On Sep 18, 10:43Â pm, Robert Cohen
msn.com> wrote:
> Helle-shite-damne, a convincing case (to moi) is made that Rachel
> Carson's bete-noire DDT (are ya old enuff to recall "Drop Dead Twice"
> as we kids used to call it? ) banning/prohibition actually has hurt/
> killed many millions-particularly in the so-callled 4th world. I grant
> this intelligence disclosure could well be rightwing chemical company
> propaganda, though i've yet to encounter  a convincing refutation
While I assume it's still controversial, I also am aware that it is
now also widely accepted that DDT is on balance very beneficial -
especially in the "Third World".
> For first world: DDT gets readily into the food chain and there is no
> telling what it also reaps (human cancers & kills birds eggs, for
> instances)
But I don't believe any of that has ever been proven. The developer of
DDT used to go around giving demonstrations where he ate chunks of the
stuff.
> Ms Carson was the bigg deal circa 1960s, and now she's slurred as
> misguided, ...
Oh, much worse than merely misguided. Like Margaret Mead she's thought
by some to be an outright liar. Of course that's quite common among
enviroNazis - and they follow the usual basic principle of propaganda,
namely, the bigger the lie the better. AGW is a good example of that.
The supposed calamitous effects of the polar ice melt is another
(there was a similar melt during the so-called "medieval warm period"
when the Vikings settled Greenland).
> Some govt regulation is good, and some govt regulation is bad
I'm of the view that all regulation is bad - unless it constitutes a
response to a clear and present danger, where for example people's
lives are placed in imminent danger by reckless behavior. Civil and
criminal law should be able to cover instances of actual harm.
So, the FDA, for example, should be abolished. Even apart from the
general fallacy underlying its existence, no single group of men
should have that kind of power over what drugs or foods should or
should not be permitted or how they should be marketed. The public has
the right to decide these matters for themselves - and manufacturers
need to accept full civil and criminal responsibility for their
actions. And, frankly, yes, caveat emptor. Know what the fuck you're
doing or check first with someone who does. Btw, the FDA is a major
cause of the high price of prescription pharmaceuticals. And FDA
approval is in effect a "license to steal", i.e. an imprimatur to
charge an exorbitant price. And of course the necessity of gaining
that approval is an enormously expensive and time-consuming
undertaking - and please don't tell me it protects us, when clearly it
doesn't. (The Thalidomide story, where the FDA was supposedly a hero,
is actually a cautionary tale of exactly the opposite).
Fred Weiss
