> > I certainly think the person who discovered DDT deserved a Nobel Prize.

> Lloyd may think it was deserved, but it did not happen.
> The convenient Britannica listing of Nobel prizes will
> prove that for you.  Where did the falsehood arise?
> Could the person who posted it tell us please?

FWIW, my Britannica clearly shows the listing to which Lloyd refers under
Physiology or Medicine in 1948.  I had also encountered this fact in several
places in the process of my recent web research on the topic of insecticides in
relation to the increasing use of imidacloprid.

I was therefore somewhat surprised to see Lloyd so coldly rebuked on the list
for his presentation of simple fact, but I also found this quite illuminating
for what it shows about the reliability of the logic of some the source.

If there is any doubt, those who lack a copy of Britannica, may visit
http://www.nobel.1001designs.com/medicine.html
to learn more the about the 1948 Nobel Prize.  I quote: "1948 PAUL HERMANN
MÜLLER for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison
against several arthropods".

We have been deluged on this list in past months by selected, slanted opinion
pieces and wordy high-sounding dissertations on topics only loosely related to
our mandate and we have been exhorted to take positions on topics most of us
like to know a bit about and discuss, but usually like to trust to experts.

I wonder how often the same kind of faulty reading, misunderstanding and
precipitous judgement that is demonstrated in the introductory quote is behind
the politicised pieces with which we have recently been presented on matters
ranging from antibiotic resistance to pesticides and GMOs.

A quick search of the web using any of the engines or Webferret will show that
pretty well all the topics on which we have we have been mercilessly lobbied are
far from resolved.  There is still open and free debate among people of good
faith and intent.  Not everyone involved has an axe to grind.

BEE-L is here for open-minded discussion that respects all points of view and I
think that is how it should be.  To help balance the issue of the dangers of
DDT, I submit the following sites.  I did NOT select them, but merely picked
them at *random* from what Webferret found under 'DDT and Nobel'.

http://www.altgreen.com.au/chemicals/ddt.html
http://www.newaus.com.au/news8d.html

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Too Hot for some!