The ban on DDT which resulted in millions of deaths came about in this way:
Judge Sweeney, after 80 days of testimony from 150 expert scientists, ruled that DDT “is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man” and does “not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wild life. There is a present need for the continued use of DDT for the essential uses defined in this case.”
The Environmental Defense Fund appealed Sweeney’s decision. The appeal should have been passed to an independent jurist, according to Ruckelshaus’s general counsel, John Quarles, but Ruckelshaus decided to rule on it himself. Not surprisingly, he upheld his own ban “on the grounds that ‘DDT poses a carcinogenic risk’ to humans.” (In 1994, he was to deny that that was the basis for the ban.) He had banned DDT though he had not attended a day of the 80-day hearing nor read a page of the transcript (as he told theSanta Ana Register, July 23, 1972).
http://spectator.org/48925_ddt-fraud-and-tragedy/

African and Asian nations dared not flout the USA and the UN Environment Program, which followed our lead). And that's what happened, and remained so for over three decades. Over those next decades, the best estimates were that malaria (which WE eradicated here and in Europe thanks in large measure to DDT) took the lives of over one-million each year, mainly infants and toddlers and pregnant women.
http://www.science20.com/tip_of_the_spear/blog/an_award_for_william_ruckelshaus_the_man_who_banned_ddt_say_its_not_so-160559
The insect no doubt will repeat his baseless slogan:"never happened.No one takes any notice of you, Bugsy.

Yeah, that ruling you talk about was USA specific. Noone else followed suit. So unless those millions of deaths from malaria were from the USA, it didn't happen.

DDT has been available for public health use in nearly all countries ever since. Where DDT was reduced in use, it was generally replaced with alternative insecticides and other control, measures.

When it was banned for agricultural use, that was a boon for public health, as this reduced selection pressure for resistance.

You guys really need to get better sources than opinion pieces with no data.

There was no 'holocaust' of deaths due to banning of DDT, that's just made up.

It didn't happen Leo.

Bugsy says” It didn't happen Leo.”“”
What, you reading the final paragraph of my post?
Of course not. Knowing what I said might limit your reply to what happened. You just deny that.
“African and Asian nations dared not flout the USA and the UN Environment Program, which followed our lead). And that's what happened, and remained so for over three decades. Over those next decades, the best estimates were that malaria (which WE eradicated here and in Europe thanks in large measure to DDT) took the lives of over one-million each year, mainly infants and toddlers and pregnant women.”
You give automatic slogans as replies. Quick, but, of course, thoughtless and wrong. You cannot operate any other way, can you, bugsy?
Quick, and alwys wrong.
At least you do not have the bother of sources. You just make it up.. Always wrong, but a lot easier than chasing facts.You just deny them,say "it did not happen", and make up some that suit you, don’t you, Bugsy?

mhaze

Your comprehension or logic are going astray.

You say:

" He thinks DDT isn't safe because fossil fuel emissions aren't safe."

Please show where I made that connection.

Any other person would recognise they are separate issues.

In relation to water vapour, you stated:

" Is ant aware that water vapour levels have been declining recently? "

My response was to show clearly that is not the case with examples.

You then went on to say:

"Even more idiotic is the notion that water vapour levels can't be declining because there are floods as though floods are a new phenomena. "

What a trite comment; naturally floods have always happened

Once in 500 year floods are not usual; mhaze, there were 8 in a bit over a year in the US alone.
Billions of dollars in costs created, $1.5 billion estimated for the Louisianna floods alone.

Regardless of what you say about Exxon; they're being investigated for criminal behaviour for providing mutually exclusive information to financial markets, now by a Federal Agency which had not been the case 10 months ago.

Of course I read the cut-and-paste paragraph that you appropriated from that opinion piece Leo.

It's wrong of course, as with so much that is written about DDT and it's apparent 'banning'.

Use of slogans? But that's all you ever understand and use yourself Leo.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Leo.

By the way, if you say something DID happen, provide some data, not copypasta from opinion pieces or back-of-the-envelope calculations based on false premises.

DDT is a touchy subject for the environmental movement and its supporters. A chemical with little to no detrimental affects on humans and most other species but deadly to the creature that carries the disease which killed more humans over the ages than any other, was falsely vilified and withdrawn from use. That the decision(s) to pay homage to the false science against DDT cost innumerable lives and vastly greater suffering, is clear. That the environmentalists were up to their neck in encouraging (sometimes through economic blackmail) governments to make these monumentally bad decisions is undeniable.

So the greens and their followers needed to find a way to assuage their part in this carnage. Over the years there's been quite an array of arguments mounted to square the circle, from trying to prop up the faulty science to blaming governments for decisions they (the greens) supported and encouraged. One of the arguments in the arsenal is to play semantic games around the word 'banned'. Oh no, they say, DDT was never banned. So anyone who suggests that its use was curtailed by it being banned gets demands that they prove it was banned and, since they can't prove it in a legalistic sense, their arguments are dismissed in toto.

That's why I'm careful to never say that DDT was banned worldwide since the debate immediately gets sidetracked into petty arguments of semantics and legalisms.

Comically however, bugsy, being used, obviously, to mounting these semantic arguments, ignores the fact that I didn't say there was a worldwide ban, assumes I think it anyway and then tells me how foolish it is to think something that he's decided I must think.

/cont