New eco-Awareness site from The Guardian

[tread_lightly]

Hello all,

I'm doing some work for The Guardian on their new eco-awareness website, 'Tread Lightly'. I'd like to hear any comments you might have about the site, the pledging system or about the issues surrounding it

Please post your comments here and feel free to be as brutally honest as you like :)

Thanks in advance...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/trea...TCTreadLightly2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/treadlightly?CMP=OTCTreadLightly2)


About Tread lightly

Do you want to live a more low-carbon lifestyle, but are unsure where to start?

Tread lightly is a community of people committed to reducing their CO2 emissions through making weekly pledges and recording their actions against their pledges.

This will enable people to step up their efforts to reduce their own CO2 emissions, and also to track the combined efforts of the community.

How to get involved

We are starting with an easy pledge - asking users to switch to energy-efficient lightbulbs. You can choose your level of commitment for each pledge - light, medium or heavy user.

Each week, on a Friday, there will be a new pledge, such as turning appliances off standby, washing clothes at a lower temperature or using the car less frequently. You can also suggest pledges you think the community should make on our blog.

[Vanguard1917]

This is just another example of how environmentalism is more about moralising with people than doing anything to 'save the environment'. We all know that turning your DVD player off standby or turning off the tap while brushing your teeth isn't going to make any real difference to anything. What it does do, however, is allow the environmentalists to take the moral highground and lecture the masses about their behaviour. It's a new religion.

[tread_lightly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:40 pm
This is just another example of how environmentalism is more about moralising with people than doing anything to 'save the environment'. We all know that turning your DVD player off standby or turning off the tap while brushing your teeth isn't going to make any real difference to anything. What it does do, however, is allow the environmentalists to take the moral highground and lecture the masses about their behaviour. It's a new religion.
that's a pretty cynical outlook. What do you think should be there in it's place?

[RedAnarchist]

Besides, even if the entire UK population was "eco-aware", our efforts would be futile as China and the US damage the environmen far more than we do.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 11:40 am
This is just another example of how environmentalism is more about moralising with people than doing anything to 'save the environment'. We all know that turning your DVD player off standby or turning off the tap while brushing your teeth isn't going to make any real difference to anything. What it does do, however, is allow the environmentalists to take the moral highground and lecture the masses about their behaviour. It's a new religion.
Are you saying that there's something wrong with people wanting to use more energy-efficient appliances? I say good for them!
People doing things like this begin to see the world in very different terms. They start to think ahead about the effects their actions may have on the earth and its inhabitants.

What is wrong with that? Sure, the acts are small, but they're still important.


If spiders unite, they can tie down a lion.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by tread_lightly+November 12, 2007 01:49 pm--> (tread_lightly @ November 12, 2007 01:49 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 05:40 pm
This is just another example of how environmentalism is more about moralising with people than doing anything to 'save the environment'. We all know that turning your DVD player off standby or turning off the tap while brushing your teeth isn't going to make any real difference to anything. What it does do, however, is allow the environmentalists to take the moral highground and lecture the masses about their behaviour. It's a new religion.
that's a pretty cynical outlook. What do you think should be there in it's place? [/b]
What should be in its place are some proper solutions which aren't based on moralising with people about their sinful ways.

For example, we know as a fact that the vast majority of water waste in Britain occurs at the level of industry - it is literally leaking out of holes in water company pipes. In other words, if the water companies fixed their pipes, there would be no threat of water shortages. But instead of highlighting this, environmentalists prefer attacking individuals for bathing 'too much' and flushing their toilets after a pee.

Ask yourself why many environmentalists would rather tell off individual consumers rather than criticise companies. I think it's because environmentalism is really more about telling the masses how to behave than it is about coming up with practical solutions to problems.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+November 12, 2007 04:05 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ November 12, 2007 04:05 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:49 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 05:40 pm
This is just another example of how environmentalism is more about moralising with people than doing anything to 'save the environment'. We all know that turning your DVD player off standby or turning off the tap while brushing your teeth isn't going to make any real difference to anything. What it does do, however, is allow the environmentalists to take the moral highground and lecture the masses about their behaviour. It's a new religion.
that's a pretty cynical outlook. What do you think should be there in it's place?
What should be in its place are some proper solutions which aren't based on moralising with people about their sinful ways.

For example, we know as a fact that the vast majority of water waste in Britain occurs at the level of industry - it is literally leaking out of holes in water company pipes. In other words, if the water companies fixed their pipes, there would be no threat of water shortages. But instead of highlighting this, environmentalists prefer attacking individuals for bathing 'too much' and flushing their toilets after a pee.

Ask yourself why many environmentalists would rather tell off individual consumers rather than criticise companies. I think it's because environmentalism is really more about telling the masses how to behave than it is about coming up with practical solutions to problems. [/b]
Ah come on, it may be true that arguing over how much water you should put in your bath is utterly pointless, but its not true to say that environmentalists do not constantly attack the water companies for their appalling pipes. Indeed they won't leave them alone for it.

I hardly need point it out on this site, incidentally, but it simply beggars belief to me that anyone could imagine private water companies are a good thingm when they simply allow the leakage to buld up because they know losing water is still more profitable than paying to fix the pipes.

[MarxSchmarx]

that's a pretty cynical outlook. What do you think should be there in it's place?

Socialism. :redstar:

I know it's too "politically incorrect" for a paper like the Guardian to say this, but the until genuine community autonomy is achieved, there will always be an incentive to wreak environmental damage.

I guess I can use an anecdote. The people I live with are recycling freaks. But they also buy shitloads of crap they don't need, like electronics. They also drive a lot and use a lot of gas. What's all the recycling for, then? Little else than to make them feel better about themselves.

Consumer action might be a first step, but it is simply myopic to see it as an end in itself. And we need a long-term vision to sustain individual commitment on environmental issues.

[tread_lightly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:46 am

that's a pretty cynical outlook. What do you think should be there in it's place?

Socialism. :redstar:

I know it's too "politically incorrect" for a paper like the Guardian to say this, but the until genuine community autonomy is achieved, there will always be an incentive to wreak environmental damage.

I guess I can use an anecdote. The people I live with are recycling freaks. But they also buy shitloads of crap they don't need, like electronics. They also drive a lot and use a lot of gas. What's all the recycling for, then? Little else than to make them feel better about themselves.

Consumer action might be a first step, but it is simply myopic to see it as an end in itself. And we need a long-term vision to sustain individual commitment on environmental issues.
i don't think anyone has suggested it's an end in itself have they?

That would be pretty naive if so

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:05 am

What should be in its place are some proper solutions which aren't based on moralising with people about their sinful ways.

For example, we know as a fact that the vast majority of water waste in Britain occurs at the level of industry - it is literally leaking out of holes in water company pipes. In other words, if the water companies fixed their pipes, there would be no threat of water shortages.
I am shocked Vanguard, for once, I kind of agree with you! :o


But instead of highlighting this, environmentalists prefer attacking individuals for bathing 'too much' and flushing their toilets after a pee.

This is indeed true of middle class, liberal environmental groups, though not all, especially revolutionary environmentalist groups who target industry.



Ask yourself why many environmentalists would rather tell off individual consumers rather than criticise companies. I think it's because environmentalism is really more about telling the masses how to behave than it is about coming up with practical solutions to problems.

Again, this applies to many of the "green" middle class groups, but is not something you can swipe all environmentalists with.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by tread_lightly+November 13, 2007 09:05 pm--> (tread_lightly @ November 13, 2007 09:05 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 05:46 am

that's a pretty cynical outlook. What do you think should be there in it's place?

Socialism. :redstar:

I know it's too "politically incorrect" for a paper like the Guardian to say this, but the until genuine community autonomy is achieved, there will always be an incentive to wreak environmental damage.

I guess I can use an anecdote. The people I live with are recycling freaks. But they also buy shitloads of crap they don't need, like electronics. They also drive a lot and use a lot of gas. What's all the recycling for, then? Little else than to make them feel better about themselves.

Consumer action might be a first step, but it is simply myopic to see it as an end in itself. And we need a long-term vision to sustain individual commitment on environmental issues.
i don't think anyone has suggested it's an end in itself have they?

That would be pretty naive if so [/b]
It's not directly 'said' that it's an end in it's self, but rather, it's portayed that way by certain groups. As if, "we all do our bit, everything will be just fine", which is a blatant distortion of the facts - which Vanguard outlined pretty well, to be honest.

Fact is, our small steps, though creating the illusion of positive change - and to some minimal degree, it is - is much smaller than what could be done if steps were to take action to ensure that industries which waste water - not use, waste (Through leaky pipes, etc) are the areas which are tended too, then it would become less of an issue.

[piet11111]

"objective" as always regarding nuclear power i see.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:06 am
Ah come on, it may be true that arguing over how much water you should put in your bath is utterly pointless, but its not true to say that environmentalists do not constantly attack the water companies for their appalling pipes. Indeed they won't leave them alone for it.
It's true that some environmentalists also criticise water companies as well as household consumers. But why do the latter at all? If the overwhelming majority of water waste happens because of holes in water company pipes, then that means that there is a very practical solution to solving any potential water shortage problem, which does not involve sticking your nose into the everday lives of working people: i.e. get the water pipes fixed.

But the environmentalists in general seem to be less interested in practical solutions to problems (e.g. getting the water pipes fixed), and more interested in setting guidelines for the personal behaviour of the masses (i.e. how the masses should live). To me, this suggests that environmentalism is like a kind of religion, with its own moral codes for everyday living which are unrelated to actual problems (water shortages, burning in hell, etc.). In this sense, even if the possibility of water shortages didn't exist, the environmentalists would have to create it, or find something else with which to moralise with people.


I guess I can use an anecdote. The people I live with are recycling freaks. But they also buy shitloads of crap they don't need, like electronics. They also drive a lot and use a lot of gas. What's all the recycling for, then? Little else than to make them feel better about themselves.

The more people consume, the more they seem to feel quilty about their consumption (and turn to environmentalism for redemption). This is why environmentalism is very popular in upper and middle class Western circles (also a favourite pastime of the super rich - celebrities, etc.), and far less popular in working class populations and developing countries.

Environmentalism is the religion of the wealthy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The cause of environmental problems is systemic - capitalism is part of this, but it is simplistic (as well as plain wrong) to blame it for everything. A lot of environmentalists, especially the mainstream liberal types, don't seem to take this into account and instead appear to think that environmental problems are simply all the result of poor personal choices (what VG1917 might call "green sins").

In summary, capitalism provides a monetary incentive to destroy the environment, since it is cheaper to ignore environmental regulations than follow them, colonialism retarded the development of what we now call the developing countries, resulting in the polluting game of catch-up we are now seeing by India, China, et al, and finally we must not discount the effects of the environmental movement itself. By opposing nuclear power, they have effectively allowed coal, gas and oil companies to get away with murder and expand at an explosive and entirely unsustainable rate. By opposing GM crops, they have forced farmers in the developing world to use inefficient non-GM methods as well as retarding the development of GM technology. By opposing DDT, they have inflicted malaria on hundreds of thousands.

The only way to combat systemic problems is through systemic changes. This means that targetting indivduals is entirely useless, since individuals are fickle by nature. Pressuring governments and corporations is more effective, since they effect considerably larger portions of society than do individuals. But success in that area will be limited because ultimately, and unfortunate as it may sound, things will get worse before they get better - there is currently little incentive for most people, especially in the developed world, to change their ways. As soon as the shit hits the fan and environmental problems start effecting people in a major and possibly life-changing way, then people of all stripes will want some thing done, and if it gets bad enough then they will do it themselves. People have a tendency to act in their own self-interest, and as soon as they percieve it to be in their own self-interest to do something, they will.

Woah. Didn't expect this to turn into an essay.

[MarxSchmarx]

Environmental problems are systemic. There is no getting around that, and reformist efforts frankly dead ends. But ultimately we need to empower individuals to do something about it. Today, the vegetable garden. Tomorrow, capitalism.

Although I agree with your point, Noxion, the examples you cite are rather dour.


By opposing DDT, they have inflicted malaria on hundreds of thousands.
By opposing GM crops, they have forced farmers in the developing world to use inefficient non-GM methods as well as retarding the development of GM technology.


I am sure you know otherwise.

Before DDT was banned, DDT resistant strains of mosquitoes already were developing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Mosquito_resistance_to_DDT

Also the problems of why GM crops aren't more widely available in the third world are complicated. But be rest assured that patent laws in the global north have A LOT to do with it

[Vanguard1917]

It is beyond doubt that the bans on DDT gave way to millions of deaths around the world.

Here are some examples from Wikipedia (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt)):

'In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969.'

'After South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400% increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is less than 50 per year. South Africa could afford and did try newer alternatives to DDT, but they proved less effective.'

'Malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Only Ecuador, which has continued to use DDT, has seen a reduction in the number of malaria cases in recent years.'

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Environmental problems are systemic. There is no getting around that, and reformist efforts frankly dead ends.

Dead ends for abolishing capitalism maybe, but not dead ends for improvements in environmental practices. Sure, such reforms may not lead to a green utopia but they will certainly help to cushion the blow.


But ultimately we need to empower individuals to do something about it. Today, the vegetable garden. Tomorrow, capitalism.

I have seen no evidence that the latter necessarily flows from the former. How exactly does having a vegetable garden help to bring down capitalism?

[MarxSchmarx]

malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969

Yes, Sri Lanka's biggest problem is all those liberal reformists and environmental extremists demanding that DDT be banned! :rolleyes:

What now, Sri Lankan mosquitoes are inferior to other mosquitoes and can't develop resistance to DDT?

Welcome to the Randist club: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1084 (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13355&news_iv_ctrl=1084)

As a proud leftist, I will gladly engage the DDT apologists any day. DDT resistance is a disaster waiting to happen.

All the Ecuadors and KwaZulu can't prove otherwise. These are exceptions that prove the rule. The fact of the matter remains that the BEST effort against malaria isn't DDT, it is fighting breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

No, better yet, it's fighting capitalism.

Please, comrades, can we bury this myth that DDT is a tool for human liberation?



I have seen no evidence that the latter necessarily flows from the former. How exactly does having a vegetable garden help to bring down capitalism?


If we can provide our own food (e.g.:
http://www.rain.org/~philfear/garden.html
)

we are half-way there. Now our own shelter, our own livelihood, our own world.

The thousand mile journey begins with one step. ;)

[piet11111]

why are the anti DDT crowd concerned about DDT immunity in mosquito's if they want to ban DDT from being used ?

[MarxSchmarx]

why are the anti DDT crowd concerned about DDT immunity in mosquito's if they want to ban DDT from being used ?

I don't understand your question. here is the relationship btw ddt immunity and anti-ddt:

The pro-DDT crowd says DDT will eradicate malaria by controlling mosquitoes.

If DDT is used widely to control mosquitoes, it will result in DDT immunity in said bug.

Therefore, the anti-DDT crowd is concerned about DDT immunity in mosquitoes.

[piet11111]

i know the anti DDT poeple are concerned about mosquito's becoming immune to the stuff.
but i dont understand why they are concerned about that when they are doing everything they can to ban DDT from being used in the first place.

[Vanguard1917]

Please, comrades, can we bury this myth that DDT is a tool for human liberation?

No one is saying that it's a 'tool for human liberation'. What we're saying is that the evidence shows that DDT can be effective in fighting malaria. The facts really speak for themselves: countries which stopped DDT use saw a very significant increase in malaria cases. Countries which resumed DDT use tended to see a very significant decrease in malaria cases.

These countries aren't 'exceptions which prove the rule'. They are the rule.

That you're trying to ignore very simple facts makes you look pretty ridiculous. Even some hardline greens now admit that DDT can be effective.

Of course, malaria cannot be eradicated through DDT alone. Poor countries which are prone to malaria need mass social and economic development to make themselves less vulnerable to disease (as well as to the other destructive aspects of nature).

[MarxSchmarx]

That you're trying to ignore very simple facts makes you look pretty ridiculous.


The insults are getting you no where, vanguard.

The good press DDT gets is the result of a calculated and well-coordinated campaign led by a right-wing economist named Roger Bate. Read about it.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186

At best, the issue of DDT effectiveness, and the cause for the rise in deaths in places like Sri Lanka, is scientifically controversial. But the issue of resistance is not.



countries which stopped DDT use saw a very significant increase in malaria cases. Countries which resumed DDT use tended to see a very significant decrease in malaria cases
...
These countries aren't 'exceptions which prove the rule'. They are the rule.


No they are not. Malaria was and is controlled in the Panama canal, much of North America, and much of Europe with minimal input from DDT, and only towards the very end.


What we're saying is that the evidence shows that DDT can be effective in fighting malaria. Even some hardline greens now admit that DDT can be effective.


Because they have swallowed this kool aid about the glories of DDT.



Of course, malaria cannot be eradicated through DDT alone. Poor countries which are prone to malaria need mass social and economic development to make themselves less vulnerable to disease (as well as to the other destructive aspects of nature).

But your earlier statement belies this point, as in:


What we're saying is that the evidence shows that DDT can be effective in fighting malaria.

What you are saying is much more than that. The only possible justification for using DDT is that it has historically been cost-effective. If you advocate the use of DDT,
you are saying the first world has better things to spend its money on than sustainable public health in the 3rd world. No one is denying that DDT kills mosquitoes, or keeps large numbers of them out of our homes. Well, for now.

I won:t go so far as accusing you of being duped by the capitalist propagandists, but you sir, provide me with little indication to the contrary.

The fact of the matter is, when (not if) resistance to ddT becomes wide-spread, the first world will not want to spend the cost to develop better insecticides. They do not do s now, why would they bother in the future?

Oh, and insofar as you are hedging your bets about what can be effective, giving people in the third world visas to come to the malaria free global north can also be effective.

In all seriousness, mosquito nets can be just as, if not more, effective.
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevent...tor_control.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/control_prevention/vector_control.htm)

Sure, it has helped some in the past. It also increased agricultural production for awhile. But today, DDT is an unnecessary evil.

Talk about ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:39 am

What we're saying is that the evidence shows that DDT can be effective in fighting malaria.

What you are saying is much more than that.
No, i'm not saying 'much more than that'. I'm saying that DDT is effective in fighting malaria.


The only possible justification for using DDT is that it has historically been cost-effective.

And the most effective all-round. Even the World Health Organisation (WHO) now backs this. They reversed their 30-year opposition to DDT last year, and they now admit that DDT is the most effective insecticide against mosquitoes. (BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5350068.stm))

Most now agree that the bans on DDT were tragic mistakes, a result of irrational Western fear-mongering. It is now accepted that the use of DDT is central in the fight against malaria, which infects hundreds of millions worldwide every year and kills 1-3 million annually - half of which are children in some of the world's poorest countries.


In all seriousness, mosquito nets can be just as, if not more, effective.


Mosquito nets are not even near as reliable as DDT. Whereas DDT provides 24 hour protection against mosquitoes, nets can rip and, if you don't go to bed early enough, you will get bitten. In other words, mosquito nets belong to the middle ages, not to the 21st century.

So the Western idea that Africans should put up with mosquito nets is pretty insulting stuff.


But today, DDT is an unnecessary evil.

As the overwhelming amount of evidence shows, DDT is neither dangerous to human health nor to the enviroment.

But, as the overwhelming amount of evidence also shows, DDT can save millions of lives.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It also allows the bourgeoisie to define the world's great strife while conveniently overlooking the class struggle. A bunch of "leftists" rally behind them while they continue to suck blood.

[MarxSchmarx]

This ddt stuff is getting quite ot and should be split into a different thread.



[DDT is] the most effective all-round.
Even the World Health Organisation (WHO) now backs this. They reversed their 30-year opposition to DDT last year, and they now admit that DDT is the most effective insecticide against mosquitoes. (BBC report)

Too bad the BBC got that one wrong, wrong, and wrong. What a shock

On cost-effectiveness. The WHO's "Roll Back Malaria" report concludes:


In Africa, (insecticide treated nets) ITNs and (indoor residual insecticide spraying) IRS are both very effective for malaria vector control. There is mixed
evidence concerning the relative cost-effectiveness of these two interventions: in some cases
IRS appears to have been more cost-effective than ITNs, while in other cases the reverse
was found. It is not therefore possible to make any generalized assertion, for the region as a
whole, that either of these interventions will normally be more cost-effective than the other.

The WHO never really changed its position.
(http://timlambert.org/2005/10/curtis/)

The WHO never, and to this day, said DDT is the most effective insecticide against mosquitoes:


However, in most countries of Africa south of the Sahara, the vast majority of the rural
population is exposed to stable malaria and the systems needed for large-scale IRS do not
exist. In these countries, the critical question is not whether one intervention is slightly more
powerful than the other, but which of the two offers better prospects of achieving high
nationwide coverage and long-term sustainability. In these circumstances, ITNs have
important advantages. As well as being less demanding than IRS in terms of infrastructure
and organization, insecticide treated nets ITNs allow vector control resources to be targeted toward those most at risk
in stable endemic settings, i.e. pregnant women and young children, hence best use can be
made of initial resources. ITNs protect people who use them, and they also have communitylevel
benefits, giving protection to people without nets in nearby houses. These benefits are
thought to increase incrementally with coverage, across all coverage levels, and will
contribute to early gains in equity as programmes scale up. The minimum coverage at which
ITNs might have a significant community effect at programme level is not yet established.
ITNs can give protection of longer duration than IRS since a net in good condition gives
reduced but still significant protection to the user even after the insecticide has worn off. This
advantage will be further strengthened by the emerging development of Long Lasting
Insecticidal Net (LLIN) technology, which greatly extends the effective life of the insecticide.

www.rbm.who.int/partnership/wg/wg_itn/docs/RBMWINStatementVecto


Mosquito nets are not even near as reliable as DDT. Whereas DDT provides 24 hour protection against mosquitoes

Again, the same WHO report begs to differ.

RBM partners focus preventive vector control efforts on increasing coverage of
insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) rather than investing in the creation of new large-scale IRS
programmes.

So much for the BBC's attempts to make the WHO call DDT the "most effective insecticide against mosquitoes." :P But that's not saying much. Insecticides all have the problem of rapidly evolvable resistance.



As the overwhelming amount of evidence shows, DDT is neither dangerous to human health nor to the enviroment.

Arrrgghh...wikipedia sayeth:


DDT is a toxicant across a certain range of phyla. In particular, DDT is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle in the 1950s and 1960s[25][26] as well as the peregrine falcon. DDT and its breakdown products are toxic to embryos and can disrupt calcium absorption, thereby impairing eggshell quality.[27] Studies in the 1960s and 1970s failed to find a mechanism for the hypothesized thinning.[28] However, more recent studies in the 1990s and 2000s have laid the blame at the feet of DDE.[29][30] Some studies have shown that although DDE levels have fallen dramatically, eggshell thickness remains 10–12 percent thinner than before DDT was first used.[31] DDT is also highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure to high concentrations.


I'm saying that DDT is effective in fighting malaria.

Well, you better commit to saying that you would use DDT "after the revolution".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Walmart goes green (http://www.walmart.com/commonfuture)

[tread_lightly]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 10:21 am
Walmart goes green (http://www.walmart.com/commonfuture)
hmmmm

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by tread_lightly+November 26, 2007 01:19 pm--> (tread_lightly @ November 26, 2007 01:19 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 10:21 am
Walmart goes green (http://www.walmart.com/commonfuture)
hmmmm [/b]
Please don't spam the thread with one-liners that add nothing to the discussion.