Comments about ‘Environmental extremism costs lives’

I'm curious; if DDT is "not harmful to animals", then how can it be used to kill insects? Misleading charges about DDT, heard more and more often, defy science. DDT persists without breaking down, it is found in increasing concentrations in species higher on food chains, and it has been linked to reproductive failure in birds and other species.
AS importantly, DDT's indiscriminate use was creating resistant populations of malaria (and other disease) carrying insects. Landscape-wide application of synthetic poisons, whose side-effects are incompletely understood, is a poor way to control disease. By the way, DDT continues to be used in many areas, often in a more selective way that helps prevent the emergence of resistant insects.

Uncle Tom Williams never met a conservative position he didnt like, even if it is usually based on lies.

So, let's see; "environmental extremists" are responsible for
-the flooding of a city that is below sea level
-the control of a problematic pesticide by many foreign countries
-the destruction of the World Trade Center
-the attempt to reduce our oil dependency by making lighter weight cars?

He left out the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.

What an eye-opening article. Rush Limbaugh also brought up an interesting point recently about the insulation foam that has broken off of the space shuttle (it will hopefully be repaired in space). That could be fatal to the astronauts as we well remember from the events of a few years ago. Limbaugh said it never used to happen because in the past some spray was used to insulate the rocket. The spray is banned thanks to "environmentalist wackos." I also think that if the Legacy Highway could have been built long ago when it was supposed to (no thanks to the environmentalist wacko mayor of SL), there may have been much fewer traffic accidents.

The DDT use that's being advocated is giving people a spray can of it so that they can protect their houses. One application can last for months if not years. In the concentrations they're talking about (one application per house), it doesn't pose an environmental threat.

So, Coluber, you use the logic that since DDT is deadly to mosquitos then it must also be deadly to animals higher up the food chain. I'm not sure I agree with your physiological analysis, but for argument's sake let's assume you're right. You then follow that up with the example of DDT being linked to reproductive failure in birds and other animals higher up the food chain. If that is the case how then, if "it is found in increasing concentrations in species higher up the food chain", did the human birthrate double in the years following use of DDT? Perhaps it's because malaria-caused deaths of potential human parents is an even greater cause of reproductive failure than traces of DDT in the system. Makes sense to me. And, again using your logic, if malaria is deadly to humans it must also be deadly to birds, so spraying DDT will prevent potential bird parents from dying, which should, to extrapolate the statistics from human studies, lead to a doubling of the bird population. Sound like everyone's a winner!!! Thanks for debunking the wacko ideology.

Now for "Anonymous"...
You have a hard time believing that radical environmentalism could be responsible for the events you listed, but...

- Are not the dikes along the North Sea sufficient to protect Denmark and the Netherlands, which are also substantially below sea level? In fact, the U.S. sent engineering experts over there after the Katrina disaster to "get tips" on how to build them. That's called eating crow.
- The only thing problematic about DDT is that it doesn't allow the liberal elite to choose who lives or dies. Ask any African on the equator if they'd rather take their chances with malaria or the pseudo-scientific evidence that DDT may limit them to having just 8 kids. Boy...tough decision.
- The WTC...this is a perfect example of the battle between immediate versus long-term and linked consequences. Had they taken the time to really weigh the possible consequences of using inferior insulation, it is possible many lives would have been spared. The fault is with the terrorists, but the damage did not need to be so great.
- You don't have to worry about oil dependency when you're dead in a car wreck.

jday; that's the kind of intelligent use of pesticides that makes sense; but many of us that grew up in the 50's remember trucks that were indiscriminately "fogging" residential neighborhoods, while children played in the mist. That's the kind of foolish use people have made of pesticides, and it has rightly been reined in.
BTW, the bit about the space shuttle (Rush's "point about the insulation") has been well debunked (try http://mediamatters.org/items/200508090007 for starters). Nevertheless, we're obviously going to have to lay the space shuttle disaster at environmentalists' feet. Is there no atrocity these people won't stoop to????????

Rush Limbaugh scorned potheads whine abusing drugs, dropped out of college; unable to finish a single semister and he dodged the draft. Conservatives believe him unquestionably on matters of science, morally and the military. Why argue with fools? You only confuse the bystanders.

No, seriously, below-sea level cities are the coming thing. We should build more of them, and then double-dast dare Mother Nature to do anything about it.

WW is one of my favorite columnists for one simple reason: He never forgets to look at BOTH sides of the cost-benefit equation. Whether anyone agrees with him on these specific examples or not is not really the point.

The point is, almost ANYTHING a person might do will have SOME benefits.

Similarly, almost ANYTHING that we might do will likely have SOME costs.

We can justify doing almost anything if we look at only the benefits. We can justify banning almost anything if we look only at the costs.

Prudent decisions are made ONLY when we rationally and carefully weigh both the costs and the benefits.

As one example: 50,000 automobile deaths a year in this nation is tragic. We could eliminate them by dropping all speed limits to 15 mph. But the costs of doing that would be higher than the costs of 50,000 deaths, tragic as they are.

So agree or disagree with WW about DDT, or asbestos fireproofing, or any other specific example, the point is to simply take time to weigh BOTH the costs and the benefits before making a decision, much less passing a law or setting public policy that will affect millions or even billions of other persons.

Looking at costs and benefits is always good: my beef with this column is the twisting of facts and the presentation of falsehoods to support an idea. Limbaugh does it all the time, too, and by the time the facts can be marshalled that would refute what is being said, everyone moves on, and the lies hang suspended in the air, poisoning everyone's ability to discuss these things.

I can't believe the editors of the Dnews allowed this in print. Next, they'll be printing detailed and rational-sounding analyses showing how the Holocaust is a "lie." Not one of this man's arguments would pass muster in 10th grade debate class.