[Dialogue] [Fwd: Re: NYTimes.com: Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate]

[Lawrence Philbrook]

Can I be re added to the dialogue list?

With respect, Larry

Evelyn Philbrook wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     Re: [Dialogue] NYTimes.com: Industry Ignored Its 
> Scientists on Climate
> Date:     Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:16:11 +0900
> From:     Don Hinkelman <hinkel at sgu.ac.jp>
> Reply-To:     Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
> To:     Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
> References: 
> <042420092025.11254.49F22050000B34B700002BF622230706129B0A02D29B9B0EBFCD039A9C9C019F01 at att.net> 
> <8CB969E15B5A2A2-1218-1479 at WEBMAIL-MZ28.sysops.aol.com>
>
>
>
> Hi Don,
>
>> Tens of million of malaria  deaths can be attributed to the virtual 
>> elimination of DDT from the planet based on the overblown concerns of 
>> DDT's ill ecologic effects popularized by Rachel Carson.  See this 
>> article.
>> http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html
>
> DDT is a sensitive point for me.  One of our colleagues in the 
> Calcutta House was slowly killed by DDT or a similar pesticide (please 
> help me with his name).  Well-educated, and concientious, he applied 
> anti-bedbug powder regularly to his mattress.  Painful symptoms 
> resulted, and after more than ten years of treatments to purge the 
> chemicals from his body, he passed away. 
> I would not be surprised that that selective use of DDT could be 
> useful. However, my experience with the chemical education of rural 
> populations and the article you cite makes me skeptical.  Instead of 
> referencing scientific studies, he uses similar ideological words as 
> the people he is criticizing--"...another favored ideology of 
> environmental activists".  The website, 21st Century Science seems to 
> be highly ideological and inflammatory as well, with titles such as: 
> "The Global Warming Fraud", "Windmills for Suckers" and "Carbon 
> Offsets are Genocide".  I appreciate critical thinking and agree with 
> you that unintended consequences are very common and often ignored.  
> Yet, for scientific questions I would stick with more non-ideological 
> sources like "Science" for basing decisions on.  For us lay readers, 
> the most comprehensive, well-referenced summary of this question I 
> have read is in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
>
> Don Hinkelman