? All of these are real decisions that have been made and will be made , again.

There will be decisions based on propaganda that actually hurt the causes that the propaganda purports to support. We should have people of reason explaining things of such importance; not zealots and ideologues. Else, it is just a fad, with no lasting consequences ......my opinion .......bobford

p.s. Calling sensationalized guesswork "documentary" was a big part of this specific problem


------------------------------------------------------------------


--- On Wed, 11/19/08, Lynn Wigglesworth <lynnw1366 AT hotmail.com> wrote:


Jeanne; I agree. I don't really understand all the
fighting about the details or level of danger of 'global
warming'..what percentage are we causing, etc. We are clearly doing harm to the planet and the environment. Lessening pollution and energy use isn't a bad thing, no matter how you look at it.

Lynn Wigglesworth





_______________________________________________
Homestead list and subscription:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
Change your homestead list member options:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40softcom.net
View the archives at:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page