3 ms·
Yea, but we also have plenty of pesticides that aren't tainted. Why not use them?
by throwaway91111 10y ago
Yea, but we also have plenty of pesticides that aren't tainted. Why not use them?
- gumby 10y agoYour statement may be true but doesn't refute the post you were replying to. Rather it is orthogonal. In addition, if the "taint" is incorrect then DDT could be a wonder. (Actually I am not DDT fan, but I do know how to make an argument)
- astrodust 10y agoThat's less an argument and more a "what if?" assertion.
- throwaway91111 10y agoI mean, I wasn't trying to refute the parent comment; it is true that we should know more about DDT.
- Banthum 10y agoMy understanding is that they're all some combination of more dangerous to humans, less effective, and more expensive. You actually end up spraying more pesticide, or denying the chemical to poor people who want to dust it inside their houses. Is that incorrect?
- scardine 10y agoI believe you made a fair portrait of the current situation.
- DrScump 10y agoplenty of pesticides that aren't tainted ... as far as we know... now. Sometimes, adverse effects of pesticides aren't known (widely enough, anyway) until decades later. Dursban comes to mind and still pops up in new papers.