the eco-nazis have killed how many millions now?

[DTB]

damn hippies http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html 


an excerpt:   "Last week's announcement that the World Health Organization lifted its nearly 30-year ban on the insecticide DDT is perhaps the most promising development in global public health since... well, 1943 when DDT was first used to combat insect-borne diseases like typhus and malaria.

Overlooked in all the hoopla over the announcement, however, is the terrible toll in human lives  (tens of millions dead — mostly pregnant women and children under the age of 5), illness (billions sickened) and poverty (more than $1 trillion dollars in lost GDP in sub-Saharan Africa alone) caused by the tragic, decades-long ban.

Much of this human catastrophe was preventable, so why did it happen? Who is responsible? Should the individuals and activist groups who caused the DDT ban be held accountable in some way?

In a February 25, 1971, media release, the president of the Sierra Club stated that his organization wanted "a ban, not just a curb" on DDT, "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." Today the Sierra Club rakes in more than $90 million per year and has more than $50 million in assets.

Business are often held liable and forced to pay monetary damages for defective products and false statements. Why shouldn't the National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Sierra Club and other anti-DDT activist groups be held liable for the harm caused by their recklessly defective activism?

If they and others could be so wrong about DDT, why should we trust them now? Should we really put the global economy and the welfare of billions at risk based on their track record?"  I don't think so 

[CTENG in KS]

What, you didn't know about the DDT thing...100 million dead and trillions of dollars in lost gross domestic product and medical costs.  Everyone and their mother was into this whole ban on DDT, thinning eggs, bald eagle endangered, blah blah...there has never been a confirmed human death due to DDT.  The bald eagle went through its greatest period of recovery during the period of heaviest DDT use in this country. 

Thank you Rachel Carson, you dumb $(&#@%$@#!

[abnormaltoy]

damn hippies http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html 


an excerpt:   "Last week's announcement that the World Health Organization lifted its nearly 30-year ban on the insecticide DDT is perhaps the most promising development in global public health since... well, 1943 when DDT was first used to combat insect-borne diseases like typhus and malaria.

Overlooked in all the hoopla over the announcement, however, is the terrible toll in human lives  (tens of millions dead — mostly pregnant women and children under the age of 5), illness (billions sickened) and poverty (more than $1 trillion dollars in lost GDP in sub-Saharan Africa alone) caused by the tragic, decades-long ban.

Much of this human catastrophe was preventable, so why did it happen? Who is responsible? Should the individuals and activist groups who caused the DDT ban be held accountable in some way?

In a February 25, 1971, media release, the president of the Sierra Club stated that his organization wanted "a ban, not just a curb" on DDT, "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." Today the Sierra Club rakes in more than $90 million per year and has more than $50 million in assets.

Business are often held liable and forced to pay monetary damages for defective products and false statements. Why shouldn't the National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Sierra Club and other anti-DDT activist groups be held liable for the harm caused by their recklessly defective activism?

If they and others could be so wrong about DDT, why should we trust them now? Should we really put the global economy and the welfare of billions at risk based on their track record?"  I don't think so 

They kind of make Stalin look good by comparison, don't they.