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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (338765)	5/27/2007 11:49:46 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575583

Dr. Richard Tren of Africa Fighting Malaria charges that Ms. Carson "misrepresented some scientific data while ignoring data that would not support her case." Quite true. Alleged links between DDT and cancer rates were never strong. In 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency empanelled administrative law Judge Edmund Sweeney to hold evidentiary hearings to determine the drug's dangers. After seven months of hearings, he determined it is "not a carcinogenic hazard to man." Further, using DDT according to EPA specifications did "not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish ... wild birds, or other wild life." Evidence given for the drug's direct effects on birds was particularly thin. Ms. Carson cited a study by Dr. James DeWitt to argue that quail that were fed DDT laid eggs in decent numbers but "few of the eggs hatched." She had a different working definition of "few" than most people. The DDT-fed quail eggs hatched 80 percent of the time, compared with 83.9 percent for the non-DDT control group.