Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (94314)	1/8/2005 5:10:06 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

That is why even Kristoff, who thinks it will kill some birds, is now in favor of using DDT. I'm in complete agreement with what Kristoff wrote. I'm in favor of saving a million or so "LBP's" every year from malaria at the cost of a few birds. It's a cost benefit analysis. There are places where the costs outweigh the benefits. What I disagree with is your implication that there's no cost, only benefit. In the article I posted I found this to be the most interesting part: The CSPI survey also tested respondents’ confidence in a statement from a hypothetical organization called the National Committee on Science indicating that "the pesticide is safe." When that group was identified as a "nonprofit group that consists of 400 scientists and doctors," 71 percent of those surveyed were very or somewhat confident in the statement. 58 percent had confidence when the group was identified just as "a nonprofit group," and 53 percent had confidence in the statement when the group was identified as a "nonprofit group that is largely funded by the government." When the group was identified as "largely funded by chemical and other companies," only 33 percent were confident in the statement about the pesticide.