Thanks for you pasted the article about the DDT that WHO had decided to encourging people to produce and use DDT again, especially for African countries to combat malaria.
DDT had been prohibited to use for about 30 years, millions of African people might be died of malaria, do you think it is possible that since DDT was prohibited to use, and other toxins were so strictly limited in the environment had caused millions of millions of people died in cancers? Why I ask such a question? because the people have no more chances to receive the toxiic substances from the environment that could stumulate the immunity system of people to prevent cancers, so that the cancer mortality of the people increased rapidly. I want to give some statistic or epi data for you to considerate on such possiblity. The cancer mortality of the Tawanese in 1953 was 30.74 persons/100,000 person-year, to be the 8th cause of total deaths, and increased to 163.8 persons/100,000 person-year in 2005, to be the 1st cause of total deants (based on the death cause statistic published by the Department of Health in Taiwan). At early years, the harmful effects of DDT and other toxins were never care about, at the recently years the EPA had carried so strict measures to prevent environment contamination.
As you have encouaged and helped me to address the whole scientists that the low-dose-rate chronic radiation is so beneficial to humanity that could effective in community of the cancers of people, so that I want also to give you some statistic data for you considenrate the possible reason of the cancer mortality increase rapidly in Taiwan. Cancer deaths may be similar in Hong-Kong, in 1981 was 127.1/100,000, and in 2005 was 168.4/100,000 (based on HK website). I know the cancer mortality aslo increases rapidly, what is the possible reason do you know? Do your think it is reasonable due to the EPA have killed all the hormesis of all the toxic subsstances
Y.C. Luan Senior Scientist of NuATA and consultant of NBC Society in Taiwan
From: "Jerry Cuttler" <email@example.com>
To: "Mike Fox" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker@t-online.de>, "Zbigniew Jaworowski" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>
CC: "Canadian Nuclear Discussion List" <email@example.com>
Subject: DDT's return is a good thing. Really Re: Contentious Calculation.pdf
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:57:47 -0400
>On the subject of DDT, I've pasted below an article from our Globe &
>Mail newspaper (Sep 23) that will interest you. It seems people are
>waking up to the myth that Rachel Carson spread in Silent Spring.
>Who knows when a change in attitudes will occur on the subject of
>low level radiation. Too may people are making a nice living
>protecting us from this benefit.
>DDT's return is a good thing. Really
>'Every day, the number of kids dying of malaria equals seven Boeing
>747s going down.' DDT can fix that
>Here's a question to test your knowledge. What's the leading killer
>of African kids under 5?
>No, it's not AIDS. It's malaria -- a curable, preventable disease
>that carries off the very young, and leaves adults too sick to work.
>In Tanzania, malaria kills more people than AIDS and every other
>infectious disease combined. Worldwide, malaria kills a million
>people a year -- most of them in sub-Saharan Africa -- and infects
>500 million more. Most victims are young children.
>Among the most effective ways to control malaria is indoor spraying
>with DDT. It can reduce malaria transmission by up to 90 per cent
>and, when used properly, is safe for both humans and the
>environment. Yet, for many years, DDT has been taboo. African
>nations dismantled their spraying programs because donors wouldn't
>fund them, even though spraying indoors never was dangerous.
>Last week, all this began to change, when the World Health
>Organization announced a major policy reversal. From now on, it will
>aggressively promote the use of DDT to fight malaria. "Extensive
>research and testing has demonstrated that well-managed, indoor,
>residual house-spraying programs using DDT pose no harm to wildlife
>or to humans," said Dr. Arata Kochi, director of the WHO's Global
>Malaria Department. He challenged environmental groups: "Help save
>African babies as you are saving the environment."
>The story of DDT in Africa is a monumental tragedy. It is the story
>of how the misguided environmental fears of well-meaning Westerners
>denied the world's poorest people access to one of the most
>effective disease-prevention tools.
>Amir Attaran, a committed environmentalist, knows the story all too
>well. It's partly owing to his efforts that the WHO finally reversed
>"Every day, the number of kids dying of malaria equals seven Boeing
>747s going down," he said from his Ottawa office. "There's a massive
>constituency for other diseases, but malaria? It kills African kids,
>so nobody gives a damn."
>Mr. Attaran has an unusual combination of skills and interests. He
>has a PhD in cell biology and is an expert in environmental law. He
>has taught at Harvard and Yale. At Harvard, he worked with economist
>Jeffrey Sachs to persuade the UN to set up a Global Fund for aids,
>malaria and tuberculosis. Last year, he was recruited to the
>University of Ottawa to be Canada Research Chair in Law, Population
>Health, and Global Development Policy.
>Mr. Attaran is no stranger to Canada. In the late 1990s, he landed
>his dream job with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund in Vancouver.
>There, he helped win an important case on toxic-waste law before the
>Supreme Court of Canada. In the summer of 1998, he attended a UN
>conference in Montreal, negotiating a global treaty on eliminating
>12 chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants. Eleven of those
>12 had no merit. The 12th was DDT.
>"I knew from my time studying infectious diseases that DDT was
>awfully useful to control malaria," he says. "I have a deep
>commitment to the environment. But I'm also a scientist. I want to
>see the data. And I'm not about to sell African kids down the
>Working in his spare time, Mr. Attaran fought to get the ban
>"My view was, let us ban DDT for all uses other than health, and
>carve out an exception for that." With the assistance of a small
>international group called the Malaria Foundation, he drafted an
>open letter making the case for DDT. He e-mailed it to colleagues
>and circulated it on the Internet. In a few months, he got 400
>leading doctors and scientists from around the world, including
>several Nobel Prize winners, to sign it. Eventually, a compromise
>was negotiated (he drafted it), and the final treaty made an
>exception for DDT when used for public health.
>"By this time, the environmentalists hated me," he recalls. "I'd
>just driven a stake through their aspirations to ban DDT once and
>for all." Although his boss was supportive, his stance on DDT
>eventually cost him his job.
>It was Rachel Carson who turned DDT into history's most notorious
>insecticide. Her 1962 book, Silent Spring, persuaded most of the
>world that DDT was a lethal killer of wildlife. But the book dealt
>only with heavy agricultural spraying, not with indoor spraying for
>malaria control. In 1972, DDT was banned in the West.
>Although DDT was in widespread use for less than 30 years, it
>probably prevented more death and disease than any other manmade
>chemical in history. In India, there were a million malaria deaths
>in 1945; by 1960, thanks to DDT, there were only a few thousand.
>It's estimated that by 1972, DDT had saved 500 million lives.
>Although Western donors wouldn't fund it, some African nations kept
>using DDT for malaria control. Among them was South Africa. In 1995,
>it finally bowed to pressure and stopped using the chemical. In
>1996, it was struck by one of its worst malaria epidemics ever.
>Malaria cases soared tenfold: By 2000, there were more than 60,000.
>Meantime, just across the border, Swaziland continued spraying with
>DDT. Malaria did not increase.
>Despite the global treaty's compromise on DDT, leading aid agencies
>(including the World Bank, USAID and Canada's CIDA) refused to fund
>its use. So Mr. Attaran doggedly persisted with his campaign. "All
>the agencies who are supposed to help the poor were hurting them,"
>he says. "The WHO responded by hiding from the issue."
>Other critics are less kind. Among them is James Shikawati,
>co-ordinator of the Africa Resource Bank. DDT policies, he argues,
>are "evidence of how developed countries' intellectuals
>inadvertently contribute to deaths in poor countries." Malaria "has
>wrecked the continent for over 30 years, simply because some
>policy-makers thought it wrong to kill mosquitoes using chemicals."
>Instead of spraying with DDT, many aid agencies (including CIDA)
>have endorsed the use of treated bed nets to combat malaria. Bed
>nets have their place. But they only work when people are under
>them. And mosquitoes don't only bite at night. In Mr. Attaran's
>view, the wrangling over bed nets versus spraying is stupid. "It's
>like having a debate over whether you should use chemotherapy or
>radiation to treat cancer. You need both. You need everything you've
>The WHO's new policy is a major breakthrough. It means Western
>governments and donor agencies will start to fund DDT spraying
>But Mr. Attaran's battle isn't over. Bizarrely, the anti-DDT lobby
>includes major African agricultural producers, who are worried that
>DDT might contaminate their crops and ruin their export markets. In
>Uganda, the ministry of trade has threatened to take the ministry of
>health to court if it goes ahead and uses DDT.
>Then there's the matter of persuading Western aid agencies to change
>their policies. Yesterday, I phoned CIDA -- which has strongly
>opposed DDT spraying -- to find out if the WHO's new policy had made
>an impact. The answer was no. "The government of Canada focuses on
>bed-net distribution," I was told.
>I have a feeling they'll be hearing from Mr. Attaran. For the sake
>of African babies, let's hope they listen.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Fox"
>To: <Prof.Dr.Klaus.Becker@t-online.de>; "Zbigniew Jaworowski"
><firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com" <rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:56 PM
>Subject: Re: Contentious Calculation.pdf
>>It really isn't difficult at all to understand this. After
>>subscribing to SA for more than 25 years beginning in 1955, I had
>>had my fill of the leftwing slant on a number of issues, including
>>nuclear technology. Lots of pages and ink still are reserved by SA
>>for the political left whether is was the NRDC, Greenpeace, and a
>>number of notable individuals. I cancelled my subscrition many
>>years ago for these reasons for their failure to stick with good
>>The recent SA unscientific attempt to destroy Bjorn Lomborg and his
>>book "The Skeptical Environmentalist",
>>further affirmed my assessments and justified my cancellation.
>>Other journals have been guilty for years of the same political
>>advocacy nonsense, among whom I'd number Science and Nature. They
>>do manage to get some good papers published, but one needs to be
>>supremely aware of editorial advocacy with too many others.
>>Former editor of Science Dr. Phil Abelson wrote to a defender of
>>DDT in the 70s that "Science would not publish any article on DDT
>>which was not adversarial to DDT". 30 years and 30,000,000 malaria
>>deaths later, the World Health Organization has recently reversed
>>its opposition to DDT (the EPA still hasn't). Science has been
>>wrong in publishing papers on fraudulent stem cell research in S.
>>Korea, endocrine disruptors at Tulane Univ. and many others issues.
>>It is no surprise that SA and others continue to misrepresent
>>radiation issues as well.
>>----- Original Message ----- From:
>>To: "Zbigniew Jaworowski" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "email@example.com"
>>Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:08 AM
>>Subject: Re: Contentious Calculation.pdf
>>>it is indeed difficult to understand how a respected and widely
>>>read popular-science magazine such as Scientific American (October
>>>2006, 29-30) can print such Greenpeace trash! As it was pointed
>>>out many times, most recently at the Vienna Conference last year,
>>>the Cardis guesswork is nonsense for at least two reasons:
>>>1. High dose, high-dose-rate, mixed high/low LET radiation effects
>>>cannot be extrapolated to low dose/dose rate, and low LET
>>>2. Collective dose cannot be applied for low doses/dose rates
>>>because it assumes the LNT hypothesis, which becomes more
>>>questionable every day. To quote from the concluding remarks of a
>>>highly interesting Conference on Low Dose Effects in Bad Schlema
>>>last week (I will report on it in more detail soon): "The question
>>>of LNT is kept open artificially."
>>>But is it worth the effort to correct again and again crazy
>>>Chernobyl claims (after all, they became the source of income for
>>>a whole industry inside and outside the former USSR!), just to see
>>>them repeated over years and decades?
>>>Best regards. Klaus
>>>"Zbigniew Jaworowski" <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb:
>>>>Please, see a piece on mass Chernobyl deaths in the October issue
>>>>of Scientific American. After a crescendo of numbers, in the
>>>>sub-conscience of readers, the final statement "that about 117
>>>>million Europeans will die of non-Chernobyl cancers", will be
>>>>long remembered as Chernobyl and 117 milions, a well know PR
>>>>Prof. Dr hab. Zbigniew Jaworowski
>>>>ul. Sadowa 9, 05-520 Konstancin, Poland
>>>>voice:+48-22-754-4434; fax +48-22-711-7147
>>>Prof. Dr. Klaus Becker
>>>Boothstr. 27, D-12207 Berlin