>Your DDT is not hazardous to mammals is not born out by science, even in your source. <rolls eyes> Come on. He didn't say it was safe for widespread indiscr

>Your DDT is not hazardous to mammals is not born out by science, even in your source. <rolls eyes> Come on. He didn't say it was safe for widespread indiscriminate use. He said it's not that hazardous to mammals. Based on the sources and TFA that seems like a pretty fair conclusion. If it were seriously hazardous, like arsenic or mercury levels of hazardous, it wouldn't need to accumulate at the top of the food chain to cause health problems in the animals that are exposed. That said, he was a fool to not expect that, HN being HN, someone would come along to score some cheap virtue points with a more encompassing definition of "that hazardous".