I think the risk equation being questioned is different. Today, right now, with a better understanding of the risks for DDT, would it be better to have a campai

I think the risk equation being questioned is different. Today, right now, with a better understanding of the risks for DDT, would it be better to have a campaign to eradicate malaria in sub-saharan Africa with tools like DDT? There would be ecological damage, both anticipatable and unknown. And that would have second and third-order detrimental impacts. But we'd also have a huge gain. Would it be worth it? Right now it is hard to have that kind of discussion. Another related example: is it better to have the consequences of polluted cities powered with unclean coal, than to have a less developed country with fewer resources to spend on things like healthcare. Which on net is better? I certainly don't know, but the tradeoffs are real.