Give over Jennifer,what point are you trying to make?
The use of nasty chemicals are fine because sometimes they have a benificial effect?
As usual Jennifer,long on conjecture and short on fact.
Do you remember Agent Orange? Now there was a fine use of a weed killer if ever there was one.
In Australia Lamba-Cyhalothrin is licensed for use. Have you ever witnessed its effect? Have you ever got a drop on your skin?
Bruce Haigh

Oh dear. I suppose we can be thankful that Jennifer didn't run the "Rachel Carson killed more people than Hitler" line. If you want a laugh have a look here http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/ where you can play "DDT Ban Myth Bingo".

It seems to me that this campaign has little to do with DDT and even less with malaria. It's all about discrediting Rachel Carson, who remains a powerful figure. I note that Jennifer reproves Carson for having "no institutional affiliation and .... no scientific publications" while approving of the remarks of Senator Dr Tom Coburn, who doesn't either. Double standard anyone?

The World Health Organisation has recommended residual indoor spraying of DDT for malaria bearing mosquitoes in affected countries. That's a miniscule portion of past usage levels to assist in addressing the uncontrolled release of DDT to the environment.

WHO states: "The environmental and health dangers posed by non-recommended use of DDT are real."

Under the WHO recommendations and guidelines, the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POP's) recognizes three important facts:

i) The urgent and immediate need of many of the malaria-endemic countries until viable, effective and affordable alternatives to DDT are found. This will ensure that the Convention does not result in sharp increases in malaria epidemics and deaths.

ii) The need to approach research and development of safe and affordable alternatives to DDT as well as the adoption and use of such alternatives as a medium term goal towards the improvement of the vector control capacity of malaria endemic countries.

iii) A longer term goal of reducing over-reliance of vector control programmes on pesticides in general, to protect the ecosystems and human health from the negative impacts of POP's pesticides (including DDT.)

POP's are the "dirty dozen" man-made organochlorine chemicals recommended by the Stockholm Convention for total global elimination - including DDT.

Jennifer - resorting to using human tragedies for your argument, with the added spiteful criticism on the accurate writings of Rachel Carson and an ignorant endeavour to promote the use of the heinous DDT affords you little credibility.

Your endeavours to use spin to fool those who know better than you, reveals the person you really are - an imposter of the highest order!

Johnj wrote: "I note that Jennifer reproves Carson for having "no institutional affiliation and .... no scientific publications" while approving of the remarks of Senator Dr Tom Coburn, who doesn't either. Double standard anyone?"

Funny isn't it? If i was Ms Marohasy, having sold my soul to The Institute for Public Affairs (the most shameless lie factory for greed-is-good economic rationalism in the country), i would be a little more discrete about throwing mud. But then many working girls think they love their pimp. The IPA got you working on the amazing health benefits of tobacco & asbestos yet, JM?

Most of the above comments misrepresent what I wrote in the article.
And my comment that Rachel Carson "had no institutional affiliation and had no scientific publications in the area of chemical toxicology but she galvinised public and government support for more controls on the use of chemicals" is simply an interesting fact. Furthermore, good on her, in so much as more controls were needed back then on the use of pesticides.

But I think it is sad, that people like Liam need to resort to the sort of personal attack that he and others have in the above thread.

The IPA and I often seek out the contentious. But noone at the IPA has ever told me what to write. The organisation has only ever encouraged me to research and write on the environmental issues that I consider important and to write it as I find it.

I am happy to debate my point of view, but no one should have to put up with the sort of misrepresentation and abuse as dished out in the above thread.

Ms Marohasy, this being the first time i've seen you post to one of your threads i'm shocked into embarrassment at my crudity - I apologise.

You don't tho address any of the criticisms of your article, as you claim you are happy to do. Some posters raise concerns about persistant and active chemical compounds of which DDT is an example. You make no mention of any of the established impacts of DDT, or that the bioaccumulative compound lasts 150 years or that it has known synergistic effects with other common pollutants.

Does you silence on the issue indicate that you believe there are NO problems with DDT at all?

Also, do you have any information JM on the 'African American Environmentalist Association' at http://www.aaenvironment.com/DDT.htm ? They're very keen on DDT too, even if appear to be solely an offshoot of the US nuclear industry funded 'Clean and Safe Energy Coaltion'.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_and_Safe_Energy_Coalition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_York_Affordable_Reliable_Electricity_Alliance