From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:05:25 +1000, "James A. Donald"   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > Helen Hall   
   >>>> Erm.... I don't remember DDT being banned in order   
   >>>> to protect mosquitos.   
      
   > James A. Donald:   
   >>> It was restricted to protect the welfare of birds   
   >>> that eat mosquitoes, balance of nature blah blah   
   >>> blah - songbirds being more charismatic than   
   >>> mosquitoes.   
      
   > Brian Scott:   
   >> True as far as it goes, but misleadingly (and   
   >> typically) incomplete.  It was restricted on the   
   >> grounds that (1) there was evidence, albeit mixed,   
   >> that it was a danger to wildlife *and* human health   
   >> and (2) it was persistent, a circumstance that would   
   >> tend to exacerbate any dangers that actually existed.   
      
   > The major danger to wildlife is and was that it was   
   > highly effective in killing insects,   
      
   The actual dangers are irrelevant; it was banned because of   
   perceived dangers, for which there was at least some   
   evidence.  You may feel that the evidence was inadequate,   
   and quite a few sane, intelligent folks would agree, but   
   that's entirely beside the point.   
      
   > and for the purpose of protecting against diseases, one   
   > wants a persistent  insecticide.   
      
   Not necessarily, no.   
      
   > The objections you list against DDT are just objections   
   > to the fact that it is damned good at doing what it   
   > does.   
      
   Now you're just being ridiculous.   
      
   [more irrelevant matter]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)