Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

nafex - RE: [NAFEX] DDT

nafex@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Bruce Hansen" <brucedhansen@sbcglobal.net>
  • To: "North American Fruit Explorers" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [NAFEX] DDT
  • Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:16:49 -0500

Stephen:
 
Interesting response and do be careful of the thought police.
-----Original Message-----
From: nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Stephen Sadler
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:54 PM
To: 'North American Fruit Explorers'
Subject: RE: [NAFEX] DDT

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: http://www.malaria.org/DDTcosts.html

http://www.malaria.org/

 

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

 

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. 

 

I do not agree. As an engineer, I take scientific information seriously. Politicians believe things based upon the money and power involved. As a lobbyist I know that to be true.  

 

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.   

 

Humans are kind of ratty. The asbestos thing is a good example. Any way we can make a buck is ok. On the Vioxx thing, one cannot ignore the money that went into getting it approved in the first place. One needs to consider the cost of things as well. The reaction is one of backlash. A few folk must have been ticked off.  

 

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page