Don't we have bigger issues to deal with than the size of some soft drink?

**~~dalem~~** · 16 Jun 12,, 08:55

[QUOTE=zraver;875219]

Originally Posted by dalem

Fantastic, how does banning DDT in the US affect populations in Africa?

You're a smart guy. Figure it out.

-dale

**zraver** · 16 Jun 12,, 09:09

[QUOTE=dalem;875220]

Originally Posted by zraver

You're a smart guy. Figure it out.

-dale

Simple answer, it doesn't.

**~~dalem~~** · 16 Jun 12,, 09:22

Originally Posted by zraver

Simple answer, it doesn't.

"Such magic," said Bromosel.

-dale

**zraver** · 16 Jun 12,, 10:58

Great, a make believe quote from a make believe kingdom from a guy who have very little touch with reality.

**Red Team** · 16 Jun 12,, 14:35

I believe Dale was referring to the use of DDT as a chemical used in Africa to combat Malaria. And yes that effort was and is very successful in significantly reducing disease related deaths.

That said DDT is also a known carcinogen, nervous system inhibitor and a long term pollutant which takes over a decade to dissipate to safer levels. It's use simply comes down to risk vs. benefit. While we don't exactly have a lethal epidemic in our neck of the woods, we do instead have a ton of endangered species and a desire to avoid sudden abnormal growths.

**zraver** · 16 Jun 12,, 17:53

Originally Posted by Red Team

I believe Dale was referring to the use of DDT as a chemical used in Africa to combat Malaria. And yes that effort was and is very successful in significantly reducing disease related deaths.

That said DDT is also a known carcinogen, nervous system inhibitor and a long term pollutant which takes over a decade to dissipate to safer levels. It's use simply comes down to risk vs. benefit. While we don't exactly have a lethal epidemic in our neck of the woods, we do instead have a ton of endangered species and a desire to avoid sudden abnormal growths.

But DDT use in Africa has zip to do with endangered birds in the US.

**~~dalem~~** · 16 Jun 12,, 19:42

Originally Posted by zraver

Great, a make believe quote from a make believe kingdom from a guy who have very little touch with reality.

You really need to learn to relax.

-dale

**bonehead** · 17 Jun 12,, 01:17

[QUOTE=dalem;875215]

Originally Posted by bonehead

Fantastic. Prove to me that the numbers would be less if we still had DDT. Then compare that to the number of Africans who might be alive if we still used DDT.

Bald eagles > African PEOPLE?

Stop it.

-dale

No such proof would exist Dale because of the fact that DDT was banned. What we do have is the facts that #1, DDT was banned and fact #2, the population of Eagles shot up afterwards.

Not even Africa cares about African people. Decades of genocide. In the U.S. we put value on life. In Africa life is cheap.

Lastly your argument only works if those that didn't die of malaria didn't die the next day of starvation,some other disease or plain out murdered simply because of who they were or weren't. If you think Africa would be booming with a population increase if DDT was not banned your simply deluding yourself.

**Doktor** · 17 Jun 12,, 01:56

BH,

Would love to see someone in USA running for a political post stating publicly what you just wrote.

**Red Team** · 17 Jun 12,, 18:22

Originally Posted by zraver

But DDT use in Africa has zip to do with endangered birds in the US.

Exactly, which was my point to Dale. In extreme cases such as the malaria crisis in Aftica, DDT's side effects can be justified. But for widespread use on an entire country's food industry? Ludicrous.

**Blademaster** · 17 Jun 12,, 19:12

Originally Posted by astralis

chogy,

The problem arises when people freaking eat this every day.

and don't exercise or moderate the portion of the fries they eat.

**gunnut** · 17 Jun 12,, 23:20

Originally Posted by zraver

But DDT use in Africa has zip to do with endangered birds in the US.

You are right. But here's the thing, people around the world view the US in a leadership role in just about everything. They have been for decades and they continue to do so. It doesn't matter what the minority around the world thinks. People still respect the US.

Imagine you are a citizen of a developing nation, or even a bureaucrat in the ministry of public health in a developing nation. What happens when you receive news of this new wonder product (DDT) has been outlawed in the US, by the US government, due to environmental concerns? Do you spend the limited resources you have to conduct your own studies to see the long term effect of the DDT and then weigh the risk and reward in your country? Or do you follow the advice of the FDA and stop the use of DDT in your own nation due to health concerns?

Let's say you ignore the FDA's advice and continues to use of DDT in your own country because you have determined the reward is greater the the risks. What do your people think? Do they trust their own government more or do they trust a "scientific" study published by the American government more?

Everything has a cost. Our objective is to minimize cost and maximize benefit. Somewhere along the line, we have come to minimize cost/risk regardless of the reward.

**zraver** · 17 Jun 12,, 23:26

Originally Posted by gunnut

Imagine you are a citizen of a developing nation, or even a bureaucrat in the ministry of public health in a developing nation.

I would point out that per the deliberate wording of the Stockholm Treaty (2004), I can still use it for specific vector controlled applications to combat malaria- and like get US AID to pay for it.

**bonehead** · 18 Jun 12,, 02:24

Originally Posted by gunnut

You are right. But here's the thing, people around the world view the US in a leadership role in just about everything. They have been for decades and they continue to do so. It doesn't matter what the minority around the world thinks. People still respect the US.

Imagine you are a citizen of a developing nation, or even a bureaucrat in the ministry of public health in a developing nation. What happens when you receive news of this new wonder product (DDT) has been outlawed in the US, by the US government, due to environmental concerns? Do you spend the limited resources you have to conduct your own studies to see the long term effect of the DDT and then weigh the risk and reward in your country? Or do you follow the advice of the FDA and stop the use of DDT in your own nation due to health concerns?

Let's say you ignore the FDA's advice and continues to use of DDT in your own country because you have determined the reward is greater the the risks. What do your people think? Do they trust their own government more or do they trust a "scientific" study published by the American government more?

Everything has a cost. Our objective is to minimize cost and maximize benefit. Somewhere along the line, we have come to minimize cost/risk regardless of the reward.

That sure as hell is not the way China works. They are doing the same mistakes we made a hundred years ago and sooner or later China will have to pay up for those environmental mistakes.

As for Africa: FAQs - What are the top causes of death in South Africa? AIDS, heart disease, strokes, TB, and violence are things that Africans need to worry about. Not Malaria.

**gunnut** · 18 Jun 12,, 18:34

Originally Posted by zraver

I would point out that per the deliberate wording of the Stockholm Treaty (2004), I can still use it for specific vector controlled applications to combat malaria- and like get US AID to pay for it.

DDT was banned in the US in 1972. What did people do between 1972 and 2004?