Your response to me starts with the false premise that I take JunkScience.com seriously. Why would you think that? They are a starting point only which you are free to demolish.

You also say “Most of the points in their DDTfaq are misleading, untrue, or poorly reasoned.” This is “Begging the question”; it still does not tell me why JunkScience is wrong or where I may find correct information and analysis.

I read Lambert’s stuff and just did not find anything substantive. It’s full of “Appeal to Belief” and more question begging.

So far the DDT use side wins handily by default. I’m gonna buy me a can and put it on my corn flakes.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200609181081.html

Point me to a source or a website please.

Go to scholar.google.com, search for “DDT” in publication “Science” or “Nature” then read until heart’s content.

I went to http://junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm and got reams of stuff to the effect that DDT is not carcinogenic or a pollutant in any reasonable concentration. Are they wrong? If so why and how? Point me to a source or a website please.

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/Roberts%20-%20Senate%20testimony%20-%20malaria.pdf

and tell me what is wrong with the argument and I might change my mind. But Tim Lambert is not convincing.

The Deltoid: DDT Ban myth that will not die 2006-06-29
excerpt

He (Kochi) got his way and now he’s working on other areas:

For example, he wants to standardize mosquito nets so that, instead of a welter of competing styles that must be home-dunked in pesticide, a few makers of factory-coated nets, which kill insects for years longer, are left to compete on price. He dismisses “social marketing,” in which nets are branded and sold cheaply instead of being given away, as with an early Bush administration policy that flopped. And, despite the objections of environmentalists, he wants DDT sprayed inside huts to kill mosquitoes where they rest on walls as they wait for dark.

Do you think this will stop folks from claiming that the WHO opposes DDT use?

Also, in the Washington Monthly Joshua Kurlantzick argues that the DDT obsession of many conservatives is a distraction from the use of artemisinin combination therapy (ACT):

Oddly, malaria has become something of a conservative cause celebre in recent years. Sen. Brownback has become a dedicated advocate for combating the disease. At congressional hearings, he and fellow Republican Sen. Coburn display an impressive knowledge of the crisis and the deficiencies of USAID’s response. However, apart from a few such thoughtful exceptions, conservative energies have mostly been focused on another supposed solution: the insecticide DDT.

DDT, which helps kill malarial mosquitoes, was sprayed in America to eradicate malaria. But Rachel Carson’s vivid portrayal of the horrors wrought by the chemical in her seminal book Silent Spring caused DDT to be banned in 1972, and helped launch the modern environmental movement. For some conservatives, malaria policy has now become an unlikely tool in the anti-environmentalist backlash. The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, and National Review have dedicated more than 10 editorials in recent years touting the benefits of DDT (although some conservatives like Bate, Brownback, and Coburn do advocate both DDT and ACT). At malaria hearings for the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Republican members have repeatedly asked why the United States doesn’t promote DDT in malaria-stricken nations.

This preoccupation with DDT, however, is largely a distraction. Environmental leaders now agree that the pesticide should be used to combat malaria; few nations in Africa ban it; and USAID has agreed to spray DDT in countries like Ethiopia and Mozambique. What’s more, DDT is no silver bullet. Malaria experts agree that it reduces transmission, but emphasize that it must be combined with other interventions, including ACT. The furor over DDT has undoubtedly hampered efforts to provide better access to antimalarial drugs. When another malaria expert met with Senate staffers to discuss malaria in 2004 and 2005, they badgered him about DDT. “I tried to explain the reality,” he says, “and people in the U.S. say ‘That’s not what I was told.’” “DDT has become a fetish,” adds Allan Schapira of WHO. “You have people advocating DDT as if it’s the only insecticide that works against malaria, as if DDT would solve all problems, which is obviously absolutely unrealistic.”

The abiding weakness of the left is the lust for power. I expect lefties to want to control, manage and ban harmless chemicals simply from that lust.

The abiding weakness of the right is the lust for money. I also expect righties to sell me poison for my corn flakes just to make a buck.

Let’s have some debate. All I’ve ever read are the righties and they sound mighty plausible. Point me to some good lefty sites and I’ll read with an open mind.

Can you link to an exploration of this point? Thanks.