A most troubling notion

dr-nick-ddt1

The article above is featured in the Journal of Environmental Management … April/May Issue 2009 … on page 9 … and as I read and reread it, I found my emotions ranged from feeling my blood boil to being chilled by the implications I see in the approach this ASU Professor appears to advocate. First, allow me to preface, I fully acknowledge and support Dr. Nick’s right to freedom of speech and freedom to advocate any position he desires. I likewise reserve for me and you that same right.

THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS …I do not and can not lay claim to any credentialed expertise like Dr. Nick. I candidly confess I find his assessment of DDT chilling in light of the many pages, including that written by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring, which the good Dr. appears to negate. I leave it to each of you to determine for yourself the validity, if any, to the assessment made by both Dr. Nick and Rachel Carson respecting the environmental impact of DDT.

I am aware, though I have not read all the data on DDT there are literally thousands of papers detailing the short and long term impact of DDT upon Earth’s environment, little of which, from my reading, bode as positive. I do not for a moment suggest Dr. Nick may not well be correct in his assessment respecting DDT and malaria. To suggest that using DDT today may be the better option to controlling malaria suggests to me that science, in particular, corporate sponsored in conjunction with academia, has for the past nearly 50 years since Silent Spring was first published done little or nothing to find a more environmentally appropriate means to controlling malaria.

I find I need help, Dr. Nick, from you to understand how you can choose to overlook the quite devastating affects which DDT has on Earth’s environment or is there DISCLOSURE about DDT to which “we” the people have not been made fully aware…? I confess and perhaps it reflects an inability or lack of intelligence on my part, but without verifiable evidence from you to support your promoting current use of DDT to control malaria, I find such notion exceedingly troubling.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – –
… People should never be afraid of their government, government should always be afraid of the people …

…“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world…indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.” … Margaret Mead

… “they must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority” … G. Massey, Egyptologist

… “Everyone has the right to clean and accessible water, adequate for the health and well-being of the individual and family, and no one shall be deprived of such access or quality of water due to individual economic circumstances” …
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

And let me be even a bit bolder, I am most willing to present and discuss any water issue with any audience in Arizona where open full disclosure and two way dialog is permitted.

Respectfully submitted,

About these ads

One Response

  1. Your skepticism is well placed! WHO and NAS still consider DDT to be a deadly, deadly chemical. And, since it was so abused in agriculture, it caused mosquitoes to breed resistance and immunity — DDT alone can’t do the job, and maybe can’t even help, depending on the location.

    But it gives the anti-environmentalists jollies to complain about Rachel Carson. By the way, every group that has reviewed her book, found it accurate.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: