Micah Stevens wrote:

>>> DDT is still THE best method of combating Malaria in (what we'd call)
>>> subsistence level residences in Africa. 
>>
>> There are many things that in theory could improve such situations. But
>> some of these plans don't consider that in such regions (can only talk
>> about Brazil, but I assume it's not much different in Africa in this
>> respect) the people who live in subsistence level residences don't really
>> have the general background education to be able to use such dangerous
>> products responsibly. (It's difficult enough for the Harvard schooled
>> multimillionaire owner of the plant, imagine how difficult it is for the
>> illiterate peasant...)
>   
> You mention 'could' but DDT was demonstrated to work very effectively in 
> this situation. 

I'm not sure you understood me. I wasn't really talking about whether or
not it works if applied correctly. I was talking about whether or not it
will be applied correctly. Who's going to use it in "subsistence level
residences"? Can you describe a real-world scenario?

> But DDT was never proven to be that dangerous! 

I'll believe you when I see you drink a pint.

You may find that over the top, but considering the proposed use in
"subsistence level residences", it is not, believe me.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist