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: Lane3 who wrote (210729)	7/4/2007 2:50:46 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

If it worked as well, it would have the "baggage". Don't all the new sweeteners have "baggage". Either real or claimed baggage.

To: Lane3 who wrote (210729)	7/4/2007 5:20:59 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

Surely someone could have come up with something else as good or nearly as good by now, something that worked as well but didn't have the baggage Hundreds of pesticide formulas have been marketed, but none come even close. We are going though the same problem now with the banning of Freon. This is another Green disaster. No other chemical works as well. The ones being used to replace Freon are not inert, and wear out seals. Freon Refrigeration lasts forever. Two "Scientists" at Irvine convinced people that it was eating up the atmosphere. This was done strictly with computer models, they have no hard evidence that it is getting up to the Ozone layer. There is evidence that it is too heavy to get there. The chemical companies were happy to see it go, because they have a patent on the new gases. Freon patents had run out. So now all your refrigeration will blow out every 10 years or so due to the inferior gases being used. You can thank the Greens for this.

To: Lane3 who wrote (210729)	7/5/2007 1:06:02 AM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 793964

It may be odd, but the fact remains that everything developed since the ban on DDT has ended up being ineffective. As the patent for DDT expired decades ago, this is not a question of big profits to be had by insisting on DDT, either. In fact, given the demonstrated need, and the relatively deep pockets of the organizations that would distribute it on a worldwide basis (think U.N>, etc.), there is obviously great incentive to come up with something. But no one has so far. If DDT were not banned, millions would be alive (and we would not be hearing anything about West Nile virus, either). IIRC, they were once very near to eradicating malaria as a serious problem. Again, IIRC, subsequent tests have shown it to be not nearly as dangerous as once thought. Unfortunately, any nation that accepts international assistance of any kind is usually prohibited from using it. Because of its international pariah status, Taiwan allows it use (or did up until the last time I checked). Extensively. It doesn't seem to have caused any "Silent Spring" in Taiwan after 50 years of use. Or shortened human life expectancy there. Or destroyed the environment in any way, shape or form. Hmmmm.